Talk:Elliot Page

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
WikiProject iconWiki Loves Pride
WikiProject iconThis article was created or improved during Wiki Loves Pride, 2021.

Former relationships and other recent revelations

I think care should be taken in the way Page's recent revelations about former relationships that were detailed in Pageboy because the book is after all a

WP:BLPPRIMARY. Lots of well-known persons release memoirs or auto-biographies and lots of claims are made in such works, but Wikipedia should probably treat them as only claims unless they can be corroborated by some pretty strong independent secondary sources. It's probably OK to phrase things as "Page claims in Pageboy ..." or "Page states in Pageboy ..." in the article with respect to the stuff in that book, but the sentence about his relationship with Kate Mara makes it seem as if it's a statement of fact even though it's not clear whether Mara has officially commented or confirmed said relationship as of yet. Similar content was also added to Kate Mara#Personal life and it's also treated as if it's a statement of fact as opposed to an unverified claim. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Yeah, it's not clear how much fact-checking the publisher (a subsidiary of Macmillan Publishers) did for Page's recollections. That a relationship existed is somewhat easy to check. Anything more contentious should be attributed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This could just be considered
WP:BLPGOSSIP. Should we include the dating/relationship history of everyone famous even if both people are famous?[1] Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Page's memoir itself is clearly
WP:BLPSPS and so cannot be used for claims about other living people; the People source used in our article is just regurgitating Page's own words and seems borderline at best to me. I would be inclined to remove the Kate Mara thing entirely unless other reliable sources report on it other than to say that Page wrote about the relationship in his memoir. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not sure it's
WP:PRIMARY. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I too wouldn't consider it to be a "self-published work" per se in the sense that Page self-published the book; this is more of a case of a
WP:BLP. Since there seem to be others that have concerns about this, I going to remove the content in question from the article just for now, until things can be sorted out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Ah, of course you are right that it's not self-published; nonetheless for a BLP I think it's wise to apply the restrictions of
WP:ABOUTSELF is a more appropriate bluelink; it applies to both self-published and questionable sources; I would consider a celebrity autobiography to be covered there!) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Photo choices

There are currently three photos of Elliot before his transition, yet only two after. Can we balance this out a bit better? —Entropy (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

???That's pretty balanced. 3-2 either way and 2-2 or 3-3 is balanced. It's not like it's 8-1. Plus all the notability was pre-transition so I actually would have thought it would more like 4-1. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot is non-binary

this seems to be missing from the page, but Elliot has also said they are non-binary multiple times VictoriousBard (talk) 06:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned under #gender transitionCzello (music) 07:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Czello I meant that the first paragraph omits it, should have been more clear VictoriousBard (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Presenting as female

The second paragraph starts: While presenting as female... From the context, I assume is not referring to their job as a television presenter, but it is not very clear. Could that be changed to something more clear? 147.12.250.163 (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another oddly worded statement is "was assigned female at birth"... this makes it sound like the parents or physician had to make a choice for some sort of medical reason...... makes it sound like there was something wrong.Moxy- 01:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy the "assigned female at birth" (AFAB) language is quite standard these days (as is the corresponding AMAB for assigned male at birth). See Sex_assignment#Terminology. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 02:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow that's horrible....we should find better wording..... as this clearly implies something's medically wrong to older generations. Moxy- 03:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy I think the language in part emerged due to a better understanding of intersex individuals, who are often assigned a sex that turns out to be wrong later in life. So it does have medical undertones, but perhaps for more justified reasons than one might imagine at first. Among young folks and also our sources, the language is pretty standard, both AMAB/AFAB have neutral connotations. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 03:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You mean assigned a "gender" that would turn out to be different than later in life. Two sexes, multiple genders per today's norm. You'll note in the personal life section Elliot went through "gender transition" not sex transition. I would also say that "assigned female at birth" is quite standard these days, but it is clunky and misleading as to what actually happened. But wikipedia uses what sources tell us not what I feel is misleading. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't CaptainEek just talk about intersex individuals? "Two sexes" is also inaccurate. casualdejekyll 22:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is an "opinion" I completely disagree with. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
let's not start off-topic debates now. B3251 (talk) 01:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 October 2023

Replace the word assigned with observed. The word assigned is incorrect as no one assigns a sex to a baby, like if a doctor assigned female to a baby with a penis, it wouldn’t make them a female. So observed female at birth is far more accurate as he was born female and female is the sex that was observed. 2601:647:8000:F5A0:C0E8:8EB1:6E91:8259 (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of birth name

I have added Page's birth name, in line with

MOS:DEADNAME and want to add some explanatory notes. Page was clearly notable under the name Ellen Philpotts-Page and was nominated for a Gemini Award (predecessor of the Canadian Screen Award
for Best Performance in a Children’s or Youth Program or Series under this name -- and credited under this name. Sources for that include:

The birth name also appears in other news articles and books, identifying it as a birth name, both at the time the birth name was used professionally and after the name Ellen Page was used professionally (which was sometime before the 2002 nomination for the Young Artist Award), including:

  • Canadian Who's Who. Volume 45. Edited by Elizabeth Lumley. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010.
  • Canadian Who's Who. Edited by Lynne N. Browne and Gwen Peroni. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2011.
  • Canadian Who's Who. Edited by Susan Charters. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012.
  • The Canadian Encyclopedia: https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/elliot-page

It's a clear case of notability under this name. Samp4ngeles (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all a clear case. One series credit and one award nomination do not establish notability. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:NACTOR: "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." In Page's case, it was two significant credits under the birth name Ellen Philpotts-Page: the was for Pit Pony (film), which earned Gemini Awards. The second instance was for Pit Pony (TV series), in which Page personally received a Gemini Awards nomination -- one of only two such nominations for the series. Page's role was signficant in both series. I'm reversing your edit, but if you have a stronger or different rationale, please post it here. Samp4ngeles (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
DEADNAME links the word "notable" to a notability guideline, so it's absolutely using it in its jargony Wikipedia sense. Page was billed something like 10th or so in the Pit Pony show credits (at least the pilot), and nominations (without winning) are a contributing but relatively non-determinative factor in notability. In the movie, he didn't make the opening credits. I don't think the NACTOR case is unreasonable, but it's not strong. Since there's a privacy interest at play, I would advocate for the same caution we generally take with all BLPs. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The order of billing doesn't matter. See previous discussions on
WP:NACTOR such as Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2016, which point to credited roles in more than one production. But if you want to go down that route, IMDB lists Page as fifth for the film ( https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0125458/fullcredits/ ) and four for the series ( https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0159902/fullcredits ), having appeared in 29 episodes. Page's Maggie McLean character was a significant role, which led to the award nominations, which launched the acting career. Page also happens to have been the main photo on the poster for Pit Pony (film)
.
The privacy interest argument is a bit of a red herring, as the article has long mentioned both parents (Philpotts and Page). The Philpotts-Page name is also in many sources. Samp4ngeles (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which discussion in that archive page are you referring to? On "red herring", agree to disagree, I guess. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a short
WP:NACTOR discussion on that archive page, but I think it's clear that Page had very significant roles in both Pit Pony (film) and Pit Pony (TV series)
, and the pilot episode you refer to would be only marginally relevant.
With regard to privacy interests, Page is a
WP:RS have already said. Samp4ngeles (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Writ Keeper, want to make sure you're aware of this discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I'm aware, thanks for the heads up. I don't have a ton to add, beyond just seconding Firefangledfeathers, but I would say that, to the extent that anyone knows Elliot Page by his deadname, it's not the hyphenated one. This deadname is not at all useful in identifying the subject of the article to any reasonable hypothetical reader who might only know Eliot by his deadname, and essentially serves as trivia. In other words, it's not a "significant alternative name" (emphasis in the original) as specified in
MOS:BOLDALTNAMES. Certainly it doesn't make sense to bump the deadname that might actually be useful to a reader to later in the lead sentence. Under other circumstances, it could definitely be reasonable to still include someone's birth name, even if they don't go by it, but here, given that there are also the privacy and deadname concerns at play, it seems to me to be a pretty obvious case to keep this out of the lead sentence. Writ Keeper  17:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I think you're confusing things by suggesting this is a "significant alternative name." It's not -- it's a birth name, and it was significant/notable at the time. Even applying standards such as
WP:NACTOR, the Philpotts-Page birth name was notable enough at the time. This isn't "trivia". Rather, it helps add clarity for people who might navigate to the article from other sources (including all the RS listed above). Samp4ngeles (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Okay, fine, then let's take a look at
MOS:BIRTHNAME
, where we find: the birth name may be given in the lead as well, if relevant...Specific guidelines apply to living transgender and non-binary people. (emphasis mine) The explanatory footnote calls out privacy interests in their birth names, and while it says that in most cases, that privacy concern doesn't stop us from listing the birth name in the lead for living public figures, it indicates via wikilink that trans people are specifically not most cases. Your assertion that including it increases clarity beggars belief; one of your links is to the Internet Archive, and the TV Guide one is internally linked itself to an article titled Elliot Page. Your Canadian Encyclopedia link primarily identifies Elliot as, well, Elliot, and I'm guessing the Who's Who links also do not primarily identify him by his birth name, as they were all published 8 years or more after he stopped using it professionally. So, no, I do not find it remotely plausible that a reader might honestly come to this page from that name without any indication of one of the other names already in the lede. Moreover, it's not like it's hard to figure out "Philpotts-Page" is related to "Page". It doesn't provide any actual benefit to the reader, other than as trivia, and again, the privacy and deadname concerns outweigh the value of a piece of trivia, especially when placed in the lead sentence.
If you were trying to put this in the "early life" section, you might have a point. I would still disagree with that, but it would be defensible. This has no reason to be in the lead sentence. Writ Keeper  18:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And, if we included it, we'd get to the point where we're overloading the first sentence with alt names and should consider mentioning them later or in a footnote. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@
MOS:NE explain how/why it is done, and Caitlyn Jenner's use of the William Bruce Jenner birthname is an excellent model for someone who was notable under birth name, went by another name that was more notable (Bruce Jenner), and then transitioned to another name. No need to fiddle with moving the information elsewhere, as @[[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers] suggests. Samp4ngeles (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not sure why you say
WP:BLP: Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Writ Keeper  14:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Does nobody understand how nonsensical the sentence, "He received critical acclaim for portraying the title role, a pregnant teenager, in Jason Reitman's film Juno (2007), and earned nominations for an Academy Award, two BAFTA Awards,..." is? I say this having previously been named Editor of the Week, an award that specifically stated that I was "recognized for Gender Studies". JezGrove (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an Editor of the Week, an award specifically for Gender Studies, no doubt you'll learn to manage. Writ Keeper  14:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ McKay, John (20 September 2000). "CBC's DaVinci's Inquest tops Gemini nominations". Waterloo Region Record. p. E8.