Talk:Elliot Page/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Pronouns

The personal life section lists Elliot's pronouns as "he/him or they/them." In reality, his pronouns are "he/they," in accordance with their coming-out tweet. I would like to suggest a change in the description of Elliot's pronouns, perhaps phrasing it as "Elliot uses he/him and they/them pronouns (which he lists in his coming out letter as he/they )." ChaosTheory05 (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

References

I'm not sure I understand the issue. No-one requests that other refer to them with only nominative ("he"/"they") and not objective pronouns ("him"/"them"). If there's no ambiguity in the coming-out letter then there would be no reason to quote it directly—we rewrite information in our own words wherever we can. (May have got the grammatical terms wrong as I'm not an expert.)

I notice you've tried to sign your message with "Chaos" but by changing the "(talk)" link. This isn't how signatures are intended to work (you've linked to an unrelated user's talk page). You created the signature correctly in the first edit but it shows your IP address unless you create an account and edit with that account. — Bilorv (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

My issue is not with the use of objective pronouns, my issue is with the use of the word "or" which puts the choice of pronouns out of the hands of the addressee and into the hands of the addresser. In coming out as trans, shouldn't Elliot have the top priority in how his pronouns are described? My proposal references Elliot's wording of his pronouns, and also solves the issues presented by the use of the word "or." ChaosTheory05 (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

What is it in the coming-out tweed that leads you to parse it as "and", rather than "or"? Newimpartial (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

According to this article from Insider , Elliot's pronouns are "he/him and they/them" (notice the word and rather than the word or) and that when people's pronouns are stated as "he/they" or "she/they" that means that one should use both pronoun sets, thus meaning that the word "and" is more inclusive and accurate than the word "or." ChaosTheory05 (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

In the insider piece, I don't see any support for when people's pronouns are stated as "he/they" or "she/they" that means that one should use both pronoun sets - perhaps you had another source in mind? Newimpartial (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The section of the article titled "Rolling Pronouns" describes he/they pronouns as meaning that one should use both sets. The way of doing so depends on the person, and some people may prefer that the addresser stick with one set or the other. The word "and" is a far more inclusive way of describing this than the word "or." ChaosTheory05 (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The takeaway line for the "Rolling Pronouns" section seems to be People may use multiple pronouns for a number of reasons - your suggestion that some people might prefer that the addresser stick with one set or the other is undoubtedly true, but is OR when applied to Page without a source. And I disagree that "and" communicates even this sense better than "or". Newimpartial (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

But in the sense that many others prefer usage of both sets alternately, would you not agree that this is communicated better with "and?" Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that Elliot described their pronouns as "he/they," not as "he/him or they/them." If the issue is with communicating this in a way that the average reader can understand, then I would argue that "and" communicates this concept in a better way. We don't know for sure how Elliot uses his pronoun sets, whether they prefer alternating pronouns or different pronouns on different days, but in any case, "and" communicates their pronouns as well as or better than "or." ChaosTheory05 (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

No matter what is decided in regards to the use of the word "and" versus "or," a direct reference to Elliot's exact phrasing could also be helpful. ChaosTheory05 (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Related question

Since Page came out as transgender on December 1, 2020, shouldn't the pronouns be she/her for dates before December 1, 2020, and only changed to he/him for dates on and after December 1, 2020? After all, Page still identified as a woman before December 1, 2020. For example, on February 14, 2014, Page identified as a gay woman, so it would be weird to say that "he identified as a gay woman."

2001:8003:D84C:4600:E949:D8F2:9EBF:8F22 (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Please see MOS:GENDERID; according to the Manual of Style, pronoun changes are retroactive. The kind of anomaly you note can be avoided through the judicious use of surnames. Newimpartial (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Birth name

@SreySros: I see you've reverted my edit, arguing that Page's birth name is a hyphenated name. However, there is no indication anywhere in our article that he has ever had a different surname at all. I've consulted the web and there are various search results that confirm your memory – for example this one, which says that Page was known as E. Philpotts-Page early in his career. I'm not sure if The Canadian Encyclopedia is a RS, though, let alone correct (a complication is that this name is not necessarily the name found in the birth certificate from his childhood, nor the name he was known as in childhood, although it seems likely). Such a fact should be easily confirmable through top-quality sources, including printed books (Google Books has a number of hits, but even here care should be exerted because incorrect claims from Wikipedia can spill over to print). I'm puzzled that it is not included in the article yet. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Please see the previous Talk page discussions, which have concluded that (1) Page was not notable under his birth name and (2) he was notable as "Ellen Page". According to MOS:DEADNAME, only notable former names are to be included in the BLPs of trans people, and this birth name was never notable.

Prior to Elliot announcing his transition, his birth name was in the article, but the WP:BLPPRIV provisions are more demanding when it comes to trans BLPs, and per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, we do not include all biographical material just because it happens to be verifiable. Newimpartial (talk) 13:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

But the "Early life" section claims that he was "originally named Ellen Page". This is clearly incorrect, then. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I have tried to fix that. Newimpartial (talk) 03:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Florian Blaschke and I think the time has come to resolve the ambiguities of MOS:DEADNAME with an RfC at MOS:BLP. A lot of users expressed similar concerns in the RfC at the top of this page but we were basically ignored. - Daveout(talk) 03:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

If you want an RfC to decide whether in the case of a person who is notable by a professional name, then transitions to a new gender identity and name, we should include the birth name in addition to the professional name: well, I'm sure WT:MOSBIO has seen more pointless RfCs than that. However, given the consistent results of multiple, largely-attended RfCs concerning MOS:DEADNAME, I do not forsee any likelihood that the community will decide to include them. Still, whatever floats your boat. Newimpartial (talk) 03:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2021

please take out elliot’s dead name, for that is transphobic. “elliot was previously named [dead name] paige” 72.94.195.56 (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: He was previously notable under the name "Ellen Page," so Wikipedia includes that name per MOS:DEADNAME. ezlev.^talk 00:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done.(edit conflict) See the FAQ at the top of the page, the previous discussions above as well as the guideline page MOS:DEADNAME. We normally exclude deadnames from articles, but when a subject is notable under their deadname, like Elliot Page is, we include it for encyclopedic reasons. Some people might not know that he came out as trans and still know him under his deadname, and it would compromise the encyclopedic purpose of WP to remove it. Srey Sros^talk 00:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Photo change

Change the photo on his page to one of the photos from his Time Magazine photo shoot; I feel like this would be a more genuine and accurate reflection of who he is now rather than a photo of him from over half a decade ago. 2600:1702:3D90:C680:1541:2264:3CA5:75E3 (talk) 08:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but per the Image Use Policy, Wikipedia can generally only accept images that are either not copyrighted or licenced under certain Wiki-compatible licences. Neither is likely to be true of images from a commercial photoshoot. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 08:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible the Time magazine cover could be used in the article under WP:NFCC simliar to that of the Vanity Fair cover on the Caitlyn Jenner page?  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Spy-cicle: not as the lead image, I'd expect. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Elli: I was referring to the main body in line with seen on Caitlyn Jenner.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Spy-cicle: that could be possible, given that it looks like it itself attracted significant attention. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Spy-cicle, yes, I think we could use the cover in the article body. Probably in the "In the media" section, in place of the current image of the mural in The Hague. The Vanity Fair image is fair use because it's only used in the context of discussion of the magazine cover itself, which also takes place about the Time cover in this article. The Summary and Licensing sections of the Vanity Fair image are probably a good model for how to set up the licensing in an upload of the Time cover image. ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 19:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Elli and Ezlev: I have added the cover to the article. It currently only contains a vague caption of Page's appearance on Time was subject to commentary (with some refs) and should be adjusted and expanded by someone who is more familiar with the topic (in addition to the content in the body about the cover). I do not think think it is worth removing the mural however.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Elliot Page's picture

Shouldn't we use an image that portrays Elliot's gender post coming out? Nicotine04 (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome to propose one, but it would have to be freely licensed or in the public domain (or your own work).  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2021

Please remove the lines that say "Ellen Page." It is disrespectful to use his deadname. 2600:6C60:427F:F165:E43F:D70A:E8E6:42CD (talk) 04:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: per MOS:DEADNAME (and the FAQ at the top of the talk page), a living transgender or non-binary person's former name should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under it, which Elliot Page was. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and this guideline exists to provide encyclopedic information and prevent confusion. ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 04:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

A couple of things

Reading over the page, I noticed a couple of problems with the personal life section that I wasn't quite sure how to fix myself. Firstly, the sentence "The COVID-19 pandemic gave Page time and space to be transgender" seems slightly out of place with the rest of the text and I think it could probably be worked in better. Secondly, since Page and Portner are now divorced, should the sentence "His wife Emma Portner expressed support for him..." be altered to reflect that somehow? Redandsymmetry (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 April 2021

Where it says “formerly” in parentheses — perhaps don’t mention his deadname? 64.222.235.174 (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

See the FAQ at the top of the page, the previous discussions above as well as the Deadname guideline page. We normally exclude deadnames from articles, but when a subject is notable under their deadname, like Elliot Page is, community consensus on Wikipedia is to include it for encyclopedic reasons. Some people might not know that he came out as trans and still know him under his deadname. Srey Sros^talk 17:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 April 2021

Requesting a change for this line:

Page explained his decision to speak openly about his gender identity was partially prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic, and partially by the anti-transgender rhetoric in politics and the news cycle.

To this:

Page explained that the decision to speak openly about his gender identity was partially prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic, and partially by the anti-transgender rhetoric in politics and the news cycle.

Requesting this change for grammar and text flow reasons. Techpriest Dominus (talk) 12:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. I think using "his decision" is better writing as it shows ownership and agency over the decision. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: I changed "Page explained his decision..." to "Page explained that his decision...", which hopefully satisfies both the original request and the response. ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 16:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 April 2021

Hi, I am requesting that you change Elliot Pages picture to a recent one. There are plenty. 2600:8801:9003:4500:9D11:14CE:237A:1106 (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please find a free-to-use image that you wish to be used, and then gain consensus to support the change, then re-open your edit request. --Equivamp - talk 17:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 April 2021

would you please update elliot's picture. one can be found here:

https://instagram.com/elliotpage?igshid=1v2fjogpdxsws

thanks 160.177.17.21 (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: We can't take photos from Instagram due to copyright protections. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 May 2021

The name needs to be corrected from Elliott to Ellen as well as the male gender pronouns need to be corrected to her female pronouns because she is a biological woman. 65.184.126.30 (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see MOS:GENDERID. --Equivamp - talk 22:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 May 2021

Elliot Page should not be referred to as "formerly ellen" in his wiki page, this is what's called deadnaming and is extremely disrespectful to do to trans individuals, as it focuses on who they were known as before transition instead of who they are now. 173.233.4.172 (talk) 08:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please refer to MOS:DEADNAME and the many similar discussions above. Equivamp - talk 09:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 May 2021 (2)

Looking to update the photo of Elliott Page now that they have transitioned from Ellen.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2021/04/elliot-page-finally-feels-able-to-just-exist/amp

https://time.com/5947032/elliot-page/ Johnzinck (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Images under copyright cannot be accepted. If you have access to a proper image, please upload it to Wikimedia Commons and then submit it here for review. --Jayron32 14:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Elliot PageExtended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 May 2021 (3)

Can you please update the photo for Elliot Page’s Wickepedia page. It is from 2015 and I think a current one is in order. Thank you. 47.54.142.153 (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. We don't have any legal-to-use images available for the article. If you have access to a proper image, please upload it to Wikimedia Commons and then submit it here for review. --Jayron32 14:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

New photos

New high profile photos of Page were published by Time, possible to update the article to use one of those in the infobox? they seem better representative of him. licensing may be a concern. anna328p // talk 23:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Those images would be great if we could use them, but have a look at Wikipedia:Image use policy the is probably copyright issues in using those images. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 23:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems to align with NFCC anna328p // talk 12:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I fear WP:NFCCP fair use rules are applied very strictly, but if you can satisfy all 10 of the criteria, then great :). ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 19:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I do not believe NFCC can be applied to a living person. Point #1 says Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Emphasis mine. Assuming that we consider the photos that we have to not serve the same encyclopedic purpose of new photos of him, a free photo of Elliot Page in his current look can easily be created in the near future. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the current photo of Elliot Page in the infobox misrepresents him and should be updated to reflect the image he prefers to betray. I understand that the recent photos published in TIME magazine may not be the answer, due to copyright issues, but what of the images released from his recent interview with Oprah? Unfortunately, I'm not messaging with a solution to the picture issue, but as another voice in support of Mr. Page and the life he is finally able to display! I kindly place this request in hopes of sparking more time and energy spent on finding a replacement photo that works. I will also continue my search for possible solutions. Thanks! SLP Gurl88 (talk) 04:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 May 2021

Please consider changing Elliot's picture to a recent one of him after his transition. Keeping a picture of him pre-transition is incredibly harmful and can cause him dysphoria. It is contradictory to the page's protected status. 197.245.42.143 (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: As discussed immediately above, there is no fair use image available for Elliot post-transition. If you have access to an image we can use, please visit Wikimedia Commons or Files for upload. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 22:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Change of photo

In recent interviews, Elliot has expressed a desire to be presented with photos that clearly showcase his gender identity. As such, I believe we should replace the current photo, with a more updated photo from 2021. Here is an image link. https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/time-elliot-page-wynne-neilly-1.jpg

Regardless of moderators religious/political stances, we have a duty to use the most updated information/photos available to us in the creation/editing of articles. DavidJonBloom (talk) 00:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

DavidJonBloom, have you read the above sections on this talk page? Please read Wikipedia:Copyrights. We cannot use copyrighted photos, period. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Can we add an edit notice?

Since none of the recent editors seem to be seeing the FAQ associated with this talk page, and we are getting the same repetitious requests on Deadname and Pre-transition Images, I think we should have an Edit Notice appear whenever posting here. I was talking with an administrator and they thought it might help. Only administrators or page-movers can place it here. Something along the lines of: "Attention---Before editing, please consult the list of Frequently Asked Questions specific to this article. The FAQ specifically includes information on Deadname and Images." I also think the FAQ should be at the very bottom of the list of banners as opposed to the middle... it might stand out a bit more. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I have been thinking exactly the same, make it clear though we very would much like an up to date image of Elliot Page, in the info box, we are very limited by copyright and are unable to use most images published by news and other media sources. Please could an admin make an appropriate notice. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I have set up an edit notice. I mostly took the text from the FAQ. Please leave any feedback and I'll make changes. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks good. I do wish it had something like a pale yellow background color, but it's big and in your face. It seems impossible to miss. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Background color added. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict:)) Great :) thanks Muboshgu, that seems very clear. Umm..LoL I hope the page's requesting visitors can read that extremely simple double notice. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks for the help. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 May 2021

Change [source needed] after the sentence "He will next have voice roles in the upcoming films Naya Legend of the Golden Dolphin and Robodog." with the following source from W Magazine:

C41nb31t (talk) 03:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2021

remove formerly known as ellen page (deadnaming) 142.177.156.45 (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia's guidelines say that we should include the birth name for a living transgender person in the lead sentence only if the person was notable under that name. This is the case for Elliot Page. (Copied from the FAQ at the top of the talk page) ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 18:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2021

Alternate between He and They because Elliot literally said their pronouns are he/they in his coming out post 75.111.225.74 (talk) 04:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Enby and trans folks will list multiple pronouns without the expectation they be used alternately. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

 Note: Wikipedia articles generally use one pronoun set for subjects who use multiple. Some examples are Rebecca Sugar, Carly Usdin, and Tillie Kottmann. I've added a note to the first use of a pronoun in this article, similar to the notes in those articles, with the text Page uses he/him and they/them pronouns. This article uses masculine pronouns for consistency. ezlev_tlk/ctrbs 18:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2021

delete reference to their deadname 86.176.176.175 (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: MOS:DEADNAME instructs editors to include a person's deadname if they were notable under that name, as is the case with Elliot Page. Please review the FAQ at the top of this page for more information. --Equivamp - talk 18:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2021

Request to change the photo associated with the page as it is an old photo and not representative of his gender identity. Lkjhgfdsa21 (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a replacement photo in mind? As you'll see in earlier discussions, the main obstacle is the lack of non-copyrighted recent photos. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

No lead photo for now

However, we do have the option of not including a photo in the infobox. MOS:LEADIMAGE says they "should be natural and appropriate representations" of the subject, and the current photo really isn't anymore: that isn't what he looks like now. It adds, "Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic." See Wendy Carlos, the Wachowskis as similar examples of trans people for whom we don't have a suitable post-transition photo that we have the rights to use in the infobox... so we don't. Page is more likely than those individuals to go to events where he can be photographed, so I expect that a suitable licensed photo of him will be forthcoming. In the meantime, I think that removing the 6-year-old pre-transition photo from the infobox would be more respectful of his self-identity. Note: I am not suggesting that other pre-transition photos be removed from the article... we shouldn't erase history like that. But the image in the infobox is a special case: for living persons it should generally reflect their current appearance. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Excellent point, and I agree. I encourage you to make the edit and we'll see how others feel. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: There is nothing in MOS:LEADIMAGE suggesting that popular articles need them more than other articles, or that we should be less careful about selecting one just to have it. Whether you or I feel that photo is "masculine" enough is not the question. The photo simply doesn't match the subject's gender identity, and fails at the most basic level: he doesn't look like that anymore (for reference). This talk page is already loaded with requests to change the photo, from people who do find it "obviously unsuitable". MOS offers clear guidance on this: "the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works"... but this is not an image that would be used by any mainstream publication today, alone at the top of an article about Elliot Page. "Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic." That's the case here. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I support Jason A. Quest well reasoned suggestion of the temporary removal of an info box image until an appropriate up to date representative portrait is found. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I support this as well, and thank JasonAQuest for the clear articulation of why it's the right move. ezlev_tlk/ctrbs 21:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

That's fair, I see that folks seem to agree it shouldn't be in the infobox. I have moved it out of the infobox and into the body of the article. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree even though it is not a perfect representation of the subject in 2021 I do not think we should just not have one entirely. Did we not already have a RfC infobox image consensus to use the 2015 photograph?  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree, the image should be in the infobox. If they'd like it to be removed, they can provide a more representative image. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I have now reverted the edit. It seems we already had an RfC confirming the 2015 image [1]. Those wanting to remove the lead image are welcome to start an RfC themselves though.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

That RFC was last year, and Page's presentation has changed substantially since then, so revisiting the question is certainly appropriate. It was also framed based on an incorrect assumption: that the only options were an old photo and a very old photo (6! and 11!! years now); the option of not using an image (or an illustration) was never given consideration. And the RFC was never properly closed. But I have no problem with a new RFC. See below. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Photo removal

I have undone the removal of the infobox photo. While a newer photo would be nice, we don't seem to have one. If someone would like to try to reach out to Page and get his agent to release a photo that'd be great. But in the interim I don't see anything obviously unsuitable about this image. He is presenting quite masculine, given the hat and button down. And for such a popular article, it should definitely have a photo. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Linking to a little previous discussion for convenience. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

We kinda need to move this thread up to join No lead photo for now thread a little above, it is clear where it fits as Jason A. Quest replies directly to CaptainEek words here there. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Transgender and nonbinary (again)

In this edit, Abbyjjjj96 restored the category "Transgender and transsexual actors" (which I had removed) in addition to "Non-binary actors" (which I had added). I have no problem with this, except that Non-binary is a subcategory of the Transgender category (in terms of the WP cat structure for actors) so it is strictly redundant. I am well aware that Elliot identifies as Transgender, Transmasculine (per Time) and Non-binary, but my preference would be to include only the most detailed category/categories that can be reliably sourced. I was not convinced that Time's statement about his transmasculinity and Elliot's quoted identification as a "transgender guy" merited inclusion in "Transgender and transsexual male actors" in addition to "Non-binary actors", though I would have been convinced if Elliot or Time had made a more straightforward statement that Elliot identifies as a transgender man. Anyway, please discuss. :) Newimpartial (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Having read more about categories since the last time we had this conversation, I actually have come around to thinking that Abbyjjjj96 is correct. While *normally*, an article being in a supcategory makes a parent category redundant, this is not the case for non-diffusing categories. As the page says, They provide an exception to the general rule that pages are not placed in both a category and its subcategory: there is no need to take pages out of the parent category purely because of their membership of a non-diffusing subcategory. ... Subcategories defined by gender, ethnicity, religion, and sexuality should almost always be non-diffusing subcategories. I don't think non-binary would be an exception to the "almost always" there; the guideline is not tremendously helpful, but based on the description, I think the non-binary category fits the bill. So, assuming the question of sourcing has been dealt with (I feel that the Newsweek article is definitive enough, but that can be discussed more if necessary, I'm sure), I think we can have both the trans and the non-binary category at the same time. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, and in sufficiently extreme cases, Transgender and transsexual actors would be a non-diffusing cat, but I am still not convinced in this case. Page is transgender and nonbinary, but for most people who are transgender and nonbinary I would take the most correct treatment as placement in the subcat only: they identify with both the subcat and the parent cat but the identifications are "nested", as it were. In the present instance, Page also identifies as transmasculine. If he feels that that identity is not localized within nonbinary identity but exceeds it in some way, then it would be appropriate to use either the transgender male cat (if the transmasculine identity is located "within" transgender male) or the parent cat (if the transmasculine identity is not limited to non-binary identity but not localized to transmasculine) in addition to non-binary.

Obviously I spend too much time in the Venn intersection between gender identity and categorization :), but this does strike me as a real issue, with potentially "right" and "wrong" answers, but which we still do not have enough information to resolve with any kind of conviction. Newimpartial (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

There's an additional complication in that while non-binary gender is widely considered to be under the trans(gender) umbrella, individual non-binary people have divergent attitudes on the label "trans" or "transgender" as applied to themselves personally: some people explicitly embrace the label and may describe themselves as "non-binary" as well as "trans(gender)" or as "non-binary trans(gender)", while others do not use the label or even explicitly say that they do not consider themselves to be trans or transgender. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

This complication undoubtedly exists, but it is not particularly relevant to the present case. Page identifies as trans and NB, so the question for categories is only whether his trans identity encompasses something that NB doesn't capture (for him). There are indeed people who identify as NB (usually enby, in these instances) and not trans; our category system forces them into a hierarchy that groups them as "trans" at a higher level. Fortunately, though, in this case that aspect doesn't matter. Newimpartial (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but it's worth to keep in mind more generally, hence I thought it was worth mentioning. Moreover, "enby" is only an abbreviation of "non-binary" that avoids the possible ambiguity of the abbreviation "NB" (at least in writing); it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a non-binary person also uses the label trans or not. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

According to the entry here, based on the Times article, Page's listed as a trans man. Yet he is also listed as non-binary in the categories. Aren't those mutually exclusive? Or am I unaware of something? Mcc1789 (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

You mean the fact that they are not mutually exclusive terms? The quote from Time is He also calls himself nonbinary and queer. Newimpartial (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment on infobox image, if any

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We do not have a legal post-gender-transition photo of the subject; should the article's infobox use a) a pre-transition photo of the subject, b) a recent post-transition illustration of the subject, or c) no image? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Elliot Page in 2021

Survey (image)

I think the default solution should be C: no image (until a good, properly licensed image is available). Understand: I've argued at length for the legitimate reasons to include a trans person's notable birth name in the lede, and historical photos in the body, but I feel that including a pre-transition photo of the subject in the infobox is inconsistent with WP:GENDERID. Elliot Page has self-identified as trans, and we've respected his choice of pronouns. But we're still showing a photo of him from 6 years ago in the infobox when he presented as female! That's now misgendering him, and frankly it amounts to "deadfacing" him. As his quote on the cover of TIME states: that is not who he is.

If we need to include an image of him in the infobox (aside: we don't), I'm offering an alternative, B: an illustration. Paintings and drawings are cromulent alternatives for subjects we don't have photos of... most of them from the period before photography, but not always. I don't claim to be a top-rate illustrator, but I spent an hour to produce a portrait, as another alternative to the old photo. It isn't a direct copy of any single photo – it's referenced from several – so it's legal... if that's what we need to remove that 2015 photo of "Ellen". -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

A - current photo. Wikipedia publishes what is accurate, not what is necessarily the most respectful. If a pre-transition photograph is the most recent and accurate one we have, then that is what we should use. It's untenable not to have an infobox image for a subject with this level of notability. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• A, pre-transition - while Wikipedia doesn't require a photo, not having one is weird. It could be years before we get one. It's a fairly masculine photo anyway. But I would email his agent to get them to upload something more recent. Sorry but the illustration looks like a court drawing of a felon. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  I would guess that the majority of biographical articles don't have a lead photo... there's nothing "weird" about that. Furthermore, e-mailing Page's agent and saying "We're going to include this pre-transition photo of your client until you license a replacement" sounds coercive to me, and I hope Wikipedia never resorts to that. Even if you personally think it's "masculine", using a female-presenting photo of someone who does not identify as female is willfully misgendering them, and that is contrary to Wikipedia policy. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  Maybe because so many bio articles were before cameras were invented. I checked out a movie with page, Whip It, and clicked on every star in the movie... they all have photos for their bios. It's "Weird" not to have one for Page. And why would you ask the agent like that? I wouldn't give you the time of day with that tone of ridiculousness. We ask tennis players all the time if their article doesn't have a photo. Sometimes they help and sometimes not. It can't hurt to ask whatever you might think. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  I'm referring to bios in general, not just ancient ones: there really are a LOT that don't include photos, usually for licensing reasons, and a survey of one movie's cast doesn't "prove" otherwise. I'm sorry you feel it's "weird", but I think the Manual of Style is offers better guidance on this point than your feelings. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  I could be wrong and Fyunck correct me if am but I am guessing the user believes it is weird/jarring to not have a lead image for a biographical article when we have many free images to choose from. Unlike the huge number of biographical articles which have no free images avaliable and hence they are unable to have a lead image.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  Note for Fyunck(click) and JasonAQuest: Independent of what decision is made in this RfC, I've already sent an email through the form on United Talent Agency's website requesting that a recent photo be uploaded under an appropriate license. I included no coercive language other than noting that Wikipedia is a very popular website and that editors want Page to be accurately represented. ezlev_tlk/ctrbs 04:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  You don't need literally coercive language; the threat is implied by the refusal to take the inappropriate picture off. I've been in this sort of situation before, where the subject of an article didn't like the photo WP was using and was seriously offended that we wouldn't take it down on their say-so, and that we had licensing protocols to go through. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  There is no threat implied. I have no idea how you are seeing it as a threat. And I've been through the same situation with tennis players. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• C, no image for now; or, failing that, the illustration. From WP:LEADIMAGE: Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic. When someone is widely-known to be transgender, a pre-transition image of them is no longer natural and appropriate (and not what many readers would expect to see.) Therefore, this falls under the "no easy representation of the subject" category, so we should omit an image. The drawing is fairly low quality and is not a good representation, but would be preferable to a pre-transition photograph. --Aquillion (talk) 08:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• C, no image per WP:LEADIMAGE - this is not an appropriate representation of the subject. And also in the spirit of MOS:GENDERID - Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words...that reflect the person's latest expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources (emphasis mine). Although MOS:GID doesn't explicitly mention photos/images, I do believe it should be considered and applied here, the current photo does not reflect the person's latest expressed gender self-identification, and a quick image search shows that the most recent reliable sources don't use outdated photos either. Quite frankly, this shouldn't require a RfC, it should have already been removed. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• C Sorry, it looks terrible, like an 80-yr-old man. Surely a freely-usable image will turn up in time. ValarianB (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• C, no image - I agree with the above editors that using a pre-transition photo would not be a "natural and appropriate" representation of the subject. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• A - we do have a freely licensed photo of him - multiple - so we should use it. If he is unhappy with the photos we have, he can provide a preferred alternative and we will use that. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• C until an appropriately-licensed photo is available. Just beause an image exists doesn't mean we have to use it; we're allowed to use editorial judgment to tell whether an image provides value. As a BLP, we need to operate under the principle of caution. The current image is not encyclopedically worthless, but given that Elliot's presentation has signifciantly changed even since the last RFC in December, I think it's definitely less than it was, and given the deadname-style concerns, I think the balance has tipped in favor of removal. And absolutely no shade to the author of the illustration, but I don't think an unofficial illustration makes sense to be the lead image of a BLP. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment and addendum to my !vote above - this article is required to be compliant with WP:BLP, specifically WP:BLPIMAGE - Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This photo is being used to represent the subject of this BLP in exactly that manner, as he no longer identifies as a female, which clearly the photo shows, and that is false information, and it is also disparaging to a trans person to use a photo that doesn't represent their preferred identity. When a person transitions, not only do they change their use of pronouns, they also change their appearance, as evidenced by multiple reliable sources that verify his appearance now. We follow the most recent reliable sources, not ignore them. And they are not obligated to provide WP a freely-licensed photo for us to use either, we must follow our policies and guidelines in relation to the subject of a BLP. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• C, no image wait until a photo is released Tepkunset (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• C, no image for now. I agree with Writ Keeper's reasoning for not using the current image. Having an illustration might be more trouble than it's worth here, as it doesn't seem to be common practice and might suggest to a reader that Page is some sort of D. B. Cooper-like mysterious figure. I very much appreciate the effort that JasonAQuest put into the illustration, and it would do in a pinch, but for now I would say that having no image is probably the best course of action. I'd also like to note here that whatever decision this RfC reaches should be applied to List of awards and nominations received by Elliot Page as well. Srey Sros^talk 15:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• A, pre-transition until we have a suitable freely licensed post-transition photograph. The subject has a different gender identify however the lead images for persons, such as it is for this article, is just a head shot of the person, as opposed to a head to to portrait. Fundamentally, whilst gender identify has changed, the facial compoistion and composuer is still very much recognisable. Fine it is not a perfect representation of the subject but a one in which readers will be able see and identify and recognise the subject. We switched to the 2015 image [2] after the announcement as it was seen as more recent/representative. If we were comparing a full head to toe portait obviously that would be far less representive and I argue against it given the major differences. But besides hair styling and some other details the face is still recognisable enough from the looks of it to be representative.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• A, pre-transition. As others have said, it would be odd to not use a picture when there are many available. Also, the differences between the pre-transition image and Page now seem very minor, so I find the comments saying the pre-transition picture doesn't represent Page to be rather sexist in that they imply having longer hair and wearing eyeliner (and smiling??) is what makes someone female (WP:BIGOT). I would rather there be no image than that illustration though. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, by "the differences between the pre-transition image and Page now seem very minor" I specifically mean Page's face since presumably a more recent picture would just contain their head and maybe shoulders. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Abbyjjjj96: - I strongly resent the implication that I'm being sexist or a bigot, and you should really strike that comment. My opposition to the pre-transition picture is based on his gender identity. He no longer self-identifies as a female. Period. The article correctly uses masculine pronouns in accordance with his self-identification, but yet the photo does not represent his self-identification. Like I said above, the most recent reliable sources, and the photos they use, reflect his latest expressed gender self-identification. Thia article does not. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  I will not strike my comment. People's discomfort at having biases pointed out to them does not mean those biases should be overlooked. Wikipedia strives to counter systemic bias (WP:BIAS). My comment wasn't even specifically aimed at you, but really you seem to have just reinforced my point by suggesting it's okay because Page may have sexist biases. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I am merely pointing out to you that your comments can be perceived as being rude, disrespectful and uncivil, especially in light of the fact that opposition arguments are based on WP guidelines and policies, and you haven't provided any evidence to the contrary, nor have you provided any proof that opposition comments are sexist or bigoted. If you have a specific issue with a specific editor, it's best to address that editor directly, rather than making baseless accusations against a whole group of unnamed editors. I hope you will reconsider striking your comment, but please know that I find your baseless accusations of sexist and bigot extremely offensive. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• C no image as per -Jason A. Quest, Writ Keeper, Isaidnoway , Aquillion have all explained. As per WP:LEADIMAGE and in the spirit of MOS:GENDERID Wikipedia does not demand an image for every BLP, especially if that image is no longer an appropriate representation of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodney (talk • contribs)
• C no image for now, the 2015 one is inaccurate and the sketch is not ideal. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 16:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• C. I generally agree with Spy-cicle's reasoning that the image shows the subject. It's dated, indicating when in his life it was taken and his look has not changed radically since then, so it still useful to identify him. However, Aquillion's got a point, this is not a picture that other works would use and it's also not what readers expect, so I am narrowly choosing no image over the old image. The sketch is not a solution either. With the TIME cover we already have an image of him in the article, we just need a free one for the infobox and hopefully, with COVID on the decline in the US, there will soon be an opportunity to have some taken. Regards SoWhy 17:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• C. The sketch is not ideal. We'll get a new photo eventually. Mateussf (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• C The current image seems to go against WP:GENDERID.Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• C I'd prefer to present Page as he currently presents himself. Even if his agent doesn't respond, eventually someone will snap a shot on a red carpet somewhere. —valereee (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• C Plenty of pages don't have infobox photos. We can add one when one becomes available. BenjaminChadwick (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• C - Whilst an image is better than no image in this case no image is better than an outdated one (in terms of gender). I also agree that the drawing of him looks more like a court one and it just doesn't look right. His agent can either send one or we can wait until a freely licenced one becomes available. –Davey2010^Talk 22:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• C until we have a licensed photo of him. This looks like a snowclose. ~ HAL333 22:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - I shall have to let the rest of you make the decision on this matter. This area of Wikipedia is too politically correct, for my taste. GoodDay (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• Option D is a fourth option I would propose: we should explore the idea of having TWO images so that we can depict figures like this pre-transition (representing the roles that actually made Ellen notable) and post-transition (how they roughly presently look). This would be a good idea for other figures besides trans people who have undergone huge image shifts too, such as Michael Jackson or young/old pictures of various actors who were well-known early on. Using a 2010 picture of Macaulay Culkin for example for what's intended to be a permanent historical record just seems ridiculous to me. Yeah there's a kid pic from the 1980s in a subsection but that ought to be the lede image, or we at least could have a tabbed image-flipper built into the template. WakandaQT (talk) 09:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  But we don't have a second image, which is why we're holding this RFC. The question being asked is what do we do with the current infobox image in the short term, before a more appropriate image is available? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 11:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  Extremely Strong NOooo Quite apart from not having two images, this article should not directly compare Page pre-transition and now, that would be very clearly against the spirit of WP:GENDERID and would encourage disrespectful comparisons that I believe would be against WP:BLPIMAGE, and I am afraid personally reminds me of some of the lowest forms of journalism. (Reminds me ~ I had a trans friend who was not famous, she was a ship's engineer, but she was in a legal dispute, and the dodgy Daily Mail for no good reason published her former name ...it was just utterly wrong) ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 14:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  What? An editor making this sort of awful suggestion needs to rethink editing the article of a transitioned person. ValarianB (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion (image)

• Why not using the Time cover as lead photo? --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  See Wikipedia:Non-free content. ValarianB (talk) 12:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• Ping users involved involved in the last RfC/discussion [3] revolving around the image: @Sdkb, Levivich, Darren-M, TJScalzo, GreenComputer, J1DW, Facu-el Millo, Stavd3, Jmill1806, Ssilvers, Newimpartial, Beorhtwulf, Awoma, Wallyfromdilbert, NeptNarwhals, Bueller 007, Onetwothreeip, WakandaQT, Oulfis, BenjaminChadwick, Coffeeandcrumbs, Mateussf, Bettydaisies, Avenue, Kolya Butternut, GoodDay, Chessrat, Abbyjjjj96, ProcrastinatingReader, Bodney, Paintspot, SoWhy, Lennart97, StrexcorpEmployee, and Valereee:. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Reaching out to Page

It seems to me that the best use of our energy here is to focus on obtaining a more recent image rather than arguing at ever increasing length over which of the inferior options presently available is least inferior. To that end, I've emailed Page's agent using this form with a formal request that they use the OTRS Wizard to donate a photo. If I don't hear back and nothing shows up on OTRS after a little while, someone should try calling them at the number they list (212-645-4200) and seeing if that proves any more fruitful. After that, idk, maybe have someone tweet at Page and link it here so we can all like it to boost it enough for them to see it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Sdkb, I sent an email through that form too, several hours ago. Oops. A few different emails are probably not a bad thing, but if you're reading this, maybe don't send another one. I also emailed Wynne Neilly, the photographer whose photos of Page have been used in several publications including Time and Vanity Fair, just in case he can help. ezlev_tlk/ctrbs 17:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I sent an email to a different address with a subsidiary group of that agency. I only mention it to add weight the suggestion that no one else reach out! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I entirely disagree with this premise that immediately upon someone stating publicly that they are transgender, it becomes a duty of Wikipedia editors to scramble to find a "fitting" photo as fast as possible to this extent of contacting the person's agent. It's not Wikipedia's job to be the PR staff of anyone and to fly at beck and call to immediately change a page to desperately best interpret what you imagine Elliot might want to look like on a website now that you were informed of his gender. If you're searching for a specific message with an image, you're doing it wrong. You're also ironically being anti-trans because you're dictating what Elliot is "supposed" to look like. As for the activist who wants to delete this comment, I'm not using this as a forum. I'm not venting. I'm telling you you're wrong in the context of how to make an article. That's what the talk section is for. YOU have no right to delete this comment just because you disagree. I am being civil. I have even removed all the rhetorical flourishing that get in the way of this simple argument as to why going to the length of contacting people personally because you want to dictate their image on this site is the wrong way. If you have a counterpoint, express it, don't just delete my comment.J1DW (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

J1DW, I largely agree with you: it wasn't a duty of Wikipedia editors to put so much work into finding a new photo, it's not Wikipedia's job to be the PR staff of anyone and to fly at beck and call to immediately change a page, and an editor searching for a specific message with an image certainly would be doing it wrong. But none of that is what happened here. What happened is that a few editors wanted the lede image to be a representative image of Page, as it is supposed to be, and did not feel that the existing image was suitably representative because it was clear from reliable sources that Page had significantly changed his physical appearance. So we tried to fix it, not because it was our duty or Wikipedia's job or because we were searching for a specific message or dictating what Elliot is "supposed" to look like, but because we wanted to. With all that being said, I'm genuinely sorry that you seem to be upset by what you've decided was the motivation for the image change that took place in this article a few months ago. Note: In the interest of not flagellating a deceased equine, I have no intent to continue replying to this thread. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 17:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't care about the motivation, I care about the violation of Wikipedia policy where this discussion had taken. This was becoming a rallying to intrude on people's personal lives. Why is irrelevant. Elliot had every right to change his appearance. It's not any Wikipedia editor's job to get so personal as to start contacting people to be up to the minute. There's another Wikipedia policy, this isn't a news site. It isn't meant to be up to the minute. I appreciate that people can be zealous, and that really doesn't matter too much when that zealotry manifests as updating pages quickly (even if this leads to an edit war), but it's crossing a line to then decide personally contacting or trying to be activist about someone's image. If you hear a rumor that someone has done something, it's simply not right to try so actively to connect that rumor to a Wikipedia article. This site is meant to be more passive than that. Further my biggest complaint is that my comment was then deleted by another editor and then hypocritically berated about personal views when only one view is being allowed to be expressed. J1DW (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that when your comment was originally removed 2+ weeks ago, it was a bad decision on the part of the editor who removed it. But now, 2+ weeks later, I fail to see the point of continuing this line of discussion at this venue. It won't change anything about the content of this article now, and it's kind of old news. If you're seeking for changes to this kind of thing happening in the future (it's hardly the first time a BLP/their agent has been contacted about an article about them) then there are better venues. --Equivamp - talk 22:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

J1DW, I removed your comment because it was unrelated to improving the article and included personal attacks against specific editors. You raised a grievance for which there is no remedy and called us anti-trans. With no article-focused purpose, the only effect of the comment was denigrate the work and motivation of other editors. I am responding here because you're calling me out here, and because Equivamp agreed with you (in part). Further discussion on matters unrelated to this specific article should probably happen at a user talk page. I'd be happy to host at mine or visit yours. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm a little slow here, but I think what I've got to say is hopefully a worthwhile addition, J1DW said that they care about the violation of Wikipedia policy where this discussion had taken, which may well be true, but I honestly question is any wikipedia policy has been broken here, and if it has, I still think that is OK. I will elaborate on why. You mention another Wikipedia policy, this isn't a news site. It isn't meant to be up to the minute., which seems to be the closest you have to a specific example of some sort of rule violation, but why don't we actually read WP:NOTNEWS? It opens with Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, the whole point of Wikipedia not being a newspaper is that we don't report on every single recent event, but rather on events of lasting significance. Elliot Page's article exists before they came out, as a major Hollywood star appearing in a number of large films, they have notability to justify an article on wikipedia, and their coming out and identifying as trans is not something fleeting, and is something otherwise well incorporated into the article, so having an image more representative of them now is merely part of that "up-to-date information", furthermore I think WP:HARM is quite relevant, we have from Page's own words in Time Magazine (https://time.com/5947032/elliot-page/) in the very opening of it, it talks about the joy he took in cutting his hair short and being perceived more masculinely, and that their change to more feminine appearance was at the whims and demands of Hollywood, while Page could well change their appearance in the future, and they are well within their rights to do so, from the information we have at hand now, this seems to be more representative of how they wish to present their appearance, as opposed to how they have presented before coming out. Furthermore, by contacting Page either directly or through their agents, we stand the best chance of actually finding out how they wish to be perceived, as opposed to guessing blindly in the dark (note: this doesn't justify primary research, but having an freely useable photo available is hardly primary research! Many Wikipedia editors make graphics or take their own photos for articles after all!), by contrast if we choose to use a photo of them pre-coming out, could that not be interpreted as an assertion that we believe this is how they should look and be thought of as? Furthermore you say You're also ironically being anti-trans because you're dictating what Elliot is "supposed" to look like, but honestly, guessing at how they would like to be perceived rather more falls into that trap, you (perhaps accidentally) come off as suggesting Elliot has an obligation to break gender moulds. They are free to, of course, but they are free to choose not to. Ultimately, asking what sort of image they'd like, and if they can make that available for use, is the only way to truly avoid this dictating. Ultimately, even if some policy has been broken, (which I don't believe is the case), I think this strongly falls into a case of the spirit of the law vs. the letter of the law, which WP:5P5 exists to remind us that the spirit is what takes precedence. 78.105.218.134 (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:HARM includes a test for inclusion of an issue in an article, namely, WP:HARM#TEST. The issue of Page's picture so clearly passes that test that I have to wonder if you actually read more than just the first paragraph of the essay.SaltySaltyTears (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@SaltySaltyTears: - Yes, there is an inclusion test to see if something is noteworthy to include in the article, but how the essay is written is orientated around the facts presented in an article, and not as focused on the media accompanying an article. We don't include every single notable openly licensed image of page in the lead in a gallery, we choose a single image to act as a lead image where one is suitable and available. The whole discussion here was around acquiring a better lead image. The inclusion test is entirely inapplicable to this circumstance, as we aren't excluding any information, this whole debate really, is about how we present the information to minimise harm, which is entirely within the scope and aims of the minimising harm policy. It's also worth noting, we retain older images where they have contextual relevance lower down in the article still. 78.105.218.134 (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2021

Please remove Elliot Page's deadname from this article. It is harmful to not just them but to his coming out and other trans individuals who want to come out. He is not "formerly Deadname Page", they are Elliot Page and people should not know otherwise. Manuela.patricia2007 (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Not done: Wikipedia's guidelines say that we should include the deadname of a living transgender person in the lead sentence if the person was notable under that name. We do that so that people who read WIkipedia don't get confused. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 04:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it is historical revisionist to have all the old notes to have all the pronouns changed to pronouns that were not used at that time. Example: Elliot page played a pregnant girl in the movie Juno. Page stars as the title character, an independent-minded teenager confronting an unplanned pregnancy and the subsequent events that put pressures of adult life onto her. Well... if you view that movie now it doesn't say Elliot page in the credits. The person who starred in that movie was named Ellen Page (a then female identifying person) at the time. Wouldn't it be more accurate to have the details in the article match the time periods in question. Therefore formatted like this : Ellen Page was happy she was nominated for an Oscar in 2007. Years later Elliot Page was also happy he was nominated for a Golden Globe in 2022. ~pap

Supportive statements re. coming out

@Newimpartial: The mention in my edit summary that supportive statements of Page previously coming out as gay weren't included was not the main point, but the only thing you addressed when you reverted me. Why are supportive statements necessary here at all? Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

(I also think Bodney's reason for reverting Spy-cicle trimming Netflix's support may violate WP:NPOV?) Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe i should have added in that summary that the support is clearly demonstrated by the fact that he still remains in the main cast of Netflix's The Umbrella Academy. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Then their support is noted by the 'Career' and other sections showing Page continues to be amongst the cast, and doesn't need to be mentioned in the 'Personal life' section. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Except Page's transition is an event larger than just his current role in that specific Netflix series, the statements from the prime minster of Canada and international organisations like GLAAD demonstrate the notability of Page's personal evolution and as noted in the statements ...a real world example for other trans and non-binary people. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 18:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Abbyjjjj: the "supportive mentions", as you call them, are an extremely prominent part of the coverage of Page in recent months, which means that they are WP:DUE. The head of government of Page's country of citizenship, and the multinational tech company that is Page's major current employer, are quite salient among these. Why would you think them (or others) UNDUE to mention? Newimpartial (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The Netflix mentions seems pretty unnecessary in my view, the quote should at least be trimmed, per WP:ONUS. Netflix could possibly be added alongside the other celebrity mentions.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Netflix is not a celebrity, its an international entertainment company that employs multiples of celebrities including Page, the statement from this multinational is already both WP:DUE and succinct. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 19:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes I'm aware Netflix is not a celebrity I said to mention in the sentence that mentions among other celebrities to trim it. E.g. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, entertainment company Netflix and several celebrities, such as Ellen DeGeneres, James Gunn, and Kumail Nanjiani, expressed support for Page after the announcement.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I am unable to see the pressing need to delete the Netflix statement, this trim and reword only saves about 7 words for no beneficial reason. Netflix's is not just another name, it currently has a direct employment relationship with Page, which makes it separate to the other names. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The WP:DUE arguments above (arguing for inclusion) are spot-on, imo. --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 21:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)