Talk:Mattea Roach

Daily Edits: Placement in Jeopardy Hall of Fame Updates provided by User:TheCoolestKidHere

My work is done here. I’m very sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCoolestKidHere (talk • contribs) 00:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Host preference?

I question the need for her claiming that she prefers Jennings to Bialik. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

If I go looking for info about her preference, and Wikipedia doesn't have it, then Wikipedia has failed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Why would anyone even care? --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I've asked user AldezD about this, suspecting he'll agree that it's fancruft. If he doesn't think so, I'll drop it... But did you add similar info to either Matt Amodio's or Amy Schneider's pages? --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

It turns out that AldezD is not interested in this matter. But my questions to you still stand. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I came here at Baseball Bugs' invitations, and find this one slightly tricky. I think as currently stated, it's slightly misleading, as her choice is said to be based on "his history with the show" and as currently read, it could certainly be taken as an indication of proficiency, or the like. I think I would favor removing it as sort of an undue extemporaneous answer in an interview, but I am not vehement about it. If it's kept, I should think we should add a qualifier about why she prefers Jennings. As ever, reasonable minds may differ, and happy to go with consensus here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

(ec) I'm ambivalent on its inclusion; but, if included, it belongs after this sentence: As the winningest Canadian, Roach has lamented that the late former host and Canadian Alex Trebek is not still hosting the game. (not in "personal life"), and I'd suggest it also better reflect her statement in the source: Roach said that she would prefer Ken Jennings as permanent host because of his experience as a player. Schazjmd (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I like that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. As stated, I am also ambivalent, but I think Shazjmd's suggestions would be a clear improvement. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, no, I didn't add any (my response was purely based on principle, not on any history about this precise issue), but if they expressed a preference, and RS noted that, it would be justified to add it somewhere, and that is open for debate. I suspect that the Ken Jennings article would be a logical place to also note such support. Oddly, no such content is in that article. It deserves at least a sentence.

My comment above is of course based on the premise that there must be mention in RS, not just junk sources. My support for actual inclusion would stand or fall on that basis.

The irony here is that I quoted you above (with a slight modification) and you didn't even notice. (Your original quote.) Fancruft and trivia is only found in junk sources that is not potential content, but if several RS mention something, it is no longer trivia but is potential content. (Note that "potential" Not all potential content gets mentioned.) What you or I may feel is fancruft may be of interest to many other readers, so we provide it for them, not for us. If we want to go after fancruft, we should start with the cartoon character articles. Some are mostly fancruft, yet content of much greater value is deleted outright from prominent articles on really important subjects Yes, I know that's an "other things" argument, but just sayin'. It's one of the ironies around here that we place more value on such fancruft subjects than matters of great import. Yet, per your insightful quote, it is part of our duty, the reason for the creation of Wikipedia, that we document the sum total of human knowledge as found in RS. Jimbo's vision is grand, and we shouldn't try to impose a limited goal on this project. It is not paper. All of the articles on the English Wikipedia can easily fit on a small thumb drive. See Wikipedia:Size of Wikipedia: "As of 2 April 2022, the size of the current version of all articles compressed is about 20.69 GB."

All human knowledge (with some caveats found in our PAG) deserves documentation here, whether it's about cartoon characters, Trump's serial lying and cooperation with Russian interference, or the mating habits of snakes. To quote you: "If I go looking for info, and Wikipedia doesn't have it, then Wikipedia has failed." I understand that you probably didn't intend for that to apply in all situations, but it's still a great quote, and we should basically head in that direction. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I see that a similar comment was in fact included at Amy Schneider's page, though she gave a specific reason. Matt Amodio experienced several guest hosts during his streak, and I don't think the article says anything about any preference. Maybe it doesn't matter. But one thing to keep in mind is that finding a valid source for a fact, while necessary for inclusion, is not an automatic ticket to inclusion. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Of course. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Since she lost today, maybe it doesn't matter anyway. But I still think it's irrelevant to her BLP page. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Job?

Her job is mentioned at the top of every episode. Why is it being deleted from the infobox and categories? It's already in the article. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Canadianess

She's Canadian, her winnings, in Canadian dollars is announced in Canadian news coverage. She's not American, so her local currency equivalent should occur in this article (Just as if she was British, GBP should be listed, and if she was Irish, Euros should be listed) -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Earnings (consultation prize)

Should we include Roach's 2nd place $2000 consolation prize to her all-time winnings? Mooonswimmer 15:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Why not? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Because the Jeopardy producers might not do it that way. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

We should just cite RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

No source is more reliable than the show's producers. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:07, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Good point, thanks. Mooonswimmer 20:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Those winnings should be added as they are on Ken Jennings’ page and other champs. All time winnings includes that and it is what the producers do. Always look on the leaderboard on Jeopardy.com. TheCoolestKidHere (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Pronouns

So, this page currently uses she/her pronouns, and has a clarification note referring to the fact that some sources have started referring to Mattea using they/them pronouns but she/her are being used in this profile for consistency. In today's episode of Jeopardy!, the host Ken Jennings referred to Mattea using they/them pronouns multiple times while Mattea was on stage and did not use she/her pronouns. While I do think the lack of announcement puts this into a gray area, it might be worth considering changing this article to use they/them pronouns. --129.219.8.2 (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I certainly understand where you're coming from, but given Wikipedia guidelines, I would say we should wait until we have reputable secondary sources for this change, despite the fact that I agree the reality of the situation is pretty clear. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Official Jeopardy PR material has consistently and exclusively used they/them pronouns for Mattea for six months now -- e.g., earlier today, the official Jeopardy twitter made a post to Mattea with "their" and hid at least one reply from someone trying to correct them with "her", the same way they hide any other transphobic comments on posts about trans contestants. Why is Wikipedia still refusing to follow their lead on this and reverting every edit that tries to reflect that? Because some "reliable sources" (a few newspapers and websites) are still defaulting to she/her? Why should that supersede a source that would clearly know better -- and if there is a conflict, why wouldn't the solution be to just use the gender-neutral pronoun anyway, or avoid pronouns altogether?

2603:7000:D700:2E0F:88EA:6316:CAE8:863A (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

She is not trans. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you ever so much for your valuable contribution to this discussion. 2603:7000:D700:2E0F:88EA:6316:CAE8:863A (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Mattea Roach uses They/Them pronouns according to Jeopardy.com TheCoolestKidHere (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Pronouns they/them

I have fixed the pronouns to be they/them as per jeopardy.com. If I did something incorrectly, or missed some, please fix it. Thank you TheCoolestKidHere (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Relevance of sexual preference etc.

The article says that she "identifies as lesbian". If a person's sexual preference is important enough to be included in a WP BLP, then why do articles about other living people not include details along the lines of "<insert name here> identifies as <insert sexual preference here>"?

If that level of information is relevant, then how about height, weight, or more? 2600:1700:EA01:1090:4CE2:5FE2:3EB9:53D1 (talk) 11:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The flipside is, it's what they have publicly disclosed and has been published in a reliable source, vs. what can be inferred (like the pronoun issue above, or passing mentions to their partner).

As for other articles, again, lack of statements in reliable sources, so we may not be able to verifiably state that [random conservative] is heterosexual and not bisexual. :) —C.Fred (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

they/them pronouns (2023)

The current {{efn}} states:

Articles and Jeopardy! promotional material discussing Roach in late 2022 have used both she/her and they/them pronouns. Pending further clarification, this article uses she/her pronouns for consistency.

However, new sources have been published in 2023 using they/them: Jeopardy site, CBC, Entertainment Weekly.
Should the pronouns used in the article be updated to reflect these new sources per MOS:GENDERID: Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources.?

References

– dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 05:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The they/them sources are more recent so I would say to go with those. The efn should include mention of past usage of she/her unless someone finds explicit confirmation of exclusive they/them usage. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

She identifies as lesbian, not trans, and, AFAIK, has not expressed any gender ambivalence that would require the use of they/them pronouns. If she has expressed anything like that, we should of course respect her choice, just as we do with Amy Schneider, who is trans and identifies as she/her. Do we have any sources where Mattea expresses a wish to use any other pronouns than she/her? Without such RS, this is an exercise in OR that creates needless controversy. Wikipedia editors are not supposed to create controversy. We are only supposed to document controversies that exist in RS. So where are those sources? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Valjean may not qualify as a source, but I imagine this discussion began because Ken jennings, the host of jeopardy, has referred to Mattea with gender-neutral pronouns on the Jeopardy Masters special program twice this week.

in case anyone needs a tiny bit of more clarity, Ken would not make this change lightly or on his own as Jeopardy has been very responsible about this programmatically since they started having more gender identity diversity on the show in the past 1 to 3 years.

again, this is all for context. I'm not saying the article should go one way or the other, just giving some recent observations that probably sparked the discussion. skakEL 20:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Most sources use she/her, but The Blast (not sure of its RS status as it's not listed at WP:RSP) says this: "Mattea, who identifies as non-binary and uses they/them pronouns"[1] GLAAD, which is the absolute authority on these subjects, says this: "queer Jeopardy! contestant Mattea Roach in a conversation with GLAAD's Head of Talent Anthony Allen Ramos on her latest winning streak on the beloved game show."[2]. So GLAAD says she's queer (which does not change her self-identification as lesbian (one can be both queer and lesbian)) and then consistently uses "she/her" pronouns throughout the article about her. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The GLAAD and The Blast articles are both from 2022; they are not the most recent gender identifications. I found this GLAAD article from 2023 which says Mattea is lesbian but doesn't use pronouns. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 14:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Valjean: The Blast is a celebrity gossip site, see [3] – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 15:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. So we shouldn't use them. (Striking it above.) That leaves GLAAD, which is a RS for these matters. In the absence of contrary data from the person themselves, a person's sex assigned at birth is the default for people's gender identity, if I understand this correctly (that's a big IF! ), and in the absence of any contrary indication from Mattea, we should just continue to use she/her without any form of notation (IOW we get rid of that note).

Here's a final wording we could use:

Roach identifies as lesbian, and GLAAD has also identified her as "queer".

How's that? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Bit of a lurker here, but I think that wording is right. And I fear (in a completely original research way) that this may be one of the fairly common cases where someone has preferred pronouns, but is not overly concerned about them. Thanks to you both for working through this. Dumuzid (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I share your concern, but it's not really our concern. Our primary obligation is to what the person openly desires, as they express it in RS. Without those RS, we should not be so presumptuous as to be second-guessing or making other OR assumptions on our own. Without any real huge obligation to deviate from the norm, we should just be bland and do what we've always done. If Mattea or anyone else ever makes their wishes known, then we should of course rectify the situation, as we always try to do. The requirement to update content is why our articles are never "finished". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Valjean: An IP tried to change pronouns to they/them earlier today and was reverted by Discospinster for being unsourced. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with deleting that. We need strong sourcing for any deviation from historical practices. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I have installed the new version. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Valjean: Thank you. If more sources come out using they/them (including Mattea), I'll start another talk page discussion. :) – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 17:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Valjean: Should I place a {{Pronoun editnotice}} on the article? – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 18:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

"This template may be used as an editnotice to alert editors that the subject of the article goes by certain gender pronouns. It is intended for biographies of transgender or non-binary people. See MOS:GENDERID for the relevant guidelines."

She is not transgender or non-binary, and we have no sources indicating she "goes by certain gender pronouns", so we just continue to use the default she/her gender pronouns. ( sarcasm alert...There really are lesbians who identify as she/her.) So far any talk about this is just unsourced OR speculation we should avoid and should immediately squash here. Anyone who comes here to the article or talk page and brings it up should be asked for multiple RS, per BLP. If they can't produce them, then end the discussion immediately. This type of thing is a serious BLP violation. If it ever becomes a topic she broaches in RS, we can easily and graciously deal with it then. We will want to accommodate her wishes, but so far she's said nothing, so we shouldn't either. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, all of the pronoun changes I've seen are from mobile users so they wouldn't see it anyway :) – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 19:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Just one more argument for creating an account. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

it's not because they're IPs, it's because the mobile site is bad – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 19:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I feel like it would be appropriate - since an earlier article by The Advocate was referred to in this discussion - to point out that an article published today in The Advocate says that Roach uses they/them pronouns [4]. Having said that, since Roach has given no public statements on the matter, I understand that this may not be enough to change the pronouns in the article. Still, it feels very strange to me that this article is still using she/her pronouns when the television program that they are currently on has involved the host refer to them exclusively with they/them pronouns. I understand that there is some ambiguity and it is less than a clear direct statement from them, but it seems like there is an implied preference in that that we would also infer if, say, Roach retained a publicist who then consistently referred to them using they/them pronouns without explicitly stating a preference. --2600:8800:1800:F300:C4D3:A865:C6D0:2327 (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Having just watched today's show where host Ken Jennings once again referred to Mattea with they/them pronouns (which the Jeopardy social media, team does too), I agree and I vote we change the pronouns to they/them. Like you said, the TV program Mattea is known for is exclusively using they/them pronouns. Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The policy says to go by the "most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources"; it doesn't say the person in question has to personally make a big coming out statement, or specify how the reliable source needs to report it. The way i see it, Jeopardy itself is top of the list of reliable sources about Jeopardy contestants, and the fact that they have deliberately changed their pronoun usage for Mattea indicates that Mattea has expressed to the producers that they use they/them pronouns, and that has been reported by Jeopardy many times over now. The fact that some websites who write about them still use she/her shouldn't cancel out a source that is both more reliable (the producers who can directly speak to them, rather than writers who themselves probably consulted this very Wikipedia article) and more recent (32 minutes ago). 174.231.49.115 (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Use by other sources than herself does not count here. It must be her "most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources". SELF-identification. We need it from her mouth. Counting or noting how Jeopardy! does it is classic OR. We would need secondary sources to document that, and even then we would still only be able to attribute it to the source by writing that The Journal of XYZ Terminology Counting Professionals says that Jeopardy! uses they/them pronouns when discussing her, but we don't have any of that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The top comment in this thread cited a reliable secondary source that refers to them as "Mattea Roach, a writer and podcaster from Toronto, who is queer and uses they/them pronouns". There is no reliable secondary source that says "Mattea Roach uses she/her pronouns". 2603:7000:D700:2E0F:88EA:6316:CAE8:863A (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

We still need it from her mouth. Even GLAAD uses she/her pronouns. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Careful with those goalposts; they look pretty heavy.

Ok so if we need a direct quote from the subject of every article before we can decide what pronouns to use, then where's the source from Mattea's mouth that says "I use she/her pronouns"? 2603:7000:D700:2E0F:88EA:6316:CAE8:863A (talk) 03:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

In the absence of a self-identification other than the norm, we go with the at birth norm. That's the starting goalpost she got at birth, and we'd need to hear her desire to move it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I would argue -- quite strongly -- that the fact that Jeopardy refers to them using they/them pronouns is, in effect, a self-identification. To say otherwise would be to imply that the Jeopardy team took it upon themselves to change the pronouns they use to refer to Mattea (Jeopardy, and presumably Mattea themselves, used she/her during their original run), and that Mattea either chooses to let them continue (meaning they're alright with the pronouns, justifying changing this article), or is protesting the usage and Jeopardy is failing to listen. None of that seems plausible to me.

We can surmise with confidence that Mattea themselves asked Jeopardy to refer to them in that way, and as such should be a good enough source to make the change on the page. Using Jeopardy as a source for this is no more OR than using Mattea themselves would be.

I'll note that your continuing to use she/her to refer to Mattea when it's clear that they use they/them pronouns (even granting that a source strong enough to use for Wikipedia does not yet exist) makes it seem like you perhaps have a stronger desire to keep the article the same than simply because no reliable source exists. WPscatter ^t/_c 05:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I really don't care either way what we end up doing. I am just demanding that we stick to policy. What you have just described is your own observation about an alleged practice by Jeopardy!, but, in the absence of a RS saying that, it's just your OR. That's a policy violation. You have also added your own conclusion of what this must mean, ergo that she must have instructed or allowed them to do it. That too is your OR.

Everything at Wikipedia, other than "the sky is blue" type content, must be based on RS. We lack them. If we have her "self-identification" saying she prefers any other gender pronouns than she/her, we will of course do so, but without RS, we're just dealing with OR speculations. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean, "an alleged practice by Jeopardy"? You can see it on the official Jeopardy Youtube page right now (i can't put the link here but it's ywcC6yMZGvg ).

Any reasonable person can see that Jeopardy previously used she/her pronouns and then changed to using they/them, and draw the conclusion from that of "it's much more likely that Mattea told them to use those pronouns than it is that the producers just decided to make that change on their own." Is making that conclusion considered original research by Wikipedia citation standards? Maybe, but that doesn't mean it isn't true, and it would be a lot easier to assume good faith on your part if you weren't going out of your way to misgender them in every comment you make here. Everything you've said here could have easily been reworded to just avoid pronouns altogether and stay neutral, but you're acting like Mattea's going to sue Wikipedia for libel if we don't actively use a she/her at least once every 30 seconds. 2603:7000:D700:2E0F:88EA:6316:CAE8:863A (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

IP2603, you write: "Is making that conclusion considered original research by Wikipedia citation standards? Maybe,..." Not just "maybe". It's a classic example of OR worthy of use on the OR policy page as a clear example of forbidden activity. We need Mattea's own clear and personal most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. We need a quote of some type from Mattea or her official representative. So far, GLAAD consistently uses "she/her" pronouns throughout their article about her, and they are pretty authoritative, so my use of she/her pronouns should not be controversial. I would love to use they/them pronouns for her if she expressed such a wish, but we have not source for that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Read the rest of what i said. When i said that, i wasn't talking about the article anymore, i'm talking about this discussion right here. Any reasonable person can see -- yes, through "original research" -- that there are clear reasons to believe it's quite likely Mattea prefers they/them pronouns, and regardless of what the article ends up saying, the decent human thing to do would be to at least not actively go against that while we're having this discussion. The fact that you insist on using the quite-possibly-wrong pronouns as much as possible on this talk page when you could just as easily get your point across in a neutral way makes me very skeptical of your motivations. 2603:7000:D700:2E0F:88EA:6316:CAE8:863A (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

IP2603, you have absolutely no reason to violate AGF by being "skeptical of your motivations". You need to put that way of thinking away around here. What possible motivation would I have for doing anything that would be against Mattea's wishes or against policies here? None. I will absolutely honor any wish Mattea has. I just wish we had RS documenting Mattea's "recent expressed gender self-identification". We don't have any RS for that, and using OR in place of such sources is not allowed. My only "motivation" is related to our PAG. Any other motivations of mine are what I have repeatedly stated here. I wish to honor Mattea's wishes, as they are expressed by Mattea's SELF-identification. My use of she/her gender pronouns for Mattea is in keeping with the practice of GLAAD and other reliable sources. There is no indication that Mattea objects to them, therefore it is not "wrong" to use them, nor is it disrespectful or a rejection of Mattea's wishes as Mattea hasn't made her/their wishes known. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I haven't accused you of anything, but i am critically examining your words and actions. The page for AGF says that it "does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary" and that it does not "prohibit discussion and criticism" but that "editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such." As i said before, you would make it a lot easier for others to assume good faith on your part if it hadn't taken you this long to start using more neutral wording in this discussion; for example, instead of starting by just declaring (with no citations of course) "she is not trans", you could have said "I'm not aware of a RS that says Mattea is nonbinary; do you have any in mind?" (and then someone could have explained to you that that's not really the issue here anyway since not all nonbinary people use they/them and vice versa) 2603:7000:D700:2E0F:88EA:6316:CAE8:863A (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Where do you get that from? MOS:GENDERID simply says that we use someone's most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. It doesn't take any position on what pronouns we should use when we don't have any self-expressed identification that I can see. In the absence of policy saying otherwise, my inclination would be that we should default to what we do in every other situation, which is go with the most up-to-date reliable sources. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

In fact, looking at it more carefully, MOS:GENDERID explicitly says that Some editors favor the use of the singular they in cases where gender identity is in question and no pronoun preference has been declared by the biographical subject – so referring to Mattea as "they" is absolutely permissible, if not required, unless the "most recent expressed gender self-identification" involves using she/her pronouns. Which nobody in this discussion seems to have suggested. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

No, we don't need it "from her mouth"; we need a reliable source reporting her self-identification. That's exactly what "Mattea Roach, a writer and podcaster from Toronto, who is queer and uses they/them pronouns" coming from The Advocate is doing. The Advocate is a reliable source reporting her self-identification. They're not saying "for whom we use they/them" (although they do), they are clearly and specifically reporting her self-identification. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• I have notified WT:LGBT of this discussion, see Special:Diff/1154229141. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 02:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• The page is now semi-protected for a week. Now only serious editors can edit it. Let discussion and sources determine whether there should be any change from normal practice. This is a BLP matter and anything that violates BLP MUST be removed IMMEDIATELY. See the top of this page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  Above you directly state "she is not trans", and again "she is not transgender or non-binary", after they had begun using they/them pronouns publicly. It is extremely clear that you are too biased to participate in this discussion. As you are the only person who is reverting these obviously correct pronoun changes, I'm making them again, and if you revert them again I'll be opening a notice at AN3. Kindly keep the transphobia off of Wikipedia, please. WPscatter ^t/_c 05:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  Also, the pronoun changes are not a BLP violation. If you believe it is, please point to the section of BLP that it violates. If your only argument is that "the default should be birth gender", that is your opinion and not Wikipedia policy. WPscatter ^t/_c 05:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  You are taking my words out of context.

  "This template may be used as an editnotice to alert editors that the subject of the article goes by certain gender pronouns. It is intended for biographies of transgender or non-binary people. See MOS:GENDERID for the relevant guidelines."

  She is not transgender or non-binary, and we have no sources indicating she "goes by certain gender pronouns",

  That's the context. I am referring to the template. Now stop making personal attacks and casting aspersions or you will end up blocked. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  I at no point made a personal attack. Blithely dismissing a queer person's gender identity is inarguably transphobia, and the context doesn't absolve you of that. I don't know whether you as a person are transphobic, but you posted transphobia. And I would ask you to keep it off of Wikipedia.

  Thank you for not reverting the changes. I'm sure at some point in the future Mattea themselves will state their pronouns publicly, at which point the tags you added can be removed. In the meantime, I and all the other editors in this conversation disagree with your assessment that we don't have enough of a source to change the pronouns. WPscatter ^t/_c 18:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  You accused me of being transphobic and "too biased to participate in this discussion". Those are personal attacks. Discuss content, not the editor. Stating that Mattea is not trans is not a transphobic statement, it's a mere statement of fact. "Transgender" should not be a topic here as it just muddies the water. There is no evidence Mattea is trans. Mattea identifies as lesbian and queer, and mention of such is very much on-topic. As I understand it, "queer" is an umbrella term that includes lesbians and gays, among many other identities in the LGBTQ community. Self-identification as lesbian or queer does not automatically indicate anything about gender identity. The spectrum of available gender identities and life choices is huge (which is why the term "gender fluid" is so great), and I fully respect anyone's choices in that realm.

  Am I mistaken? Is there anything I've written above that is confusing? It's certainly possible! I'm always happy to learn more, and I fully support the rights of anyone of any gender identity to be respected and have full and equal rights in society and under the law. We all need love and acceptance, especially those who meet discrimination and abuse all the time. I hope you understand that I am not transphobic or homophobic, even if I may not express myself clearly at all times. My use of she/her gender pronouns for Mattea is in keeping with the practice of GLAAD and other reliable sources. There is no indication that she objects to them, therefore it is not "wrong" to use them, nor is it disrespectful or a rejection of her wishes as she hasn't made her wishes known. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  Mattea has made their wishes known implicitly through asking Jeopardy (the thing they are most known for) to refer to them using those pronouns. Jeopardy has referred to them as such for two series now (last year's Tournament of Champions and now Jeopardy Masters) so, while it's true that we don't know for sure that they don't use she/her, we at least know that for the last 6 months or so they have been using they/them pronouns publicly almost exclusively, and in situations where Mattea has the power to correct the people referring to them that way.

  I will reiterate that I did not make any personal attacks. "You are too biased to participate in this discussion" is not a personal attack, nor is "you have said something that consitutes transphobia". I won't get into the argument of whether being non-binary constitutes being transgender, but your insistence that Mattea is neither is unobjectionably transphobic. Non-binary is a fairly broad term and it certainly includes genderfluidity which you seem to be on board with. In any case, I would guess that 99% of people who use they/them pronouns for themselves would identify as non-binary in some capacity, and I honestly just don't know why you seem so sure that Mattea isn't. Is it because they haven't publicly used the term "non-binary" to refer to themselves?

  The simple fact of the discussion is that Mattea might still be comfortable with she/her pronouns, but we know for a certainty that they are comfortable with they/them pronouns. There is no reason not to edit the article to reflect that. WPscatter ^t/_c 20:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  Have you been withholding evidence from us? Why have you not mentioned you had RS telling us that "Mattea has made their wishes known implicitly through asking Jeopardy (the thing they are most known for) to refer to them using those pronouns."??? If we had RS that said this, then the problem would be solved, so please provide your source. BTW, do you have any RS showing Mattea being a person "who uses they/them pronouns for themselves"? I'd like to see any sources where she describes herself with those pronouns. Being non-binary does NOT "constitute being transgender", but being transgender DOES constitute being non-binary...doesn't it? As far as I know, the terms are not synonymous. Help me out here. I'm open to learning more. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Valjean: Being non-binary does NOT "constitute being transgender", but being transgender DOES constitute being non-binary...doesn't it? You have it backwards. Being non-binary usually constitutes being trans (some non-binary people, including me, don't identify as trans), while many trans people aren't non-binary because they identify with the gender opposite from their assigned sex at birth. this is just from my own experience and not RS in any way, nor is it that great of an explanation – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 21:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  dudhhr, you're right. (Duh! Bangs head against wall.) I was more focused on a limited sense of how the term non-binary is used, the sense of not agreeing with one's own assigned sex at birth, but you're right that it's not that simple. I tried a simplistic parallelism for a complicated topic, and that didn't work. Transgender people are obviously disagreeing with their own assigned sex at birth. They don't feel at home in the body they were born with. Even in the transgender world, there is a spread of gender and sexual preference choice fluidity, from straight to gay to bi to poly to whatever-floats-one's-boat. It's all good. This is all fairly new to me, and I still get mixed up. No offense intended, and please forgive me and be patient. I'm trying. Any attempt by you to explain things to me is appreciated. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Valjean, at this point I'm not sure what more you want to correct the article. You've added a citation needed, an original research (now removed), AND a non-neutrality note to the article over this dispute now. If The Advocate is a reliable source, then we have a reliable source stating that Mattea uses they/them pronouns, and it should be cited in the article and all the notices removed. Primary sources are never required for BLP, they're simply sufficient in some cases like this. But secondary sources are sufficient as well. Do you take issue with The Advocate as a reliable source? WPscatter ^t/_c 04:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  Your ping didn't work, but I just happened to notice this in my watchlist. I have no trouble with The Advocate or some other RS as attributed sources for their own statements, but since they are not quoting Mattea, they do not qualify "as reported in the most reliable sources" that publish "the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification". See: MOS:GENDERID: Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources.

  As you have likely noticed, I have withdrawn from this discussion as it is fruitless. Editors in this discussion have more than once admitted they are using OR because they don't have a single RS quoting her or showing even one example of her using those pronouns about herself, and yet they insist it's okay to use OR and no RS. Whatever. If policies are not respected here, then I'm out. You'll do whatever you want anyway. I'm one of those old timers who fucking wrote these policies in the old days, but what do I know? If you can change the MOS to not demand an "expressed self-identification" "in the most recent" RS, then I'll be fine. Do that. Without a "self-identification" requirement, we can engage in all kinds of source abuse that violates the BLP rights of subjects because even RS speculate and guess. Also get GLAAD to start using they/them pronouns for Mattea, instead of she/her, but what would they know about this stuff? They obviously know less about LGBTQ matters than editors here who use OR and SYNTH. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  You are confusing "reporting" with "quoting". When the Advocate says Mattea uses they/them, that's reporting. Really.They are reporting that Mattea has expressed that self-identification. No OR involved. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  A reliable source that "speculates and guesses" (without explicitly notating their speculation and guesses as such) is not a reliable source. The entire point of a reliable source is that their claims can be relied on. Citing the claim being discussed here is not original research. WPscatter ^t/_c 19:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  "Citing the claim being discussed here is not original research." True. As long as it is attributed, it isn't. Changing it to wikivoice would be wrong as it is a controversial matter. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not withholding any evidence. It would be ridiculous to assume that the reason Jeopardy refers to Mattea using they/them pronouns is due to any reason other than Mattea asking them to do so. Call that OR or SYNTH if you want, but I disagree - it is so obvious a conclusion that it should be enough to justify updating the page (and certainly enough to justify using the new pronouns in your own conversations). I also count that as Mattea using those pronouns for themselves, considering the request came from them.

  I won't address the rest of the comment as I feel @Dudhhr already said much of what I would have said and probably said it better. I acknowledge your response and I do not think you're intending to offend. WPscatter ^t/_c 22:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

In the past year I've come to like and admire Mattea, and if Mattea wants to be called they instead of she, that's fine. But as a reader, I must admit I find the proliferation of "they" to be kind of visually jarring. Maybe a few more occurrences of "Roach" in place of some of the "theys" would break that up a bit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Me too. I really like Mattea and Amy. Brilliant players. Nice solution. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the official Jeopardy site uses "they" for Mattea, and "he" or "she" for the other Masters contestants.[5] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, yes, they do, and it has been surmised above by several editors (who don't deny it's their own OR) that this is proof that Mattea has requested them to do so, but that's classic OR reasoning. Without a secondary source independent of Jeopardy! saying that Jeopardy! does this, or a primary source from Jeopardy! itself, we cannot make any observation or statement about this practice in this article, no matter how much we discuss it here on the talk page (where OR is allowed), nor can we let their practice, as observed by editors, guide us in what pronouns we use at Wikipedia.

Why doesn't GLAAD do it? Maybe they are doing what is normally done, and that is, in the absence of any self-identification or expressed desire from the person involved, they continue using the gender assigned at birth description norm. That's what we and society always does until we have an indication from the person themselves. At Wikipedia we respect people's own wishes and do not tolerate discrimination against LGBTQ or non-binary persons, nor do we tolerate discrimination by LGBTQ and non-binary persons against heterosexual and binary people. BLP cuts both ways.

The most we could do is use attribution and mention, with sources, that "These 2-3(?) sources state that Mattea prefers/uses they/them pronouns." (We can't even append to that the fact that "Wikipedia editors have not found any source where Mattea expresses any opinion on the use of personal pronouns for herself".) To my mind, the practice of other sources and Jeopardy! does not give us permission to violate our own MOS which still demands a "self-identification". If we just had a source where they said that "Mattea told us she prefers they/them pronouns". That would be good enough, but we don't even have that. We don't even have a single instance where she uses they/them pronouns for herself. As I've indicated above, I won't (and haven't) edit war over this and editors here will do whatever they want, but my opinion is not changed. I've been here since 2003, before we had 200,000 articles, and I've helped develop most of our major policies, and I believe we should stick to them or change them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm honestly trying to figure out what you think The Advocate means when they say "uses they/them pronouns". It really isn't that "they" and "them" are parts of Mattea's vocabulary, along with "fidgety" and "carbuncle". It is a statement that Mattea has identified "they" and "them" as proper terms to be used by others when Mattea is the subject. Asking someone what pronouns they "use", or saying "I use..." certain pronouns, is one of the standard ways of addressing that information, as you can see in examples. (It's not the only way, of course; some use "I prefer" or "I go by", among other options.) Does this person use "they/them" to refer to themself? Probably not usually; like most of us, they probably use the gender-free "I/me/mine" pronouns in such instances. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I take it as their view on the topic. Maybe they heard that Mattea does that. We don't know if it's their view or, per our MOS, Mattea's "SELF-identification". The key thing here is "self". If we uncoupled our policy and MOS from "self", then we could do whatever the fuck we wanted and ignore the wishes of the person, as long as their wishes are not known without any doubt. I am raising a doubt. I have not seen her address the topic per "SELF-identification". I have only seen 2-3 RS say she uses those pronouns, but they provide no evidence or examples. Maybe one source, an unreliable source, said it, and the others have assumed it's true. We know this happens all the time. Let's look at this again:

MOS:GENDERID: Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources.

If I understand this correctly, we are trying to make sure we are keeping up with the latest phase in the development of a person's own gender identification, which is something that changes over time, from their childhood acceptance of the status quo he/she to their own independent changing awareness of dissatisfaction with that status quo. At some point, they begin to feel that "I am not like others. I may be born a girl, and am a girl, but am attracted to other girls, not to boys. I am actually a lesbian." or a "tomboy" may think "I was born a girl, but don't feel "girly". I feel like being a boy is better, and I want to identify as a boy. I feel so much like a boy that I am, like most boys, attracted to girls, so I'm likely a 'butch' lesbian." I could go on as there are myriad variations on this theme. The spectrum seems to be infinite, with the typical binary he/she "genders" being far too limited for a subset of the population, but with the "biological/sexual" binary norm still functional enough to actually keep producing every single person in the LGBTQ spectrum. (Biological reproduction will not be denied. Nature will out! ) Here we try to honor their wishes by adopting their latest/"most recent" "self-identification". Mattea is silent on the matter. I hope she/they addresses this in an interview soon. Even a tweet would work, but she/they hasn't replied to my request. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Of far greater personal significance to Ms. Roach than debates over pronouns is the fact that her beloved father, Phillip Roach, has died at age 57 of a brain aneurism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Crap! Now I'm sad. I'm sure Mattea is surrounded by loving people. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The more I think about this, I think you're technically correct. No, Jeopardy using they/them pronouns for Mattea is not a self-identification, nor is an article from an RS stating clearly that they use the pronouns. However, I think it's a case of following the letter of the policy rather than the spirit, to a detriment. It is overwhelmingly obvious that the only reason Jeopardy would refer to Mattea using nonstandard pronouns is a request from Mattea themselves. Therefore it is as good as a self-identification for the purposes of this policy. It seems as though there is a consensus to that idea, but I wanted to spell it out since I don't think it was explicitly stated before. WPscatter ^t/_c 05:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Why would it be "classic OR reasoning" for us to use the pronouns that Jeopardy uses for Mattea, but not for us to use the name that Jeopardy uses for Mattea? Why don't we need to cite a secondary source to say "this newspaper says that Jeopardy claims this contestant's name is Mattea"? 2603:7000:D700:2E0F:88EA:6316:CAE8:863A (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

IP2603, there seems to be something missing in your wording. The OR reasoning is the idea that because Jeopardy! or any other source uses they/them pronouns about Mattea, therefore we can assume she has instructed them to do so. Without a RS stating she has instructed them to do so, it's our own surmising and OR reasoning. We DO need a secondary source. Without a secondary source, what "this newspaper" or Jeopardy! does has no weight and cannot be mentioned here. Editors' observations (that's OR) about what "this newpaper" or Jeopardy! does gives that info no weight for mention here, but if an independent RS (a secondary one) notices and writes about it, it has due weight and we can mention it. Also, if Jeopardy! as a primary source mentions she has instructed them to do so, that would be a legitimate use of a primary source. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:17, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

That's a whole lot of words that only slightly pretend to address the first half of one of my sentences. Against my better judgment, i'll try again: If we need a citation specifically saying "Mattea has told Jeopardy to refer to them with they/them pronouns", then why don't we also need a citation specifically saying "Mattea has told Jeopardy that their name is Mattea" before we can put a name in this article? By your logic, it seems that this article should be titled "Unnamed 23-time Jeopardy champion" until we can find their birth certificate. 2603:7000:D700:2E0F:88EA:6316:CAE8:863A (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Mattea's actual name (or, at worst, stage name) is well-documented. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

No more well-documented, and not differently documented, than their pronouns. Plus, I'm sure someone has mentioned this already, but it also bears pointing out that there is also no source that would license the use of she/her pronouns for Mattea to Valjean's standard, and yet Valjean insists on using she/her pronouns for them anyway—surely a feat of OR on Valjean's part, according to the principles Valjean has proposed. AJD (talk) 04:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

It's worth noting—and I don't think this is your intention, but it's worth noting—that often, people who hold anti-LGBT or anti-trans views deliberately refrain from using pronouns to refer to a person, by which means they can claim plausible deniability ("I didn't misgender that person!") while refusing to honor their identity. I agree that singular they to refer to a single person whose identity is known is clunky (though I do use it to refer to myself!) and it trips me up while reading as well. I'm not opposed to rewriting it in some instances if it makes the article easier to read. I would just like everyone involved in the discussion to be aware that removing the pronouns entirely is a tactic used by transphobes who do not want to be accused as such. WPscatter ^t/_c 19:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, if we were referring to Amy Schneider as he/him, then you'd have a point, but she is clear about her gender identity, so we honor it. Otherwise—and I don't think this is your intention, but it's worth noting—it's best for you to stay far away from hinting that other editors might be homophobic or transphobic. Even when other editors, possibly accidentally, refer to Mattea as "she", which the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) and many other RS do, they are not intending any offense. GLAAD certainly isn't. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I've done my best to clarify that I'm genuinely not accusing @Baseball Bugs of anything here. I still think it's worth pointing out. You clearly think I am and are using my wording mockingly to accuse me of doing so. I suggest you assume good faith more often, as I (despite what you may think) did in the comment you're replying to. WPscatter ^t/_c 02:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate on the meaning of this reply? I wasn't even addressing you in my comment. WPscatter ^t/_c 05:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Why did you mention my name? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Because Valjean was implying that I was accusing you of something that I wasn't. You were involved in the conversation. Apologies for pinging you if that wasn't appropriate. WPscatter ^t/_c 15:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I was oblivious to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Pronoun citations for all or stop complaining about it

I've read most of the discussions on this page regarding pronouns and just want to say that this whole "wikipedia requires a source for pronouns other than those that we assume based on assumed sex at birth" argument is stupid and outdated.

If you're going to require citations for pronouns at all, do it for every person. And if there isn't any, then the default should be to either avoid pronouns or use something neutral.

But since most would agree the route above would be kind of strange, just drop it and use they/them pronouns, which are clearly in use on Jeopardy Masters. CompendiumWizard (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Unclear winnings

It is not clear whether the figure of $560,983 that is stated as her winnings includes or does not include the figure of $250,000 that is said to be her winnings in a May 2023 "Masters" playoff.

I hope this can be clarified. 2601:200:C082:2EA0:FCED:658B:3322:9342 (talk) 16:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)