This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of Oklahoma on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma articles
As Washington is the only major league player to have initials as a first name, I think it would be useful if the reason for this was included in the article.
Asd36f (
talk)
11:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Requested move 27 October 2023
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Autograph
Regarding
this edit, the fact that his autographs have periods seems trivial and is
WP:OR unless reliable sources are cited that make note of it, lending credence to its significance. —
Bagumba (
talk)
04:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think the form of his signature is significant in itself; it's just a style choice, much like how this article uses periods after the letters. From what I've seen in a quick look at the cited sources and a very brief search, his quotes about his name trace from an Oklahoma newspaper, and there's a note in the Kansas City Star obituary about the Royals asking him about it. (The citation in the SABR bio about a relative with the same name points to an obituary in the Atoka County Times where the family member's name is shown with periods, but again that's probably a newspaper style decision rather than a direct copy from an authoritative source.) Thus I would suggest rewording the sentence to say that Washington stated the letters didn't stand for anything, but were his given name.
isaacl (
talk)
05:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:INTEXT attribution is needed if there is some doubt. But I don't think any sources contest that the initials mean nothing. In fact
this 1978 SI piece just says matter of factly: As for U. L. Washington (the initials don't stand for anything), nobody ever worshipped before his talent. —
Bagumba (
talk)
06:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I think the current text, The U and L are Washington's legal given name, goes beyond what the sources say. Thus I think it would be more accurate to just state that the letters didn't stand for anything.
isaacl (
talk)
06:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
FWIW,
his Baseball Almanac profile lists it as his "birth name", and WP's lead sentence format implies it's his legal name. I'm neutral to keeping or removing the "legal given name", but I suppose removing it is the most conservative route. —
Bagumba (
talk)
06:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, the lead sentence isn't sourced; someone writing the name in the lead sentence doesn't mean they found a source for the legal name. I would prefer to skip using terms that imply more formal sources have been used.
isaacl (
talk)
06:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
We know that he used periods, that people asked about it, and he explained that they were not an abbreviation. It is decidedly unlikely that the periods are part of his legal name, but we don't know. It's reasonable to point at that using periods when the name is not an abbreviation is unusual! How about, "Washington's given name was U.L. While he used periods between the letters, they were not an abbreviation." GreatCaesarsGhost12:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Most people would wonder what the letters stand for, whether or not there are periods. And the article already explains that they dont stand for anything. —
Bagumba (
talk)
12:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
But why is it so important to omit the mention? The dots are unquestionably there. Mentioning them is not trivial. Insisting that they not be mentioned is trivial. It does not matter either way. GreatCaesarsGhost13:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I admit that my judgement that it might not be "unusual" to sign with dots might be considered OR. But I don't think that makes my OR. All I did was change to what the RS's said at that point, which was that U and L do not stand for anything, and are his given legal name. The two sources now being used to source the claim look to me to be OR. Specifically, don't we need a RS to interpret the photographs, if we are trying to determine if they have dots after U and L?
Gödel2200 (
talk)
12:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I think it's true that no one is doubting the dots are there. But I think that we do need an RS to tell us that there are dots there. Specifically,
WP:PRIMARY states: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." The pictures themselves count as primary sources, and deducing that the U and L are followed by dots, and that this is his signature, requires analysis, which we need a secondary source for.
Gödel2200 (
talk)
13:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It's a matter of general linguistic orthography and not of any particular study of this one man that periods have a received meaning that he apparently ignored.
71.105.190.227 (
talk)
15:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Ok, I was confusing statements of fact with "analysis" for the simple fact of him signing with dots after U and L. But saying "he nonetheless" signed his name in that way is certainly an interpreation, and we need an RS for that.
Gödel2200 (
talk)
23:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Any source relating to the universally understood meaning of having dots would suffice then.
Refusal to interpret the dots strikes me as utterly bizarre.
I'm fine simply saying he signed his name with dots after U and L (we have sources for that), but we don't have a source that indicates we should say "nonetheless".
Gödel2200 (
talk)
13:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I once again affirm that the extraordinary strangeness of using dots whose only meaning understood by anyone is that they define what they follow as an abbreviation after something that is not an abbreviation absolutely must be observed. If you think something so basic needs a "source" then pick any guide to English orthography that gives this universally accepted definition of why dots are used in the context of names for anything or anyone.
71.105.190.227 (
talk)
19:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
And I will once again affirm that "nonetheless" is an interpretation. Regardless of whether how "extraordinary" we think this practice is, it does not change the fact that this is an analysis of the photographs. None of our sources say "nonetheless", and, per my comments above, we need a source to say this, or else this is OR. This is not something "basic", as there is no area we are getting this information from, other than our own interpretations. The dots themselves are clearly visible on the picture, so we can say that they are there. Saying "nonetheless", however is in no way obvious or "basic", as it does not appear in any of the sources.
Gödel2200 (
talk)
15:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Per
User:Bagumba, I believe that the text ("He nonetheless signed his name with periods after the letters", as the article reads today) should be deleted. This is
WP:SYNTH and not something that needs to be in the article.
162 etc. (
talk)
21:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It is blatantly ridiculous for anything as bizarre as writing what is not an abbreviation as if it were an abbreviation to be allowed to pass without comment,as is any Wikipedia policy that excuses such a practice. Cite linguistic sources for abbreviation practices all you want but don't pretend the dots are anything close to expected in the circumstances.
Harry Truman put a dot after his S that was nonetheless never expanded to either the "Shippe" or "Stone" different factions of his family wanted it to stand for, because he wanted them each to feel it could stand for what they wanted; Washington openly stated that the letters were his entire first and middle names, yet included the dots for no orthographically defensible reason.
71.105.190.227 (
talk)
16:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
He wrote his name as "U. L. Washington" because his name was U. L. Washington. If you have any sources that go deeper into this (and I don't mean pictures of autographed baseball cards), please cite them.
162 etc. (
talk)
18:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Here you go again!
His entire name was "U L Washington"...he specifically affirmed that the U and L were his names and NOT abbreviations as any use of dots after the letters would automatically signify.
He nonetheless WROTE his name as "U. L. Washington".
Periods are NEVER part of a name itself...only letters themselves can be.
This is the source cited in the article. "People used to always ask me what the initials U.L. stood for," Washington said. "I'd tell them, "U.L. That's it. They don't stand for anything.' "
The U and L are Washington's legal given name and were not initials of other names.[1][2] He nonetheless signed his name with periods after the letters.[3][4]
It seems that a major disagreement stems from the use of nonetheless. Per
MOS:EDITORIAL:
More subtly, editorializing can produce implications that are not supported by the sources. When used to link two statements, words such as but, despite, however, and although may imply a relationship where none exists, possibly unduly calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second.
I propose to:
Remove nonetheless.
Move He signed his name with periods after the letters from "Early life" to "Personal life", as he presumably wasn't signing autographs in his early years, nor do we have samples of those to observe.
These changes would remove the concern or
WP:OR/editorializing about the dichotomy of "U. L." not standing for anything and Washington's use of periods.—
Bagumba (
talk)
05:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete all mentions of the signature I'm changing my stance, as I simply don't see the importance of mentioning how he signed his name. His name was "U. L. Washington", and he signed baseball cards with "U. L. Washington". I can't see how signing a baseball card with your real name is anything noteworthy (though his name certainly is). Support as this would limit the information to what the sources definitively say: that he signed his name with dots after U and L.Gödel2200 (
talk)
15:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I will also question the need to include this information in the first place. If I am understanding things correctly (correct me if I am wrong), his first name was U. L. So this is a very unusual name, and we can mention that. But I would hardly think it is unusual to sign a baseball card with your given name. He signed cards with U. L., which was his name, so I really don't see a need to mention this in the first place.
Gödel2200 (
talk)
16:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Grudging support as I think it a responsibility to "editorialize" but making clear that he used abbreviation symbols despite not abbreviating is better than letting this pass without comment.
71.105.190.227 (
talk)
16:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
As I mentioned previously, I feel discussion of Washington's signature isn't sufficiently significant to include in the article. I agree it's not an aspect of Washington's early life. I would also support rewording the sentence on Washington's given name to avoid the use of "legal", as it goes beyond what Washington's quotes state.
isaacl (
talk)
17:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Right, it seems that much of this argument stems from the idea that his legal name was "U L Washington", and that has not been supported by any reliable source thus far.
162 etc. (
talk)
20:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
On the contrary,since "U L Washington" can be a legal name while "U. L. Washington" can NOT, since periods are not part of spelling and can not be alphabetized.
71.105.190.227 (
talk)
07:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Claiming that it is not possible for "U. L. Washington" to be a legal name certainly needs a source, and is highly questionable, given that many of the sources refer to Washington as "U. L. Washington", not "U L Washington".
Gödel2200 (
talk)
11:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Any explanation of the standard rules of orthography should suffice.(Look at how California would not allow
Elon Musk to use non-alphabetic characters in his son's name.
Logic and language and law absolutely prohibit treating the periods that must mean something is an abbreviation used to follow something that the man himself says are NOT an abbreviation as part of an unabbreviated name.
71.105.190.227 (
talk)
17:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
We're done when we agree on a way of pointing out the discrepancy between the two letters being his legal first and middle names and his shockingly anomalous use of periods after them which is completely inconsistent with this.
71.105.190.227 (
talk)
01:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This is an encyclopedia. Anything that goes in the article has to be supported by a reliable source. I and other editors have already asked you to support your assertion that his legal name is "U L Washington" with citations to reliable sources. Not once in any of your replies in these threads have you done so. Please read
WP:V and
WP:OR very carefully.
162 etc. (
talk)
15:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Around and around we go.
Washington's own claim that the letters do not stand for anything constitutes a reliable source that his own use of dots after them is necessarily incorrect.
That is false. Clearly, you did not read the core Wikipedia policies which I just linked, or are choosing to ignore them.
You are right, however, that this is going in circles. I have nothing more to add here, and neither do you. I'll leave it to the Wikipedia community to determine what's best for the article based on the discussion here.
162 etc. (
talk)
19:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply