Do you put stricken portions in the transcript?

I was taught in school to always put everything on the transcript including when an attorney begins a question, for example, "What is the name of -- strike that." But I was told by an attorney one day that they expect reporters to completely strike it from the transcript. Is there a rule about this? Some of my coworkers say that if it is a short sentence and they say "strike that" or "withdrawn," we shouldn't put it on the transcript but if it's in the middle of a long sentence, we should include it in the transcript. I feel that for the sake of consistency, we should always include it in the transcript irrespective of the length of the sentence the attorney is striking. What does everybody think about this?

We were always taught as you've said - stricken portions are to remain.  A judge can decide later whether it stays in as evidence and/or can be read back to a jury, per se.

But there is a difference between *cleaning up* the atty and stricken material.  I do and have cleaned up - just slightly - I'll ignore a false start if it has, like, one and a half words in it:  Exp:  Q  Where did - were you going to...   Or even shorter  Q  What - who was the guy with the blonde hair?    I know a lot of reporters who have rules like this.   

I'll often leave jokes out of the transcript as well - even on video.   Attys will look at me and I'll give them a knowing nodd - *Don't worry.  It's not on the record*

If this is a constant pattern of speech, I could decide to give the guy a break and wait for the true question - especially if it's a continuing case and I'm working with same counsel for an extended period of time - I want to look good and I want them to look half decent...lol!

Now, on the other hand, with the example you posed in your question, I absolutely LOVE when they say *strike that* because I get a new line paragraph and that lovely little phrase gives me full license to earn more pages; However, I will NOT read that portion on a read back - just out of courtesy, though.  Not because, as your erroneous atty suggested, it's been stricken!

Can you imagine the anarchy that would come if we allowed attys to tell us what remains in the record...lol!   We'd have a full day of testimony, then they could dismiss away all but the portion they needed and only pay for a one-page tran!  

I've always put it in.  In my opinion, it's better to leave it in and to let the judge decide to redact it than to leave it out and have an attorney (usually opposing counsel, right?) complain about it.

It "could" depend on where you are located.?  I'd NEVER delete it.  I am a verbatim writer.  I am not there to interpret or alter what was said.  You say it, I write it, it gets transcribed. 

I never delete anything because they're videotaped and sync'ed with the transcript.

My agency instructed me to take out strike thats and withdrawns unless they are objected to or answered by the witness. So, in other words, if he or she is correcting his or herself they have me take it out, but say they were to ask something and then the other attorney objects or the witness cuts in and answers, it remains in.

This is unfortunate, because there are times when they'll ask a whole question, say strike that, and nobody has responded to it, and the attorney will make a new question. If I kept it in, it'd be a good 4 lines, under the guidelines I was given, it goes out.