Talk:Danica Roem/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2017

Article states that: "Roem was born and raised in Prince William County, Virginia,[2] the daughter of Marian and John Paul Roem."

The word "daughter" needs to be changed to "son" because if she was born a girl, and raised a girl, there would be no transgender transition.

" Roem came out as transgender in 2013,[2] having begun her transition the previous year.[7]"

The whole concept of transgenderism is about transitioning from one gender to another gender. It does not retroactively change what was in the past. This error of rewriting history, of semmingly seeking to change the reality of the past through creative use of wording describing the past, actually harms the credibility of transgender-rights advocacy. 172.58.11.136 (talk) 12:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done That's not how we do things here. See MOS:GENDERID. --ChiveFungi (talk) 13:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Pronouns

I updated "Talk" to say I was making a change. I corrected false: "Career" "She won awards from the Virginia Press Association seven times" to the more honest: "Career" "Roem won awards from the Virginia Press Association seven times" but, Volunteer Marek changed it back. Volunteer Marek also deleted my "talk" statement saying I would make the correction. By that time, I had had corrected several other places. For my additional corrections of blatant falsehoods, Volunteer Marek reversed them with a comment "dude, stop it. Find better things to do with your time".

Has the purpose of Wikipedia become falsehoods and cover-up? I will not get into a fight with Volunteer Marek so the incorrect statements stay. Somitcw (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Christ on a bike, it's not a fucking cover-up. Read the notice at the top of this page: "according to MOS:IDENTITY, such a subject should be referred to using the gendered nouns and pronouns (e.g., "she", "her") that "reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification"." --ChiveFungi (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

What was originally there had so many incorrect gender specific pronouns that it was unreadable. When referring to her birth and early life, she was not a she at that time. That is why I corrected to the proper non-gender specific nouns. Check newspaper articles. They also use correct non-gender specific nouns. "Roem" or "child" is much better that "He" or "She" when the wrong gender specific pronouns can confuse. Why go out of the way to use incorrect gender specific pronouns when proper and correct non-gender specific nouns bypass confusion, bypass dishonesty, and make the article readable? Either way, I did my best and was slapped down for correcting fat-fingured pronouns. I'm out of here. Somitcw (talk) 04:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

If using a female pronoun to refer to "her birth and early life" is so "incorrect" and "unreadable", then you wouldn't have just done it. I think you've just demonstrated that the MOS:GENDERID rule is the most natural way to speak about a person's past. --ChiveFungi (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

A transgender person is not written about in such a way that her pronouns start out as male ones in childhood and then shift to female ones only after she comes out. Once she's come out as a transgender woman, the female pronouns backdate to birth — her gender identity now decides all of her pronouns, not what kind of genitals happened to be hanging from her crotch at the specific time that's being written about in one particular paragraph. You're free to think that's confusing and unreadable all you like, but it's not hard to follow for most reasonable people — and it would be confusing and bad writing to have the same person's pronouns switch in the middle of the same article, or to just comprehensively replace every pronoun in the entire article with excessive overrepetitions of her surname. So if there's absolutely no way to write the article without being a bit confusing to somebody, then the only correct choice is to err on the side of respect for Roem's right to define herself. Bearcat (talk) 04:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2017

Please change, "She will be the first openly transgender person to serve in a state legislature.[5][6]," to, "She will be the first openly transgender person to serve in the Virginia state legislature.[5][6]"

Danica Roem is not the first openly transgender state rep. Althea Garrison was elected to the MA state leg in 1992. Please use more precise language (ie. in VA).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Althea_Garrison

146.189.21.200 (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC) 146.189.21.200 (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Just a note, I think the distinction being made is that Roem was the first to be elected while campaigning as openly trans; it's my understanding that Garrison being trans wasn't known until after she was elected. I can't think of a good way to stay that in a non-clunky way in the lede, but you're right in that Roem won't be the first to serve openly. Addendum: And Stacie Laughton was elected while being out during her campaigning but she didn't actually serve, so that further complicates how the wording should be since it isn't just about winning an election. Umimmak (talk) 14:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Very fair, I do think it is important to not erase the history that Garrison represents.

Maybe something along the lines of, "She won the first campaign running as an openly trans woman and will serve as Virginia's first trans legislator." I know it's still pretty clunky.

146.189.21.200 (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

What do you think about the wording now? Umimmak (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that is much better! The wording of this part is off though: "an election a state legislature and serve her term." It might just be a typo? I think you were trying to say, "an election as a state legislator" but please don't change it if I'm wrong.

146.189.21.200 (talk) 15:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done Yes that was a typo! I forgot the word "to". Thanks! Umimmak (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Sandstein: @AHampton: See discussion here. With both of your edits it now reads "She is the first openly transgender persons to serve in a U.S. state's legislature", which is false and brings us back to where we started. Umimmak (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Umimmak: Whoops! Didn't mean to step in it! I just saw this discussion from your ping... sorry I didn't notice it earlier. I had read about Roem today in the Washington Post and looked to see if an update was needed. Please edit my edit as you see fit. Sorry to inconvenience. Carry on! AHampton (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, when it comes to LGBT people in political office, there are two related but not identical ways that a person can become the "first": coming out (or being involuntarily outed) after you're already in office, or winning your first election at a time when you're already out. The reason this matters is that there was some evidence in the 1990s and early 2000s that it remained harder for an already-out person to win their first election than it was for a newly-out incumbent to win re-election — some voters who weren't entirely comfortable with being politically represented by LGBTs were willing to "overlook" the sexuality of an incumbent politician they already otherwise knew and respected from their prior work, but would still balk at voting for an LGBT candidate that they hadn't already established familiarity with on other issues. Obviously, this has changed greatly in the later 2000s and 2010s, when even smalltown Palookavilles are electing out queer mayors now — but it was a real sociological phenomenon that really mattered. So if the first LGBT politician in any given political unit is one who came out while already in office, then as long as we keep the descriptions accurate the first one after them to win their first election when already out is still a noteworthy historic distinction. (It doesn't work the other way, however: if the first LGBT officeholder is one who was already out from the get-go, then the first one after them to come out when already in office has no special historic status besides the fact of being one more. Except in the oddball Pennsylvania case of Brian Sims vs. Mike Fleck, where Sims was a new representative who won his seat already-out and Fleck was a reelected incumbent who didn't, but then Fleck came out between election day and the actual seating of the new legislators and thus technically beat Sims to firstness. So in that case you have to give them both the cookie. Normally you don't, though.) Bearcat (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Name

Not to be disrespectful to what she is gone through but it seems strange not to mention her original name (Dan) in her early life. Omitting that seems to me overcompensating (and therefore non-neutral).

-- MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

She wasn't notable under that name so it's irrelevant. Deadnaming causes great harm to trans people, so avoiding that practice isn't being "non-neutral". Funcrunch (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

"Career: Roem worked for nine years as the lead reporter for the Gainesville Times and Prince William Times." No, that was under the name Dan Roem. Or was it Daniel ??? Roem? "She won awards from the Virginia Press Association seven times." No, that was under the name Dan Roem. Or was it Daniel ??? Roem? We should not bend political correctness to the point of being untruthful. Somitcw (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Funcrunch: It's not deadnaming to say she was born as Daniel, the way that Chelsea Manning's article says she was born as Bradley (yes I know she was notable as Bradley). – Muboshgu (talk) 15:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Manning being highly notable under her deadname is the whole point of why that name is mentioned in the article. Roem did not merit a Wikipedia article based on her newspaper reporting, but on her political activity. I refer to deadnaming here because it would be using her deadname without necessity. It isn't a matter of political correctness, it's a matter of respect and dignity. Yes, current Wikipedia policy only prohibits using the deadname in the lead if the subject was not notable prior to transition, but in my opinion that name doesn't need to be in the article at all. Funcrunch (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

My thought would have been to not include the birth name in the lead, but in the first section of the body only. I certainly defer to respect and dignity, so wasn't pushing to include it, but only to understand why a reliably sourced biographical fact of some importance wouldn't be included. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Under "Personal life": "She legally changed her name in 2015." Why hide facts like what her name was changed from? Was it Dan, Daniel, or Daniel with a middle name? Somitcw (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I go with Funcrunch's instinct and experience, and this seems the most conservative choice to make. Let's not go in circles. There would have to be strong reasons to include anything but current identity. I find it unlikely that any reader would honestly be confused, and if folks want to make a point that an earlier article may have passed the notability criteria using the previous identity, then I suggest running a RFC; noting that the article was originally created for the politician just in June 2017. MOS leaves this to be decided on a case by case basis (at the moment), so a community consensus would be helpful rather than an ad hoc debate. --Fæ (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Under "Career", "She won awards from the Virginia Press Association seven times." No, "He" was notable for winning the seven awards under a name that we are trying to cover up. Go try to look them up to see that they are under a hidden name. Same for "for nine years as the lead reporter for the Gainesville Times and Prince William Times". Oh what tangled web we are weaving - - - Somitcw (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

You are repeating your statement. None of what you have presented would fulfil WP:PERSON, VPA not being a national award. Consequently an article under a previous identity could never have been made. If you feel that a consensus is needed, then try the RFC process. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

She would never have qualified for a Wikipedia article on the basis of those VPA awards alone — she didn't get and didn't even qualify for an article until her political activities kicked off, and was already named Danica by that time, so she's never been notable under any other name but Danica. Chelsea Manning, conversely, not only qualified for an article before coming out as trans, she already had an article as "Bradley" before coming out as trans — so that wasn't a question of whether or not we should add the name Bradley to an article that had always only ever existed as Chelsea; it was an article that already existed as Bradley and had to get moved. Caitlyn Jenner too: article already existed for years as "Bruce" before she changed her name. That's a very different situation than Danica Roem. Bearcat (talk) 05:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I concede. While I would feel insulted for the first 30 years of my life to be called so not notable that even my name could not be publically said, but I'm not Danica. To say that someone worked as a reporter with the Gainesville Times for nine years mostly under the byline of “??? Roem” would upset me and make it difficult for people to look up reports and articles to understand my background. Since Danica does not always give both names when identifying herself, we should consider that perhaps discretion is the best policy. Somitcw (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Declaring that the mention of their birth name "causes great harm to trans people" is a huge generalization, to say nothing of it being rather patronizing. There are trans people who simply do not care... and some even still use it. But getting on to policy: Roem doesn't seem to have been notable enough as a reporter for policy to require highlighting that name in the lede. But it is a matter of public record, and someone researching her career shouldn't have to briefly become a detective to find out what name she used to write under. Danica Roem is not some victim who unwittingly found herself outed and in the news. She chose to become a political figure, which entails the general facts of her personal history becoming a matter of public interest. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The phrase you are taking offence to, was in a general context. If you think that the name no longer in use is encyclopaedic, and should be in this article for good reasons, then as previously suggested open an RFC to establish a consensus for this case. Arguing about it further seems circular as no new points have been put forward. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I was answering an invalid appeal to emotion, and a correcting a misreading of WP policy. Both were new points, as were my arguments for the name's inclusion. Just because you've stopped listening doesn't mean the discussion is over. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Yesterday I stated "MOS leaves this to be decided on a case by case basis", and that reading of policy does not contradict Funcrunch's viewpoint, which I agree with. If the name is to be included there should be sound reasons based on evidence, otherwise it's more respectful, and should remain the default, to leave it out. I have not stopped listening, but the points you made were not new, nor is there any new evidence being given. If you want to establish a consensus to include the previous name, then raise an RFC as there seems no value in going around the loop with a high likelihood of discussion getting heated and drifting further away from establishing facts. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Appreciate all of the feedback. And to be honest I have little personal experience with the LGBT community so I will admit to a great deal of ignorance. Nevertheless, whether the subject of an article might prefer to have certain material omitted is not really a valid criterion for whether material is included. And certainly it cannot be argued that the name by which a person was known for most of their life is not a significant detail. Certainly an article should not be deliberately disrespectful toward the subject, but if we start going down the road of always omitting material that the subject might not like, frankly even most FA articles would have to be gotten rid of. -- MC 2605:6000:EC16:C000:7833:3122:5939:B98C (talk) 02:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind is that the sources I've seen have been far from clear about whether "Dan" was her actual legal name at the time or not — the one I saw just said that "Dan" was her byline in the newspaper, without specifying whether she was using "Dan" because it was her legal name, or because she was using "Dan" as a non-legal nickname as part of her process of transitioning to the name Danica, while her legal name was actually George or Bruce or Michael or something that she wasn't using because she was in the process of detaching from it. So all we've established is that "Dan" was her byline — but that is not, in and of itself, proof that "Dan" was her legal name prior to transitioning. Bearcat (talk) 05:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Include Electoral History?

Can we include her electoral history i.e the results of the Democratic primary and House of Delegates elections from this year somewhere in this article as is done with many other politicians Guyb123321 (talk) 03:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Normally, the electoral history part waits until the official certified results are released a couple of weeks after the election, because the initial count reported on election night might differ slightly from the final numbers. Bearcat (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I added the June 2017 primary results. The Nov 2017 general election results are in the article as well, but commented out until the results are certified. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

She was just elected, and has not yet served a term

The article currently states that "She is thought to be the first[a] openly transgender person to win an election to a state legislature and serve her term." I doubt if she's even been sworn in yet, let alone "serve[d] her term". --Haruo (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Removing that latter part makes it false though; see above. Maybe "She is set to become" or "She will become", but the qualification about both being elected and (presumably) actually serving is needed for "first" to be true. Umimmak (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Danica is neither the first elected nor the first that was set to serve a term. Althea Garrison was elected, first set to serve a term, and the first to actually serve a term. Somitcw (talk)

Althea Garrison was not out when she was elected; she was involuntarily outed as trans after she was already in office, and then lost her reelection bid. So, yeah, Garrison's not insignificant, but the fact that the voters knew that Roem is trans and didn't care is an important breakthrough, and actually arguably more important than Garrison's, too — because the barriers that LGBT people have faced when it comes to running in and winning elections to political office have had more to do with the depth of voter comfort with LGBT issues than anything else. Bearcat (talk) 05:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

At this stage, whether she will "serve her term" is mere speculation – see WP:CRYSTALBALL. I've changed it to the more factual "first openly transgender person to be elected to the Virginia legislature". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The info box currently states "Known for First openly transgender congressperson elected in the state of Virginia." Please correct this. Roem has not been elected to Congress. Roem is not a "congressperson." Roem has been elected to the Virginia General Assembly and will have the title "delegate." Damn Sexy (talk) 02:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)Damn_Sexy

I deleted the whole thing. There's no reason to have that there, even if it correctly says "delegate". – Muboshgu (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Gender

Please refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Gender identity before editing subject's gender. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Television appearances?

Is it worth mentioning that she was the interview for the 29 Nov 2017 episode of Comedy Central's The Opposition with Jordan Klepper? Articles for politicians typically don't list their TV interviews so probably not, I'm guessing, but I wanted to throw it out there. Umimmak (talk) 11:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC) Update: found a secondary source [1] Umimmak (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• Not exactly the same type of appearance but she also generated news coverage after attending the AMAS 2017 with Demi Lovato.[2] Thsmi002 (talk) 12:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I would say no to most TV appearances, lest this article become cluttered with the trivia that stains so many Wikipedia biographies ("On this day she..., On this day she ... On this day she..."). It is in the nature of public officials to appear in public, on TV, on radio, at events, etc. Even if these appearances are mentioned by third party sources (be they local or national), the relevance to the subject's career as a whole is often negligible. Mere verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, and avoiding WP:RECENTISM should always be kept in mind. While daily newspapers report the news of the day, an encyclopedia should be somewhat buffered from trivial and passing elements, and only include information likely to still be noteworthy after several years. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Animalparty is correct that appearing on TV shows as an interview guest about a political topic is very often simply part of a politician's job description, so there's nothing particularly notable or encyclopedically relevant about most such appearances per se. However, sometimes other media write articles which treat "Danica Roem appears on The Opposition with Jordan Klepper" (or the equivalent statement about another television appearance by another politician) as news in its own right — which can sometimes be the kind of sourcing that would make such an appearance more notable than usual, depending on whether that coverage crosses the line from "this happened, the end" into actual analysis of the appearance's political significance. So its inclusion or exclusion would really depend on how much substance the sources allow you to say about the appearance: if it's possible to add an extra sentence or two about what made the appearance significant, then it can go in, but Animalparty is correct that there's no point in adding it if all we can actually say about it is "this happened". Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)