Jump to content

Talk:will.i.am

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

will.i.am at start of sentences

[edit]

@Randy Kryn: @Rreagan007: you appear to be edit warring over this issue in this article, so please stop reverting each other and discuss the matter here. For what it's worth, I think Randy's got it right on this occasion - as long as the article is titled will.i.am (as it does and will unless the move request above goes ahead), we should style it thus in the text too. But either way that's not an excuse to edit war. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the eye out for vandals, I'll take the next watch. As for this discussion, even though recasting the sentences isn't hard, taking MOS:LCITEMS into consideration we find that "Some individuals do not want their personal names capitalized. In such cases, Wikipedia articles may use lower-case variants of personal names if they have regular and established use in reliable third-party sources (for example, k.d. lang)", even though will.i.am is not really a personal name as much as a stage name, his trademark (k.d. lang is a personal name lower-cased), then we swing up one section to MOS:LISTCAPS where we find "The initial letter in a sentence[a] is capitalized. This does not apply if it begins with a letter which is always left uncapitalized (as in "eBay"; see § Items that require initial lower case, below), although it is usually preferable to recast the sentence." So, since will.i.am is always lower-cased on Wikipeda since it has "regular and established use in reliable third-party sources", if is up to editors who object or have the immediate interest to "recast the sentence". I've done some recasting and an italics run, and will come back to do more later if someone doesn't get to it before me. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's what MOS:LCITEMS actually says in full: "Some individuals do not want their personal names capitalized. In such cases, Wikipedia articles may use lower-case variants of personal names if they have regular and established use in reliable third-party sources (for example, k.d. lang). When such a name is the first word in a sentence, the rule for initial letters in sentences and list items should take precedence, and the first letter of the personal name should be capitalized regardless of personal preference." Now, you explain to me what that section in bold means. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rreagan007: clearly you and Randy disagree on how to interpret the MOS in this area, making this a content dispute, not vandalism. So yes, it is edit warring. If you continue to make bad-faith accusations of that nature, or continue edit warring, you may find yourself blocked. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You tell me what the bolded section above means while you're at it. There is no way to interpret that section other than to mean the first letter of a person's name is always capitalized when it starts a sentence even if they prefer it not to be. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The MOS is just guidance. It is not a defence for crossing policy. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rreagan007, since this section is here I want to explain further. I think of the name will.i.am not as the subject's name but as his trademark/stagename, so more like iTunes and eBay than k.d. lang (which is her full name with her preferred lower-casing). So you and I were simply thinking of two different forms of the same combination of letter and periods and their attendant guideline language and how it effects their presentation. I can see your point, and, as always, appreciate your comments and commitment. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello BarrelProof, and I agree that at the start of a sentence the uppercase "W" would be proper (Wikipedians tend to learn a thing or few in five years). What about captions? I like the look of the captions on this page, with the proper lowercase name leading them off, but do you think they should be reworded to reflect sentence case (although most captions tend not to be sentences). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your quick and gracious reply. I just edited the article. I found that a few places already had a capital letter at the beginning of sentences, and one place had a capital letter in the middle of a sentence (which I changed to improve consistency). Three places had lowercase at the beginning of sentences. I uppercased two of those and rephrased the third one to move the name to later in the sentence. I left the captions alone. Personally, I would probably uppercase those (e.g. since we capitalize list items as well as sentences, as noted at MOS:LCITEMS), but I haven't given it a lot of thought. Just as an observation, I notice that there is a lot of variation in the capitalization in the titles of cited sources. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion of will.i.am

[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... will.i.am is the long standing title, it is the most concise and it is the common name. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the page is certainly NOT going to be deleted! And thank god for that. Might I suggest indefinite move protection? MadGuy7023 (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and just so months or years from now this does not perhaps look so odd without checking the history, today there was a series of confusing or disruptive moves et. al. - one was a speedy deletion tag, and the system auto-plopped this contested message here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME clearly applies here. "We must have the legal name" is a flawed argument if a person is commonly known by a stage name such as Bono.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Newer sources on his name

[edit]

Many years ago, more than a decade now (!), we received a complaint about the claim in this article that his birth name is "William Adams, Jr." At that time we faced a complex question about sourcing, the subject's own statements, etc. However, with a decade passed, there are a number of new reliable sources and I think anyone looking back at the matter might roll their eyes at the lameness of the debate. It's a simple and uncontroversial matter (I can't think of any sensible reason for anyone to campaign to keep the wrong name in, particularly in light of new reliable sources.)

1. The Sunday Times (UK) - "But over the past decade or so, LA-born William Adams — better known as will.i.am — has established himself..." August 24, 2024.

2. Fast Company - "Will.i.am (born William Adams) is an artist, tech entrepreneur, and the founder and CEO of FYI (which stands for Focus Your Idea), a new AI-powered platform." October 19, 2024

3. Worth Magazine - in a biographical profile for their Worthy 100 list, "Will.i.am, 48, born William Adams, is an acclaimed singer-songwriter, rapper, and producer best known as the founder and lead of The Black Eyed Peas." This particular page is undated, but Archive.org Wayback machine first archived it on January 5, 2025.

4. Encylopedia.com - I'm not sure what current thinking is about encyclopedia.com as a source, so for now I only include it in the list for completeness. "will.i.am (born William Adams, March 15, 1975, in Los Angeles, CA)"

5. Moneyweek - "Born William Adams in a deprived area of Los Angeles and brought up with his three siblings by a single mother..." July 31, 2013 - an older source which cites and article by "Audrey Ward in The Sunday Times".

6. Sunday Times (UK) - "Born William Adams, he was raised by his schoolteacher mother along with two brothers and a sister"

To reiterate - the first reporting on this was incorrect. A tabloid may have jumped to a conclusion that's incorrect about what was on his birth certificate, and it was repeated (since it would seem uncontroversial background, it's unlikely they would have investigated deeply). Since then, I suppose upon my advice all those years ago, he's careful (or his PR team is careful) to make the correction with journalists. So newer sources reflect the truth.

As a result of finding all these source, I want to make the change on BLP grounds now, but I would also appreciate some endorsements (or disagreements, although I can't think of why there would be any disagreements. Because I arguably have a conflict of interest (I have met him several times at conferences) and because even though this is a BLP issue it's an old one and not an immediate emergency, I'll wait a few days for feedback before making any change. If you find my argument persuasive, dear reader, then of course you could make the change yourself, which would avoid the COI issue completely. Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no middle name James? SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is my understanding, and seems to be what the more recent sources are all saying.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the article, per WP:BLPPRIVACY which says "Err on the side of caution" ie: don't include any middle name. Citing the New Zealand Herald alone is just not good enough for a BLP. Jimbo, for what it's worth, I would have supported you making the edit directly citing the relevant part of the BLP policy in the edit summary. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted it. Something like "LA-born William Adams — better known as will.i.am — has established himself" does in no way indicate one way or the other that he has or doesn't have a middle name. It would be similar to claiming that sources stating "Hawaii-born Barack Obama" are somehow proof that he hasn't a middle name[1]. Fram (talk) 11:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But the key is that he insists that his name is wrong in Wikipedia, and it would seem to be an odd thing to lie about, and the sourcing for his name *not* having the middle name (and 'jr') is stronger than the sources that it is. I encourage you to put down the stick and stop doing this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an odd thing to lie about, we can speculate about the reasons but people (and certainly celebs) lie about things from their past all the time, and it's not as if he has any reason to be proud of his father apparently. Celebs not being fortright about their actual name, age, studies, background, ... is a very common thing. And no, the sources for "it isn't true" are very weak. Sources that don't use the full name is not the same as sources stating that the full name is incorrect. Take any artist with a pseudonym: it is very easy to find sources for Bob Dylan stating that he was "born Robert Zimmerman"[2], in your reasoning that would mean that all sources claiming that his birth name was "Robert Allen Zimmerman" are wrong? The BBC claims in their obituary that David Bowie was "born David Jones"[3], as do many other sources. Quick, remove the middle name from his Wikipedia page!
The reasoning that, because sources state "born first name last name", the stated "first name middle name last name" must be wrong, is as wrong now as it was 10 years ago. Fram (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps more similar, there are many sources about Sting, "born Gordon Sumner". No one argues to remove his middle name based on such shorthand articles or books, no matter how reliable they are.[4][5]. Fram (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And the full name is good enough for e.g. Britannica[6] and was already reported as such in 2005[7] and 2006 in what appear to be reliable sources. Fram (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We strive to be better than Britannica and we have sources that are newer and better, as well as his personal statement. This seems a very odd hill for you to take this stand on (again, more than 10 years later). The sources are not with you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I take a stand on this from a neutral position, not from the unverifiable claim that the subject has personally spoken to me. While we strive to be better than Britannica, we don't take the position that Britannica is probably wrong, we assume that Britannica is a very strong source and is probably right. Your claim that these other sources are "better" (or even newer) is just a claim, circular reasoning (they are "better" because they support your position?). The Britannica sources was "Last Updated: Jan 23, 2025", so apparently they didn't get the memo... What are your sources that actually state that his name is not William James Adams? Fram (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can we now finally put this to rest? Fram (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And no, I don't suggest using that last source: but it confirms that the claims that all sources that use the full name are somehow mistaken and that sources using the short hand "first name last name" combination are somehow proof of this, are wrong. No idea why this discussion was started again after so many years, perhaps this discussion should now finally be frozen. Fram (talk) 11:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just tell me when it's enough. Fram (talk) 11:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This source shows that a plaintiff assumed that was his real name, which proves nothing at all. You should know better. This is one of the core reasons we disallow original research, because of invalid inferences like this. The incorrect name is repeated over and over in many places, not least of which is Wikipedia itself due to your campaign for who knows what reason to include it despite the sourcing. It's always been wrong and it's still wrong and the current sources agree with me on that. Please take a deep breath and drop the stick and walk away. Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of the current sources agree with you, none state that his name is not William James Adams. We have had the same discussion more than ten years ago, and you present the exaxt same wrong and long debunked arguments. Well, you now add the argument that it somehow is my "campaign" that caused all of this, despite the full name having been widely used long before I came involved. "Current" sources include Britannica, but also e.g. Allmusic... Or newspapers like Metro[8], Daily Mail, Sun,
Oh, perhaps you prefer sources from closer to will.i.am, like the i.am/Angel Foundation, founded and presided by him? They name him "William James Adams"[9] or even "William James Adams Jr."[10]
The Inquirer is a good recent example of where your argument (both about recent sources and about what the use of "William Adams" means) falls flat: this is a recent source, which literally states "William Adams (will.i.am’s birth name)" and "William James Adams, (aka will.i.am)"! If it wasn't obvious, sources stating that he was born "William Adams" do not by definition mean that he was not born "William James Adams".
Here is an interview with will.i.am, again also about his father, from the Evening Standard[11]. Fram (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fram, no source of clear merit says it is. I don't care that Jimmy's don't say anything about it, because that veers into proving a negative, which is impossible to do as Jimmy can't do that. It's impossible to prove his middle name is not James because none of the reliable sources Jimmy presents state that it is. What we are concerned with is the reliability of your sources, and making sure they aren't WP:FRUIT. You cite various low quality tabloids like The Sun, Daily Mail, etc. Depreciated or poor sources. Wait until a reliable source such as NYT or WaPo or WSJ or The Times does original verification. Or until Snopes fact-checks this. BarntToust 16:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with the New Zealand Herald[12], the Evening Standard[13], the Jerusalem Post[14], NPR[15], ABC News[16]...
@BarntToust: I wasn't aware of this source previously, and I can't access it completely, but it seems as if The Times already reported this in 2003, so definitely not getting it from Wikipedia.[17] If someone can check that it confirms the "William James Adams" birth certificate story, that would be great. I hope that, in that case, we can finally again put this to rest? Fram (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram: "I was 25 years old, and I’d always thought my name was William Adams," he says. "I needed to get hold of my full birth certificate so I could get a passport. So I went to the public records office. And when I see my birth certificate I discover that my name is actually William James Adams Jr. And I’m stunned. I’d never met my father. My Mom never talks about him. And yet I’ve got the exact same name as the dude. How come I never heard about him?" So in a Black-Eyed Peas interview in 2003 he explicitly stated that the name on his birth certificate was William James Adams Jr. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I ask him to show me a legal document and it confirms what he says, would that satisfy you? Genuine question. Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just taking your word for it? No, no way. Otherwise, it depends. It may well be that his birth name was William James Adams, as reported now for two decades across many impeccable sources, but that he has since changed his legal name to be William Adams, without the James. If so, that should be noted (as suggested: header is just "William Adams", body of text explains the situation). So a legal document showing that his current name is William Adams would not mean that the birth name claims are incorrect. Fram (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Fram, no source of clear merit says it is. The currently cited New Zealand Herald is a respectable newspaper and would ordinarily be considered a clearly reliable source. When a national newspaper of record states a fact about a person in an article about that person and we don't have any reliable sources contradicting it (and I agree with Fram that an article saying "his birth name is William Adams" is not a clear contradiction absent some specific claim that he doesn't have a middle name, or that his middle name is not James) we would not ask for multiple sources. Assuming that Jimbo is not lying about what will.i.am told him and that will.i.am was being truthful in telling him, neither of which I have reason to doubt, we might editorially decide to omit the name James, or to add a note explaining the dispute as in the compromise suggested last time this came up, but it's silly to suggest that we don't have reliable sources for "William James Adams Jr." being his birth name. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This would be a perfectly valid solution - to simply omit the middle name and the "Jr". It's supported by sources and has the additional benefit of being true and correcting an error. Other than Fram's insistence, for which I can find no policy basis at all, nor even a coherent case for it that is anything other than wanting to fight over it, I don't see much reason not to do it. Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason to make this personal instead of sticking to the facts? Fram (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like Fram proposed a reasonable compromise 12 years ago, and Jimbo seemed to have accepted it at the time, and it seems odd we didn't just do that and move on: see here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This would be fine. I attempted to do that in a footnote at the time, but that didn't stick, probably because everyone got tired of the debate and moved on. Today with more sources, we have more reason to do that. Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean the additional sources found that actually verify the "William James Adams" claim? You don't seem to have provided any new sources to the contrary, as far as I can tell, just sources that use "first name last name" and not the full "first name middle name last name". As has been shown repeatedly, this doesn't prove (or even vaguely indicate) anything and can easily be found for most celebrities using a pseudonym. Fram (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What you're asking for, because I want to be clear that I understand you, is a news article specifically about this? Would anything else do, like a document? Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See my reply above. Basically, if we have good sources stating that his legal name is now William Adams, then we go with that in the lead, but indicate the name change/controversy in the body (briefly, no need to make it a major point, but it 'is something noted in many reliable sources across decades, which would be conspicuously absent from our article). Fram (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to doubt that there were plenty of controversies in 2012, but either way, this is a COI on the basis of saying you met him. A problem that I am sure can be resolved already.
    And I don't like to say this to you, but I think Fram's right, and respectfully, you may want to drop it. Especially if the sources provided here don't exactly line up. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 17:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Without weighing in on the content issue, I remember in the past we have went with what the BLP subject requested and was able to prove with an OTRS request. (See here and here) Shouldn't the information be removed while it's under discussion and disputed, per policy ? WP:BLPPRIVACY would seem to suggest it would and as far as I can remember, we exclude dates of birth and full names while under discussion or if there are issues with privacy/accuracy. Awshort (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe it should be removed per BLP until this discussion finishes. As to whether a proof sent to OTRS will be helpful, I would be very interested to know regarding current standard policy. How does that work, considering the potential privacy issues of storing (even in OTRS) a personal document of a celebrity. Perhaps it would be sufficient for a volunteer editor to look at the document and testify to it instead? I haven't kept up with very specific current best practice in these cases. Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimbo Wales, this page has become far too long for me to navigate comfortably, so I'd ask you to clarify something. You spoke with will.i.am at some point, that much I'm clear with. Did you speak with Adams under the specific pretense that his Wikipedia page was at some point displaying "William James Adams", that being the true and direct purpose of your talks?
If you can literally ask his agency or him to release a statement confirming his middle name is not James, or a statement declaring the full legal name (to this end, not including the "James bit"), then sure. Why not? I don't trust anything I said in 2003 about myself either. Isolated instances of something something, then a newspaper of record says it one time, eh.
I have another idea, if Adams doesn't mind Twittering: For prior example/refernece know that the page C418 was at one point listing the subject's birth date as 1987, but the subject tweeted out it was 1989, and the article uses that tweet to cite the birth date. Like how this instance fixed BLP fallacies: We could ask Adams to randomly tweet his legal name, and use it as SPS, but shoot, it looks like to me that Adams wants his privacy maintained, and this would be counterproductive to that goal. I sure think his middle name is James myself, and I believe he's trying to do Streisand effect dulling here by telling you what he told you in order to keep his personally identifying info, um, personal, but I'm not about to bring original thought into this. BLPPRIVACY can only be followed if we admit this is a BLPPRIVACY issue and not an RS/v issue. BarntToust 17:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like, it's his birthday in March. Maybe ask the guy—since already you've made contact—to tweet out on his birthday "I was born William Adams Jr. on March yada yada yada, stuff about his life" and we can use that as verification that his legal name is that? Discreet, unmemorable, maintaining key respect for privacy. BarntToust 18:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPPUBLIC: in cases like this, we should report both sides, both what reliable sources state, and what the BLP states about themselves. Simply outright believing the current statement by a BLP over earlier statements they made is a bad idea, but not reporting such a denial is also bad practice. Fram (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I frankly don't know what land we're fighting on, BLPPRIVACY or RS / v. Jimmy and you are arguing about how he needs to specify what he said to Adams because he holds burden of proof, and Wales isn't being open about his conversation to maintain Adams's privacy, and thus says you have the burden of proof to ask questions about a subject you know nothing about. Like, if I went into a rocket science college course and the professor made it the student's job to ask questions about the subject rather than the professor's responsibility to inform about rocket science, I would drop the course and demand my money back. Jimmy, if this is BLPPRIVACY and the nature of your conversations were about keeping Adams's personally identifiable information from the public knowledge, say so now and we just end this stuff. BarntToust 18:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
because if not, we have to assert that either Adams was providing false info to sources or that the sources were pulling stuff from the hinterland. In fact, Jimmy, I invite you, with your influence in the technosphere, to make a phone call or two to the editorial team down at Snopes such that they can take a crack at debunking this "is will.i.am's middle name really 'James'?" story/dilemma for us. BarntToust 18:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's recap:

  1. Is the claim that all those reliable sources, from The Times in 2003 on until sources from right now, are all mistaken and The Times (et al) just made it up that will.i.am said those things at the time?
  2. Is the claim that will.i.am really said those things, but that he was somehow mistaken at the time?
  3. Is the claim that his father is not called William James Adams at all?
  4. Or is the claim that he changed his legal name somewhere in or around 2012?

Knowing what actually is claimed (by will.i.am or by Jimbo Wales) might help focus this discussion. Fram (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might also help if you were to clarify what kind of evidence you would demand. And if you would clarify exactly what, against the wishes of the subject, it's so important to you that we provocatively put this right at the top of the article. A footnote alternative has been suggested, would that work for you? It would resolve the issue. Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, no answers to my questions. But instead just rewriting history, I see. In Talk:Will.i.am/Archive 1#Way forward, I suggested some way forward, I had no issues with a note, but you insisted that "I think we can uncontroversially note that the sources are wrong." Now, twelve years later, you are again starting with the position that it should be deleted, and have attacked me again and again because I dare to contradict your claims and not help you fulfill the wish of your acquaintance. I have no issues with a neutral, factual footnote: I object to the one you inserted in 2013[18]. Fram (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are enough sources that we could go either way, but if the subject of this article has clearly stated that the name "James" not be used and/or is not what he prefers to go by, we should respect his request. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Sources from 2006 to 2024 for William Adams

arbitrary break/summing up

[edit]

This is all getting very confused, so to sum up the issue as I understand it:

  • Our article currently says, about will.i.am's early life that he was "born as William James Adams Jr."
  • This claim dates back to an interview the Black Eyed Peas gave with The Times in 2003 when promoting Elephunk, in which will.i.am said that he found out, aged 25, that the name on his birth certificate was William James Adams Jr. ([19])
  • Other sources, including ones as recent as the Jerusalem Post in 2021 ([[20]) and posts on the website of his own charitable foundation ([21]), use the name.
  • In 2012, Jimbo had a conversation with will.i.am in which (per Jimbo) He was not named after his father, and if I understood him correctly, his name on his birth certificate is not "William James Adams, Jr." nor is that what it says on his driver's license. ([22])
  • Other sources say variously that will.i.am's [real/full/birth/passport] name is William Adams. ([23])
  • Issues raised by various people include WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:BLPPRIVACY.

It seems to me on the issue of "what is will.i.am's real name?" none of this is actually contradictory. The simplest explanation here is that he told the truth in the 2003 interview, the name on his birth certificate is "William James Adams Jr." and yet the name he goes by is simply "William Adams". The name on his passport/driving license/bank account may well now be simply William Adams: I know plenty of people whose names are not exactly the same on different official documents (most obviously almost all married women in the anglophone world have a different name on their birth certificate). As far as I can see, all of the highest-quality sources which mention the William James Adams Jr. form of the name make it clear that was his birth name, and do not claim that it is the name he uses today.

As we have clearly reliable sources for "William James Adams Jr.", there is no WP:RS or WP:V issue with including it. As for WP:BLPPRIVACY, it reads With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, many people 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 to the details being made public. The name in this case meets both aspects of the test: it has been widely published in reliable sources, and it was first given by will.i.am himself in an interview and has subsequently been re-published by his charitable foundation. I see Floquenbeam has made a compromise edit here in which the name in the lead is given as only William Adams (as many sources do) but the full name "William James Adams Jr." is given as his birth name in the early life section and infobox. I think this is a good solution – does it satisfy everyone? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with Floquenbeam's compromise. I would also be happy if Fram thinks there needs to be a footnote explaining the issue. The thing we are confident about (everyone, right) is that his legal name (per several sources saying things like "passport name") is William Adams. I can personally add that I am now certain of that, having seen actual documentary evidence. This does not require, as noted by Caeciliusinhorto-public, any sort of court procedure. My own passport shows what I think everyone agrees is my actual real name, and yet my birth certificate is different. (My birth certificate says "Jimmie", which came as a real surprise to me when I first came across it as a teenager. Fortunately, no one has ever forced that on me, not even Fram (ha!). If I gave an interview telling a story about my birth certificate we wouldn't therefore change the article about me, and I wouldn't have to struggle for years with news outlets reading Wikipedia and getting the wrong name.
My recommendation for the footnote is to cite the sources that say what his legal name is, and also note that many sources say that his birth certificate name is the other one.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said to Floquenbeam, I have no objection to his compromise. What I don't get is why people are still using sources which say "real name", "actual name", ... "is William Adams" as supposed proof of anything. You can do the same exercise for any celebrity with a psuedonym, and many sources will give their "real name" and so on as just "first name" "last name", no middle names. This doesn't mean that the birth name or legal name doesn't include middle names, only that these are less frequently used. Why this point needs to be made again, and again, and again, is beyond me. Just look at the number of sources one can immediately find which state that Pink's "real name is Alecia Moore"[24] or that her "given name is Alecia Moore"[25] Look, even a reliable source that says that her passport states "Alecia Moore"[26]. Fram (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said yesterday, I agree with you on this. Indeed, "legal name" is not as well-defined a concept as many people believe it is. It's entirely possible for different versions of a name to be on a birth certificate, driving license, and passport and determining which of those a court would consider to be the legal name of a person is situational and requires judgement. (It's also technically possible, if very rare in the developed world, for a child not to be registered at birth and thus have no birth certificate, and thus, absent any other legal identity documents, have no legally-recognised name at all.) Similarly "real name" is a very vague concept. If the name on my birth certificate is different from the name on my passport and different again from the one which I use in all of my personal and business dealings, which is the "real" one?
In this case all that we know is that the name on will.i.am's birth certificate is William James Adams Jr.; that, according to Jimbo, will.i.am told him that is not the name on his driving license (though we have no reliable source reporting this); and that some sources say that his name is "William Adams" (though no reliable source has been found which says that it is not William James Adams Jr. and they may simply be ommitting the middle name as is very common practice). Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And another alternative for the reason sources omit the middle name is because it is his personal preference not to use it, and many media outlets, especially nowadays, will use a subject's self-identified personal preference on how they wish to be identified, which seems to be the case here. I also agree with the compromise. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adams is extremely particular about the way he wishes to be identified. Read this piece in Elle Canada about it.
He said: “Not even my family call me William. And only government officials or border guards ever give it to me with the full Mr William Adams. But that’s not me. It might say that on the paperwork, but that’s not me. I’m will.i.am. If anyone says different then I can be quite hostile. “I’ve tried explaining it at immigration before, ‘I am not the piece of paper you have before you, I am someone else.’ They don’t get it.”
So yeah, I'd support omission entirely. Anyone trying to explain something to Feds who don't get paid enough to be personally accommodative clearly has strong feelings about their name. BarntToust 19:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Will.i.am&oldid=1274416282"