Chelsea Manning name row: Wikipedia editors banned from trans pages - Polidicks

[QUOTE]A long-running argument over whether the Wikileaks source should be called Bradley or Chelsea Manning in Wikipedia has caused a split among some of its most senior editors. The arbitration committee – in effect the site’s supreme court – has banned a number of editors from working on articles related to transgender topics or individuals. But while some of those editors were banned for making transphobic comments about Manning, others were given the same punishment for pointing out the bigotry in the first place. As a result, the site been criticised by Trans Media Watch for implying that accusations of transphobia are as bad as actual incidents of transphobia. The online encyclopedia ultimately chose to use the name Chelsea. The committee’s statements were sparked by a heated argument between editors on the site over whether the article for Chelsea Manning, the Wikileaks source, should exist under her preferred name or under “Bradley Manning”, the name she was using before she came out as transgender in August 2013. The arbitration committee, a group of senior editors elected by and from Wikipedia’s pool of volunteers which acts as the community’s court of last resort, was called in to make the final decision on which name should be at the top of Manning’s page. It also ruled on the behaviour of several editors who had taken part in the debate. Two were indefinitely banned from editing “all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual” over discriminatory speech. One, Hitmonchan, had written that “only when his testicles are ripped out of his scrotum … will I call Manning a 'she'”, and the second, IFreedom1212, wrote, among other comments, that “he is clearly mentally unstable and his … desire to be called Chelsea should not be regarded with any merit". [/QUOTE] source: [URL]http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/oct/24/chelsea-manning-name-row-wikipedia-editors-banned-from-trans-pages[/URL]

Well, what's her legal name? Did she get a name change with papers and all, or does that still say Bradley?

[QUOTE]One, Hitmonchan, had written that “only when his testicles are ripped out of his scrotum … will I call Manning a 'she'”[/QUOTE] You're a bit passionate over something that doesn't really affect you at all. [QUOTE]Chelsea Elizabeth Manning[4] (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987)[/QUOTE] [editline]27th October 2013[/editline] kinda works

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;42660688]You're a bit passionate over something that doesn't really affect you at all. [editline]27th October 2013[/editline] kinda works[/QUOTE] Honestly, if there wasn't an official name change, "Bradley Edward Manning (who prefers the unofficial name Chelsea Elizabeth Manning)..." would work as well I think and nobody can really complain. If there was an official name change then there's nothing to discuss.

I would have said "Ok, all of you stop bitching. We'll use the name the court of law uses. End of discussion."

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;42660728]"Bradley Edward Manning (who prefers the unofficial name Chelsea Elizabeth Manning)..."[/QUOTE] That's pretty much perfect.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;42660728]Honestly, if there wasn't an official name change, "Bradley Edward Manning (who prefers the unofficial name Chelsea Elizabeth Manning)..." would work as well I think and nobody can really complain. If there was an official name change then there's nothing to discuss.[/QUOTE] In the interest of accuracy its a bit ridiculous to honor requests from people that want to change their names without doing so legally first. [editline]27th October 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=TestECull;42660743]I would have said "Ok, all of you stop bitching. We'll use the name the court of law uses. End of discussion."[/QUOTE] The US Department of State appears to refer to her completely as "Bradley Manning" (at least based upon[URL="http://search.state.gov/search?q=%22chelsea+Manning%22&Search.x=-1244&Search.y=-155&Search=Search&H=&L=&D=&H=&L=&D=&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&output=xml_no_dtd&filter=0&getfields=*&lr=lang_en&client=emb_en_iipdigital&proxystylesheet=emb_en_iipdigital&ulang=en&access=p&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&entqrm=0&entsp=a&ud=1&H=&exclude_apps=1&site=emb_iip_en&H="] this search[/URL])

Can jailed people change their names?

[quote=article]But while some of those editors were banned for making transphobic comments about Manning, others were given the same punishment for pointing out the bigotry in the first place. As a result, the site been criticised by Trans Media Watch for implying that accusations of transphobia are as bad as actual incidents of transphobia.[/quote] that's the thing though, is that despite having good intentions, it shows they they could also have a partisan opinion on these matters. It's dumb because they could also be more well researched on certain things but if you want to look at it objectively it'd be best to leave the editing to people who don't have interests and opinions that could affect the wording of an article to swing positive or negative lights on subjects sure it's just a name but if you give people an inch, etc

[QUOTE=nigerianprince;42660754] The US Department of State appears to refer to her completely as "Bradley Manning" (at least based upon[URL="http://search.state.gov/search?q=%22chelsea+Manning%22&Search.x=-1244&Search.y=-155&Search=Search&H=&L=&D=&H=&L=&D=&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&output=xml_no_dtd&filter=0&getfields=*&lr=lang_en&client=emb_en_iipdigital&proxystylesheet=emb_en_iipdigital&ulang=en&access=p&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&entqrm=0&entsp=a&ud=1&H=&exclude_apps=1&site=emb_iip_en&H="] this search[/URL])[/QUOTE] Pretty sure the documents that would be there would be pre-wanting-to-be-called-Chelsea-publicly, so it kind of makes sense?

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;42660728] If there was an official name change then there's nothing to discuss.[/QUOTE] Plenty of people on Wikipedia go by their unofficial names.

[QUOTE=Riller;42660808]Pretty sure the documents that would be there would be pre-wanting-to-be-called-Chelsea-publicly, so it kind of makes sense?[/QUOTE] Fair point. I did read the [URL="http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08-22/world/41435417_1_bradley-manning-support-network-next-phase-confinement-facility"]original statement[/URL] when she first came 'out': [QUOTE]"As I transition into this next phase of my life, I want everyone to know the real me. I am Chelsea Manning. I am a female. Given the way that I feel, and have felt since childhood, I want to begin hormone therapy as soon as possible. I hope that you will support me in this transition. I also request that, starting today, you refer to me by my new name and use the feminine pronoun ([B][U]except in official mail to the confinement facility[/U][/B]). I look forward to receiving letters from supporters and having the opportunity to write back."[/QUOTE] That would seem to indicate it has never been made an official name change.

get amongst the action [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chelsea_Manning[/url]

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;42660816]Plenty of people on Wikipedia go by their unofficial names.[/QUOTE] As far as I'm aware they always indicate the official name even if they primarily use another name.

[QUOTE=nigerianprince;42660840]As far as I'm aware they always indicate the official name even if they primarily use another name.[/QUOTE] Pretty much. It's usually something along the lines of "So-and-so, better know by their stage name, GayWeedDad69, is..."

[QUOTE=pdp;42660845]Pretty much. It's usually something along the lines of "So-and-so, better know by their stage name, GayWeedDad69, is..."[/QUOTE] Actually I just read the wikipedia style guidelines ( [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:IDENTITY#Identity[/URL] ) and it really seems as if they cannot read. Whilst there is a requirement to use the preferred gender pronouns of a person, it says nothing about having to use a preferred name. Wikipedia also makes a point of information meeting verifiable standards. One would assume that using a name which hasn't been changed to legally would make things unverifiable. IMHO, in the name of consistency they should really just indicate what her legal name is while respecting that she wants to change her name at some point in the future. At the moment the introductory line is as follows: [QUOTE][B]Chelsea Elizabeth Manning[SUP][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning#cite_note-Manningstatement22Aug20132-4"][4][/URL][/SUP] (born [B]Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987) is a [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army"]United States Army[/URL] soldier who was convicted[/B][/B][/QUOTE] The problem with that is that it looks as if she has legally changed her name (which isn't the case at the moment).

Actually, this [QUOTE]Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987)[/QUOTE] seems a bit misleading to me. Shouldn't it be [QUOTE]Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (officially/legally/whateverly Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987) [/QUOTE] instead, if we go with calling her Chelsea? Fact of the matter is that, on paper, her name is still Bradley, and since Wikipedia seems to be quite focused on being unbiased, objective and fact-based. I support calling her 'her' and Chelsea throughout the article, but I do think it should be reworded in the introduction.

What does Wikipedia usually do with articles about people who changed their name? I don't think this has been an issue before. Is it just because some of Wikipedia's mods are transphobic?

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;42660902]What does Wikipedia usually do with articles about people who changed their name? I don't think this has been an issue before. Is it just because some of Wikipedia's mods are transphobic?[/QUOTE] Wikipedia keeps up with most recent verified information. Problem here is, Chelsea so far only has a [I]desire[/I] to change her name, it isn't actually changed yet, so by all accounts, she is officially and legally called Bradley still. Seems to me that an encyclopedia focused on staying objective and factual should use the legal name.

Sites like Wikipedia are the absolute one thing that shouldn't use potentially misleading sentence structure/labels for the sake of political correctness. It should use only a person's official name and sex (there needs to be pronouns invented for sex, really), and then go ahead and reference their preferred pronoun/name in a easily visible section (possibly in some note directly under the title of the article) to avoid any confusion. The whole "hero and traitor" paragraph needs to be removed, too. It is really out of place.

Should just have it renamed to Chelsea Manning and have a Bradley Manning page which redirects to that page. Also I think [quote]Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987)[/quote] Would look better as [quote]Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (previously Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987)[/quote]

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;42660816]Plenty of people on Wikipedia go by their unofficial names.[/QUOTE] This generally holds true for artist names or people who became famous under an unofficial name and which are more known for this than their real one. And even so, these pages usually redirect to their official name page. That's basically in the spirit of Wikipedia which tries to poise itself as an encyclopedia. Manning on the other hand is mostly known for their given name and as far as I understand has not has their name changed officialy yet. As such in the spirit of accuracy it's best to use Bradley, but have a section about their wish to change their gender and name to Chelsea.

[QUOTE=isnipeu;42661043] Would look better as[/QUOTE] I disagree, since that implies a legal namechange. Which she hasn't had. I'm of the opinion that she should be called Chelsea, and that we should use the female pronoun for her, but in the case of the name, it's important to make it clear that she is still legally and officially named Bradley.

Here's the official stance on genders and their treatment, but it says nothing about the actual name or the legality of it. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:IDENTITY#Identity"]source[/URL] [QUOTE]Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life. Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions (in some cases adjusting the portion used may reduce apparent contradictions, and " [sic]" may be used where necessary). Nevertheless, avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text that could result from pronoun usage (for example: instead of He gave birth to his first child, write He became a parent for the first time). [/QUOTE] I guess it makes sense that if you're referring to the person's last self-identification, you'd also use the correct-gender name they identify as. [QUOTE=Riller;42661086]I disagree, since that implies a legal namechange. Which she hasn't had. I'm of the opinion that she should be called Chelsea, and that we should use the female pronoun for her, but in the case of the name, it's important to make it clear that she is still legally and officially named Bradley.[/QUOTE] It should say "(legally Bradley...)" with maybe a footnote or something.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;42660816]Plenty of people on Wikipedia go by their unofficial names.[/QUOTE] They do (like in [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Kay]this case[/url]), but normally it's only if they're actually more well-known under that name. Snoop Lion's (or whatever he calls himself nowadays) article is still called "Snoop Dogg", as that's what most people recognize him by. I'd argue that that is how it should be, and most people know her as Bradley Manning - mentioning both would be the best solution, however.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;42661277]They do (like in [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Kay]this case[/url]), but normally it's only if they're actually more well-known under that name. Snoop Lion's (or whatever he calls himself nowadays) article is still called "Snoop Dogg", as that's what most people recognize him by. I'd argue that that is how it should be, and most people know her as Bradley Manning - mentioning both would be the best solution, however.[/QUOTE] Given that the entire legal case occurred before she announced being transgender I'd argue that she is mainly known as Bradley.

What's with the uproar about transgender people lately. I feel like Todd Kincannon started a fire and it's getting out of control.

I think having it in parenthesis, "born Bradley Edward Manning" is the best option here. It implies a legal name change, but doesn't explicitly state that one occurred.[QUOTE=MightyLOLZOR;42662291]What's with the uproar about transgender people lately. I feel like Todd Kincannon started a fire and it's getting out of control.[/QUOTE]All these ladyboys are trying to confuse America!

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;42662364]I think having it in parenthesis, "born Bradley Edward Manning" is the best option here. It implies a legal name change, but doesn't explicitly state that one occurred.All these ladyboys are trying to confuse America![/QUOTE] But that's stupid. Anyone visiting the page should immediately be able to ascertain what her legal name is. It should be worded in such a way that there is no doubt. I don't even know what the point of having a non-legal name is. Sure you can tell people your name is Pikachu Charizard Ash Ketchup the 3rd, but until its legally changed then its not really anything.

[QUOTE=nigerianprince;42662391]But that's stupid. Anyone visiting the page should immediately be able to ascertain what her legal name is. It should be worded in such a way that there is no doubt. I don't even know what the point of having a non-legal name is. Sure you can tell people your name is Pikachu Charizard Ash Ketchup the 3rd, but until its legally changed then its not really anything.[/QUOTE] Which is why it's at [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Seuss]Theodore Seuss Geisel[/url] and not Dr. Seuss. Oh wait. it's not. The legal status of one's name is a plus, but it can be overridden by other things.