Talk:Danica Roem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2017[edit]

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. (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)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2017[edit]

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

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2017[edit]

Birth Name: Dan Roem Pizzalovermatt (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done Unless she was notable under that name, there's no reason to include it. --ChiveFungi (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
What is your justification for that? Birth names of celebrities who are only notable by their stage names are commonly, if not universally noted on their page. In what way is this different? (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Her name is not a stage name, it is her actual name. The article already mentions her former name. 331dot (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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)


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 (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. -- (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 -- (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 -- (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 -- (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)


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)


The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a consensus to have some mention of Danica Roem previously having written under the byline Dan Roem (but not in the lede sentence).
So this has been tricky to close. The !votes are almost completely tied. Further this is an issue on which WP:MOSIDENTITY is explicitly neutral: The MoS does not specify when and how to present former names, or whether to use the former or present name first. I have therefore had to make do with what little smatterings of useful info I could find in other policies. To make matters worse the RfC question is phrased in a ridiculously loaded and non-neutral manner. This is a question that really requires an MOSIDENTITY RfC to settle it, rather than a discussion on a single BLP's talk page. Nonetheless I do think a consensus can be found in all this mess.
Those opposing inclusion argue that Roem's deadname should not be included in the article because she was not notable under her deadname. However as pointed out by NPagaln2, policy only requires that deadnames be excluded from the lead sentence in such circumstances, not from the main body of the article. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean that we should include, only that under MOSIDENTITY there is discretion to go either way (this is why having some actual policy on this issue would be useful). As Fae has correctly noted, dignity and privacy and two very important factors when deciding whether or not to include something in a BLP.
Those supporting inclusion, have put forward a number of sources that cover Roem's deadname. The arguments against relying on these sources seem to go into WP:OR territory e.g. arguments that those writing the sources have not seen Danica Roem's birth certificate and therefore do not know her birth name, or that the RS's are merely parroting the comments of Bob Marshall. Other arguments against relying on some of the sources are more pertinent e.g. when the name is only mentioned in a quote from Marshall rather than being asserted as a fact by the article itself.
So the task then is to weigh the BLP concerns of those opposing inclusion, against the RS based arguments of those supporting inclusion. In the end I have placed greater weight on the argument for inclusion. The BLP concerns seem to be that we should lean towards keeping Roem's deadname private, because otherwise those who wish to deny her identity could use it to harass her (see a comment by Bearcat in response to Jason A. Quest). Deadnames should therefore be treated differently to other name changes. However, as Markbasset has noted per WP:PUBLICFIGURE information should be included when "noteworthy, relevant, and well documented." The amount of sources put forward shows that this is already publically known information. Further it is unclear whether Roem would would even view it as an attack on her privacy or dignity if the information was included. As such in weighing up the various arguments and !votes, I believe there is a consensus for some inclusion (outside of the lede sentence) of Roem previously writing under the Dan Roem byline. Also I would strongly recommend that someone starts an RfC on this issue at WP:MOSIDENTITY so that we get some actual policy to work with here. Brustopher (talk) 13:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

There was a discussion above related to WP:BLP and one of the contributors suggested an RFC. The general question raised was whether it is appropriate to mention the subject's original name, which was used during much of their adult life, etc. There were concerns raised about disrespecting the subject's life choices. So my question to the wider community is

Regarding basic details about the subject's former identity, details that are covered by the mainstream media ([1], [2]), is it appropriate to deliberately exclude such details out of concern that it may offend the subject's sensibilities?

Obviously this has wider implications beyond this article.

-- MC 2605:6000:EC16:C000:7833:3122:5939:B98C (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

  • The sources haven't actually established what her original legal name even was — all they've established is what name she used as her byline in a journalism job, but a journalist's byline doesn't necessarily have to be their real legal name. As I noted above, I've found no source which clarifies at all whether she was using "Dan" because her pre-transition male deadname was ever actually "Dan" or "Daniel", or whether she was using "Dan" as an adopted name because it was a short and gender-neutral form of Danica. We actually do not know one way or the other. It's true that some transgender people just take a new name that represents the other-gender form of their old name — Michael to Michelle, Janet to John, etc. — but that's very definitely not what all or even most transgender people do. (Of the trans people I'm personally acquainted with whose old deadnames I actually know, because I already knew them by their old name before they came out, every one of them picked a new name that kept the same first initial as their old name but was not otherwise related or connected to it in any other way. Well, except for the one whose former name was gender-neutral enough that he just kept it the same. But I digress.) So it's far from a foregone conclusion that a "Dan" byline automatically points to her old name being Dan or Daniel, rather than being a shortened form of the new name that she was preparing to adopt. Bearcat (talk) 05:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • If it were a name she had chosen for public identification that would undercut the argument for suppressing it. But these[3][4][5] all indicate that "Dan" was a name she had to legally change. I've seen no source supporting the speculation that there was a third name that she was given at birth. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    I didn't say the information should be suppressed, I merely said that it shouldn't be presented as if it were any sort of known fact that Dan was the name on her birth certificate. Because it isn't a known fact, and none of those three sources actually verify that it is — the only thing we know for sure as a properly verified fact is that Dan is the name she used as her journalism byline, which doesn't prove anything about her birth certificate per se. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion. The case for including details needs to be unambiguous and preferably key to the encyclopaedic nature of the article. Further, outside of current Wikipedia guidelines, it makes ethical sense to avoid including non-current self identification for trans people unless the subject has chosen recently to publish or use those names during interviews in reliable sources, or they were previously notable per PEOPLE under those names. +1 for Bearcat's summary above. It's worth highlighting that this RFC is not stated neutrally, as the community should be asked to vote on the implementation of policy and guidelines, not on whether to "deliberately hide such details" or "offend the subject's sensibilities"; plus asking to vote on a negative proposition is simply confusing as contributors are likely to vote "support" when they literally mean "oppose". -- (talk) 12:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose suppression. I phrase it that way deliberately, because it's important how we frame the question: to not include it would represent an exception to standard Wikipedia practice. By default, if the subject of an article changed their name – for whatever reason – and their previous name is documented, we include that information in the article. (Jerry Ford was Leslie King, Stan Lee was Stanley Lieber, Martin Luther King Jr was Michael King, etc.) We don't make assumptions about how they'd feel about it; we don't even ask that question, because letting the subject of an article make that decision for us would set a dangerous precedent. (Do we then suppress Muhammad Ali's birth name because he considered it a "slave name"?)
    WP policy does say that we shouldn't include a trans person's birth name in the lede if it's non-notable, because the purpose of the lede is to sum up the most important info about them, and their birth name isn't that. I support that. But it's still information, and it's at least as significant to the first paragraph of a person's biography as the city of their birth, the names of their parents, or what high school they want to... information we do not suppress. And I'd argue that the subject's original name is more important than those of her parents or school, because it establishes context for the reader. Without it, the reader goes thru the article with no indication that she was ever called by a name other than "Danica". They could easily assume that she was named that at birth and "blame" that for her female gender identity... unless they read as far as the "personal life" section, where her three decades with an unspecified name are alluded to by implication. That's poor writing, and it's the result of placing a social policy ahead of our mandate to serve the reader first.
    Wikipedia doesn't suppress verified information, unless there's a good reason for it. The fact that its inclusion offends some readers just on principle – which is what these arguments seems to be really about – is not a good reason. WP:BLP lists a bunch of reasons, but none apply here: she is not a victim or accused of a crime, she is a public figure by choice, she is open about the fact that she was assigned male at birth, it wouldn't facilitate identity theft, etc. The policy reads, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." I think that being given a name at birth that doesn't match her gender identity is noteworthy and relevant, particularly for a person whose notability includes being elected to public office as an openly transgender person, in opposition to a candidate who sought to enact legislation limiting her freedom based on it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    Wikipedia does "suppress verified information" all the time – all we have to do is determine that the verified information isn't relevant to the article. That happens every day across Wikipedia, but instead of using the highly POV descriptor "suppressing verified information", it's understood as a legitimate editorial decision, per WP:ONUS.
    I think that being given a name at birth that doesn't match her gender identity is noteworthy and relevant The article already includes that information. I suppose we could add "to Danica" if you think that She legally changed her name in 2015. doesn't make it clear enough that Danica wasn't her legal name before 2015, but that seems a bit redundant to me. -- irn (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    Birth name is information that's otherwise included for any person for whom it is known and verified. We do it for women who changed their name upon marriage. We do it for people who were adopted. We do it for entertainers who changed their names to obscure their ethnicity. We do it for African-American activists who denounced their "slave names". Even when those names were abandoned before they became notable, and the subject would probably rather we didn't talk about them, we include them somewhere in the article. It's quintessentially encyclopedic information, and it's included so universally, that the onus should be on those who think an exception is necessary. Why should we reject that routine practice just for trans people? The argument I keep hearing amoounts to "they are too emotionally fragile to handle that information being repeated" (which I reject as untrue of those I know). It seems especially inappropriate an assumption to make in this case, where the subject has published the name extensively in her professional work, her chosen name transparently echoes it, and it's already been reported in some of the most mainstream reliable sources available. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    We don't know what name she was given at birth. All we can say is that she was previously referred to as "Dan". That's not even close to making a claim about her birth name.
    It doesn't really matter where you think the onus should be; policy is that the onus is on the person seeking to include.
    WP:BLP is a much more serious concern than routine practice. Because transphobia actually affects the lives of trans people, we have to take it into account when treating living trans people. (That's why we have MOS:GENDERID.) Trans people's dead names are not merely "birth names" like Leslie King or Cassius Clay, but rather the practice of deadnaming is itself an act of transphobia. Just like how listing someone's full name and date of birth could cause privacy concerns related to identity theft, listing a trans person's deadname could have real-world consequences for that person, so there needs to be a higher bar for inclusion. -- irn (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    People who were adopted, or got married, or took a stage name for whatever reason, don't necessarily take steps to suppress their former name, and the dissemination of their former name doesn't create the same problems for them. And in many such cases the person hasn't actually legally changed their name at all, and still uses the "former" name in their personal lives — Jay-Z, for example, is still legally Shawn Carter, as witness the fact that his wife's legal surname is Knowles-Carter rather than Knowles-Z. So they're not automatically equivalent situations to a transgender person, because the issues involved aren't the same. The reason we have a much stricter standard for the "birth" names of transgender people is that using their former pre-transition name is very often itself a form of undermining the legitimacy of their transgender identity — "since I know what your real legal birth name really was, I reserve the right to continue to call you by that name anyway because I refuse to accept the validity of your choice" — which is not an issue that applies to married women or adopted children or celebrity stage names at all. It affects the article subject differently in the case of transgender people than it does in most other cases, which is why we have to hold the information to a different standard per our rules about being respectful to the article subjects in a BLP. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion. Do we have to have this discussion on every trans person's talk page? She wasn't notable under any prior names so there's no reason to include any prior names. And since the potential for causing harm (as theoretical as it may be) is greater than the encyclopedic value of including the name, it should not be included.
    Additionally, the RFC was written as a leading question. Please don't do that. --ChiveFungi (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    If WP policy supported censoring all articles about trans people in this manner, we would not have to have this discussion at all. But it doesn't. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Would it be too crazy to email the subject and inquire about their preference and then respect that? If she says "rather not" then keep it out, if she says "I don't care", then we can talk about whether to include it or not. Volunteer Marek  18:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    I would be very concerned about that as a precedent. We shouldn't ask people for permission to repeat facts about them. This would be especially problematic for an elected official, for whom the independence and transparency of their biography is highly important. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, too crazy, or more accurately too pointy. There are other issues that govern this decision, primarily we must be governed by what is encyclopaedic. For an article to be considered encyclopaedic and good quality, we do not insist that every BLP about a married person who changed their name declare their original name, we do not insist that if a BLP subject is known to be using a name different from that on their birth certificate, that the name is published on Wikipedia, we do not insist that a BLP must list every published variation of their name such as we see in book or film credits, and we do not insist that every BLP where a person consistently uses one of their first names but not the others, must have all their birth names in the article. Neither do we start pestering every notable person to test whether they like their details to be published on Wikipedia, such as their parents' names, how controversial material is phrased, their age, which past jobs to list, or which of their publications to list. As a simple rule of thumb, BLPs about trans people are BLP biographies, the fuss being made here is uniquely to force all trans related BLPs to always list what might have been on a birth certificate when this fails our tests for what is encyclopaedic, what is original research and what is good basic modern publishing practice everywhere else. -- (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    My motives and goals here are for all BLP articles to be handled consistently and neutrally, based on verifiable information published by reliable sources. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    Why should consistency take precedence over BLP? As far as I know, the only policies or guidelines concerning consistency are stylistic. Many other concerns trump consistency, and that is why BLP, neutrality, verifiability, etc. are all policies and consistency is not. -- irn (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion for same reasons as chivefungi. Also the opening statement for an RFC is not supposed to show any bias towards either position and should be fixed. Rab V (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion per above, and assign a transgender information course to the OP. "is it appropriate to deliberately hide such details out of concern that it may offend the subject's sensibilities?" is a really bad way to start an RfC. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion - if there were sources that said her birth name, I'd support inclusion because she would have done note-worthy (generally, though perhaps not encyclopedicly) things, such as singing for a band and writing for newspapers, pre-transition. As such, her birth name would not be mere trivia. As it is, we don't even have sources saying her birth name, let alone that it's 'Dan' (surely it would be 'Daniel'?), so this is a moot, non-controversial point. Don't add unsourced content. Cjhard (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: U.S. News & World Report does seem to support a legal name change from "Dan" to "Danica", so it could go in the article under "previous name" or some such, but I don't see a need for it, due to her lack of notability as "Dan". Incidentally, the overheated rhetoric on this page about a "cover-up", "suppressing", and "censoring" of this (trivial) information is certainly not conducive to good encyclopedia writing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion - if there were sources that said her birth name, I'd support inclusion because it is a fact of their life, regardless of whether or not "they were notable under that name". Guess what. Vernon Wayne Howell gets to have his name in his article because that's his name, even though he was only know (for a brief period of his living days,) as Dave Koresh. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
    BLP applies to the living, so not a good example. -- (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Note: There seems to be some confusion here. The question was about information covered by mainstream media, not about information that buried in some obscure records. Please respond to the question asked. Thanks. -- MC (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
    I am adding my voice to those objecting to the biased wording of the initial question. I would strongly suggest amending the RfC so as to not advocate for a position or imply anything about anyone's motives for wanting to exclude (not hide) this info. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
    Obviously the wording of the RfC was bad, but does it matter in this case? It obviously hasn't led to the desired outcome of the OP. Consensus throughout this talk page seems pretty strong in the direction that the biased question did not want. A new RfC or rewording this one won't change the result. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
    Doesn't most actors and artists known as different name than their birth name get their birth name listed in the part of his/her early life? I don't understand why it is taboo to add this here as it doesn't take away from her current gender any more than saying she is transgender in lede.--Simen113 (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
    Please read the the words of {{MOS-TW}} at the top of this page, the explanations in this RFC and MOS:GENDERID. -- (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
    I clarified in my comment above why that's not an equivalent situation. We have to hold the information to different standards in the case of transgender people than we do in the case of Jay-Z, because the information can be used against the transgender person as a form of attack against their identity. So the fact that the name is technically sourceable is not in and of itself enough of a basis to include it in a transgender person's bio — there needs to be a much higher burden of importance, such as preexisting notability under that name, than just "there's a source for it". Bearcat (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion - This is not a court of law requiring a valid birth certificate, we use "reliable sources", not proof. That a person may take offense to having their history published is a given. For this reason we do not encourage people to edit their own biography in order to remove "offending material", nor should we do that for them, it's not their page. Dougmcdonell (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, we don't have a reliable source that firmly establishes the name her parents gave her; all we have is a source which establishes what name she was bylined with in her work as a journalist, requiring an unverified assumption that it represented her legal name at the time and not a pseudonym or pen name. And secondly, we do have a rule that we have to judge certain classes of information by a higher standard than just whether it can technically be referenced or not, and the type of information that can cause harm to the article subject is one of those classes. The standard it would need to meet is whether it's critically important for the general public to know it (such as because she was already encyclopedically notable under that name before coming out), not just whether there's a source for it. Lots of things are technically sourceable without belonging in an encyclopedia article, either because they're too trivial to warrant mention (famous person declares ricotta to be her favourite cheese in a guest appearance on The Chew, who cares?) or because they're sensitive enough to require a much higher burden of importance than many other relatively benign details. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
@Bearcat: I'm fine with referring to the name she was known by publicly, if you are concerned that she did that illegally then feel free to write about it, but as I've said, this is not a court of law. The Washington Post source used for the name change reads "legally changed her name from “Dan” to “Danica” in 2015" that seems clear to me, what assumption are you referring to? She is famous for being a transgender politician, how and when she did the transgender part is not "too trivial to warrant mention" and I'm surprised that you would even suggest that. Is what are we discussing here important or trivial? Dougmcdonell (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, a person using something other than their legal birth-certificate name is not "illegal" per se — it's an entirely legal and valid thing that people are allowed to do under law. Secondly, the Washington Post source does not in and of itself prove that "Dan" was her birth name — the Washington Post simply made the same presumption that's being made here, that the byline necessarily corresponded to her legal name, and did not see her birth certificate to verify the assumption. And thirdly, as I've said more than once above: I am not opposed to the article stating that she used "Dan" as her journalism byline. But that fact does not prove in and of itself that "Dan" was the name on her birth certificate, so we simply cannot state it as a known fact that Dan is the name she was born with. And finally, public knowledge of what a transgender person's name used to be is not important enough to override her own personal privacy rights. Bearcat (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion In some neutral, verifiable form (eg " previously worked as journalist under name X"), conditional on this being a significant part of their previous public life. There is not even any reason to go into 'transgender-ing', unless that itself is the subject of public information. In this specific case, the previous name is not even gender-specific (Dan being also short-form for several female names). I'm sorry, but I don't buy into the argument that someone who had a previous public life under one name, cannot live with a brief (sensitive) mention in their WP article. As with M Ali, we show respect by using their chosen name, but it would be disrespectful to the reader to not mention that he previously existed in the public eye under a different name. Pincrete (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose suppression— Here is a question for you to ponder: If there was an article about a convicted murderer who claimed that he was innocent, do you believe that the Wikipedia article should omit the fact that he is a criminal in fear of offending him? If there is an article about a transgender person who used to go by a certain name, should that name be omitted for fear of being politically incorrect? The left would say yes. It is a solid fact that this person used to go by a name other than the one that she goes by now, and regardless of whether she wants it to be publicized or not, this is a factual encyclopedia and such information must be included. If you believe in erasing history and basically denying that she had a previous name by not including it, then I don't know how I can believe anything you say. It is time for Wikipedia to stop being a political biased platform, everything must be neutral, and by selectively choosing what to put in articles and what not to, Wikipedia is ultimately made into just another biased unreliable media. Thank you. NikolaiHo☎️ 05:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
The fuck kind of stupid comparison is that? This isn't an article about a convicted murderer (watch your BLP buddy). The fact that you claim to know what "the left", whatever that is, would say, just makes your statement so much more ridiculous. Which is something cuz that first sentence sort of tops out. Volunteer Marek  21:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
@Nikolaiho: This is a false equivalency. Although some people's motives are the same as you claim, most editors have stated that their reason is notability, not Roem's feelings. As you have been an editor for longer than me, I'm sure you know that Wikipedia has a notability policy. She was a journalist beforehand, so this specific instance may be different, but in general I just don't see how including one's former name is inherently notable. User:Axisixa [talk] [contribs] 08:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The comparison to denying the fact of a murder is offensive. It is reasonable to say this appears deliberate rather than out of ignorance. Please take a civil approach if you want to put a rationale, this page is not a forum to deny respectful handling of trans biographies. If you want to delete MOS:GENDERID then go put a case on that talk page. Thanks -- (talk) 12:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Firstly, the persons original name has equivalent notability as her birthplace, date of birth, and all such other facts. Though this may seem like an argument of notability, it is truly an argument of whether you feel it is okay to include a trans persons original name or not for fear of offending them. As mentioned before, is Mohammed Ali's original name not mentioned in the Wikipedia article? And yes, everything I said was fully deliberate and I do apologize if you found it offensive, I am merely trying to make a point. I have zerocare for what the reason a person changed their name is. Mohammed Ali did it for religious purposes, Danica Roem did it for another reason. Mohammed Ali's article begins with Muhammad Ali (/ɑːˈliː/;[8] born Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr.; January 17, 1942 – June 3, 2016), therefore, Danice Roem's article should accordingly begin with Danica Roem (/ˈroʊm/ ROHM; born Dan Roem; September 30, 1984). It is only logical and fair. NikolaiHo☎️ 21:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Ali was reasonably renowned in the boxing circuit as Clay before he changed his name; the same can not be said for Roem. Yes, she was a journalist at the time, but hardly a notable one, and would have not gained an article if not for her political candidacy and gender transition - so things are a little more up in the air. User:Axisixa [talk] [contribs] 00:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion - I don't see any compelling arguments for inclusion. Just your standard WP:IJUSTLIKEIT and people wanting to include it for apparently political reasons. Volunteer Marek  21:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose suppression - the WP:PUBLICFIGURE is pretty clear on if something is "noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it". That said, I don't think this is particularly going to be prominent in the articleat the moment, most articles are currently not about her background, although the US News does mention "6. Roem began her physical gender transition from man to woman in 2012, and openly came out as transgender in 2013. "Dan" became "Danica" legally in 2015." Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
(a) It's not suppression, the article says "transgender" right in the first paragraph with relevant detail in two sections of the article (b) We have no idea if "the subject dislikes all mention of it" (c) It's not notable and not widely reported, in fact we have no idea if the deadname was a nickname or a second name. Nobody has put a logical case to avoid following the best practice of TRANS? See the note in TRANS? with regard to the 2014 case if you are still wondering why. Claims of suppression and comparisons to murder in this RFC are illogical and unhelpful. Thanks -- (talk) 11:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
First of all, it is suppression-you think it is not be we think it is. Also, there are numerous sources stating that her former name was Dan, I will not restate those sources as other editors have previously. NikolaiHo☎️ 03:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I've seen two sources mentioning a deadname, but neither having any explanation, nor anything about it to establish that it's a valuable encyclopaedic fact. Two passing mentions is not the normal meaning of "numerous". She's trans, that's made perfectly clear, nobody is covering that up and detailing non notable deadnames is easy to avoid, just as we avoid non notable gossip about trans related medical treatment. -- (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Malformed RfC aside, and lack of reliable sources on the subject aside, the proper policy that deals with this is WP:NOTCENSORED: Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia. If a person or group finds their birth name offensive, it is not Wikipedia's job to coddle their delicate sensibilities. If the information is part of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic it should be included. Back to the beginning, this RfC is malformed and the information sought to be included does not currently appear in any reliable sources found in the article, so close as malformed. Bright☀ 04:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
WP:NOTCENSORED has nothing to do with this. This isn't about doing something "offensive". It's about following Wikipedia policies. Like BLP. Volunteer Marek  05:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
No, actually, this is about a malformed RfC and the lack of reliable sources. I was saying that if there were reliable sources that give this information, then it would be suitable for inclusion. WP:BLP agrees. Your claim that if a person objects to certain information on their Wikipedia article then it should be taken off (If she says "rather not" then keep it out) is not Wikipedia policy and is plain wrong. Bright☀ 02:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Honestly not sure what to say. The repeated contention that information about her previous life is not covered by mainstream media is false. I provided two examples. The first one specifically says
Under the byline “Dan Roem,” she wrote ...
I have not seen anything that explicitly mentions her name at birth (that may exist also but I have not seen it). But certainly the name she used to use in her adult life is there in reliable sources.
The question I asked was a simple one, whether we follow the reliable sources or not. The answer is, of course, a bit more complicated. But I fail to see how the Ad hominem attacks are helpful.
-- MC (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
The RFC has two sources. Both mention the deadname, but neither provide evidence that she was notable under that name. Including it would be for the sake of including it, not because it is necessary for the article to be encyclopaedic. -- (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
As has been previously stated, this is not the point. WP notability guidelines apply to the topic, not every detail in the article. Articles should be complete and objective. If we are creating obvious holes in coverage of a topic, there should be objective reasons, not personal opinions. -- MC (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion See the following RSs mentioning the name “Dan” (while describing Roem using female pronouns, of course). Agence France-Presse describes Dan as Roem’s birthname. (Note that some of them only quote Roem’s opponents using the name Dan, but without censoring it - I would argue this is still significant as they would certainly have censored the N-word, and it is often argued that quoting a ‘deadname’ under any circumstances is offensive. These RSs disagree.) Finally, some people have argued that Danica Roem was not a notable person while using the name Dan. But our articles on Chinese people quote their milk names, school names and other pseudonyms listed by RSs regardless of whether they were notable while using them (see Chinese name for details.)
  1. NYTimes Ms. Roem, who covered local issues as a reporter for years under the byline Dan Roem
  2. Agence France-Presse interview Danica was born there 33 years ago, under the given name of Dan.
  3. Atlanta Journal-Constitution later changed her name from “Dan” to “Danica”.
  4. Washington Post: Under the byline “Dan Roem,” she wrote about
  5. Washington Post again: and legally changed her name from “Dan” to “Danica” in 2015.
  6. Virginia Public Radio quotes (without censoring) Roem’s opponent: Marshall responded: “Dan Anthony Roem, now Danica Anthony Roem, is called Danica by me.
  7. NBC news quotes (without censoring) Roem’s opponent "I'm not trying to tell people like Danica, formally Dan... Marshall, 73, wrote in one message.
  8. US News and World Report "Dan" became "Danica" legally in 2015.
  9. Mother Jones does not censor Roem’s name here: Stewart said. “His name was Dan Roem. Now it’s Danica
  10. Roem’s hometown newspaper Danica Roem was Dan Roem while at St. Bonaventure.
  11. Washington Post 3rd time “His name was Dan Roem. Now it's Danica Roem,” he told the “Bikers for Trump” rally, eliciting laughs.

Following MOS:GENDERID, WP:TRANS? (which do not prohibit mentioning transgender people's original names if widely reported) and the RSs, we should briefly mention Roem's birthname (but not in lead). NPalgan2 (talk) 06:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Support inclusion It doesn't seem like anybody has mentioned an established policy on previous names of trans people, so in the absence of that I'm just basing my opinion on whether the information is "noteworthy, relevant, and well documented," per the relevant policy. It seems to meet those criteria, on par with other details of the article, though I don't think it's noteworthy enough to go in the lead. Utsill (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Deadlocked as of 22:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

At this juncture I see 7 votes for suppression and 7 votes for inclusion. Unless an administrator wants to wade in and advise a way to settle this, I would say this is not going to go anywhere. -- MC (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but remember WP:NHC - the decision should made after "discarding irrelevant arguments”, such as: the RfC was not neutrally stated (I agree, but that did not hamper debate), that trans people’s original names should not be included unless the subject was prominent under that name (WP:TRANS? mandates this only for lead sentence and exclusion from the entire article is inconsistent with policy for non-trans people), that “legally changed from” does not imply that it was Roehm’s birthname (see the Agence France Presse article I linked to), etc. NPalgan2 (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
In this case, people voting against inclusion have not actually brought up any valid arguments. Of course this is biased, but it is obvious, by looking at Wikipedia's guidelines and comparing to other well established articles, that there is no question that the content should be included. NikolaiHo☎️ 00:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Apart from the arguments that were put forward, though I suppose if you choose ignore the facts of what is actually written above by other contributors, and call everything you don't like "not valid", you would be correct. -- (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
And you are assuming that I consider everything not valid that I don't like. I am just saying that according to what NPalgan2 said, the opposers have pretty much no argument. And if you disagree, please state yours. NikolaiHo☎️ 05:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
"people voting against inclusion have not actually brought up any valid arguments" is marginalizing as "not valid" all discussion above that is against your view of the world. Of course I disagree with this statement, in plain English it appears deliberately offensive. Take time to read the existing RFC discussions and consider that treating biographies with respect includes adopting best publishing practice for writing respectfully about trans people. If you believe that Wikipedia policies mean we must be disrespectful by promoting non-notable deadnames when they can be easily avoided, that's an issue to raise with policies to have them written more clearly, as that is not the intention of any of our policies.
Wikipedia policies should be seen to align with the WMF resolution on biographies of living people which states "The Foundation urges that special attention be paid to neutrality and verifiability regarding living persons; that human dignity and personal privacy be taken into account, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest; and that anyone who has a complaint about how they are described on the project's websites be treated with patience, kindness, and respect." Feel free to raise it with Jimmy Wales if you disagree that human dignity should be a consideration to this aspect of trans people's lives. -- (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Fae, your position is that newspapers and wikipedia should not publish non-notable deadnames. But I listed 11 occassions on which reputable newssources mentioned Roem's previous name. We can have an RfC to add a sentence like "Do not mention a transgender person's previous name unless they were notable under that name" to MOS:GENDERID but that's not current policy. NPalgan2 (talk) 07:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Newspaper fluff which reports deliberately offensive and bullying hearsay from a “Bikers for Trump” rally, are not encyclopaedic. Even the person that made that comment later regretted the offence caused and said “I don’t want to make fun of anybody like that. I don’t like to bully people like that.” Quoting that offensive bullying as "evidence" out of context, fails to respect human dignity of trans people. It is offensive, I find it personally offensive. Don't do that, please make more effort to treat BLP subjects with respect. -- (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Ok, so it is confirmed that you are arguing because Idontlikeit. In all truth, I do not care if what is found in an article offends someone, or what you like to call "respecting human dignity" (and this has nothing to do with human dignity). Information is included regardless of whether you or anyone else wants it to be. It is included because it is information that has been identified as notable by a number of RSs. There is much information on Wikipedia which people would like to remove, but that is irrelevant. If it is valid and noteworthy according to policy, then it must be included. NikolaiHo☎️ 21:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

It is simply not true that Information is included regardless of whether you or anyone else wants it to be. It is included because it is information that has been identified as notable by a number of RSs. Please see WP:ONUS: the onus is on those wishing to include material to gain consensus for its inclusion. BLP is a valid reason not to include material, as is complying with Wikimedia resolutions. -- irn (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose in lede, recommend minor reference only as "pen-name" As discussed above, there is no notable source discussing Danica's previous name(s). There is a notable source about a penname that she used, during a part of her life that is of encyclopedic interest (her journalism career.) Users may wish to verify whether the journalist who used the pen name "Dan" and Danica are the same person, which is the type of thing an encyclopedia is for. However, whether or not that penname was ever her name is not verifiable, and even if it was, is not of encyclopedic interest. The only reason for interest in learning a trans person's previous name(s), if they were never notable while going by those names, is to attack their identity. Wikipedia isn't a collection of miscellaneous blackmail on subjects, it is a curated encyclopedia of relevant information, and the non-notable previous names of a trans person are simply not relevant.
    We do not speculate on whether Stephen King has ever treated Richard Bachman as his everyday name, we simply report Richard Bachman as his penname. We should not speculate on whether Danica Roem has ever used this penname as a name, especially when that speculation borders on original research.
    Many here are arguing about why the inclusion of this name does not violate any prohibitive guidelines, but failing to consider whether the inclusion is merited by the constructive guidelines: namely, what is notable enough to include. Speculation on whether a trans person's penname was their birth name, or even a name they ever used, is not notable. The mere fact that you have to hunt for obscure sources to attempt to verify the connection should alert you to the fact that the name is non-notable. Jhugh95 (talk) 07:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
"hunt for obscure sources" - The Washington Post? "pen-name" - Please see my !vote above, with RSs indicating that it was Roem's birth/legal name. NPalgan2 (talk) 07:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
My !vote hinges on notability, not reliability. Continue to reference as many RSs as you please, you won't change my mind unless they demonstrate notability. As has been brought up in notability discussions around the project over the past few years, the high-volume output of the modern journalism industry means that there are often many articles written about topics that fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Notability can't be established by RS count alone. What is the encylopedic interest of an outdated personal name that was only reported on long after she went by another? The only encyclopedic information I can see here is her penname. Jhugh95 (talk) 08:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
'Notability' would come into play if Roem's previous name were the subject of the article, instead of a brief mention. RSs decide which details about the subject are notable, we don't get to ignore them because WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. NPalgan2 (talk) 08:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Well said NPalgan2. And I don't understand what Jhugh95 refers to as a "penname". Dan is not a pen name, it is the name given at birth, and that has been established by many RSs as aforementioned, so let's not call it a penname. Also, this is not directed to Jhugh95 specifically, but where does it say that a person must be notable under a certain name for it to be included somewhere in the article? I see many instances of information included about someone's early childhood which occurred when the person was not notable at all. NikolaiHo☎️ 21:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
No sources have established it as a verified fact that her "name given at birth" was Dan — they would have to have seen her birth certificate to establish that, and there's no evidence that any of them actually did. Most of the sources for Dan just say that it was her journalism byline, and the few sources that do state that it was her birth name simply assumed that it was her birth name because it was her journalism byline — no sources claim to have seen her birth certificate, which is the only way we could properly establish whether Dan was the name her parents gave her at birth or not. All we know for sure is that Dan was the name she used as her journalism byline before coming out as transgender, and that can easily be because it was a gender-neutral short form of Danica rather than because her legal name was ever Dan or Daniel. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Bearcat, you're saying "I have an unsupported hunch that the US News and World Report and Washington Post and Agence France-Presse all screwed up royally (more than that, you're saying the first two fabricated the year 2015) when writing about Roem's previous legal/birth name." Come on, you're an admin and you know that's not how wikipedia works. NPalgan2 (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
No, I'm not saying I have an unsupported hunch — it's a simple fact that we simply don't have any affirmative evidence that any of those sources saw her physical birth certificate. The burden of proof is the affirmative side of a claim, and not on the negative — which means that what's required is for you to show hard evidence that any of those sources did see her birth certificate in order to properly establish that Dan was actually her birth name, not for me to prove that they didn't. Bearcat (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Agence France-Presse Danica was born there 33 years ago, under the given name of Dan. Atlanta Journal-Constitution later changed her name from “Dan” to “Danica”. Washington Post: legally changed her name from “Dan” to “Danica” in 2015. US News and World Report "Dan" became "Danica" legally in 2015. I don't know how these journalists and editors verified this information - interviews, public records, etc. The point is that these are all reputable newsorgs on which wikipedia routinely relies for sourcing sensitive BLP information and your "they don't *specifically* mention seeing a passport or birth certificate" is ridiculous. NPalgan2 (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
No, it isn't ridiculous in the slightest. It's the basic required burden of proof. Bearcat (talk) 02:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Let's take a closer look at these "reliable sources":

  1. Agence France Press - the link given is to the website which is unlikely to be a reliable source, it's just an aggregator as far as I can tell. The same story from AFP appears in the Daily Mail. Using Nexis I have examined the AFP source text, which is dated 5 Oct, and the statement about the "given name of Dan" has no source against it, neither is it from a direct interview. It appears to be hearsay.
  2. Atlanta Journal-Constitution 8 Nov. The selected text is from a section called "Want to learn more about her? Here are five things you should know." This looks like recycled news, considering the exact "five things" format has been used in earlier press coverage. Unfortunately, though other sections either have direct links or obvious sources, "fact" 3 of 5 is the quote about Dan to Danica and has none, neither does the wording say that Dan was a legal name or a birth name.
  3. Washington Post 20 Oct. The article is "Five things to know about Democrat Danica Roem" and seems unlikely to have been original as it quotes no sources, either directly or indirectly. Again we see "fact" 3 of 5 is about the name change and gives a date of 2015, but no sources.
  4. US News and World Report 8 Nov. This is lazy journalism, they could not even be bothered to put words together to write a real article, it is a list of ten things, obviously recycled news down to the level of recycling guff from Roem's Facebook account. "Fact" 6 of 10 is identical to the wording we see in other press articles.

I find it significant that researching using LexisNexis, the earliest date I can source this quote to is in "Transgender candidate takes on culture warrior in Virgina" by Postmedia News (a news agency) on 24 July 2017. The source is Roem's opposition candidate Bob Marshall where an interview was quoted as: "I'm not trying to tell people like Danica, formally Dan, how to live their life, and likewise they should not be forcing their views and behaviours on the rest of us," Marshall, 73, wrote in one message.

Clearly, if newspapers and online aggregators are endlessly recycling hearsay from Roem's opposition candidate, then Wikipedia has a responsibility to keep on demanding clear reliable sources, not pretend that lists of unsourced fluff and factoids are sourced "facts". -- (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The Agence France-Presse piece was also published in Le Nouvel Observateur which is definitely a RS. Roem gave the AFP reporter an interview, but you are correct that it's not a direct quote. But AFP and L'Obs published the statement that it was Roem's birth name. You can't just label information from multiple RSs "fluff", "unsourced" and "hearsay" because you don't like it. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Regardless of whether in English or French (neither publication is more reliable than the other as they are identical), it's the same text with a date of 5 October 2017, and 73 days after Bob Marshall's claim of "formally Dan" reported by PMN. With no other reliable and truly verified facts published in sources mentioned anywhere, this should and must be presumed to be no more than recycling hearsay from "Anti-trans Republican" Bob Marshall. -- (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, the fact that Le Nouvel Observateur is a reliable source does not necessarily mean they individually revetted every fact in an article that they were otherwise simply reprinting from another preexisting source, so its general reliability does not count as a separate data point. And secondly, AFP is also spectatcularly unlikely to have had its own direct access to Ms. Roem's birth certificate in order to reverify the statement either — it was also quite obviously just repeating a statement gleaned from another piece of reportage rather than reinvestigating the claim itself. None of that counts as any sort of proof that the name on her birth certificate is Dan. Bearcat (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
1) It was claimed that even if AFP was RS, the agency piece was reprinted in NDTV which might not be. I just pointed out that the article was also reprinted in L'Obs which is definitely RS. It's a reputable magazine reprinting an article from a reputable news agency. 2) Please point me to a wikipedia policy that implies that a newsorg needs to specifically mention seeing a birth certificate to verify a previous name. See WP:NEWSORG: "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)." If you want to argue that AFP and WashPo and AJC all got it wrong then you need to have some concrete evidence instead of theorising. NPalgan2 (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
"News reporters" cannot be presumed to have any special secret insider cabal knowledge about the name that was or wasn't present on a person's birth certificate. Based on the sources we have, the most we can say is that Dan is the name she used as her journalism byline, because that's all any of the sources (or even Bob Marshall) ever actually knew about her — there is no evidence that anybody but Danica Roem and her family knows what name is or isn't written on her birth certificate. If a person hasn't publicized or acknowledged their birth name themselves, then yes, the required standard for properly verifying a claim about their birth name most certainly is to show the birth certificate. Bearcat (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
So, your position is that the journalists just made up stuff like She legally changed her name in 2015., etc, etc? Probably they just asked Roem, Roem's family or an official campaign representative. That's Journalism 101. NPalgan2 (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
No, I'm not asserting that they just made stuff up. I'm asserting that they assumed that her legal name was Dan because Dan was her journalism byline. Because that's exactly what they did. Bearcat (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion - if I am not too late. It is obvious that this is relevant and notable for anyone seeing this article, as soon as someone sees "transgender" written.--Simen113 (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@NPalgan2: Stop playing with the RFC bot, the RFC ran for 30 days and nobody has said anything new, or introduced a single reliable source with new evidence, for the last fortnight. Rehashing speculation and hearsay which seem entirely based on the bigoted diatribes of "Virginia's chief homophobe", and whether a contributor supports Bob Marshall's views or not, relying on his quotes as if they were reliable sources certainly fails to meet Wikipedia's basic principles. Here's my reliable source, ref. "Bob Marshall, who lost to Danica Roem, has referred to himself as 'Virginia’s chief homophobe'" (source) -- (talk) 12:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, much as I hate to just let this discussion die, unless there is an administrator or somebody in authority who wants to step in and make some kind of declaration, I think we have to close this for lack of consensus. Very disappointing. -- MC (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I've requested closure assistance at WP:ANRFC. Jhugh95 (talk) 08:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Jhugh95 that has already been done, maybe remove your request to avoid duplicates. NikolaiHo☎️ 00:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Didn't my vote break the tie?--Simen113 (talk) 00:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
No, that's not how consensus works here. In addition to the previous link, you might want to check out WP:Closing discussions for more information about how it works. -- irn (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Consensus isn't about counting votes. Determining consensus is a matter of evaluating the arguments and their degree of compliance or non-compliance with policy, not just counting the "votes" — a discussion with 98 "keeps" and just two "deletes" can be closed as a delete consensus if the keeps are all "keep because I said so, the end" and the deletes are actual substantive arguments that actually make reference to Wikipedia policies. Bearcat (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
So it's a subjective process? Surely the power then lies with he who decides what arguments are good and not? This is a digression though, and not worthy of discussing at lengths here--Simen113 (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
What you are pointing to is one of the holes in WP's processes, IMHO. On the one side relying on a majority vote is very problematic. It means that somebody can just grab a bunch of their buddies to sway the vote even if most of the voters have no idea what they are talking about. The general standard has always been that there should be mostly agreement among everybody discussing before moving forward with a controversial change. The problem there, of course, is that if somebody came in early and did something wrong without anyone noticing, they and their buddies can later keep their edits from being undone simply by stalling consensus. That is not good either. The only backup mechanism is that, in theory, an administrator can come in and declare that one faction is pushing their opinions for personal reasons and decide that the other faction is the only one acting legitimately. Obviously administrators are normally loathe to do that except in extreme circumstances. Hence the deadlock here.
You can try to find an administrator who sympathizes in this case but I would not hold my breath.
-- MC (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

So, Brustopher closed this some time ago with a decision regarding the outcome. And nobody seems to have challenged how this was closed. But the article has not been updated accordingly. Am I missing something? -- MC (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. It's already in the article. There was no consensus to put it in the lead. NPalgan2 (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Include Electoral History?[edit]

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)

Original gender[edit]

I added this at I struggled to find out what gender she was born as, until I discovered it was male. I don't know why it was removed, as it is basic facts, and not something changed by a later sex change. Anyone care to elaborate on why this clarification should be suppressed?--Simen113 (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: I also see now that the facts regarding birth name is to be supressed as well. Shouldn't this Wiki be fact-based? Stating her birth name and sex doesn't undermine her current gender any more than saying she is transgender in lede.--Simen113 (talk) 15:27, 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 -- (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
As far as I have quickly skimmed through the text, I can't find any discussion as to why biological/birth gender is not listed. It would in fact only serve as a clarification (when I first read this article I couldn't make out if she was born male and changed to female, or if she was born female and was in the process of changing to male). When it says transgender, it is easily deduced, so why not list it in clear text? --Simen113 (talk) 15:35, 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. -- (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I was talking about skimming the discussion above. I read the MOS:GENDERID.--Simen113 (talk) 15:38, 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)
As a non-English speaker I was a bit unsure whether she was turning to a he, or the other way around as the process was of changing was started in 2013. (I don't know how long such processes take, etc.). But if the community deems it unnecessary or "dangerous" to post, then I have to bend to the will of the community.--Simen113 (talk) 01:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
An easy summary is at WP:TRANS? which covers current best practice for biographies. -- (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. Czolgolz (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 -- (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 -- (talk) 09:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


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

Television appearances?[edit]

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 [6] Umimmak (talk) 21:40, 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)

Reference number 22 incorrect[edit]

The title of her digital ad was NOT "Just Who I Am." The title is "Inspire." She personally messaged me on facebook today to ask me to get it changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LancGaines (talkcontribs) 19:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

That's what the given source appears to claim. Do you have a source with the title you claim? Your statement that Roem told you is not sufficient. You or Roem may also want to take this up with the source itself and see if they will issue a correction. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
The source doesn't claim that at all. It provides a quotation -- "Just who I am" -- from the "Inspire" ad but no where claims that that is its name. And if you look at the actual video in the link it reads: "Danica Roem: 'Inspire' | Campaign 2017", clearly showing the ad itself is titled "Inspire". Umimmak (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)