Chelsea Manning name row: Wikipedia editors banned from trans pages

[turke]

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;42660834]get amongst the action

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chelsea_Manning[/url][/QUOTE]

sure is tumblr in here

[zerothefallen]

I'd prefer it just be bradley manning because wikipedia is factual and stuffs and it's not official yet.

[Venezuelan]

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;42669344]You're right, i should just change my name whenever. You do realize the law exists so that all of the institutions update with your new name. IE social security, drivers license, insurance, any bank accounts.[/QUOTE]

Wikipedia isn't just a database of legal names though.

[nigerianprince]

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;42669336]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"[/QUOTE]

Well its important that information is consistent and verifiable. I don't much care what the article name is (I suppose Chelsea Manning would make the most sense), but I think the opening sentence should make it immediately clear that her legal name is still Bradly Manning.

It also doesn't sound like a big deal in this instance, but there are many instances when the official spelling of someone's name is important.

Say there was a street that got renamed and certain media refused to use the new name; you'd have half the world using one name and half the world using the other name (I've been in this situation).

There are countries that have such a high population that there are dozens of people with extremely similar names (sometimes the same) when someone is wanted for murder they just keep anyone with a similar sounding name until they can figure it out.

So yeah, it seems like a small issue, but its actually a big issue--especially since wikipedia almost universally comes up on the first page of search results.

[Venezuelan]

that doesn't make the case that it's important at all

you've yet to convince me that it belongs in the first sentence. In the article? Of course. First sentence no.

That's not to say it shouldn't be in the first sentence. I could care less. It's irrelevant. But not having it isn't an affront on credibility.

[SgtCr4zyGunz]

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;42669344]You're right, i should just change my name whenever. You do realize the law exists so that all of the institutions update with your new name. IE social security, drivers license, insurance, any bank accounts.[/QUOTE]

difference is you haven't wanted to change your name your whole life and aren't receiving years of therapy because you can't change your name.

[nigerianprince]

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;42669441]that doesn't make the case that it's important at all

you've yet to convince me that it belongs in the first sentence. In the article? Of course. First sentence no.[/QUOTE]

Because it is KNOWN that Bradley Manning is her legal name, that makes it the most verifiable, accurate information available.

It is also KNOWN that Bradley wants to be referred to as Chelsea but has not legally changed her name.

If she had legally changed her name, then sure it could be mentioned later on in the page.

Given that there is a presently known confusion regarding her name, you would point it out in the first sentence in the interest of accuracy and verifiability.

[Venezuelan]

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;42669102]That's why if you're going to write letters to "her" then you have to use the name "bradley" not "chelsea"[/QUOTE]

If I misspell someone's name does it get sent back? You could write down Santa Claus as long as the address is right.

[editline]28th October 2013[/editline]

[QUOTE=nigerianprince;42669467]Because it is KNOWN that Bradley Manning is her legal name, that makes it the most verifiable, accurate information available.

It is also KNOWN that Bradley wants to be referred to as Chelsea but has not legally changed her name.

If she had legally changed her name, then sure it could be mentioned later on in the page.

Given that there is a presently known confusion regarding her name, you would point it out in the first sentence in the interest of accuracy and verifiability.[/QUOTE]

It is pointed out, she's Chelsea and was also known as Bradley.

[nigerianprince]

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;42669461]difference is you haven't wanted to change your name your whole life and aren't receiving years of therapy because you can't change your name.[/QUOTE]

If changing your name is important to you then don't go dumping tons of super secret documents all over the internet because you will end up in prison if/when you are caught and be unable to change your name.

Not that I disagree with what Manning did, but like everything it does actually have consequences.

And I'm also presuming that people in prison cannot change their name (I wasn't able to find an answer for that).

EDIT: this document ( [URL]http://www.aele.org/law/2011all06/2011-06MLJ301.pdf[/URL] ) kind of answers whether prisoners are able to change their names, but doesn't discuss trasngender name changes.

[editline]28th October 2013[/editline]

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;42669470]It is pointed out, she's Chelsea and was also known as Bradley.[/QUOTE]

It isn't made clear.

And what you're saying isn't clear either.

She is Bradley, but is also known as Chelsea.

[Codemaster85]

[QUOTE=nigerianprince;42669481][B]If changing your name is important to you then don't go dumping tons of super secret documents all over the internet because you will end up in prison if/when you are caught and be unable to change your name.[/B]

Not that I disagree with what Manning did, but like everything it does actually have consequences.

And I'm also presuming that people in prison cannot change their name (I wasn't able to find an answer for that).

EDIT: this document ( [URL]http://www.aele.org/law/2011all06/2011-06MLJ301.pdf[/URL] ) kind of answers whether prisoners are able to change their names, but doesn't discuss trasngender name changes.

[editline]28th October 2013[/editline]

It isn't made clear.

And what you're saying isn't clear either.

She is Bradley, but is also known as Chelsea.[/QUOTE]

it should be allowed anyway as a basic human right to be allowed to be called any name you want. sure you can have stupid as shit names but who fucking cares. it just makes you look like an idiot in the end and isnt hurting anyone. there are plenty of people on wikipedia with different names anyway that are not their legal names so why the fuck is this a special case?

and dont say its too confusing because its not if you put a subtitle and redirect the page if you put in Bradley.

[Venezuelan]

The point is there are two sides to a name, sure there is the legal aspect for use on forms and documents and shit but ultimately the most primal and important function of a name is identifying other people socially. Wikipedia is not a legal document.

[nigerianprince]

[QUOTE=codemaster85;42669525]it should be allowed anyway as a basic human right to be allowed to be called any name you want. sure you can have stupid as shit names but who fucking cares. it just makes you look like an idiot in the end and isnt hurting anyone. there are plenty of people on wikipedia with different names anyway that are not their legal names so why the fuck is this a special case?[/QUOTE]

Its only a special case because it isn't really a nickname (i.e. William Gates calling himself Bill Gates), its someone saying they have completely changed their gender and name without any legal documentation stating so.

[editline]28th October 2013[/editline]

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;42669528]The point is there are two sides to a name, sure there is the legal aspect for use on forms and documents and shit but ultimately the most primal and important function of a name is identifying other people socially. Wikipedia is not a legal document.[/QUOTE]

Identifying people socially today is different than 20 years ago.

You're not just interacting with the 5 million people who live in your vicinity, we're talking about interacting on a global basis.

7 billion people live on earth. I believe there is some sense in ascertaining what people's legal names are. Accuracy now is also just as important for future generations as it is for us.

[Venezuelan]

Legal names aren't the important factor in social identification though

Stefani Germanotta
Brian Warner
Farrokh Bulsara

I'd be surprised if you could recognize who a single one of these people are, I know I had to look these names up

[lordcrypto]

As far as I can tell, the way assumed names work is that the URL/title will say "Snoop Dogg" but then the very first fact in the article will be their real name, "Calvin Cordozar Broadus, Jr.", and then continue to refer to them as their assumed name from then on

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snoop_Dogg[/url] -- Calvin Cordozar Broadus, Jr. (born October 20, 1971)
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates[/url] -- William Henry "Bill" Gates III (born October 28, 1955)
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_(musician)[/url] -- Prince Rogers Nelson (born June 7, 1958)

so following this format the link should be Chelsea_Manning, the title should be "Chelsea Manning", and the first line should be something like "Bradley Manning (born blahblahblah), who now identifies as Chelsea Manning", and use Chelsea from that point on

[nigerianprince]

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;42669629]Legal names aren't the important factor in social identification though

Stefani Germanotta
Brian Warner
Farrokh Bulsara

I'd be surprised if you could recognize who a single one of these people are, I know I had to look these names up[/QUOTE]

Yes, but you were only able to look them up because you had a list of accurate names; if one of these people had changed their name without legally doing so it'd be a pointless complication.

That's exactly why all their articles list their legal name immediately in the first sentence.

[Codemaster85]

[QUOTE=nigerianprince;42669575]Its only a special case because it isn't really a nickname (i.e. William Gates calling himself Bill Gates), its someone saying they have completely changed their gender and name without any legal documentation stating so.[/QUOTE]

this isnt about legal bullshit, its about pseudonyms on wikipedia. i really really doubt that charlie sheen would want his wikipedia article to be his real name, and earlier they just proved that its not that hard to just put their other name as the title and put:

[img]http://puu.sh/51xX4.png[/img]

Redirecting has been in wikipedia forever and has transgender articles like so: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wachowskis[/url] . you are just trying to justify opressing her not for what she actually did, but over something as stupid as being born a transsexual.

[Venezuelan]

[QUOTE=nigerianprince;42669656]Yes, but you were only able to look them up because you had a list of accurate names; if one of these people had changed their name without legally doing so it'd be a pointless complication.

That's exactly why all their articles list their legal name immediately in the first sentence.[/QUOTE]

um, all of those people changed their names without legally doing so

and "Bradley Manning" is still right there in the first sentence is it not? Google it. It's the first thing that comes up. You can look it up too so I don't see your point.

[nigerianprince]

[QUOTE=codemaster85;42669668]this isnt about legal bullshit, its about pseudonyms on wikipedia. i really really doubt that charlie sheen would want his wikipedia article to be his real name, and earlier they just proved that its not that hard to just put their other name as the title and put:

[img]http://puu.sh/51xX4.png[/img]

Redirecting has been in wikipedia forever and has transgender articles like so: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wachowskis[/url] . you are just trying to justify opressing her not for what she actually did, but over something as stupid as being born a transsexual.[/QUOTE]

To be clear, I don't care what the article name is (I think the article should be called Chelsea Manning which I said previously on this thread), I just don't think the opening sentence is particularly clear at the moment.

[editline]28th October 2013[/editline]

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;42669674]um, all of those people changed their names without legally doing so

and "Bradley Manning" is still right there in the first sentence is it not? Google it. It's the first thing that comes up. You can look it up too so I don't see your point.[/QUOTE]

Yes it is, its more the point that it doesn't make it very clear what her legal name presently is (IMHO).

[Venezuelan]

we're just going in circles, I can't see what stock you put in legal names and never will. agree to disagree.

[nigerianprince]

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;42669719]we're just going in circles, I can't see what stock you put in legal names and never will. agree to disagree.[/QUOTE]

"If names are not correct, then language is not in accord with the truth of things. If language is not in accord with the truth of things, then affairs cannot be carried out successfully"
-Confucius

[lordcrypto]

[QUOTE=codemaster85;42669668]this isnt about legal bullshit, its about pseudonyms on wikipedia. i really really doubt that charlie sheen would want his wikipedia article to be his real name, and earlier they just proved that its not that hard to just put their other name as the title and put:

[img]http://puu.sh/51xX4.png[/img]

Redirecting has been in wikipedia forever and has [B]transgender [/B]articles like so: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wachowskis[/url] . you are just trying to justify opressing her not for what she actually did, but over something as stupid as being born a transsexual.[/QUOTE]
with might i add, a legal name change

prince never legally changed his name to prince
neither did dr seuss

as far as I can tell, this is the only circumstance of the nonlegal name being indicated at the front of the article

[nigerianprince]

[QUOTE=LordCrypto;42669782]with might i add, a legal name change

prince never legally changed his name to prince
neither did dr seuss

as far as I can tell, this is the only circumstance of the nonlegal name being indicated at the front of the article[/QUOTE]

Prince's name is actually Prince, iirc he just excluded the rest of the name and used 'prince' in several of his personas.

[redBadger]

Why the hell did he decide to change his sex despite his life being over.

[lordcrypto]

for a less charged example

lets use prince and teller
prince is a stage name for his full name
teller is a legal mononym

notice prince's article begins with his full name, whereas teller's begins with just teller, then indicates his former legal name?? the first name listed in an article is always their current legal name

[img]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-5-Yx24rvRRQ/Um3LR33aaOI/AAAAAAAADMw/kU-HE4oGvSs/s0/2013-10-27_19-25-56.png[/img]
[img]https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-YCfZBLddHBA/Um3LXDI048I/AAAAAAAADM4/BNaDgWk3G_4/s0/2013-10-27_19-26-35.png[/img]

[editline]27th October 2013[/editline]

[QUOTE=nigerianprince;42669802]Prince's name is actually Prince, iirc he just excluded the rest of the name and used 'prince' in several of his personas.[/QUOTE]
yeah but i'm pretty sure his legal name is still prince rogers nelson

[Venezuelan]

[QUOTE=redBadger;42669828]Why the hell did he decide to change his sex despite his life being over.[/QUOTE]

she didn't "decide" she's always identified as a female she's just now open about it, being out of the military and, yeah, her life possibly being over probably had something to do with it

she hasn't had sex reassignment surgery though if that's what you mean

[Paige]

I like how the only reason anyone doesn't want it as Chelsea is "ew trannies r icky!!!!"

Nearly every post asking it to be Bradley has either misgendered her or put her pronoun in quotation marks. Pretty sad but it's FP after all.

[nigerianprince]

[QUOTE=Paige;42669906]I like how the only reason anyone doesn't want it as Chelsea is "ew trannies r icky!!!!"

Nearly every post asking it to be Bradley has either misgendered her or put her pronoun in quotation marks. Pretty sad but it's FP after all.[/QUOTE]

Or it could just be that some of us want some accuracy.

I can also see why people use quotation marks; given that there has been no legal name change it does make it pretty uncertain.

[lordcrypto]

[QUOTE=Paige;42669906]I like how the only reason anyone doesn't want it as Chelsea is "ew trannies r icky!!!!"

Nearly every post asking it to be Bradley has either misgendered her or put her pronoun in quotation marks. Pretty sad but it's FP after all.[/QUOTE]
i'm not misgendering her, nor am i saying "ew trannies are icky"

i'm saying that for the sake of consistency with other assumed name articles (wachowskis don't count, as as far as i can tell lana legally changed her name), her wikipedia article should be titled "Chelsea Manning", but begin with "[B]Bradley Manning[/B] (born blahblahblah), who now identifies as [B]Chelsea Manning[/B]", and then use her and Chelsea from there

[Venezuelan]

no offense nigerianprince but given your history with these issues it's hard to believe you have no ulterior motive

I'd love to be proven wrong

[JaegerMonster]

[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]

ffs we've been over this

The articles are titles as such because they are their better known names.

Chelsea mannning is better known as Bradley Manning.