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_w...@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:jane...@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 <rkald...@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 >> > <carolmoor...@verizon.net>wrote: >> > >> >> 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_Manning<http://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/gendergap<https://lists.wik >> imedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ______________________________**_________________ >> >> Gendergap mailing list >> >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> >> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/gendergap<https://lists.wik >> imedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap> >> >> >> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
