Talk:Touré/Archive 1

Mediation Cabal Case
Hello. I am the mediator who has responded to the request for mediation by User:Toure. I think that this situation is getting close to an edit war, but I hope that I can help settle things down and help both parties come to an agreement. First, I would like to establish my neutrality:


 * I come from the UK, and have never read any of Toure's published work, in novel, newspaper, or magazine form.


 * Neither have I ever seen Toure on TV.


 * From the infomation in the article, I don't even have the same taste in music.

I hope that this helps to verify my neutrality.

Now then, I would like to draw both of your attention to WP:BLP, which is a policy on wikipedia which governs the rules about biographies of living people. If you look at the 'Presumption in favor of privacy' section on the page, the first line states,


 * Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy.

It also goes on to say:


 * Material from primary sources should generally not be used. For example, public records may include personal details such as home value, outcomes of civil court cases, traffic citations, arrest records, and vehicles and real estate owned. Use material only from reliable third-party sources.

and


 * ...editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability.

May I ask, with this in mind, why, 84.100.38.28, you feel that adding Toure's last name is relevent or important to the article? Th ε Halo Θ 14:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This case is now closed, due to inactivity. I would suggest, as I ave written above, that adding Toure's last name is a violation of WP:BLP, and therefore not be put into the article. Th ε  Halo Θ 11:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . 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. 

PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move

 * Oppose. Need reasons why that spelling should be used.  Also, xomeone could help proposer of move by creating proper discussion section.  Gene Nygaard 09:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'd agree with Gene Nygaard on this one. There seems little reason for the move. Th ε Halo Θ 10:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)>
 * Support if this is what Toure/é himself uses, presumably to indicate how his name is to be pronounced (assuming it is meant to be pronounced "Tour-ray" or the like!) Regards, David Kernow 03:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral The personality is referred to as "Touré" through the entire article. Title must conform with content. However, I could not verify which one is the correct form (Google and Yahoo render virtually nil results for both forms +).--Hús ö nd 00:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, per Recury.--Hús ö nd 00:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Support, "Touré" is the form he uses on his website. Recury 16:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support "Touré and Toure are different names with different pronunciations. Omitting the accent makes as much a difference as omitting a letter.   Touré is the proper spelling of Touré's given name.  Toure is an incorrect spelling, though it occurs frequently because many people don't know how to add accents on a computer.  At the time the page about Touré was written the Touré page seemed taken and out of respect to the larger Wikipedia mission, the page labelled Touré was not disrupted.  However, the page about Touré is incorrect until the page is named Touré. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toure (talk • contribs)
 * Support Seeing as Toure wants it to be called Touré... Th ε Halo Θ 19:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

the absolute arrogance
The absolute arrogance of this man to this Wikipedia should not be permitted to have his birth name at least listed???

And then you wikidopes fall right in line for this. No harm cones from his old surname being listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.108.61 (talk) 07:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Politely asking if something can be left out of an article is not arrogance. It's a perfectly reasonable request. I'm more inclined to apply that adjective to you. (What's a harm cone?) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Harm comes", I assume. And I will at least admit that the request is far more reasonable than the Jim Hawkins incident. Silver  seren C 06:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Should our inclusion/exclusion decision be influenced by the likeability of the subject, though? :) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I wasn't talking about likability. I meant that Toure, at least, explained why he doesn't want his full name. And that definitely improves his argument. While it might not improve it enough to convince myself and others, it's better than a complete lack of explanation. Silver  seren C 07:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah. OK. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is this article even here?
Seriously - this is a lack-luster guy which exceptionally limited writing talent, virtually no insight on life in America and whose ability to create fiction gave us a saxaphone player named 'Sugar Lips'.

I think that all of his books are self-published but one, and that one drew the attention of specifically no one. I strongly suspect that he wrote this wikipedia entry himself.

He had his 15 minutes of fame, they're over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.243.170 (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If those 15 minutes of fame make you notable, then notability is not temporary. Silver  seren C 17:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Users using sockpuppets (and meatpuppets) in this discussion
Note that user nightscream is soliciting sockpuppets of Toure Neblett to join this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Halaqah#Hi_Halaqah. This isn't surprising considering nightscream's slimy debating tactics and ad hominem smears. It looks like the reality is that there are _only_ one or two actual people opposed to teh inclusion of the last name and the rest are their sockpuppets. (Though I guess it demonstrates that Nightscream is _not_ one of Toure's own sockpuppets!) (FYI I am not using a user name in this simply to make it clear I am not a sockpuppet) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.99 (talk) 13:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Also note that the same user has been solicited by Mr Neblett to act as his meatpuppet regarding this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nightscream#Tour.C3.A9_2 10:02, April 19, 2012 User:129.215.149.98


 * First of all, you need to learn what sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry are. Meatpuppetry refers to bringing like-minded editors into a dispute in order to swing the appearance of consensus and manipulate the system. When a BLP subject seeks help with problems in their article in a manner that is transparent, and in good faith, that is not meatpuppetry. The falsity of your accusation that Touré "solicited" me to act as his meatpuppet is neatly underlined by the fact that he wishes his surname omitted from the article, whereas I favor its inclusion.


 * Second, you have not provided any evidence that User:Halaqah is a sock puppet, much less that I had would have had any knowledge of it.


 * Third, you have also not provided any elaboration for your accusation that I have employed questionable debating tactics, smears or ad hominem arguments, and the fact that this language strongly echoes my own criticisms of User:DracoEssentialis above would suggest that this is just an act of trolling.


 * As for your statement that you do not use a username to make it clear that you are not a sockpuppet is backwards. It is the use of a username account, particular with some edit history under its belt, that helps illustrate that one is not a sockpuppet. Registered IP, on the other hand, are typically the very tool that sockpuppets do use. If you were worried about being accused of sockpuppetry, signing up for a free username account (or using the one you already have, if you have one), would've done a better job of precluding this. In any event, please make sure you sign your talk page posts. You can do this by typing four tildes (~) at the end of them, which also automatically time stamps them.


 * Lastly, I strongly suggest that unless you have evidence that illustrates your accusations to the exclusion of other possibilities, that you stop violating Wikipedia's policies on attacking other editors and failing to assume good faith on their part. Given the litany of warnings you received on your own talk page over the past four and a half years, you risk being blocked from editing if you continue on this course. Please do not make that necessary. Nightscream (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Chutzpah describes nightscream's comments regarding attacking other users as nightscream seems only to engage in that, especially the call to assume good faith --- as Nightscream's comments on this page suggest someone who does not understand the concept. As for the meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry, it might be better for Nightscream to abandon this issue as that editor is disruptive here.


 * RE: Halaqah; look at edits on this page and the article and note the pattern. Notice also Halaqah's talk where Halaqah admits that he is Toure.  'Nuff said.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.98 (talk) 10:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

You have attacked other users, and without cause, as your post above is quite obvious in that regard. As far as Halaqah is concerned, I was unaware that that was Toure, since I don't generally read other editors' entire talk pages. I contacted editors who had previously expressed an interest in this topic when the discussion reignited, nothing more. If you want me to "abandon" anything, then you're going to have to cease your rampant accusations, which includes your attempt to connect this discussion with a completely irrelevant one over at ANI. It is likely that you are Draco, and you don't like that fact that refuted all the poorly-made fallacies in your arguments above, and now attempting to retaliate for it. I suggest that you cease your attacks, and stick to the matter at hand here, assuming you have a genuine interest in it. Nightscream (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Jesus H on a motorcycle. Poor, deluded User:Nightscream, if my grampa were alive today he'd call you one paranoid, manipulative piece of work, and then some. I was just going to let you sit on the naughty step with your 6+K wall-a-text reply to me, given that anybody with a brain can see exactly what you were trying, and failing, to do here. Now look who's "casting aspersions". Expect a longer reply the moment I feel like dealing with your slimy comments again. Currently I'm kinda busy with things that are far more interesting than your below-the-belt insinuations will ever be to me. So sorry if my Farty Pants joke hit a nerve. Any admins watching – please feel free to checkuser me. I am not that IP. Cynics might say that poor widdle User:Nightscream loves his flatulent drama so much he can't see when he's being trolled. That may just be because he's far too emotionally involved with the subject of this article, for reasons only known to him, to keep a clear head and reply in a reasonable manner. I see he's now also cast aspersions regarding my contributions here at WP:ANI. I suppose not informing me about this on my talk page, as per WP courtesy rules, is part of his very obvious, and very slimy campaign against the subject of this article. DracoE 00:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I "tried" to do was address your arguments, and it would appear that I falsified them quite neatly. I have not engaged in any type of tactic that could called "slimy", but if you could point it out, I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you. As it stands, all I did was refute your arguments and your comments about other editors.

As for as 129.215.149.98 is concerned, I certainly did consider trolling as an explanation, but I wasn't sure. I apologize if I did not give that possibility greater consideration, and I'm sorry if this resulted in a false accusation toward you. I also apologize for failing to place a notification on your talk page regarding the ANI discussion. I'll have be more careful about such things in the future.

That said, you're not exactly taking the high road with the tone of your comments above, but I'll let others deal with that. Regarding your accusation that I have engaged in a "very slimy campaign against the subject of this article", the evidence of my editing history does not support this. When Touré first requested his surname removed, you'll see that I initially complied with this, and only sought a consensus discussion, and the input of Jimmy Wales, when other editors objected. I myself also changed my position on the issue, which you can see on this talk page. While I certainly have articulated why I disagree with Touré's arguments, I have hardly engaged in any "campaign" against him. If you illustrate this as more than just a knee-jerk accusation, please do so. Nightscream (talk) 02:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Nightscream, I am no longer prepared to reply to your trolling on here. I replied at ANI, in the section where you are currently under investigation for bullying yet another editor. I also proposed a much-needed topic ban for you from all things Touré. DracoE 23:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 April 2012
Piers Morgan did not interview George Zimmerman. He interviewed Robert Zimmerman, the brother of George Zimmerman. 67.164.122.140 (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)



Neutral Point of View / Close Connection
I'm surprised there has been no talk here about the WP:COI banner that has been on this article for nearly a year. The entire career section of this article is mostly un-cited, with the exception of the Piers Morgan stuff. Furthermore, much of the the content was written by a User:Toure and other edits by different users/IPs may have been him also, including User:General Kizza, who created the article and who has mostly just contributed to the Touré article. Touré is notable enough to warrant an article, since he has now had at least one book published by a prominent publisher and the Piers Morgan incident has been covered. But the bulk of this article should be cleaned out if there are no reliable sources for it. Fnordware (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Note also that the subject (sometimes as user: Toure, sometimes via sockpuppets, is constantly editting the article and talk page. THAT is a major violation of wikipedia policies (at least as it exists for the rest of humanity)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.98 (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You can edit your own article, under any account. Sock puppetry is deceptively using multiple accounts to influence content. Have you seen instances of that? If you've got a problem with the content of this article, address the content. Take your attempts to malign the subject somewhere else. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Is it permitted to use multiple accounts to edit different articles? Does influencing content only refer to editorial disputes? Nightscream (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm no expert on sock puppet policy and am very happy to be corrected if I'm wrong; but I'm pretty sure you can edit the same article, or different articles, using different accounts provided you're not stacking a vote or trying to bias a consensus discussion. If a user has forgotten his user name or password, or just can't be bothered, I don't think it matters what name they edit under, provided they're not trying to misrepresent the amount of support for a position. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's not true. The rule is that you're allowed to have multiple accounts. But they all have to be linked together, with a statement on the userpage of each what other accounts they use. Otherwise, it's sockpuppetry and a violation of policy. Silver  seren C 04:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that. I'll have to read that policy sometime. I suppose I'm just thinking there's a distinction between using different accounts to fool people that an idea has more support that it really does, and using different accounts because you can't be bothered signing in or have forgotten account names/passwords. Though both may technically be socking, they're two very different acts. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it quite offensive that Neblett gets that sort of control, both as himself and through his sock & meatpuppets as it runs counter to wikipedia policy used elsewhere. When others who have highly defamatory page regarding themselves on wikipedia have attempted to correct blatant errors and libellous statements, they have been told they have no right to control over an encyclopedic entry about themselves. Why Neblett is special (or conversely why most wikipedia editors believe that non-Neblett subjects of articles have no control of content) should be addressed.Emory1989 (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a supreme irony in the fact that you have made all of 6 edits ever to Wikipedia, yet speak of "sock & meatpuppets". :) Just as a matter of policy – I have no idea whether this occurred here – creating and editing your own biography is strongly discouraged as a general rule, per WP:AB, but not categorically forbidden; there are even instructions on how to edit your own biography, at Biographies of living persons/Help. If you or an article subject has been treated badly at another article, the best place to complain is at WP:BLPN. Alternatively, you are welcome to drop me an e-mail, and I will look into the matter for you. You may also find WP:NPSK useful. Regards. -- J N  466  20:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing Tip
Greetings ... I just thought I'd add a bit of help for those looking for sourcing on the name. I knew Toure Neblett very slightly when we were both undergraduates at Emory University. At that time, he only used his full name and used it for journalism; he set up with a large amount of funding (don't know from whom) a free newspaper which he editted and was the main (and possibly only) contributor called "The Fire This Time" there. It wasn't terribly good (but that is neither here nor there) but he definitely published under his full name then. Emory1989 (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC) — Emory1989 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. DracoE 20:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure what you're saying is true, but we'd still need a link to an article that says "Touré started The File This Time at Emory University, publishing it under his full name, Touré Neblett." The link we just added refers to him by his mononym. Even though you could refer to an issue of that print publication without having a URL, you still can not use it to put Touré's full name in Wikipedia unless it actually had an article about him dropping the use of his "slave name." Making the (obvious) logical leap yourself constitutes original research. Fnordware (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But it would be a source for his full name in the article. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree, because of this quote from the no original research guidelines: "[Original research] includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." The source says Toure Neblett founded that publication, it does not say anything about his name issue. I know it seems silly, but that's what the BLP says. Just because the research is obvious, that doesn't mean it isn't research. If we were wondering what his full name was, that and other pages would satisfy my curiosity. But it's not good enough to put his name in the Wikipedia article. I know I'm being a stickler, but... Fnordware (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course it doesn't say anything about "the name issue" as you call it. I didn't say that.  I said it is a source for his name, and that he worked under that name, and that, just like other mononymed people, his name should be included in the article. TuckerResearch (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "The Fire This Time is a student publication at Emory University. Founded in 1990 as an underground newsmagazine by Editor Toure Neblett Reestablished in 1995 by Editor Savalas O. Colbert" TuckerResearch (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This probably takes the biscuit as the most obscure source yet presented. It does not in any way change the fact that the overwhelming weight of reliable secondary sources respect Touré's choice not to use his slave name, and it does not move that name from the private to the public sphere. -- J N  466  20:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As people have noted above, just because most people respect the decision, it doesn't mean a fact-based encyclopedia shouldn't include the fact of his birth and current name. It was in the public sphere, it should be included.  We respect his decision by referring to him as Touré in the article and titling it as such, but that doesn't mean we should not include his full name.  Facts are not disrespectful.  TuckerResearch (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Like a birth date, it should not be included against the subject's wishes, unless there is an overwhelming and pressing public need. -- J N  466  21:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For a fuller explanation, please refer to SlimVirgin's post above, time stamp 16:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC). -- J N  466  21:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Simply, I (and many other editors) wholly disagree with your assertions or those of SlimVirgin above. TuckerResearch (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Tuckerresearch, you are arguing that as a fact-based encyclopedia, WP must include birth and current full names. Please see WP:NOTEVERYTHING: WP is not intended to be a complete exposition of all known details about any subject. Merely being true, or verifiable, or even useful is not sufficient for inclusion in WP (WP:!, WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Dezastru (talk) 22:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Quote, cite, and refer to all the WP's you want, they can all be interpreted myriad ways, and none of them necessarily prohibit having Mr. Touré's name on the article if it is sourced and editors consider it notable. Editors above have quoted several policies advocating the inclusion of his current surname.  You dispute the application of those.  TuckerResearch (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No one has quoted a guideline or policy that says we should include such content over the reasonable objections of the BLP subject. On the other hand, we do have a policy (WP:BLPPRIVACY) that tells us we should take such reasonable objections into account. -- J N  466  13:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And I think nobody has quoted anything in WP:BLP that says we should keep the man's full legal and birth name off of his page, nor do I believe anyone has made any reasonable objections to the inclusion of the name. Discomfort is not a reasonable objection. TuckerResearch (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." His full name has not been widely published by reliable sources, and we know he objects. I am unable to discern any good reason to insist on including the name. There is certainly no policy reason. No public interest is served by us including it. In fact, it makes Wikipedia look like it's populated by people incapable of empathy, or indeed nasty for the sake of it. Just because they can. If he were to run for president, fine, but then you would have multiple sources looking into this already, and the question wouldn't arise in the first place. -- J N  466  20:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why don't you quote all of the WP you cite: With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year. In a similar vein, articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted. See above regarding the misuse of primary sources to obtain personal information about subjects. The sentence right after the bit you've cherry-picked states, "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth..." and not a thing about his current and legal full name, a name he has used as a journalist at least during his college years.  The text you quote is about identity theft, not identity.  And if Wikipedia is about empathy, we had better remove hundreds of thousands of articles people might find offensive. TuckerResearch (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see the comments by Dezastru above, time stamp 22:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC). -- J N  466  13:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Bunk. A public figure's legal name is hardly an indiscriminate fact.  But keep changing your argument (and cussing). TuckerResearch (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you people also insist that we edit the Muhammad article to include PBUH behind the name each time? Is Wikipedia about being deferential, or about being academic? Wnt (talk) 07:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm gonna bookmark all this as an example of Wikipedia at its finest. I'm being ironic. And amused. Meowy 14:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Widely published
Does the above list of publications represent "widely published" per WP:DOB? If "widely published" means "a handful of reliable sources" then the name has been widely published and our article should include it. If "widely published" means more than a handful, then we should respect the subject's preference. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the HuffPo cite, with all the others, tends toward a determination of "widely published." TuckerResearch (talk) 03:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * When I hear "widely published", I tend to think of multiple mentions in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times; mentions in books, on TV, and so forth: not a single passing mention in a blog post. Honestly, ask any person in the street whether they would consider something mentioned once (!) in passing in a HuffPo blog post, like a quote from a song or book, "widely published". And the other sources are even more obscure than that. -- J N  466  20:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A major reference widely used in the industry would seem, to me, to be sufficient. And that is one thing whch no one disputes the existence of.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we all agree, though, that it can mean either. In this instance, is the policy employing both meanings, either meaning, or just one? And if just one, which one? We're not going to answer that here, are we? :) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to Benn's Media, then as far as Google Books tells us, it was mentioned in there once, in the 2003 edition's entry for oneworldmagazine.com. That is still fairly obscure. The number of people who have read that particular entry in Benn's is probably significantly smaller than the number of people who have read the HuffPo post. The number of people who still consult the 2003 version in 2012 is probably close to nil. There is absolutely no question that if it were included here, Wikipedia would be the prime vector of propagation. We shouldn't be in that role on something borderline like this, given the subject's request; we should be following, not leading our sources. I think this is the first time I have disagreed with you on a BLP issue, but I must. The whole BLP policy is based on the principle that we should write conservatively, with a presumption in favour of the subject's privacy.  J N  466  00:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Let us be clear
The issue at stake is simply, 'Does the living subject of an article in wikipedia have final say over what goes in their biography?' All else is commentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emory1989 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's not right. No one here is arguing the subject should have final say over what goes in (sic) their biography. You made that up. That's called a straw man argument; it's a rhetorical device where you say your opponent is arguing something absurd that is nothing like what he or she is really arguing. What other accounts do you use? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, once one dumps all the ad hominem and abuse, that is the sole point of debate. The issue is whether the article should take into account the subject's request not to include his surname.  Nothing more; nothing less.  All else is commentary.  All else is elucidation of those positions, whether one is attacking other editors for lack of long track records, imputing racial motives, or similar histrionics.
 * I have stated above my direct connection to the subject, something few (if any) discussants have done here; that is far more than many (including some of the multiple accounts belonging to the subject himself). While I appreciate your attempts to engage in ad hominem attacks against me (as you have imputed racism and political views elsewhere on this page), I will not indulge you.Emory1989 (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Good. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Surname
I have removed Toure's surname from the article for now. Seeing as this falls under the BLP policy, we should take extra care in protecting people's personal information, especially when they have stated that they don't want that information known. I have raised the issue on the BLP noticeboard, so we should receive some feed back and community consensus as to what to do soon. Until that time, please, do not add Toure's last name to the article. Thanks. Th ε Halo Θ 09:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As you can see from the discussion on the BLP noticeboard, it is believed that Touré's last name is not relievent to his notability, so there is no need for it to be put into the article. Th ε Halo Θ 16:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Cher, Beyonce and many others go by just 1 public name but their surnames are still in their wikipedia pages. So why is the rule different for Toure ? I think it should be this "Toure (born Toure Neblett in 1970 in Massachusestts) "in parentheses in the lead /intro sentence. 173.79.75.65 (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia will withhold certain personal information of biographical subjects in their articles, such as their real names, the names of their family members, dates of birth, and places of residence, if the subject requests it, out of concerns relating to things like privacy, identity theft, etc, even if that information is found within reliable sources cited in the article. There is much precedent for this, and I've been involved in a number of these matters, during which I've sought Jimmy Wales' counsel, and the prevailing wisdom has always been to respect these wishes if the subject requests it. Examples include Star Wars Kid, which does not mention that subject's real name, even though the sources cited in the article do so. Another example was Brian Peppers, whose entire article was deleted, for similar reasons. Touré has requested that his birth surname not be used in his article, and so we will respect that, as per this practice. Nightscream (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Please don't edit my comments. I find that disrespectful. Did Toure say that it was a reason of identity theft or the other reasons that you gave? Or he just wants a one name moniker? Star Wars Kid isnt a good example as his name here is dangerous as he was bullied, ridiculed, and had to seek medical attention for mental health reasons. Brian Pepper to is not similiar at all. He had an article because of his grotesque face. Toure is a journalist, not a teen being made fun of, not a man with bulging eyes and a cranio facial disorder. I read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_personal_information_and_using_primary_sources and it says take out the birthdate not the name. But since you say you have worked Jimbo, please direct me to that portion of WP BLP policy. with As with my previous exmaples, if Cher and Beyonce were to ask that Cher Sarkisian and Beyonce Knowles be removed, you are saying that Jimbo says to do so? What about Barack Obama ? Would WP remove his middle name, last name, birthdate, family names, even though all this information is traceable via website, geneology research, govt war records, govt census records, and more ? This is an encyclopedia of facts, not an encyclopediua of what they want us to know. 173.79.75.65 (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If in the public space, and if that space is a reliable space, then it can be represented here. If that information of his surname comes from insider info, then that is a problem. However, if his name is mentioned in a reliable source per wiki Bio policy I do not think it is wiki job to help Hollywood out and maintain secrets. We should even add a note that he has issue with his surname. Its not like Darth Vader revealing his surname is Skywalker.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I will note that there is an additional discussion on this topic going on at User talk:Jimbo Wales. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Beyonce Knowles and Barack Obama's surname are already widely known. Toure's is not. Cher's is not commonly known, but it's well-documented enough that I can't see the point of omitting it. In any event, what I understood from previous discussion with people like Jimmy Wales is that Wikipedia will respect such requests, but I now see that specifics and distinctions are employed in the matter. Nightscream (talk) 10:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * far more worrying than this name issue, which has low weight (either way) and can only really be used in his "bio section" is the unverifiable content which is backup by no R.S. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 10:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a problem, and unless some sources can be found that section needs to go. Getting back to the name thing, I don't see any good reason not to include his name. It seems to me that a person's birth name is part of the historical record. It's not "negative information" in any real sense. Many many people adopt pen names or stage names, sometimes to seem more sporty or interesting or sexy or edgy, sometimes to hide their ethnicity or origins or just be more pronounceable, sometimes for political or religious reasons. It seems to me likely that Touré Neblet is one of these cases. From Cary Grant to Alice Cooper to Connie Mack to Bono to Sting and on and on. Probably the majority of rap musicians. This is fine, but the fact that they've done so becomes part of record, and I'm sure that all those people have their birth names in their articles.


 * The examples of B. P. and the Star Wars Kid aren't germane at all. I was one of the people who's was very adamant about not having an article on B. P., and I don't like it that this is being used to justify the Touré Neblet case. It's entirely different.


 * For one thing, Touré Neblet has chosen to be in the public eye. If you do that, basic non-controversial and non-negative biographical information, such as your birthplace and where you went to school and so forth are going to become part of the historical record.


 * Jimbo often has a good take on these things, and he says: "Thoughtful editorial judgment to balance valid competing concerns is, as almost always, the right way forward... I could be swayed towards omission if: there is a physical danger to family members, there is doubt about the sourcing, there is a sense that notability happened to the person rather than being sought, etc. I could be swayed towards inclusion if: there are plenty of reliable sources, there is no obvious safety or privacy issue, the person has deliberately sought fame". That's just his opinion, but I think that's about right.


 * If someone can up with a good reason not include the person's name, fine. I haven't seen any. Absent that, I'm restoring the name. If someone wants to revert this, fine, but then, absent any new information or argument, the best next step would be an RfC, I think. Herostratus (talk) 15:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty much inclined to agree with Herostratus on this myself; we don't hide pertinent information just because the subject doesn't like it, and the subject's real name is certainly pertinent to the subject. I think Herostratus hit the nail on the head; his post pretty much echoes my thoughts. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 21:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Normally, I'm all for supporting reasonable requests for the protection of privacy, but that's not what we're dealing with here. A quote from the author: "" This is a company, Touré Inc., trying to enforce its brand.  Well, they can do that somewhere else. I support the inclusion of the name. Favonian (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk), Toure's name is on the internet from various RS not from a insider info. This is an encyclopedia so why is a notation that toure wants his surname kept off the article neccesary? 173.79.75.65 (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Herostratus, I agree that his name is part of his historical record. I very much agree about Star Wars Kid and Brian P not being good examples as they became infamous and are not famous, there is a HUGE difference. Toure is a media personality on tv, on radio, writing books, speeches, commentaries, etc. Those two shouldnt be used to justify hiding Toure's surname. You PERFECTLY said this :
 * For one thing, Touré Neblet has chosen to be in the public eye. If you do that, basic non-controversial and non-negative biographical information, such as your birthplace and where you went to school and so forth are going to become part of the historical record.

There are reliable sources for his surname so it should be included in the article. 173.79.75.65 (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree. But. It's really a very minor matter. And the person has requested Jimbo to consider it, and let's how that goes. There are times to stand on principle, but this isn't one of them. And besides, "Don't cause an unoffending person genuine distress for very small benefit" is also a good principle -- not only on Wikipedia, but in life. Herostratus (talk)

Hello Herostratus, Is it a small matter? If people are able to influence articles based on emailing jimbo heartfelt emails & using keywords like "genuine distress", we have a huge problem. It is a small matter. WP doesnt want to go back to the days when it was called not reputable, not legit, so all info should be the best. It is a fact what his name is, from vital statistics... so how is that a small minor matter? I dont want to make Toure mad but his name is mentioned only briefly as a statement of fact. We re not going into detail of his family history. This is an encyclopedia and it has to have full information. Why he is distressed over his name is hiw own problem. I dont think it is a small benefit, this encyclopedia being accurate is a big benefit. 173.79.75.65 (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Yes, it is a small matter, 173.79.75.65. It would be a problem if 1) this was a constant, regular occurrence or 2) it was in any way important. Neither of these is true, so I'd recommend not worrying about it. I really don't think this is going to send us spinning down into a living hell of being considered illegitimate. Not all slopes are slippery, and not every tiny thing has to be an occasion for standing on principle. Herostratus (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you happen to know why exactly it is bad for people to know Toure's surname? Considering what Jimbo wrote below, it seems to be a catastrophe on par of revealing someone's social security number or bank password or something. Why does he care if people know his surname? Just wondering if you or anyone knows. Silver  seren C 06:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I asked a couple of days ago on Jimmy's talk page if he had any follow up comments or remarks; he hasn't replied, but I can try pinging him again&mdash;he noted at the time of the original discussion that he was going to be busy for a week or so, and I think it's fair to say that he has a number of demands on his time. Jimbo rightly points out that you can't put toothpaste back in the tube, and there's no urgent rush here.
 * Nevertheless, absent any clarification, I would have some difficulty with permanently redacting this individual's surname. Persuant to the previous discussion on Jimbo's talk page, it appears that – however the name might have gotten 'into the wild' in the first place – it has since been included in press releases promoting Touré, and remains on the website of the company that distributes one of his television programs. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * May I ask why it is important to include it? Press releases aren't usually considered reliable sources, and the subject has indicated that the press release went out in error and that he objected to it.  The name only became public, if I understand the story, as a matter of theft of information.
 * His reasons for not wanting the name known are personal and, to put it in my own words, spiritual and historic. The name is not "real" as it was assigned to his slave forefathers, and he has rejected it at a deep personal level.  I think as a matter of human dignity we need a good reason to include it under these circumstances.
 * I am still in conversation with him (though slowly, due to both being quite busy) about alternatives in case we can't come to consensus here not to include it. So far I don't think I have any good ideas.  But one thing I hope we don't have is a general attitude to "stick it to him" because we have access to sources.  One of his arguments, which is surely valid, is that whatever is in Wikipedia will be repeated by journalists in the future.  I think including it without explanation in the lede would be a really really bad idea - but I feel personally more comfortable (he doesn't, as far as I can tell) with it in the body of the article with a full explanation of why he doesn't use the name and doesn't like it to be used.
 * I think the most important principle here should be one of moving slowly and thoughtfully. There's no deadline.  Let's have a reflective and thoughtful conversation about it for awhile, and I'll keep talking to Touré.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Speaking as someone who has advocated for including the full name (above), I accept this. I accept this for various technical reasons (e.g. it's not very important, consider spirit of BLP, arguably iffy sources) but also for internal procedural reasons: I think it is a Very Good Thing if we have an ombudsman whom people are able to contact for relief, and who has moral authority to grant relief, and we should not undermine that absent a very compelling reason. We're anarchic enough as it is. That the person respectfully advanced a cogent argument rather than engaging in threats and posturing is good also, we should reward such behavior. If the person ever become very notable (in which case better sources will probably become available) we can revisit the matter. Herostratus (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I hope it wouldn't be overly simplistic to draw at least a rough parallel to the sitation with Malcolm X. In what ways is this situation different, and how should that guide our decision here?  In particular, are the differences between those cases sufficient to cause us to treat the two individuals substantially differently?
 * I am reluctant to engage with arguments phrased in terms of the relative "importance" of facts. The loss of any one sentence, citation, or fact is trivial in any grand scheme of things.  In an encyclopedia with millions of articles, we could completely delete our entry on Touré and not perceptibly degrade the quality of our work.  (This is not intended as a slur on Touré; we could equally easily do the same with Jimmy Wales.)  And yet&mdash;erasing reliable information runs counter to the deepest aims of this project.  It's a very delicate line that we're being asked to draw, and I'm not sure that we ought to.  The "importance" of this information is that a person's name – or names – are widely accepted as essential elements of a comprehensive biography.  The very fact that Touré has changed his name is an interesting and potentially (encyclopedically) relevant aspect of his character.  In the case of porn stars (one of our few exceptions to this guiding principle), we avoid publishing real names because these individuals would be exposed to particular danger and discrimination.  Those considerations don't apply to this case; Touré is asking for use to expunge his birth name not to protect his safety but because of a personal distaste for the history (generally) associated with it.  The name change is about his public and his private image of himself, and something reasonably addressed in the biography of someone who has chosen to make himself a public figure.
 * While we are rightly reluctant to rely on press releases for most purposes, the provisions regarding self-published sources would seem to apply. There isn't any genuine doubt about the provenance or accuracy of the document.  As a matter of policy and Wikipedia philosophy, trying to play the 'it's not a reliable source' card would be ruleslawyering, rather than engaging the real question.  In any case, the contents of the press release appear to have been reproduced fairly widely, particularly in the Australian press: .  Elements from it appear on MTV's Australian web site: .  Touré's former surname is used by a Huffington Post blogger/columnist: .  While the original public release of Touré's former surname may have been the result of incompetence or even of malice (...on the part of his television distributor?) I find it difficult to reach any conclusion but that the name is 'in the wild' now, however much he might prefer it not be. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I mean, you make cogent points. I guess it's essentially a matter of philosophical difference. I am OK with arguments based on the relative importance of facts vis-a-vis other considerations. The Malcolm X case occurred to me, and my feeling is that it's different because Malcolm is very notable. He just is, and it matters, and it makes sense not to pretend it doesn't matter. There are certain principles that need to be followed rigidly. For instance, we should never knowingly and deliberately put false information in an article regardless of any other considerations, I wouldn't think. I just don't think this is one of those cases. It's a matter of not having a fact in the Wikipedia, and there are literally millions of more important facts that we don't have (not deliberately but because we just haven't added them yet) and we should worry about those first I guess. Though I do find the situation mildly annoying because I do suspect a possible "branding" motive here, at least in part. Mildly annoying, but ultimately trivial and not worth making a unoffending person unhappy. Herostratus (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for respectful delay
The subject of this article has written me a very kind and thoughtful and poignant email about the surname issue, and we are discussing the issue. As a matter of good WP:BLP practice and courtesy and human dignity, I have removed the alleged surname from the article, possibly temporarily. I've let him know that due to various other work and personal commitments, I won't be able to look at this in detail until next week. I hope that everyone will give me time to work with the subject and to study the situation in more detail.

One point that he makes is absolutely true: Wikipedia is influential, and if we have the name, it will randomly start to pop up in press accounts. You can't unscramble an egg. So my view is that while we take the time to explore the issue fully, we should err on the side of caution and not publish the name in the article. He's worked very hard to distance himself from his surname, and it seems that it only leaked into the public through an act of maliciousness and information theft.

I don't have all the information yet, and probably wouldn't feel comfortable speaking publicly about all the details if I did, but I'm persuaded by his kind and thoughtful letter, and by the fact that nothing important *at all* from a Wikipedia perspective hinges on this, that we should take this slowly.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to look into this, Jimmy. Nightscream (talk) 00:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Very well. Herostratus (talk) 03:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect Jimmy, this is absurd. This is supposed to be an encyclopedic site, not a PR site. His birth name is a fact and a factual site like this should report it, regardless of what he wants. Furthermore, I hate to throw the race AND politics card simultaneously, but the fact that he is a black liberal seems awfully suspicious with regards to how seriously this matter is being taken. My guess is that if he were a white conservative he would not be given the immense courtesy that you and many others are extending. Bottom line, it doesn't matter how much he wants this info left out. It is not his decision to make with regards to an encyclopedic site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.92.186.167 (talk) 05:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * N.B.: User 31.185.188.17 made some edits to this page indicating he's opposed to the last-name redaction. User 31.185.188.17 doesn't like Mr Touré very much and expressed this opinion rather vehemently, violating WP:BLP and for this reason the comments were redacted (but not oversighted, since they were mostly mere vulgar abuse), causing User 31.185.188.17 to claim censorship. So in the interests of being certain to be fair, I'll note here that User 31.185.188.17 wishes to be counted among those who feel that Mr Touré's birth name ought to be included. Let's leave it at that, OK? Herostratus (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I cam to Wikipedia for the express purpose of finding out whether he has a last name, and if so, what the story on its non-use might be. That seems like a reasonable thing for an encyclopedia. What I find is Wikipedia assisting this public figure with his marketing strategy. That does not seem like a reasonable thing for an encyclopedia. It's not that big a deal, but actually, it's not such a small deal either. Do corporations that are non-biological people get editorial control over their articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.70.30.46 (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

To the above poster: you too can get creative/marketing control over your page when you become a black liberal. Do you think Rush Limbaugh could change his name to just "rush" and Wikipedia would respect his wish to scrub Limbaugh from the page completely? Doesn't even have to be someone that famous. A person of similar stature to Mr. Neblett, if they were a conservative, would not have their wish respected by Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales. This is just a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.92.79.145 (talk) 06:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it's your opinion.


 * And your analogy is false. Rush Limbaugh's full name is already well-known. The same does not hold true for Toure. In any event, omitting his surname has nothing to do with "marketing".


 * Also, please make sure you sign your talk page posts. You can do this by typing four tildes (~) at the end of them, which also automatically time stamps them. Nightscream (talk) 11:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Toure's last name should be added to this page for completeness. His last name is "Neblett" Here's at least one source to confirm this-- http://bigjournalism.com/tag/toure-neblett/ Thanks, Patrick Podge80525 (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Touré objects to the recent re-addition of his birth surname to the article, saying, "The last discussion concluded with Jimmy Wales asking for calm, patient deliberation and moving slowly so as to not cause harm if unnecessary. That edict has been broken by someone adding my name while ignoring the ongoing discussion."


 * Well, we had a calm, patient deliberation right here, where everyone aired their arguments. The last extension of this discussion lasted from October 6 to November 10 of last year. After that, nothing else was said on the matter, so someone added the name two days ago on March 30. A month-long discussion following over four months of silence, and then the reintroduction of that information after those four months sounds fairly "patient and calm" to me, so nothing was "broken" by re-adding the name, since the discussion was no longer ongoing on March 30. It's only just been reignited now following the recent re-addition of the surname. "Calm, patient deliberation" isn't the same thing as "do nothing", or "it's resolved not to have that surname in the article". There's a difference between moving slowly and not at all. How is a total of five months on the matter not slow or patient enough?


 * Touré also says, "My last name is not part of any facet of my life." But the article doesn't indicate that it is, it merely notes that it was his birth name. The first manner in which it identifies him in the opening sentence (and for the most part throughout the article) is with his given name only. The birth surname is merely in a parenthetical right after that, and appears nowhere else afterwards, which hardly implies that it's a facet of his life. It's merely the notation of a historical fact, and I while I generally favor giving some consideration to biographical subjects' feelings, I also feel that some modicum of reason and rationality has to be factored into it. If, for example, Malcolm X were still alive, and I addressed him or referred to him as "Mr. Little", then that would certainly be disrespectful. But it is not disrespectful for his article to state what his slave name was, and indeed, his article does do so. Why would it be painful to merely note a prior historical fact? If noting a historical fact that occurred as a consequence of slavery were disrespectful, then by that logic, wouldn't we have to censor all articles dealing with slavery? I just don't see noting a fact has to be seen as something negative. Should we remove Malcolm X's birth name from his article? Should we remove the date of birth of every actress or female BLP subject over the age of 30 who requests it, because a public fact of their birth is in someway uncomfortable for them? That would seem to be the role of a subject's publicist, or other handlers who wish to control information about them, but not an encyclopedia.


 * While omitting some information for reasons like identity theft or privacy is sometimes done here, encyclopedias are not about omitting key information in order to put forward a narrative that a biographical article's subject considers more ideologically or personally positive. Built into their mission is the inclusion of salient information. If that name is no longer his surname, how would it be a problem to merely state that it was at one time? It seems that Touré's position constitutes a desire to deny facts or to deny history, and that seems antithetical to the very role of an encyclopedia. When we start removing information because it conjures up painful histories, then we're no longer a neutral, formal, dispassionate encyclopedia, we're just a tool for sociological propaganda. He has every right to deny or ignore facts of his past he doesn't like in the course of his day-to-day life. But I don't think it's reasonable for him to obligate others to, especially institutions whose goal or mission is scholarly, academic or encyclopedic. Nightscream (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

[To stop auto-archiving. TuckerResearch (talk) 00:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)]