Re: [Gendergap] Changing the Chelsea Manning article (and how women were shouted down)

[Risker]

On 7 September 2013 10:49, Jeremy Baron  wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Risker  wrote:
> > Yeah, I keep hearing those excuses for performance problems, Jeremy. It
> > takes longer to serve up the original page here in North America on a
> fast
> > connection - enough so that it is noticeable on a normal computer.
>
> I don't know what that means. ("Original page"? does that mean it loads
> faster with a redirect than by hitting the canonical URL directly?)
>
> Please provide enough details (steps, recipe, instructions, whatever you
> want to call it) so that someone else could repeat your experiment to
> verify your results.
>
> Ideally we'd do that for both logged in and logged out users (and various
> combinations of prefs) but in the case of redirects for Shirley Temple
> Black and Chelsea Manning I think we mostly care about logged out users
> visiting the /wiki/${title} style URLs (so not people visiting &uselang= or
> &useskin= URLs) so let's focus on those. Which case were you testing?
>
>

Jeremy, this is not the "performance testing" list.  The paragraph you've
written above is pretty well the definition of why women don't stick around
wikipedia - they say something that to anyone else is obvious, but not to
those who just cannot resist writing code into their responses.  You know
why they call it code?  Because *most* people don't understand it.

The fact that you're entirely missing the point of this discussion by
digressing into a proposal to test the speed of redirects vs canonical
pages should generally be a hint that you're moving into your own comfort
zone and leaving the rest of us behind.

Risker
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Changing the Chelsea Manning article (and how women were shouted down)

[Jeremy Baron]

On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Risker  wrote:
> Yeah, I keep hearing those excuses for performance problems, Jeremy. It
> takes longer to serve up the original page here in North America on a fast
> connection - enough so that it is noticeable on a normal computer.

I don't know what that means. ("Original page"? does that mean it loads
faster with a redirect than by hitting the canonical URL directly?)

Please provide enough details (steps, recipe, instructions, whatever you
want to call it) so that someone else could repeat your experiment to
verify your results.

Ideally we'd do that for both logged in and logged out users (and various
combinations of prefs) but in the case of redirects for Shirley Temple
Black and Chelsea Manning I think we mostly care about logged out users
visiting the /wiki/${title} style URLs (so not people visiting &uselang= or
&useskin= URLs) so let's focus on those. Which case were you testing?

-Jeremy
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Changing the Chelsea Manning article (and how women were shouted down)

[Powers]

As a wild guess, I'd say that's probably a caching issue. 

 

 

Powers  &8^]

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Risker [mailto:risker...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday 6 September 2013 13:32
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)

 

 

 

On 6 September 2013 11:55, Jeremy Baron  wrote:

On Sep 5, 2013 6:55 PM, "Risker"  wrote:
> Secondly, redirects are expensive - not to those in the Western world with
fast computers and high speed internet, but to those who are on dial-up or
have comparatively high lag times because of distance (lots of people at
Wikimania had difficulty getting good access to Wikipedia during their stay
in Hong Kong, for example).  A redirect means that the reader must first
load up the "redirect" page and then follow the redirect instruction and
wind up on the intended page.  I don't think we pay nearly enough attention
to the comparatively poor performance from WMF that our Asian, African, and
South American colleagues experience; we're terribly spoiled.  

that's not how redirects work on Wikipedia. (at least for a redirect
directly to a page with content. double redirects, i.e. a redirect to a
redirect which then points to a real page it is more like how you described.
but we have bots and special: pages for fixing double redirects)

we serve a 200 with a little hatnote that says it was a redirect and
otherwise serve the same content as if they had visited the canonical name
directly. i.e. we don't currently send a 30x to the canonical name and the
alternative name remains in the URL in the user's location bar.

the actual timing difference client-side should be smaller than anything a
human could detect. (or too small for a computer to notice? idk if anyone's
done a study)

-Jeremy

 

 

Yeah, I keep hearing those excuses for performance problems, Jeremy.  It
takes longer to serve up the original page here in North America on a fast
connection - enough so that it is noticeable on a normal computer.  

Risker/Anne 

 

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Changing the Chelsea Manning article (and how women were shouted down)

[Nathan]

Odd thing about the current Google search results for Bradley Manning.
It gives the title "Bradley Manning" with a link to the Chelsea
Manning page, which when followed is a redirect to Bradley Manning. SS
attached.
<>___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Changing the Chelsea Manning article (and how women were shouted down)

[Risker]

On 6 September 2013 11:55, Jeremy Baron  wrote:

> On Sep 5, 2013 6:55 PM, "Risker"  wrote:
> > Secondly, redirects are expensive - not to those in the Western world
> with fast computers and high speed internet, but to those who are on
> dial-up or have comparatively high lag times because of distance (lots of
> people at Wikimania had difficulty getting good access to Wikipedia during
> their stay in Hong Kong, for example).  A redirect means that the reader
> must first load up the "redirect" page and then follow the redirect
> instruction and wind up on the intended page.  I don't think we pay nearly
> enough attention to the comparatively poor performance from WMF that our
> Asian, African, and South American colleagues experience; we're terribly
> spoiled.
>
> that's not how redirects work on Wikipedia. (at least for a redirect
> directly to a page with content… double redirects, i.e. a redirect to a
> redirect which then points to a real page it is more like how you
> described. but we have bots and special: pages for fixing double redirects)
>
> we serve a 200 with a little hatnote that says it was a redirect and
> otherwise serve the same content as if they had visited the canonical name
> directly. i.e. we don't currently send a 30x to the canonical name and the
> alternative name remains in the URL in the user's location bar.
>
> the actual timing difference client-side should be smaller than anything a
> human could detect. (or too small for a computer to notice? idk if anyone's
> done a study)
>
> -Jeremy
>
>
>
Yeah, I keep hearing those excuses for performance problems, Jeremy.  It
takes longer to serve up the original page here in North America on a fast
connection - enough so that it is noticeable on a normal computer.

Risker/Anne
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Changing the Chelsea Manning article (and how women were shouted down)

[Daniel and Elizabeth Case]

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.


You could start by expanding the relevant entries from this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars/Names

For one of the most famous recent examples, look at Talk:Star Trek Into 
Darkness, up to about Archive 7. Or the way it's best summarized here: 
http://xkcd.com/1167/


And, at the bottom of the current talk page, someone almost inadvertently 
revived it.


Daniel Case


___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Changing the Chelsea Manning article (and how women were shouted down)

[Jeremy Baron]

On Sep 5, 2013 6:55 PM, "Risker"  wrote:
> Secondly, redirects are expensive - not to those in the Western world
with fast computers and high speed internet, but to those who are on
dial-up or have comparatively high lag times because of distance (lots of
people at Wikimania had difficulty getting good access to Wikipedia during
their stay in Hong Kong, for example).  A redirect means that the reader
must first load up the "redirect" page and then follow the redirect
instruction and wind up on the intended page.  I don't think we pay nearly
enough attention to the comparatively poor performance from WMF that our
Asian, African, and South American colleagues experience; we're terribly
spoiled.

that's not how redirects work on Wikipedia. (at least for a redirect
directly to a page with content… double redirects, i.e. a redirect to a
redirect which then points to a real page it is more like how you
described. but we have bots and special: pages for fixing double redirects)

we serve a 200 with a little hatnote that says it was a redirect and
otherwise serve the same content as if they had visited the canonical name
directly. i.e. we don't currently send a 30x to the canonical name and the
alternative name remains in the URL in the user's location bar.

the actual timing difference client-side should be smaller than anything a
human could detect. (or too small for a computer to notice? idk if anyone's
done a study)

-Jeremy
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Changing the Chelsea Manning article (and how women were shouted down)

[George William Herbert]

On Sep 5, 2013, at 11:34 PM, Helga Hansen  wrote:

> Since when is Wikipedia about beliefs?


The question of what policy to follow regarding article names, in general, has 
no externally valid single right answer.  "Cat"?  "Felis Silvestrus Catus"?  
"Kitties!"? "Neko"?

The default standard is the most widely used common (not jargon) name for the 
thing.  The logic is, that's the most likely search start, particularly for non 
experts.

That is intentionally biased; towards a perceived norm, rather than an academic 
or technically more correct answer, towards internet search results as a proxy 
for popularity, towards the US as the most likely source of a first consensus 
on common name, etc.

Which of these biases to adopt as default was a value or belief system 
judgement.  We know that, intellectually.  But there was no other framework in 
which to decide.


Sent from Kangphone
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Changing the Chelsea Manning article (and how women were shouted down)

[Helga Hansen]

On 06.09.2013, at 01:43, Nathan  wrote:

> My opinion is that it makes sense to continue to host the article at
> [[Bradley Manning]], and to avoid trying to preempt or influence
> coverage in favor of using Chelsea Manning's preferred identity.

So you're influencing coverage in favor of using “Bradley”.

> I
> believe that over time the weight of coverage will change in favor of
> her preference, and our article can evolve accordingly. 

Since when is Wikipedia about beliefs?
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Changing the Chelsea Manning article (and how women were shouted down)

[Nathan]

I think the details of this dispute make it particularly prone to
emotional positions on both sides, not unlike many other naming
disputes (which have historically been some of the most intractable,
although usually for reasons of nationalism). Sue and others make a
good point about the existence of expertise on trans issues and gender
identity in academia, but... This is an editorial decision, despite
the academic and moral positions many have staked out.

Wikipedia is ultimately a reference work, and its principal mission is
to provide a useful reference to potential readers. In the tension
between "do no harm to living people" and "best serve our educational
mission", we often come down in favor of the mission. If you don't
think this is the case, you should re-familiarize yourself with the
many situations in which we partly ignore complaints by living people
and retain well-verified but potentially negative content. There is a
legitimate debate to be made about the judgment on where to draw the
line in each unique set of circumstances... but it isn't as clear cut
as some, including Sue, have asserted.

My opinion is that it makes sense to continue to host the article at
[[Bradley Manning]], and to avoid trying to preempt or influence
coverage in favor of using Chelsea Manning's preferred identity. I
believe that over time the weight of coverage will change in favor of
her preference, and our article can evolve accordingly. The
administrators who jumped at the chance to make controversial changes
without even an attempt at discussion or consensus have been justly
criticized, and while rigid policies that proscribe attempts to arrive
at a consensus judgment on a case by case basis is the wrong solution,
it is sensible to try address the poor conduct of several
administrators in this case.

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Changing the Chelsea Manning article (and how women were shouted down)

[Sydney]

Let me chime in with some background information that might help explain. 

Article title disputes are some of the longest and most difficult disputes to 
resolve on Wikipedia because many people, places, and things are well known by 
different names. So it is almost impossible to make everyone feel good about 
the final decision. Plus there is constantly a large incoming group of people 
who reopen the dispute. 

Deciding on a name that is most widely associated with the person, place, and 
thing is a reasonably good way to resolve the dispute and explain it to the 
next group of people who question the title. So it is customary to use most 
widely known name when deciding on a title of an article. 

That said, Biographies of Living People need to be handled with extra care. I'm 
in favor of taking into consideration the views of the person if it does not 
violate other core policies. For example the name must be verifiable in 
reliable sources. This is a general issue beyond transgender naming rules.

Part of the problem is the high profile nature of the person behind this 
article and the dramatic way the announcement took place.

If I saw a request by a living person to rename an article that was verifiable 
I would change it and most of the time no one would care. Documenting the 
reason on the talk page would be adequate. 

This particular article dispute is troubling to me because it seems to 
highlight the systemic bias in Wikipedia.  The talk page discussions had many I 
unenlightened comments that were offensive. 

I'm most worried that we are going enshrine in a revised policy a rigid naming 
convention that will cause distress to lesser known people who are trying to 
make their way in the world as they transition to their prefer gender identity. 

I, too, support giving a living person a voice in deciding. and I see no harm 
in using the gender pronouns and name that they prefer. 

Hope that helps explain why using re-directs is not the first way editors think 
to resolve this and other similar disputes.

Sydney Poore
User:FloNight

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 5, 2013, at 6:16 PM, Valerie Aurora  wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 5:50 AM, Jane Darnell  wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Okay, I've been wondering about this argument for a while - "It's what
> people search for so we have to keep that as the name of the article."
> As far as I can tell, that's what redirects are for: search for
> "Shirley Temple" and you can get a page named "Shirley Temple Black"
> with a little note at the top that says "Redirected from Shirley
> Temple."
> 
> Can someone with more WP experience explain why redirects aren't
> sufficient for the "what people search for" argument?
> 
> (FYI I'm on the "call people what they want to be called, including
> pronouns" side of the question.)
> 
> -VAL
> 
> -- 
> You can help increase the participation of women in open technology and 
> culture!
> Donate today at http://adainitiative.org/donate/
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gendergap] Changing the Chelsea Manning article (and how women were shouted down)

[Risker]

There are a whole bunch of reasons for using article titles that are the
most commonly known name.  The search function is very important - and some
search engines rank redirects differently (i.e., much lower) or don't even
include them, so using the title that is most likely to come up on a search
means the article will almost always come up in the first page of
results.   From the movement perspective, it is a *good* thing that most
searches will lead to Wikipedia.

Secondly, redirects are expensive - not to those in the Western world with
fast computers and high speed internet, but to those who are on dial-up or
have comparatively high lag times because of distance (lots of people at
Wikimania had difficulty getting good access to Wikipedia during their stay
in Hong Kong, for example).  A redirect means that the reader must first
load up the "redirect" page and then follow the redirect instruction and
wind up on the intended page.  I don't think we pay nearly enough attention
to the comparatively poor performance from WMF that our Asian, African, and
South American colleagues experience; we're terribly spoiled.


I'll let someone else cover the logic behind the policy.

Risker/Anne




On 5 September 2013 18:16, Valerie Aurora  wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 5:50 AM, Jane Darnell  wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Okay, I've been wondering about this argument for a while - "It's what
> people search for so we have to keep that as the name of the article."
> As far as I can tell, that's what redirects are for: search for
> "Shirley Temple" and you can get a page named "Shirley Temple Black"
> with a little note at the top that says "Redirected from Shirley
> Temple."
>
> Can someone with more WP experience explain why redirects aren't
> sufficient for the "what people search for" argument?
>
> (FYI I'm on the "call people what they want to be called, including
> pronouns" side of the question.)
>
> -VAL
>
> --
> You can help increase the participation of women in open technology and
> culture!
> Donate today at http://adainitiative.org/donate/
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gendergap] Changing the Chelsea Manning article (and how women were shouted down)

[Valerie Aurora]

On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 5:50 AM, Jane Darnell  wrote:
> 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.

Okay, I've been wondering about this argument for a while - "It's what
people search for so we have to keep that as the name of the article."
As far as I can tell, that's what redirects are for: search for
"Shirley Temple" and you can get a page named "Shirley Temple Black"
with a little note at the top that says "Redirected from Shirley
Temple."

Can someone with more WP experience explain why redirects aren't
sufficient for the "what people search for" argument?

(FYI I'm on the "call people what they want to be called, including
pronouns" side of the question.)

-VAL

-- 
You can help increase the participation of women in open technology and culture!
Donate today at http://adainitiative.org/donate/

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Changing the Chelsea Manning article (and how women were shouted down)

[Jane Darnell]

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 :
> 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
&g

Re: [Gendergap] Changing the Chelsea Manning article (and how women were shouted down)

[Powers]

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 :
> > 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
> > 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 contro

Re: [Gendergap] Changing the Chelsea Manning article (and how women were shouted down)

[Jane Darnell]

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 :
> Looks like the Chelsea Manning article has been changed back to Bradley
> Manning:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chelsea_Manning/August_2013_move_request
>
> 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
> wrote:
>
>> There have been similar problems at 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
>>>
>>> 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 compl

Re: [Gendergap] Changing the Chelsea Manning article (and how women were shouted down)

[Ryan Kaldari]

Looks like the Chelsea Manning article has been changed back to Bradley
Manning:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chelsea_Manning/August_2013_move_request

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 wrote:

> There have been similar problems at 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
>>
>> 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 kn

Re: [Gendergap] Changing the Chelsea Manning article (and how women were shouted down)

[Gayle Karen Young]

I think sometimes about the e.e. cummings quote "To be nobody but yourself
in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make you everybody
else means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight; and
never stop fighting" (citation needed) - that it also means that to support
others in being themselves is ALSO one of the hardest battles we fight. I
hear the exhaustion, the need to have a place to put forward ideas, where
one will experience support and not combat, and just want to say that I'm
proud of the extraordinary effort to date. As throw-things-at-the-wall
angry as the human rights fighting makes me, in all the places we fight
injustice, knowing there are allies out there willing to wade into the
shitstorms of things does help keep the flame a little kindled for me.

So to Carol and Helga, specifically, this is not a shout down, but a shout
out of "Thank you", for the courage to speak, for the resilience, and I'm
sending my wishes for a respite, a good night's sleep, a hearty meal, a
conversation with a friend, or whatever you may want or need to keep going.


On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Sue Gardner wrote:

> One thing I find interesting about the discussions on this is that people
> seem to be, sometimes, applying different standards from how we normally
> handle ourselves. So on WP normally, there is some deference paid to
> expertise (as distinct from credentials). Normally, editors will often
> defer to others who are known to have subject-matter expertise in a
> particular area. We express expertise through research: editors who have
> done a lot of reading and who cite reliable sources have more weight
> accorded to their views than those who have not done that reading and
> citing.
>
> It feels to me like on this issue people are often seeming to substitute
> "common sense" or "conventional wisdom" for expertise/knowledge. There has
> been lots of scholarly work on transgender issues, in the fields of
> psychology, gender studies, medicine, and so forth. So it surprises me to
> have editors making off-the-cuff comments, and expecting them to be taken
> seriously. A lot of people's expressed assumptions (that Chelsea may change
> her mind tomorrow, that Chelsea was a man and is now a woman, or even that
> a person's gender is easy to determine) are just flat-out wrong. It's okay
> for people to be wrong, but their wrong assumptions shouldn't determine
> what goes in an encyclopedia.
>
> (In saying this, I'm not responding directly to Helga or Carol. It's just
> something I've noticed on the enWP discussions that I think is interesting.)
>
> Thanks,
> Sue
> On Aug 24, 2013 6:18 AM, "Carol Moore dc" 
> wrote:
>
>> There have been similar problems at 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
>>>
>>> 

Re: [Gendergap] Changing the Chelsea Manning article (and how women were shouted down)

[Sue Gardner]

One thing I find interesting about the discussions on this is that people
seem to be, sometimes, applying different standards from how we normally
handle ourselves. So on WP normally, there is some deference paid to
expertise (as distinct from credentials). Normally, editors will often
defer to others who are known to have subject-matter expertise in a
particular area. We express expertise through research: editors who have
done a lot of reading and who cite reliable sources have more weight
accorded to their views than those who have not done that reading and
citing.

It feels to me like on this issue people are often seeming to substitute
"common sense" or "conventional wisdom" for expertise/knowledge. There has
been lots of scholarly work on transgender issues, in the fields of
psychology, gender studies, medicine, and so forth. So it surprises me to
have editors making off-the-cuff comments, and expecting them to be taken
seriously. A lot of people's expressed assumptions (that Chelsea may change
her mind tomorrow, that Chelsea was a man and is now a woman, or even that
a person's gender is easy to determine) are just flat-out wrong. It's okay
for people to be wrong, but their wrong assumptions shouldn't determine
what goes in an encyclopedia.

(In saying this, I'm not responding directly to Helga or Carol. It's just
something I've noticed on the enWP discussions that I think is interesting.)

Thanks,
Sue
On Aug 24, 2013 6:18 AM, "Carol Moore dc"  wrote:

> There have been similar problems at 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
>>
>> 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 dur

Re: [Gendergap] Changing the Chelsea Manning article (and how women were shouted down)

[Carol Moore dc]

There have been similar problems at 
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

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

[Gendergap] Changing the Chelsea Manning article (and how women were shouted down)

[Helga Hansen]

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

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/nrrrdz20-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