Jump to content

Talk:Elliot Page/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 December 2020

Please delete the second line after Elliot Page's name in their Wiki entry, which reads, "(formerly Ellen Page; born February 21, 1987)" because of the inapprpriate deadnaming. Thank You, m Burgess 100.38.229.226 (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done because there is not consensus among Wikipedia editors to make this change. The most recent discussion on this topic is ongoing—the section directly above this one. — Bilorv (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

One a pending edit

So there is one pending edit I don't know what to do with. We obviously describe him as a him, but somebody added a section which is "At birth 'Ellen Page.'" Is there already consensus on this? Personally I don't think it needs to be in the lead but I genuinely don't know, it is made in good faith. I don't think it should be in the lead but still. Des Vallee (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Des Vallee, I reverted the pending edit. Wikipedia's Manual of Style recommends including a transgender person's deadname in the lead sentence when they were notable under that name, which Elliot Page was. See MOS:DEADNAME. warmly, ezlev. talk 06:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Ezlev Cool, I disagree with that but that sounds reasonable if nothing else. Using his old name in the lead is fine, I suppose. Des Vallee (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Name

I didn't want to make this change without talking with other editors first. The last sentence of the lead mentions that the subject announced his new name, Elliot Page. I'm just thinking... does that really need to be there? This isn't about dead naming, but that it’s redundant; the information is intuitable from the first five words of the article (which includes a reliable citation). Would it not be cleaner to cut announcing his new name as Elliot Page? Please ping me if you reply! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

It does feel a bit redundant (although not unprecedented. Chelsea Manning's lede has something similar). - Daveout(talk) 21:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Know what else feels redundant? Elizium23 (talk) 05:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
You got me there.👏 - Daveout(talk) 16:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
He never announced his new name als "Elliot Page". He announced his new name as "Elliot". He never says he changed his family name. --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I've added a request so that someone can implement it. Seems like an uncontroversial change!
To the attending admin: Requesting that you cut , announcing his new name as Elliot Page. from the last sentence of the lead. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Academy Award nomination for Best Actress is a big deal

Considering the Academy Awards are the biggest awards, and the big three awards of Picture, Actress, and Actor dwarf supporting roles, why is it that the mention at the top of the second paragraph of the lead only mentions an Academy Award nomination? It could be for screenwriting, or choreo-animation, or set design for all we know. Elliot was up for Best Actress which is a huge deal. Why not simply add that fact to the sentence with three words? Instead of "earning nominations for an Academy Award..." it would say "earning nominations for an Academy Award for best actress...". This seems like an easy quick fix but for some reason it's not wanted by a couple editors. No real explanation as to why. It seemed incomplete when I stumbled on the page after watching a movie of Elliot's tonight and I figured other readers would feel the same. I edited it once and was told it wasn't best actress for a couple of the nominations, so I tightened it up to be just for the Academy Awards and it was rejected again with no reason. So what's the deal here? Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I come across these edits early and was surprised the last one was reverted. I thought either you had got the award wrong (best actress was for another one) or that you got the wrong nomination (his Academy best actress nomination was for another film and not Juno). But it was a correct edit and I agree with you it should be in the article. I debated reverting it but didn't want to get in the middle of a possible edit war so didn't bother. I looked to see if was a talk page mention at the time but you hadn't posted this yet. Now that you have, I support your edit, that it should mention his nomination for the academy award was for best actress too. In fact that bit talks about him earning nominations for not only the Academy Award, but a BAFTA Award, a Critics' Choice Award, a Golden Globe Award and a Screen Actors Guild Award. As we know, the Academy Award was best actress, well the BAFTA, was Best Actress in a leading role; Critics Choice - Best Actress; Golden Globe - Golden Globe Award for Best Actress – Motion Picture Comedy or Musical and finally the Screen Actors - Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role. All back up the fact it was for Best Actress, just each award may not use quite the same title. It does really show what a breakthrough it was with Juno and that they were top nomination in each acting awards category.NZFC(talk)(cont) 07:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I wasn't going to get in an edit war over this either. I tried once and it was reverted with no reason given. I reverted that and it was again reverted. I would have brought it here right then but this time a reason was given that was understandable so I tweaked it to fit the new objection. It was reverted again for no real reason except I should bring it here. So I did. I actually hadn't checked that all the others were also for some sort of best actress. I just seems like something's missing when that fact is not front and center in the lead. I guess I could have gone straight to an RfC to get wider input, but this article is a bit out of my field and I didn't want to heap on too much. If others can think of a better way of putting it I'm pretty open to compromise. I just don't want our readers short-changed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Fyunck(click), I've been thinking a lot about this edit. To be honest, I regret my revert, which I made when I could have simply corrected the edit to specify that the Best Actress nomination was from the Academy Awards (as you promptly did), so I'm sorry about that.
With that being said, I don't think we can fully address this without recognizing that the core of the issue for many editors, including myself and potentially also Newimpartial, is Page's identity and the potential effects of listing a "Best Actress" nomination on the Wikipedia page of a transmasculine actor. The way I see it, we have three options:
  • Leave it out: leave this portion of the lead exactly the way it is now, despite the fact that Wikipedia is not censored, and without the explicit support of any Wikipedia policy I'm aware of. (I don't support this option, but I do find it compelling, and I can understand why other editors might support it.)
  • Put it in: as seen in the edit here, and for the reasons already given: it's relevant, and it seems to satisfy Wikipedia policy.
  • Compromise: as NZFC pointed out, all the awards listed in that paragraph are for the "top nomination in each acting awards category." What if we could source that - find reliable sources which express that each award Elliot Page was nominated for after Juno was a "top award" or something like that - and express that in the disputed paragraph, conveying the point that the nominations are high-level without using the word "Actress"?
I favor some form of compromise. I would love to hear the suggestions of anyone reading this. warmly, ezlev. talk 19:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a tough one. I slight prefer leaving it out or finding some workaround to avoid using the word actress. I also would change this line at the end of the first paragraph: "won the Austin Film Critics Association's Award for Best Actress." to something like: "won a Austin Film Critics Association's Award." - Daveout(talk) 20:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
A couple of things. Let's not jump down the censoring rabbithole... that never ends well. You mention the affects of listing "best actress nomination on the wikipedia page of a transgender actor." That has already happened here in the second paragraph of 2005 section. "For his performance, Page was nominated for several awards, including an Academy Award for Best Actress, a BAFTA Award for Best Actress, a Critics' Choice Award for Best Actress, a Golden Globe Award for Best Actress, and a Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role." That's as it should be. The lead should be a summary of the most important facts brought out in the article, and in my opinion there are actually too many awards listed in the lead section for Juno since it's repeated down below. Thinking about it, as far importance, it should probably say:
  • Page had his cinematic breakthrough with the title role in Jason Reitman's film Juno (2007), earning many accolades which included a nomination for an Academy Award for Best Actress.
I guess you could simply say "which earned many award nominations" and leave it at that but that really short changes Elliot's breakthru role. This is a person who is notable as an actor, that's why they are on wikipedia to begin with. No acting and they are not here at all. The highest honor actors get is at the Academy Awards and one of the biggest awards is Best Actress. How that isn't front and center in the lead really hurts this biography imho. I understand the transgender aspect can get a little sticky in how we word things from Elliot's past, but this seems too big to ignore without compromising the article integrity. I look at Tom Hanks article and the lead doesn't mention all the smaller awards he won for a role, but there's a bullseye around "He won two consecutive Academy Awards for Best Actor." As I mentioned above, I came here after re-watching a movie, it happened to be "Whip It", and noticed this lead missed an really important item. I've spent far too much time here than I ever intended as I usually work with tennis articles so if editors want to leave it as is I'll move along. I just tried to help with what seemed a glaring lead omission from my perspective. Take care. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
First of all, I do not advocate censoring the article. However, I also don't find it necessary to emphasize the (frankly odd) title of the "Best Actress" category ("next-best gender after Best Actor"?) each time that award is mentioned. I reverted the BOLD attempt to insert it into the lede - a move that seems POINTey to me for some reason - but am not trying to remove the award category's name from the article entirely. So that is what I regard as a reasonable compromise. I understand that there is debate over this, but I personally do not regard Page's gender as male, female or nonbinary to be relevant to the awards and nominations they received for Juno - since the award was for acting, and not e.g. for actually having a baby. Newimpartial (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Thinking something is pointy right off the bat is bad faith. That's not the wikipedia way. I see nothing "odd" about "Best Actress" category; there is nothing implied that it's next-best. And the award nomination was not for having a baby. And acting is vague for such a huge to-do... it's by far the biggest event in the field. The Academy Awards have categories. There are awards for supporting roles for actors and supporting roles for actresses too. The nomination was a great honor for Elliot, and I'm sure still is. I simply don't agree with your usage of "pointy", "odd", or "having a baby" in the context of a Best Actress award, nor do I think it's a magnanimous reasonable compromise. This article can stay the same as it is with the hole in the "lead" if that's what consensus wants, but make no mistake, it is a hole when it's a specific nomination for the most prestigious award in Elliot's profession and it's not mentioned loud and clear right up front. I guess we'll just have to disagree on its importance to his notability. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Elliot Page § Deadname

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Elliot Page § Deadname. — Bilorv (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Continuity of the story-line

Up until the third paragraph of the introduction it is not mentioned that Page was known as a woman and later transitioned. Hence, up until that point the reader only knows, he is a Canadian actor and producer (male) (unless we're assuming the reader would necessarily identify the name Ellen with the feminine gender). However, before that several accomplishments and roles played as a woman are mentioned. While, we all know the situation and automatically understand what is implied, this is definitely quite confusing for the reader who is not up to date, or a for a reader not knowing anything about Page (when reading the second paragraph they may end up wondering how a Canadian actor played the role of a pregnant teenage girl or won a price as best actress). Hence, I would suggest moving the third paragraph up, or mentioning the situation earlier, because otherwise the story-line does not make sense. SFBB (talk) 04:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Divorce

According to the BBC, Page and Portner are going to divorce: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55820614 JezGrove (talk) 11:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Change of family name

Elliot Pages family name was "Philpotts-Page". I know, he changed his given name. Yet, is there any evidence, he also changed his family name? --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

No evidence either way, but in the lead the debate in the RfC discussion above is whether in the lead we use his famous name (which is the title of this article) or his mostly unknown family name, or do we have both which might be normal but in the case of trans and intersex people would result in disrespectful hurtful Deadnaming (* Wikipedia guide line MOS:DEADNAME) of the Wikipedia:BLP subject. ~ BOD ~ TALK 17:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
In the section above it is about the given name. I am talking about the family name (not birth name!) His birth name is "Ellen Grace Philpotts-Page", but his current name is "Elliot Philpotts-Page". "Elliot Page" is just a stage name or nickname. His current full name is "Elliot Philpotts-Page".
That's a completely different matter than the discussion about the given name. --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Do you have any sources saying his name is currently Philpotts-Page? --Equivamp - talk 18:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Do you have any sources saying he changes his family name? Normally, a source is regarded as valid until a newer source says something different. --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Of course, there is an abundance of sources reporting on the subject's change of name, with "Elliot Page" being reported as the current name. Combining the new sources regarding his name change with older sources about his birth name to infer that his name is currently "Elliot Philpotts-Page" is improper synthesis. --Equivamp - talk 20:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
There are only source reporting that the person who was formerly known as "Ellen Page" is now known as "Elliot Page" (change of given name). There is not even a single source who reported that the family name has changed. You are the one who is doing WP:OR by assuming a change of the family name. --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not making an argument that the family name was changed, I am pointing out a lack of sources to support reporting the subject's current name as Elliot Philpotts-Page. --Equivamp - talk 21:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Nevertheless, here are some current sources mentioning the full name as "Elliot Philpotts-Page": [1], [2], [3]. --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
The first two sources here aren't very good. The first one is a blog, and the second one lists Elliot Philpotts-Page as his birth name, which of course isn't true. The third source says that the subject himself declared his name as Elliot Philpotts-Page, but is not true either. There is already much better sourcing for his announcement than an Argentinian newspaper as well. --Equivamp - talk 20:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
The first source is not very good. Yet, even a quite middle source is infinite times better than no source. Thus, do you have any source that the family name is changed? Or is it just WP:OR that the family name changed?
A blog is not better than no source in a BLP article. --Equivamp - talk 22:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
The announcement that his given name is Elliot was also made on twitter which is a blog. --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, his own tweet, about himself. At this point, consider re-availing yourself of all the BLP guidelines. --Equivamp - talk 23:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Btw, why do you believe that the third source is not true? Do you have any evidence (besides WP:OR) that the third source is not true? --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 21:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
The previously-mentioned other sources about his announcement (such as the ones already in the article) that quote him as saying "My name is Elliot," not, "My name is Elliot Philpotts-Page." --Equivamp - talk 22:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Where is the contradiction? If he says in one source "My name is Elliot." and in another source "My name is Elliot Philpotts-Page." both sentences can be true. Yet, there is no source in which he says: "My name is Elliot Page." --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment - in my view, it is OR that the family name changed and OR that the family name stayed the same. All we have is the current professional name. FiTe me. :p. Newimpartial (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

With this argument we should delete every name in every biography article if there cannot be found an up-to-date source. In most of the biography articles the source of the name is several years old. Yet, it's not OR to accept an old source.
Even if someone marries, you accept the old family name until a source says the family name has changed. You do not need sources to proof that something has not changed. You need sources to proof that something has changed. Or show me any other information in any other article which was removed because whether the change nor the unchange could be proofed. --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Please read MOS:DEADNAME. Simply put, we do not treat gender-altering name changes the same as other name changes. Therefore, we certainly do not perform SYNTH or OR to sleuth out probable "family names". Newimpartial (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
1. Please read the MOS:DEADNAME, yourself. This Deadname-chapter is about the given name. The last name has nothing to do with Deadname or gender-altering.
The examples in the deadname-chapter are Chelsea Manning and Laverne Cox. Both only changed their given name. Neither of them changed their last name. (Manning remained Manning and Cox remained Cox.) There was not even the idea, that they have changed their last name. And no one would change their last name in an article with the explanation: The unchange of the last name was not proofed.
Nevertheless, if Manning or Cox marry, then they could change their family name. Even in this case, the change of their family name has nothing to do with deadname or gender-altering.
2. Using the source [4] is not OR. Claiming that the source is wrong is OR. --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Technicaly, your point 2. may be correct. However, if the only published source for the supposedly current family name of a major Canadian celebrity is a small local newspaper published in Spanish in Argentina, I would not regard that as verified information, particularly for a BLP. And when I look for other sources to support this alleged name, all I get is a long list of fan wikis, which are most certainly not reliable sources, nor can I find anything that would meet BLPSELF requirements.
As far as point 1. is concerned, where does WP:DEADNAME limit its application to given names? That sounds like an OR interpretation to me. Newimpartial (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, GENDERID and DEADNAME are not limited to given names; this may be seen most clearly in cases where someone changed their surname entirely, like Fallon Fox (whose article uses "Fox" in cases where a WP:SURNAME is to be used). -sche (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
What has the family name to do with gender questions? Her current name is Fallon Burton. And Fallon Fox is just her stage name like Terence Hill. The family name is the name of your parents. And your parents name doesn't change just because your name change.
In some languages the family name change, of course: For example, the icelandic family name "Eiríksdóttir" (daughter of Eric) will change to "Eiríksson" (son of Eric). Yet, this only applies to languages in which the family name depends on gender.
"surname" is misleading: Only in european culture the surname is the family name. For example, in china the first name is the family name and the surname is the given name. --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
The point here is that in gender-related name changes, we treat the whole name as the CHANGEDNAME, not just the "given name" component. What this means in practice is that the BLP subject's preferred full name has to be sourced with references that follow the name change, not just the "given name" portion. Newimpartial (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
The point here is that in most languages only the given name is gender-related. There are some languages (like swedish, icelandic) in which the whole name is gender-related. Yet, in most languages only the given name is gender-related. --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I am talking about WP policy and guidelines here, not linguistics. You can believe what you like about linguistics (there are still some WP editors in denial about the Singular they, shocking as that may seem) but as long as you/they abide by Wikipedia policies (e.g. respecting the chosen pronouns of BLP subjects, and respecting the sourcing requirements for CHANGEDNAMEs related to gender) we can all get along. Newimpartial (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

1. There is only a Lex Gender about the inlcuding of the birth name in the article. The sourcing requirements of name-change are for all persons the same. They don't differ among the reasons of name-change.
2. There is only a source about the change of the given name. There isn't any source saying the family name has changed. --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps you did not read the paragraph following the birth name paragraph; it currently reads, 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. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name (emphasis added). What this shows is that the former names of BLP subjects with gender-related name changes are treated differently than those who change their name for other reasons; also, the passage does not restrict the "former name" concept to given names only. While this particular text does not address the specific question you are posing here (because of the duration of Elliot's Notability), the logic of this passage, namely the privacy interest separate from ... the person's current name does indeed apply, at least according to several interested editors. Presumably this can be settled as a general matter at an eventual RfC, but the idea that "birth names" are separable such that only the given name portion is subject to the privacy interest of a gender-related name change is unsupported anywhere in WP policy that I can see. Newimpartial (talk) 20:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
1. Gender-related name-change is treated differently only in the matter, what to include in the article. It's not treated differently in the question which sourcing requirements are needed. That's exactly, what I wrote. And that's exactly, what's written in the paragraph.
2. The paragraph doesn't mention the sourcing requirements. The sourcing requirements are mentioned in WP:Biographies of living persons#Reliable sources. --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't know why you are insisting on treating inclusion in the article and sourcing requirements as if they were unrelated issues. To identify which BLP subjects were or were not notable under their deadname, for example, we look for the Reliable Sources needed to establish Notability. To determine whether a gender-related name change has occurred, and what the BLP subject's name is after a gender-related change, we also depend on reliable sources. While verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, reliable sources are a prerequisite for making inclusion decisions.
For name changes in general, we have the principle articulated at WP:NAMECHANGES, to defer to reliable sources written after the name change when determining a subject's COMMONNAME. With respect to gender-related changes in partiuclar, MOS:GENDERID is worded in a more imperative fashion: Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what is most common in reliable sources. In other words, we use reliable sources to determine when a gender-related name change has occurred and to determine whether a person was also notable under their DEADNAME; we also include and exclude content to recognize the privacy interest in the deadname separate from the person's current name. I have seen no indication in any of these policies that this privacy interest applies only to given names, which would be a serious omission if the intention of the guidelines were to refer to given names only. By Occam's razor, then, WP recognizes such a privacy interest in the entire previous name; as the inclusion of deadnames is restricted to ones under which BLP subjects were notable, and as it seems that Elliot was not notable under his birth name but rather only his professional name (per the above RfC), sourcing for that birth name does not verify a current legal name or surname. Reliable sources for his current legal name or surname would be required to consider inclusion, after which DUE and various BLP considerations would apply. Newimpartial (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Somewhat related to this, I added the birth name, which we know. The standard way to do this is within the "born" brackets and the infobox, like with Caitlyn Jenner. --IWI (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
And since the discussion to date has produce no consensus in favor of this inclusion, I have removed it. Newimpartial (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
This discussion from what I gather is about whether his surname is still the same as before, so I felt this was unrelated. Including the birth name of someone who has changed their name is a standard thing to do. --IWI (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Please refer to Archive 2. Newimpartial (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@ImprovedWikiImprovment: Indeed. There's an RfC going on here. Please participate. - Daveout(talk) 23:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Netflix

At the Personal life's last paragraph, there is the sentence: Netflix tweeted: "So proud of our superhero! We love you Elliot!" I'm just wondering on the significance of Netflix tweeting such. Sure, Page has probably been on Netflix movies. But what significance does it draw? Netflix is not closely affiliated with Page, and its tweet is not controversial. Unless there's good reason to keep it, I suggest removing it. GeraldWL 09:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Why would you chose that specific element of the reception to Elliot's announcement, to exclude? Newimpartial (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Newimpartial, I am also confused as to why the Canadian PM's support was included, as there's no affiliation between them. I did not talk about the others because a) it is noteworthy to note someone calling him/her "an inspiration" for the trans/non-binary community; b) it is noteworthy to note other fellow celebrities expressing support. Netflix is not a celebrity, neither is Justin Trudeau. So I don't understand why should they be included. GeraldWL 13:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Why are you making these "affiliation" arguments? And if you are determined to make them, Netflix is Page's current employer (Umbrella Academy) and Trudeau is the head of government of the country of which he is a citizen. I don't see any valid argument why either would be UNDUE - we aren't supposed to use a celebry-o-meter to determine inclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Newimpartial, as I stated, I seek a reason as to why they're included, followed by the suggestion that if there's none, suggest removing it. That's secondary. I appreciate you giving a clarification as to why it's worth the inclusion. But you don't need to use such wording as if I'm damaging the encyclopedia just by inquiring. GeraldWL 14:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Both comments were covered extensively in reliable sources, which is prima faciae evidence for their inclusion being DUE. And I'm sorry if my tone came off as snarky, but the Trudeau one in particular is a bit sensitive. I have difficulty imagining that the inclusion of comments by US presidents, UK royalty or Prime Ministers would be questioned when they congratulate their nationals for their achievements or tough decisions. Newimpartial (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Gerald Waldo Luis, none of these tweets hold any encyclopedic value, especially singling out a couple of them does not make any sense. I also reported User:Newimpartial for their behavior on this page and incivility, but the page got protection so this issue never got a resolution. nyxærös 23:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Tweets are never notable or DUE for inclusion on their own, but tweets that are covered in multiple reliable sources become DUE for BALANCEd inclusion. Also, Nyxaros, you filed a complaint about me, without issuing the necessary notifications, for an alleged 3RR violation that never happened. Why you would want to point that out to the world, I don't know. Newimpartial (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2021

Hi! Could you please remove Elliot Page’s deadname (Ellen Page) from the parentheses that also state his date of birth. 2601:602:780:A0F0:19B0:FC1C:3104:3AF0 (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done It's there to help readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2021

Remove Elliot's deadname 2A00:23C6:4F10:D101:9D80:BF03:A0A5:F770 (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: MOS:DEADNAME says not to include the deadname, unless the subject was notable under that name. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2021

remove "formerly Ellen Page" 92.83.222.6 (talk) 10:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. See also MOS:DEADNAME and the first section of this talk page. — TGHL ↗ (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I wish we could remove "formerly Ellen Page" too, but the current guideline in wikipedia, MOS:DEADNAME says that we should not include deadnames unless the subject was notable under their previous name, Elliot was notable under his previous name. A brief mention once only allows readers to associate Elliot with his past notability. ~ BOD ~ TALK 14:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2021 (2)

Original: Elliot Page[1] (formerly Ellen Page; born February 21, 1987)[2] Change to: Elliot Page[1] (born February 21, 1987)[2] Reason: Deadnaming Andythem (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done MOS:DEADNAME says not to include the deadname, unless the subject was notable under that name. Didn't you see the last two posts? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Fyunck(click), I think this article needs an FAQ for the top of the page. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: That's probably a good idea. It may help some understand before they post, plus it gives us something to point to. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 March 2021

Don’t put his dead name so delete formerly Ellen page 2601:282:4101:8360:DC24:846A:28B5:E8AC (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: As has been said many times on this page, MOS:DEADNAME says not to use the deadname unless the subject was notable under it, and that is the case here. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
These are all brand new users/ips making this request. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 March 2021

Elliot Page (formerly Ellen Page; born February 21, 1987) Remove "formerly Ellen Page" as it dead names the actor 92.233.245.10 (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: see MOS:DEADNAME and the many posts above. — TGHL ↗ (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Elliot Page’s deadmame

Remove the “formally *deadname*” part from the page. and also every other trans person’s wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:5421:3C00:2899:C193:F45:2066 (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Please read MOS:DEADNAME to see why we won't. 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. One can introduce the birth name with either "born" or "formerly": – Muboshgu (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

FAQ

Please review the FAQ I just drafted at Talk:Elliot Page/FAQ. After some review, I'll transclude it at the top. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks good. Short and to the point. I included a link to the MOS guideline and changed it to guideline instead of policy. I hope that's ok. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Looks good to me. QueerFilmNerdtalk 03:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Looks great! I wonder about adding one sentence of rationale (i.e. why the deadname policy is the way it is). Not sure how that would be worded, though. warmly, ezlev. talk 04:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks all for the feedback and edits. I'm transcluding it now. Not sure how to phrase the "why" of it but we could try to add a sentence for that. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 March 2021

Remove "assigned female at birth" from the article's Early Life section, as this is a topic more suited under the Personal Life heading. Take the Early Life section of the Chaz Bono article as an example, where his identity before his transition is only mentioned in the context of his sexuality as a teenager. Kiwichenier (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Personally, I think it should stay there, because it's pretty important context for explaining why he was previously known under a different, feminine name, why his career is full of roles as female characters, why he won awards for women, and why he was then presenting as female when he came out as gay and later married a woman. --Equivamp - talk 01:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Gender identity

@Srodgers1701, Crumpled Fire, Writ Keeper, and Bodney: Recently, there have been several edits to the lead ([5][6][7]) changing what Page came out as from "transgender" to "a transgender man". However, this does not seem to accurately reflect the reliable sources that are available. Page's coming out statement only says that he is transgender (a term that includes anyone whose gender identity differs from the sex they were assigned at birth), and the statement does not further detail his gender identity. As discussed in a previous talk page discussion, some sources reported that Page was non-binary, however consensus was not achieved to include this due to concerns surrounding whether the sources were just presuming that Page was non-binary from his pronouns, given that Page did not mention being non-binary in his coming-out statement. When I looked today, I found sources just saying that he is transgender, sources saying he is transgender and non-binary, and sources saying he is a transgender man. A sampling of these sources is given below for reference (it seemed to be harder to find sources saying that he is a transgender man, but that could just be down to a quirk of the search engine):

Given the lack of further clarification from Page beyond his initial statement only saying that he is transgender, various source's different reporting of what he came out as, and WP:BLP's instruction that we must write BLPs conservatively, I think the article should only state that he is transgender. GreenComputer (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why I edited as I did. Saying he is transgender is definitely accurate; it is perhaps not as precise as it could be if Page would call himself a transgender man, but it is still not wrong in that case, whereas saying he is a trans man is wrong if he would not call himself a trans man. I think the people on both sides of this issue are in good faith and already know this, but I feel like it needs to be said for readers' context: an AFAB person being trans does not automatically make them a trans man, and as GreenComputer says, we should be cautious in identifying them as such, especially when there is no definitive word from Page himself, and other sources are not in consensus with each other. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
As both of you may have seen from prior Talk discussions, I agree that the article must be written cautiously. While it is possible for a person to identify as a trans man and also as nonbinary, the balance of probabilities is that Elliot probably identifies as one of these or neither, and the article should not proceed ahead of near-unanimous sourcing on the matter. Newimpartial (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree the current sources for transgender and transgender & non binary are far stronger and that my edit was not correct. Maybe the sentence should read " ...and subsequently as transgender and non binary in December 2020." As non binary is well supported in the sources as pointed out and a notable (separate) identity on the gender spectrum. (I am not explaining it well.) ~ BOD ~ TALK 19:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Thing is, much as I would like the nonbinary attribution to be accurate, I'm not sure it is. Not that I prefer primary sources, but it's reassuring when they coincide with independent RS, but in this case the only support from Elliot is the pronoun announcement, which provides an explanation (but not really a justification) of why a minority of RS have said "nonbinary" as well as "trans". I'd rather that the article didn't have to walk back "nonbinary", so I'm inclined to wait for better sourcing. An alternative might be an attributed statement ("Some news sources reported..."), but that isn't ideal when it comes to serious BLP claims like gender identity. Newimpartial (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
That is both a careful and respectful approach, honestly thank you. ~ BOD ~ TALK 23:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm very confused as to why Wikipedia - supposedly an impartial resource of information - allows referring to Elliot Page as male through the usage of masculine pronouns. Wikipedia being at its core an encyclopedia, would it not be correct to refer to Page as female until substantial evidence - perhaps in the form of, but not limited to, medical documents or such - arises that undoubtedly proves she is, in fact, male? The possibility of causing offence to a particular group should not limit the publication of factual information, and the factual information in this case is that Page was born, and continues to exist as, a female human. This situation raises doubts regarding the legitimacy of content published on wikipedia.org in general, and whether Wikipedia can be trusted as a factual resource via citations or simply a parody of an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.7.242.215 (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Please see MOS:GENDERID and MOS:DEADNAME. Wikipedia has policies on these matters, and we are following them. Also, allegations about chromosomes and anatomy of WP:BLP subjects are subject to a very high standard of proof on Wikipedia, and privacy concerns also apply.
More broadly speaking, I am unaware of any English-language communities where anatomy, rather than linguistic gender, is used to determine how people are addressed and discussed. Wikipedia reflects the usual practice quite impartially in this respect. Newimpartial (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps I may refer you to the entirity of the English-language world, where those born with male genitalia and XY chomosomal arrangement are male, and those born with female genitalia and XX chromosomal arrangement are female. One would be hard-pressed to find a person who would not agree that those with the rare cases of chromosomal or physical discrepancies should be identified on a case-by-case basis. If a simple statement is all it takes for a since-birth attribute to be altered, why does Charles Manson's Wikipedia entry not state that he is a deity? This simply is not factual information and completely goes against the "very high standard of proof" which you claim to be in effect on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.7.242.215 (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Please see the article Sex assignment, which discusses a related issue in detail. The key point is that grammatical gender coincides largely (in English) with social gender, and in most of the English-speaking OECD countries social (and legal) gender are not restricted by chromosomes or anatomy. Newimpartial (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Social constructs being completely subjective dependent on the society, I'd argue that "social gender" has no place in impartial encyclopedic ventures. However, I'm recently informed of Wikipedia's policy on this and shall argue no further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.7.242.215 (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
If you live in a country where laws and administrative practices depend on socially assigned status as "male" or "female", you're living with social gender in real life; how it would be possible to construct an encyclopaedia that does not deal with reality in this sense is an exercise I will leave to the reader. Newimpartial (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Having read MOS:GENDERID and MOS:DEADNAME, I see this is a policy issue with Wikipedia. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.7.242.215 (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Does this article really need a Distinguish|xxx at the top of the page

Does this page need a {{Distinguish|Elaine Paige}} at the top of the page. I personally think it is both unnecessary and too close to his deadname. ~ BOD ~ TALK 01:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I think so, yes. People will certainly still come here as a redirect from his former name. --Equivamp - talk 01:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • No - We do not need an "Elaine Page" warning at the top of the article. We didn't need it when it was under Ellen Page either. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Leaning towards yes, per the documentation at Template:Distinguish. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • No. I don't feel like this is necessary. I don't anticipate much confusion between the two names, given that both first and last names differ (first both in pronunciation and spelling). It doesn't fall under the standard "common misspelling" use case. Additionally, adding an unnecessary {{Distinguish}} at the top of the page could be seen as a way to place extra weight on his deadname, so we should be extra careful about necessity in this situation. Srey Srostalk 05:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • No Elliot and Elaine are not similar enough to be confusing. Not even remotely. ValarianB (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Leaning yes per the lead of Wikipedia:Hatnote. Someone looking for Elaine Paige but who searches for Ellen Page will end up here, so the hatnote is helpful. I don't think deadnaming is a concern as "Ellen Page" is bolded in the first sentence anyway. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Leaning no I'm not terribly bothered, but I don't think the names are close enough that a hatnote is necessary. --Jayron32 13:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd say no. The titles (both Page's current name and former name) are not close enough to "Elaine Paige" to warrant it. GreenComputer (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • No. As some others have said, the names are different enough that we can get by without a hatnote, and that would be much preferred IMO as it would avoid deadnaming Elliot. (if the names were close enough I'd understand the interest behind keeping the hatnote, but since there is quite a difference anyway I think avoiding deadnaming takes priority). Note that before Elliot came out as trans there were already discussions about the relevance of the hatnote. GoodCrossing (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC on prior names

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
In this RfC, the community decides on how best to express the name history of Elliot Page, an actor who became famous as a woman and then transitioned to manhood. Everyone agrees that we must choose our words carefully and sensitively, and all the views expressed below are broadly in line with policy and the manual of style.
Although the community isn't of one mind on this matter, there is a rough consensus in favour of Option 1. The RfC question applies to the lead paragraph only, which means that the article below the lead paragraph is not constrained by this RfC in any way. As Option 1 represents the status quo at the time of closing, the practical outcome of this RfC is not to change the article from its current wording.—S Marshall T/C 11:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Seeing as the above discussion on the issue has become lengthy and has started to get off into the weeds, let us tackle this formally. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

There is disagreement about how Elliot's prior names ought be handled in the lead. Should we...

  • Option 1 Note that he was formerly Ellen Page
  • Option 2 Note that he was formerly/his birthname was Ellen Grace Philpotts-Page
  • Option 3 Not include any prior names
  • Option 4 Include both Ellen Page and Ellen Grace Philpotts-Page

The exacting wording such as "formerly" or "known as" can be figured out at a later date, this RfC is solely about what name to use.

At this time I have added option 4 by request CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

!Vote

  • Option 1 MOS:DEADNAME notes that we ought not include deadnames unless the subject was notable under them. Elliot was quite clearly notable as Ellen Page. But even when he went by Ellen, his full birthname was effectively WP:TRIVIA. Option 1 allows readers to associate his past name with his current name without confusing readers and unnecessarily advertising his birthname, which he did not even use as a performer. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 for the same reason as CaptainEek (which I, and several others, have elaborated on at length). But honestly, any of these options are fine; my main problem is with using both "Ellen Grace etc." and "Ellen Page" in the lede. Either, but not both. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4. The guideline MOS:DEADNAME, as others note, is ambiguous and doesn't account for individuals who have a birth name and a stage name, as many performers do. The final thing to be pointed out: If including the birth name will cause harm — a speculation that the professional editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica article "Elliot Page" certainly don't take — then why leave his parents' names? Or his birthplace? Or his schools? If concern over harm is real and not advocacy editing, then logically those things also would need to go.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
His parents names, birthplace and education are not relevant when it comes to Deadnaming, transphobes are unlikely to make attacks that he went to Halifax Grammar School or Shambhala School :) To give another example No one is going to stand up at a crowded works party and loudly give details that they knew he was born in Halifax, Nova Scotia with the intention to cause harm (like a Personnel department Deadnamed someone I know). These kind of details are not at issue iin this RfC or the discussions above, and do not need protecting. ~ BOD ~ TALK 23:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Claiming that encyclopedically including his birth name is harmful because of transphobes but including his parents names' — which are the same — is not harmful is illogical, in my opinion hypocritical, and demonstrates to me that this is not about preventing harm but rather advocacy editing.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
RE: "His parents names, birthplace and education are not relevant when it comes to Deadnaming, transphobes are unlikely to make attacks that he went to Halifax Grammar School or Shambhala School." So if personally identifying details like birth name is harmful but other identifying details like birthdate or parents names are not, exactly how does that work. What does this hypothetical "harm" — to a famous person with these details available everywhere — look like, exactly? The middle name "Grace" — tell me specifically how that can be used to harm him. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Tenebrae, if I may be so bold as to try to mediate: I could be wrong, but I don't think that the harm argument has been about personally identifying details. I'll let the other involved editors explain their arguments themselves as I don't want to put words into their mouths, but I'll quote some arguments that have been made elsewhere in case that helps. The article "The Importance of Getting the Name Right for Transgender and Other Gender Expansive Youth" from the Journal of Adolescent Health says for each additional social context in which a youth's chosen name was used, there was a statistically significant decrease in depressive symptoms, suicidal ideation, and suicidal behaviors. This article in PinkNews says How can deadnaming be harmful to a person who’s transgender? It can feel invalidating and disrespectful. Essentially, it highlights that they’re not supported in their transition process, whether it’s before, during or after. Transgender discrimination is all too common, and people don’t quite realise the depth of emotion that is linked to their identity. Lastly, this article from Newsweek—which deals specifically with Elliot Page—says LGBTQ+ media advocacy groups are clear on this: The use of someone's deadname should be avoided in coverage of trans people, as it is harmful to many trans people and propagates a ciscentric worldview. [...] Though journalists may see the deadnaming of Elliot Page a special case due to him being a public figure pre-coming out, LGBTQ+ groups say that it propogates a language that is harmful to trans people, where their trans identity is merely seen as facade covering their "real" self, when in fact their trans identity is the real self. Though the deadnaming of Page in an article may not have any negative repercussions on the actor (bar any mental health effects from seeing a name he no longer identifies with), it does propagate a system that has led to transgender people (particularly trans women of color) disproportionately being the victims of hate crimes. TompaDompa (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I do appreciate your willingness to try to reach a greater understanding among the parties here. All these things that you're saying are extremely well-intentioned, but I believe it proves my point that this is an advocacy argument. According to the above, no one should ever print the name "Bruce Jenner." That is extremist. But that is what the points above are advocating.
A balance must always be struck by the demands of any group and the historical demands of biography. To say that trans advocates — of which I have been for literally at least two decades — must be obeyed without question, the needs of an encyclopedia be damned, is likewise extremist. No harm is coming to Caitlyn Jenner if a reference source for the Olympics lists Bruce Jenner. In any realistic sense, no harm is coming to Elliot Page if, for example, as it literally does, the Encyclopedia Britannica lists his birth name in its Elliot Page article (see link above).
Those arguments are sociopolitical advocacy arguments, which as I mentioned elsewhere on this page are important for private individuals. But for a famed celebrity whose birth name appears in every other reference source? No. To say a professional standard for biographical history is unimportant is simply wrong. And for Wikipedia to say that anyone cares can just go to a different encyclopedia — that's kinda contrary to Wikipedia's whole purpose. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I basically agree with TompaDompa's explanation, this is what I have being trying/failing to explain, but I can see Tenebrae and me are on two completely different standpoints. Regards whether Page is immune from suffering misgendering deadname attacks just because he is famous, these are his actual words "My joy is real but it is also fragile … I am also scared, scared of the invasiveness, the hate, the ‘jokes’ and of the violence.” ~ BOD ~ TALK 02:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
@Bodney: I used this edit of yours as my starting point, using the exact same sources and just picking a few quotes. My hope was that this would accurately reflect the point you were trying to make in linking those articles to begin with. As I said, I was trying to mediate (not make an argument of my own).
@Tenebrae: I don't think the position you describe as extremist has had all that much support here, really. I'll note that the article titles in the references section of the main article haven't been changed to avoid deadnaming, nor has the title of the Saturday Night Live episode or the sole external link. Moreover, this section has as of my writing this had seven editors expressing a preference between the different options the RfC presents, but nobody has argued in favour of option 3 (not including any prior names).
Rather, I think the cause of all this headache is this: (1) several editors think that including both the full birth name and the name Page was formerly known by would constitute excessive deadnaming, (2) some editors argued that only including the full birth name was not sufficient as they thought it did not make it clear enough what name Page was formerly known by, (3) as a result of the discussion that ensued, the full birth name was replaced with the name Page was formerly known by as it was argued that the latter is more relevant information to present to the reader, and (4) when the subject matter seemed more or less settled, the opposite argument to was made: that only including the name by which Page was formerly known was not sufficient as it does not make it clear what the full birth name was.
The issue seems to be more about not deadnaming twice (which would be considered excessive deadnaming) than about not deadnaming in a specific way; the preferences about whether to choose the full birth name or the name Page was formerly known by seem to be less strong than the preferences about not deadnaming excessively, as I noted before (In general, the consensus here has been that including either the full birth name or the name Page was formerly known by is warranted, but not both, and only once. Which one we choose to include can be discussed further; currently, the discussion is leaning towards the name Page was formerly known by rather than the full birth name.). TompaDompa (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 I'm basically neutral when it comes to including the birthname in the infobox, the lead was the main issue in my view. But let's please keep the current status quo, that was reached after a lot of discussion already, at least until the issue is decided with an RfC at MOS:DEADNAME. It's sad that it had to come to a full page protection because of edit warring over this. Lennart97 (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 and exclude the AAB name from the infobox, but potentially allow another appearance of the formerly used name (not the birthname) in the article. Based on my reading of MOS:DEADNAME this is clearly compliant, and it makes the most sense to me in this case from a "balance of competing values" perspective. As previously noted, I do think a more general principle should be worked out on MOS:DEADNAME, but it seems that the edit-warring here could not be held off for the month plus it would take for the current RfCs to finish and a new one to be held. So a local RfC here is fine for now. Newimpartial (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - I don't agree with wiping their middle/surnames names from the article, Removing it is simply removing valuabe information from our readers and as such in the end we're doing THEM a disservice by removing it - I don't care where it's stated (Idiotbox, Personal life or lead) however it should be included somewhere in this article. –Davey2010Talk 01:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 (Though I have strong leanings towards Option 3, I vote for Option 1 only due to his fame prior to his transition.) My view is identical to CaptainEek so I will simply repeat what they said. "MOS:DEADNAME notes that we ought not include deadnames unless the subject was notable under them. Elliot was quite clearly notable as Ellen Page. But even when he went by Ellen, his full birthname was effectively"... not of any separate overarching notable value. "Option 1 allows readers to associate his past name with his current name without confusing readers and unnecessarily advertising his birthname, which he did not even use as a performer." Wikipedia is not a repository of every known detail, the are policies that guide us into what we include. MOS:DEADNAME recommends If such a subject was not notable under their former name, (Page was never notable under Ellen Grace Philpotts-Page, then) it usually should not be included ... even if some reliable sourcing exists for it. No reason has been given for an exception in Page's article, apart from that it is a simple recorded factoid about a well known actor. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. ~ BOD ~ TALK 02:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • (2) or (1 and 2). Preferably, only his birthname should be in the lede. If that is the case, there's no need to mention his former stage name at all, as it is clearly derived from his birthname; Alternatively, we could mention his former stage name in the lede, and his birthname in "early life", where it won't draw much attention. - Daveout(talk) 09:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 per CaptainEek. I agree with Clayoquot and Daveout that his birth name makes sense in the early life section, and I think we should include it. Birth names are very important information, but also unessential for the lead. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 It's not essential in the lead, especially here where it is padded form of the already present notable name. Put the birthname in the early life section, that way no information is lost. Please note, everyone, that, the hatnotes at the top of the article are not a part of the article, and neither is the infobox. Infoboxes are optional, and when present, they summarise information already present in the article. They are, by design, repetitive and redundant. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I know I am repeating myself, apologies. Regarding his birth name in the Early Life section and the question of Birth names being important details to record in wikipedia.
MOS:DEADNAME recommends If such a subject was not notable under their former name, it usually should not be included ... even if some reliable sourcing exists for it.
If we follow MoS:Deadname examples
Chelsea Manning, notable under prior name: Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning; December 17, 1987) ... She was known publicly as Bradley Edward Manning due to the wiki leaks/court cases etc.
However Page was never notable under Ellen Grace Philpotts-Page, so he is actually closer to
Laverne Cox example, not notable under prior name: Laverne Cox (born May 29, 1972)
Cox's unnotable deadname is correctly never mentioned and nor should Page's unnotable birth name in his Early Life section.
For my part I am very aware in the real world of the vindictiveness and emotional harm caused by deadnaming on the victim so I am motivated to limit broadcasting them in the World's most widely used (first result on search engines) information resource. So i think we really ought not repeat Pages Deadname more than absolutely necessary.
~ BOD ~ TALK 17:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Chelsea was never widely known as Bradley Edward Manning, but simply as Bradley Manning. Her current middle name isn't widely known either. Those names are what ppl here are calling trivias. (It's probably better to move comments to the "discussion section"). - Daveout(talk) 20:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I may have missed the point, if you point out that Manning's middle names are Trivias because they are not widely known, then what about Page's middle name, his former full birth name was not widely known, is that not a Trivia too? Is Wikipedia concerned with Trivias? If a unknown name is both essentially unnecessary and equally a harmful deadname, does Wikipedia then really need to broadcast it? ~ BOD ~ TALK 16:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I probably expressed myself badly. I mean to say that some consider his midle names trivias (but I don't agree with them). Complete names are important in biographies. - Daveout(talk) 16:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I believe common sense would be to include both the former stage name and the birth name. We're an encyclopedia. We're supposed to include both. Like the professionally run Encyclopedia Britannica at its Elliot Page article.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Tenebrae, have you actually seen their article? It only lists "Ellen Grace Philpotts-Page" and not "Ellen Page," so they seem to support Option 2, not your favored Option 4. Gbear605 (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
If your rationale is "let's do what the Encyclopedia Britannica would do," you are not using common sense. The "Wiki" part is about improving on the clear failures of their model. We have far more people with more diverse perspectives contributing to a meaningful dialogue seeking the best approach. We are leagues ahead of them on generating a quality encyclopedia. Christ, just click read their garbage page on this subject linked above. They list Ellen Grace Philpotts-Page under "also known as" which a) is present tense, and thus wrong, and b) incorrect, as he was never known as that. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
No need to be snide. Of course I've seen it. I linked to it. You're incorrect about the tense, since unless Page has gone to court for a name change, which would be on the public record, then all his government documents still read Ellen Grace Philpotts-Page.
And you seem to be deliberately missing the point I was making, which is that someone's birth name, birthdate and birthplace are absolutely standard parts of any biography. I don't imagine the stage name will be off Britannica's site for long, what with the good and proper rush to change the article title to reflect Elliott.
I am flabbergasted that anyone would claim that a bunch of mostly non-professional people doing this as hobby — many of whom clearly don't understand professional standards, practices and ethics — make Wikipedia "leagues ahead of" the Encyclopedia Britannica "on generating a quality encyclopedia." That is hubris of the first order. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
My disdain was not targeted at you, but EB. Apologies if I was uncivil. My point was that a) there is an argument to be made that our editorial process actually generates better content than theirs, as illogical as that may seem on its face, and b) this subject seems a good example of that. It is unlikely that they are engaging in the lengthy, nuanced multilateral discussion that we are here. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining. We're alike in that I, too, am all for nuanced discussion; I've had countless on Wikipedia across more than 15 years. Yet with all respect to my fellow editors — who, like me, are volunteering substantial time and effort, and that's to be applauded — a group of expert professionals can have a nuanced discussion in a half-hour that takes laypeople days or weeks. And laypeople, without a grounding in journalistic practices, standards or ethics, may with all good intentions reach conclusions that would leave professionals' heads shaking. Y'know, I don't edit articles about law or medicine; I'm not a lawyer or a court reporter, and neither a doctor nor a medical writer. So I'm sure you can understand how frustrating, speaking in general, this entire discussion can be. And it troubles me about Wikipedia as a whole.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
The thing is, I think it reasonable to expect that decisions about deadnaming are going to be based more on community values than on professional norms. I don't see that as a limitation of Wikipedia, just a fact of life. Unlike, say, MEDRS issues, this isn't an issue that affects the accuracy and sourcing of articles, only the scope of the project. Newimpartial (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
I am flabbergasted too, Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility please can we have less of the negative remarks about your fellow editors.
I am not sure where Page lives, but many states and countries legally recognise trans people by permitting a change of legal gender on an individual's birth certificate and other legal documents with protected access public to their birth Deadname. So no all his government documents will not still read E... G... PP. ~ BOD ~ TALK 23:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
This isn't a policy-relevant question, but for those who are wondering AFAIK Elliot has Canadian citizenship but resides in California. What that means is: (1) it won't be very difficult for him to get a revised birth certificate, and a passport of any gender (including X) if desired. However, (2) during the pandemic it is likely that said paperwork is not instantaneous. Newimpartial (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 only. There is no reason supported by the guidelines set by MOS:DEADNAME to include the middle or hyphenated last name. --Equivamp - talk 15:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2, followed by Option 4. If Page's birthname was simply "Ellen Grace Page" we wouldn't be having this conversation. Chelsea Manning was born as "Bradley Edward Manning", which is used in the lead, infobox, and early life section, even though they were not notable as "Bradley Edward Manning", rather "Bradley Manning". The fact that Page was born with a hyphenated surname seems to be a sorry excuse for wiping the name from the article essentially because of the technicality that they were notable as "Ellen Page" and not "Ellen Grace Philpotts-Page". As seen by the Manning case, the MOS:DEADNAME include "only if the person was notable under that name" is not taken as a blanket statement. Therefore, leaving the full name out of the infobox and early life section would make it seem like Page was never notable under a previous name, which is just not the case. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 18:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 for me is the best example of a comprehensive encyclopaedia.Halbared (talk) 11:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 This is a biographical article, we should be including all available notable information on the subject. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • As long as we're talking about the lead paragraph, Option 1 seems to be the best option. Other places, such as the infobox or body, can mention the more full name (once is enough, perhaps) but the lead needs not get into that detail, the only recognizable name for readers would be Ellen Page, so that's all the lead needs to include. --Jayron32 13:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 but not in the same sections. We should mention the name Ellen Page in the lead paragraph, as that's the most recognizable name for many readers and the name under which the person aquired the relevance that justifies the existence of this article. The name Ellen Grace Philpotts-Page, in turn, should be used in the section early life, as when he was born/young, he did go neither by the current name Elliot nor by the former stage name Ellen. The current formulation ...he was originally named Ellen Page. is plainly wrong (that's just a stage name). SFBB (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4, with the full name listed as a "birth" name, i.e. (born NAME; BIRTHDATE), as well as the birth name parameter. This should be in a similar way to how the Caitlyn Jenner article does it. We certainly should not be wiping out any mention of his previous name. --IWI (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

The actual problem is the ambiguity that exists in MOS:DEADNAME; and a RfC should be hold there in order to solve this (but as New impartial suggested, maybe we should wait for the on-going RfCs there to finish first). As stated again and again, MOS:DEADNAME uses Chelsea Manning's opening sentence as an example (which mentions her birthname). Not only that, nearly all bios of trans ppl who were famous before their transitions mention their birthnames (Wachowskis, Caitlyn Jenner, etc, etc) And those are correct. It's way more "encyclopedic" and "biography-like" that way. - Daveout(talk) 21:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the The Wachowskis list nicknames(Larry and Andy), not birthnames. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
It also mentions their birthnames both in "early life" and infobox. - Daveout(talk) 19:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed that an RfC will eventually be needed at MOS:DEADNAME to provide guidance on the use of deadnames from the period of Notability within BLPs, and also to cover when a birth name should or should not be included. The Chelsea Manning article was decided many years ago now, and so was Caitlyn Jenner, and I can't imagine the resolutions for either of those articles would meet with community support in 2021. But that's something for an RfC to decide, not me: I just don't want the MOSBIO talk page to burn out the interested editors too quickly, given the ongoing RfCs that will not be closed until January. Newimpartial (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I hear you. This is exhausting and makes me want to leave. And present company excepted, I feel like a doctor talking to anti-vaxxers.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

The voting options given by User:CaptainEek were disingenuous at best. One option should be to include both previous names, which some editors had already shown a preference for. --hippo43 (talk) 03:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hippo43, My bad, I had thought to include an option 4 about having both, but did not believe that was an option folks wanted. I will include such an option now. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
User:CaptainEek, thanks. --hippo43 (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

What would people think about a potential "compromise" option in which Page's former name is included in the lede, but not in bold and (perhaps) not in the first sentence? It might help to defuse the emotional impact attached to prominently deadnaming someone, without making others feel that history is being erased. –Reschultzed|||Talk|||Contributions 07:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

No thanks. Are we really now talking about the "emotional impact" of bold text? --hippo43 (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
A good idea, the is no real need for it to be bold. And yes the less glaringly prominent the better. ~ BOD ~ TALK 16:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
For what issue is that a compromise? I'm quite sure there's an agreement at this point (reached 10 December, around 18:10) that the name Ellen Page should be mentioned in the lead, exactly where it is now, which is a prominent place whether bold or not. And I do think it should be bold, based on the notability of the name. But in any case that's a separate issue, or should be separate at least, from whether to also include the birth name, which the current discussion is about (if I'm not mistaken). Lennart97 (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, lets try to settle the first issue (RfC) first, put it on the back burner. I just did not want the idea to be discarded out of hand. ~ BOD ~ TALK 17:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, adding the question of bold text to the RfC seems unnecessarily complicated, given that it already offers 4 options. Newimpartial (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 appears to go directly against the current formulation of MOS:DEADNAME. Even if it got support here (which it doesn't look like it will), it could not be adopted per WP:CONLEVEL without first changing the deadname guideline as well. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
    As I have said previously on WT:MOSBIO, I don't think this is a correct reading of MOS:DEADNAME. While I do not support Option 3 for this article, my (very careful, and rather prolonged) reading of the MOS text and the discussions around it had concluded that MOS:DEADNAME is permissive, rather than obligatory, about deadnames in the lede; "should be included only if" does not mean the same thing as "should be included, but only if", and the text of the guideline is the former. Perhaps this is one of the issues that could be resolved formally in the next round of MOS:DEADNAME RfCs, after the current pair are closed in January. Newimpartial (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I am very late to the Deadname discussion, a huge amount of thoughtful contributions have been made (more than my tiny mind can digest fully lol) i hope I not offend in my lateness to the party.
Option 3 Not include any prior names complies with the MOS:DEADNAME illustration,  Laverne Cox ... not notable under prior name: Laverne Cox (born May 29, 1972) ~ BOD ~ TALK 17:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
It sounds like a question is: what do we do when there is more than one deadname? MOS:DEADNAME is about privacy and harm reduction; if one dead name is already disclosed, is it more harmful to also include a former middle name? What about a former last name? Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I personally believe that it is an unnecessary harm, especially since his birth name was not widely known. Separately last names rarely shout out someone's former gender (Deadname) unless you are from where like Iceland where the are gender markers (I love Icelandic naming convention.) ~ BOD ~ TALK 22:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Bodney, I'm not sure you're getting the point here. Laverne Cox was not notable at the time she used her deadname; Elliot Page was clearly notable while using his. According to our MOS:DEADNAME guideline, these are two entirely different cases. Newimpartial (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I was intending to say that Option 3 was not in Breach of MOS:DEADNAME itself (thus the Cox example), rather than it applied in this particular case, same as Option 2 might apply under MOS: D.... if he was famously known by his birth name (but he never was). ~ BOD ~ TALK 22:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

If we merely add the middle name (a la "Bradley Edward Manning"), it's clear who we are talking about. "William Bruce Jenner" is slightly less clear. With "Ellen Grace Philpotts-Page" we now are fostering legitimate confusion about who the article is about. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

With all respect, we are not fostering confusion or lack of clarity by including the full birth name. Just the opposite: More accuracy and specificity, a goal toward which any encyclopedia should strive.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
The redaction of his birthname is already causing confusion among readers: (diff). - Daveout(talk) 18:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Among editors, you mean. We don't really know anything about readers. Newimpartial (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Not all readers are editors, but all editors are *also* readers. \ "We don't really know anything about readers." Well, that didn't stop speculations, in this very talk page, that readers would be confused if we included his birthname. That was speculated over and over again but never proven. Now we have actual proof that this sort of omission can make ppl confused. - Daveout(talk) 19:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
First you need to assume the editor in question knows what is meant by a birth name before you can deduce that they are "confused" by the omission they tried to rectify. I haven't seen evidence for that assumption. Lots of people try to fill infobox entries without really understanding the metadata. Newimpartial (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
One, single, passing editor is not proof of anything and Pages right to Privacy is far more important than a tiny instance of confusion. ~ BOD ~ TALK 19:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
There have been 941 edits during December, one of them being confused is hardly proof of an epidemic of confused readers. Alex Skye Kroy (talk) 03:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Not having the basic, very standard biographical information of the birth name, which has been widely disseminated for perhaps 20 years, is certainly going to confuse anyone wondering why it's not there when it appears in every other reference source. Making Wikipedia an eccentric outlier — the upside of that is confusing to me.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
@Alex Skye Kroy. Actually, only 47 revisions since the birth name was first removed, two weeks ago. And we now have another editor confused in this short period of time. But yeah... these errors don't suggest anything. - Daveout(talk) 02:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
The absence of the name by which a famous person has been known for the entirety of their career is confusing. Not one person on the face of the Earth is confused by the absence of the full birth name. I'm not sure what game you're playing, but you've lost. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I find it very important that the original birth name is stated before the birthdate in the lead sentence and infobox, i.e. (born FULL BIRTH NAME; BIRTH DATE). This is the way we do it with anyone who changes their name (including Caitlyn Jenner, and I see absolutely no reason for us to ignore the existence of his birth name purely because it was changed. --IWI (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Please note that it is inaccurate to say that we do it with anyone who changes their name. Following wide community discussion, there is consensus that people who were not notable with their previous name and who change names as part of a gender transition are NOT to have their deadname included anywhere in article space; please see MOS:CHANGEDNAME.
    • For people like Elliot Page, who become notable then subsequently change their name as part of their transition, there is consensus that their DEADNAME be mentioned in the lede per WP:ASTONISH, but there is no consensus that any particular version of their former name be included. For this article, the strongest support to date has been to include the professional name rather than the birth name. There is also no consensus that the approach taken at Caitlyn Jenner is a model to follow for BLPs of those who have transitioned more recently. If anything, that article is becoming an outlier, viz. the exclusion of pronouns from some sections of the article. Newimpartial (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
      • I see no valid reason to omit the birth name from the infobox, at least. We're not here to discuss what consensus might or might not have been in the past; I was never involved in those discussions and I am sharing my view now. We are here to gain consenus on this particular matter. Suffice to say, I do not agree with the consensus gained at CHANGEDNAME and I believe it is a guideline that makes the encyclopedia less comprehensive. --IWI (talk) 08:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
        • Sure, but the place to discuss changes to MOS:CHANGEDNAME would be at the MOS Talk pages, and I certainly don't see any IAR reason to treat Elliot's Page any differently from those of other major Trans celebs. As far as including the birth name in the infobox only, that isn't compliant with policy either if it is not also article content - this has has been discussed in sections visible on this page and I believe also in Archive 2 (discussions that took place last month, although it seems much longer ago now). Newimpartial (talk) 13:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Transition

Would it be relevant to include in the personal life section that at the time Elliot publicly came out as transgender, he was recovering from undergoing top surgery as part of his transition? It is brought up in the following TIME article.[1] I think there might be other important information to include from the article as well, but this is one of the biggest points I thought should be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redandsymmetry (talk • contribs) 13:19, March 16, 2021 (UTC)

Redandsymmetry, I have not yet read the article, but a front cover story in Time magazine is a BFD. We should be using any and all information from this interview, including top surgery, as is appropriate. Be bold (within policy). – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://time.com/5947032/elliot-page/

Recent edit

This edit ought to be reverted. AFAIK Elliot Page's deadname is not his birthname, so "formerly" is the correct way of referring to it. I would normally just revert but I don't have the permissions to do so. Srey Srostalk 17:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Funnily enough, that was my 500th edit, so this is moot now. Srey Srostalk 17:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elliot_Page/Archive_3&oldid=1045703851"