Talk:Nicole Maines
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nicole Maines article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 6 months |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
| This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This article was nominated for deletion on 13 January 2016. The result of the discussion was redirect to Doe v. Clenchy. |
| The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
| This article should adhere to the gender identity guideline because it contains material about one or more trans women. Precedence should be given to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, anywhere in article space, even when it does not match what is most common in reliable sources. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. Some people go by singular they pronouns, which are acceptable for use in articles. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Former, pre-transition names of living persons may only be included if the person was notable while using the name; outside of the main biographical article, such names should only appear once, in a footnote or parentheses.If material violating this guideline is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other related issues, please report the issue to the LGBTQ+ WikiProject, or, in the case of living people, to the BLP noticeboard. |
Hi Matt,
[edit]I totally understand why you needed to delete my stuff. I am in Grade 11 and this was a project I had to do for my social justice class. I may have to add some more edits just so I can save a pdf version of the revised article, and it's fine if you delete it after. It would be great if you could just leave it up for 30 mins max, so I can save a file or some screenshots to hand in. I realize that I am just a 16 year old, and I have no place to pretend I'm an expert on any topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by W1k1p3di65 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm not Matt but if you want to see a version of the article with your edits in it you can find it in under the View History tab above the article. Here is a link of the page with your edits. Rab V (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Welcome to Wikipedia! Additionally, if you want to work on your own copy of the article (i.e. add more content), I'd recommend you do it in your user sandbox. You can copy over the source of this page at your revision to your sandbox and edit a local copy there rather than editing the live version. Additionally, you don't have to be an expert on any topic to contribute to Wikipedia! We try to base all article content on reliable sources, so the role of Wikipedia editors is to read those sources (and Wikipedia policies and guidelines) and work facts from those sources into the articles. Srey Srostalk 16:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- @W1k1p3di65: Thanks for the level-headed reply here. I don't have too much more to add except to say that the tips above are good if you're looking to experiment and/or get screenshots. Good luck with your project.--MattMauler (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Monozygotic (identical) twins aka identical twin
[edit]See Twin#Monozygotic (identical) twins
An editor has removed sourced content regarding the genetic relationship between Nicole and her brother. They are genetically identical twins, a term often used to describe siblings who may appear similar. Transitioning does not change the scientific fact of monozygotic twins. They may be of different appearance or, as certainly in this case, a different gender.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 20:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- If their appearances are different then they're not identical. I'm not upset at you here cos I know this wasn't your intention - as you were editing in good faith and I mean this as constructive criticism - but saying "Transitioning does not change the scientific fact of monozygotic twins" is equating sex and gender, which is transphobic. It's the same as telling a trans woman called Nikita (she/her): "transitioning does not change the fact that you were assigned male at birth, and therefore you are male". I'm not saying you're a transphobe ofc but that logic is transphobic. Nicole and her brother do not appear similar - as one is a transitioned woman - and the other is an AMAB man. That's a fact.
- Also, two editors removed the content - not one. Stephanie921 (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- In my opinion, you're missing the point that "identical twins" means that they are from the same embryo and thus have the same genetic code, whatever the differences between them are now. There's a fundamental difference between monozygotic and dizygotic twins, and I think that distinction here is important in the context of Maines' relationship with her brother. Many sets of identical twins develop differences between them; we don't stop calling them identical twins just because they're no longer perfectly identical.How about we use the technical term and just refer to them as monozygotic rather than identical? Would that solve the point of contention here?As a side note, I'm disappointed in the edit warring which took place here - Stephanie921 made a change from the previous consensus, it was reverted, and at that point, it should have been brought here for discussion (IMHO by @Stephanie921) rather than being added and removed three times(!). stwalkerster (talk) 08:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Loriendrew, I am curious about your summary for this edit, namely,
Genetics is not contentious
. (1) What did you mean? and (2) why did you see that as a relevant justification to edit war to retain disputed content? Newimpartial (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)- Maybe this an American English thing? It's 100% clear to me and I assume all native speakers of American English that "identical" twins means monozygotic, i.e. came from the same embryo and have the same genes, and probably looked fairly indistinguishable initially. And I believe it's also common knowledge that "identical" twins are never truly identical and their phenotypes will diverge, sometimes subtly, sometimes dramatically. So if the issue is that "identical" twins means one thing in American English but implies something else in other dialects--and I don't know if this is the issue--but if it is, then maybe simply wiki-linking "identical" to Monozygotic would clear this up? Or using the term "monozygotic" instead of "identical", though I don't like that option as much, as IMHO it's too jargon-y/stilted. But maybe this isn't the issue? I'm honestly stumped. Yilloslime (talk) 05:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- I believe the primary concern of the OP is that since Nicole is female and her brother is, well, male, saying "they were twins" is unintentionally vague, because male/female twins do exist but are "fraternal twins", and if one does not notice or realise that she is transgender, one might make the assumption that she and her brother were fraternal twins. So, the crux of the issue is that it is awkward to say "identical twins" because she is female, but as mentioned above "monozygotic" is overly jargony, and saying "they were born as identical twins but they're not identical now because she has transitioned" is a bit wordy. Primefac (talk) 07:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe this an American English thing? It's 100% clear to me and I assume all native speakers of American English that "identical" twins means monozygotic, i.e. came from the same embryo and have the same genes, and probably looked fairly indistinguishable initially. And I believe it's also common knowledge that "identical" twins are never truly identical and their phenotypes will diverge, sometimes subtly, sometimes dramatically. So if the issue is that "identical" twins means one thing in American English but implies something else in other dialects--and I don't know if this is the issue--but if it is, then maybe simply wiki-linking "identical" to Monozygotic would clear this up? Or using the term "monozygotic" instead of "identical", though I don't like that option as much, as IMHO it's too jargon-y/stilted. But maybe this isn't the issue? I'm honestly stumped. Yilloslime (talk) 05:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- FWIW, currently the page for Laverne Cox, a trans woman, refers to her brother M Lamar as her identical twin. Speaking a trans person myself, I'm fine with using the term "identical" when referring to a trans person's sibling(s) in the pre-transition ("Early life") part of a bio. Funcrunch (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think this points to my actual feeling about the text (which was not the reason for my essentially procedural revert). My problem was that the status quo ante phrase seemed to make them identical twins in the present; I personally would be fine with text saying something like "were adopted at birth as identical twins", or some such. Newimpartial (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Rewording the phrase may be worthy. The word ″identical″ was removed despite extensive reliable sourcing. If Maines (technically either sibling) is offended by the term, those sources could have had corrections or word retractions. One of the strongest sources is the Become Nicole biography, which appears to have been done with full cooperation of the family. If the term is kept, it should be wikilinked to the term above, or some form of note added explaining how it is meant in the context of her early life.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- OK, seems like rewording to something like "were adopted at birth as identical twins" should address any potential vagueness/cognitive dissonance, so I'll make the change. Yilloslime (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Rewording the phrase may be worthy. The word ″identical″ was removed despite extensive reliable sourcing. If Maines (technically either sibling) is offended by the term, those sources could have had corrections or word retractions. One of the strongest sources is the Become Nicole biography, which appears to have been done with full cooperation of the family. If the term is kept, it should be wikilinked to the term above, or some form of note added explaining how it is meant in the context of her early life.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think this points to my actual feeling about the text (which was not the reason for my essentially procedural revert). My problem was that the status quo ante phrase seemed to make them identical twins in the present; I personally would be fine with text saying something like "were adopted at birth as identical twins", or some such. Newimpartial (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Vandalism - Twitter Link
[edit]The external link to Twitter actually takes you to a anti-trans page in Nicole's deadname. Please can this be removed. ~2025-38490-15 (talk) 08:57, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- Done. Also looking into wikidata to make sure that templates don't link to it again. — Misha Vargas (talk | contribs) 09:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2026
[edit]This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following to her bibliography:
- Justice League: Dream Girls – A DC Pride Event #1–4 (with Jadzia Axelrod and various artists, 2026)[1]
(Because this miniseries has over half a dozen different pencilers, I don't know if listing them all is a good idea or not.)
And please change the following:
- Secret Six #1–6 (with Stephen Segovia, 2025-present)
to
- Secret Six #1–6 (with Stephen Segovia, 2025) ~2026-36046-49 (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- Done. Also, the source shows a special, Justice League Intergalactic Special #1, having come out at the end of April. Should I add that? ~ Misha Vargas (talk | contribs) 22:12, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
References
- ↑ "DC Goes All In on Its DC Pride 2026 Publishing Lineup, Featuring Galaxy, Dreamer, and a New Four-Issue Justice League Event Series". DC Comics. March 18, 2026. Retrieved June 20, 2026.
- Biography articles of living people
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
- Low-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
- Actors and filmmakers work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
- B-Class WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies - person articles
- WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies - person articles
- WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
- B-Class Maine articles
- Low-importance Maine articles
- WikiProject Maine articles
- B-Class WikiProject Women articles
- All WikiProject Women-related pages
- WikiProject Women articles

