This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance). LGBT studies: Person Start‑class This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the LGBT Person task force. Maine Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MaineWikipedia:WikiProject MaineTemplate:WikiProject MaineMaine articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Actually, around here, silence is consent. At any rate, I'm not attached to the exact wording I put in[4]. If you have a suggestion for improvement, please share it. Yilloslime (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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)[reply]

Regarding this edit[[5]] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[6] Her first line of her twitter and instagram profiles describe her as a trans advocate. [7] [8][9][10] 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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."[11]; Dictionary.com: "2 any activity in which a person is engaged.[12]. Yilloslime (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[13] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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 [14], [15] Sparkle1 (talk) 10:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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" [16]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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]