This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
This
edit request to
Elliot Page has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
Daveout
(talk) 21:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
, announcing his new name as Elliot Page.from the last sentence of the lead. — ImaginesTigers ( talk) 15:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
Daveout
(talk) 20:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 namesof 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 namedoes 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)
inclusion in the articleand
sourcing requirementsas 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.
to reliable sources written after the name changewhen 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 interestin 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)
Daveout
(talk) 23:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)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.
Gerald
WL 09:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Elliot Page has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request to
Elliot Page has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove Elliot's deadname 2A00:23C6:4F10:D101:9D80:BF03:A0A5:F770 ( talk) 18:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Elliot Page has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
remove "formerly Ellen Page" 92.83.222.6 ( talk) 10:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. See also
MOS:DEADNAME and
the first section of this talk page. —
TGHL ↗
(talk) 12:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Elliot Page has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request to
Elliot Page has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request to
Elliot Page has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request to
Elliot Page has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
{{
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 femalewhen he came out as gay and later married a woman. -- Equivamp - talk 01:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)
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)
{{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 Sros
talk 05:20, 10 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...
Ellen Page
Ellen Grace Philpotts-Page
Ellen Pageand
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.
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)
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)
Daveout
(talk) 09:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk) 20:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
make it seem like Page was never notable under a previous name? TompaDompa ( talk) 20:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Daveout
(talk) 18:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk) 19:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk) 02:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
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.
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)
References
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 Sros talk 17:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
This
edit request to
Elliot Page has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
Daveout
(talk) 21:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
, announcing his new name as Elliot Page.from the last sentence of the lead. — ImaginesTigers ( talk) 15:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
Daveout
(talk) 20:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 namesof 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 namedoes 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)
inclusion in the articleand
sourcing requirementsas 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.
to reliable sources written after the name changewhen 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 interestin 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)
Daveout
(talk) 23:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)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.
Gerald
WL 09:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Elliot Page has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request to
Elliot Page has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove Elliot's deadname 2A00:23C6:4F10:D101:9D80:BF03:A0A5:F770 ( talk) 18:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Elliot Page has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
remove "formerly Ellen Page" 92.83.222.6 ( talk) 10:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. See also
MOS:DEADNAME and
the first section of this talk page. —
TGHL ↗
(talk) 12:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Elliot Page has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request to
Elliot Page has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request to
Elliot Page has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request to
Elliot Page has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
{{
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 femalewhen he came out as gay and later married a woman. -- Equivamp - talk 01:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)
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)
{{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 Sros
talk 05:20, 10 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...
Ellen Page
Ellen Grace Philpotts-Page
Ellen Pageand
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.
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)
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)
Daveout
(talk) 09:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk) 20:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
make it seem like Page was never notable under a previous name? TompaDompa ( talk) 20:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Daveout
(talk) 18:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk) 19:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk) 02:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
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.
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)
References
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 Sros talk 17:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)