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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

???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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Mentioned under #gender transition — Czello (music) 07:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Czello I meant that the first paragraph omits it, should have been more clear VictoriousBard (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Didn't CaptainEek just talk about intersex individuals? "Two sexes" is also inaccurate. casualdejekyll 22:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is an "opinion" I completely disagree with. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
let's not start off-topic debates now. B3251 (talk) 01:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Categories