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

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;42662437]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.[/QUOTE] Makes sense in that case, probably not many know the actual name Seriously though, find out what legal name, use that and just put some version of (born Bradly / prefers Chelsea) after the name. I don't really see the argument, apart from the specifics on how to phrase it

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;42662437]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.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Theodor Seuss Geisel (/ˈɡaɪzəl/; March 2, 1904 – September 24, 1991) was an American writer, poet, and cartoonist. He was most widely known for his children's books written and illustrated as Dr. Seuss. He had used the pen name Dr. Theophrastus Seuss in college and later used Theo LeSieg and Rosetta Stone.[/QUOTE] Except the first paragraph immediately clears up any confusion a reader might have. The Manning article only adds to people's confusion IMHO.

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;42662437]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.[/QUOTE] Except in the introduction it actually is? [img]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/5483751/Photos/2013-10-27_15-01-19.png[/img]

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;42662437]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.[/QUOTE] To be honest to quote the article in question - first paragraph. [quote] Theodor Seuss Geisel (/ˈɡaɪzəl/; March 2, 1904 – September 24, 1991) was an American writer, poet, and cartoonist. He was most widely known for his children's books written and illustrated as Dr. Seuss. He had used the pen name Dr. Theophrastus Seuss in college and later used Theo LeSieg and Rosetta Stone.[2] [/quote] The page is titled as what he is most known as, but it's clear about what the person's name is.

[QUOTE=mobrockers;42662483]Except in the introduction it actually is? [img]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/5483751/Photos/2013-10-27_15-01-19.png[/img][/QUOTE] I think he's referring to the actual article name (which was a point of contention when it came to Manning's article) i.e. the Dr Seuss article is actually named Dr Seuss (look at the URL).

The funniest part of this whole name change business is that it's drawn a clear, bright line between the media outlets that support Manning, and the ones that consider him a traitor. You can tell from first glance what that particular organization thinks of him, just by whether they jumped on the name bandwagon or not.

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;42662437]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.[/QUOTE] Uh, [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Seuss_Geisel[/url]. Dr. Seuss or that both redirect to the same page, the first line shows his real name too, and that's exactly against what you were saying.

I'm just going to call him Bradley. Not everyone knows

[QUOTE=IliekBoxes;42663144]I'm just going to call him Bradley. Not everyone knows[/QUOTE] at least for the sake of politeness, please refer to her using female pronouns

[QUOTE=Arctic-Zone;42663245]at least for the sake of politeness, please refer to her using female pronouns[/QUOTE] He won't. Iliekboxes is a bigot. Always has been in every trans thread he's posted in.

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;42662437]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.[/QUOTE] Uh "Theodor Seuss Geisel (/ˈɡaɪzəl/; March 2, 1904 – September 24, 1991) was an American writer, poet, and cartoonist. He was most widely known for his children's books written and illustrated as Dr. Seuss. He had used the pen name Dr. Theophrastus Seuss" Right there. First sentence. He is better known as dr. seuss and thats why its used as the page title.

[QUOTE=bunguer;42663131]Uh, [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Seuss_Geisel[/url]. Dr. Seuss or that both redirect to the same page, the first line shows his real name too, and that's exactly against what you were saying.[/QUOTE] No it doesn't go against me. I knew about the redirect. That is not in question, a redirect from Manning's old name to the new name will exist and nobody disputes that. what's in question is the name emphasized in the text and article name.

Here's the discussion that lead to the move. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chelsea_Manning/October_2013_move_request[/url] I'm very late to the party but if I voted it would have been an extremely weak oppose or neutral on the basis that it's not her legal name or the name she is most known by. But with heavy emphasis on the other name in the article, as that's what she wants to be called and you can't dispute that.

[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] Because its being polite towards her? I know you cant show any sympathy for trans individuals but thats probably why you made this thread in the first place. Its not hard to just edit the name (legally bradley) and it doesnt offend anyone.

[QUOTE=nigerianprince;42661472]Given that the entire legal case occurred before she announced being transgender I'd argue that she is mainly known as Bradley.[/QUOTE] I don't know if I worded my post poorly, but that was the point I was trying to get across. I don't think mentioning both would in any way devalue the article, though (not that I think you do).

[QUOTE=codemaster85;42664207]Because its being polite towards her? I know you cant show any sympathy for trans individuals but thats probably why you made this thread in the first place. Its not hard to just edit the name (legally bradley) and it doesnt offend anyone.[/QUOTE] The thing is wikipedia is meant to essentially be a knowledge base or an encyclopedia. Being polite is far less important than being factual. Now a note about Manning's attempts or wishes to change their name should be made. But the article itself should be based more on objective grounds.

She didn't officially announce it via news sites like CNN but she was known to be Chelsea before he trials even started. Hell a few days before she leaked all the stuff, she even made a twitter and YouTube account named breanna manning and had gone out to a bar dressed female while she was on leave. [editline]27th October 2013[/editline] Rather she was known to be Trans under the name Breanna* my bad

part of the reason why this was so dumb is that the transside basically just did a find/replace of all male pronouns with female pronouns which created sentences that didn't make sense because they were referring to a nonexistent female

[QUOTE=wraithcat;42665082]The thing is wikipedia is meant to essentially be a knowledge base or an encyclopedia. Being polite is far less important than being factual. Now a note about Manning's attempts or wishes to change their name should be made. But the article itself should be based more on objective grounds.[/QUOTE] What do you even mean? You can still be factual and have it with her correct gender, if someone looks up bradley manning it would go to chelsea mannings page but with (legally bradley) in the title. Its not really that hard at all and is easy to figure out. [editline]27th October 2013[/editline] Its not like correcting the gender will suddenly make all the information wrong.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snoop_Dogg[/url] title should at least be Chelsea Manning, considering Wikipedia seems to use chosen name as titles

[QUOTE=cis.joshb;42666424][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snoop_Dogg[/url] title should at least be Chelsea Manning, considering Wikipedia seems to use chosen name as titles[/QUOTE] Only for those, for whom chosen names are more known than given names. Which is why you'll very often find these as artist names. That's kinda one of the contention points with Manning. The majority of people know the person as Bradley Manning as opposed to Chelsea Manning. Likewise most news outlets use the persons old name and it has not been officially recognised. Now I agree the article should mention the persons attempt at a change and the whole article should be written gender neutrally if possible. But in my book the title should stay as Bradley Manning.

[QUOTE=cis.joshb;42666424][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snoop_Dogg[/url] title should at least be Chelsea Manning, considering Wikipedia seems to use chosen name as titles[/QUOTE] They're not talking about URLs or titles, though. Even in the Snoop Dogg page, it states [quote]Calvin Cordozar Broadus, Jr. (born October 20, 1971), known by his stage names Snoop Doggy Dogg, Snoop Dogg, and more recently Snoop Lion[/quote] It's sort of the opposite in this case.

I thought this was a joke because whenever someone made a thread about him wanting to be called a woman the mods locked it for no given reason. I don't see what the big deal is. If his legal name is Bradley Manning then fucking call him that and put that he prefers Chelsea in parenthesis. Why the fuck is this more important than his prison term, his alleged torture and his involvement with wiki-leaks? Who the fuck cares what people call him?

What the hell is wrong with you people? [quote]Chelsea Elizabeth Manning[4] (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987)[/quote] THIS is the only way it should be written, anything else just sounds unprofessional. He was BORN as Bradley, and is now Chelsea, makes sense to me? You're not just born with whatever name you wish you had.

calling her Bradley on a public page which lots of people view is very undignified and blatantly disrespectful I don't see any reason to do so and dont forget that wikipedia kinda is very culturally important to us so this kinda thing really is a big deal

[QUOTE=codemaster85;42664207]Because its being polite towards her? I know you cant show any sympathy for trans individuals but thats probably why you made this thread in the first place. Its not hard to just edit the name (legally bradley) and it doesnt offend anyone.[/QUOTE] So wikipedia which covers people ranging from Ghengis Khan to Tupac Shakur should make a special exemption for Manning just because she is transgender? Makes perfect sense. [editline]28th October 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=vagrant;42668638]calling her Bradley on a public page which lots of people view is very undignified and blatantly disrespectful I don't see any reason to do so and dont forget that wikipedia kinda is very culturally important to us so this kinda thing really is a big deal[/QUOTE] Since when is calling someone by their legal name "undignified and disrespectful"?

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;42669102]Actually since it's "her" legal name, then it's perfectly acceptable. I can't just walk around saying "my name is stan" and make it my legal name, you actually have to go through a legal process to change it. That's why if you're going to write letters to "her" then you have to use the name "bradley" not "chelsea"[/QUOTE] the law's dumb

[QUOTE=nigerianprince;42660860] The problem with that is that it looks as if she has legally changed her name (which isn't the case at the moment).[/QUOTE] no look at people with stage names, those aren't legal. Charlies Sheen gets an aticle named Charlie Sheen, but his birth name is Carlos Estévez and it was never legally changed. Carlos Mencia's birth name is Ned Mencia and (I'm pretty sure) it was never legally changed either. The best option would be "Chelsey Manning, best known by her birth name Bradley Manning"

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;42669282]no look at people with stage names, those aren't legal. Charlies Sheen gets an aticle named Charlie Sheen, but his birth name is Carlos Estévez and it was never legally changed. Carlos Mencia's birth name is Ned Mencia and (I'm pretty sure) it was never legally changed either. The best option would be "Chelsey Manning, best known by her birth name Bradley Manning"[/QUOTE] Yeah. Charlie Sheen's article is a lot more effective in letting the reader know what their birth name is. That's what I was saying, is that Manning's article doesn't make it immediately clear that Chelsea is not her actual legal name by trying to be politically correct.

I don't think it matters much no one's filling out any legal documents based on a Wikipedia page. The only reason it should be there is so you understand who people are referring to when they say "Bradley Manning" But like I said Carlos Mencia's page is formatted in the same way and I can't tell if it's his legal name or not. It's not really a big deal though and no one's getting in huge edit wars over it, probably because it doesn't provide another pedestal to argue about a hot button topic The only argument you can counter that precedent with is that most people identify her as Bradley still, whereas most other cases their adopted names are the more well-known cases I've found that would counter this: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwayne_Johnson[/url] despite everyone calling him "The Rock" still [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Rotten[/url] Johnny Rotten [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Combs[/url] Diddy