Actually you would be surprised at the nature of some of the renaming debates on Wikipedia in the area of artists like the one you mention, but also artists from the 17th-century. One could probably write a funny book about renaming debates on Wikipedia. I do think the Shirley Temple article should be named Shirley Temple for the notability issue. In the second screen effect, during a Shirley Temple movie, people will google Shirley Temple and not Shirley Temple Black. Personal notability has also everything to do with how biographical enterprises (companies named after their founder) are categorized on Wikipedia - as people or as organizations.
In the case of a gender-change, it can just be downright confusing for readers who google a person based on a TV show or other media article in which the new gender is not even mentioned, while the lead suddenly uses an unexpected name and pronoun. Wikipedia has of course the "redirect" facility to take care of this. Over time redirect-pagename debates go back and forth regularly for controversial articles, and this will be no exception in the Manning case, I am sure.
My point has to do with the way Wikipedia approaches such controversial topics as they unfold, and the effect of getting involved in such debates on the editors themselves. My advice is to step back. An encyclopedia with lots of content still based on the original 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica articles first added before 2005, does not need to be a media leader in producing up-to-the-minute 100% accurate information. I think Wikipedia does a good job in publishing easy-to-read information based on reliable sources.
2013/9/4, Powers LtPowers_Wiki@rochester.rr.com:
Wait a minute... our article titles policy doesn't say anything about naming a biographical article based on how the person was known during their period of highest notability. It /doesn't matter/ if Manning ever becomes better known for transgender advocacy than for the leaks (and she probably won't); it's just rude to continue to refer to her using a male name once she's expressed a preference for a female name.
This is the same situation as our Shirley Temple article, as the Ambassador has gone by Shirley Temple Black for decades, but move requests have fallen on deaf ears because "she was most well known as Shirley Temple".
None of that should matter; what matters is this: How is the subject referred to in /recent/ sources? For Manning, that might be arguable at the moment, but for Temple Black it's not.
When a company changes its name, we're very quick to change its name on Wikipedia. Heck, when a woman gets married, we're usually very quick to update her surname if she so chooses (e.g., Lauren Cheney/Lauren Holiday). But for some reason Temple Black has been an issue, and Manning is becoming an issue. Why? Who knows?
Powers &8^]-----Original Message----- From: Jane Darnell [mailto:jane023@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday 4 September 2013 06:00 To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participationof women within Wikimedia projects. Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Changing the Chelsea Manning article (and how women were shouted down)
It's an interesting discussion on that move request page. I noticed the Wikibump for the Bradley Manning page peaked at 173,000 views on 22 August and went down to less that 3,000 per day a week later. I think the current situation (today I see an article named Bradley Manning, and an article named "Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage" on the English Wikipedia) is the correct way to go forward until the media coverage settles down. At this moment in time, the person formerly known as Bradley Manning is still most notable for Wikipedia under that name, as her most famous act is still the Wikileaks issue. After a few months, it could turn out that her fight for transexual awareness or hormone drug therapy while in prison becomes more notable, but right now it is simply too early to say.
As for shouting matches and women contributors, I always tell everyone I meet to contribute to Wikipedia first on non-controversial topics, such as anything related to cultural heritage. If you are not a regular contributor to Wikipedia with a sound "Wikipedia reputation", your edits to controversial topics will probably be reverted semi-automatically no matter what you do. This is one of the biggest problems facing new contributors, because obviously they are attracted to controversial topics where the need for correction is probably high. I didn't click on the Bradley Manning article on 22 August, but I can imagine that it was in bad shape about half the time before it was page-protected 14:41, 22 August 2013 by Mark Arsten.
2013/9/1, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org:
Looks like the Chelsea Manning article has been changed back to Bradley Manning:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chelsea_Manning/August_2013_move_reques t
There is still a discussion ongoing about which name to lead the article text with, however: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bradley_Manning#First_sentence
Ryan Kaldari
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.netwrote:
There have been similar problems at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/** Chelsea_Manning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning Obviously there have been a number of comments that are obviously transphobic. However, there also have been repeated false charges of transphobia against those who cite good policy reasons for not changing the name. I personally oppose the change to Chelsea as premature for a number of reasons, FYI.
And there are good reasons to question what happened at that article process wise (the policy reasons for and against the change are
discussed
ad nauseam at the talk page where editors are just trying to get it changed back to Bradley Manning, though I think that's morphed into a final discussion - hard to tell!! ):
- an admin changed the title to Chelsea Manning with no discussion on
the
talk page, given it's a controversial move in such a high publicity figure *the admin then spoke to the press about it, wrote a blog entry with their opinion, tweeted about it, and got even more media publicity for their blog entry and/or tweets *I would not be surprised if a number of editors also alerted the media to her writings and actions in order to try to influence the outcome of a Wikipedia policy decision *I don't know how much off wiki canvassing there was, but I did start a list of wikiprojects alerted, so at least that aspect of WP:Canvass
would
be covered *an editor threatened anyone moving the title back would become a minor celebrity for a few days, a threat only to those whose actual names
were
used, which implied outing (there's a subsection of the larger ANI
thread
on that threat and related insults)
Wonder if I'll get shouted down *here* yet again for expressing my opinions... sigh...
CM
On 8/24/2013 7:34 AM, Helga Hansen wrote:
In the German Wikipedia a huge discussion has erupted over the
question
how to change the Wikipedia page for Chelsea Manning and it's another textbook example over how to drive women of Wikipedia. You can see the gory details here (in German of course): http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/**
Diskussion:Bradley_Manninghttp://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Bradley _Manning
I don't want to discuss this because it has already exhausted me to no end but it's another example of “How not to deal with women” and especially “How not to deal with transwomen” and it's important to understand the dynamics.
After her statement on Today, one user went over the article, changing it from Bradley to Chelsea. When discussions about this started, two
other
users set up a section "Namensänderung" that addressed some of the criticism (confusion over names, before „Breanna“ was mentioned, how
the
support network has handled the name question) and provided sources. They did this on an etherpad and then moved the complete section into Wikipedia. By the way a modus operandi that I have heard from several women, to minimize chances of their work being deleted again. One admin locked the article title to Chelsea Manning. Some friends
told
me how happy they were to see the page presenting her in this way.
Over the night, though, the discussion exploded. Changes were made by the minute, or rather, the article was reverted. Every try, to change something back or to reason with people was made impossible. To keep up, you
would
have had to be there, writing and fighting not only during the day but also the night. That is just not possible for anybody except students.
Somebody mentioned that “commonly referred to names” were ok to use,
so
I tried to get people to acknowledge that the final article will
influence
how Manning is referred to in German speaking countries. No avail. Instead, the amount of transphobic statements was disgusting. People wanting to check her therapy progress, ID documents or in her pants. I cannot
blame
anybody who doesn't want to deal with this sort of violence.
Every try to get people consider US laws and customs, which differ
from
much stricter German transgender laws and guidelines, was totally ignored. Also, guidelines by transgender organizations on how to write about transpeople were ignored. Somebody brought up the fact that Manning
hat
entered the military in a profession reserved for men at the time. Instead of asking an expert how to deal with it, it was solely used as an argument. It was all just opinions, instead of facts. While some people were
still
talking about knowledge, someone else would start a vote and then the majority decided. (In case you wonder: one way would be to keep referring to Chelsea as female while noting that the profession was reserved for men at the
time
and she entered presenting as male.)
Of course, people who identified as women or worse, transwomen, were shouted down to no end and accused of being too emotional or having a political agenda. Wanting to be treated with respect and having human rights is indeed a political agenda but none to be insulted for. Also: one transwoman was not egligible to vote, her account was too “new”. She
had
shut down her old account, from before transition for several reason (transphobia being one).
The section "Namensänderung" was removed, too. There was no reason
given
and Kathrin, the author, later told in a podcast how difficult it was for her to find out, how and when this happened as it was removed with
other
sections. She managed to get it restored with the help of an
experienced
Wikipedia admin. Deleting a thoroughly researched section that is undoubtedly relevant reeks of erasure, in this case of the existence
of
a transwoman. The podcast (in German) is available here: http://www.iheartdigitallife.**de/nrrrdz000020-mesh-
up/http://www.iheartdigitallife.de/nrrrdz000020-mesh-up/
So. There's a group of mostly women, who poured their hearts into
work,
defended it thoroughly and were insulted and shouted down. I honestly see no way, how we are even in a position to get people to change
guidelines
anywhere in Wikipedia. Plus, we're all exhausted.
Still, there are some ideas what to do:
- The guidelines on naming need to include how to deal with
transpersons.
- As does a policy of using pronouns.
- If guidelines and policies are expanded on how to deal with
marginalised groups, their expertise has to be valued.
- Removal of sections should be easier to reconstruct
Once again: I don't want to discuss the issue at hand or even be
forced
to defend who wrote what when. I also know how Wikipedia works and
this
mailinglist is in no place to officially demand changes, yadayada. But this is important. If it weren't for some very persistent people, the
German
entry would not even mention the fact that Manning has asked to be referred to as a woman.
All the best Helga Hansen
PS: It has to be said that Lana Wachowskis entry was changed without much kerfuffle, but then it's always been a “Wachowski brothers” entry
that's
now “Wachowski siblings” and there's about one pronoun used that
refers
to “her” and not “them”.
PPS: Please realize that I feel the need to ask not be treated to any explanations because I have experienced that way too often.
Helga Hansen @hanhaiwen helgahansen.de
______________________________**_________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/gendergaphttps://lists.wik imedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
______________________________**_________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/gendergaphttps://lists.wik imedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap