Talk:Nicole Maines

Inclusion of birth name

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

Redirecting of Doe v Clenchy in to this article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Incorporation of awards

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

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

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

Description as "Activist"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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