Talk:Danica Roem/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Birth gender

Edit: this comment was about some questions regarding some edits, but was made out of ignorance. I’ve removed them since I realized how dumb and potentially hurtful they were, to emphasize I fully support the rights of trans people, that I’ve learned a lot, and because it attracted a really horrible and hateful troll. --Simen113 (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Please read the #RFC above, the words of {{MOS-TW}} at the top of this page, and MOS:GENDERID before making these points all over again. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Please do not expect other volunteers to read guidelines for you. Try reading and understanding the guidelines rather than skimming them, that's why they exist. --Fæ (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The article already states that she's transgender right in the lede. Why on earth would it need to call special attention to the fact that she was assigned male at birth as a separate standalone piece of information? It's not that the statement is "wrong" as such, it's that the statement is redundant. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

An easy summary is at WP:TRANS? which covers current best practice for biographies. --Fæ (talk) 11:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd be fine with specifying she is a transgender woman in particular. Just noticed the article only refers to her as transgender and specifying trans woman with a wikilink could clarify from there what the term means. Rab V (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey guys why can't we state his birth name? Is this politically incorrect for you? WhatsUpWorld (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

There was a huge discussion about HER birthname above and it was voted not to include. Bkatcher (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The above statement was using this talk page to offensively misgender the BLP subject after doing the same in the article. WhatsUpWorld has subsequently received warnings on their talk page. Is this how DS are supposed to work? I was under the impression that a block would be applied immediately and the DS notice on this page and given when editing the article is sufficient warning and I don't understand why this disruptive editor is being handled with kid gloves. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

After updating myself on the DS process described at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Awareness_and_alerts, I understand that section better. My reading of that process is that any editor is allowed "by Arbcom" to disrupt both the BLP and this talk page, ignoring the huge edit warning notice, the huge warnings at the top of this talk page and the huge RFC we just had on the exact issue of unnecessarily emphasising Roem's deadname(s) or blatantly misgendering them. The only time an administrator is allowed (by Arbcom) to consider a contributor as being aware of the DS is after they have been disruptive and then been warned on their talk page with the specific notice {{Ds/alert}}, the warning is then considered to be effective for 12 months (no longer).

The section Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Page_restrictions says tough stuff, but is undermined by still requiring that an editor who might be sanctioned for ignoring {{ds/editnotice}}, even deliberately, has to have the DS alert on their user talk page before any sanction can be applied.

My feeling about this is that it's an ineffective process. At least every 12 months a POV warrior, or a "tag-team" of POV warriors can safely disrupt trans BLPs, ignore notices and previous discussions and say blatantly offensive things about trans people, until they go far enough to get a DS alert, at which point they can back off sufficiently to avoid a block, but keep on arguing about process if they want to.

As a part of the Wikimedia-LGBT+ user group, I have to say this is a crap procedure. It does little to actually handle disruptive editing, such as positively attempting to re-educate POV warriors about how to work more collegiately, or taking into account their background of past problematic edits in LGBT+ topics.

Oh well, at least WhatsUpWorld is one editor that has been warned, and they can be blocked if they keep it up, at least for the next 12 months, after which we start all over again. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Just an update. Reading the article now, I have no objections. I’m not sure why I was confused at first, or why I reacted so bitterly to the reversion of my edits, which must have been somehow misinterpreted by me. I assume I thought Danica was a prominent politician before undergoing the process of changing gender. After researching more (as much as I should have when my first comments were made), I see that contrary to my belief, her birth name was not very well known, and in that case, her wishes of self-identification should obviously be respected. (I also, reading comments made since my original postings, strongly object to WhatsUpWorld’s crude comments, as I never meant for this discussion to attract those who deny transgender people the right of being who they are. I fully support any transgender person to have their choices respected, and I should have made that clear initially to avoid attracting trolls such as those WhatsUpWorld appears to be. Apologies to @Fæ: for having to highlight community guidelines to me, when I should have done better research myself in the first place. Seeing hate spawn in my discussion here made me thoroughly re-evaluate how my questions and comments were perceived. Hopefully this will clarify a bit more my stupid original questions, and help others reading this understand. I don’t want Wikipedia to be a place of discrimination against anyone. Have a good day! EDIT: after reading previous discussion now, and understanding now the emotional distress and pain transgender people may suffer due to deadnaming (something I first learned of today), I would have no problems having this whole discussion thread deleted, to avoid spawning or attracting hate and discrimination, or let it stand to clarify misunderstandings. I let it be up to @Fæ:, @Rab V:, @Bkatcher:, @Czolgolz: and other editors to decide. --Simen113 (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Revisitting the inclusion of Roem's previous name

The previous RFC in this talk page came to a rough but shaky consensus that perhaps Roem's previous name should be included in the article in reference to how she previously published newspaper article.

Currently, the article does not reflect that consensus: rather, her previous name is included only under the "Transition" section in the sentence "In 2015, she changed her name from **** to Danica". This seems to be an inclusion of her name merely for the sake of including it, rather than because it offers any important information about her previous newspaper authorship.

Given that, and given also that the MOS: Gender Identity article recommends that "If a transgender subject's former or legal name is not well known or widely reported, don't include it, even if it appears in a few reliable sources.", I suggest the inclusion of Roem's previous name in this article be revisitted. I think it would be most appropriate to remove her previous name entirely, changing the sentence to "In 2015, she changed her name to Danica", or perhaps simply dropping this sentence.

Cassie Evenstar (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Biographical information on any encyclopedia includes the subject's birth name including all featured articles on Wikipedia. It is fundamental information regarding living or deceased persons. One of the core pillars of Wikipedia is neutral point of view, therefore recent political views should not influence this or any encyclopedia. Omnipedia (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide an example of a featured article about a trans person who was not notable as their birth name? Cassie Evenstar (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Just to note that MOS: Gender Identity is still a draft, rather than an officially adopted policy. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

It's true that it's not officially adopted policy, but I think it represents good practice for writing about transgender people respectfully nonetheless. Cassie Evenstar (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

1) Multiple outlets including the NYT published her previous name. 2) She's a politician, a profession which entails a certain degree of scrutiny and transparency & the name which she used for nearly a decade as a journalist is a matter of legitimate public interest for her constituents. NPalgan2 (talk) 02:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

You make a fair point. I think you could make an argument that Roem's previous name belongs elsewhere in the article, perhaps as the name under which she published newspaper articles, in the relevant section. As it stands within the article, however, the inclusion of her previous name is done within the "transition" section, and seems barely relevant to the actual subject matter of that section. Cassie Evenstar (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Fine with me. NPalgan2 (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Note site-wide consensus on including non-notable former names has changed since that RFC, see the new policy at MOS:DEADNAME. Rab V (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think DEADNAME is intended to be read as privacy outweighing *any* amount of reliable sourcing (and there was a considerable amount of reliable sourcing for her old name). Roem was at least seminotable under her old name in a public-facing local journalism career that's relevant to her current career as a local politician; the situation isn't comparable to the example given in DEADNAME of Laverne Cox whose previous name doesn't really have a claim to legitimate public interest. NPalgan2 (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Are there any reliable secondary sources from before her transition that could establish that the name was notable? My impression is she was a local journalist and though you can find her writing that would only be primary sources for her name and wouldn't establish that she was notable under the deadname. Rab V (talk) 06:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Is WP:DEADNAME meant to be read as (paraphrasing) "do not include a trans person's previous name, no matter how many reliable sources have published it, if they were not notable enough to have a wikipedia page before their transition", or is it meant to be a balancing test "Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than)", not always greater than. This was discussed extensively during the RfC, editors who disagree can start another RfC which could overturn it. NPalgan2 (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

It's the former more or less. To me the former name in this case doesn't seem especially important to the article so I have a hard time seeing why this case would counter DEADNAME. Rab V (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

"died of suicide"

Is there some wiki policy that mandates this strange and unidiomatic phrase? People usually "commit suicide". It's not an illness, like how you'd "die of cancer". Since suicide implies death, it's also a bit like saying "died of death" or "died of being killed". 2A00:23C5:FE0C:2100:59E9:57AE:E09F:86ED (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

"Died by suicide" is preferred by some mental health advocates to avoid the implication that suicide is akin to committing a crime. Funcrunch (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)