Talk:Stéphane Grenier (tennis)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Stephane Huet - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 07:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: Moved. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Stephane Grenier → Stéphane Grenier (tennis) – Three requests: (Request A) move to full spelling per consistent en.wp practice across 100,000s of articles, WP:FRMOS, WP:EN examples, WP:UE examples, WP:MOSBIO examples, WP:AT "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles" with all other French Stéphanes on en.wp.
(Request B) removal of current duplication from lead first sentence per WP:OPENPARA examples [currently reads: "Stéphane Grenier (Fontainebleau, 9 January 1968) and known professionally as Stephane Grenier is a former professional tennis player from France."] per consensus on Talk:Frédéric Vitoux RM last week, per WT:TENNISNAMES RfC June 2012 and WP:BLP This page in a nutshell: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research.
(Request C) preemptively oppose future addition of new footnote "Spelled as Stephane Grenier in the English press and governing bodies of tennis." diff per Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, partially because I can't decipher the rat's nest of links and acronyms provided above, but mainly because governing bodies and English press render the name without diacritics. Since those are the most reliable sources for the English orthography of a name, and for the name for which an English speaker is likely to search, then they are the sources that we should follow. Powers ^T 14:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Since the nomination a Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel webpage from 1990 was added which in passing does mention "Stephane Grenier", but note that the Sun Sentinel website doesn't show English diacritics - "Beyonce," "Chloe Sevigny," "Charlotte Bronte" are articles that came up. Therefore the Sun Sentinel fails Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources "for the statement being made":

Context Matters The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content

If the same article appeared syndicated in the New York Times it would pass WP:IRS In ictu oculi (talk) 03:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I've never cared for this circular reasoning. Any source that uses diacritics must be reliable because it uses diacritics. Any source that doesn't must not be reliable because it doesn't use diacritics. Do you have any evidence that the FL Sun-Sentinel is unreliable beyond the fact that it disagrees with you on when diacritics should be used? Powers ^T 13:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as above the Sun-Sentinel website also spells "Beyonce," "Chloe Sevigny," "Charlotte Bronte" incorrectly and therefore is not "reliable for the statement being made" according to WP:IRS. If we want to move beyond names then testing the authority of the Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel website against English terms with diacritical marks (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:English_words_with_diacritics) or the Oxford English Dictionary we get results such as 5 24 "Recently, the Sun Sentinel ran an expose of off duty police officers excessively speeding in their take home cruisers after a state trooper...". etc. etc.

Following WP:RS each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content. The Sun-Sentinel website is not a reliable authority for the spelling of exposé (journalism) nor Beyoncé nor French names. NY Times is a reliable source for such names. This is a French living person BLP remember, why are we going to a Fort Lauderdale local newspaper website to look for a "reliable source for that context" for the name of a French person in the first place? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Because we are an English encyclopedia; looking to French sources for English orthography makes no sense. I still say your reasoning is circular. You declare that the Sun-Sentinel is unreliable because its choice of orthography disagrees with yours. Since you apparently would only accept sources that use diacritics in all cases you think they're necessary, then the result is a foregone conclusion. That's circular reasoning. Powers ^T 13:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Well that is what WP:RS says Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context, use of best such source is not circular it is simply doing what WP:RS says. If you disagree then change WP:RS to "an average source for that context" or "the worst such source for that context". In ictu oculi (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You're completely missing the point. The point is that you are assuming that source to be bad, because it disagrees with you. I am not recommending we use bad sources. Powers ^T 01:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

LtPowers, yes I suppose I am missing the point that following sources able to represent or not represent the matter in question (in this case é or e) is circular reasoning. For why I am missing it, please take a non-French example:

In your view which newspaper is more reliable for the spelling of BLP Beyoncé Knowles' first name?

• Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel : "Beyonce lip-syncs National Anthem" (accent disabled source)
• NYTimes.com : "In Beyoncé Deal, Pepsi Focuses on Collaboration" (able to represent or not represent)

If you were making a statement about Beyoncé's name which would you say is the more "reliable for the statement being made" according to WP:RS?

Now, the shoe is on your foot; is your answer 'circular reasoning'? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I cannot determine an answer from the information presented. Judging the accuracy of a particular source's rendering based solely upon that same rendering is impossible, wouldn't you agree? Powers ^T 19:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't agree. I would mark down a student/reassign a proofreader who was unable to determine that an impaired source was an unreliable source for names with accents. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

But the evidence by which you determine that this source is "impaired" is precisely the issue in question. You've assumed your conclusion (that "Beyonce" is only correct with a diacritic), discounting any sources that disagree with you as necessarily unreliable -- precisely because they disagree with you. That is the worst sort of echo-chambery, self-righteous original research that is the antithesis of neutral encyclopedia writing. What you're saying is the linguistic equivalent of "I don't believe global warming is a threat, and any sources that say otherwise are unreliable, because we know global warming isn't a threat." Powers ^T 17:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

LtPowers, ASCII doesn't include accents. A website written in ASCII is impaired and per WP:IRS cannot be reliable for accents. This isn't "echo-chambery, self-righteous original research" (and frankly you're bordering on being reported for WP:PA) this is the difference between a black-and-white photo and a colour photo.

It isn't "circular reasoning" to note that a black and white photo isn't a reliable source for the colour of a rose, it isn't "circular reasoning" to note that a map which doesn't show off-road horse trails isn't a reliable source for non-existence of a horse trail, and it isn't "circular reasoning" to note that a Canada Yearbook published in 1990 is not a reliable source for an event in Venezuela in 1996. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

When did ASCII encoding come into the conversation? Do you have some evidence that the Sun-Sentinel's orthography is a technical issue regarding character sets? Or are you just assuming that it's not an editorial choice? Powers ^T 01:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The same sort of thing here with the ITF and ATP site. They sometimes use accents and such on their pages but choose not to with the player's registered names. This is why we use as many English sources as we can; to avoid a solitary source that may have err'd in its printing. It's not like we use only the ITF or ATP or LA Times... we use those and many more to determine how the English world spells a particular name, be it a person, animal, or lump of rock. We also use a person's homeland press and books to see if we can add anything extra to an article. We use it all, with a policy preference towards English sources. Now we do have certain protocols in the order and presentation the info is placed, but up until now we haven't tried to ban info if it's heavily sourced but simply don't like it. All the other wide-spread spelling RfC's have gone nowhere... but maybe one on whether we should always ban English alphabetic spellings anywhere in an article over Latin alphabetic spellings, no matter how many sources or how widely used the English alphabetic version is found in, and no matter how small the source base for the Latin alphabetic version. And as we can see the NY Times doesn't always have accents in their tennis players names, such as with French player Alizé Cornet. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I introduced ASCII encoding into the conversation. Yes I have evidence:

As with the AP data, Reuters' services are sent in an ANPA transmission envelope, but three modified ASCII character tables are used to transmit basic newspaper text, graphics characters, and complex numerical data. Human language technology United States. Advanced Research Projects Agency - 1994 p21

Four years earlier, in 1990, even if Jim Sarni, staff writer at the Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel had more than ASCII on his computer, and even if he knew how name the name Stéphane was spelled, he would be still be constrained by the major content providers, the news agencies, to an AP / Reuters MOS, even when writing his own article.

Today however software and the news agencies aren't a problem, at least with the 4 main NYT MOS languages. Sun Sentinel Spanish edition Béisbol: Arranca la Serie del Caribe en México, but costs still are. What do you think the cost of employing 20 proofreaders for 20 East European languages would be? And how long would it delay each daily issue to do that proofreading?

Anyway, this is all completely irrelevant, who cares why the NYT has accents, the fact is NYT does so NYT passes WP:RS "reliable for the statement being made". If someone has a problemw with WP:RS then please open a thread on WP:RT and WP:FRMOS, not pick on one Stéphane because WP:TENNISNAMES has 1 editor warring the RfC result. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

IIO, Please check your attacks and falsehoods in your last sentence at the door. We don't need them in the debate and they should be struck or removed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, do you accept the result of the WP:TENNISNAMES RfC and are willing to abide by it? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Remove the attack and falsehood and I will reply to whether that minor personal essay rfc with the question "Can a wikiproject require no-diacritics names" (result was no), is something I follow or not. But not with another attack hanging over my head. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

So, again, your position is that the NYT is reliable because they use diacritics; therefore, using diacritics is correct? The fact that you cannot see how circular this is is sad. Powers ^T 12:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

With due respect only when you address the comparisons raised above, then you may have the right to call other editors "sad". I will rephrase them as questions:

1. Is it "circular reasoning" that a black and white photo isn't a reliable source for the colour of a rose?
2. Is it "circular reasoning" that a map which doesn't show off-road horse trails isn't a reliable source for non-existence of a horse trails?
3. Is it "circular reasoning" that a Canada Yearbook published in 1990 is not a reliable source for an event in Venezuela in 1996.

If the answer to all 3 is "no", then the onus is on yourself to explain why a source which does not carry accents (LA Times Album review: Emeli Sande's 'Our Version of Events' see graphic) is a more reliable source for Emile Sandé's name than a source which does (TIME 50 Years Later, A Beatles Record is Broken - Emile Sandé 'Our Version of Events' In ictu oculi (talk) 09:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The answers to one and three are "no", and the fact that you think they're analogous to the current case is telling. The second, however, is "maybe", just like this case. Note that in two, you simply state as a given that the map doesn't show off-road horse trails. How do you know? Does it state on it "Horse trails not shown"? Or are you using outside knowledge -- that horse trails are present in the area -- as proof that something is missing? Maybe the map postdates the elimination of the horse trails, or maybe the trails that you think are horse trails are not. Those are extremely relevant questions, as they get to the heart of the disagreement on this matter. How do you know that these sources omit diacritics for technical reasons? How do we know that their exclusion isn't intentional? The only evidence you've presented for their inaccuracy is the simple fact that they don't include diacritics when you think they should. That's not good enough. Powers ^T 13:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

How do I know that these sources omit diacritics for technical reasons? (including cost and human resources as "technical") Because off and on I have been contributing to academic publications with widely varying MOS for 20 years, also because I can read: there are plentiful WP:RS sources such as Advanced Research Projects Agency - 1994 which I cited above which confirm that font decisions are driven by causes, not emotions, which in turn are driven by costs.

How do we know that their exclusion isn't intentional? - We don't of course it's intentional. And by that I don't mean that the Sun Sentinel are a bunch of xenophobes who "don't like foreign accents" (since their Spanish edition has them), it's cost, cost, cost, cost. At least usually, leaving aside non-reliable source verbal input such as "French accents are for poofters" (bar conversation, not RS) on the inclusion of low level accents like Emile Sandé LA Times doesn't omit the é because its readers are more caledoniaphobic than Time's readers but because of cost.

But again this is completely irrelevant, it doesn't matter why Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel omitted accents in 1990, the fact is that it did. Just as it doesn't matter why one map omits horse-trails, or why one magazine has a black and white photo and the other has a colour photo, it just does, the why is irrelevant. Unless there's some some of moral or religious issue of conscientious objection to horse trails on the part of one map company the why doesn't matter.

Which is why we have WP:FRMOS which acknowledges that English sources may omit accents but WP doesn't. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as written. Per WP:UE and "The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged; when deciding between versions of a word which differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language." There is a reason wikipedia has categories {{R from title without diacritics}} or {{R from title with diacritics}}. They are tagged when the common English spelling is different than the home country spelling. This seems to be about effectively removing from policy {{R from title with diacritics}}. However, this move request is an either or situation that editors will interpret differently. Wikipedia simply can't have two titles. I may not have !voted here at all if this was simply phrased as a normal RM. It's hard to wade through all the extra requirements. This is a RM/move request, not an RfC on wikipedia policy, so the rest of the requests are useless here. We do not censor information when governing bodies, the events they play in, and English press, all use a different version of a name. We let readers know in some manner that different spellings exist. As for WT:TENNISNAMES RfC... take a look at what it was about. Take a look at what question was being asked. This was about a particular userspace personal essay about whether to "ban" the use of diacritics and use a different method of determining title spelling. Of course it failed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support per the outcome of Frédéric Vitoux, many others, and encyclopedic accuracy. I don't care as much about the footnote, but it essentially adds nothing to the article. --BDD (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support: encyclopedic accuracy, and per consistency with many, many others, including Vitoux recently. Also support removal of the "known professionally" stuff. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:BLP and WP:IRS don't say anything about diacritics. Even if they did, WP:DIACRITICS is the guideline that deals with this issue most directly: "Follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language". In addition to the references given in the article, Highbeam returns four results for this subject, three stories in the Washington Post and one in the Chicago Sun-Times. (All of these simply report his match scores in the French Open). The bottom line is that there no examples so far of the subject being given in English language RS with a diacritic. Kauffner (talk) 05:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Kauffner, do you oppose WP:FRMOS?

Washington Post is not a reliable source for the spelling of French names (or Spanish or German or English for that matter). It has no consistent MOS policy and articles are randomly sourced without conforming to a manual of style. However the stories you cite are from 20 years ago, before the Beyoncé era. Under Leonard Downie, Jr and Marcus Brauchli the Post has improved and now occasionally spells foreigners names correctly, for example 06/29/2011 has French journalists Hervé Ghesquière and Stéphane Taponier released after 547 days in captivity. i.e. the Washington Post could now follow WP:FRMOS and could now be considered reliable for the statement being made, if Marcus Brauchli instituted a manual of style. However there's a cost. It's cheaper and quicker to throw together stories with conflicting styles and not use copyeditors and proofreaders. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

*Oppose As stated in several policies the nominator has to provide examples from English Language sources which prove that the diacritic name is the most common version in the English language. Since he hasn't bothered to find sources and just use Wikipedia links and uses policies which contradict him and request that he find a source to support this I strongly oppose to this. Find a source to prove this. Socialhistorian2013 (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

No the nominator does not - if we followed that practice 100,000s of BLPs would have to be retitled as accent disabled 1970s English print sources and sports websites, instead of it just being 8 tennis BLPs which are at odds with the rest of the project. Please take the trouble to actually read the guidelines cited. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Wrong, wrong, wrong! It's not 8 biographies that's only the amount that you've found. Secondly I have read the polices. Thirdly you want to change it you provide the evidence as it states in the polices we go with the majority of eng lang sources, you've provided no evidence this does not warrant this change. Fourthly stop trying to get me banned and you are blatantly ignoring what people are saying so I suggest you don't respond to me as you can't be constructive and only bully people and are openly hostile to those who have a polarized view to you. Socialhistorian2013 (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome to provide a latin alphabet (non-tennis) living person biography on en.wp that has been given an "English name." Otherwise please click and read the guidelines cited in the nomination. Best regards. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Please read ALL the guidelines and stop being selective. Please provide a reliable english lang source with her diacritic name. If you don't I will have to report you for blatant OR pushing. Socialhistorian2013 (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

"Her"?

Have you even read the article? Stéphane is a man's name.

By all means report this RM for OR, Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard, that would be a better place than here. I think we'd all welcome it. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed as sockpuppet of previously disruptive banned editor Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KnowIG/Archive. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Let's get rid of this "professionally known as Stephane Grenier" bullshit. The bloke is French, only has one name – and Stéphane is spelt with the e-acute. Just because the governing body can't spell his name properly is to their shame; let it not be to ours. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 06:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I actually thought your compromise over here was pretty reasonable. It was far from my ideal, but showed a different approach that has lasted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that version of the Facundo Argüello article having lasted for a considerable period of time demonstrates that the community finds it acceptable. They probably, like me, know that if they were to remove it, you or one of your tennis chums would just revert it back. Jevansen (talk) 07:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Support all three requests, per Frédéric Vitoux outcome. Jevansen (talk) 07:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Support. per reliable BLP Agathoclea (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support; I couldn't put it better than the sage Ohconfucius. bobrayner (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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