Talk:Nicole Maines/Archive 1

Archive 1

Inclusion of birth name

The birth name of Maines is well sourced and is part of sources which are authorized biographicals. The book for example is an authorized family biographical with an entire section of the book dedicated to the fathers petitioning for a name change and Maines selecting her current name. Not including this is ignoring the sources and ignoring that this information was released by the family and Maines in an authorized fashion. The inclusion is done to reflect the sources which are authorized by Maines and do not go anywhere near the issues of other individuals on Wikipedia where the inclusion of birth names is malicious or transphobic. Maines is clearly comfortable with her birth name being shared and the book reflects this with the details voluntarily and freely provided on the issue. 91.110.126.179 (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion 1

I've removed Maines' birth name (which trans folks often refer to as a deadname) from the infobox and source, per Wikipedia policy as she was not notable by this name prior to her gender transition. That her deadname is included in a biography is irrelevant. Including the deadnames of trans people when it is unnecessary is harmful to this community and does not enhance the encyclopedia. Funcrunch (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

This information is voluntarily provided and published in a reliable source meeting inclusion notability under MOS:DEADNAME. It is not maliciously provided and is not from a junk or fringe source. The book focuses on previous and current identity. Going down the path of "trans folks" this or that is not a good argument for censorship. I have restored it as it is clearly currently consensus to retain this as part of the article. Also what community is being referred to here with the statement "is harmful to this community". If it is the trans community that is an opinion and must be back up with proof and not just a claim. It is not the place for Wikipedia to be censored without a very good reason such as a legal reason. Please see WP:Censored and MOS:DEADNAME. Sparkle1 (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:CENSORED is about things like profanity and nudity; it has nothing to do with deadnaming living subjects. I reviewed this talk page and saw no consensus established to include the deadname, only the one anonymous comment from July 2018 and now yours. I don't want to get into an edit war, so I will post to WT:LGBT to invite further comment on this issue. Funcrunch (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Sparkle1 (talk · contribs) and the IP that Maines' birthname can and should be included. There is nothing in MOS:DEADNAME that would suggest that it cannot or should not be included. The name is well known, Maines' gained notability because of her transgender activism, and she has never indicated (as far as I am aware) that she's offended or hurt by her deadname being known. There's no reason to not include it. As it has long been included in the article, and this discussion is now 3:1 in favor of inclusion, I've restored it. Yilloslime (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I also agree with the inclusion of her birthname. There's no evidence that she wants it to be private; however, the fact that she allowed it to be included in the book is evidence that she's okay with it being known. This discussion can be revisited if new evidence comes up that suggests she wants her birth name to be a secret. However, until/unless that happens, there's absolutely no reason to not include it. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 03:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Dicsussion 2

Strongly disagree:

1) As problematic as mos:deadnaming is, it does state that a person's previous names should not be included if they are not relevant, and that common sense should prevail. That she is a trans woman is relevant to this article; deadnaming her is not.

2) In my experience of Wikipedia, many of the editors exhibit a chronic deafness to the sensitivities of the group that is the subject of a given article, verging on the abusive, which is accompanied by a zealous refusal to improve the article, using mos: as a sledgehammer to ignore decency and common sense, and then locking an article or banning contributors of the group being written about, as happened so much with the asexuality article, and as appears to happen with transgenger-themed articles. I say this to the zealots here: please practise common sense here. If someone was not famous in their deadname (eg. Laverne Cox), then there is no reason or justification for deadnaming that person AT ALL. On the other hand, if someone was famous for their previous (other-gender) name (eg. Caitlin Jenner), then their deadname can be seen as relevant for inclusion, though I would add that its inclusion should be in the biography section.

3) Re floating this with the LGBT group, though they include the letter "T" in their name, these groups tend to be gay, not trans, and gay people do not necessarily know anything more about trans issues than do heterosexual people.

4) Even if we are okay with our deadname being referenced in one context, that does not necessarily mean that we consent for it to be used more broadly, and normal standards of decency and respect should apply.

5) Therefore in this case, Nicole's name should not be referenced in such a position of prominence, and given that she was not famous for her deadname, Nicole should not be deadnamed at all.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.184.202.187 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

There have been many other cases of writers including former names in bios against their subjects preferences. The inclusion in the book may be more a sensational tactic than something asked for or explicitly allowed. This name is discussed almost never in other sources and not by Maines, pushing it wouldn't be WP:DUE and may run into bio issues. Not sure what it adds to the article or helps the reader know about the subject as the name was never used by the subject during any period of her notability as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rab V (talk • contribs) 04:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

This issue as it currently stands is settled. The above while well-meaning comments are though hysterical (as in deriving from wildly uncontrolled emotion) and tries to preclude all inclusions of birth names on Wikipedia. It appears to be a wider complaint about the policies of Wikipedia. As such this page is not the appropriate forum for such a discussion to take place.

The issue is that Maines WAS initially notable for being trans and the book, which was authorised and includes her birth name, is a large part of her notability when she was a teenager. The book was written with the family by Nutt and this is made clear in the book and has not been disputed by any person included in the book. If there is reliable and well-sourced evidence that backs up the claim of the inclusion of the birth name as a "sensational tactic" then please provide it. At the moment there is nothing to diminish the good-faith assumption that the inclusion was wholly authorised. Speculating otherwise is original research. Please also bear in mind that later actions of an individual do not invalidate or diminish prior actions or notable items and as such notability of one part of a persons life does not diminish over time.

Some of the comments above are problematic and border on personalistion of contributions with a focus on the contributors not the contributions. "Chronic deafness" is not something which has been done here and such claims do not assume good faith. "Sensitivity towards this group" is also not a criterion for inclusion or removal. If that were the case then to be sensitive to some groups information could never be included, such as the issues surrounding Islam and depictions of Mohammed. This would be a plain and simple case of they don't like it. Calling other editors who have contributed to this article as "zealots", even if not referring to all editors, is not a collegiate or collaborative way of addressing any issue anywhere on Wikipedia. I would say that there absolutely zero zealots on this article who have contributed to any of the discussions on here. as for the inclusion of her birth name that is a matter of common sense discussion surrounding how it came into the public domain and if that was done with or without good cause. In this case, it came into the public domain with evident good cause. The book was authorised by the family and the inclusion was part of that. To not include this information would be selective censorship for no other reason that I don't like this. Sparkle1 (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I won't repeat the arguments I've made about this before, as anyone can read them directly above. What I will point out is that the longstanding consensus for this article is that name should be included. So until that consensus changes, or unless a new policy or guideline comes along, the birthname should stay. Yilloslime (talk) 03:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Insulting contributors by calling us "hysterical" is both rude and extremely unprofessional. You should know better than that, and you should do better than that.

You are also just plain wrong in fact. The policy, even though not perfect, very clearly states that trans people are not to be deadnamed if they were not famous in their deadname. The name should not be referenced anywhere in the article. The examples of Laverne Cox and Caitlin Jenner illustrate this point perfectly.49.199.99.177 (talk)

What "policy" are you referring too? I am not aware of anything covering this situation. So unless there's a brand new policy that I'm not aware of, you are mistaken. Yilloslime (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Yilloslime: MOS:CHANGEDNAME: In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name. Not a policy per se, but a fairly long-established guideline. stwalkerster (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. This guideline is not applicable as her birth name is not in the LEDE and no one is arguing that it should be. Yilloslime (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this discussion gets to the heart of the issue - what is the encyclopedic value of including Maines's dead name here? Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

It's information about her. People might be curious what her dead name is. Like what has been said multiple times already in this discussion, there is absolutely no evidence supporting the idea that she has a problem with her dead name being here. The book that included her dead name was written with her family and was about her being trans, and there was no problem then. If Maines ever suggests that she wants her dead name to be a secret, this discussion can change. But until/unless that happens, I see no reason to leave it out. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a bad argument - people may be curious about lots of things, and that doesn't make it encyclopedic. If anything, curiousity about her deadname can only be prurient, since she had already transitioned before she became a public figure. Generally, when dealing with BLP, the assumption is to err on the side of personal privacy, unless the matter is notable. This skirts the line of WP:AVOIDVICTIM, and I am confident that if we take it to the Administrators' notice board, the consensus will be to remove the name.Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

There's a lot of news articles about her that includes her birth name, as mentioned before. You're ignoring that the book, which was one of the first things that made her notable, also includes the birth name. Feel free to start an WP:RFC to get more editors' opinions on the matter if you want to, but this is a simple content dispute, and not really appropriate for an Admin board. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 03:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus here, just claims of a consensus by two users. I will remove Maines's deadname in 24 hours unless I see a good reason why it is information that needs to be in an encyclopedia. If that starts a new edit war, we can take it to the administrators. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

First of all, you don't get to make arbitrary demands like that. That's not how this works. You already have been reverted by another editor besides myself and warned for editing warring. If you remove it again without consensus to do so, you'll likely be blocked. Second of all, there are three users, not two, making policy and logic based reasons to include this. It has been on the article for years despite some objections. There clearly is an established consensus to keep it right now, so it can only be removed if a new consensus is established. Third of all, there's a ton of media coverage about the book that includes her dead name and Maines never once raised any objections over it. [1] [2] [3]. There's simply no reason to believe that she's uncomfortable with her dead name being known, meaning there's simply is no reason to not include it. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 03:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Not arbitrary, that is how it works, I won't be blocked, your reasons are not "policy and logic based" (LOL), the fact that it has been on the article for years is irrelevant, there is no established consensus, it can be removed, the news articles are irrelevant, the presumption is that it should be removed unless she specifically says she wants it - not the other way round. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 03:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Her not objecting to it being in the book or news articles is her saying she's okay with it being known. There clearly is an established consensus here, there's a reason why you've been reverted. And edit warring will get you blocked, it doesn't matter if you're "right". JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 03:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Redirecting of Doe v Clenchy in to this article

The article Doe v Clenchy can stand on it own. It has multiple sources and simply requires expanding. The subject of this article is known for inclusion in that case but it is not all they are known for. Previously this article was after a deletion discussion agreed to be redirected in to Doe v Clenchy. This indicated that Doe v Clenchy has consensus to be a separate article and not part of this article. Doe v Clenchy simply needs expanding. in terms of LGBT rights articles it is an important articles and having it redirect would be akin to having the Vermont gay marriage case redirect to the successful litigants. It doesn't make sense. Both articles can stand by themselves neither should be redirected to the other. If anything a link to Doe v Clenchy as a main article should be included in this article to give more information on Doe v Clenchy. 91.110.126.179 (talk) 07:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

If someone can add information and expand the article then it's useful on its own, including more information, its significant, etc. other than that it's honestly kind of just stating everything that's being said here. QueerFilmNerd^talk 07:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

This is the point it needs expanding not redirecting. redirecting is effectively giving up on the article. Also it could potentially be said that some of the information be moved from this article over to the main article. The main article is also multiply sourced for a short start class article. 91.110.126.179 (talk) 08:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, if someone is able to do that, then they're welcome to, if not everything is said here on this page. I've added a tiny bit but it's way out of my scope of editing. QueerFilmNerd^talk 15:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll have a good go at it then. 91.110.126.179 (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The article on the case should absolutely not redirect here. Doe v. Regional School Unit 26 (the correct name of the case at the Supreme Judicial Court, and I note that an requested move is underway to correct that) is independently notable, and is a target for those using Wikipedia for research into gender issues in the law. Such readers are poorly served by sending them to an article on a minor actress.

The proper treatment for a stub is to mark it as such and to expand it, not redirect it to a related article on a markedly different subject.

One could argue that Maines is not sufficiently notable as an actress to merit an article on her acting career; and under WP:BLP1E, the article on the actress should redirect to the article on the case; but not the other way around. Indeed, that was the finding at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Maines. That being said, it seems to me that the notability of the actress today (as distinguished from 2016, when that AFD was conducted) rises above WP:BLP1E and two articles are called for. TJRC (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Incorporation of awards

How best can awards received by Maine and her family be incorporated in to this article.
The awards are as follows:

1. Girls Rock Awards 2014 Community Organizing Award a secondary source can be found here
2. Spirit of Matthew Shepard Award 2015 a secondary source can be found here
3. American Civil Liberties Union of Maine (2011 Roger Baldwin Award) and by Equality Maine (2012 P.E. Pentlarge Award)

91.110.126.179 (talk) 07:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2019

Maines has a new award which needs to be added to the list of awards she has won. The award is as follows Andy Cray Award for Health & Youth Advocacy from Trans Equality Now for the year 2019. Sources are [4], [5] Sparkle1 (talk) 10:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Thank you for your suggestion. Do you have any sources that suggest this is a notable award? A cite from the org itself is called "self-sourcing" and is not a strong indicator of notability. Thanks, JesseRafe (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The notability of the award is not what is notable here. The thing here is it is notable to the individual and notable along with all of the other awards she has received. What is the criteria being used to decide if this award is "notable"? The organisation giving out the award has a Wikipedia page that can be found here. Sparkle1 (talk) 08:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2019

After being driven from the Orono school district, Maines was actively recruited by the small progressive private K-12 school, Waynflete, in Portland. There she was welcomed and treated with respect by classmates and teachers alike, where she eventually graduated from high school. Erowe60 (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. stwalkerster (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Original print date in references

I think it would be helpful to include the original print date in citations, as well as the “retrieval date.” SpinozaUSA (talk) 02:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

"Transgender" in the LEDE

Nicole Maines is transgender--this is not in dispute, and is noted in the article. IP editor 91.110.126.22/91.110.126.179 objects[6] to the word "transgender" being in the LEDE on the grounds that it is "unnecessary" and "not relevant". Per WP:LEDE: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.". Her being transgender is central to her notability. Were she not transgender, there wouldn't have been the court case, nor is likely that her very limited acting career would have gotten the attention that it's received. Nearly every article about her--including those used as refs here--identify her as transgender in their title or first paragraph--we should too. Yilloslime (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The inclusion on the term transgender is not an essential component in the lede. In the Freddie Mercury article is does not mention that he is gay in the lede, even though he was openly gay. The fact Maines is transgender is not the reason for the notability. its the inclusion in the Court case as Susan Doe. Being transgender is a related part of the notability, but stating it outright is unnecessary. A concise overview is given. It states that she is an actress and she was included in the relevant court case. Adding anything more is padding and unnecessary. The reasons behind the court case are for the article on the court case, not this article. The fact Maines is a transsexual is background for the court case and for inclusion in a personal life section not the lede. There is no denying the inclusion is not notable. it should though not be in the lede, and it needs to not be sloppily dumped in the article in the way being proposed in the lede. In summary inclusion in the lede no, inclusion in a relevant section of the article yes. 91.110.126.22 (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a policy or guideline based reason? Adding a single a word to the lede doesn't make it any less concise. I reall don't see why you are objecting to this statemnet of fact, which is undisputed and is also mentioned in the article. Why make the reader work to learn the story here? "There is no denying the inclusion is not notable."--basically every reporter in the media who has written about her disagrees with you. Yilloslime (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

You have spouted policy yet you are not prepared to discuss its interpretation. I have taken the policy you have dumped interpreted it given reasons. Please also see Wikipedia:Bureaucracy. It feels very much as if you are trying to wiki-litigate this. I have taken what you have stated and have applied your policy with an interpretation. Elton John it doesn't say he is a Gay Singer. Ellen Page doesn't say she is a Lesbian Actress Drew Barrymore doesn't say she is a bisexual actress. Jamie Clayton doesn't say Transgender Actress. Sexual Orientation and Gender identity has noting to do with an individuals occupation and should not be conflated as such in the lede as is proposed to be dumped in the version previously proposed. It belongs in a personal life section and the background of the court case. a persons occupation is separate to individual gender identity, race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or any other unrelated characteristic. 91.110.126.22 (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The court case which was based on her being transgender is her main source of notabily, so it should be in the lead paragraph, but does not need to be in the opening sentence. The comparisons that are above are not relevant because those people are notable people who happen to be LGBT; their status as LGBT has nothing to do with their notabily, which is not the case here. JDDJS (talk) 23:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I can go with your compromise. It ties the gender identity to the court case exclusively which is where it belongs. 91.110.126.22 (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Glad we could reach a compromise. If Yilloslime agrees with this, then we can consider the matter closed. Otherwise, we're going to have to open an RFC to get more opinions here. JDDJS (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

JDDJS: Thanks for weighing in. I like your compromise, but I don't think the IP's subsequent edits were needed or improved anything. Yilloslime (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@Yilloslime If you have a problem please be specific in suggesting an improvement as opposed to just saying I DON'T LIKE. Please also provide a reason for what you dislike. It seems you simply want to write TRANSGENDER TRANSGENDER TRANSGENDER and ACTIVIST ACTIVIST ACTIVIST all over the article. Its very poor form. 91.110.126.22 (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Gamergate tag

I have nothing against displaying that this article may have discretionary sanctions but this article and the subject of this article have zero to do with GamerGate. to include this is just pointless. The claims of it being blanket on all-trans articles is patently absurd. A version of the template expressly allows for this to be optional, the one being pushed conveniently does not which is a poor use of templates. The inclusion needs to be justified before adding and as such I have restored to the original version of no template at all until this is resolved. If there are actual links to gamergate and this subject please provide reliable sources. The problem with going blanket on everything is it has no meaning and causes people to pay no attention to the actual issues and only serves as a convenient stick to go after people who can be acting in good-faith and are accidentally caught by such irrelevancies, or worse simply scare people off entirely from contributing. There is also no explanation of why these sanctions are in place for this article and no banner warning when editing the source code. As such claiming this applies is wrong and claiming it applies is not the same as it actually applying.

On a secondary point, the tag is redundant as the article is already covered by biographies of a living person, which is tagged, and there is no need for unnecessary duplication. Sparkle1 (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, please read the full text of Template:MOS-TW. The discretionary sanctions included by default in the template apply to articles related to GamerGate OR any gender-related dispute or controversy. It is not a "GamerGate tag". Including the MOS template on trans bios is important because it explains why the subject's gender identity and pronouns need to be honored. The template can be included without the sanctions text but including it is the default, and considering the disputes on this article I feel it should be included. Funcrunch (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the template should be included. Issues raised on this talk page clearly fall under "any gender-related dispute or controversy". I agree that the template can be a bit confusing in the way it combines two different subjects, but this isn't the place to fix that.--Trystan (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Also agree that the tag should stay, the tag is standard on articles about transpeople. QueerFilmNerd^talk 17:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The issue here is though there is no gender-related dispute or controversy. Simply existing and being transgender is neither a controversy or a dispute. There is no dispute over the pronouns to use or the fact that Maines is Trans. There needs to be a dispute or a controversy for this to apply. This is primarily and biography of a transgender actor. This is not an article about an area of contention, or even about being transgender. The court case has a separate article and the substance of that should be discussed there not here. This is inappropriate for this article as there is no dispute or controversy surrounding the transgender topic. Sparkle1 (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

As a compromise, why not use the template which has the DS part as wholly an optional parameter? {{MOS-TRANS|f|DS=no|Forum=yes}}

As opposed to the template which includes the gamergate section by default {{MOS-TRANS|f|Forum=yes}}

I am only opposed to the inclusion of the Gamergate section not the part on trans MOS guidelines. I also do not believe that discretionary sanctions are actually in force for this article they are please provide a link to where this is shown to be the case. Sparkle1 (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The, erm, suboptimality of ArbCom using the "GamerGate" case as the vehicle/venue for issuing/recording DS on all gender-related articles and transgender articles has been discussed before in more general fora, including some ArbCom/AE pages. Nonetheless, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute states that "The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in [...] Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate for (among other things) ... 'all edits about, and all pages related to [...] any gender-related dispute or controversy' and associated persons remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, [...]. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the [...] GamerGate case, not this one. Passed 5 to 1 with 1 abstention by motion at 16:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)". Has anything changed since last February? -sche (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The question here is what is the dispute or controversy regarding this biography? Sparkle1 (talk) 12:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I count 22 edits in the past year that have either added or removed the subject’s birth name. There is clearly a dispute.--Trystan (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussions and reaching a consensus are not disputes or controversies. By the conclusion of that logic, every article would be said to have disputes or controversies. This is simply consensus building and a local consensus has been reached on content to be or not to be included. Which is how wikipeidia is meant to work. Sparkle1 (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

This article has also been repeatedly semi-protected due to disruptive editing; the current protection setting is for a full year. Regardless, the MOS-TW template, with the default DS notice included, is included on the talk pages of many bios of trans women; I routinely add it to all such pages, as well as the corresponding MOS-TM and MOS-NB templates for trans men and non-binary people respectively. All such articles are subject to high levels of vandalism and disruptive editing. Funcrunch (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The semi-protection has been against primary vandalism, changing pronouns for example on an article like this is vandalism. Vandalism is dealt with through the usual channels, there is no need to treat it in a special way on this article. This article has no higher level of vandalism than would be expected for the subject matter, that being an actor at the beginning of their career. Vandalism is covered by disruptive editing and happens all over Wikipedia that's the nature of this beast. Also, there are content issues being sorted through dialogue to reach a consensus. Neither of these points qualifies as a dispute or controversy. Finally just because it is on other pages does not mean it appropriate for this page, also maybe there should be some thinking through of why it is being added "routinely" this appears to be added with little through thought albeit in good faith. Sparkle1 (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I have not been adding the MOS templates to trans bios with "little thought". I've been adding them due to my significant experience creating, editing, and monitoring articles on trans subjects on Wikipedia and witnessing extensive vandalism and disruptive editing that is specific to trans subjects. That is the point of the MOS templates and the DS notice, and I intend to continue adding them. As commented above if you have an issue with the MOS template wording or the GamerGate portion of the DS warning, then it would be appropriate to bring up those concerns in a place other than this article. As I've seen no objections other than yours I am going to reinstate the MOS template. Funcrunch (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, this subject gained notability for being the plaintiff in a transgender rights lawsuit; it's pretty disingenuous to chalk the disruption on this article up to her simply being "an actor at the beginning of their career". Funcrunch (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The court case has its own article and that is where information on that belongs. I do not see why the gamergate section should be included on this, where that can be removed and does not have to be included. It seems to be a very odd addition. I have no problems with the rest of the template just the game grate rubbish. It is just wholly unnecessary and is not compulsory as there is a template where it can be removed and the rest of the information wanting to be displayed can be retained. Can a reason as to why the gamergate section needs to be included be given? So far it is not clear as to why it is being forced upon this article. Sparkle1 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The fact that ArbCom advises editors to log sanctions related to a very wide range of gender- and transgender-related issues on, and in the name of, a case-page that has "GamerGate" in its name is not great for clarity, it's true. Nonetheless, that is the case-page these things were put under. As was suggested above, if you think gender- and/or transgender-related things should be moved out from under the GamerGate case and/or under another case, you should propose that in a general forum. Certainly, it has been discussed before, and perhaps evidence that it continues to be a sticking point / suboptimal would prod ArbCom along. Perhaps request to "amend" the GamerGate case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment? -sche (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Description as "Activist"

Maines should not be described as an "Activist". The term is woolly, undefined, and could potential be applied to anyone from Penn Jillette as an atheist activist, to Steven Segal as a Russian activist, to Wikipedia editors as Wikimedia activists. The term is limitless and potentially applicable to everyone.

While it is correct that Maines has engaged in activities relating to Transgender issues, it could equally be argued she is merely acting as a vassal for the activism of her father. It was her father who sued the school district, it was her father who petitioned for her name change, it was her father who made public pronouncements about leaving the Republican Party, it was her father who gave evidence against the Maine Bathroom Bill. It seems as if it is her father who is the driving force of the "activism" surrounding Maines transition.

To place the label "activist" is misleading, and makes out Maines is a placard waving member of dial-a-protest. This is not the case. Maines has been involved in her fathers activities on the issues of her transition. The outlook of the article additionally suggests Maines is not an activist and is focused on being an actress. Albeit at the moment one who is in danger of being typecast as the "transgender actress", as all of her appearances have been that of someone transgender, which has been plot point of the production. It comes across as if she is being used of the purposes of "activism" by others and none of it is uniquely hers. In her early life it is mainly her fathers and in her career it is casting made because she is transgender; In Royal Pains - her role is a Transgender Teenager, in Bit - her role is a transgender teenager, in Supergirl - she is a transgender superhero. This all fits her filling a position created by others and not created by herself.

Until Maines steps out and is known uniquely for her own positions on the issues and not from the point of view as a vassal of others then labels can be more accurately ascribed if any.

The description of Maines as an activist is too wide, too woolly, and is nothing more than token.

91.110.126.179 (talk) 08:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

While I agree with some of what you are saying, that fact of the matter is that per the WP:RS and WP:N policies, an article must reflect what reliable sources have to say about the topic of the article, and ever single reliable source about Maines mentions that she is transgender and most also call her an activist. Maines also calls herself an activist. Therefore we have to call her an activist, too, even if some wikipedians believe the term is not a good one. Furthermore, the WP:LEDE of a biography is for more than simply listing a person's occupation: It is meant to summarize the main reason why the subject notably. "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." As virtually every news source about her acting also mentions her being transgender and an activist--and usually in the headline--we need to note it in the LEDE. Simply saying she is an actress and leaving it at that doesn't comport with the WP:LEDE guideline. Yilloslime (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The broad label "activist" does not add to the article. Every picture of Maines shows her hair color do we add that in to the article. I am all for the lede to the article listing more than just here occupation. It used to state other things but they were removed by other users. The addition of activist does not add to the article. The content of the activities done should be expanded upon. For example instead of using the broad brush term activist, it would be better to state in the lede for example "... is an American actress who is known for being Susan Doe in the Maine Supreme Judicial Court Doe v. Regional School Unit 26 regarding gender identity and bathroom use in schools." or similar wording. There is no need for the label activist. It is far too woolly and does not add to the article. The information can also be better presented. The page for Barack Obama does not list "community activist" in the lede or even in the main body of the article even though sources state he was/is and he described himself in such a way. The best presentation of the information is to be specific and not to add needless broad labels which could be applied to anyone including those who edit this discussion; we could all be described as Wikimedia activists but that would be absurd. In short present the information better and avoid lazy labeling and pigeon holing. Activist is too broad and woolly. 91.110.126.179 (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a policy-based argument for excluding the term from the LEDE? Yilloslime (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Anyone else have any thoughts on this? @QueerFilmNerd: you've done a lot of work on this article, you want to weigh in? Yilloslime (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm honestly indifferent, leaning towards leaving it out for now. Though I believe activist is a term that could be used to describe her (she's described in the media as "Transgender activist Nicole Maines", I think we should leave it out and see if she engages in activism outside of her court case. However, I think more opinions are needed before a decision is made. QueerFilmNerd^talk 23:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'm in the minority (for now, at least) about the "activist" part. And while I'm not going repeat what I already wrote above, I will just say that we should mirror what reliable sources say, and they tend to call her an activist. But what about the rest of your revert? It also took out the word "transgender" form the LEDE and removed the Transgender rights activists category. There is certainly no debate about her being transgender, and virtually every headline with her name in it also includes the word "transgender", and it could be confusing to readers to not mention her being transgender until the 3rd sentence of the "Early life" section. I'm not going to revert, but let me make a proposal: Can you at least put the word "transgender" back in the LEDE? (I suspect we should be mentioning the court case in the LEDE, too...) Yilloslime (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I think "... is an American actress also known for being the Susan Doe in Doe v. Regional School Unit 26" or something similar perhaps? Mentioning her as trans in the lead should flow well with the lead. QueerFilmNerd^talk 00:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Yilloslime (talk) 00:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Seeing no objection to your suggestion, I'm going go ahead and add it. Yilloslime (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@ChiveFungi and TJRC: As recent contributors to this article, I would like to solicit your opinions on this thread. (And to anyone else reading this: your opinion would be appreciated.) The TL;DR version is: Should we describe Maines as a "transgender activist" in the WP:LEDE? A related questions: Is the category transgender rights activists appropriate? And also: If we don't use the term "transgender activist" in the LEDE, should we at least note somewhere in the LEDE that Maines is transgender? Yilloslime (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Seeing no objection after almost 2 days, I'm going to try to work the word "transgender" into the lede. Yilloslime (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Please be aware silence is not acceptance of a position, particularly after such a short space time frame. it is usually a week. There was also no explicit proposal put forward to comment on regarding the inclusion. it was simply stated It should be included and gave no proposed wording to discuss. The addition is too clunky and not specific enough. It should make direct reference to the use of bathrooms based on gender identity. Broad "transgender rights" gives no context for the court case is as inserting the word Transgender for the sake of it. 91.110.126.22 (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, around here, silence is consent. At any rate, I'm not attached to the exact wording I put in[7]. If you have a suggestion for improvement, please share it. Yilloslime (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC).

I would like to make clear I used the word acceptance not used the word consensus which was very deliberate. I have previously made the following suggestion "... is an American actress who is known for being Susan Doe in the Maine Supreme Judicial Court case Doe v. Regional School Unit 26 regarding gender identity and bathroom use in schools." 91.110.126.22 (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding this edit[[8]] by JDDJS (talk · contribs): I support it, and I support describing Maines as an activist in the article in general and in the WP:LEDE specifically. I previously have described my reasoning above, so I will not repeat it now. Yilloslime (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I see no change in the situation since this was discussed. If anything Maines is less involved in what would be classed as activism now as she gets deeper into being an actress. If there is a recent activity which shows actual direct activism by Maines and not as was previously described by other users as family activism or the activism of her father which she went along with please provide the links. Sparkle1 (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

[9] Her first line of her twitter and instagram profiles describe her as a trans advocate. [10] [11][12][13] Just about every article about her describes her as an activist. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 00:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I personally support using activist to describe Nicole, especially is RS does too. QueerFilmNerd^talk 05:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Activist in the fist sentence fine, but occupation nope. Occupation is job, she is an actress that pays her bills. What she does outside of what pays her bills ie outside of her occupation, is up to her. It is though not an occupation. Sparkle1 (talk) 11:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

If they're notable as an activist, we include in the occupation section. See Georgie Stone, Laverne Cox, and Greta Thunberg for some examples. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

We don’t work by precedent. Listing activist as an occupation in those articles may or may not be supported by reliable sources. Are there reliable sources that support it for this one?--Trystan (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

There is a plethora sources that call her an activist, so yes it is supported. I think the "precedent" that JDDJS is refering to is the use of the "occupation" parameter in a infobox. Is it strictly for activities for which the subject is remunerated, or is it used more generally to list activities for which the subject is known? My sense is it's the latter and Sparkle is interpretting things overly literally, but I'm open to being corrected. Yilloslime (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Yilloslime is correct that the precedent I'm referring to is to consider being an activist to be part of her occupation. I already listed numerous reliable sources that refer her to as an activist. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Whether a subject’s activism rises to the level of an occupation would need to be determined on a case by case basis based on reliable sources. What are the sources that indicate that this individual’s activism is an occupation?--Trystan (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what type of a source you're looking for. I provided numerous sources abobe that refer to her as an activist. Almost every single article about her refers to her as an actress and activist/advocate. Also, since Sparkle1 is so concerned that occupation=making money, it's worth noting that she actually has made $75,000 off her activism, via her lawsuit against her school district for discrimination. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 23:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Lawsuit damages are not income, and to claim so is bending the facts to suit the current want. The lawsuit was filed by her parents. The activism in the lawsuit was mainly her fathers and not hers. a reliable source is needed to list her occupation as an activist. The consensus is not to include until a reliable source is found as the inclusion is challenged and is currently unsourced. Sparkle1 (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

If we are going to split hairs, you don't need to make money for something to be an "occupation". Merriam-Webster: "1 a an activity in which one engages. Pursuing pleasure has been his major occupation."[14]; Dictionary.com: "2 any activity in which a person is engaged.[15]. Yilloslime (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I already included several references showing that she's an activist. Almost every single article about her calls her an activist or advocate. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 00:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Listing middle school and high school in infobox

We usually only include college under the education parameter. Since her court case against her elementary school is a significant part of her notability, I understand listing her elementary school in the infobox. However I see no reason to include her high school and (both of) her middle schools. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 23:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

These are a relevant part of the background of Maines and the background of Maines being a plaintiff in the court cases. In most cases, I would agree about, not including them. These are listed in multiple sources and are of notability to this subject matter. The court case was against a specific school board for the actions of a specific school, there was also moving schools as a result. In this case, the notability has been established. The details of the court case belong on the article but Maines being discriminated is relevant here, the fact the school board which controls the school was found in breach is relevant here. The moving from the school in question is also relevant. Sparkle1 (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

There's no question that at least some of the schools are relevant to the topic, or that the info is well sourced. The real question is: Does it belong in the infobox or is it adequate to simply mention it in the text of the article. I tend to think it doesn't belong in the infobox. Maybe there's more specific guidance than MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, but that also seems to argue against including it. Yilloslime (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@JDDJS: This discussion as it stands does not support your removal of the education parameter. Please justify why they should be removed. They are all reliably sourced, and all are notable on the grounds they are related to the court case. The Elementary school was directly the reason for the lawsuit and the discrimination by the school is why the moving of schools occurred. Giving the schools for this individual notability for inclusion. Sparkle1 (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Sparkle1 (talk · contribs), you state directly above that "This discussion as it stands does not support your removal of the education parameter". Note that when content is disputed and removed, the onus is on the individual wishing to restore the material to get consensus to do so. Neither of the editors responding above believe it should be included, so you don't have the required consensus at this time. Perhaps that will change if additional editors participate in this discussion, but you need to stop edit warring to restore the content immediately. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

That is a gross oversimplification. One user is neutral User:Yilloslime, one user is for removal User:JDDJS, and one use for retention myself. To say the above two users have formed a new consensus to remove is ridiculous. Simply not responding when trying to create a new consensus is not creating a new consensus. There has to be active discussion or unchallenged editing. Not just that's it, it is a new consensus. To further such an argument is absurd and goes against the point of having discussions. it is also typical for discussions to run for 7 days this one is currently at 4. I think this is a case of wider input being required. Not consensus is changed because one user has started a discussion and then not commented again. The article has also included this information for years before it was removed by User:JDDJS on 22 January 2020 here The parameter was first added to the article on 22 July 2018 here. Claiming non-inclusion is consensus means that the article having the parameter from 22 July 2018 to 22 January 2020 does not result in consensus. If that does not result in consensus then what does? The information was also previously restored to the article by User:TJRC after it was removed on 4 September 2019 here. I think this clearly establishes the current consensus is for inclusion and a new consensus needs to be developed in favour of removal. Sparkle1 (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The purpose of an infobox is "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article". The schools listed are not mentioned in the article, so their relevance is not clear to the reader.--Trystan (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the middle and high schools need to be in the infobox, and I question why you are so insistent on their inclusion. Just because something is reliably sourced doesn't mean it needs to be included in an article, much less the infobox, the contents of which are given high visibility in search results. And as this is not a formal RfC there is no need or requirement to let the discussion run for seven days before further editing. (There remains a need to not edit war, regardless.) Funcrunch (talk) 02:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Television

I think you should add Legends of Tomorrow for television. She appeared as a guest on the show for the crossover episode Crisis on Infinite Earths, Part 5. So I think you should add it. The year was 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.151.27.25 (talk) 21:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)