Talk:Nicole Maines/Archive 1

Archive 1

Inclusion of birth name

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

Discussion 1

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

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

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

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

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

Dicsussion 2

Strongly disagree:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redirecting of Doe v Clenchy in to this article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Incorporation of awards

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2019

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2019

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

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

Original print date in references

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