Talk:Elliot Page/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Just a point

Maybe don't use Elliots dead name in this as the point of changing there name is to not have people see it and say it 86.28.94.181 (talk) 14:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe read MOS:DEADNAME and the FAQ at the top of the talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes it would make sense but it goes against Wikipedia guildlines. pretty sure there is already a discussion on this Talk page. 204.9.25.130 (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Millions of people knew Elliot Page as Ellen Page, having won several awards and leading films under the old name. To totally censor this name from the article (instead of the minimal usage at present), is a hinderance to these millions of people. This is the same for Olympic gold medal-winning Bruce Jenner, who is now Caitlyn Jenner. starship.paint (exalt) 13:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

The lead sentence "Elliot page is a Canadian actor" is really short; it should really be merged with the next sentence. Calumapplepie (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Calumapplepie: "Canadian-born American actor" is more accurate at this stage of Page's life, anyway as Canadian acting work is now tertiary at best to his currrent career AUSPOLLIE (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

But he still holds only Canadian citizenship, does he not? So your proposal would be incorrect since he is not an American actor, even if he works mainly in the US nowadays. Regards SoWhy 14:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Pronouns before and after genderchange

Found it a bit confusing to read about a "him" in hindsight about a time period where that person identified as female. so my suggestion would be to change text passages where Page still identified as female to write about her. and after the change about him. because this way it looks like an alteration of "history" Krrbz567 (talk) 10:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Krrbz567: Your confusion is noted but unfortunately your proposed "solution" conflicts with the relevant guideline (MOS:GENDERID) which explicitly states "This [= only using the person's preferred pronouns in articles] holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise". So unless you can prove that Page himself prefers that we refer to him using female pronouns for this time period, this is not possible without changing the guideline (which cannot be done on this page but would need community-wide consensus). Regards SoWhy 10:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the fact that Page is fine with being referred to as 'Ellen' at some point in Page's history, that this pretty much means it would be correct to refer to Page as "her/she" before Page changed his name to Elliot. Wikipedia policy aside, Wikipedia is wrong on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.150.246.207 (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for the information. Krrbz567 (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 April 2023

Born female. Not assigned at birth. Think we will continue to fund wikipedia to keep it alive spewing this false nonsense. Learn science. 76.3.71.80 (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

One very minor change

I don't have the sufficient edits to do this myself, in the first blurb it says "He became in March 2021 the first openly trans man to appear on the cover of Time.", the syntax of this is a little awkward, and I think it should be changed to "In March 2021, he became...". 1brianm7 (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

He/him and they/them pronouns means "he/him AND they/them" pronouns (sincerely a multi-pronoun user)

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.

---

As a multi-pronoun user (she/they, for the record), I am extremely uncomfortable with the annotation at the beginning of the page (citation [a]: "This article uses he/him for consistency").

Elliot Page uses he/they pronouns, and I haven't found anything with a cursory search indicating he's specified how he wants his pronouns to be used. Typically, within the LGBTQIA+ community, when a person lists multiple pronouns and doesn't say anything else about when to use which pronouns, it's considered best practice to alternate pronouns and attempt to use both with equal frequency.

Personally, I like to alternate according to sentence or clause (for instance, I last referred to Page as "he," so the next time I use a pronoun to refer to them, I'll use "they" instead. See? Easy). It mitigates the lion's share of confusion, and when readers know that the person being written about uses both sets of pronouns - which this article should establish in the introductory paragraph - then it's inappropriate to presume additional confusion will follow from the article using Page's pronouns correctly.

Failing to acknowledge that he identifies on the nonbinary spectrum is offensive and transphobic. The page states that Page is "a trans man," but in his coming-out letter, Page didn't specify anything of the sort. They stated that they were trans, and that he uses he/they pronouns.

The correct term for someone like Page, if he hasn't specified otherwise, is "transmasculine" (or "transmasc" for short). The correct use of Page's pronouns, unless they've specified otherwise, is to use both. If you can't write coherently while using nonbinary pronouns, that's your problem, not ours. If Page's identity confuses you, that's a you problem. The fact that this article writes Page into a binary because their gender is grammatically inconvenient is fundamentally hostile to his - and my - queer identity.

Please do better. FinnKimbrel (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I understand why this issue might cause you distress, and I'm sorry about that. However, we're not identifying Page as a trans man because a nonbinary identity is confusing or inconvenient for us--we're doing it because that's how reliable sources identify him. Wikipedia is built on the principle of verifiability, which means we follow reliable sources, and that's what they're doing in this case.

I also understand your point about mixing up "he" and "they", but here again, we follow reliable sources, such as GLAAD, which says DO use he/him or they/them pronouns when referring to Elliot Page. He/him is preferred by Page, but they/them is also acceptable. (emphasis mine) I don't necessarily agree with your premise that "he/they" means "alternate usage each time between the two" by default--though I acknowledge that that's your preference, and certainly one valid reading of it--but that's why we do what we do. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the thoughtful response, and the reliable source. I came across this page while idly browsing wikipedia, and didn't have any reliable resources on hand beyond Page's initial coming out letter (and didn't feel up to a deep-dive into research on such a polarizing subject). I'm glad to know the writing of this article conforms to Page's preferences, and thank you for so effectively de-escalating a highly sensitive subject (for me, anyway). I brought up this request coming from a vulnerable place with limited information, and you've provided exactly the response I needed to hear.

"I was wrong and you were right" is something I find myself saying more often than I'd like, but in this instance I'm glad to see that Wikipedia has done more research than me! FinnKimbrel (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

FinnKimbrel, thank you for your gracious response to the answer to your legitimate question. Please refrain from engaging with those who may want to escalate instead of discussing productively. Cullen328 (talk) 04:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry but alternating between "he" and "they" is a rather convoluted, confusing, and unnecessary approach. More than that, it makes for poor writing. Consistency is key here - and if Page hasn't specified how he wants his pronouns to be applied, we can't make an assumption on his behalf. Hell, even if he did say he prefers his pronouns to alternate with each use, it's unlikely we would do that and would instead just default to the most neutral "they". As for what label he should be given, we go by what the sources say. — Czello ^(music) 10:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

---

The quite detectable fanaticist undertone behind "If you can't write coherently while using nonbinary pronouns, that's your problem, not ours. If Page's identity confuses you, that's a you problem. The fact that this article writes Page into a binary because their gender is grammatically inconvenient is fundamentally hostile to his - and my - queer identity" is both rude and dis-respectful. No one, let alone WP should have to accede to such behavior. The activist class does not represent ordinary LGBTIQ people. They did not mint that coin and it is not theirs to spend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.38.126 (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2023 (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.

standards and consistency - born == ?

greetings,

similar to the way the value for the born variable in the infobox for actor Aaron Paul begins with the legal birth name prior to legally changing it:

Aaron Paul Sturtevant
August 27, 1979 (age 43)
Emmett, Idaho, U.S.

and the way the same value in the article for Chaz Bono reads:

Chastity Sun Bono
March 4, 1969 (age 54)
Los Angeles, California, U.S.

and the way the same value in the article for Caitlyn Jenner reads:

William Bruce Jenner
October 28, 1949 (age 73)
Mount Kisco, New York, U.S.

i feel as though we should be holding Elliot Page to the same standard as other people and add the legal birth name prior to legally changing it:

Emma Page
February 21, 1987 (age 36)
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

or:

Emma Philpotts-Page
February 21, 1987 (age 36)
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

instead of just:

February 21, 1987 (age 36)
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

even if its only in the name of standards for the sake of consistency..

does anybody have a problem with this accompanied by a good reason why this specific article or person needs to receive special treatment that isnt also being applied to other individuals or articles in the same or a similar category??

if you reply, please ping me so i see it when i log in and know to check back here.

thank you.

Snarevox (talk) 07:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Per MOS:GENDERID, we are only asked to include the name in the lead. We are also asked to not overemphasize our explanation of ther person's gender. Per that policy, I'd not include the name in extraneous parts of the article. Also worth saying that MOS is site-wide policy, what we use for standards and consistency. How other articles are written are not necessarily relevant, they may need to be updated as well. Rab V (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

fair enough, thank you for your response.

 

i see you mentioned MOS is site-wide and essentially our litmus test as far as standards and consistency are concerned. in that case, i would argue the way other articles are written actually is relevant, perhaps if only because there can be no real consistency per se, unless everybody conforms to the most rigid (or at least the same) interpretation of the standard in question.

 

that being said, it seems as though there are indeed some articles that need to be updated if any sort of consistency is to be attained in that department. i guess i just thought it was a bit odd to even come across such a disparity, when normally ive found wikipedia to be fairly consistent when it comes to consistency, for the most part at least. its really not a big deal to me either way, i was just asking on behalf of my own personal knowledge store, for future reference and whatnot.

 

thanks again,

take it easy.

 

Snarevox (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I would say yes, because that is actually pertinent informarion 2601:803:4300:16D0:2C67:55D:2BD1:7C7D (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Born female

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.

---

saying "assigned female at birth" is medically inaccurate. Doctors do not assign sex at birth, they just observe what sex the baby is. 2601:803:4300:16D0:2C67:55D:2BD1:7C7D (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Nobody said that doctors assigned anything. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I concur with 2601:803:4300:16D0:2C67:55D:2BD1:7C7D. "Assigned female at birth" is a perfectly absurd statement. I know we're supposed to fall in-line with the neo-Maoist, "don't believe your lyin' reality" New Speak. But, even assuming arguendo, one can be a gender other than that of one's physiology, the fact is that one is born either male or female (with limited exception), and no amount of sociology, gender studies, queer theory jargon changes this reality. IAmBecomeDeath (talk) 07:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

This discussion would be better suited to the Talk page of (MOS:GENDERID) rather than on this one individual's page. Please discuss there any changes you'd like to see to the manual of style for gender identity. CiaraCat (talk) 13:39, 7 June 2023 (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.

Born female (2)

Contrary to what has been claimed above, the MOS doesn't demand or even mention the expression "assigned ... at birth". Hence, such a discussion was/would be valid here. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Former relationships and other recent revelations

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

Yeah, it's not clear how much fact-checking the publisher (a subsidiary of Macmillan Publishers) did for Page's recollections. That a relationship existed is somewhat easy to check. Anything more contentious should be attributed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

This could just be considered WP:BLPGOSSIP. Should we include the dating/relationship history of everyone famous even if both people are famous?[1] Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Page's memoir itself is clearly WP:BLPSPS and so cannot be used for claims about other living people; the People source used in our article is just regurgitating Page's own words and seems borderline at best to me. I would be inclined to remove the Kate Mara thing entirely unless other reliable sources report on it other than to say that Page wrote about the relationship in his memoir. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's WP:BLPSPS since it does have an independent publisher, but its definitely WP:PRIMARY. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I too wouldn't consider it to be a "self-published work" per se in the sense that Page self-published the book; this is more of a case of a WP:PRIMARY (WP:BLPPRIMARY) and perhaps WP:BLPSELFPUB. Citing publications primarily citing Page as the source of the information are basically not all that different from citing Page himself, unless said publications have corroborated of the claims made on their own. I'd expect more of these claims to come out as Page gives more interviews and the book receives more publicity. So, it would be wise to figure out how to deal with them when it comes to WP:NPOV, WP:ATTRIBUTION and WP:BLP. Since there seem to be others that have concerns about this, I going to remove the content in question from the article just for now, until things can be sorted out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, of course you are right that it's not self-published; nonetheless for a BLP I think it's wise to apply the restrictions of WP:BLPSELFPUB when using their autobiography as a source: that is, attribute claims and don't use them as a source about other living people. (Perhaps WP:ABOUTSELF is a more appropriate bluelink; it applies to both self-published and questionable sources; I would consider a celebrity autobiography to be covered there!) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Photo choices

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

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

Elliot is non-binary

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

Mentioned under #gender transition — Czello ^(music) 07:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Czello I meant that the first paragraph omits it, should have been more clear VictoriousBard (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Presenting as female

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

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

@Moxy the "assigned female at birth" (AFAB) language is quite standard these days (as is the corresponding AMAB for assigned male at birth). See Sex_assignment#Terminology. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Wow that's horrible....we should find better wording..... as this clearly implies something's medically wrong to older generations. Moxy- 03:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@Moxy I think the language in part emerged due to a better understanding of intersex individuals, who are often assigned a sex that turns out to be wrong later in life. So it does have medical undertones, but perhaps for more justified reasons than one might imagine at first. Among young folks and also our sources, the language is pretty standard, both AMAB/AFAB have neutral connotations. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

You mean assigned a "gender" that would turn out to be different than later in life. Two sexes, multiple genders per today's norm. You'll note in the personal life section Elliot went through "gender transition" not sex transition. I would also say that "assigned female at birth" is quite standard these days, but it is clunky and misleading as to what actually happened. But wikipedia uses what sources tell us not what I feel is misleading. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Didn't CaptainEek just talk about intersex individuals? "Two sexes" is also inaccurate. casualdejekyll 22:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

That is an "opinion" I completely disagree with. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

let's not start off-topic debates now. B3251 (talk) 01:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 October 2023

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

•  Not done: "Sex assignment" is the standard term. DMacks (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Addition of birth name

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

• Academy.ca awards database for role in Pit Pony (TV series): https://web.archive.org/web/20161125114110/http://www.academy.ca/About-the-Academy/Awards-Database?flow=titleYear&step=2&byty-award-v=0&byty-winners-v=False&byty-title-v=Pit+Pony&byty-year-v=0#
• Waterloo Region Record story on 20 September 2000 listing all Gemini Awards nominations
• Pit Pony credits: https://www.tvguide.com/movies/pit-pony/cast/2030282656/

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

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

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

Not at all a clear case. One series credit and one award nomination do not establish notability. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers You seem to be misapplying WP:NACTOR. That applies to "whether a given topic warrants its own article." We're not talking about that here, as the page already exists. Even if you use WP:NACTOR as the standard for notability for using a birth name here, "Ellen Philpotts-Page" does in fact meet the requirement in WP:NACTOR: "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." In Page's case, it was two significant credits under the birth name Ellen Philpotts-Page: the was for Pit Pony (film), which earned Gemini Awards. The second instance was for Pit Pony (TV series), in which Page personally received a Gemini Awards nomination -- one of only two such nominations for the series. Page's role was signficant in both series. I'm reversing your edit, but if you have a stronger or different rationale, please post it here. Samp4ngeles (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

DEADNAME links the word "notable" to a notability guideline, so it's absolutely using it in its jargony Wikipedia sense. Page was billed something like 10th or so in the Pit Pony show credits (at least the pilot), and nominations (without winning) are a contributing but relatively non-determinative factor in notability. In the movie, he didn't make the opening credits. I don't think the NACTOR case is unreasonable, but it's not strong. Since there's a privacy interest at play, I would advocate for the same caution we generally take with all BLPs. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The order of billing doesn't matter. See previous discussions on WP:NACTOR such as Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2016, which point to credited roles in more than one production. But if you want to go down that route, IMDB lists Page as fifth for the film ( https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0125458/fullcredits/ ) and four for the series ( https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0159902/fullcredits ), having appeared in 29 episodes. Page's Maggie McLean character was a significant role, which led to the award nominations, which launched the acting career. Page also happens to have been the main photo on the poster for Pit Pony (film).

The privacy interest argument is a bit of a red herring, as the article has long mentioned both parents (Philpotts and Page). The Philpotts-Page name is also in many sources. Samp4ngeles (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Which discussion in that archive page are you referring to? On "red herring", agree to disagree, I guess. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a short WP:NACTOR discussion on that archive page, but I think it's clear that Page had very significant roles in both Pit Pony (film) and Pit Pony (TV series), and the pilot episode you refer to would be only marginally relevant.

With regard to privacy interests, Page is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and indeed there are a multitude of sources listing the birth name. Including it in this article would only be documenting what other WP:RS have already said. Samp4ngeles (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Writ Keeper, want to make sure you're aware of this discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Yep, I'm aware, thanks for the heads up. I don't have a ton to add, beyond just seconding Firefangledfeathers, but I would say that, to the extent that anyone knows Elliot Page by his deadname, it's not the hyphenated one. This deadname is not at all useful in identifying the subject of the article to any reasonable hypothetical reader who might only know Eliot by his deadname, and essentially serves as trivia. In other words, it's not a "significant alternative name" (emphasis in the original) as specified in MOS:BOLDALTNAMES. Certainly it doesn't make sense to bump the deadname that might actually be useful to a reader to later in the lead sentence. Under other circumstances, it could definitely be reasonable to still include someone's birth name, even if they don't go by it, but here, given that there are also the privacy and deadname concerns at play, it seems to me to be a pretty obvious case to keep this out of the lead sentence. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you're confusing things by suggesting this is a "significant alternative name." It's not -- it's a birth name, and it was significant/notable at the time. Even applying standards such as WP:NACTOR, the Philpotts-Page birth name was notable enough at the time. This isn't "trivia". Rather, it helps add clarity for people who might navigate to the article from other sources (including all the RS listed above). Samp4ngeles (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, fine, then let's take a look at MOS:BIRTHNAME, where we find: the birth name may be given in the lead as well, if relevant...Specific guidelines apply to living transgender and non-binary people. (emphasis mine) The explanatory footnote calls out privacy interests in their birth names, and while it says that in most cases, that privacy concern doesn't stop us from listing the birth name in the lead for living public figures, it indicates via wikilink that trans people are specifically not most cases. Your assertion that including it increases clarity beggars belief; one of your links is to the Internet Archive, and the TV Guide one is internally linked itself to an article titled Elliot Page. Your Canadian Encyclopedia link primarily identifies Elliot as, well, Elliot, and I'm guessing the Who's Who links also do not primarily identify him by his birth name, as they were all published 8 years or more after he stopped using it professionally. So, no, I do not find it remotely plausible that a reader might honestly come to this page from that name without any indication of one of the other names already in the lede. Moreover, it's not like it's hard to figure out "Philpotts-Page" is related to "Page". It doesn't provide any actual benefit to the reader, other than as trivia, and again, the privacy and deadname concerns outweigh the value of a piece of trivia, especially when placed in the lead sentence.

If you were trying to put this in the "early life" section, you might have a point. I would still disagree with that, but it would be defensible. This has no reason to be in the lead sentence. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

And, if we included it, we'd get to the point where we're overloading the first sentence with alt names and should consider mentioning them later or in a footnote. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper A reader could come to the article from a variety of sources, including something as simple as watching the film or or episodes and seeing the name in credits. And you do realize that TV Guide is a perennial RS, right? The Canadian Who's Who listings do have Philpotts-Page as a primary listing. And the Canadian Encyclopedia link lists "Elliot Page (born Ellen Philpotts-Page)." I'm having trouble following what WP guideline/policy you are trying to apply here. MOS:DEADNAME is just an essay, but even that is useful, as the birthname is in fact relevant as explained by the sources (and notability and reliability). "Overloading the first sentence with names" is not a policy/guideline. In fact, MOS:BIRTHNAME, MOS:MULTIPLENAMES, and MOS:NE explain how/why it is done, and Caitlyn Jenner's use of the William Bruce Jenner birthname is an excellent model for someone who was notable under birth name, went by another name that was more notable (Bruce Jenner), and then transitioned to another name. No need to fiddle with moving the information elsewhere, as @[[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers] suggests. Samp4ngeles (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you say MOS:DEADNAME is just an essay; it's a guideline, just like the rest of the Manual of Style, and in fact is a section of the same exact page that the rest of your links go to. Speaking of, MOS:BIRTHNAME and MOS:MULTIPLENAMES are the same link, and it doesn't indicate that the birth name *has* to be included; only if it is relevant, and again, specifically carves out an exception for trans people. WP:NÉE is a bit stronger, but even then, it doesn't mandate the inclusion of the birth name. And again, my assertion is that there is tension between the two guidelines, and given that the argument for inclusion has value to the reader that is extremely tenuous at best, and the argument for omission has the privacy and deadnaming concerns that the guidelines specifically call out, the latter wins. And if you absolutely must have an alphabet-soup link for that, then consider the policy WP:BLP: Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not understanding, but what is the deadnaming concern with mentioning his former surname? He didn't change it as part of his gender transition, and his actual deadname is listed right at the start of the article. You seem to be insinuating there is some kind of gender related issue with the name "Philpotts-Page" when that doesn't seem to be the case, it's just a birth name that he doesn't use professionally. XeCyranium (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Does nobody understand how nonsensical the sentence, "He received critical acclaim for portraying the title role, a pregnant teenager, in Jason Reitman's film Juno (2007), and earned nominations for an Academy Award, two BAFTA Awards,..." is? I say this having previously been named Editor of the Week, an award that specifically stated that I was "recognized for Gender Studies". JezGrove (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

As an Editor of the Week, an award specifically for Gender Studies, no doubt you'll learn to manage. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

haha that's funny 101.119.127.141 (talk) 07:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Over half of male pregnancy is examples of it in TV, movies, etc. And obviously, character-roles need not have any relationship to the real-life nature of who plays the role. DMacks (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

References