Talk:Nicole Maines

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[1]. 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[[2]] 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)

[3] Her first line of her twitter and instagram profiles describe her as a trans advocate. [4] [5][6][7] 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."[8]; Dictionary.com: "2 any activity in which a person is engaged.[9]. 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)

"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[10] 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)

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)

Activists from Portland, Maine

Maines is from Portland, Maine and is commonly described as an activist for transgender rights. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate to categorize her in the Category:Activists from Portland, Maine category.--User:Namiba 17:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The issue is she is no longer in Portland Maine she currently lives in Los Angeles. Is there also a source she comes from Portland Maine. A more accurate place of origin would be Gloversville, New York. Living in a place and then moving out does not mean you "come from" that place. She went to the University of Maine but that does not mean she comes from the University of Maine when you are no longer at that university. It needs to be established when "from" means. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The speakers bureau representing Maines describes her as having grown up in Portland, Maine. This news story says she moved to Portland and graduated from high school there. I think this more than qualifies her as an activist from Portland, Maine.--User:Namiba 19:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Once from, always from. Guidelines show if there is a temporary residency (schooling, etc.) then it should be excluded. As she spent a formidable portion of life in Portland it certainly qualifies.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Deadname and new MOS policy

Noting that the MOS has changed and MOS:DEADNAME is now clear that transgender people not notable under former names should not have their former names included anywhere in the article. Since including the prior name was always contentious with editors, as seen above in the talk page, the name should be removed.If people wish to go against the MOS please start an RFC to establish consensus. Will also note that infoboxes are not places to include contentious material not covered in the main article space anyway. Rab V (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

An editor is re-adding the material repeatedly instead of discussing on the talk page as asked multiple times. I will likely start a ticket on the BLP noticeboard.Rab V (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

The removal of information against consensus is disruptive and reverting to the existing consensus is in line with Wikipedia policy. Do not remove information which is in line with existing consensus. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I would strongly advise against Forum Shopping. This talk page is the most appropriate venus for discussing this issue as it is a local issue with a local consensus applying only to this article. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

If a minority of editors want to keep re-adding material against MOS and BLP, then this exactly a case that would belong on that noticeboard. Also edit-warring doesn't apply to removing content that goes against BLP but I will talk here now that you have joined in the talk page. Rab V (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

There are no privacy issues here and the inclusion of the birth name of Maines is in relation to her initial notability. This has been discussed extensively and the new policy changes nothing in relation to Maines. Please be aware the consensus is very long-standing and relates to a book which Maines took part in authoring and openly published her birth name. This is not a case of a privacy issue as claimed. Manes has waived any privacy regarding this issue by taking part in a book which is authorised by Maines which released her birth name and was the initial basis for her notability surrounding the Maine Court Case surrounding School bathroom usage. Maines agreed to the publishing of her birth name as part of her notability surrounding the court cases. The new wording of MOS:Deadname does not give carte blanche for the removal of all birth names on all articles. It has to be justified and applied with common sense. Also, be aware MOS:Deadname is part of the manual of style and is a guideline. Maines has also waived privacy here as she was part of the authorship of the book which published her birth name. The onus will be on to show that the privacy issue is genuine in this or that consensus has changed. The new policy does not automatically override the very longstanding local consensus on the article. The inclusion of the birth name is notable, the inclusion has no privacy issues as Maines was part of the releasing and is relating to the reason that Maines is notable. Maines is notable for being Jane Doe in the Maine Human Rights case, long before she became an actress. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

The talk page shows this was a contentious issues with editor disagreement. Without an RFC in this case there doesn't seem to be a clear case this was a consensus as much a case where the absence of clear consensus meant the article should be kept the way it was before the disagreement occurred. Now that MOS has changed to clearly decide this case, the lack of consensus against MOS means it should be followed. Also this isn't a court of law where a subject can waive certain rights to privacy; but a book written when she was a child by someone else doesn't imply she has no interest now in the privacy of a non-notable name. BTW I'm unclear on the reason you note the Jane Doe case as it doesn't establish notability of a prior name. Rab V (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

On the topic of consensus, the prior discussion shows roughly the same amount of editors agreeing and disagreeing over inclusion of the prior name and protracted disagreement. This does not imply consensus. Rab V (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

The Onus is to show a clear consensus against inclusion as the longstanding stable version is for inclusion and the overriding number of editors who restore the birth name and the overwhelming discussions showing consensus from multiple users, will need to be shown to now be a consensus against inclusion. It is not good enough to say there is now no consensus. The onus requires a showing of a consensus against inclusion. You are not showing a consensus for removal simply that you are counting people and not the content of the arguments. Remember this is not a democracy and counting is no substitute for substance. It must be shown the consensus is for removal. It cannot be later said I say that now there was no original consensus so I am going to go ahead with the most favourable condition for me to get the way I want. that is against the principles of Wikipedia. If you believe the consensus is against inclusion prove it you can't say the old consensus AFAIC was wrong. the stability of the article and the discussion shows there was a consensus. Stop trying to wikilawyer. Start trying to show the consensus has changed. Sparkle1 (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Was there an RFC to establish consensus? Since I just see people arguing back and forth without a clear consensus set down. Without an RFC, this case has as many editors on both sides of an issue which is a clear sign of no consensus. Rab V (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

An RfC was no necessary. There was plenty of input to not need an RfC. Sparkle1 (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Also generally you don't need to establish a new consensus everytime you want to change an article to meet MOS and BLP standards. Even still right now it is just you arguing against the BLP and MOS; editors in the past were hesitant to remove the name since they saw MOS:DEADNAME as only regarding the lead. Now that is clearly not the case this objection doesn't stand. Rab V (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Trying to change established consensus does. Editing and being reverted and pointed towards the discussion showing that the issue has been discussed and a consensus formed, demonstrates a new consensus clearly in favour of the proposed changes are needed. Attempting to dismiss the existing consensus is I didn't hear that and I don't like it. Sparkle1 (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

An RFC is not needed when there is clearly enough people taking part in a discussion and there is clear progress and conclusion. An RfC is not a gold standard or a requirement for establishing a consensus. Going where is the RfC is an example wikilawyering. This is also not establishing a new consensus to change an article. The proposed changes to the article to go against a discussed and currently long-established consensus. Simply not seeing the consensus because it benefits the position you hold does not mean that the consensus does not exist. Sparkle1 (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

RFCs are not a requirement to establish consensus but it is a way to establish consensus when many editors disagree like in this case. Otherwise we default to the state before disagreement which is why the old version remained in the absence of editor consensus. Rab V (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

This was not the case in this instance. Adding up a discussion which took place over the course of years, when each time the discussion concluded with keeping the birth name is not mass disagreement, it is clear forming of a consensus to retain the birth name. I am hearing a lot of talk about processes and wikilawyering, yet no actual substance on why the birth name should be removed. The arguments given in the discussion have been "think of the children" and "white knighting" and "it's not nice" and "disliking its inclusion" answers. The input by the opposers was not of substance; they were basically those given before. Those arguments are not going to carry any weight. This is not mob rule of who can shout loudest, say the most, or bring enough people in to say I don't like it because [missing or lacking substantive reason]. This is exactly the same here. RabV has seen a change to the manual of style they think they can use to crowbar out information they dislike. That is not how Wikipedia works, The consensus on this talk page clearly shows inclusion is warranted by Maines putting the information on her birth name in the public domain in a reliable, consensual and permanent fashion. It is also directly a part of her notability before she became an actress being related directly to the court cases she was Jane Doe in and her inclusion in the documentary The Trans List. You cannot simply say get rid of it because of this new wording of a part of the manual of style (a guideline to be interpreted with common sense and not in a blanket fashion) which according to RabV's interpretation demands it be removed. There is no substantive argument from RabV. If this continues I will move to hat off this discussion and close this discussion and report any removal of the birth name as disruptive until a new, I repeat, NEW consensus is formed. There must be more substance than I simply want the birth name removed. Please stop wasting time with wikilawyering, and process issues. Sparkle1 (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rab V I'm not going read through everything that was said between you and Sparkle1, but they are absolutely right in saying that current consensus supports leaving in the dead name. This has been argued multiple times here. The argument for including it has been clearly made numerous times in the top section of this article. I'm not going to restate everything up their, but simply put: Maines has done nothing to suggest that she wants her deadname to be a secret, however, by working on the publishing of the book about he rlife that includes it, she in fact suggests that she doesn't have an issue with it. Feel free to start a RFC about this. However, the current stable version is with the deadname in it, and until/unless there is consensus to remove it, it remains in the article and do not editwar to have it removed. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The numerous editors arguing over this indicates there wasn't a consensus, just a standard that was reverted to in the absence of one. My arguments are also evidence the dissent is renewed. As this is a BLPPRIVACY issue as explicitly stated in the MOS I will likely take this to the noticeboard as you and sparkle are not willing to recognize the disagreement in this talk page as anything other than consent. Rab V (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Speaking as one of the editors who weighed in on this subject previously, I disagree that the current consensus supports leaving in Maines' deadname. I'll restate the argument I made before: Deadnaming is harmful to trans people as a whole, this harm is not outweighed by the curiosity of readers, and therefore there's no compelling reason to include a subject's deadname if they were not known by it prior to their transition. As a trans person who is impacted by deadnaming myself I'd rather not continue to read walls of text that go around in circles on this; I suggest putting up an RfC. Funcrunch (talk) 03:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd be amenable to that instead of taking this to the BLP noticeboard if you think that would be better. I recognize wikipedia is not always kind to trans editors or subjects of articles, thank you for stepping in. Ideally neither the RFC or noticeboard should be necessary as there are clear privacy issues including the name can cause for no benefit to the article. Rab V (talk) 03:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Wow I really despise argument of doing x is harmful to group y. This is the same argument as censorship. Take depicting Muhammed is harmful to Muslims as the reason why that argument wholly fails. It is othering, infantilising, and insulting. Treat the issues properly. Don't act like a white knight. I find the arguments of "it is harmful" to be crass and from a position of knowing best for trans people. This issue is simple. Maines was part of an authorised book which released her birth name, the issue of her transitioning at school is why she is initially notable. Later notability does not eliminate prior notability. This is some of the most offensive argumentation I have come across. You do not know it is harmful you do not know what is best. These are not substantive arguments. The arguments must be based on the facts.

The facts are simple:

1. Maines is notable for the cases surrounding her transition and the refusal of the school to allow her to use the female bathroom
2. Maines was part of the authorship of the authorised book written about her and her family by Nutt
3. Maines consented to the inclusion of her birth name in the book
4. This was all long before she became an actress and was her initial notability.

I direct to this diff which was for the creation of the article where the book is used as the notability along with the court case for the reasons why this article was created.

There are no privacy issues. If a person puts the information out there about themself then that s not a privacy issue. This is treating all-trans articles the same and imposing a narrow and censoring view on the actual issues in a way of trying to remove disliked information. This is not a malicious outing this is the voluntary promotion of oneself and a book is certainly a form of voluntary self-promotion. Sparkle1 (talk) 12:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

If further evidence is needed please watch this interview Maines gave to ABC news where she is clearly comfortable talking about her transition and talking about her birth name. This was filmed when Maines was 18 a legal adult and states "I'm Wyatt and I am a boy who wants to be a girl" [11]The timestamp for the comments are 2:18 into the footage. Clearly, the privacy argument is now shown to be complete nonsense. Sparkle1 (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

As Sparkle1 as demonstrated above, there is a lot of evidence supporting that Nicole is comfortable with her deadname being known. I have yet to hear any compelling argument to not include it. I am never against a RFC starting, and if you decide to start one, feel free to notify any relevant wiki projects about it (as long as it's notified in a neutral manner). However, going to a noticeboard in this situation is completely unnecessary. Aslo pinging Yilloslime as he has long been part of this conversation and he might want to contribute to this. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

There is a difference between a wikipedia page, the first hit when you google her, stating a deadname and something ephemeral like a TV show from 5 years ago. BLPPRIVACY also is clear that names appearing in news or primary sources, like interviews, is not enough to imply inclusion on it's own "When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories." If the name adds nothing to the article besides letting people know a name then this isn't a compelling argument for inclusion.Rab V (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rab V: This is clutching at straws and pure nonsense. The Straw man arguments here are ridiculous and carry zero weight. In short Maines, Nutt, Maines' family and ABC have all put her birth name in the public domain without any objection. There is no privacy issue. You cannot claim a privacy issue where one does not exist. @Rab V: stop flogging this dead horse there is no privacy issue when you put the information about your private life in the public domain and you do so in the course of your own self-promotion. This is infantilising to claim and imply that Maines is and other trans people are so fragile they cannot see the birth name of any trans person no matter how open and self-promotionally it is used. Sparkle1 (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Commenting b/c I was pinged. For all the reasons enumerated in this and previous threads, it seems obvious to me that we are not harming Maines by including her birthname. To assume, in the absence of evidence, that she or any famous trans person is harmed by a brief mention of their birthname, is to infantilize them. Consensus here had been to include her birthname, as it's well-sourced and already well-known, and it's basic biographical info that's included in all bios (with very few exceptions) when it can be sourced, even if the person was never notable under the name. Having said that, we now have an updated guideline which pretty clearly indicates that it should not be included. I don't agree with the guideline, and had I known about the RfC I would have argued against it. But the encyclopedia is written by those who show up, and I was asleep at the wheel, so it's my loss. More importantly, things work better for everyone when we (usually) follow the rules, even the ones we think are misguided. Yilloslime (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

In response to @Yilloslime: the new policy states to treat birth names as a privacy issue, not a blank cheque to remove all birth names unless they are The Wachowskis or Chelsea Manning. Maines has used her transition and her birth name for self-promotion. There is even footage provided of her stating to camera her birth name. There is no privacy issue in this case when the subject uses their birth name for self-promotion and puts it in the public domain multiple times on their own volition. Sparkle1 (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Ran V and Funcrunch Would you prefer if we remove the deadname from the infobox and instead include it in the early life section? Because the more I think about it, the more I feel that's the better place to put it. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that makes sense since generally info should not be in an infobox if it wouldn't be in the main space of an article. I still don't think including the name to the article space is justified in this case and would prefer to follow the MOS. I am planning to start an RFC since I don't see agreement between editors as likely otherwise and can include options for inclusion in the infobox, early life section or not including at all. Rab V (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

JDDJS can you please expand on why you think it should be removed from the infobox. Also, there is no point pandering to the absolute removalists of Rab V and Funcrunch especially as Funcrunch has no problem trying to play the trans card to try and give their arguments more weight. Pandering to the absolute removalists is a slippery slope of moving closer to them means you are only giving up ground. They will never meet you in the middle. That much is abundantly clear from the content of their straw man arguments. Sparkle1 (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Try to stay WP:CIVIL. Calling us absolutists that should be ignored and calling out Funcrunch for talking about being trans (or playing the trans card as you say) is not treating us with good faith. Rab V (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I await actual substantive arguments and not straw man arguments and I don't like arguments from the pair of you. Currently, there is nothing but straw man and I don't like arguments from both of you. Sparkle1 (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

You may disagree with us but our arguments are similar to those that have shaped the current MOS policy you want to go against. Calling them strawmen isn't fair or honestly sensical. If you think we are making strawmen say who or what we are misrepresenting. Calling us absolutists and accusing Funcrunch of playing the trans card is something I'd call a strawman argument misrepresenting both of us. Try to stay civil instead of implying you won't hear arguments from editors because they talk about the trans experience or they strongly disagree with you. Rab V (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry you are just plain wrong Rab V the Wikipedia policies/guidelines which are relevant are MOS:DEADNAME, and WP:BLPPRIVACY. So this is what should be looked at. MOS:DEADNAME - treats birth names as a privacy issue:

it usually should not be included in that or any other article...Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest.

So next we then look at the privacy policy WP:BLPPRIVACY which states:

Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public.

This is clear and unambiguous. How much clearer do you want Wikipedia to be? MOS:DEADNAME says treat birth names as a privacy issue and WP:BLPPRIVACY states there is not a privacy issue if you put the information out there yourself or do not object to it being put out there. This is a bright-line FOR inclusion in this case. I now await a genuine and substantive argument which is against inclusion. Wikipeida policies and guidelines which are relevant to this issue are clearly is in favour of including Maines' birth name not against.Sparkle1 (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

So the way you are interpreting the section would imply any MOS:DEADNAME would include all names found in RS. BLPPRIVACY contains the link to BLPNAME though for the case when there is an interest in keeping a name private: DEADNAME states we should assume the names are a privacy issue so that's the case we are in. There it states we should generally omit such names, especially when including the name doesn't add much new information to an article. This is a case where adding the deadname doesn't add any new knowledge besides what that name is; sources never primarily went by that name after all. It also states that secondary non-news sources are to be weighed higher when choosing to add such a name anyway. Sources used now are primary and/or news. Rab V (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Again you are not reading the policy properly. Also, a book which is not published by the person themself is a secondary source, not a primary source. the book may be based on primary interviews and interactions with the subject matter, but the secondary authorship by Nutt transforms it from a primary to a secondary source. The interpretation you are giving is very gymnastic and I applaud the knots you are currently tied up in. You are also selectively engaging in censorship. The birth name does add weight to the article because Maines is an identical twin and the inclusion of the details of her and her brothers birth, names and all, are essential in explaining in this factor. The fact Maines and her brother are identical twins is part of the initial notability in conjunction with the Maine Court Cases. I am though impressed by the contortions being performed here by you Rab V. Sparkle1 (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Also Rab V on an aside note don't insult trans people like myself by going Funcrunch is using their lived experience, it carries no weight whatsoever in a discussion like this. Saying so is othering and infantilising that I can clearly have no idea what I am talking about because I have not outed myself publicly. I have also not said I won't listen to arguments you put forwards, I have simply said I won't give fatuous and straw man arguments any credence whatsoever. Sparkle1 (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

You did say "I don't like arguments from the pair of you" so you have to understand that does sound like you are unwilling to listen to arguments from us. Maybe it's not what you meant but let's try to treat each other with care and respect as fellow volunteer editors. Rab V (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Rab V Please see WP:IDONTLIKE which is what I was referring to in relation to the arguments for the pair of you. The arguments you have been giving can be boiled done to I just don't like the information. not that I personally have any like or dislike for your arguments.

While I haven't changed my mind about including the deadname in the article, I am now firmly of the opinion that it should be in early life instead of the infobox. Similar to how we can include the names of non-notable children in personal life but not in the infobox. Putting in the infobox is giving the deadname undue weight and prominence. It belongs in the early life section because that's where it's relevant. If this goes to RFC, which seems inevitable at this point, be sure to include that as an option. However, if Rab V and Funcrunch both feel moving it to the early life section is enough, then we have a consensus without a RFC here, unless Sparkle1 decides to take it there. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 22:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks JDDJS why do you feel the information should be moved from the infobox to a section on her early life? Sparkle1 (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I already explained it. It's putting undue weight and prominence on it. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 23:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd prefer that this go to an RfC. And you all don't need to keep pinging me on this talk page, it's on my watchlist. I don't plan to comment here again until or unless the issue goes to a formal RfC. Funcrunch (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Nicole Maines' former name

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should we include the former name of Nicole Maines and if so where should it appear in the article? The following options were discussed earlier in the talk page:

1. The former name should not be used anywhere in the article.
2. The former name should be used only in the infobox.
3. The former name should be used only in the Early Life section.

Rab V (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

4. The former name should be used only in the lead.

• Combinations are valid answers (e.g. "2 and 3", or "2 and 4"; or "2 and 3, or 2 and 4, but not both", etc.)

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

There are relevant policies of Wikipedia which are relevant to this discussion and should be read alongside this discussion:

1. What Wikiepdia is not - Wikipedia is not censored and;
2. Biographies of living persons specifically privacy concerns and;
3. The separate policy on no original research.

There are also the following guidelines which should be read in conjunction with this topic:

1. The Manual of Style specifically the section on names surrounding gender identity and;
2. The guideline on offensive material.

The following disclaimer is also relevant to this discussion:

1. Wikipedia:Content disclaimer.

Sparkle1 (talk) 13:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 As I said before, she has included her former name in her book and it has been mentioned multiple times in interviews. There is absolutely no evidence that she has any problem with it being known. While I previously argued to leave it in the infobox, I now feel that it doesn't belong there but belongs instead in the early life section. Similar to how we can include the names of non-notable children in personal life but not in the infobox. Putting in the infobox is giving the deadname undue weight and prominence. It belongs in the early life section because that's where it's relevant and it wouldn't be prominently displayed in the article if it's there instead of the infobox. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

By her book, do you mean the biography written by someone else when she was a child? --Equivamp - talk 00:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The book written with her and her family and the TV interview she gave when she was 18 (a legal adult) talking about having SRS and stating in the interview her birth name voluntarily without being asked to camera. The book was clear self-promotion as she got a role as a transgender teen and roles in documentaries off the back of it and not to mentions being showered with awards. Which is then topped off by her going on T.V. and stating her birth name when she is of the age of majority. Thereby destroying any claim of privacy. By her saying unprompted to camera "I would go up to somebody in first grade and say, "I'm Wyatt and I'm a boy who wants to be a girl."". Sparkle1 (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 or 3 - There is overwhelming evidence to reject any privacy issues which surround the inclusion of the birth name of Maines. Wikipedia is not here to censor or pander. If someone breaks the privacy of an issue which in this case Maines has done then Wikipedia cannot claim a privacy issue exists. Therefore MOS:DEADNAME actually allows for the inclusion of the birth name as it says to treat birth names as a privacy issue. The birth name is reliably sourced in a secondary publication and there is footage of Maines herself on camera stating her birth name without coercion and in the course of her own self-promotion. Removing the birth name from the article amounts to pandering, hypersensitivity, infantilising all trans people, and is without any common sense. In conclusion, the birth name clearly falls within the scope for inclusion and the new wording of MOS:DEADNAME expressly encourages its inclusion by treating birth names as a privacy issue when read with WP:BLPPRIVACY. This RfC is a desperate attempt by the blue-haired militant leftie brigade to censor Wikipedia and infantilise users of Wikipedia and trans people as a whole. Sparkle1 (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

If you believe that editors from the previous discussion are acting in bad faith or contrary to behavior guidelines, bringing specific evidence to ANI is probably a better route to call attention to it, rather than vague, unCIVIL name-calling. --Equivamp - talk 00:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I stand by my comments that this whole discussion boils down to it being made out that trans people are too sensitive or fragile to ever encounter a birth name of another trans person is infantilising and insulting to the who edit Wikipedia. It also implies that those who are not trans and edit Wikipedia are inherently ignorant and unable to act with common sense on this issue which is again infantilising and insulting. This is the kind of navel-gazing discussion and petty rule enforcement without common sense that excludes people from bothering to edit in the first place and creates editing silos or worse ownership cliques enforcing rules they created. Sparkle1 (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

* Option 3 (slightly preferred) or Option 1. She was never notable under the previous name, so inclusion in the infobox is probably WP:UNDUE, but it's a well-sourced bit of information that seems fine in the "Early life" section unless there's some reason to believe the subject would prefer otherwise. As a point of comparison, the article about Brandon Teena also had his birth name in the infobox and lead sentence for a long time, but was uncontroversially removed from both back in July. Arguably, knowledge of the former name in that article provides more encyclopedic value than in this one, as the discovery of it was the catalyst leading to his death and also provides context for his chosen name. --Equivamp - talk 00:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC) Changing vote to Option 1 only, after reading some other explanations about MOS:DEADNAME. Particularly convincing was Gbear605 pointing out that the guideline is not saying to exclude former names when they are privacy concerns, but to treat them as privacy concerns is a separate, additional provision. It's very clear that there's no notability to including her former name here. Mentioning it in interviews does no more to make it notable in this article than Idris Elba discussing his foot fetish makes that notable information in the article about him. --Equivamp - talk 23:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The birth name explains one of the points of notability in so far as she is one half of a set of zygomatic twins. So if you remove references and the source for her having been male you make the section on her being one half of zygomatic twins preposterous nonsense and the explanation the Wyatt and Jonas Maines were born but then Wyatt became Nicole and Jonas stayed as Jonas is eminently part of the initial notability of Maines in the first place, along with the court cases surrounding her being denied the use of her choice of bathroom, long long before she ever stepped foot in front of a camera or was even considered for being given a script. Sparkle1 (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that the book not be used as a source nor that the article be scrubbed of mentioning that she was assigned male at birth. Nor, as far as I can tell, were any of the people involved in the discussion that spurred this RFC. --Equivamp - talk 01:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1, per the updated MOS:DEADNAME we should not add prior names of trans people who were not notable under those names. I don't think the prior name adds any encyclopedic info to justify adding it; RS generally do not mention the name and if they do it's a brief mention. Sources that mention her are ones she was involved with as a teen or child; WP:BLPNAME says names with privacy concerns attached to them should not be included in this case since these are not secondary sources. And mentioning the name as a teen or child does not mean she will not have privacy concerns around her name in the present or future. Rab V (talk) 03:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

18 is a legal adult. Maines was not a child when she gave the ABC interview. This goes to show that this is more about eliminating the birth name and not about understanding the core issue here. The core issue here is. is this a privacy issue for Maines? The answer is unequivocally a big fat NO, as demonstrated by her actions. There cannot be a waiving of privacy at one point in a subjects adult life only for the subject to potentially later regret that they did what they did, to be the way Wikipedia works. This is unworkable and absurd. There is also no evidence other than hypotheticals and groupthink conjecture that Maines has any privacy concerns regarding her birth name. Sparkle1 (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment, a similar RFC for Peppermint ended in a decision not to include her deadname after an editor asked for comment from Peppermint herself if she wanted her deadname private. I don't think bothering subjects of articles is something that should be done lightly but it is an option with precedent.Rab V (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

That articles RfC outcome has no bearing on this articles RfC outcome, there is no precedent, this here relates to a local consensus formed on this page regarding including Maines birth name. Wikipedia does not run around after people who are the subject of articles to get their approval for including specific items. That would be giving them a veto power and make Wikipedia a joke. This is not the feel-good pander club to vocal activists or Nicole Maines. I cannot even believe such a veto power be suggested be given to an article subject. Where does that slippery slope end? Do subject of articles get veto power over information covered by the EU right to be forgotten even if there is no other reason to remove other than they want it removed. See the ridicule when politicians edit Wikipedia articles about themself, especially from government computers. That would be absurd. This is not a place for positive PR for specific groups or individuals. Wikipedia does, will, and is always going to contain information that some people/groups/entities will dislike and some people/groups/entities will want removing. That though does mean some people/groups/entities will be upset, annoyed etc by the content of some of Wikipedia. It is a fact that has to be lived with or Wikipedia goes from being a neutral encyclopedia to a PR machine approved by article subjects. Sparkle1 (talk) 11:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

You can definitely try to ask her and see if you can get a response from her, though there's no guarantee that she would. Technically, we do not have to respect her wishes, but it definitely might cause some people to change their !votes (including myself). JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 12:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Then the slippery slope of article subjects approving and censoring the content of the article(s) on them begins. This is the beginning of the decline of the independence of Wikipedia when its users go kowtowing to subjects of articles and ask if they veto or assent the content of the articles about them. Sparkle1 (talk) 12:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 for the reasons I stated previously: Deadnaming is harmful to trans people as a whole, this harm is not outweighed by the curiosity of readers, and therefore there's no compelling reason to include a subject's deadname if they didn't gain notability under that name prior to their gender transition. I see no compelling reason to make an exception for this case. Funcrunch (talk) 04:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

You cannot just say "deadnaming is harmful" "deadnaming is harmful to trans people" "this harm is not outweighed by the curiosity of the reader" What is this "harm"? The subject waived any privacy here by using her birth name for self-promotion. Saying the above is the same as saying "depicting Muhammed is harmful" "depicting Muhammed is harmful to Muslims" "this harm is not outweighed by the curiosity of reader". These claims of harm are the same as censorship and claiming all trans people think and feel alike and this so-called harm applies to all trans people, in the same way, is infantilising. There needs to be a demonstration of a privacy concern surrounding this subject. MOS:DEADNAME clearly states to treat birth names as a privacy issue. What therefor is the privacy issue in the case of Nicole Maines when she has used her birth name over and over for self-promotion and activism. Sparkle1 (talk) 11:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

This is a misreading of MOS:DEADNAME, which is intended to discourage the use of deadnames in article space except when they were in use during the BLP subject's period of Notability. No policy relevance has been shown for the self-promotion and activism argument, and the comparison between deadnaming and depictions of Muhammed is somewhere on the spectrum between offensive and incoherent, probably in the zone where the two overlap. Newimpartial (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Then clearly there is a misunderstanding of the length of time this subject has been notable. The subject was notable as part of the court cases surrounding her transition and this stretches back a long way some of the earliest source which can be provided stretch back to the late 2000's early 2010's. Discouragement is not an excuse for the vacating of commonsense. Maines has repeatedly confirmed her birth name and that cannot simply be ignored. Simply stating over and over No policy relevance has been shown for... defies the purpose of Wikipedia. There must be shown that the policy is for exclusion, or nothing would ever be able to be added to Wikipedia without first passing through a Wikilawyer. Sparkle1 (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Primary sources, such as court documents, do not contribute to Notability and neither does being one half of a set of zygomatic twins. Notability is based on independent, reliable sources, not some kind of farcical aquatic ceremony. And nobody gets to retcon a BLP subject's period of Notability because they think it will win them an argument. Also, Maines has repeatedly confirmed her birth name and that cannot simply be ignored is not a valid argument for inclusion. WP has policies and guidelines, and an editor's ignorance of those is not in itself grounds for ignoring all rules. There has to be some reason to do so, and I have seen none presented here. And by the way, the WP:ONUS to exclude disputed content on WP is an actual policy, especially for BLP articles. Newimpartial (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• Fresh Comment - the removal arguments are Original Research - Having thought more and more of the above comments from those that want to remove the content, the claims without attribution that Maines objects are Original Research In so far as they are drawing their own conclusion as to what the subject of this article and other users of Wikipedia consider to be private information. There have been multiple reliable sources which state Maines has put this information out there on her own volitions and this is reliably sourced (there is no challenge on this point AFAICT). So I await actual evidence from reliable and verifiable sources that Maines has a privacy issue here, otherwise this is classic Original Research. Where users are drawing their own conclusion and these are not based on their own experiences and research of the issue without any reliable or verifiable sources. Wikipedia has a blanket prohibition regarding original research. Sparkle1 (talk) 13:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Reply to Fresh Comment WP:CIR. The current Manual of Style provisions about deadnames result from multiple, widely participated RfCs, which have most recently concluded that the former names of Trans and NB subjects are not to be used anywhere in article space unless the person was notable under the name in question, prior to their name change. This decision results from the input of many editors across the project, and is not to be set aside because of the IDONTLIKEIT frozen peach anti-censorship activism of editors on local pages. Literally the whole reason we had the latest RfC was to avoid further pointless Talk page discussions like this one. Newimpartial (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

What an utter load of tosh from an absolute deletist. There is clear evidence from the nonsense above that there is no understanding of this Nicole Maines, the subject of this article. They are clearly here to state that all birth names are "evil" and must be removed. It also helps when you make claims like competence being needed you look in the mirror first. If you have any backbone to make weird internet slang comments stand by them or don't bother wasting the space of the internet. It is also clear that somehow it is thought that veto power is wielded by wheeling out the previous very contentious, incredibly messy and AFAICT now re-opened discussion on MOS:DEADNAME. Sparkle1 (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The ongoing discussion about MOS:DEADNAME is solely about making it stricter than it currently is, so that doesn't exactly help your case here. Gbear605 (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

That may well be the current state of it as it stands but the fact it as been re-opened demonstrates an inability to decide what the guideline should be. Sparkle1 (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The current Talk page discussion at MOS:DEADNAME concerns how deadnames should be treated when a BLP subject used the name during their period of Notabiiity, as you would know if you had read the section in question. You would also know that I am probably not an absolute deletist, whatever that is supposed to be. I don't know what it would mean to stand by weird internet slang comments, but I must admit that your highly emotional posts, when you attribute straw men like all birth names are "evil" to your interlocutors and claim intuitive understanding of BLP subjects, do have the merit of being mildly entertaining in a WIKIDRAMA sort of way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newimpartial (talk • contribs) 00:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

If you want to appear competent it helps to sign off your comments after you have made them Newimpartial. When it comes to you using weird internet slang comments. You made a comment and struck it through, hardly having any conviction behind it frozen peach. I stand by my comments that you are absolute deletionist and you do clearly have a deeper problem with the inclusion of the birth name of Nicole Maines than is simply limited to this article. That much is clear from the bizarre contortions you are currently engaged in to try and remove the birth name from this article. I have also claimed no such intuitive understanding of BLP subjects. I have simply claimed to have an understanding of this article and its subject, not the subject personally, as that would be a conflict of interest now, and we wouldn't want that kind of claim to be made now, would we? You have clearly not read the article as a whole and all of the accompanying sources in the article. You are going along with the farce that she has to have her birth name hidden, for bizarre reasons from "it is harmful to all trans people" to "a group of people who can't decide maybe have said so somewhere else on Wikipedia". What a load of knot tying you are currently engaging in. It is actually an amusing watch. Sparkle1 (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion about wanting to appear competent, it is a discussion about reading and applying policy and guidelines with competence. WP has a Manual of Style, and the community standard is that deadnames that have not been used in the period when a BLP subject was notable should not he used in articles. WP also bases decisions about DUE inclusion in articles on what independent, reliable sources say about a subject. You have neither provided independent, reliable sourcing for the deadname nor have you shown any reason to ignore site-wide consensus on this page. Please restrain your creativity in devising straw man arguments and learn how to work effectively with other editors. Or find another user-generated website where the ethos more closely matches your own. Newimpartial (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 or 3. As I have stated repeatedly already, the name is already very well known and discussed in reliable sources--it has been mentioned publicly by the subject herself. The only thing that's changed since the last time this issue was discussed is that the only possibly relevant guideline, MOS:DEADNAME, was update (though it seems that now it's back in flux). At any rate, I support treating trans and non-binary public figures the same way we treat all public figures, rather than assuming--by default and in the complete absence evidence--that they are grievously harmed by a brief, contextualized mention of their birthname in an article that otherwise refers to them by their current name. WP:BLPPRIVACY is important, and I'd err more strongly on the side of removing birthnames for non-public figures, e.g. people how are notable because of they are victims or perpetrators of a crime, or because they are related to a famous person, or they got hit by a meteor, etc. But that doesn't apply in this case. As for whether the name appears in the infobox or the early life section, I really don't care.Yilloslime (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 Wikipedia's guidelines are clear on this: per MOS:DEADNAME, she was not notable before she decided to use her current name. This follows the same logic as Margot (activist) - regardless of reliable sources including her deadname, Wikipedia should only include it if she was using it during the time that she was notable. It also doesn't matter whether she's okay with it being out there or not, we still want to only use her preferred name. The consensus of Wikipedia editors across numerous past RfCs, both general and specific to articles, is clear on this. Of course we shouldn't pretend that she's not transgender, that's the basis for much of her notability, but rather we should keep the Early Life section as it is now, referring to her by her last name. Gbear605 (talk) 04:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

collapse digression

This response shows a lack of understanding of the subject of this article. Maines has made her birth name a notable part of her and uses it for self-promotion. Where is the privacy issue here and this is a unique case because Maines has openly and freely used her birth name as both a child and an adult, in both primary and secondary sources. Sparkle1 (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC) Sparkle1, it wouldn't matter if Maines shouted it at every person she met, MOS:DEADNAME is a manual of style policy and we should abide by its style. In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, the birth name should be included in the lead sentence only if the person was notable under that name. ... If such a subject was not notable under their former name, it usually should not be included in that or any other article, even if some reliable sourcing exists for it. Maines was not notable under her deadname (this is a confusing phrasing, I know, but it means that she was not notable before she chose her preferred name), and thus should not be included in the article. Gbear605 (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC) MOS is a guideline, not a policy. As such it states guideline should be treated with common sense. Which is being thrown in the bin and set on fire by the absolute intransigence on the part of the absolute removalists. The following has conveniently been omitted: Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name. This IS a clear privacy issue and Maines going around shouting her birth name would therefore make her birth name no longer a privacy issue. Stating ones birth name in public over and over for self-promotion destroys the privacy of that piece of information. Sparkle1 (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC) I omitted that line because it wasn't relevant. The MOS is stating both that we should not include it and that it should be treated as a strong privacy interest. The sentence about privacy is relevant for reasons such as WP:REVDEL - there's no need to do a REVDEL on an edit containing Maines' deadname - but it not being a privacy concern still doesn't mean that it should be included in the page. The common sense here is to maintain a standard and not include Maines' deadname without a very strong reason to do so. Her occasional usage of it is not one. Gbear605 (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC) Maines' so-claimed 'occasional' usage is not incidental and not 'occassional'. It is blatant self-promotion. Wikiepdia is not censored. There is a strong case FOR inclusion. Using one's birth name for self-promotion means you lose the right to then hide it later, or for it to be hidden later because it might upset some unknown person or might be found to be not very nice by some. It is also without foundation that the inclusion of the name violates any policy or guideline of Wikipedia beyond the conjecture of others. I also believe the section of MOS:DEADNAME was removed because it destroys the arguments for removal being pushed here. This IS a privacy issue and ignoring the fact that it is, is cherrypicking and blindness to the actual wording of MOS:DEADNAME. Maines' birth name has been used to make her money and give her positive PR. Omitting this defies common sense and is blatant pandering and censorship. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC) Sparkle1, you say Using one's birth name for self-promotion means you lose the right to then hide it later. That sounds like something you just made up - is there any basis for it in policy? Newimpartial (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 - The MOS is clear on this point, and per policy site-wide consensus overrules LOCALCONSENSUS. And treating trans and non-binary public figures the same way we treat all public figures, when it comes to deadnames, runs directly counter to a site-wide consensus that has been restated over and over again, in widely-participated RfCs, whenever new editors re-enter related debates carrying that particular banner. Newimpartial (talk) 12:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

collapse long digression

It is clear MOS:DEADNAME has not been read properly to come to that conclusion. Where is the privacy issue in this case? Sparkle1 (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC) Sparkle, you have already stated your argument multiple times and repeating it on every vote that disagrees with you can be disruptive. Please consider WP:BLUDGEON. Rab V (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC) Replying to those who are not reading the entirety of MOS:DEADNAME is in no way bludgeoning, and the essay you pointed to carries absolutely no weight whatsoever. This discussion should be focused on the Policies and Guidelines of Wikipedia, unfortunately, it has been hijacked by those pushing an infantilising position. You just don't like the fact that I am tearing apart the position you hold. Actual evidence other than personal touchy-feely "I don't like birth names of trans people" or "it hurts trans people because [substantive reason missing]." Actual evidence is still being awaited from you Rab V and Funcrinch especially. I will not allow wild emotional claims which are infantilising to Wikipedia users and trans people, to go unanswered. This is the slippery slope of censorship being pushed here. Telling people to effectively shut up is a form of bullying and shows fear. Sparkle1 (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC) Sparkle, I see no provision in MOS:DEADNAME that would support your position. Do you have any evidence? DEADNAME is part of the Manual of Style, and does not require any "privacy issue" for its recommendations to operate. Newimpartial (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC) MOS:DEADNAME specifically states the following line Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name. That line is abundantly clear. If birth names are a privacy issue and when a subject of an article uses their birth name for self-promotion then there is a waving of privacy surrounding the inclusion of the birth name of the subject. Sparkle1 (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC) The language you cite here is essentially a preamble, and is by no means a condition of application for the MOS. Your declaration of a waving of privacy surrounding the inclusion of the birth name of the subject is completely WP:OR, and is unsupported by any policy. Also, referring to me as one of those who are not reading the entirety of MOS:DEADNAME is rude: don't do that. As an editor who has participated in multiple discussions about how MOS:DEADNAME should be amended, I have read it many, many times - enough to tell the difference between its rationale and its active provisions. It is you who do not seem to understand our policies and guidelines in this area and how they were arrived at. Also, Sparkle, I don't see anyone "infantilising" or using "wild emotional claims" except for your highly emotional interventions against "bullying" and "censorship". If you wish to change Wikipedia's policies and guidelines concerning deadnames, I suggest you do so on policy and MoS pages, rather than by BLUDGEONING a Talk page discussion in hope of a LOCALCONSENSUS that will never, per policy, stand up in the face of actual, site-wide consensus. Newimpartial (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC) Statements like "Deadnaming is harmful to trans people as a whole" from Funcrunch are infantilising generalisations and as a trans woman myself, I find being told by another trans person to think the same way as them to be infantilising and insulting. Collective blanket statements being made which insert someone's point of view on to a whole group and this has been evidenced throughout this discussion and they are infantilising censorship of a point of view which does not comport with their own. Sparkle1 (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC) It is fine to object to generalizations about impacts on a group of which one is a part, but that doesn't mean that the generalization is necessarily "infantilising". In this case I don't see how it is, and I don't see how you are being bullied or told to agree with the majority. You are simply being presented with a generalization- one that may not apply to you, but which does (in this case) have fairly strong support in published scholarship. Newimpartial (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC) Loony so-called academics who push post-truth and postmodernism do not count as reliable sources no matter how many other people who they can pay to agree with them, or worse indoctrinate to agree with them. These studies are junk academia like the MMR vaccine and autism studies. Sparkle1 (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC) I wasn't referring to postmodernists, but thanks for playing. Newimpartial (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC) Sparkle1, it sounds like the place you want to make this debate is WT:MOS, since your actual disagreement is with the policy itself. Gbear605 (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC) Gbear605 My objection is the ignorance of the whole of the policy, with selective parts of it being conveniently ignored, especially the section on privacy. Along with the abandonment of common sense in relation to Maines as she has used her birth name for self-promotion and that is entirely different from malicious and unwanted releases of birth names. Sparkle1 (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC) It is not a preamble it is an integral part of the policy for the avoidance of doubt here is the whole unedited MOS:DEADNAME: In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, the birth name should be included in the lead sentence only if the person was notable under that name. One can introduce the birth name with either "born" or "formerly": From Chelsea Manning, notable under prior name: Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning; December 17, 1987) ... From Laverne Cox, not notable under prior name: Laverne Cox (born May 29, 1972) ... If such a subject was not notable under their former name, it usually should not be included in that or any other article, even if some reliable sourcing exists for it. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name. (See also: WP:Manual of Style § Identity, and the article Deadnaming.) The part on privacy is clearly integral to the whole section. Sparkle1 (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC) Preamble, postamble: what is the difference? The language around "privacy interest" is intended to give support to the MoS guideline that had already been given in the text (and which resulted from RfC); it is most certainly not intended to limit the scope of DEADNAME, as I hope anyone can tell who is reading for content. Newimpartial (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC) Trying desperately to detach it because it doesn't allow the wholesale removal of birth names is hilarious to watch and the knots being tied here are fun to observe. The privacy issue here is "Has Maines got a legitimate privacy concern as a subject of this article for her birth name not to be included?" Going on T.V. and using her birth name for her own self-promotion clearly shows absolutely no privacy issue exists and she has made it a notable part of her identity. Sparkle1 (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC) Does MOS:DEADNAME say, or paraphrase to, "include non-notable deadnames if there is no privacy interest involved"? No, it does not. Also, I'd like to see the evidence referring to one's deadname in an anecdote in a television interview is normally understood as an unrestricted license to use it for all purposes indiscriminately. In fact, when I type that out, it reads like one of the strangest "principles" or generalizations I've ever seen put forward. Newimpartial (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC) I suggest you watch this video from Nightline the section in question starts at 2:19 where she states her birth name openly and freely. Sparkle1 (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC) I did. She uses it once, in an anecdote. Hardly her saying "please use my deadname, Wikipedia." Gbear605 (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC) To repeat my question more simply, why does this section of video extinguish privacy interest? For that matter, why should it have WEIGHT at all: do other, more reliable sources refer frequently to it? Newimpartial (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC) Wikipedia does not seek or look for permission from article subjects before using material some may find objectionable. That is absurd. Maines is using it for her own self-promotion, anecdote or not. You can't put information into the public domain and then say the next day I assert my privacy over what I said yesterday, even though you have all published it. Retract it all. Scrub it. I assert privacy over it now, even though I freely gave it to you to promote myself. That is an absurd way of carrying on. Where does that kind of absurdity end? Also, does every source have to relay on all of the content In the article to be included? By that logic only a verbatim recitation of the article each time would suffice. individual reliable sources are used for individual pieces of information. Sparkle1 (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC) She goes on Ellen and also freely and comfortably uses her birth name in the interview. Here it begins at 1:51 where she uses her birth name. She has no problem saying her birth name over multiple media appearances when talking about her transition. Sparkle1 (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC) Do any reliable, secondary sources (apart from interviews) use her former name at all? If not, I don't see any policy-compliant reasons to include it even apart from MOS:DEADNAME considerations. Newimpartial (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC) Just Google "Nicole Maines" Wyatt and you will get more than 10,000 hits. Google News gives 131 results, including WaPo[12], ABC[13], Hollywood Reporter[14], etc., so yes is it widely used in RSs. Yilloslime (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC) I don't intend to go through all of these, but the first one I looked at was ABC. There was certainly nothing in that report that would make me think including the dead name was due: it is only referred to in the subtitle and in connection with interview content AFAICT, neither of which would add WEIGHT. Newimpartial (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC) The Hollywood reporter link also only has the deadname in a direct quote from the Maines, which doesn't establish that secondary sources use the name. First source behind a paywall so haven't checked it. Rab V (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC) After watching the Ellen video above, I cannot see how people are still arguing not to include the birth name. She mentions it completely unprompted. The evidence is abundantly clear that she has absolutely no problem with the name being known. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 00:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC) JDDJS, nobody has produced any reason to think the subject having no problem with the name being known is relevant to MOS:DEADNAME. It isn't. Newimpartial (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC) I ask then what is the point of MOS:DEADNAME if as is so blatantly shown here, it defies commonsense and reasonableness. This article has clearly shown its attempted blanket without exception application to be a total nonsense. Newimpartial You cannot simply demand the opposite of commonsense to suit your own position. The simplest thing to do is to accept that MOS:DEADNAME is not going to force through the removal of Maines' birth name. Fialing to doi so will be an absurdity and a vacating of commonsense. Sparkle1 (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Sparkle1, the purpose of MOS:DEADNAME is for people who came out publicly after they were already notable, such as Wendy Carlos, Caitlin Jenner, or Chelsea Manning - ie. people who a Wikipedia reader might only know by their deadname. This doesn't apply to people who publicly changed their preferred name before they became notable, such as Laverne Cox (who coincidentally is another trans person with an identical twin of the opposite gender). Gbear605 (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC) And before my words get misinterpreted, I meant that MOS:DEADNAME is to *allow* the limited usage of deadnames of people in that former category and *disallow* the usage of deadnames in the latter category. Gbear605 (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC) A point of curiosity: Rab V can you please define what the difference a primary and a secondary source is? You clearly don't have a common understanding of the difference. Previously you have claimed the book written by Nutt is a primary source, which is wrong, it is a secondary source. If the book was written by Maines it would be a primary source. What is being published Hollywood reported in this context is a secondary source it is either a re-publisher or is using the other article as the basis for its article. They are building upon the primary source material. Quoting someone in the article does not make the article a primary source, the article is still a secondary source. Publishing the raw interview would be the primary source. If the article about Maines was written by Maines and Maines alone then it would be a primary source. The article was not written by Maines so, therefore, the author is a secondary person to Maines who wrote the article, therefore making the article a secondary source. The Hollywood reporter Article is a classic secondary source. Katherine Schaffstall has clearly watched the primary source, in this case, The Ellen Show interview and added their own editorialisation and style to it while referring and building upon the source material. Primary sources are also known as "original sources" and are the first account of something. Secondary sources build upon primary sources and can include quotes and other extracts from primary sources. Sparkle1 (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC) The problem with the Nutt source isn't about primary vs. secondary; it lacks INDEPENDENCE as it is, in the words of the policy, closely affiliated with the subject and, as you say, promotional, and therefore does not meet standard WP:RS requirements. Also, you might want to review Wikipedia's treatment of interviews, which are generally not considered when determining Notability or WEIGHT as they also are not considered independent of the subject interviewed. Newimpartial (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Again I ask can you please define the difference between a primary and a secondary source. I have made no comments on the independence of authors of the sources. I am also not ascribing any degree of weight to individual sources here. I am simply asking for you to define the difference between a primary and a secondary source. Sparkle1 (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Also the linked to WP:INDEPENDENT contains the following as part of a table which I have converted as prose: examples of independent sources: a person: News media, popular or scholarly book. Sparkle1 (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC) The relevant section of WP:IND states that A third-party source is independent and unaffiliated with the subject, thus excluding first-party sources such as self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and promotional materials. For this reason, interviews and "authorized biographies" do not contribute to evaluating Notability and WEIGHT for WP articles: they are, as you have said repeatedly in this discussion, promotional and are therefore not independent RS. Newimpartial (talk) 01:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Newimpartial expressed my arguments before I could on the book so I don't see a point in adding further. Editors are not required to respond to all questions you have and since you have only taken warnings about not BLUDGEONING the conversation by doubling down, I am inclined to not play along so other editor's voices can be heard. Also offering unasked for genital pics to editors you disagree with is not OK and may be harassment. I just noticed this edit, you went to Funcrunch's userpage to do this after your arguments with them about the deadname got heated and you accused them of playing the trans card. Let's try to treat each other with more decency going forward. Rab V (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC) It is ironic to complain about someone not behaving in a way you would like them to behave while simultaneously behaving in the exact same behaviour. I stand by my comments, gratuitous use of ones trans status is playing the trans card and Funcrunch did so. I do agree though that everyone needs to leave this for a few days as this is going nowhere. Sparkle1 (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 - NN under previous name, but it's mentioned in many sources, so no reason to avoid its inclusion in infobox. Follow the sources. Λυδαcιτγ 09:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 - This seems like a very clear-cut case. The RfC on MOS:DEADNAME broadens the guideline to the entire article space. We seem to have a site-wide consensus to exclude deadnames unless the subject is notable under the previous name. Even though her deadname is available in some sources, AFAICT she is not notable under that name, and per WP:ONUS her deadname should be excluded. Reading through this discussion, there's a lot of borderline uncivil/bludgeoning behavior going on. The DEADNAME consensus is clear, and I fail to see how this case is different from, for instance, Laverne Cox. The discussion here should be of an academic nature. The question we should be asking is: was Maines notable under her previous name? I don't think that she was. SreySros (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

In short Maines herself has made it a notable part of her current identity with her continually referencing back to her birth name. This is not as clear cut as first appears. Maines has used her birth name and it is notable information about her and she has made it a notable part of her identity. She is comfortable discussing and using her birth name in the book by Nutt, the ABC and Ellen interviews to give you a beginning of how Maines has used and has integrated her birth name into her current identity and made it a notable part of who she is now. This is not a case where the birth name is used gratuitously or without warrant. It is used because Maines has made it a notable part of her current identity. Therefore it fails to be excluded by the current wider scope of the guidelines. Maines falls neatly through the net. Yes, she wasn't known by her birth name but that was due to the age she began her transition. Her name change petition has been made notable information by Maines and her family though. Maines has also integrated her birth name into her current identity. In this case, the guidelines don't cover a trans person who integrates their birth name into their current notability and has made their name change petition a notable element. It is complex here and cannot easily be looked at in black and white terms. Maines is certainly a grey area. Sparkle1 (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The consensus at DEADNAME states that we should not include deadnames unless the subject was notable under that name. This wording is a bit squishy in that it assumes that a trans person won't become notable under their deadname after they adopt a new name, so let's take a reasonable (and more lenient) interpretation and read it as was or is notable under that name. This is where we look to notability. Let's be clear about what we're talking about here, because you're throwing the word notable quite a bit. We are not asking whether she "integrate[s] her birth name into her current identity." or whether she "has made [her deadname] a notable part of her current identity" (even if we were, I don't think the evidence supports these claims, but that's beside the point). We are asking if Maines is WP:NOTABLE under her previous name, and I mean that in the all-caps sense. Notability is not something that is determined by the subject. Maines and her family cannot "make" her notable under a name, or "integrate" anything into her notability. This is because notability under a name is defined only by whether said name receives significant coverage (more than a trivial mention) in independent, reliable sources. Even without DEADNAME, her former name is hardly given any weight in the sources that do mention it and thus is undue. SreySros (talk) 05:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Strong oppose option 2 because no informational content should be in the infobox but not the prose (with the exception of some data, such as ISBN numbers). — Bilorv (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what is being stated here. If the birth name was in the early life section as well there would be no issue? I don't really see the logic here the argument. If the non-inclusion in the main body is the issue that can be remedied by including it in the main body as well. Are you supporting an option 2 and 3 hybrid? Sparkle1 (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Option 2 implies that it would only be in the infobox. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the purpose of an infobox is to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored) ... As with any guideline, there will be exceptions where a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text, but where that information may be placed in the infobox. Prominent examples include the ICD codes in Infobox medical condition and most of the parameters in Chembox. It doesn't seem to me to meet that exception, so if it is in the infobox, it should also be also be in the article. Gbear605 (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

In effect, the design of the RfC should have included this as an option. In that case, the hybrid should not be dismissed. That option is effectively the opposite of option 1. Sparkle1 (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Sparkle, at this point, consider WP:BLUDGEON. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

What a wholly unnecessary personal attack days after the comment and days after I had stopped contributing. This is nothing but a personal attack next time either keep it to yourself or post it where the sun doesn't shine. Sparkle1 (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

That comment was made before you stopped editing, on 21 November. Gbear605 (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 per SreySros - Idealigic (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 per MOS:DEADNAME. I see the strongest opposition on the basis that reliable sources discuss the deadname and that the subject doesn't (appear to) mind the name being known. Reliable sources are not a guarantor of inclusion and Wikipedia content is largely not determined by what the subject wants the content of the article to be. We have a policy that's clear here. — Bilorv (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

On an aside this diff summarises and blows out of the water the bull-headed assertions being made about the supposed strength of the MOS:DEADNAME it is just a guideline and there is no dispute over the birth name or the reliability of the sources. an independent third party looked at this and concluded these points. Sparkle1 (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

You mean the same "third party" who warned the two of us equally for edit-warring, without looking at the sourcing requirements in WP:BLP for contentious content? I wouldn't give that too much weight, if I were you.

The fact is that MOS:GENDERID and MOS:DEADNAME reflect a site-wide consensus involving many, many editors, and your WP:IDHT crusade that this article needs to be different from all others is not likely to get the result you are so invested in. Newimpartial (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Get out of town, they were clear there was no dispute of the birth name or the sources and they were clear it was purely a guideline and not a policy. Sparkle1 (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The interview is not a suitable source for a contentious statement under WP:BLP. The fact that the 3RR closer didn't get that doesn't make it any less true, and that the MOS is a "guideline" not a "policy" doesn't make it any less relevant to how this article should be written. Are you making an WP:IAR argument yet? Because that should be fun, and would go well with your folksy rhetorical style, with your get out of town and your allegation that bull-headed assertions are being blown out of the water. I feel like I'm somewhere between a Western film and a Joseph Conrad novel. Newimpartial (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The 3rr closer comprehensively destroyed your position and it is clear you are squirming that your position has been shown to be a farce. Sparkle1 (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Is there a tune to go with that? I'm thinking something from 19th-century French or Austrian operetta. You know, something blustering yet subtly self-mocking.

Also, if the 3RR closer destroyed my position, why did you also receive a BOOMERANG EW warning? Asking for a friend. Newimpartial (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Huh? Nothing in the 3RR closer's comment lends weight to your preferred version of the article. They simply stated it was not sufficient for Newimpartial's pre-emptive removal to be exempt from the edit warring policy per 3RRNO --Equivamp - talk 16:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1, she was not notable under it, and it is not given weight even in sources that mention it (so it's also not due); MOS:DEADNAME (per recent RFC) agree that non-notable deadnames should not be mentioned; Wikipedia is WP:NOT a collection of non-notable, undue trivia. (Or at least, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a collection of such trivia, although everyone has their favourite example of a "why do we even have this article/section?" lol ... but that's irrelevant). -sche (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 as per above arguments. There's an argument to be made that she is notable from Doe vs Regional School Unit 26, but there's nothing to indicate that that notability was under her deadname, and even if it was, she was anonymous in that case. Smith(talk) 17:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

  Per interviews with Maines, she chose her current name when she was in elementary school, and Wikipedia consensus has been clear that MOS:DEADNAME means that the time of choosing a preferred name is relevant, not time of legally changing name (see for instance Margot (activist), who has not been able to legally change her name due to Polish laws), so Doe vs Regional School Unit 26 shouldn't affect the time of her name being notable. Gbear605 (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Note: The obvious option 4 was not included until after all of the above !votes (except for any that have been updated since then).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
• Options 2 + 3 + 4. If the birth name is frequently found in RS biographical materials, including ones authorized by the subject, then there is no policy basis (e.g. WP:BLPPRIV) under which its contextually appropriate use on Wikipedia can be suppressed. And the option for "only in the infobox", in isolation, is not compatible with MOS:INFOBOX guidelines; infoboxes are not stand-alone mini-articles, they are summaries of key points already found in the article text. A subject's (encyclopedically included) former names are included in the lead, per MOS:LEAD, so there is no rationale by which to exclude it from the lead if it is going to be in the infobox and/or the early-life section (i.e. included at all). We would only exclude from the lead a name that should be excluded from the entire article because it fails MOS:DEADNAME (is a name pre-dating the subject's period of notability and not usually reported in RS about the subject).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

  SMcCandlish, have you read the preceding discussion, and MOS:DEADNAME? This is clearly a name pre-dating the subject's period of notability, and there is no specification that names be not usually reported in RS about the subject within the relevant section of the MOS. Rather, the current text reads, If such a subject was not notable under their former name, it usually should not be included in that or any other article,[d] even if some reliable sourcing exists for it, which seems pretty clear.

  !votes where the basis in policy or guideline is misleading are normally ignored, I think. Newimpartial (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Question re current article state I'm not certain, because editors more experienced than myself are here and it hasn't been mentioned so far, but per WP:BLPUNDEL shouldn't we remove the material until we reach consensus here, at which point we could add it back if that's what we decide? Maybe there's a policy that overrides that here (perhaps because of the ANI EW warning?), but especially considering that the current state of the article goes against INFOBOX it feels like we shouldn't leave the article as-is. Because the sources we have (tentatively) suggest that there's not a huge privacy/real-world harm concern, I'd be open to moving it from the infobox to the early life section rather than completely removing it while we wait for consensus. If nobody objects, in a few days I'll move it from the infobox to the early life section, or if I see consensus here to remove the name while we discuss I'll do that. Of course, if there are reasonable objections or a policy that I'm overlooking here I'll leave the article as is. SreySros (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

  My reading is that the statement from EdJohnston in the ANI suggests that the concern here is only MOS-related, not a BLP-harm-concern (which I personally agree with), and thus WP:BLPUNDEL doesn't apply. I agree that it's against INFOBOX, but the issue is minor enough and only relevant until the RfC is closed, and this issue has caused disagreement before (see this diff by JDDJS and the reverting diff by Sparkle1). Gbear605 (talk) 01:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

  For the record, I tried to remove the infobox material as contentious material that is ... poorly sourced in a BLP (the wording from 3RRNO), since it is sourced to an interview. To me it is obvious that the inclusion is contentious, since we are arguing about it here. Other editors however disagreed that it fits this category, which is why it remains. Newimpartial (talk) 02:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

  WP:BLPUNDEL does not apply here, as the material is not disputed--which is to say, there is no doubt what her birth name is; reliable sources abound, etc. There is simply an editorial dispute about whether or not to include it. More bluntly, we are not risking a libel lawsuit with the material remaining in the article.Yilloslime (talk) 03:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you for the clarification @Gbear605, that makes sense. SreySros (talk) 05:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 WP:DEADNAME is clear on this. SportingFlyer T·C 15:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi Matt,

I totally understand why you needed to delete my stuff. I am in Grade 11 and this was a project I had to do for my social justice class. I may have to add some more edits just so I can save a pdf version of the revised article, and it's fine if you delete it after. It would be great if you could just leave it up for 30 mins max, so I can save a file or some screenshots to hand in. I realize that I am just a 16 year old, and I have no place to pretend I'm an expert on any topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by W1k1p3di65 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not Matt but if you want to see a version of the article with your edits in it you can find it in under the View History tab above the article. Here is a link of the page with your edits. Rab V (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Additionally, if you want to work on your own copy of the article (i.e. add more content), I'd recommend you do it in your user sandbox. You can copy over the source of this page at your revision to your sandbox and edit a local copy there rather than editing the live version. Additionally, you don't have to be an expert on any topic to contribute to Wikipedia! We try to base all article content on reliable sources, so the role of Wikipedia editors is to read those sources (and Wikipedia policies and guidelines) and work facts from those sources into the articles. Srey Sros^talk 16:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@W1k1p3di65: Thanks for the level-headed reply here. I don't have too much more to add except to say that the tips above are good if you're looking to experiment and/or get screenshots. Good luck with your project.--MattMauler (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Monozygotic (identical) twins aka identical twin

See Twin#Monozygotic (identical) twins

An editor has removed sourced content regarding the genetic relationship between Nicole and her brother. They are genetically identical twins, a term often used to describe siblings who may appear similar. Transitioning does not change the scientific fact of monozygotic twins. They may be of different appearance or, as certainly in this case, a different gender.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 20:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

If their appearances are different then they're not identical. I'm not upset at you here cos I know this wasn't your intention - as you were editing in good faith and I mean this as constructive criticism - but saying "Transitioning does not change the scientific fact of monozygotic twins" is equating sex and gender, which is transphobic. It's the same as telling a trans woman called Nikita (she/her): "transitioning does not change the fact that you were assigned male at birth, and therefore you are male". I'm not saying you're a transphobe ofc but that logic is transphobic. Nicole and her brother do not appear similar - as one is a transitioned woman - and the other is an AMAB man. That's a fact.

Also, two editors removed the content - not one. Stephanie921 (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, you're missing the point that "identical twins" means that they are from the same embryo and thus have the same genetic code, whatever the differences between them are now. There's a fundamental difference between monozygotic and dizygotic twins, and I think that distinction here is important in the context of Maines' relationship with her brother. Many sets of identical twins develop differences between them; we don't stop calling them identical twins just because they're no longer perfectly identical.

How about we use the technical term and just refer to them as monozygotic rather than identical? Would that solve the point of contention here?

As a side note, I'm disappointed in the edit warring which took place here - Stephanie921 made a change from the previous consensus, it was reverted, and at that point, it should have been brought here for discussion (IMHO by @Stephanie921) rather than being added and removed three times(!). stwalkerster (talk) 08:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Loriendrew, I am curious about your summary for this edit, namely, Genetics is not contentious. (1) What did you mean? and (2) why did you see that as a relevant justification to edit war to retain disputed content? Newimpartial (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe this an American English thing? It's 100% clear to me and I assume all native speakers of American English that "identical" twins means monozygotic, i.e. came from the same embryo and have the same genes, and probably looked fairly indistinguishable initially. And I believe it's also common knowledge that "identical" twins are never truly identical and their phenotypes will diverge, sometimes subtly, sometimes dramatically. So if the issue is that "identical" twins means one thing in American English but implies something else in other dialects--and I don't know if this is the issue--but if it is, then maybe simply wiki-linking "identical" to Monozygotic would clear this up? Or using the term "monozygotic" instead of "identical", though I don't like that option as much, as IMHO it's too jargon-y/stilted. But maybe this isn't the issue? I'm honestly stumped. Yilloslime (talk) 05:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe the primary concern of the OP is that since Nicole is female and her brother is, well, male, saying "they were twins" is unintentionally vague, because male/female twins do exist but are "fraternal twins", and if one does not notice or realise that she is transgender, one might make the assumption that she and her brother were fraternal twins. So, the crux of the issue is that it is awkward to say "identical twins" because she is female, but as mentioned above "monozygotic" is overly jargony, and saying "they were born as identical twins but they're not identical now because she has transitioned" is a bit wordy. Primefac (talk) 07:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, currently the page for Laverne Cox, a trans woman, refers to her brother M Lamar as her identical twin. Speaking a trans person myself, I'm fine with using the term "identical" when referring to a trans person's sibling(s) in the pre-transition ("Early life") part of a bio. Funcrunch (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I think this points to my actual feeling about the text (which was not the reason for my essentially procedural revert). My problem was that the status quo ante phrase seemed to make them identical twins in the present; I personally would be fine with text saying something like "were adopted at birth as identical twins", or some such. Newimpartial (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Rewording the phrase may be worthy. The word ″identical″ was removed despite extensive reliable sourcing. If Maines (technically either sibling) is offended by the term, those sources could have had corrections or word retractions. One of the strongest sources is the Become Nicole biography, which appears to have been done with full cooperation of the family. If the term is kept, it should be wikilinked to the term above, or some form of note added explaining how it is meant in the context of her early life.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, seems like rewording to something like "were adopted at birth as identical twins" should address any potential vagueness/cognitive dissonance, so I'll make the change. Yilloslime (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)