Talk:Elliot Page

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 19 July 2021

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

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

Deadname More Than Once

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2021

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

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

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

Link transition to that article

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

His pronouns are he/ they

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

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

Full birth name redux

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

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

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

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

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

Also note that the issue has been previously discussed on this Talk page, here (most recently), here (local RfC) and here. I am particularly fond of that latter linked discussion, where I pointed out: if the only published source for the supposedly current family name of a major Canadian celebrity is a small local newspaper published in Spanish in Argentina, I would not regard that as verified information, particularly for a BLP. I would have thought the local as well as site-wide consensus on this point to be fairly clear. Newimpartial (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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