Talk:Elliot Page

He/they pronouns

Elliot announced he wants to be referred to using he/they pronouns. The pronouns throughout have quickly been changed to he, which I applaud all editors for, but I'm now seeing multiple edits changing some pronouns to they. I haven't been able to find something in the MOS for this, but shouldn't we stick to one pronoun to avoid confusion?

Until/unless we get a statement from Elliot about this, keeping pronouns consistent within the article seems sensible to avoid confusion. In the absence of any other reason to choose one pronoun over the other for the article, going with "he" (as the first-mentioned pronoun in the tweet) seems sensible. Tristanjlroberts (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

In the post they listed he/they as their pronouns. Should possessive nouns use the masculine form? Or should it be gender neutral? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.112.154.32 (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Normally someone saying their pronouns are he/they would be that both he/him/his/himself & they/them/their/themself/ves are ok. So from this tweet alone, lacking other information, both his & their would seem to be acceptable Tristanjlroberts (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I understand that that is what he/they means, but I am talking about Wikipedia specifically. Without further clarification (which there only seems to be far down the article) using he and they interchangeably leads to confusion as to whether a singular they is meant or not. Coretteket (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why possessive pronouns ought to be any different from any other pronoun form here. As in the preceding topic, I think consistency is probably the most important thing here for clarity. Until or unless we hear any news from Elliot, using he/him/his/himself is entirely in keeping with his stated wishes, and much clearer than alternating, using some sort of interleaved pronoun set, or any other mixed system Tristanjlroberts (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• I propose using "they/them" for works done as "Ellen", and "he/him" for works done from now on as "Elliot". Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Based on what? There is absolutely no reason to believe that's what he meant when he indicated that either he or they pronouns are appropriate. Honestly, I don't mean to sound rude, but based on the bizarre fights you're picking it seems like you haven't read MOS:GENDERID at all, which would seem to be a minimum standard for editing the article of a trans person. 2601:14D:4180:F5A0:CD56:C843:5B95:949B (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Vaseline, please note MOS:GENDERID. All these issues (what name/pronoun to use in which case, etc.) have been hashed out extensively over there. A bio talk page is not the right place to discuss changes those decisions. I recommend taking a look at the MOS's talk page to learn more about how consensus was reached. 李艾连 (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, MOS:GENDERID offers no guidance at all about how to decide on pronoun use when a person provides both "he" and "they" as preferred pronouns. I don't think Vaseline's proposal makes sense, but it doesn't make sense either to pretend GENDERID says things that it doesn't. Newimpartial (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right. I really just meant that it's not appropriate for us to make up a rule in one person's bio's talk page and then start applying it throughout their filmography. The right thing to do is avoid edit wars and leave any correct pronouns unchanged (e.g., if an article uses he or they, keep it that way, if it uses she, pick he or they and correct).李艾连 (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I think a consistent use of he/his is appropriate but both he/they should be specified when explicitly discussing pronouns. If WP:Reliable sources do otherwise, we can follow suit. Jmill1806 (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

This is one example of why. It can be jarring in some cases when a role with a female name is introduced even though it says "he" : "In the same year, he was cast in the television series Trailer Park Boys in the recurring role of Treena Lahey, which he played for 5 episodes." Caitlyn Jenner's page seems like it tries to use the last name in almost all cases when they were Bruce to avoid such an instance. I think we should try to do the same here. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

People who use multiple sets of pronouns do so in different ways. Some people want others to use them interchangeably; some do not, and some don't have a preference either way. So far, Elliot has not specified whether or not they use their pronouns interchangeably. 21:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Meganswikitime (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Meganswikitime

I would recommend using GLAAD's guidelines for articles that mention Elliot. 21:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Meganswikitime (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Meganswikitime

"the film, his character is a young woman who abducts a baby and tries to pass it on as his own."

That 'on as his own' at the end should be 'off as her own' as the pronoun refers to the character and not the actor. Omnitographer (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Pronouns such as he and him can be applied to all male persons, and pronouns such as they and them can apply to any person at all. It is up to us as the editors to choose when, for the purposes of writing, it is appropriate to use one rather than the other, or to not use any at all. Either male or neutral pronouns can be used to describe him in the past, present or future. Neutral pronouns have the advantage of avoiding potentially confusing language, such as saying that "he" won an award titled "best actress", but usually both can be used interchangeably. It's important to note that personal pronouns don't belong to people, they are tools that we use to convey meaning. We've done this with Caitlyn Jenner and Chelsea Manning, and we are more than capable of handling this again. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

For the time being, I believe we should err on the side of caution and use only they/them/their/themself/ves pronouns to avoid confusion, at least until Elliot Page provides further clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.190.166.40 (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I think we should avoid excessive use of pronouns. The lede can simply be:

Elliot Page[1] (born Ellen Grace Philpotts-Page; February 21, 1987)[2][3] is a Canadian actor and producer, who first became known for a role in the film and series Pit Pony (1997–2000) that won a Young Artist Award, and for recurring roles in Trailer Park Boys (2002) and ReGenesis (2004). Page also received recognition for a role in the film Hard Candy (2005), and won the Austin Film Critics Association's Award for Best Actress.

The title role in Jason Reitman's film Juno (2007) was Page's cinematic breakthrough which earned nominations for an Academy Award, a BAFTA Award, a Critics' Choice Awards, a Golden Globe Award, and a Screen Actors Guild Award. Roles in The Tracey Fragments (2007), Whip It (2009), Super (2010), Inception (2010), and Tallulah (2016) also earned praise. Page has also portrayed Kitty Pryde in two X-Men films (2006, 2014), produced and stared in the film Freeheld (2015), and made a directorial debut with the documentary There's Something in the Water (2019). Since 2019, Page has portrayed Vanya Hargreeves in the Netflix series The Umbrella Academy.

Page publicly came out as gay in February 2014 when presenting as a woman, and subsequently as transgender[1][4] in December 2020, announcing their new name as Elliot Page.[1]

remove his deadname

. Lemosaurchestra (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

No, as per WP:DEADNAME we list trans people's birth names if they were notable under it. — Czello 18:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Please see MOS:DEADNAME. The standard practice on Wikipedia is to retain deadnames in articles in cases where the BLP subject initially achieved Notability while using their deadname (exclusively or by preference). So there doesn't seem to be a policy-based reason to remove the deadname in this case. Newimpartial (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Would it be possible to move the deadname to a footnote at least? That keeps references to their work under the former, notable name, but does not put it front and center in the entry. Wwshreve (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wwshreve: seems pretty confusing to readers; he was very, very notable under it. policy is not to hide it; see Chelsea Manning Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning; December 17, 1987) .... DemonDays64 (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

But all biographical articles follow this structure: name, date of birth, name at birth, lead. BeŻet (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

We're an encyclopedia. Our duty isn't to minimise details like this, but to present facts: and it's very notable that he was known under the name Ellen very prominently for years. — Czello 19:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

While I understand the urge to move or minimize it, as generally for articles on living people we try to preserve privacy and avoid harm, in this case doing so would impede the encyclopedic function of this article. Since he was notable under his previous name and many people may still know him under his previous name (especially right now when he's been out for less than a day), we should note that the two names refer(red) to the same person in the lede. It's important to note that WP policy does not demand this for all trans people, as some other editors here have suggested. Per MOS:DEADNAME, it is only when trans people are notable under their deadname that we include it, and from there it is up to editorial discretion where in the article to include it. In this case, I think that because the announcement was so recent and because so much of his work was publicized under his deadname, for now it makes sense to include it in the lede. SreySros (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

When discussing Page in almost any context outside an encyclopedia, using his deadname would be inappropriate, but this is a special case. WP:SURPRISE is relevant here. He only changed his name a few hours ago; plenty of people who've seen people talking about Elliot Page on Twitter haven't even realized yet that they know who he is! It's our job to immediately communicate that he is, in fact, a very well known actor who got famous under another name in the most sensitive and careful way possible, and the current format certainly seems to be the best solution to that quandary. 2601:14D:4180:F5A0:CD56:C843:5B95:949B (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree, a footer move wouldn't be appropriate. I think the balance point should be including it in the "born as" section on the right, and a "born as" parenthetical statement at the start of the initial text of the article, and then perhaps one mention at at the start of early life. This should provide readers with a clear initial indication that this is the person formerly know by that name and that it has changed. Then throughout the rest of the article, it should be easy (outside of direct quotes) to use their new name, Elliot, to be respectful. At that point we will have cleared up any confusion and removed the surprise factor and served the function of an encyclopedia. What are other folks's thoughts on this? 176.251.174.199 (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying remove the deadname entirely. You're right, the name is notable -- put "credited as" in the filmography so people looking for the person who played the lead character on Juno (or any of his other roles) can find him. IMDB got this right. There is no need, however, to put it front and center in the VERY FIRST LINE, as that is extremely disrespectful to him at best. The issue here is clearly that MOS:DEADNAME needs to be fixed, moreso than arguing for a change for Elliot as an individuall. I just haven't been around on wikipedia in so long that i wouldn't even know who to talk to about starting down that road. 50.84.54.202 (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be easier to simply state in the career section that he was known by that name and became famous under it since that's pretty much the only reason why it is encyclopedic to mention it according to what I have read here. No one is "born as" people are given a name a little bit after birth by another person and this is to be taken into account, it is perfectly feasible to clarify a name change without being so specific considering many cisgender artists and people in general for many reasons have had a name change, too, for which the reason is not always explained. Similarly, I don't see the point in stating explicitly what gender a person was assigned at birth since we don't do this for cisgender people to clarify that they are not transgender. I don't see the interest in mentioning that as it is not, in itself, directly and/or exclusively the cause for the name change (as cisgender people change their names, and many transgender people, don't).

irrelevant provocation - does not contribute to the encyclopedia
since we don't do this for cisgender people to clarify that they are not transgender. We don't do this because cisgender is the default. It isn't by itself a mental illness like transgenderism is. We can mention that she thinks she's a boy now, but that's trivial.

Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Removing a verifiable fact, what their past name was, is censorship. Even censorship for a noble cause is still censorship. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Previous works

People are going around changing "Ellen" to "Elliot" on Page's previous works as a woman. Since those works have since ended, and that Page went by Ellen at that time, it doesn't make sense to me to change it to the current Elliot. I have reverted several of these. This seems to be like not changing the previous albums of "Lady Antebellum" to "Lady A" when the were created using Lady Antebellum. Anyone who does work on transgender bios know the practice for this? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense to me to change the name to Elliot as this is his current name. BeŻet (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

On what basis given she appeared as "Ellen" at that specific moment in time? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Just because that was the name he went by at that point, does not mean that it is his name now. It is impolite to say the least to deadname trans people unless they specifically agree to it. Amekyras (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Impolite? Unless they specifically agree to it? That is surely completely irrelevant, this is an encyclopaedic wiki... —Jonny Nixon (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Politeness is encyclopaedic. Pejorative or insulting language has no place on Wikipedia see MOS:GENDERID. ScienceDawns (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

It is neither pejorative nor insulting - just accurate - to refer to someone using the name they were universally known by at the time they did what made them notable. The subject of the article's feelings about their change of name should not enter into it. Beorhtwulf (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I was looking at Caitlyn Jenner as an example and seems that many for Jenner's Olympic performances as Bruce on other wikis is listed as Bruce. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think is a trans-specific issue. When people marry and change their last name, you don't refer to them by their maiden name even when discussing past work. BeŻet (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

When you reference them on that specific work when they had their maiden name, yes you do... Anyway, this has nothing to do with politeness, but rather Wikipedia standard and we don't go off of WP:OR. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia standard is set in MOS:GENDERID: Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions (in some cases adjusting the portion used may reduce apparent contradictions, and "[sic]" may be used where necessary). I'm not sure why you're discussing WP:OR, which doesn't seem to be relevant here. 2601:14D:4180:F5A0:CD56:C843:5B95:949B (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for linking that. In "Referring to the person in other articles" it says Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis. Generally, do not go into detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless they are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned. This may be the case to keep "Ellen" in her their (trying to be careful, seriosuly lol) previous works given it is not relevant to those works to change the name. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Vaseline - I've done a lot of trans bio edit work and can confirm that Wikipedia's policy is to always use the most recent name a person has gone by for all mentions of that person (except in "Born" part of summary and infobox). Editors who are updating his name to Elliot across articles are doing the right thing. I think Lady A is different because it is a group name not a person's name. Check out MOS:GENDERID and all the discussion that went on when writing those guidelines if you want to see more about the rationale behind that policy. 李艾连 (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

What's the case for Caitlyn Jenner then having "Bruce" in their past Olympic works? At least they give a note in some cases. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry - just read Newimpartial's comment and realized I was confusing the Bio MOS with the GenderID MOS. Newimpartial is correct that the there's not set policy here. The prevailing rule is avoid edit warring and to let other user's edits be unless there is a good reason to change them. Use of Elliot as his name throughout his filmography is appropriate and there's no reason to change it back.李艾连 (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Surely pairing his deadname with his correct pronouns would be more jarring (and surprising) than simply using his current name, and I can't see what benefit it adds. We should only use a deadname with a compelling encyclopedic reason, and there is none there. 2601:14D:4180:F5A0:CD56:C843:5B95:949B (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Strong agree. 李艾连 (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not going to the related pages myself, but would point out that in film articles, there could be a case for choosing "they" rather than "he" among the preferred pronouns if the DEADNAME is mentioned. Newimpartial (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@李艾连: Maybe we're arguing different things. I brought this here as "previous works" but was talking more generally on pages in which Page is mentioned, such as films and tv show articles and such. I brought it here because I thought it would make more sense than bringing it up at dozens of individual articles. At those pages, I think we should keep "Ellen" due to the fact that they were credited as such at the time of the making of the work. What we do here is another matter. Looking at Jenner's page, their mentions with regards to their previous work seems to try and use their last name wherever they can, something that I'd also be for here. Here, something that is jarring is where we refer to them as "he" followed by the role they played, which has a female name. That is where I think we should try and use Page's last name where we can. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Related articles seems like a difficult one. As far as pronouns go, if mentioning the deadname it makes sense to use he, it avoids misgendering while preventing a potentially awkward and WP:SURPRISE situation. I think that definitely seems sensible. As far as referring to him in other articles goes I see the argument in both directions.

* For keeping the old name: If someone watches and old film they will see deadname in the credits, likewise old articles on websites will likely retain that, as will old projects they've been in potentially. This means searching for it will occur with an expectation of that name in some cases. Minimizing surprise would thus argue deadname retention.

* Obviously, being respectful would strongly suggest going and changing the name.

I definitely can agree going on some giant crusade is not a good idea, however the best proposal I can think of would be "Elliot (né Ellen) Page" in mentions of the name in pages on old works? Importantly it should be just né not neé if so, as the former is the masculine form? That's just a possible thought though given we lack clear guidance on how to handle. 176.251.174.199 (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Some people are confusing policy with practice. While there is a policy to use self-declared pronouns for all references to a person across WP, according to MOS:GENDERID, there is not similar guidance about the names of notable persons. It will take some future RfC (presumably, at MOS:DEADNAME) to turn the varied current practices into policy. Newimpartial (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Vaseline, your quote is from the section on "Referring to the person in other articles". That's an issue to hash out on e.g. the Talk:Juno (film) page, where the question would be whether it's possible to use the correct name without adding a long explanatory tangent (I would argue "absolutely yes", for the record), but it's not relevant to this article. However, I must repeat that it really doesn't seem like you're arguing these issues from a place of understanding, either of trans issues or of Wikipedia's policies regarding biographies of trans people, and I would like to courteously suggest that maybe you sit that argument out and let editors with more experience of these situations handle it. 2601:14D:4180:F5A0:CD56:C843:5B95:949B (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm pinging User:Lugnuts and User:Iamnoahflores Who I've seen at some pages involving Page on her their (one slipped (: ). previous works. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Vaseline, please also note that you are consistently using the wrong pronouns for Elliot in this talk page. He uses he or they pronouns. Thank you. 李艾连 (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@李艾连: This is nothing but a personal attack because I've been using "they" or "their" the whole time..... Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

"Who I've seen at some pages involving Page on her previous works" - you literally just wrote this I don't know what to tell you. 李艾连 (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, just fixed that, not that it matters one iota to the discussion :) Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I don't know what the wiki-guide/policy is on past names, etc, but I know of a similar precedent with The Matrix and the the Wachowskis. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, it was actually The Matrix page where I got the idea of just adding a footnote on the infobox. If the name is not on an/the infobox, I put the note in a different appropriate place. I just find it a lot simpler — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamnoahflores (talk • contribs) 19:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• He would've been known as "Ellen Page" at the time of filming and releasing so therefore IMHO previous name should remain for previous work, new name should be used for now/future films. –Davey2010^Talk 19:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • That would be what's known on WP as a policy-ignorant contribution to the discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
    • In that case the policy is clearly counter-intuitive and needs revisiting. "Elliot Page" was not a name that anyone knew until a matter of hours ago, and we are misleading readers by talking about films involving Ellen Page as if they were starred in by a male actor with the name Elliot. Beorhtwulf (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• There was a discussion about previous film credits for transgender individuals last year regarding the Wachowskis: Talk:The Matrix (franchise)/Archive 2#Request for Comment - Crediting The Wachowskis. I think it would be beneficial if someone started a similar RfC either here regarding Page or at MOS:DEADNAME for a more general policy to avoid the back and forth on all the individual pages. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• This has been brought up before. All historical documents should reflect historical data. We don't change things after the fact. Going forward, Elliot Page will be Elliot Page, but unless Elliot gets all prior films they have worked on to change said credit to "Elliot Page", they will be "Ellen Page" for those films. THat isn't a disrespect to Elliot. It's the same reason the Caitlyn Jenner is not listed as an Olympic medalist, but Bruce Jenner is listed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, this is the solution worked out at Caitlyn Jenner. The extension of this as if it were a site-wide policy is opposed by many editors and by no means represents a standard practice. An RfC, presumably at MOS:DEADNAME, will be required to actually set policy in this area IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Bignole, "We don't change things after the fact" is not an accurate reflection of policy/guidelines given the Wachowski RfC that specifically determined the opposite for those two individuals. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly agree with Bignole on this. Beorhtwulf (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• This is really simple - MOS:DEADNAME says 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":. This relates to articles on the subject, but we can clearly take inspiration from it. At the absolute most, we should say Elliot Page (formerly Ellen Page). Best, Darren-M talk 20:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  Want to point out that while that is accurate to what DEADNAME says, it is in reference to this page. it is not about credits on other pages, which is what I thought this discussion was about. That's why we don't respell names that are misspelled, but that's how they were credited in that film/tv show/etc. The credit that exists for any of his works prior to transition would remain as "Ellen Page" on those pages alone. This page will say "Elliot Page", even when referencing those works.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  Bignole, Your first point is a reiteration of a point that I had already stated- that DEADNAME does not apply on pages which are not articles about the subject. My argument was that notwithstanding the lack of formal application, we should take a steer from it when writing about the subject in other articles. Best, Darren-M talk 20:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) (Moved from Talk:Smart_People § Recent_Reverts_Regarding_Deadnaming, partially redundant) Looking at the manual of style, MOS:DEADNAME seems pretty clear cut here—as far as I can tell, there's no need to reference the actors' former names except possibly on their first mention (e.g., John Smith (formerly Jane Doe) for the first occurrence per article). Perryprog (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • That isn't what MOS:DEADNAME says, though, nor is it a standardized practice. The last RfC on this topic only in 2020 established a site-wide norm not no mention non-notable deadnames. Deciding in what contexts a deadname can (or should) be used, when the person was notable with that name at the time, is going to require a new RfC, I'm afraid. Editors simply do not agree - some think the Caitlyn Jenner solution is a model, and others see it as an aberration, to pick an example not at random. Newimpartial (talk)
    • On the articles for older work, why not write "Elliot Page (credited as Ellen)" at the first mention and in the cast list, and otherwise just "Elliot Page"? That would avoid some confusion, and the new name would still be used. /Jiiimbooh » TALK – CONTRIBS 20:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
      • Jiiimbooh, I like this suggestion (in general, as well)—it's more clear than "formally known as", and correctly distinguishes the time frame of when an actor participated in a movie. Perryprog (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
        • Exactly as it is done in The Matrix on the infobox with the Wachowskis: The Wachowskis We could put a note that says Credited as Ellen Page next to Elliot's name at the infobox, and perhaps put it again next to their name at the Cast section. El Millo (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

      I would endorse this approach. Darren-M talk 20:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

      Strongly agreed. The director of, say, The Birds II is credited as Alan Smithee, but we don't say that the director was Alan Smithee - we say it was Rick Rosenthal (as Alan Smithee). See also Fast Times at Ridgemont High, which says Nicolas Cage as Brad's Bud (credited as Nicolas Coppola) It seems a very reasonable rule of thumb that, if a film credit doesn't match the name the actor's Wikipedia page is under (whether due to a misspelling or pseudonym or name change or any other reason), we should say it was "[Actual name] (credited as [incorrect name])". This seems to be exactly such a situation. 2601:14D:4180:F5A0:CD56:C843:5B95:949B (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

    • Sorry, I should've clarified: while the MOS does say this only applies to the article on the person themselves, I was suggesting (similar to what Darren-M said) that this should be used as a reference for what to do, as the MOS is somewhat vague in this regard. I agree that perhaps a new RfC could be needed for clarification, but in the meantime I believe we should stick to extrapolating from the closest, current guideline. This would mean at the most we state their former name (as mentioned in my original comment) on the first occurrence of it, but otherwise stick with their current name. Perryprog (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
      • I have some sympathy for this, but it isn't policy yet, and many editors prefer the approach used at Caitlyn Jenner and in the articles related to her Notability under her previous name. So I think an RfC would be best, and some patience and civility from all concerned until that happens. Newimpartial (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
        • Per WP:COMMONSENSE, any media worked on as Ellen Page should be credited as Ellen Page. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
          • Also not a policy-based argument. And the extreme version of this position has already been rejected by the community, re: The Wachowskis and The Matrix. Newimpartial (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
            • Rejected, shouted down and objectors painted in a poor light, same thing. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
            • I have the impression just from this talk page that these debates are brigaded. If the policy requires us to rewrite history and change all references to Ellen Page to Elliot even in films where she was understood by everyone in the world to be a female actor with a female name playing a female role, the policy is counter-intuitive, doesn't serve the interests of readers and needs revisiting. Because of the name change it would be reasonable to use Elliot going forward, but surely not retrospectively! Beorhtwulf (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
              • Brigading is a serious accusation, and should not be made without evidence. Newimpartial (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

          Darkwarriorblake, that's not clearly common sense, and I personally disagree. For one outside-of-wikipedia example, we can look to IMDB. The page for X-Men: Days of Future Past credits "Elliot Page" and then says "(as Ellen Page)". Our goal here is certainly not to copy IMDB, but we can take inspiration from them and see that common sense is at the very least not clear on this. Gbear605 (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

          • Well if IMDb does it... Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

          • A cast listing is not a credits listing, it is a list of the actors involved in a production, and using a name that they do not go by in that context is clearly not "common sense". PrincessChooChoo (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Proposal for RfC

• This is obviously a contentious area, as with previous similar discussions about gender identity, and I propose that we have an RfC on how to handle Page's credits on her previous works. Before creating an actual RfC, do other editors have an opinion on whether to determine a local consensus for Page (as was done with The Wachowskis) or whether this should be an RfC at MOS:DEADNAME to establish a sitewide guideline? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I would like to see it go to MOS;DEADNAME, because I think this is actually quite a typical case, but if the RfC is held here then editors on other pages will argue that it doesn't apply to them. Newimpartial (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Definitely agree it should go to DEADNAME. Damien Linnane (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • We need an actual rule, as in that case there was a much simpler solution where it could just be a last name; this is a very typical case, unlike that. So do it there for a sitewide consensus. DemonDays64 (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)
  • This was contentious for Caitlin Jenner, extensively discussed, and existing rules for DEADNAME and how to handle in historical records were established then. Waste of time to go over this issue yet again.Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
    • It’s been several years since then, and I dare say the balance of opinion has shifted somewhat. That's certainly the sense I get from the MOS:DEADNAME Talk page, at least. Newimpartial (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
      • Current consensus is a compromise, has worked since then and nothing has changed. Linked names and redirects take care of the issue in other articles and they don't need to change. For credits WP:FILMCAST and WP:TVCAST will conflict if names are changed to not match credits. For other articles there are historical sourced records being used for names. There is really nothing special about this as a name change and that is all it really is. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
      • Only real change done 3 months ago about his issue is avoid using old names in other articles if not notable under that name. This is not the case for this subject who has extensive notability under the old name. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I think this case is quite general, and so should set policy onward. I agree with following through with an RfC at WP:DEADNAME GoodCrossing (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I support creating an RfC at WP:DEADNAME. Thanks for raising this. Jmill1806 (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC link regarding MOS:DEADNAME

I just created the RfC here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC: updating MOS:DEADNAME for how to credit individuals on previously released works. I have never done an RfC before, so please feel free to fix it or create a new one if I did something wrong. Seemed like it would be beneficial to get this going so that people have a central location to post their thoughts and opinions. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I took a look at it, and don't have any improvements to suggest at this time. If that's your first RfC, I'll have you know it's probably the best-crafted first RfC I've ever seen. :) Newimpartial (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I largely copied and pasted from previous RfCs so it was a community effort to be sure. I also only put notices on a few articles' talk pages, but it looks like there is going to be plenty of discussion already. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

lock article

add somewhat of a protection to the article I can sense trolls about to make their way in GreenPeace460 (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree, can definitely feel immediate edit wars incoming Nekomancerjade (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

 Already done @Greenpeace460 and Nekomancerjade: it's semi-protected. maybe it should be stricter, idk; see WP:RPP. DemonDays64 (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The article has been semi-protected for a while (in indef), but we don't protect pages preemptively. The edits seem to be fine and issues can currently be dealt with quickly, if this becomes a problem we can go to RFPP. QueerFilmNerd^talk 19:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Gay?

It says in the article: "On February 14, 2014, Page came out as gay during a speech at the Human Rights Campaign's "Time to Thrive" conference in Las Vegas." (Later married a women)

And now Page is a man. So if he likes women and now he is a man he is no longer gay? So he is straight? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Clown World. A50E10AN500ER (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of gender, Page still came out as gay during that speech, so that sentence is correct in my opinion. If a sentence said, "Page is gay," we should adjust that, though as far as I know Page has not specified whether, as a man, he is bisexual, pansexual, straight, or something else. Jmill1806 (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know, Elliot has not at this point publically identified as a man. He has identified as nonbinary, trans, and queer, and uses he/him and they/them pronouns. I'm sure more will be revealed with time. Newimpartial (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Fair point. In either case, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. Jmill1806 (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it will be best to let the article subject make their preferred language clear in time. I don't think that sentence is currently too problematic because it is referenced to a particular time when Page did come out as gay and does not use language that necessarily means that information still applies accurately today. If Page has made statements disavowing that statement or in some other way expressing disapproval of using "gay" to refer to that period of his life, then I think it would be more appropriate to consider removing or modifying it. For example, we could add something like "On February 14, 2014, before Page came out as trans/non-binary [or most appropriate term for him]..." if needed. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

If they're not identifying as a man, what does "trans" refer to? 69.113.166.178 (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

It would refer to not identifying with their assigned sex at birth. You can be trans and gender-queer / non-binary. Reference here for additional relevant terms- https://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender Which we can also see there, "trans" would be associated with their gender identity, but does not specifically mean that they now feel like that also demands a shift in how they feel about their sexual orientation (per the discussion here about gay / lesbian as the appropriate term). Nawendana (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

"Gay" is now wrong, when using "he". It should say "he came out as a gay woman" or "as a lesbian" instead. That would conform to the identity status and what is meant by that homosexuality statement at the time it was made and what it meant ot be outed at that point in time. Post-factual revisionism icorrectly revises facts to become not related to facts in history, with facts not in evidence. It is a basic violation of WP:V, since it is not verifiable that "he came out as a gay man" as the text now implies it to be. -- 65.92.246.246 (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

It is also important to mention that Page didn't come out as a trans man, but simply as trans, and goes by he/they pronouns. At this point it's not correct to refer to him as a man, until and unless he states otherwise. Sennowa (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that maybe with time he will come out & be able to further answer these questions, so we can update the wikipedia page accordingly! I think at this point in time we don’t need to mention a definite sexual identity, but can mention their partner as “Elliot Page’s wife, Emma Portner”. Since Elliot is non-binary/transgender I don’t think its fair for us to label him as gay/bisexual at this point in time maybe a label like “queer” would be appropriate? or simply leaving it as stating that elliot has a wife! 234rly (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

234rly, in his Instagram post he identified himself as being queer. In terms of current sexual orientation, I believe that's what we should refer to. Perryprog (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

If in 2014 Ellen Page came out as "gay" when she was a woman, doesn't that mean she came out as "lesbian"? Isn't that the logical term? LGBT means Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender. So Gay in LGBT is "gay male" and Lesbian is "gay female". Or are we saying what she feels in 2020 is what she actually felt in 2014 when she made the announcement? Or are we writing her/his/their history when even he/she/them was a she and she taught she was a she and she came "out" and I am filling the blanks here.... a lesbian... in 2014. werldwayd (talk) 03:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

As you basically said, "gay" is a fairly generic term that can refer to anyone - lots of lesbians call themselves gay as do many bisexual people. I think we should probably say that Page came out as gay in 2014 and identifies as queer or something along those lines. Gbear605 (talk) 03:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Assigned female at birth

Hi I'm not a good editor or anything but I would like to point out as a trans person that the follow line: "He was brought up as a female from birth, and went by his birth name of Ellen until December 2020" should be phrased as "He was assigned female at birth, and went by his birth name of Ellen until December 2020"

"assigned female/male at birth" needs to be consistent throughout this article and throughout wikipedia. If that policy already exists then it needs to be followed. Lin.ll (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

That seems incorrect. It does not concern gender reassignment surgery at birth, which happened during the era of his birth, and to my eye, is what is currently implied by the statement. It should use a different terminology. Like at birth, he was medically determined to have biologically female anatomy and legally was determined to be female. Or somesuch. -- 65.92.246.246 (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The relevant style guidance recommends "assigned female at birth" and "assigned male at birth" for all trans people. We should follow the best practices identified in the relevant guides. Newimpartial (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with Lin.ll. Assigned female at birth is better than "brought up as female". --Zippy (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

"Assigned female at birth" suggests some arbitrary coin flip. Without a reliable source that states that doctors or parents or someone conspired to "assign" this person as female contrary to the evidence of their eyes, using that phrase would give the unwarranted impression that something other than the usual "it's a girl!" announcement happened. Beorhtwulf (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

If we want to be consistent with other articles about trans people who were notable before their transition, I don't think we need to mention that he was assigned female at birth. In Caitlyn Jenner's Early Life section, it doesn't mention gender at all. It just says that she was known as Bruce Jenner until June 2015. I feel the simplest thing would be to do the same thing here. Mention Elliot's birth name and how long he was known by that name, and then move on. By leaving it out we can also avoid semantic disputes about pre-op vs. post-op gender assignment, physiological gender assignment, etc that are happening in the edits right now. His transition/gender assignment aren't important to his early life so it's simpler to wait until the personal life section to mention it. TJScalzo (talk) 00:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

TJScalzo, this seems like the best choice in my opinion. If we wanted to be very precise with our language, stating "Elliot was designated female on his birth certificate" would be—from what I understand—the most correct choice. Perryprog (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Perryprog: Yeah I feel like the best way to avoid the edit warring that this sentence has seen is to just remove the phrase entirely. This kind of sentence (and its implications on society's view of gender) is controversial. It's fine to leave it out in the Early Life section where it's not essential to mention it, but it remains to be seen if there will be discord about phrasing in the personal life section. TJScalzo (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The fact remains that multiple authorities on style recommend the "assigned at birth" language for Trans people. The fact that certain editors DONTLIKEIT isn't really a reason to ignore the best guidance available. Newimpartial (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Of course. I don't disagree with that at all. I think "assigned female at birth" is absolutely the correct phrase to use in a case where we need to refer to Elliot before his transition. In the long term, I believe that's the phrasing that should and will persist. But since the announcement was just posted, this article is seeing higher than normal traffic. People who are looking to be contrarians will object to anything they don't think makes sense. My belief is that minimizing controversial phrasing where it isn't necessary for now allows those people to pass by without causing unnecessary conflict. TJScalzo (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

digression - this article Talk page isn't Trans 101

Except for the fact that, literally no one is "assigned" a gender at any point, birth or otherwise. They aren't assigned a sex either. One is psychological, the other biological. Doctors and parents have no say in either. The whole premise is nonsense. And you're already presuming Page's lifelong gender based on 5 minute old news and what, a single statement? You say it's policy to do this for all transgender, what about people's whose gender identity develop with age? You're completely ignoring genderfluidity by presuming anyone whose gender is different from their sex that there was some great wrong their entire life starting with a conspiracy by doctors to wrongly "assign" them a gender. Page could have been gender feminine until 20 minutes ago. You don't even know, and you're making proclamations retroactively about his birth. J1DW (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC) "And you're already presuming Page's lifelong gender based on 5 minute old news and what, a single statement?" It's accurate 5 minute old news, so yes. "You're completely ignoring genderfluidity" If he comes out as genderfluid than we can update the article as such. "presuming anyone whose gender is different from their sex that there was some great wrong their entire life" No one's necessarily claiming that, and he himself has stated that he views him being male as having been his "authentic" self. Again, if he comes out as genderfluid than we can change that. "some great wrong their entire life starting with a conspiracy by doctors to wrongly "assign" them a gender." No one's claiming that the doctors at his birth were purposely doing something wrong. No one's claiming that there was a conspiracy to assign him the wrong gender. "Page could have been gender feminine until 20 minutes ago." And if he confirms that then we can update the article to reflect that. "you're making proclamations retroactively about his birth" No, he is the one making implicit "proclamations" about his birth when he states that the sex assigned to him at birth does not match his current gender identity. Not that hard. Stavd3 (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Actually, as far as I can tell, Elliot hasn't used the term "male" in relation to his "authentic self", just "trans" (and queer). But the day is young. Newimpartial (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that "assigned male/female" is a rather terrible way of phrasing this and we don't have any reasons to use this in particular. If we can't agree on how to mention that Page was considered female for her early life, then we are better not explicitly mentioning that at all. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

You don't accept GLAAD as an authority, either? I'm guessing you may have issues with authority, then. :p Newimpartial (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

GLAAD does not endorse the phrase in their media guide. They use words like assign to discuss topics related to transgender people. GLAAD is also not a dictionary or writing style guide, and does not purport to be. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: I'm confused. GLAAD uses the phrase "assigned at birth" when discussing gender and anatomical sex multiple times throughout the page that you linked. Am I missing something? That feels like an endorsement of the phrase to me. TJScalzo (talk) 02:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. To expand on what I said previously, GLAAD uses the phrase to describe what transgender means. They do not endorse using this to describe an individual. That could be an endorsement for articles like Transgender, but not appropriate for a biographical article. Either way this is not a writing style guide, it's just a glossary of terms, in which "assigned" is not one of them. Cheers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

actual media style guides say "DO use affirming and inclusive language (for example: sex assigned at birth, gender identity)". It isn't really a FRINGE recommendation. Newimpartial (talk) 02:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The language we use reflects the nature of the encyclopaedia. Sometimes it's appropriate to talk about sex assignment, and other times not. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: I respectfully disagree. You're basically asserting that the phrase "assigned at birth" is an acceptable way of describing a theoretical transgender person, but not a real transgender person. Actual trans people use that phrase to describe the gender that they were assigned at birth. You're pushing back against a phrase that is widely accepted by the trans community as a whole, not just GLAAD. It doesn't matter if it's in a writing style guide or not. It's simply the most accurate way of describing that facet of someone's life. Whether you believe it or not, gender is a social construct. (Take a look at this article for a more in-depth explanation of the difference between sex and gender.) Everyone is assigned a gender when they are born based on their anatomy. Using the phrase "assigned female at birth" recognizes that that is how Page was described when he was born and now he identifies differently. I don't see why "assigned female at birth" has to be relegated to use only in theory when it also accurately describes real people like Page. TJScalzo (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2020

Change Ellen Page to Elliot Page! Elliot uses he/they pronouns. He just came out as trans. 46.140.3.10 (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

This has been changed already. Coretteket (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Website in Infobox?

I recently updated the link to Page's personal website so that it pointed to the live website rather than an archive on the Wayback Machine. Someone updated it so it used the URL template. Then about 15 minutes later @Hereistheo removed the website line from the infobox entirely. Is there any particular reason Page's website shouldn't be included? I understand that his website's domain name still uses his deadname, but it is his current website. It doesn't seem right to me that his website be omitted from the infobox because the domain hasn't been updated to match his preferred name. Is there a policy or general consensus that states the website should be removed since it's technically outdated? TJScalzo (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I support including the live website in the infobox. That's what "website =" exists for. If Page changes their website to a different URL, we should update the URL, but as it stands, that's still Elliot Page's website even if it's at the https://ellen.page URL. Jmill1806 (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd weakly suggest using the live website for now. However, [elliot.page] was registered yesterday, before Page announced his new name, so I suspect it will be updated before too long and this will cease to be an issue. Gbear605 (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• Agreed, we should clearly use the actual website. I'll restore it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Jmill1806 (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Infobox photo

Photo switched to today

File:Ellen Page, 2010 (cropped).jpg

Photo used until today

Looking at the page history, the infobox photo was, until today, File:Ellen Page, 2010 (cropped).jpg, when it was changed by CarterLennon to File:Elliot Page 2015.jpg. I presume this was done to use a less feminine photo, and if we had equal-quality options available, I think we'd clearly want to go with the less feminine one. Unfortunately, the new image is really low-quality: it's very out-of-focus, the flash makes the lighting unnatural, there's red eye, etc. Do we have any better options available, and if not, how should we weigh severe quality concerns vs. better aligning with his recent announcement about his identity? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, I think aligning to gender identity is more important than quality - though I have to admit I don't think the issues are that bad. It doesn't look obviously out of focus and I had to look really hard to see the red-eye (to be honest, it still looks just like brown to me). Maybe I'm blind, but it probably works if we can't find a better one. Darren-M talk 21:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I would argue that this photo works as a suitable alternative except that it was uploaded without licensing information. If there's a way to determine that it's licensed under Creative Commons, then it could be used as a high quality photo that's less overtly feminine. TJScalzo (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@TJScalzo: File:Elliot Page.jpg is a copyvio of [1]. GreenComputer (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@GreenComputer: Ah, well there you go. I didn't know where the photo came from since it had just been uploaded today. TJScalzo (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Something ironic about Wikipedia editors deciding what the "correct" image of him is based on what you decide he should look like since announcing he was trans. It's not like one photo was taken under duress. They are both Page and you're literally conspiring to portray him in a certain way to match a gender norm that you're comfortable with. J1DW (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I think this is more about the principle of least astonishment, and it would also be more accurate to show a more recent image, which are less "overtly feminine". El Millo (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not the gender norm we're most comfortable with, it's the gender norm he's most comfortable with. Stavd3 (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't like WP trying to arbitrate which photo is most aligned with someone's identity. It should be about quality images and which one is a more common look for the person. As far as I know, the photo on the left is a normal look for him. Plenty of people who identify as trans and non-binary look like the left photo more than the right one. Jmill1806 (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

If you look at Page's social media, the newer photos are much more like our newer image than the 2010 image that we had been using. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Ssilvers, an additional wrinkle is that, to my understanding, we shouldn't use WP:Recentism as a factor when selecting a lead image (something I've seen before at Gaddafi and at a basketball player whose name I forget, although I'm not sure whether it's formally laid out at MOS:IMAGE or somewhere else). Since Page has presented as feminine for much of his career, I could see a case that it's valid to use the 2010 image, even if it's not how he presents currently. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: I orginally used Page's old pronouns in the above comment and have corrected myself. My apologies if anyone noticed and was offended; the error was just me taking a bit to update my mental model of Page's gender identity, not any sort of malice. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Without making any specific recommendations, I would suggest that MOS:GENDERID concerns should be understood as more urgent, in such cases, than quibbles about WP:RECENTISM. Newimpartial (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but I do not think MOS:GENDERID is an argument for the left photo over the right photo. We do not know whether Page's gender identity is more aligned with the photo on the left or the right. Jmill1806 (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the case has not been made for those concerns to take priority. The subject of this article is most well known for films acted in under the name Ellen, with a typically feminine appearance. If the prominence and notability of films starred in as Elliot one day eclipses those released to date then the feminine-looking photos would be relegated to a section on "early career" or something, but we are a long way from that point literally a few hours after the announcement of the name change. Beorhtwulf (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I think NeptNarwals' comment below, that Elliot hasn't looked like that (ultrafeminine) in years, is to the point, jmill1806. And there isn't any gender policing involved in saying so.

As far as Beorhtwulf's comments are concerned, I am not saying that GENDERID should be uber alles, just that it should be one consideration for a BLP subject. It's not like Elliot's career has gone over a cliff; something from the Umbrella Academy period ought to work well. There was a recent RfC at MOS:DEADNAME that was closed with don't be a dick, which might also be a relevant consideration here. Newimpartial (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like we are agreed actually that questions of an individual's self-declared gender identity should be considerations when writing an article about them, and thank you for clarifying that you don't see GENDERID as a kind of trump card. It does appear to me looking at this talk page and some of the debate about policy in this area that some people unfortunately do take the view that anything relating to gender identity does indeed take precedence over other important considerations, such as least astonishment, reflecting reliable sources (which include old sources), and the need to avoid recentism. Beorhtwulf (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The principle of least astonishment is an argument against the 2010 photo, not for it. If I was a random person going to this page, I'd be really surprised to see this super-old photo where he looks much more feminine than he does on social media, or in most of his film appearances, even those from that time period. 73.210.222.217 (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I think you know, Beorhtwulf, that that is not what I meant. I am saying that GENDERID is not a trump card, but it does reflect community consensus on concerns that are relevant for BLP subjects (viz. do no harm), and which you seem at great pains to ignore. The need to avoid recentism is not an argument to use an image from 10 years ago, which doesn't correspond to the subject's core public image at any point in time, to make a POINT and produce quite unnecessary ASTONISHMENT, compared to, say, a photo from the subject's latest period of media attention. Newimpartial (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The photo on the left is far higher quality. While the one on the right is more recent, it is substantially worse. I don't think the gender argument really applies here - it is not for us to decide how well Page's appearance matches expectations for his gender in photos. This is likely to be a bigger discussion, and I imagine we will find a better photo than both eventually. Per WP:BRD I'm going to revert to the old version until that discussion reaches a conclusion. Awoma (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Just a comment from a random, anonymous trans person: if this was a wikipedia article about me, I'd be *much*, much happier with a more recent (but lower-quality) photo than a decade-old (but higher-quality) picture. 73.210.222.217 (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Ultimately this will be moot, as we'll be able to find a photo which is both high quality and recent. Awoma (talk) 23:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Thinking about this more, I'm not sure I'd even characterize the older photo as "high quality." It has better lighting and focus, sure, but it doesn't look like the subject of the article. I think that's as least as important as a measure of "quality". 73.210.222.217 (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

That may very well be true, but it's not something that should determine the editorial choices of an encyclopedia, which should place a priority on documenting subjects as they are known to the world, not as they might wish to be known. If there was an article about you and your most notable work was done ten years ago, a decade-old photo would be the most appropriate choice. Even more so if it was of higher quality than a recent one. Beorhtwulf (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Are you joking???? Elliot is currently starring in the third most popular show on Netflix. His coming-out tweet has over one million likes. He's still 'notable'. 73.210.222.217 (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not disputing Page's current notability. What I am disputing is that notable work done since the announcement of the new name and pronouns eclipses that done under the name Ellen. Maybe it will one day, but it certainly doesn't yet! Beorhtwulf (talk) 00:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Even in the movies he's most famous for, his appearance isn't as ultrafeminine as in that 2010 photo. In fact, when he was doing a lot of red carpet appearances around the time of Juno and Inception, there was substantial commentary at the time about how uncomfortable he looked with that level of hair and makeup. 73.210.222.217 (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Chiming in here; there's some serious whiplash involved with the 2010 photograph, as Page hasn't looked like that (ultrafeminine) in years. I second a YES to keeping the 2015 image until a better one is found. NeptNarwhals (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think the newer picture is that noticeably different in quality for most people's screen size and computer and mobile. Considering the picture is 10 years old and Page hasn't look like that in a while, I don't think the quality is significant enough to make a difference. It does seem important to take people's feelings into account (such as not using mug shots), and does anyone genuinely believe she would prefer the older picture? I also support keeping the newer image until a higher quality one can be found. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• The photo from 2010 is pretty unrepresentative of Page's current look.[2] I'd say go with the photo on the right. It's a little out of focus, and it looks like it comes from a random fan encounter in a bar or something, but it's not a total disaster. Plus, it's more recent and more representative. Bueller 007 (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with using the relatively more feminine image of Page, as this is an appearance that is commonly associated with them, especially compared the lower quality image. Do we not have any other more recent images of Page? This will become less of an issue as time goes by and images of Page with a relatively masculine appearance become more numerous, as with Caitlyn Jenner and Chelsea Manning. For now the most ideal solution is to find an image that is both recent and high quality, which is neither of these two. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Changing pronoun in title of ref article

A 2017 source in the article is titled "Ellen Page says Brett Ratner outed her as gay in sexual remark during X-Men filming" (currently footnote 88). In the changeover to Elliot's pronouns, someone changed the footnote to say: "outed him". I changed the footnote back to "her", since that is the actual title of the source article and would even interfere with finding the article again if the url ever changed. Another editor reverted my change, citing BLP. Shouldn't it be "her", since it is the actual title of the source article? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The reverting editor reverted their own edit because it was a mistake. You're right that the title of the source article should not be changed, unless the literal title on the URL is changed. Jmill1806 (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2020 (2)

In the section headed "2016–present: Directorial debut and other work", change "In the film, his character is a young woman who abducts a baby and tries to pass it on as his own" to "In the film, his character is a young woman who abducts a baby and tries to pass it off as her own".

While Elliot Page's pronouns are he/they, he plays a character in the film whose pronouns are she/her. Also, it's clear from context that the intended meaning is "pass it off" (to pretend something is something else), not "pass it on" (to hand something along to another recipient). Schesis (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

 done This was part of a mass correction of pronouns throughout the article. This particular pronoun refers to the character played by Page, so should be "her." Awoma (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done I replaced "on" with "off" to correct the sentence's meaning. TJScalzo (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Sexuality

Shouldn't the article no longer characterise Page as gay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.19.84.182 (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

It should refer to Page as having come out as a lesbian. This would remove the ambiguity post transition. It isn't inappropriate to refer to someone's pre transition gender by referencing their previous identification of sexual orientation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.131.243.143 (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Mentioning that he came out as gay in February 2014 is significant to the lead because it was his first acknowledgement of being part of the LGBTQ+ community. It's there as a historical fact, not necessarily as a current characterization. In his post today, Page referred to himself as queer. Language used in the lead and the personal life section could be changed to reflect that Page now defines his sexuality as queer, not gay. TJScalzo (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

MOS:DEADNAME has an RFC

MOS:DEADNAME has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Non-binary

Has there been any indication from Page himself that they are non-binary? I can see one news source stating this, but they may be incorrectly inferring that from Page's acceptance of neutral pronouns. I intend to remove this unless there is more credible reporting on this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

You don't trust CNN and NBC? That's...interesting. Newimpartial (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, non-binary and transgender are not mutually exclusive. (Many people who identify as non-binary also identify as transgender, as non-binary is a gender identity.) It seems the current indication is that he neither identifies as a man or a woman, so I believe non-binary is currently fine. A more LGBTQ+ centered article and his Instagram post are two pages worth checking out. Perryprog (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Do we have an instance of Page describing himself as non-binary or not? Such a quote is not contained in the GLAAD article, and the Instagram post no longer exists. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

We rely on reliable sources. I say again: what's wrong with CNN and NBC? Newimpartial (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Come on, everyone knows they're biased as hell. Especially CNN. If you don't see that then you're living in a fantasy world. A50E10AN500ER (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Biased source != unreliable source. See WP:RS The Verified Cactus 100% 04:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not aware of any community consensus that CNN or NBC are biased, and it is important to remember that biased sources are not necessarily unreliable. WP:RSP is always a good general guide. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As explained in WP:BIASEDSOURCE which is in WP:RS, being biased does not automatically mean unreliable. A lot depends upon the WP:RSCONTEXT of the source whether it's WP:UNDUE. It seems to me that most reliable sources are "biased" to some degree, but that doesn't mean what they're reporting should be automatically discounted. If, however, only a few media outlets are only making this claim, then perhaps it should be treated with care and not included for the time being to avoid any WP:RECENTism issues. Is there some particular reason why information such as this needs to be added asap? Perhaps things will be clarified after more time has passed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

What's wrong with them is that they may be reporting Page identifies as non-binary without it being true. I've seen no evidence on either the CNN article or the Variety article. Many sources aren't reporting Page identifying as non-binary. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I say again, we follow reliable sources because they're, you know, reliable. Are there any reliable sources suggesting that Elliot does not identify as nonbinary? Newimpartial (talk) 01:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Most reliable sources are not making the claim, and neither does Elliot Page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:NOTTRUTH.  Aar  ►  05:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Onetwothreeip: "[the source(s)] may be incorrectly inferring that from Page's acceptance of neutral pronouns." He didn't say anywhere that he is non-binary. It's best to be cautious about this, as this question is not clear. - Daveout(talk) 01:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

When you read the linked sources, they all seem to say that Page is Non-Binary without his ever actually coming out and saying so. Just because CNN and NBC made assumptions based on they/them pronouns doesn't necessarily mean that assumption is correct. Without word from Pages himself on the subject, it's all speculation. -- spazure (contribs) 01:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but right now we have reliable sources for trans, reliable sources for nonbinary, and no reliable sources for trans male (which onetwothreeip tried to add to the article). If that changes, we will correct, but our job isn't to overthink what the sources say. Right now, we have no sources saying they aren't nonbinary (or trans). Newimpartial (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

We don't need to add "transgender male" as that's implied, but there have been sources saying so. There is no reason for a source to say that anybody does not identify as non-binary. None of the sources quote Page as identifying as non-binary. We do not operate on any deadlines, so if it becomes clear from Page's statements that they identify as non-binary, we can add that to the article when and if it occurs. If we are reasonably unsure of something, we can always wait for more clarity, which is far better than having to retract something later. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The WP:Reliable sources (e.g. [3]) say that he describes himself as non-binary (not just that he is non-binary, but that he personally describes himself that way). Given reliable sources are reliable, this means that Page has stated that he is non-binary. Just because some sources do not mention this doesn't mean anything (every source does not have to include every piece of information). If there are reliable sources saying that he describes himself as a man, please link to them (note that a source just saying transgender is not the same as a source saying transgender man, as non-binary people can be transgender too). If not, I see no reason why him being non-binary can't be added to the article. GreenComputer (talk) 02:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not Page identifies as non-binary, the pronouns (he/them) seem essential, at least for right now. I think we should add them back to the lead. They are not redundant because trans/non-binary can be accompanied with different pronouns, and the article itself only uses "he," leaving ambiguous whether it's he/they, he only, he/they/she, or something else. Jmill1806 (talk) 02:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Both male and neutral pronouns apply to literally every male person, transgender or not. The article should use both, so we don't need to state which pronouns we use. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

To use both would be inconsistent and confusing. Choose either of them and go with it. El Millo (talk) 04:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this. Either one works (absent a statement of preference from Elliot), but once we choose one, we should stick with it; otherwise, the language will get confusing. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2020

can you change the "Birth name" to "Dead Name" as that is the term used in the community, if not I understand, thank you for reading. Fulw (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done I updated the phrasing to match what's used in Caitlyn Jenner's article. TJScalzo (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2020 (2)

Remove link for Naya Legend of the Golden Dolphin as the linked material is not representative of the title NotABumblebee (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for spotting that. TompaDompa (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Elliot Page

Discussing here rather than talk page for the benefit of other editors, but I'm just confirming you're intending to include a tabulated awards section within the article Koavf? I don't feel it's current content equals that of the version of the subjects awards page prior to you changing it to a redirect back here. That and it's been an hour since you did such. — IVORK _Talk 02:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I assume they deleted all of the content on the page because there were no sources. While I don't think that actually makes it original research as Koavf asserted in their edit comment, it does mean it can't be verified. With the number of awards that Elliot has won, I feel it would be fine to list them on a separate page. We just need sources to prove each of them. TJScalzo (talk) 02:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Is she still a lesbian?

Is she still a lesbian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.44.225.54 (talk) 02:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

That's not for us to speculate or discuss. We stick to verifiable facts covering their various announcements and stick to that. If they want to clarify that, they can comment on that themselves. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2020 (3)

Elliot uses both he/him AND they/them pronouns, if you could alternate between them instead of using solely he/him to respect their identity that would be nice. 64.93.111.105 (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how feasible it would be to alternate between two different pronouns. It's important to maintain readability and having multiple pronouns within the same context could be confusing for readers. My understanding of Elliot announcing he uses he/they pronouns was that either one is fine. I don't think it means we're expected to routinely swap back and forth, especially within the same article. TJScalzo (talk) 03:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Many transgender people who prefer he/them pronouns, like Page does, just mean that they're equally fine with both, not that they want them to alternate. In addition, GLAAD suggests

DO use he/they pronouns when referring to Elliot Page. This means you can use either he/him or they/them pronouns to refer to Elliot. Both pronouns are acceptable. If you need to explain this to your audience, you can include a sentence that says "Elliot Page uses both he/him and they/them pronouns; this story will use he/him when referring to Page."

Gbear605 (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks!, y'all rock

Really impressive to see page editors work through this, thanks for your hard work. As a clueless bystander, it seems it's going better than, e.g. Chelsea Manning. Hugs to all, I'm off to donate. (Can sections be nominated for deletion? ;-) ) -- Skierpage (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)