Talk:M Lamar

"Fraternal" twins - ?

The intro section of this article calls M Lamar the fraternal twin of Laverne Cox. But Laverne's page lists them as identical twins. All online sources agree with them being identical. So, what's the reason for calling them fraternal on this page? I'd change it myself but not sure if its fraught with more gender-related factors than I know enough to say anything about. With that said, though, identical twins are a fact of having come from a single egg, which is not something that changes when one member of the twin pair transitions

Date of birth

The article currently lists Lamar's date of birth as May 29, 1984, per the biography on his website. 216.228.224.97 has reverted this a couple of times, with an edit summary stating "it's an exceptional claim, because there's no way his twin, Laverne Cox, was born in 1984; both were born in 1972", with both myself and NeilN restoring the information.

I have found no evidence whatsoever that there is any controversy over Lamar's year of birth, other than this one edit summary. I believe this information meets all the requirements of WP:BLPSELFPUB.

If there is controversy over Lamar's date of birth, that should be reported in the article with reliable sources. Until there are reliable sources claiming the 1984 date is incorrect, it should stand in the article.

—me_and 17:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Happy to elaborate. First off, the 1984 dob was put in there by a user named Reginaldlamar. M Lamar's full and legal name is Reginald Cox, so at a minimum, this page deserves a coi tag. (User NeilN seems to think that I am referring to him with the conflict of interest; I'm not. I'm referring to "Reginaldlamar.") Next, the May 29 dob is not in dispute. There are plenty of reliable sources (http://www.al.com/news/mobile/index.ssf/2014/06/laverne_coxs_time_has_come_and.html) confirming that. However, the year of birth remains completely in question. Please see a variety of reliable sources that cast significant reasonable doubt on the idea that M Lamar and Laverne Cox were born in 1984. Like this one here (http://thedartmouth.com/2014/05/05/in-keynote-laverne-cox-discourages-gender-policing/). For Laverne and her twin, M Lamar, to have been born in 1984 would mean that she was enjoying the club scene in NYC at age 14 *and* that she was starting a medical transition. I'm not sure if this source (http://www.who2.com/blog/2015/05/laverne-cox-was-born-in-1972-were-pretty-sure) is an RS, but as a practical matter, it delves through much of this, including the likelihood that Laverne Cox was in college in 1993 (which would support a 1972 dob over a 1984 dob -- unless there's evidence that Laverne was Doogie Howser).

I'm not saying I know for sure what year these twins were born, but I am saying that 1984 is implausible, and that yes, there are reliable sources that create a controversy. I'm happy to rewrite this page, stating that Lamar says he was born in 1984 but that other sources suggest otherwise, but when there's a controversy, I think we should leave it out. Either way, I do think this fails WP:BLPSELFPUB; the only source stating May 29, 1984 for M Lamar is...his own site. Given that we could have a potential 12-year age gap *and* given that he's in the entertainment industry, it's reasonable to question whether this fails the first point in WP:BLPSELFPUB, which is: "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: 1.it is not unduly self-serving;" I would argue that the May 29, 1984 dob, in the absence of any other evidence, is unduly self-serving. It also is an exceptional claim.

Public records databases also give both Laverne Cox and M Lamar the May 1972 dob, but I recognize that those are WP:OR, and I'm not making the claim that we use those for sourcing. WP:RS, yes. WP:OR, no, although it's certainly informative to see what those databases state. [Private information removed —me_and 14:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)]

I'm also fine with putting this up for a broader consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.224.97 (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

M Lamar's full and legal name is Reginald Cox, so at a minimum, this page deserves a coi tag makes no sense. That's not what COI is. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, first the simple bit: The COI tag is only necessary if there are serious problems with the article caused by COI edits. That doesn't seem to be the case here, apart from this one issue. That someone with a suspected conflict of interest has edited here might warrant it being mentioned on this talk page with {{connected contributor}} or similar, but it doesn't warrant a COI tag on the article itself.

On the DOB, the Dartmouth link isn't loading for me, but the Who2 link does appear to be a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes, at least based on their "About" page – the content is researched and written by Who2 staff and appears to be editorially independent. That Ask.com republishes their information adds weight to them being reliable. So that does look like pretty good evidence for there being controversy, which I hadn't seen before.

So, conclusion: the article should mention Lamar's claim for 1984, and also that Who2 believe it's c. 1972 based on the DOB of her twin. It probably shouldn't mention the DOB at all in the first sentence, and if it were a longer article with multiple sections, I'd probably put it in a "personal life" section or similar, although that's not relevant here.

Thanks for the elaboration; I'd done a little Googling myself, but I hadn't come across either of those sources.

—me_and 17:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this. There's no reason for the COI tag ("It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view.") and the DOB should be left out per the Who2 article (that's why I didn't restore it when I removed the COI tag). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Just to be clear: are you agreeing with my suggestion to leave the year out of the first sentence but mention both dates with sources later in the article? That's my suggestion which it looks like you're agreeing with, but your phrasing as "the DOB should be left out" makes it less clear. —me_and 18:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I wouldn't mention it at all unless some reliable source definitively states it or mentions it's obscured/controversial. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I think not mentioning it at all won't work – other editors will see the missing info and add it themselves without realising it's controversial. Is there a reason you don't think the Who2 site is reliable? As I noted above, it looks like it satisfies WP:RS to me.

(I've managed to load a Google cached version of the article in The Dartmouth, but I don't think that's a good source for the date of birth without improper synthesis.)

—me_and 18:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I've seen enough DOB discussions to get a feeling the community takes WP:DOB fairly literally. "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" (emphasis mine). I think we can say Lamar objects to the 1972 date, which is based on (reasonable) assumptions, not declarations, and not widely published. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, okay, that makes sense. Unless you've a particular objection, I'm going to add a hidden comment to the article to explain this stance and point other editors at the talk page, in the hope of reducing the number of times one or another date needs to be removed. If and when there are more widely published sources, or consistency between the date Lamar reports and what other sources believe, we can add a date back then. —me_and 09:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

-- M Lamar's DOc is listed as 1972 on IMDB. Is that not considered a reliable source? http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5799379/ WP:DOB suggests that, for privacy reasons, only the year of birth should be listed in some cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.253.6 (talk) 04:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

IMDB is not a reliable source for BLPs as much of its content is user generated. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Identical twins category

It seems controversial and confusing to me to categorize Lamar in the "identical twin males" category, since his twin is not male. Laverne Cox is a female twin, so if we classify her brother M Lamar in the "identical twin males" category, I think we would be implying that she is male. Why not be accurate but not controversial/misleading by simply categorizing M Lamar in the "identical twins" category? Aroundthewayboy (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Aroundthewayboy:Since the article is about an individual twin rather than a pair, the other twin's gender is completely irrelevant. For what it's worth, his twin's article has Category:Identical twin actresses, among many other female categories. Is this somehow implying Lamar is a woman?--ｖａｐｏｒｇａｚｅ💬 (please ping on reply) 18:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Vaporgaze: Hm I see what you mean, that if Laverne's entry has a female identical twin category, maybe Lamar's could have a male identical twin category. However, hers does not have a "identical twin females" category, only "Twin people from the United States." So the symmetry would be for Lamar to be categorized in "Twin people from the United States," without a gender for the identical twin. But I'm open to your interpretation, could we wait until a third editor has weighed in with their opinion? To me it seems controversial, and potentially harmful to Cox, so why not err on the safe side and just leave Lamar as "identical twins" and "Twin people from the United States"?Aroundthewayboy (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)