Talk:Elliot Page/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Photo head news?

Hi, does someone got news/info about the upcoming lcc photo of Elliot Page? (I heard someone contacted their agent, just to do check the point because on french version there's still their old (but not so disatrous) photo. thanks. Scriptance (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

No response to me. @Sdkb and Ezlev: any news? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

None to me, either. I think it might be time to try tweeting at him, and then linking the tweet here/in other visible places so we can all like it. Potential wording could be "@TheElliotPage, Wikipedia editors have been seeking to use a post-transition lead image on your page, but there are no freely licensed options available. Could your talent agent @unitedtalent release one? You can use this form: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_OTRS_release_generator". Would anyone be willing to host the tweet? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for answer :) @Nattes à chat: proposed herself to twitt them (maybe are ok to host the twitt?) Scriptance (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

If they are unable or unwilling, I could offer my account to host the tweet, although it would probably be more effective if it came from someone with more than 500 followers. Regards SoWhy 14:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Just tweeted! @Scriptance: @Firefangledfeathers: @Sdkb: @SoWhy: https://twitter.com/lessanspagEs/status/1410208545417707520 --Celinea33 (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

So there is no answer to the tweet :/Nattes à chat (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Unfournately not. Very unlikely to able to do assuming it is possible but could try asking whoever runs the actual main WMF Wikipedia twitter account to send out similiar message since they blue checkmarked and have following. Though I have no idea if that is even possible.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 01:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Thankfully it seems User:Firefangledfeathers was able to get a hold of this image per the existence of this file on commons File:Elliot Page 2021.png. Though the status of the copyright appears to be pending. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes! It is likely that it will be deleted, as the OTRS email volunteers at Commons have quite the backlog, and policy there is to delete files without releases after 7 days. It will be a while, but we do have an option on the way. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah I see thanks for doing this User:Firefangledfeathers. It says OTRS have approved/reviewed so I have gone ahead and added to the article. Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Awesome! I didn’t dare to dream the Commons team would work so quickly. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks  Spy-cicle💥  & Firefangledfeathers for doing this. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 18:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2021

The image that first shows when elliots image is showed should be changed to something recent. I think alot of people misgender him because of that picture since he looks alot more "feminine in it". 119.154.169.244 (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See discussion immediately above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2021

Please take out Elliot’s “dead name” (Ellen) it could be potentially harmful if someone used his old name. 142.127.195.47 (talk) 19:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please read the FAQ at the top of this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Deadname More Than Once

"Wikipedia's guidelines say that we should include the birth name for a living transgender person in the lead sentence only if the person was notable under that name. This is the case for Elliot Page."

If this is true, why is Page's deadname used again in the "Early life and education" section? It seems totally unnecessary.

2405:6580:C540:6300:9181:42E7:8201:7C54 (talk) 01:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

You're reading it as [in the lead sentence only] when it should read [only if the person was notable under that name]. --Equivamp - talk

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2021

Remove "formally Ellen Page". Dead naming trans people is very uncomfortable for them. 2600:1000:B141:37E:A25D:8DA:FC56:D640 (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: From the FAQ on this talk page “Wikipedia's guidelines say that we should include the birth name for a living transgender person in the lead sentence only if the person was notable under that name. This is the case for Elliot Page” LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 14:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

It (correctly) says "formerly", not "formally". As for "uncomfortable for them", this not necessarily true, and in any case is not what determines WP content. -- Jibal (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Link transition to that article

I think in the second section "the name of Ellen prior to transitioning." that we should link transitioning to Gender transitioning 101.98.135.42 (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

His pronouns are he/ they

The article should acknowledge that and use both pronouns. 181.115.59.78 (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

It does, see Elliot Page#Personal life – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2021

to remove Elliot page’s dead name, as it is a main focus in transphobic groups, while also being completely unnecessary 2A02:C7F:743C:8A00:5CC1:D660:310F:D369 (talk) 11:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: See discussion above and in archives. He was notable under the previous name, so it's included. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

As said in a different discussion, this (deadnaming) is most uncomfortable, coming from a trans person, although notable, deadnames are most definitely NOT supposed to be used. Chessinnit (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we know that, and it's important that we minimize the harm that we do to trans people. However, the desire to not deadname a person is also in tension with the encyclopedic desire to include all relevant information about a person, and this is the balance between the two that the community has been able to strike--that is, that the deadname is included, minimally, only where the subject of the article was notable as their deadname. It is a compromise, and as such most people are probably somewhat unhappy with the end result (as the number of arguments in the talk page archives from both sides shows), but that is the perhaps unfortunate nature of a consensus-driven project like Wikipedia. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but its a very basic thing to respect someone’s wishes, good day Chessinnit (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Full birth name redux

Censoring the name "Ellen Page" is not supported by the Manual of Style due to its notability, however User:Newimpartial claims that censoring the *full* birth name "Ellen Grace Philpotts-Page" still is.

Could someone please point me to the section of the Manual of Style or some other guideline that proscribes this policy, if it exists?

At first glance, the possible justifications for such a policy elude me, as it does serve to hide the transgender nature of the person in question and thus does in no way protect them from possible discrimination and harassment.

In my view, any censorship should always be very well justified and that does not seem to be the case here. Dufaer (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The guideline here is MOS:DEADNAME, specifically "If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists." If Page wasn't notable under a name pre-transition, it shouldn't be included. Firefangledfeathers 19:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Also note that the issue has been previously discussed on this Talk page, here (most recently), here (local RfC) and here. I am particularly fond of that latter linked discussion, where I pointed out: 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. I would have thought the local as well as site-wide consensus on this point to be fairly clear. Newimpartial (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The consensus in the Manual of Style you linked me to (thanks!) is: "Non-notable deadnames of living people notable under a chosen name must not be included as this would create a BLP privacy violation." (emphasis mine). Any relevant privacy violation here occurred at the fist deadname - "Ellen Page". As such, the provision does not apply in this case; and MOS:DEADNAME is in fact in error and in violation of WP:CENSOR when in indiscriminately prescribes "If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists.".

You also quoted "A living transgender or non-binary person's former name should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under it; introduce the name with "born" or "formerly"" on your talk page. This applies only to the lead sentence. The lead sentence is commonly followed by much other stuff in an article which is expected to include information that the lead sentence does not. As such, this provision is not relevant to this discussion. This is about an infobox.

You refer to WP:BLPPRIV in the talk you linked. But while WP:BLPPRIV does indeed support redacting information in certain cases, it markedly nowhere supports redacting full names. As such, it is not relevant to this discussion.

(At this point, I would like to remind you that WP:CENSOR has this to say: "Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.". MOS:DEADNAME is (as far as I understand the organization of Wikipedia) only a style guide - not even a "policy". Its purpose is: "This page sets out guidelines for achieving visual and textual consistency in biographical articles and in biographical information in other articles; such consistency allows Wikipedia to be used more easily." - ease of use. Not censorship. And yet, its consensus (purportedly, in this case, as I explained) and page are used to impose unnecessary censorship on bloody infoboxes.

If you really want to do this, is not the proper place to have such discussions and decision WP:BLP, instead of the Manual of Style?)

I suspect that the frequency with which these "reduxes" (as you re-titled it) arise here might be indicative of the fact that you are overstepping the bound of mandate that the "style" consensus gives you.

Dufaer (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Have you read the local RfC I linked above? It determined that the novel interpretation you have just offered is not supported by the editing community, for this case in particular. As Firefangledfeathers has pointed out, the current language of MOS:DEADNAME also excludes mention of non-notable deadnames anywhere in article space - including infoboxes - not only in the lead sentence. And while the values underlying MOS:DEADNAME include those animating BLPPROV, that doesn't mean you can read restrictions of the latter as also limiting the former, as though trans people's names were simply a case comme les autres. Many, many RfCs have been held to establish the community's current view of deadnames, and they are subject to restrictions that other names simply are not. (The approach you are taking here is commonly called WIKILAWYERING; please don't do that.)

As far as moving the DEADNAME and GENDERID provisions to BLP, I am generally in favor of that, but the widely-participated discussions at the MOS Talk pages already carry a very high level of site-wide consensus; indeed, you might want to take a look at the wider set of discussions listed at MOS:IDINFO before setting off on an anti-censorship crusade in this domain. The argument that MOS:DEADNAME is "only a style guideline" is not going to carry much weight, when literally hundreds of editors have contributed to its formation and the values it embodies are not at all limited to questions of "style". And before you ask, WP:NOTCENSORED considerations have been explicitly raised and set aside both in the community MOS discussions and in this article's Talk page discussions; the most likely outcome for editors insisting that their personal interpretation of NOTCENSORED takes precedence over a decade of community DEADNAME discussions has been escalating blocks for disruption, at least, as far as I have seen. Newimpartial (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

If I cannot lawyer my way through this, I see no chance of success, as I simply cannot justify the time commitment such politicking to attempt to alter consensus would require. (While I consider this as clearly dumb, it is by far not the dumbest thing Wikipedia has ever done. That distinction goes to the introduction of the notability criterion and the transition to "Deletopedia" back around 2006, I believe.) Just note me as strongly opposed to any new censorship efforts that might be launched here. Have a good day. Dufaer (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Eh! You ain't been around the userpage boxes topic. That's something to pull your hair out, over. GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Your view is on what constitutes a privacy violation is baseless. Centralized consensus led to the current version of the guideline, which elevates the importance of privacy protection, for good reasons. I do think WT:MOSBIO would be the best place for discussion about changing the guideline. If held at WT:BLP, make sure to notify the guideline talk about the discussion. Firefangledfeathers 23:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dufaer:, be content that the birth name in in the article's intro. GoodDay (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

That is a weird thing to say. I am really not sure how to interpret it. This is an up-to-date encyclopedia. I should expect to find a well-known name it. And in fact I did not find it here. I had to re-add it. Then I went ahead and re-added the slightly longer version of it, but that's now verboten, so we wasted all this time. Ah, the pursuit of knowledge... Dufaer (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't like the decisions reached at MOS:GENDER & MOS:DEADNAME, either. But, whatcha gonna do? GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

In any case, thank you for including the person's full name in the talk pages. I find that sometimes I have to go to the talk pages to get the real information. In most cases it's when the article itself is incomplete or badly written. 2001:171B:2274:7C21:A9CF:4489:1B1C:8F04 (talk) 07:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2021

TheSkyIsFallen (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Instead of the page saying "(formerly Ellen Page; born February 21, 1987)," it should say "(born Ellen Page; February 21, 1987)."

 Not done: There's evidence that the former name they were notable under is not their birth name. Firefangledfeathers 18:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

If you say that there is evidence, link a source, you dolt Chessinnit (talk) 11:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Elliot Page seems to have been given the name Ellen Philpotts-Page at birth, which is indeed not the name they have been notable as for this long. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/elliot-page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:7C19:2801:6818:6D48:9A83:88C6 (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Characters vs the actor

I think it should be made clearer for low information readers that despite always being aware of his personal GI, his tv and movie characters up until he went public are all intended to be cisgender girls and ladies. 1.136.108.47 (talk) 12:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Considering that actors may portray any number of gender orientations and identities besides their own, is that really necessary? Isn't that the sort of information that comes up by simply looking up each individual film? 2001:8A0:7C19:2801:BD08:D71F:298C:9040 (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2022

I’m requesting that the former name of the actor is removed from the article. Is both disrespectful and transphobic. It harms trans people and shouldn’t be in display since this reinforce the idea that a trans person is someone that “changed” genders, not someone that understood their gender. 2804:248:FC42:F800:9813:496C:6E26:A564 (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Please read the FAQ of this talk page, as well as the edit notice that should have appeared when you edited this page. Page was significantly notable under his previous name. There is no argument about whether he changed his gender, just the simple fact he changed his name. --Equivamp - talk 01:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Reflection upon the 12 of December, 2021

After ~a month’s reflection, I can confirm leaving deadnames out of Wikipedia, no matter the notability> encyclopaedic knowledge Chessinnit (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Chessinnit: if you're interested in changing the consensus on this matter, a good first place to go might be WT:MOSBIO, the talk page associated with the guideline that includes MOS:DEADNAME. Discussion at this article talk page shouldn't override the status quo centralized consensus (WP:CONLEVEL). Firefangledfeathers 17:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I wasn’t aware of this, thank you Chessinnit (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2022

On Ellen Page’s wiki before she transitioned into a dude could you keep her past sex relevant to her performances. It’s kind of confusing when you say HE played as (insert female name here) in a movie. It makes no sense. 172.58.191.52 (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also, keep in mind that actors have portrayed characters of a different gender to themselves throughout history. --Equivamp - talk 01:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Filmography Credits

So since Elliot started his career as Ellen could we put for the older movies and TV shows credited as Ellen Page since Josie Totah’s wiki page has similar setup and it would makes less confusing for when the next generation stumbles upon this page 2600:1016:B017:8FBF:FCAF:C9BE:AB8D:9230 (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Per MOS:IDINFO, it's generally best to avoid overemphasizing someone's deadname if it's not pertinent. Writing "credited as..." a million times isn't really useful; it's self-evident that all his credits pre-2020 would be under his deadname, and all his post-2020 credits would be under Elliot. And because of this, I've gone ahead and removed all the "credited as..." notes in Josie Totah's article too. –IagoQnsi (talk) 07:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2022

Delete the line (Formerly Ellen Page) as telling people his dead name is transphobic Oliver Rosewood 0925 (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The is existing consensus to include a mention of the name they used to be known by of they were notable by that name before transitioning. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Transphobia, as per Wikipedia definition: "Transphobia is a collection of ideas and phenomena that encompass a range of negative attitudes, feelings, or actions towards transgender people or transness in general." I struggle a bit to fit this in with Wikipedia stating the name under which Elliot Page had a formidable, award-winning career before he transitioned, and for which he was known internationally and which made him a household name, extensively credited in all manners of media, all of these being facts which an Encyclopedia-style project like Wikipedia has to acknowledge, being as respectful and tactful as possible. Frankly, I applaud Wikipedia's stance on this situation, as it's doing a tricky balancing act and doing it well and with, clearly, the utmost respect in a situation which is either unprecedented or as close to as to make little difference. 2001:8A0:7C19:2801:C990:5280:226A:E511 (talk) 13:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Dating men

Where is the long history of Ellen page dating men and having boyfriends? Why was that censored? 2603:8001:5802:BA25:C865:2B1F:C184:A4C6 (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Not mentioning him dating men before is not the same as censorship as Wikipedia articles usually only list notable relationships. If you believe a specific notable relationship he had is missing, you can request this be added. Please provide a reliable source when doing so. Regards SoWhy 13:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The Umbrella Academy

I was not quite sure how to include this myself, so I figured I would bring it to the attention of the talk page. It has been reported recently that Page's character in The Umbrella Academy will henceforth be named Viktor Hargreeves, and will have a storyline that will reflect Page's real-life trans journey. I saw that this change has already been made to several articles regarding the show, but not to Page's own article. This should at the very least be included within the credit under his filmography, although I am uncertain whether it should also be mentioned elsewhere on the page or whether the character's name should be altered throughout the article to match. Any editor who is more experienced in this than myself should feel welcome to make the changes as they are necessary. Thank you. Redandsymmetry (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2022

<!-Removal of deadname -->

Please remove Elliot’s deadname from this article (the prior name he went by before coming out as trans). Using a trans person’s deadname, even in a traditionally polite or respectful sense which is what this article attempts to do, is still in and of itself a massively disrespectful action to do. You should never deadname a trans person, no matter their fame or lack there of. This is a page that should be dedicated and make reference to his current life and identity, not his old one. Thank you. 2600:1012:B166:5A7F:95A0:AF68:EA8F:FA2F (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: We keep an instance of the name they originally used if they were notable under that name. See the FAQ at the top of the page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

are you suggesting that wikipedia keeps two entries, one for Ellen and one for Elliot Page? Erwan (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Then change your FAQ ScottishFinnishRadish no matter how notable they were its incredibly disrespectful for wikipedia to publish his dead name like that in front of who knows how many readers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.250.168.131 (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Your position does not have consensus at this time. WP is not *solely* about being defferential to the contemporary feelings and wants of its article subjects. The FAQ is not just something someone felt like writing that we all have to blindly obey, but instead embodies the consensus/conclusion of multiple extensive discussions that are based on cited precedent and other of WP's fundamental policies and guidelines. DMacks (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

It's also very rude to expect the wiki people to bow to every one that comes here, Time to show some respect to the wikipedia people. 73.146.201.83 (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Better use of pronouns

Elliot has stated (as referenced by this article) that he uses he/they pronouns. Shouldn't this article be written to reflect both their pronouns, not just exclusively one of them. 118.209.118.171 (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

No, because consistency and readability are more important. One preferred pronoun is fine. ValarianB (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Better use of Pronouns, II

And yet in my posed question earlier was perfectly readable, despite me using both of Elliot's pronouns. Perhaps that is not an actual barrier? As to the statement, that it is acceptable this way, according to whom? While I am not sure specifically how Elliot feels, other people I know with two listed pronouns, Want to use both of them at differing time. And they Do notice when people exclusively only use one of them. They have two for a reason. 118.209.73.103 (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Some people do expect both to be used interchangeably, but I know nonbinary people who state multiple pronouns simply to clarify what they're comfortable with and don't expect each person to alternate between each pronoun all of the time. - Purplewowies (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Pronouns addendum

BTW, it's not someones 'preferred pronouns' (as the OT reply stated) it IS their pronouns. Trans peoples names and pronouns are not optional, only be used by other people as a 'preference' . They are to be used always. Speaking from a lot of experience here. 118.209.73.103 (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

"Preferred pronouns" is the widely-used nomenclature of the matter at hand. Whatever semantic issues you have with that really isn't a concern here. ValarianB (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Minimizing use of deadname

I would like to minimize use of his deadname in the article. Suggestions:

Current: He was assigned female at birth and used his birth name of Ellen prior to transitioning.

Suggestion: He was assigned female at birth and used his birth name prior to transitioning.

Current: That same day, subscription streaming service and production company Netflix announced that it would immediately adjust the credits in its streaming library from Ellen to Elliot.

Suggestion: That same day, subscription streaming service and production company Netflix announced that it would immediately adjust the credits in its streaming library to Elliot. 2600:1700:E150:3B00:9581:BD1:6126:B1B0 (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

While I appreciate and agree with the point that you are raising, unfortunately current site-wide consensus is that if an individual was notable under their former name, it should be included. In order to enact a change such as this, MOS:GENDERID would need to be updated first. Accordingly a discussion/RfC would need to be opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Struck through due to re-reading per the reply below by Equivamp. Apologies to IP editor. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC) edited and struck through Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, nothing in the IP's suggestion is about removing the former name entirely, but is simply about minimizing its use, in line with MOS:GENDERID (although "birth name" is inaccurate). --Equivamp - talk 23:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I had indeed misread this as one of the many other similarly worded posts. Changing this would account for two of the three instances of Elliot's deadname in the article, and I would happily support that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Dronebogus (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think removing those two uses is necessary here, and I think that removing them entirely may hinder understanding. While I fully support the use of Elliot when discussing him, the two uses above are still useful in understanding; deadnaming is primarily about disrespectfully using a person's prior name in an attempt to delegitimize their identity. Neither of these uses does that, and indeed both are about the transition itself; indicating as minimally as possible the name assigned at birth (Ellen) and the change of names from Ellen to Elliot. I think if we were to remove one, the second is less vital, and would be okay with changing the sentence to " adjust the credits in its streaming library to Elliot." However, the first would be less than ideal, as otherwise, the birth name would only be mentioned in the lead, per WP:MOSLEAD however, generally information in the lead should be mentioned also in the body. If we retained the "used his birth name of Ellen prior to transitioning" as the sole mention in the body, I don't think that violates any principle of minimization of the use. Again, neither use is disrespectful, and neither is misidentifying or deadnaming, but I can see where removing the Netflix mention doesn't hinder understanding, however the early life section seems like an appropriate place to retain the use of the name; it would be the only such place in the main body of the article where it is used, which seems sufficient to me. --Jayron32 13:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• For the record, I support one mention of the former name in the body, in addition to the one in the lead. Newimpartial (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I found all of this to be extremely confusing!

my thought would be to avoid pronouns and adjectives altogether whenever possible, for example:

Current: HE was assigned female at birth and used HIS birth name of Ellen prior to transitioning

Suggestion: Page was assigned female at birth and used the birth name of Ellen prior to transitioning. Erwan (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Following MOS:GENDERID, we should use the preferred pronouns. Avoiding pronouns goes against the spirit of this rule. We wouldn't avoid pronouns for a cis person so there is no reason to do so for a trans person EDIT: making an edit 1 second later to add signature 72.33.2.198 (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Error in Fact

Elliot Page plays Vanya Hargreeves in The Umbrella Academy, NOT Viktor Hargreeves, who is the father figure of the group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosewoodavenue (talk • contribs) 13:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Vanya and Viktor are the same character. See here for an explanation. Like Page in real life, their character is transitioning on the show as well. The father is Reginald Hargreaves, as well. --Jayron32 13:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2022

Delete website link "elliot.page" from statements. The website provided in the statements under his picture does not seem official: the website in question links 3 social media accounts, two of which do not belong to Elliot Page but to an homonym. JulesAndre07 (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done Good catch! I've removed it from the infobox here, and I'll try and get it fixed on the corresponding Wikidata entry now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Near-death experience section

Hi, KaiserAllen, I think you're mistaken. Death/getting killed isn't only caused by 'physical' factors is not relevant to my reason for reverting. First of all, you're misquoting the text: the sentence I wish people would understand that that shit literally did almost kill me is six paragraphs before the anecdote about the premiere, so the quotation is inaccurate; furthermore, it's misleading, since you're implying that "that shit" is specifically discussing the Toronto premiere, when in the interview, that hadn't even been mentioned yet at that point. What is in the same paragraph as that sentence (bolded, first sentence) is: I can’t pinpoint a “worst” day. So, the quote you're using does not support that he had any particular near-death experience at all, and certainly not that the Toronto premiere was one.

Even if the quote was correct, there's still nothing else in that section other than the quote itself, which runs afoul of WP:OVERQUOTING, which says: Overuse happens when...the quotations dominate the article or section. This is definitely doing that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I see that ValarianB also reverted the section while I was typing this out; thanks. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps a mention of the dress incident in the "1997–2007: Early roles and widespread recognition" section that discusses Juno would be ok, but dedicating a sub-section with a dubious header is a no-go. ValarianB (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2022

Change sexuality from gay to straight. Elliot came out as gay when presenting as female, now presenting as male he is still attracted to females, making him straight. 2601:282:8000:59E0:1D99:5BF5:D8CD:DDCF (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I'm not sure what you would want to change. It does not say he is gay, merely that at the time he presented as a woman and came out as gay. And further elaboration on their sexuality will need reliable sourcing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

weird statement

I understand this is a mine field, but the following sentence appears to be misleading/wrong: "Page first came to recognition for his role in the television franchise Pit Pony (1997–2000), for which he was nominated for a Young Artist Award". But there was no "he" that was recognized nor was a "he" nominated. I was a "she", for "her" role - playing a female character one might add. I am at a loss how to best alleviate this conundrum, but - all ideology aside - something like "Page, as Ellen Page, came to recognition for her role ..." could work. I believe the function of language (in an encyclopedia, of all things) should be the transfer of information first, all other considerations second. The above sentence does not achieve this. Felixkrull (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

It's neither misleading nor wrong. Page was indeed nominated for that award for his role in that franchise, so that statement is correct. That he was presenting female at this point of time is already mentioned in other parts of the article and is not required to understand this particular sentence. On a side note, the article also quotes Page saying that by age 9, i.e. before starring in Pit Pony, he "felt like a boy" ([1]), so he was definitely a "he" at this point, even if he didn't present as such. And of course MOS:GENDERBIO as the guideline applicable here explicitly says 'Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, "man/woman", "waiter/waitress") that reflect the person's latest expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise.' (emphasis added). Regards SoWhy 13:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I guess there is no point in arguing with the MoS, so thanks for pointing that out. I still believe, this approach adds a layer of unreliability to a text, also because - as you quoted correctly - if 'the person's latest expressed gender self-identification' is the benchmark, changing established Wikipedia-articles retroactively could become necessary. Felixkrull (talk) 09:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

At least the MoS-in-question allows the former name to be in the bio. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

"changing established Wikipedia-articles retroactively could become necessary." Yes, and it does, as happened here. Is that a problem? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

It should be a problem. But of course, that's a discussion for the MoS-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2022

The website https://elliot.page/ does not belong to the actor. This information can be confirmed by visiting the Twitter social link on the website and seeing that the associated Twitter account belongs to an IT Consultant and not the actor. 2601:C9:8002:2F10:0:0:0:A3CA (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done This is likely an issue on wikidata, but I removed the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually this seems to be an issue with the template. There was an edit request back on 2 June 2022 relating to the same URL appearing in the infobox. At the time I removed it from the infobox and got Wikidata to mark that value as incorrect. To do so they flagged that specific URL as deprecated, to ensure no-one else would add it back later. While that removed it from the infobox, it seems as though the template that was being used in the external links section is still pulling a deprecated URL as a live one. I'll drop a message about this now on the template talk page, because that seems like wrong behaviour in the template. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Use of pronouns

In the article it’s stated that Elliot goes by he/they pronouns, but the whole article uses he/him to describe them. 2003:E5:772A:F200:701C:A766:D11E:5FCF (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

"He/They" is a shortcode for "He/him or they/them" and indicates that the user is okay with either "he" or "they", cf. [2]. Using "he" and "him" is thus in line with the stated preference since both "he" and "they" are third person singular nominative pronouns and "him" and "them" are the related objective pronouns (for which he did not indicate any preference). It would be different if he had said "he/them". Regards SoWhy 11:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Gender of personal pronouns, former name

WP:NOTAFORUM for personal beliefs.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would like to submit a comment about the two topics mentioned in the title of this comment. I've read the guide on this talk page about transgender issues and former names before this would be questioned. Gender of personal pronouns: The gender of the person whom the article is about is not changed technically, in real she is still a woman. Of that she refers to herself as a male person, her gender won't change, maybe she and some other people will try to believe, that it changes, but it does not. So even if she thinks she is a man, she is a woman. And this is a fact. It cannot be changed simply upon someone declaring herself/himself as an other gender person. Former name: I think the role of the actress in Inception is enough base to be notable on her former name. So if this is the criterium, I think it could be mentioned, if anyone would like to do it, as it is fit to the requirements according to my points, I think. And with saying these, I don't ignore the person, her soul and her feelings at all. Medvexxx (talk) 09:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC) @Medvexxx: Please note that while you are entitled to your opinions, Wikipedia does not make changes based on what you personally think is right (or what unscientific views you personally might hold with regards to gender identity). His previous notability under his deadname is noted in the article according to the relevant guideline and the pronouns also are in line with the relevant guideline on this. As such, your comments do not appear to add anything constructive on how to improve this article within our policies and guidelines. On a side note, it's absurd that you think you are not ignoring someone as a person or their feelings after writing multiple paragraphs about how this person's identity and feelings are wrong and should be ignored. Regards SoWhy 10:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC) Dear @SoWhy The relevant guideline sais, that if the gender might be questioned: So, if I know she was a woman, then why it should be questioned. Though I don't know her personally, so I can't prove, that he was born as a man, and then became a woman and finally he is a man again, but I think this sentence is absurd. Of course anyways I am not the right person to determine the gender of someone, I never knew personally. I suppose that the person is a woman, because according to everything I've read about the person, the person is a woman. And either the gender is questioned or not, the followings hold: Truth cannot be changed. From saying, that horses are lions and they eat zebras, this is not going to be the truth still. Or saying, that I am 70 years old, I am not going to be 70 years old. The last reasoning is similar. Because nothing is going to change, if I say I'm 70 years old and I refer to myself as 70 years old. I stay the same age. (I'm not 70 years old.) As just saying that someone's a man, while she is a woman. She can refer to herself as a male, but she is not. And no. With saying these, I can respect her. And why? The same. Truth can not be changed. With saying this, I want to point out that it is the truth. I still can want good for her and such though. And it would be good, if she would realize, that she is a woman, if the absurd sentence does not stand. I hope that she does realize it in the future. And if what God said and wants is not respected, then I cannot say anything concerning it, but that every being should do respect God's will and good will. Last sentences: I remember that I've read earlier an official guideline of Wikipedia, that said I should refer to every user as they describe themselves they are, even if this description is completely not the truth about who they are. I have written the previous comment, because I wanted to imply what we should do. Also because Wikipedia is mostly or even only about pale facts and sources. Not stating the truth is not what the principles of Wikipedia say. Jesus bless you, the subject (Page) and all. Medvexxx (talk) 14:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Images used

While use of images of Elliott Page pre-transition is potentially unavoidable given his pre-transition fame, the use of the pictures where Elliott is dressed/styled as overtly feminine, seems as best negligent of the impact of body dysmorphia and at worse callously intentionality dismissive of his transition - except for the rare exceptions at awards ceremonies in his early career, where it is almost definite that he had little control over his own stylization at public events, or in movies in which his character is styled as overtly feminine- Elliott typically wore more gender neutral or masculine clothing and little to no makeup or traditionally feminine hair styling. Given the plethora of images of Elliott pre-transition available, there is no reason that the majority of the pictures included in this article should be of the rare times Elliott is presented as overtly feminine. the images aren't even relevant to the article sections in several cases. If the pre-transition picture isn't necessary to provide a visual exemplification of a topic they should be removed. pre-transition images that are for whatever reason considered necessary should be replaced with pictures more representative of how Elliott actually chose to appear. it seems malicious and discriminatory otherwise. 173.20.168.48 (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Use of Deadname

The following discussion 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.

---

I don’t believe that it is fair for Elliot’s deadname to be on this page. Especially as his name has been changed on the credits of “Umbrella Academy” it’s not great that his deadname is still being used when he doesn’t go by that name anymore. 2.99.156.116 (talk) 18:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Please see #FAQ above. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ. This is tiresome. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

“Cassius Clay” is all over Muhammad Ali’s wikipedia page.

It is history, and that is what Wikipedia covers. 107.184.67.93 (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm a trans person and I personally think that it was presented in the most respectful way possible. While I normally agree with the deadnaming thing, it should be noted that Elliot Page came to be known before his transition and before his name change. Given he has some roles under that name, I think it's completely reasonable to leave it on there, on the condition that it's only in that one place. Especially when coupled with the editorial rules shared by others. Just my two cents. 2601:1C0:8500:1161:2407:28FB:E944:10A9 (talk) 2601:1C0:8500:1161:2407:28FB:E944:10A9 (talk) 06:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

"cassius clay" is not a deadname. i agree, elliot's deadname shouldn't be on this page. Notsammyray (talk) 03:09, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

That's nice for you. Can you also substantiate your argument based on our guidelines that explicitly says the opposite? Regards SoWhy 10:17, 18 August 2022 (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.

Use of Deadname

The following discussion 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.

---

Please remove Elliot's Deadname. Deadnaming a person is humiliating. FIREBEAST707 (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

See the FAQ at the top of this page: "Wikipedia's guidelines say that we should include the birth name for a living transgender person in the lead sentence only if the person was notable under that name. This is the case for Elliot Page." >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 00:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I made an account to respond to this bc it's something i feel strongly about.

They are guidelines not rules, and as the original poster says deadnaming a trans person is both cruel and entirely unnecessary. His name is Elliot and that should be respected. Ejhobbs (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

This is how we refer to him. And yet, we cannot deny that he was notable under a different name. We always note these sort of changes in this way. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand your point but there's truly no reason to have his dead name out there so easily. Its their privacy and it's incredibly transphobic to blast anyone's dead name, celebrity or not. The change of their name doesn't need to be noted, there's literally no point why we should know it Zeroplusix (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

And yet the vast majority of sources - including many that would lead people to look for Elliot's bio - continue to present the deadname in association with his earlier work. This isn't a problem that Wikipedia created or that Wikipedia can solve. Newimpartial (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

How is the name Elliot disrespected by including a footnote that references the previous, notable name? One of the goals in Wikipedia is not to WP:ASTONISH the reader, and someone arriving on this page having used the deadname as a search term would quite possibly be astonished. Newimpartial (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

No it isn't, it's historical reality. Stop engaging in a weirdly specific form of censorship. 82.24.169.40 (talk) 07:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

why is it necessary to keep his deadname? the page under his deadname already redirects to this one, so it's not like it makes the article harder to find. Notsammyray (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

The way we handle this is clear and applied consistently. If the trans person was not notable under their previous name, then we do not include the dead name. If the person was clearly notable under the previous name, then we include the previous name. Page was not only notable but was famous under his previous name. Therefore, we include the name. We do not change things like this at the article level. A change would need to take place at a projectwide venue, and there would need to be consensus among many editors. Cullen328 (talk) 03:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's vision which states "Articles should have an encyclopedic style with a formal tone instead of essay-like, argumentative, promotional or opinionated writing." Opinionated writing should be disregarded wherever possible, it is then acceptable to write about Ellen Page in the terms of she/her when referring to events that happened in the past for readability, better context and to distinguish between current and pre-transition life.

I also see that a common fallacy is being used as a base for this change, specifically Persuasive definition - naming conventions are NOT widely accepted and uncommon for many readers on Wikipedia due to the minority representation of LGBT people in the world (more in LGBT rights by country or territory). This can lead to confusion for the reader and again, for the sake of readability and contextualization should be changed back to what you refer to as their deadname. 2A02:AB04:25A:2900:FC13:3232:F720:AAF7 (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

This zombie resurrection of an old topic is irrelevant for this page; MOS:GENDERID has a much higher WP:CONLEVEL than this Talk page (nor has any reason been offered why this page should not follow the site-wide guideline). Newimpartial (talk) 19:10, 17 October 2022 (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.

Where has the rest of the talk page gone?

The following discussion 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.

---

Does Wikipedia edit talk pages to remove undesirable opinions? Not one person on this page has expressed the view that it is not objective to describe someone by their chosen gender identity rather than their objective sex. I'm aware that Wikipedia policy requires articles to be written in a certain way, but is it necessary to censor disagreement with this? Is this based on some WP policy? I found some of the previous discussion on this very interesting and telling and wanted to read over it again, but instead this talk page portrays a consensus that doesn't exist surrounding transgenderism. 86.23.218.87 (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

There are five archives. Otherwise, Wikipedia policy does not allow the use of talkpages as fora for general discussion of a topic tangential to the subject, especially when the subject is a living individual. Such digressions are removed. This is not a forum for discussion of transgenderism. Acroterion (talk) 14:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Could you please tell me where I could find the legitimate place to see where this issue was discussed (the whole discussion, not just the eventual conclusion). 86.23.218.87 (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

With respect to Elliot Page, see the archives at the top of the page. As for the Wikipedia consensus concerning transgender individuals in general, it's developed over a variety of pages. Try Talk:Transgender and MOS:GENDERID. Acroterion (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for these links. However, they don't seem to contain any discussion of whether an encyclopedia should describe a person's sex based on self-identification or biology. 86.23.218.87 (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe you are asking to see the (many, many) discussions linked at MOS:GIDINFO (discussions in which hundreds of editors have participated). Newimpartial (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

There actually is a consensus on Wikipedia about the treatment of transgender issues; this consensus is reflected in MOS:GENDERID (which has been developed in the course of more than 15 years and which has been modified and reaffirmed by large-scale RfCs within the last two years).

Incidentally, one element of the consensus around transgender issues on WP that is not reflected in MOS:GENDERID is that editors who misgender other editors are engaged in disruption, while another element of the consensus is that editors using "transgenderism" on Talk pages are employing dog-whistle language (whether intentionally or perhaps without realizing it) and should not do so, as this is also disruptive. Newimpartial (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I will repeat, I am looking for a single, clearly presented source which will explain how the conclusion was reached that describing someone's sex according to their own preference rather than the biological reality is encyclopedic. 86.23.218.87 (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

In a collaborative environment, consensus emerges from the interaction of many participants over time. MOS:GIDINFO links the main discussions in which the consensus embodied in MOS:GENDERID emerged. Beyond this, no editor is obliged to WP:SATISFY your curiosity. Newimpartial (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:SATISFY states that "No one should try to police others' viewpoints." So.....in line with that, I'm asking for the evidence that a viewpoint clearly held by many (i.e. that it's not possible to change one's biological sex and claiming otherwise is lying/gaslighting and is certainly not encyclopedic) has at least been acknowledged and addressed in some fashion. I am certainly not expressing "repeated unreasonable demands for re-explanation of that which has already been clarly explained". I'm just asking to see where it has been explained even once. 86.23.218.87 (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I get what you intended by that cherrypicking, but you are literally trying to police others' viewpoints. Read the talk page archives if you want to, but we're not rehashing them. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Many of the relevant links are presented at MOS:GIDINFO (in chronological order, so an interested reader can follow them either historically or "back from the present").

If you are unwilling to read them (or just not interested), that is not in any way a "me" problem. Newimpartial (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Well how many hours do you think a user should have to invest to get an answer about how a certain Wikipedia policy was reached? 86.23.218.87 (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I would also be interested to read the discussion surrounding the very term "transgenderism" being lablled "dog-whistling". Overall, I am looking to see evidence that the consensus on these matters is genuine and did not involve silencing significant numbers of users. 86.23.218.87 (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

So that we are clear, the consensus is in fact that describing someone's sex gender according to their own preference rather than the biological reality is encyclopedic -- FTFY. Newimpartial (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I quite understand that. Repeatedly saying that something is the consensus does not justify it without explaining how that consensus was reached and how contrary viewpoints were addressed. 86.23.218.87 (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

You've been pointed to the policies and where the conversations were had that formed the consensus. That is enough. As Newimpartial said, we're not here to WP:SATISFY you. Drop the WP:STICK now. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The introductory paragraph of WP:STICK refers to a debate. There's no debate here. Just me asking a question and not getting any useful answer. 86.23.218.87 (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

You've gotten answers. You appear to not like them and you're not listening to them. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2022 (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.

use of deadname

The following discussion 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.

---

I know this has been said before. but as a transgender man myself, I feel very uncomfortable with Eliot’s deadname being in his own Wikipedia page. I know, that’s how allot of people know him by. But it’s a deadname for a reason. It’s best we don’t use it at all for his sake. 2601:280:4680:28D0:9E:9E3:EE87:3FFC (talk) 05:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry you feel uncomfortable with it, but Wikipedia is not censored for certain people's comfort. In the same way that drawings of the Islamic prophet Muhammad are not censored for Muslim sensibilities, nor are former names of notable persons who identify as transgender censored from the encyclopedia to cater to western sensibilities.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 06:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

He is not referred to by his dead name, which is Wikipedia policy, but the existence of that name is not forbidden to be mentioned. This Wikipedia article is written in a way that is fully compliant with Wikipedia policy, and fully respects the dignity of Mr. Page. --Jayron32 12:37, 23 September 2022 (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.

Use of female pronouns

Not the place to attempt overturning MOS:GENDERID. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Maybe an unpopular opinion, but since she mostly presented as a female in her career I think it's fair to say that we should rather use the "she" pronouns right until she transitioned into a transman. Calling Elliot a he from the first sentence of the article just creates confusion, absurdness and as well as contradictions - Elliot was a "she" all the time in her public life and the media right until 2019 or so. Not to mention, Elliot was nominated for an Oscar in the female category, thereby making him a "she". We should only start using "he" in his post-transition days in article. This is like calling Anakin "Darth Vader" as a child and as a Padawan/Jedi, when he wasn't Vader yet. But then again, this is a general transgender pronouns issue on Wikipedia and it doesn't just concern Elliot Page. 118.102.109.87 (talk) 05:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC) Pretty sure that’s not how it works. In general once a person transitions that retroactively invalidates their former name, pronouns, and generally a large part of their past identity as “inauthentic” to their current, “real” self. It’d be like calling gays who came out, but lived as straight, “previously heterosexual”. Dronebogus (talk) 08:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC) Except gender identity/gender dysphoria and sexual orientation are two different things. There's a term for someone that was "previously heterosexual", it's called being closeted. Your sexuality was already ingrained in you. You didn't make a choice to transition from straight to gay. Transgender people make a choice to transition. As for Page, he is currently male, but not before his transition. A gender change is not retroactive. She was, and presented as, a female throughout her career - And I don't mean in movies, but in public life. Therefore I think it's a bit silly to point Page as a "him" in, say, the premiere of Juno when he didn't even make an effort to look like a "she". Was Caitlyn Jenner a transwoman when he won the gold medal at the 1976 Summer Olympics? Of course not. 118.102.109.87 (talk) 09:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC) You can think whatever you like, but Wikipedia has had a number of discussions of this (linked at MOS:GIDINFO), informed by the way quality WP:RS actually write about trans people, and those discussions produced the consensus embodied in MOS:GENDERID. This broad community consensus is most unlikely to be affected by the cogitations of a single editor, and certainly not by reflections written on one BLP Talk page. Newimpartial (talk) 10:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC) @Newimpartial: "cogitations" is such a great word, and the way you used it there at the end was perfect, it just shut this debate down so completely! i simply love lurking around talk page arguments and debates. i find it can be a great way to expand ones vocabulary. im sure this isnt "helpful", and im probably out of order for even replying, but i hope youre able to look past it as i just couldnt resist. bravo! Snarevox (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Deadname and filmography

Would still violate MOS:GENDERID and need community-wide consensus to be implemented. SoWhy 14:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Reading through some of these discussions, the topic of using a persons deadname comes up a lot regarding this page. I can see a potential solution to this and that would be a split history where the separation of Ellen Page and Elliot Page would be 2 different WP pages that each have a connecting link to the other. Obviously some historical things such as birth/birthplace/parents would remain the same. This solution wouldn’t be censoring or cutting out the deadname but would rather move it to its own page and allow for less confusion to readers who would be looking for the filmography of Ellen Page. Proposing at the end of it to link Elliot Page in which it would show his filmography and timeline as himself. Obviously I know this may not be accepted by some people as it would still be using their deadname along with creating an entirely new page for the accomplishments and history of said deadname, but I feel that to completely separate Elliot Page from Ellen Page you have to separate the timing before the transition to after the transition and to do so in a way that even the filmography is separate. This might even be better for people to correctly use their pronouns and respect them and their decisions and would potentially allow for a better discussion on deadnaming someone. To add a final thought, if a second page was added for “Ellen Page”, another link could be used for the description of what a deadname is and more background on the subject. DuckTwoSeven (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2022 (UTC) We have a site-wide consensus, documented at MOS:GENDERID, not to do anything of the kind. The relevant RfC for works initially credited to the deadname was this one. Unless community consensus changes in the future, this proposal is a non-starter. Newimpartial (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC) Can you editors start hatting or moving these deadname discussions already? They take up 80% of the talk page when it's clearly mentioned at the top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A420:4F:5D5D:5827:2D6D:F41:3700 (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)