Talk:Elliot Page/Archive 3

A couple of things. Let's not jump down the censoring rabbithole... that never ends well. You mention the affects of listing "best actress nomination on the wikipedia page of a transgender actor." That has already happened here in the second paragraph of 2005 section. "For his performance, Page was nominated for several awards, including an Academy Award for Best Actress, a BAFTA Award for Best Actress, a Critics' Choice Award for Best Actress, a Golden Globe Award for Best Actress, and a Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role." That's as it should be. The lead should be a summary of the most important facts brought out in the article, and in my opinion there are actually too many awards listed in the lead section for Juno since it's repeated down below. Thinking about it, as far importance, it should probably say:

• Page had his cinematic breakthrough with the title role in Jason Reitman's film Juno (2007), earning many accolades which included a nomination for an Academy Award for Best Actress.

I guess you could simply say "which earned many award nominations" and leave it at that but that really short changes Elliot's breakthru role. This is a person who is notable as an actor, that's why they are on wikipedia to begin with. No acting and they are not here at all. The highest honor actors get is at the Academy Awards and one of the biggest awards is Best Actress. How that isn't front and center in the lead really hurts this biography imho. I understand the transgender aspect can get a little sticky in how we word things from Elliot's past, but this seems too big to ignore without compromising the article integrity. I look at Tom Hanks article and the lead doesn't mention all the smaller awards he won for a role, but there's a bullseye around "He won two consecutive Academy Awards for Best Actor." As I mentioned above, I came here after re-watching a movie, it happened to be "Whip It", and noticed this lead missed an really important item. I've spent far too much time here than I ever intended as I usually work with tennis articles so if editors want to leave it as is I'll move along. I just tried to help with what seemed a glaring lead omission from my perspective. Take care. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

First of all, I do not advocate censoring the article. However, I also don't find it necessary to emphasize the (frankly odd) title of the "Best Actress" category ("next-best gender after Best Actor"?) each time that award is mentioned. I reverted the BOLD attempt to insert it into the lede - a move that seems POINTey to me for some reason - but am not trying to remove the award category's name from the article entirely. So that is what I regard as a reasonable compromise. I understand that there is debate over this, but I personally do not regard Page's gender as male, female or nonbinary to be relevant to the awards and nominations they received for Juno - since the award was for acting, and not e.g. for actually having a baby. Newimpartial (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Thinking something is pointy right off the bat is bad faith. That's not the wikipedia way. I see nothing "odd" about "Best Actress" category; there is nothing implied that it's next-best. And the award nomination was not for having a baby. And acting is vague for such a huge to-do... it's by far the biggest event in the field. The Academy Awards have categories. There are awards for supporting roles for actors and supporting roles for actresses too. The nomination was a great honor for Elliot, and I'm sure still is. I simply don't agree with your usage of "pointy", "odd", or "having a baby" in the context of a Best Actress award, nor do I think it's a magnanimous reasonable compromise. This article can stay the same as it is with the hole in the "lead" if that's what consensus wants, but make no mistake, it is a hole when it's a specific nomination for the most prestigious award in Elliot's profession and it's not mentioned loud and clear right up front. I guess we'll just have to disagree on its importance to his notability. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

 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)

No evidence either way, but in the lead the debate in the RfC discussion above is whether in the lead we use his famous name (which is the title of this article) or his mostly unknown family name, or do we have both which might be normal but in the case of trans and intersex people would result in disrespectful hurtful

Wikipedia:BLP subject. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK

17:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

In the section above it is about the

family name (not birth name

!) His birth name is "Ellen Grace Philpotts-Page", but his current name is "Elliot Philpotts-Page". "Elliot Page" is just a stage name or nickname. His current full name is "Elliot Philpotts-Page".

That's a completely different matter than the discussion about the given name. --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any sources saying his name is currently Philpotts-Page? --Equivamp - talk 18:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any sources saying he changes his family name? Normally, a source is regarded as valid until a newer source says something different. --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Of course, there is an abundance of sources reporting on the subject's change of name, with "Elliot Page" being reported as the current name. Combining the new sources regarding his name change with older sources about his birth name to infer that his name is currently "Elliot Philpotts-Page" is

improper synthesis. --Equivamp - talk

20:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

There are only source reporting that the person who was formerly known as "Ellen Page" is now known as "Elliot Page" (change of given name). There is not even a single source who reported that the family name has changed. You are the one who is doing

WP:OR by assuming a change of the family name. --Eulenspiegel1 (talk

) 21:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not making an argument that the family name was changed, I am pointing out a lack of sources to support reporting the subject's current name as Elliot Philpotts-Page. --Equivamp - talk 21:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Nevertheless, here are some current sources mentioning the full name as "Elliot Philpotts-Page": [1], [2], [3]. --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The first two sources here aren't very good. The first one is a blog, and the second one lists Elliot Philpotts-Page as his birth name, which of course isn't true. The third source says that the subject himself declared his name as Elliot Philpotts-Page, but is not true either. There is already much better sourcing for his announcement than an Argentinian newspaper as well. --Equivamp - talk 20:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The first source is not very good. Yet, even a quite middle source is infinite times better than no source. Thus, do you have any source that the family name is changed? Or is it just

WP:OR

that the family name changed?

A blog is not better than no source

in a BLP article. --Equivamp - talk

22:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The announcement that his given name is Elliot was also made on twitter which is a blog. --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, his own tweet,

about himself. At this point, consider re-availing yourself of all the BLP guidelines. --Equivamp - talk

23:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Btw, why do you believe that the third source is not true? Do you have any evidence (besides

WP:OR) that the third source is not true? --Eulenspiegel1 (talk

) 21:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The previously-mentioned other sources about his announcement (such as the ones already in the article) that quote him as saying "My name is Elliot," not, "My name is Elliot Philpotts-Page." --Equivamp - talk 22:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Where is the contradiction? If he says in one source "My name is Elliot." and in another source "My name is Elliot Philpotts-Page." both sentences can be true. Yet, there is no source in which he says: "My name is Elliot Page." --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

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

With this argument we should delete every name in every biography article if there cannot be found an up-to-date source. In most of the biography articles the source of the name is several years old. Yet, it's not OR to accept an old source.

Even if someone marries, you accept the old family name until a source says the family name has changed. You do not need sources to proof that something has not changed. You need sources to proof that something has changed. Or show me any other information in any other article which was removed because whether the change nor the unchange could be proofed. --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Please read

MOS:DEADNAME. Simply put, we do not treat gender-altering name changes the same as other name changes. Therefore, we certainly do not perform SYNTH or OR to sleuth out probable "family names". Newimpartial (talk

) 23:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

1. Please read the

MOS:DEADNAME

, yourself. This Deadname-chapter is about the given name. The last name has nothing to do with Deadname or gender-altering.

The examples in the deadname-chapter are Chelsea Manning and Laverne Cox. Both only changed their given name. Neither of them changed their last name. (Manning remained Manning and Cox remained Cox.) There was not even the idea, that they have changed their last name. And no one would change their last name in an article with the explanation: The unchange of the last name was not proofed.

Nevertheless, if Manning or Cox marry, then they could change their family name. Even in this case, the change of their family name has nothing to do with deadname or gender-altering.

2. Using the source [4] is not OR. Claiming that the source is wrong is OR. --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Technicaly, your point 2. may be correct. However, if the only published source for the supposedly current family name of a major Canadian celebrity is a small local newspaper published in Spanish in Argentina, I would not regard that as

reliable sources

, nor can I find anything that would meet BLPSELF requirements.

As far as point 1. is concerned, where does

WP:DEADNAME limit its application to given names? That sounds like an OR interpretation to me. Newimpartial (talk

) 01:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, GENDERID and DEADNAME are not limited to given names; this may be seen most clearly in cases where someone changed their surname entirely, like

WP:SURNAME is to be used). -sche (talk

) 18:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

What has the family name to do with gender questions? Her current name is Fallon Burton. And Fallon Fox is just her stage name like Terence Hill. The family name is the name of your parents. And your parents name doesn't change just because your name change.

In some languages the family name change, of course: For example, the icelandic family name "Eiríksdóttir" (daughter of Eric) will change to "Eiríksson" (son of Eric). Yet, this only applies to languages in which the family name depends on gender.

"surname" is misleading: Only in european culture the surname is the family name. For example, in china the first name is the family name and the surname is the given name. --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The point here is that in gender-related name changes, we treat the whole name as the CHANGEDNAME, not just the "given name" component. What this means in practice is that the BLP subject's preferred full name has to be sourced with references that follow the name change, not just the "given name" portion. Newimpartial (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The point here is that in most languages only the given name is gender-related. There are some languages (like swedish, icelandic) in which the whole name is gender-related. Yet, in most languages only the given name is gender-related. --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

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

1. There is only a Lex Gender about the inlcuding of the birth name in the article. The sourcing requirements of name-change are for all persons the same. They don't differ among the reasons of name-change.

2. There is only a source about the change of the given name. There isn't any source saying the family name has changed. --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you did not read the paragraph following the birth name paragraph; it currently reads, If such a subject was not notable under their former name, it usually should not be included in that or any other article, even if some reliable sourcing exists for it. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name (emphasis added). What this shows is that the former names of BLP subjects with gender-related name changes are treated differently than those who change their name for other reasons; also, the passage does not restrict the "former name" concept to given names only. While this particular text does not address the specific question you are posing here (because of the duration of Elliot's Notability), the logic of this passage, namely the privacy interest separate from ... the person's current name does indeed apply, at least according to several interested editors. Presumably this can be settled as a general matter at an eventual RfC, but the idea that "birth names" are separable such that only the given name portion is subject to the privacy interest of a gender-related name change is unsupported anywhere in WP policy that I can see. Newimpartial (talk) 20:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

1. Gender-related name-change is treated differently only in the matter, what to include in the article. It's not treated differently in the question which sourcing requirements are needed. That's exactly, what I wrote. And that's exactly, what's written in the paragraph.

2. The paragraph doesn't mention the sourcing requirements. The sourcing requirements are mentioned in WP:Biographies of living persons#Reliable sources. --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why you are insisting on treating inclusion in the article and sourcing requirements as if they were unrelated issues. To identify which BLP subjects were or were not notable under their deadname, for example, we look for the Reliable Sources needed to establish Notability. To determine whether a gender-related name change has occurred, and what the BLP subject's name is after a gender-related change, we also depend on reliable sources. While verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, reliable sources are a prerequisite for making inclusion decisions.

For name changes in general, we have the principle articulated at

verify a current legal name or surname. Reliable sources for his current legal name or surname would be required to consider inclusion, after which DUE and various BLP considerations would apply. Newimpartial (talk

) 21:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Somewhat related to this, I added the birth name, which we know. The standard way to do this is within the "born" brackets and the infobox, like with Caitlyn Jenner. --IWI (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

And since the discussion to date has produce no consensus in favor of this inclusion, I have removed it. Newimpartial (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

This discussion from what I gather is about whether his surname is still the same as before, so I felt this was unrelated. Including the birth name of someone who has changed their name is a standard thing to do. --IWI (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Please refer to Archive 2. Newimpartial (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@

(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. GeraldWL 09:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Why would you chose that specific element of the reception to Elliot's announcement, to exclude? Newimpartial (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I am also confused as to why the Canadian PM's support was included, as there's no affiliation between them. I did not talk about the others because a) it is noteworthy to note someone calling him/her "an inspiration" for the trans/non-binary community; b) it is noteworthy to note other fellow celebrities expressing support. Netflix is not a celebrity, neither is Justin Trudeau. So I don't understand why should they be included. GeraldWL 13:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Why are you making these "affiliation" arguments? And if you are determined to make them, Netflix is Page's current employer (Umbrella Academy) and Trudeau is the head of government of the country of which he is a citizen. I don't see any valid argument why either would be UNDUE - we aren't supposed to use a celebry-o-meter to determine inclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, as I stated, I seek a reason as to why they're included, followed by the suggestion that if there's none, suggest removing it. That's secondary. I appreciate you giving a clarification as to why it's worth the inclusion. But you don't need to use such wording as if I'm damaging the encyclopedia just by inquiring. GeraldWL 14:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Both comments were covered extensively in reliable sources, which is prima faciae evidence for their inclusion being DUE. And I'm sorry if my tone came off as snarky, but the Trudeau one in particular is a bit sensitive. I have difficulty imagining that the inclusion of comments by US presidents, UK royalty or Prime Ministers would be questioned when they congratulate their nationals for their achievements or tough decisions. Newimpartial (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Gerald Waldo Luis, none of these tweets hold any encyclopedic value, especially singling out a couple of them does not make any sense. I also reported User:Newimpartial for their behavior on this page and incivility, but the page got protection so this issue never got a resolution. nyxærös 23:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Tweets are never notable or DUE for inclusion on their own, but tweets that are covered in multiple reliable sources become DUE for BALANCEd inclusion. Also, Nyxaros, you filed a complaint about me, without issuing the necessary notifications, for an alleged 3RR violation that never happened. Why you would want to point that out to the world, I don't know. Newimpartial (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

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)

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

 Not done:

MOS:DEADNAME says not to include the deadname, unless the subject was notable under that name. – Muboshgu (talk

) 18:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2021

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)

 Not done for now: please establish a

MOS:DEADNAME and the first section of this talk page. — TGHL ↗ (talk)

12:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I wish we could remove "formerly Ellen Page" too, but the current guideline in wikipedia,

MOS:DEADNAME says that we should not include deadnames unless the subject was notable under their previous name, Elliot was notable under his previous name. A brief mention once only allows readers to associate Elliot with his past notability. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK

14:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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)

 Not done

MOS:DEADNAME says not to include the deadname, unless the subject was notable under that name. Didn't you see the last two posts? Fyunck(click) (talk

) 20:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), I think this article needs an FAQ for the top of the page. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: That's probably a good idea. It may help some understand before they post, plus it gives us something to point to. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

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)

 Not done: As has been said many times on this page,

MOS:DEADNAME says not to use the deadname unless the subject was notable under it, and that is the case here. – Muboshgu (talk

) 02:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

These are all brand new users/ips making this request. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

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)

 Not done: see

MOS:DEADNAME and the many posts above. — TGHL ↗ (talk)

15:37, 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)

Please read

MOS:DEADNAME to see why we won't. In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, the birth name should be included in the lead sentence only if the person was notable under that name. One can introduce the birth name with either "born" or "formerly": – Muboshgu (talk

) 23:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Looks good. Short and to the point. I included a link to the MOS guideline and changed it to guideline instead of policy. I hope that's ok. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me. QueerFilmNerd^talk 03:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks great! I wonder about adding one sentence of rationale (i.e. why the deadname policy is the way it is). Not sure how that would be worded, though. warmly, ezlev. talk 04:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all for the feedback and edits. I'm transcluding it now. Not sure how to phrase the "why" of it but we could try to add a sentence for that. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

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)

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

@

• Sources just saying he is transgender: [8][9][10][11][12][13][14]
• Sources saying he is transgender and non-binary: [15][16][17][18][19][20][21]
• Sources saying he is a transgender man: [22][23][24][25]

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

Agreed, which is why I edited as I did. Saying he is transgender is definitely accurate; it is perhaps not as precise as it could be if Page would call himself a transgender man, but it is still not wrong in that case, whereas saying he is a trans man is wrong if he would not call himself a trans man. I think the people on both sides of this issue are in good faith and already know this, but I feel like it needs to be said for readers' context: an AFAB person being trans does not automatically make them a trans man, and as GreenComputer says, we should be cautious in identifying them as such, especially when there is no definitive word from Page himself, and other sources are not in consensus with each other. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

As both of you may have seen from prior Talk discussions, I agree that the article must be written cautiously. While it is possible for a person to identify as a trans man and also as nonbinary, the balance of probabilities is that Elliot probably identifies as one of these or neither, and the article should not proceed ahead of near-unanimous sourcing on the matter. Newimpartial (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree the current sources for transgender and transgender & non binary are far stronger and that my edit was not correct. Maybe the sentence should read " ...and subsequently as transgender and non binary in December 2020." As non binary is well supported in the sources as pointed out and a notable (separate) identity on the gender spectrum. (I am not explaining it well.) ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 19:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Thing is, much as I would like the nonbinary attribution to be accurate, I'm not sure it is. Not that I prefer primary sources, but it's reassuring when they coincide with independent RS, but in this case the only support from Elliot is the pronoun announcement, which provides an explanation (but not really a justification) of why a minority of RS have said "nonbinary" as well as "trans". I'd rather that the article didn't have to walk back "nonbinary", so I'm inclined to wait for better sourcing. An alternative might be an attributed statement ("Some news sources reported..."), but that isn't ideal when it comes to serious BLP claims like gender identity. Newimpartial (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

That is both a careful and respectful approach, honestly thank you. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 23:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Please see

privacy

concerns also apply.

More broadly speaking, I am unaware of any English-language communities where anatomy, rather than linguistic gender, is used to determine how people are addressed and discussed. Wikipedia reflects the usual practice quite impartially in this respect. Newimpartial (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I may refer you to the entirity of the English-language world, where those born with male genitalia and XY chomosomal arrangement are male, and those born with female genitalia and XX chromosomal arrangement are female. One would be hard-pressed to find a person who would not agree that those with the rare cases of chromosomal or physical discrepancies should be identified on a case-by-case basis. If a simple statement is all it takes for a since-birth attribute to be altered, why does Charles Manson's Wikipedia entry not state that he is a deity? This simply is not factual information and completely goes against the "very high standard of proof" which you claim to be in effect on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.7.242.215 (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Please see the article Sex assignment, which discusses a related issue in detail. The key point is that grammatical gender coincides largely (in English) with social gender, and in most of the English-speaking OECD countries social (and legal) gender are not restricted by chromosomes or anatomy. Newimpartial (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Social constructs being completely subjective dependent on the society, I'd argue that "social gender" has no place in impartial encyclopedic ventures. However, I'm recently informed of Wikipedia's policy on this and shall argue no further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.7.242.215 (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

If you live in a country where laws and administrative practices depend on socially assigned status as "male" or "female", you're living with social gender in real life; how it would be possible to construct an encyclopaedia that does not deal with reality in this sense is an exercise I will leave to the reader. Newimpartial (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Having read

MOS:DEADNAME, I see this is a policy issue with Wikipedia. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.7.242.215 (talk

) 23:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

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

I think so, yes. People will certainly still come here as a redirect from his former name. --Equivamp - talk 01:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• No - We do not need an "Elaine Page" warning at the top of the article. We didn't need it when it was under Ellen Page either. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Leaning towards yes, per the documentation at Template:Distinguish. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• No. I don't feel like this is necessary. I don't anticipate much confusion between the two names, given that both first and last names differ (first both in pronunciation and spelling). It doesn't fall under the standard "common misspelling" use case. Additionally, adding an unnecessary {{Distinguish}} at the top of the page could be seen as a way to place extra weight on his deadname, so we should be extra careful about necessity in this situation. Srey Sros^talk 05:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• No Elliot and Elaine are not similar enough to be confusing. Not even remotely. ValarianB (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• The confusion is between Ellen and Elaine, not Elliot and Elaine. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Well-aware, Ellen and Elaine are not similar enough to warrant this distinction either. ValarianB (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Leaning yes per the lead of Wikipedia:Hatnote. Someone looking for Elaine Paige but who searches for Ellen Page will end up here, so the hatnote is helpful. I don't think deadnaming is a concern as "Ellen Page" is bolded in the first sentence anyway. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Leaning no I'm not terribly bothered, but I don't think the names are close enough that a hatnote is necessary. --Jayron32 13:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• I'd say no. The titles (both Page's current name and former name) are not close enough to "Elaine Paige" to warrant it. GreenComputer (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• No. As some others have said, the names are different enough that we can get by without a hatnote, and that would be much preferred IMO as it would avoid deadnaming Elliot. (if the names were close enough I'd understand the interest behind keeping the hatnote, but since there is quite a difference anyway I think avoiding deadnaming takes priority). Note that before Elliot came out as trans there were already discussions about the relevance of the hatnote. GoodCrossing (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)