Talk:Jack Monroe/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Award 2013

Fortnum & Mason Judges Choice 2013 http://www.fortnumandmasonawards.com/ I'm a newbie so loathe to attempt to edit the Jack Monroe page myself, happy for editor to verify & add. TGW5743 (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/10057096/Telegraph-Food-and-Drink-team-celebrate-a-double-win.html Jack's award is mentioned at the end of the Telegraph article, or otherwise mentioned on her blog. TGW5743 (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

References

Sexuality

Is it appropriate that the first statement in the Personal Life section is "Monroe is a lesbian"? Would her sexuality be the first statement if she was heterosexual? If it needs to be there, let's remember that we are in 2014 and have a bit of perspective as to how to present such material. Peteinterpol (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Tone

Reads like a cross between a book for little children and an advertisement. Is it true she's now involved/connected to Labour? 109.224.137.121 (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC) According to one of the links on the article, she has two cats called Miliband and Harriet. I think if someone names their cats that we can safely assume they're linked to Labour! 92.25.27.159 (talk) 10:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about that, but I agree that this article does read a bit too positively for what's supposed to be a neutral biography. It should probably be rewritten to focus on the facts of her career; the emotive descriptions of poverty and quotes from her are a bit excessive. Robofish (talk) 13:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

And now it's all quotes from her. She's totally awesome, but there aren't many person pages that are their Wikiquote page in a funny hat. I'll take a look when I have time. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

GreenFairy.com

IIRC she used to run a Weblog called GreenFairy.com which won a "best blog" award from The Guardian, circa 2000. Same person? Notable? Here's a link: [1]. Equinox (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems unlikely since Monroe would have been 13 or 14 at the time the award was given, let alone when she was supposedly writing the blog, and since the Grauniad article says nothing about it and it's a dead link... Pinkbeast (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

quote soup

I have not had time and I'm unlikely to have time, but I do still feel that the article should be radically restructured to remove most or all the direct quotes and make more use of sources about Monroe rather than by her.

The Sarah Vain attack piece might be removed at the same time. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed; it's way too focused on primary sources and is beginning to like a massive overuse of quotations from Monroe herself. I disagree about the Sarah Vine piece, as it does appear to be notable due to its mention in the media. But certainly, these direct quotations need to be addressed, and preferably some more secondary sources are needed. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 17:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the tags from the article now. Thank you to all the editors (inc. yourself, Pinkbeast) who have edited the article. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 11:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Gender Pronoun

Hi, pretty new to editing Wikipedia so apologies if I'm going about things in the wrong way, but I noticed that Jack Monroe had recently come out as trans (non-binary) on Twitter, so I (perhaps over-zealously!) changed the gender pronouns in the article. I guess there needs to be more discussion before this is accepted, but it does now seem that:
a) Jack Monroe has "officially" come out as trans
b) They have clearly stated their preferred gender pronouns
c) Wikipedia's guidelines state that a person's preferred pronouns should be used
The discussion above seems to have originated before this recent information came to light, so perhaps this changes/clarifies the situation? For what it's worth, Monroe has also recently expressed frustration towards use of their former name.
Mattybrad (talk) 09:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Matty, see Bidisha for more on this. Yout last point 'For what it's worth' is irrelevant. Thanks for your input, however. --82.41.251.96 (talk) 10:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that information Mattybrad. I think it's probably right to use the neutral they in this article then, and I completely disagree with the deadnaming as per MOS:IDENTITY and WP:BIRTHNAME, as cited in the WP:Trans? guideline I mentioned before. (See Laverne Cox, for example.) – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 16:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

It might be politically correct but it's not English. The entire article is basically unreadable, which is the opposite of what wikipedia is meant to be. nick (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Singular "they" dates back to Chaucer; we might be used to it by now. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The article ended up reading badly in places as a result of User:Mattybrad's simple search-and-replace of pronouns, but I thought I'd fixed all the ambiguities and clunkiness this morning - I'm not sure if User:Nicklott is referring to my version or Mattybrad's. (And the article had plenty of bad writing in it even before the pronoun change.) Writing clearly using the singular they doesn't seem beyond the wit of a copyeditor, at worst we just have to repeat Monroe's surname a bit. --McGeddon (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Not wishing to offend, but I really don't think the current use of "their" is readable. It is a plural, not a singular. It isn't correct grammatically, it reads very poorly, is confusing, and even if Geoffrey Chaucer used the pronoun in that way (as Pinkbeast claims above) this is the English lnaguage Wikipedia, not the Middle English Wikipedia. I understand that a gender neutral pronoun is desired, but I do not think that sentences such as "Monroe left a job at the fire service in 2011, after being unable to negotiate flexible working with regard to childcare for their son, Johnny" work. It makes Monroe sound like a group or organisation, rather than an individual. The Dancing Badger (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The singular they isn't that bad; it's faintly confusing here for suggesting that Johnny might have been the fire service's son, but not a big deal to work around - we can drop "for their son, Johnny" and just talk about childcare, and mention him somewhere else. (I'll do that now.) We can reword and split sentences as much as we like while copyediting, we don't have to pull our hair out trying to maintain whatever particular sentence structure happened to exist when we got here. --McGeddon (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Consensus here is in full support of using singular they then, but with caution? – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 14:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

This article reads very poorly. Jack Monroe is entitled to whatever name, but not to redefine the English language. 'They' makes this article a distracting mess. 95.150.205.251 (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

All bio articles of this type inevitably attract activist editors wanting to right great wrongs and become of little use to a general readership as a result. Many of the concepts used mean nothing to the general public and wikilinking them doesn't help much. I don't have a solution. --Ef80 (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I've been away for two weeks, but it seems perfectly clear to me at present. The only non-obvious concept is "deadname" (and appears only in a direct quote from Monroe, so cannot be improved beyond wikilinking it), and the second para of "Personal Life" makes it clear they don't want their birth name used, so that shouldn't lead to too much confusion. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Use of former name in article

Given what appears to be a recent lack of agreement (notwithstanding the rights and wrongs) over use of Ms. Monroe's previous (now therefore no longer strictly-speaking relevant in terms of her public persona) name in the article, albeit from widely-available sources wherein the individual in question addresses the issue perfectly openly, perhaps it would be worth outlining here (there being no appropriate place in the article proper) the rationale behind the apparent decision by several users to remove the name, so as at least to indicate to future editors why such has been decided and perhaps prevent similar edit chains taking place? Certainly Monroe has herself stated that she considers the former name to be irrelevant, but it might be worthwhile for a person who thinks themself well-versed in these 21-st century identity issues to take the time to address the matter here (doubtlessly far more efficiently than I myself could do) with reference to how this case differs from the many other cases wherein an article does provide the individual's former name, so as to hopefully prevent the issue raising its head again (particularly in light of the fact that Monroe has mentioned people addressing her directly as 'Melissa', presumably in hopes of getting a rise out of her or making some kind of statement). Otherwise the risk is run of readers simply assuming that Monroe has some kind of 'protected status' where others, who might well equally be desirous of having their former names omitted, are not afforded the same courtesy. Just a thought! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.158.151.114 (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I edited the previous comment to remove said deadname. Cheeky, I know.

My take on it, which I do not believe is at odds with Wikipedia policy, is that it is polite not to include a deadname in the article where the subject of the article prefers it not to be used.

However, in almost all cases, the subject of the article has been to some degree notable under that name and in those cases politeness must give way to not confusing the reader. To pick an extreme case, the reader may well have heard of "Bradley Manning"; that name cannot possibly be elided from Chelsea Manning.

In this case, however, it is fortunately the case that Monroe's notability has entirely occurred under the name "Jack", and her previous name is entirely non-pertinent to the article. Therefore there is no reason to include it; it suffices to document, as we have, that she changed it. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Pinkbeast. There seems no policy-based reason to raise her previous name in the article. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 15:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it was cheeky, and it was also wrong. This is a biographical article about a person; if that person changed their name then it should be obvious to anyone viewing the subject from an NPOV that the name they had prior to doing so is of encyclopaedic interest. The "policy based reason" is the fact that this is an encyclopedia, not a platform for POV-pushing. The matter of politeness does not arise, because nobody has suggested that she be referred to as her birth name, which appears to have been Melissa, throughout the article. The argument is simply that the fact of what her birth name was is a salient fact about her. I believe this is the case and that her birth name of Melissa should not be being excised, and I dispute any putative consensus to the contrary. Lordrosemount (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Hardly. It's pertinent that she changed it, but why does the reader care what it was beforehand?

I also think it's entirely unreasonable to jump the gun by intentionally slapping that name up on the talk page. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not in any position to comment on what any number of readers may or may not care about, and I rather think our opinions on that subject are irrelevant: the fact is that this article is a biography, and the purpose of biographies is to present facts about their subjects. I have yet to see a valid argument against including the name. The best that's been presented so far is that she accomplished nothing of note while living under that name, but if you look at the article associated with just about any prominent figure you'll see any number of facts associated with their lives, and in many cases even about their ancestors, that occurred before the events that made them notable. This very article includes the statement "Monroe initially worked for the fire service," yet according to your own argument the fact that that occurred during what you say is a "non-notable" period in her life means this and other such statements should be excised. I don't think it should be, because I disagree with the premise you're operating under. Do you have any other valid reason for excising the birth name from the article? Lordrosemount (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

See WP:Trans?, which cites several other policies as to why the previous name of an individual should not be included in an article, unless they were notable before coming out. I don't see why we should make any exception in this case, even if Jack is not transgender herself, surely the principle stays. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 22:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Corrected on 16 October, incorrectly implied Monroe was transgender by mistake.

That's not a policy, it's a guideline, and the things it cites are another guideline and several policies that do not clearly appear to apply in this instance. Per WP:PROJGUIDE, guidelines are general agreements between members of projects concerning articles under their purview, but since the subject of this article has chosen to seek notoriety outwith the community of people who are specifically interested in LGBT issues this article cannot be considered the exclusive property of WikiProject LGBT studies members, to determine content solely in accordance with their own internal policies. The general Wikipedian interest in including properly sourced facts about the subjects of articles supersedes any argument that has been made so far for excising this one. Once again, this is not an attempt to invalidate or discredit Ms Monroe's decision to change her name, and it certainly is not an attempt to suggest that she ought to be referred to by her birth name, contrary to her wishes: that is what would be impolite or inappropriate. I am very simply arguing that no case for excising this particular fact from this article has been made, and as such that the fact should be sensitively restored in the "Personal life" section, most appropriately at the end of the third sentence of its second paragraph. I am struggling to see a competent argument against this proposal. Lordrosemount (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not a member of Wikiproject LGBT studies (and you will see from my contributions that I am not predominantly interested in such articles), so the assertion that it is "considered the exclusive property" of such editors is false. I don't know if Zumoarirodoka is or not. You have missed their point that it links to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Names which is not specific to that Wikiproject and entirely clear about the relationship between deadnames and notability. If I am not very much mistaken, Laverne Cox does not mention Ms Cox's deadname at all. I see no reason why Jack Monroe is different.

There are two reasons why her previous job with the Fire Brigade has more place in the article. One is that clearly it informed her later life (indeed, we used to have a direct quote from her in later life about that job) whereas there is no reason to suppose that her previous name did. The other is that she does not mind that fact being known; now if a fact is genuinely pertinent, the subject's feelings cannot matter, but I fail to see it makes a jot of difference if the woman one has only ever heard of as "Jack" used to be called Susan or Kirsty.

Frankly I also feel that if you were acting in good faith you would not post the deadname on the talk page unless there was a consensus to put it in the article. It does not in any way aid your argument. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

That said, I would appreciate it if you continued this discussion. I don't think discussion with this rather uncouth IP is productive. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Let me quote what the MOS actually says: "In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should only be included in the lead sentence if the person was notable prior to coming out." This woman is not transgender and there has been no proposal to add her former name (I don't know what a "deadname" is, but it sounds like a made-up term) in the lead sentence, so this appears to be irrelevant. I think it's of interest because it would be highly conceivable, and may even be commonplace, for readers to ask themselves, "Why is this woman called Jack; surely this cannot have been her given name?", and check Wikipedia in search of an answer. The reasons that have been given for refusing to do so are spurious. Lordrosemount (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Presently the article says they are trans & non-binary, cited to some degree. I'm not sure what I think of that, but I think the same principle applies to Monroe whether or not they are. I think you have misread the MOS; "birth names should only be included in the lead sentence" does not mean "but feel free to put it anywhere else", as is clear from "In cases where the prior name is known only as the result of an outing, editors may feel it would be giving it undue weight to include it in the article".

I think that is an entirely reasonable question to ask; that is why the article says 'It was at around this time Monroe changed her name to "Jack"'. (I wonder also if their surname changed, since apparently the child of Evelyn and David Hadjicostas ended up with the surname "Monroe".) That answers the salient question; the specifics of what the name _was_ seem less pertinent. It could usefully be answered in the lead in a non-clumsy fashion, but for the time being I have answered it in the lead in a clumsy fashion which I hope improves matters. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't misread it at all: why even mention the lead sentence if the policy is intended to apply to the entirety of any affected article? The fact that it then goes on to specify another condition for when names shouldn't be included, which isn't met in this instance, is another red herring. For an article to state that someone has changed their name but then not say what it was changed from seems a bizarre, pointless ommission that doesn't stand to reason. Lordrosemount (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Melissa doesn't claim to be trans in the Guardian piece (cite 2) --82.41.251.96 (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Currently there is consensus to put Melissa in the article, 2:1. Feel free to go to arbitration. --82.41.251.96 (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be an *impartial* information source, but it seems to be too PC for its own good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:5215:5400:D8ED:CD6A:7F92:CB5E (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Note that 82.41.251.96 accused me of being Jack Monroe in an uncivil (asking if I (supposing I am Monroe) want "a spanking from the people on here who know procedure inside out") comment here which they have now excised. That is why I wrote this reply below. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Consensus isn't counting noses (although I don't know how Zumoarirodoka and I don't have two noses between us). I have 770 pages on my watchlist, so clearly I must be the subject of one of them? You can see my contributions: if I'm Jack Monroe, you would conclude she is secretly interested in bicycles, Napoleonics, and steam locomotives - but hardly ever edits pages about food. Your accusation is fatuous. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@82.41.251.96: There is absolutely no reason to include Monroe's former name on this article, a quick search of the terms "Melissa Monroe" and "Jack Monroe" should show that there is very little notability of her previous name, other than for trivial matters. As Pinkbeast has just said, consensus is not built by just counting the number of people in favour of a change (although I don't understand why you counted Pinkbeast and myself as one vote, unless you're implying we're the same person, now?). I can also find very few reliable sources that even mention her former name, it seems unnecessary to include. Making accusations about other editors (and absurdly daft and disruptive ones at that) doesn't help, either.

Also, to clarify: Yes, I am involved in the LGBT studies Wikiproject, so if you want to claim that I have a conflict of interest, sure (although I'm not sure how that works, as Jack is not trans but is a lesbian who just changed her name to a more "butch" one – an error which I corrected in my last comment). I'm also not sure what you mean by "see 'Bidisha'" either, as that article seems to have very little relevance to this discussion. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 16:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Would you kindly explain what you think consensus is, then? You don't think has anything to do with people expressing opinions contrary to your own, and I've yet to see a valid argument for your position. Now you seem to be saying it's a matter of notability, but in my view if someone chooses to put themselves in the public eye having changed their name, the fact of their having done so - and the name they changed it from - is ipso facto notable. It seems you're just going to keep removing the name from the article regardless of either reason or what anyone else thinks. Lordrosemount (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I hope consensus is what we may arrive at after a productive discussion, although obviously I also hope to convince you of our point of view. Bluntly, however, I think 82.41.251.96 is NOTHERE. The ridiculous accusation that I _am_ Monroe along with the offer of "a spanking" should convince you of that. Hence, I think we might agree to resist their attempts to force the name into the article while we have that discussion. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you're having trouble finding reliable sources containing her birth name. It took ne 10 seconds to find the Guardian article (cited) which talks at length about her birth name. I see articles in the Telegraph, The Daily Mail (she's apparently suing the Mail for claiming Jack is not her 'real' name - sound trivial?), The Independent, Pink News and... in pieces (plural) her own website. The subject seems to think it's relevant but you don't? How odd. It's staying unless arbitration says otherwise. --82.41.251.96 (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps a compromise of sorts can be suggested here. On the one hand, there is clearly no need to emphasise Monroe's birth name, and thus no need to include it in the lede, for example. On the other, it could be mentioned in passing when discussing their early life later in the article, for example "Monroe was born in 1988 and given the birth name Melissa Monroe*", which would then have to be cited to a reliable source. This approach, which is one of mentioning the birth name but not over-emphasizing it, has been adopted over at Death of Leelah Alcorn, a trans topic article that I have been prominently involved with. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

One difficulty with that is that I think, unless I am mistaken, you'll find it extremely hard to cite their surname at birth. (I have no idea where "Monroe" came from). Pinkbeast (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I entirely agree, and this is precisely what I've been suggesting all along. If there's a problem sourcing her surname at birth then we can leave that alone for noe, until such time as it can be sourced - it's the given name we've been discussing here. Lordrosemount (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

She wasn't given the birth name Melissa Monroe. She was born Melissa Jayne HADJICOSTAS as per birth record

First name(s) MELISSA JAYNE Last name HADJICOSTAS Birth year 1988 Birth quarter 2 Registration month 4 Mother's last name BEATTY District SOUTHEND ON SEA County Essex Country England Volume 9 Page 4324 Record set England & Wales births 1837-2006 Category Birth, Marriage, Death & Parish Records Subcategory Births & baptisms--84.45.236.96 (talk) 10:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Having edited the article the other day, I probably should have commented here, so I'll do that now. I don't support referring to Monroe's gender status or previous name in the first line of the article, which seems like undue emphasis (Monroe is notable as a food writer and campaigner, not for being transgender). If a reliable source could be found for Monroe's previous name, it could be included further down in the article; but as they didn't become notable under that name, Wikipedia's guidelines for trans people recommend against doing so. This isn't like Chelsea Manning or Caitlyn Jenner, who became famous under different names; 'Jack Monroe' is how this person has always been referred to in reliable sources. So on balance I'd say keep the former name out entirely. Robofish (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

By that rationale, you should also exclude Michael Caine's real name.--84.45.236.96 (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Lordrosemount's first comment above. I restored the original opening comment made by 217.158.151.114 per WP:TPOC. Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Is it not possible to come up with a formulation which acknowledges a former name, and states the person considers it a deadname, without mentioning it? "Monroe's birth name is considered by they to be a deadname, and they have asked for it to not be used in relation to them." with relevant links to other sources should the reader be so inclined to really seek it out?Lacunae (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC) I think a degree of skepticism regarding titles the subject chooses to assume might be wise, as this report suggests the subject also is using the prefix Dr based on an Honorary degree.http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/10/29/leftie-journo-says-shes-not-woman-wins-womans-award/ Lacunae (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

JACK MONROE'S FORMER NAME (from Jack's own page, an interview with them): They dont object to the former 'dead' name apparently, according to this: http://jackatapinch.com/2015/11/15/the-transformation-of-jack-monroe-the-times-november-2015/

'Jack Monroe has a birth name of Melissa. She changed it by deed poll after Johnny was born – an early step towards where she is now. Contrary to what her detractors think, “I’m not ashamed of it or embarrassed by it,” she says. “It’s on my bloody birth certificate and on my karate records and my GCSEs. My mum cross-stitched me a beautiful picture with bears on carrying a banner across saying Melissa and it’s in my flat. I haven’t burnt it or torn it to pieces or unpicked it or restitched it. I’m fine with it, but Jack is my real name.”'

So, in theory, its not so serious a matter to simply refer to it here for clearing up the issue to benefit anyone wanting to know the answer- the former name is after all clearly stated in many references to this very article! So, why, if it is easily located online and Jack says they don't care anyway, should it be so serious to worry over? They dont really care that much, they said so themself. What they said is recognition that the former name existed but is no longer relevant, as so many details on a wikipedia page, surely it's not the end of the world to include it and be done with it, as it is referring to their past, not present or future, thats all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.195.153 (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

"While her haters are always keen to bring up her birth name just to annoy her" Pinkbeast (talk) 12:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Very well, but that discussion of some fact about a person might be annoying to them is not a reason for excluding it from Wikipedia. Generally it's taken to be the opposite, given the vast number of articles prominently featuring gaffes and criticism relating to individuals with entries here. If you wish to argue that article subjects should as a matter of policy be permitted to excise facts they find inconvenient, I would suggest that this is not the appropriate forum.

Moreover, your comment proves that the name is notable in the context of public discussion about her. To me, therefore, it clinches the case for inclusion, and so I propose that the current sentence “After leaving the fire service, Monroe changed their name by deed poll to "Jack"” be amended to include the words “From Melissa” in the obvious place. Failing well-reasoned arguments to the contrary I shall amend the article accordingly after an appropriate interval, unless anyone else happens to have got there first. Lordrosemount (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that it was. I was just observing that 92.24.195.153 has engaged in some quite selective quoting.

I disagree, as you know perfectly well. _That_ Monroe changed their name is notable. What they changed it from is not at all pertinent. Follow the MOS, please. Pinkbeast (talk) 07:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Confusing....

This article is so confusing. The fact that Monroe was born a woman, up until a few weeks ago lived as a woman, but had a public persona as Jack for writing and is now living as a man named Jack, is not at all clear from the article. Between the pronoun of "they", the complete omission of the birth name from the article, and the fact that the transgenderism part is buried in the second paragraph of the personal life section, and the fact that this buried statement itself is not clear and direct, makes it all so confusing. 2.103.14.55 (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The article isn't clear about Monroe "living as a man named Jack" because that's not what's happening - Monroe is identifying as "non-binary". I agree that this particular line isn't written very coherently, and there was one slightly clunky "themselves" left over from when the article had its pronouns search-and-replaced (which I've just fixed), but I don't see that this makes any of the rest of the article confusing. --McGeddon (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I've now rewritten the opaque "came out as transgender (non-binary)" paragraph. --McGeddon (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

So Melissa/they is/are a man now? Even Chaucer would have difficulties keeping up with this one! 82.41.251.96 (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is a postmodern mess

Everywhere I go on the internet I'm confronted with this neutral gender pronoun campaigning. It's not the fact of gender shifting that is problematic, but the unreadable prose that comes of trying to make a granite-tipped point of the fact at every juncture. The 'they' and 'their' in this article makes a complete mess of readability. I didn't have clue what some of the sentences were referring to until I got way down the page and realised that it was a minor political act that was causing the unreadability.

In an encyclopaedia, which is for general information to a wide audience, it does no good to write like this. It's pushing the issue of the non-existence of a gender neutral pronoun in English onto a general readership and as a result makes it unreadable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.72.180.236 (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

This is why we English-speakers need to set aside the unfortunate implications of "it" and use that, or else coin a new set of pronouns.

I agree that this article is poorly written and arguably non-neutral. And I have to add, just mentioning Monroe's former forename isn't "deadnaming" them; it's just biographical information. Argue that it's non-notable all you want—if that's the case, remove all of the information pertaining to Monroe's early life—their parents have no more notability than their birth name. 72.200.151.15 (talk) 12:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The article was largely rewritten by a single IP editor shortly before you posted that comment, and not rewritten particularly well (eg. "Monroe found themself unable"). As discussed above, the singular "they" is fine, and it shouldn't be beyond us to write an article that uses it without being confusing or drawing unnecessary attention to itself.

I copyedited the whole article into shape this morning, but it looks as if an IP has reverted it all back since, with no edit summary and restoring family details against WP:BLPNAMES. I've gone ahead and reverted to my previous version. --McGeddon (talk) 12:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Boy, that is a helluva lot better. Good work. 72.200.151.15 (talk) 02:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Coo, that's not what I expect when an IP edits this talk page. :-) Pinkbeast (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Censorship

"Monroe is non-binary transgender, formally came out in October 2015, and goes by singular they pronouns, rather than "he" or "she". Earlier in 2015, Monroe had initiated legal action after the Daily Mail claimed that "Jack" was not Monroe's "real" name, and has requested that their birth name not be used by the media." Wikipedia is not censored. Guideline based exclusions (i.e. MOS:IDENTITY and MOS:BIRTHNAME), which only apply to certain cases, do not give carte blanche for censorship. A peice of information (i.e. the birth name of the subject "Melissa") specifically relevent to the subject at hand in the paragraph quoted, should not be written around or left out. The Daily Mail article itself could be used as a source for what it printed. This seems to be the best example, though there are other occurences in the article where a strong argumemt could be made to include the name in question. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 08:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I think classifying the omission of Monroe's birth name as "censorship" is pretty fatuous - singularly ineffective censorship, to boot, given that drive-by IPs add it to this talk page on a regular basis.

I've yet to hear, given that it's clear enough that it was a girl's name, any coherent explanation of why the reader's understanding is in any way improved by knowing exactly what it was.

If MOS:BIRTHNAME's "birth names should be included in the lead sentence only if the person was notable prior to coming out" does not apply to someone whose entire public life has been under another name, I have no idea who you think it does apply to. Before you say "that's just about the lead", likewise WP:TRANSNAME's "In cases where the prior name is known only as the result of an outing, editors may feel it would be giving it undue weight to include it in the article, unless it was subsequently widely reported in reliable sources". I don't think a couple of muckraking articles in the gutter press really qualify; Monroe's birth name is not widely reported because it is not pertinent to any serious story about them. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED is a policy, while WP:TRANSNAME is an essay on style. Essays merely represent a viewpoint on a matter related to editing, they are not necessarily widely held. Policies explain and describe standards that all users should follow. They are by no means equal, policies overrule essays. It is clear that MOS:BIRTHNAME from the manual of style isn't applicable here, the wording of the excerpt that you quote above is very specific as to what it pertains to (I'm not suggesting the name be added to the lead).—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I think an equally specific reading of WP:NOTCENSORED shows that it is not pertinent because the name in question is not "offensive or objectionable", and there is no suggestion it should be removed on that basis.

Hence we return to the basic question; does it give undue weight to include a name when the reader's understanding is in no way promoted by doing so? Pinkbeast (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The reader's understanding is promoted by doing so by definition, the only reason to exclude said info from the section in question is because some find it objectionable. Context matters, the text doesn't say the content itself must be objectionable, rather "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive—​even exceedingly so." (per WP:NOTCENSORED), hence it is completely applicable here. Bar advocacy and users not liking it (i.e. there is no solid ground in policy/guidelines for exclusion in this case), resulting in objections, there would be no question about its inclusion. There is no comparison to be made, the part of MOS:BIRTHNAME mentioned above is about the lead, while WP:NOTCENSORED applies to the encyclopedia as a whole.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 18:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Stating or quoting the subject's birth/former name in parts of the article describing controversy surrounding it, is a lot different from inappropriately referring to the subject by the name, or even stating their birth name in an early life section. Requesting a third opinion.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested. It appears that one of the editors thinks that the omission of Monroe's birth name would be censorship. Perhaps I don't understand the question, because I certainly don't see why the application of the policy on biographies of living persons policy to respect Monroe's chosen identity is censorship. I am leaving the third opinion request up because I would like a concise civil statement by each editor of what each of them thinks is the question. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement from Godsy: I am not suggesting we disrespect Monroe's chosen identity by using non-preferred pronouns or referring to them by the former name. What I am suggesting is the inclusion of the former name in a part of the article specifically describing controversy surrounding it. The former name would probably be in quotes, and can be verifiably attributed to sources, some of which I believe are already used in the article. Not including the name under certain circumstances is censorship. The policy on biographies of living persons policy isn't violated by what I'm suggesting, while the policy against censorship is, if it is not done. It is not appropriate to censor the speech of certain groups (i.e. the Daily Mail and Sarah Vine) via exclusion simply because what they have said may be unpopular, if the controversies surrounding their use of the former name are included in the article, which they currently are (see the collapsed portion for the excerpts from the article that are in question).

examples from the article

Monroe kept their birthname while working at the fire service, concerned over "the potential for deadnaming and bullying in a not-particularly-tolerant organisation. Not a great place to be gay, let alone genderqueer." (a weak case for inclusion could be made) In 2014, Sarah Vine (wife of the senior Conservative politician Michael Gove) criticised Monroe in the Daily Mail for allegedly choosing a life of poverty and using the death of David Cameron's son for political purposes. The Independent described this as a "caustic attack", and Monroe replied that the column was "homophobic, transphobic, deadnaming [and] ignorant" on Twitter. (Vine's negative speech which included the former name isn't included, while Monroe's negative characterization of it is) Earlier in 2015, Monroe had initiated legal action after the Daily Mail claimed that "Jack" was not Monroe's "real" name, and has requested that their birth name not be used by the media. (not including the former name is censorship, as it is directly related to the controversy)

So, the question is: Does the exclusion of the former name, which can be quoted from sources, from parts of the article describing controversies directly related to it constitute censorship?

Best Regards, —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

No. The exclusion of material that can be sourced does not necessarily constitute censorship, and usually does not constitute censorship. Only certain types of requests to remove or delete information, such as because it is pornographic or profane, would constitute censorship. The policy on censorship is sometimes misunderstood in good faith, and is sometimes misstated in bad faith. This seems to be a good-faith misunderstanding. In particular, the removal of a former name in this case is in accordance with the policy on biographies of living persons as reflecting the individual's wishes to be treated with respect (which, in their case, includes their chosen name). Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I feel there's a bit of a wiggle here in the uses of "censorship" and "censor". "It is not appropriate to censor the speech of certain groups (i.e. the Daily Mail and Sarah Vine)" is quite distinct from WP:NOTCENSORED - we are certainly under no obligation to put anything the Daily Mail wants to write onto Wikipedia (although I suppose there would be some harmless amusement to be had from the assignment of all pages into "Category:Things that cause cancer" and "Category:Things that cure cancer").

There's also a bit of a gotcha above where material is "objectionable" if it generates "objections", where thinking a fact is not germane to a page is an objection. I'm not quite sure that is the sense that NOTCENSORED uses the word "objectionable" in, particularly since this argument would otherwise apply to just about any text removal from a Wikipedia page.

I don't have much to add to what I wrote above. I think WP:TRANSNAME is correct that it may be giving undue weight to a deadname to include it merely because the gutter press has dragged it up: and if that argument is ever correct it is surely correct in the case of someone whose entire public life has been under a different name.

It would be inappropriate to try and remove from the article the fact that Monroe used to identify as female, or that they got a girl's name at birth; but I really don't see that it makes a lick of difference to anyone if that name was Katie or Susan or whatever. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Her name was Melissa Hadjicostas. Why is this a state secret, we don't do the same with Cliff Richard, Michael Caine or Ringo Starr? (93.97.41.254)

Cleanup?

I think this could do with a real clean up - there doesn't seem to be much distinction between "Early-life and Career" and "Personal Life" at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doom halo (talk • contribs) 08:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Assigned female at birth

There seems to have been hundreds of edits on this page changing between born female and assigned female at birth. Can there be a discussion to clarify the correct terminology. I believe for someone who identified as non binary 'assigned female at birth' would be most correct. But I would like to hear the rationale for changes from another editor. Fairysweetness (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I also think that's the correct terminology (and, bluntly speaking, the people who change it back aren't doing it out of a pure-hearted concern for the good of the article). Pinkbeast (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Pronouns (contd.)

In this interview in The Observer dated 24 July 2016, Monroe says she is now happy to go by the pronoun "she" and indeed is referred to in this way throughout the piece. Should the article be updated to reflect this? MFlet1 (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thus giving us a nicely confusing situation where we refer to someone as non-binary but call them "she" throughout. Gah! (Not your fault, just a bit vexing from the article-writing point of view). Pinkbeast (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, seems a bit contradictory. It could be that Monroe still prefers "they" whilst not personally regarding it as a big issue. Perhaps we should leave it for now. MFlet1 (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The only vexing part is that a lot of random editors will come by changing the pronouns to "they" without actually reading the article, like with Ruby Rose or Amandla Stenberg. Otherwise, this is pretty usual. Using feminine pronouns shouldn't be an issue. ~Mable (chat) 21:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually reading the Guardian article in question, Monroe's preference is rather vague. Let's quote the interesting parts for simplicity:

Q: And is it OK to use “she”? (Some trans people prefer “they”.) A: “She” is fine, she says. “I’m not transitioning to male. So I don’t feel I need to be referred to as ‘he’. For some people, pronouns are a very important part of how they identify. I completely understand that. For me, I have more of a looser interpretation.”

I think both "she" and "they" have good arguments for usage here. It was less than a year ago when this was published: "... Please use ‘they/them/their’ in place of ‘she/her’ etc. ..." These lines wouldn't be relevant anymore if Monroe showed an updated preference, but she kinda hasn't? To make a comparison, if someone asked me "is it OK to use 'she'," I'd say "she is fine," but if someone asked me "is it OK to use 'he'," then I'd also say "he is fine"... Hrm, this is complicated. I don't think it actually matters much whether we use "she" or "they", though. After all, she did say pronouns aren't particularly important to her. If anything, we really need to update the parts of the article where her pronoun usage is described. Ideas? I'm not sure why the pronoun usage is currently described in the lead section either way... ~Mable (chat) 07:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I think we mention it in the lead to reduce the drive-by editing to the actively malicious rather than the merely confused, to be frank. I mean... to avoid confusing the reader. (Well, that too.) Pinkbeast (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I found using "they" instead of she to be confusing throughout the article until I re-read that portion where Jack likes to be addressed as "they". Also isn't it pandering to the person named in an article when what they want is what "must" be written about that person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.60.226 (talk) 10:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID says to reflect a person's self-identification. We should write the article in such a way that it isn't confusing to the reader, but we're only dealing with the singular they here, it should be easy enough to do that. Which sentences seem confusing? (There was an ambiguous line yesterday about Monroe having a mother and a father and "their" father having been in the army, but that's been rewritten now.) --McGeddon (talk) 11:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

A-HA! that's the one! It made me think of Jack Monroe as some form of multiple people/persons/band/conjoined twin or something along those lines. Maybe something along the lines of, Jack Monroe prefers to use or be referred to using singular pronouns of they and their. As it is now it's written as just singular they, and doesn't all that important until you read the rest of the article. Also saves on clicking to find out what "singular they" is in another article. (PS I had no idea who Jack Monroe was until I saw the news that there was a win in a libel suit. So I'm not asking out of a mean spiritedness) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.60.226 (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

We currently have two occasions where the singular they (i.e. a third person singular subject) is followed by the third person plural form of the verb e.g. "... Monroe told their partner they were considering a mastectomy". Is this correct? To me, it clangs and, in this case, confuses the meaning! Nedrutland (talk) 08:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I note in the introduction of the libel judgment; "The claimant, assigned female gender at birth, now identifies as "non-binary transgender". But by agreement, I shall call her Ms Monroe and use feminine pronouns." http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2017/433.html Nedrutland (talk) 08:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Recent sources ([2] [3]) seem to directly contradict Monroe's indifference to pronouns, claiming that Monroe does use singular they. At this point, I really just want to ask Monroe directly "what do you want on your Wikipedia page?", because this unclarity is not getting us anywhere.

For what it's worth, I don't believe it matters whether we use feminine or neutral pronouns to refer to Monroe. This is not something that needs to be controversial, despite how unclear the situation is. ~Mable (chat) 10:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Does it matter what she/it/they/he want(s) to be called? Isn't that for others to decide (except, of course, when she is talking about herself/itself/himself/themselves)? Sorry, this just won't work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.48.169 (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

According to WP:GENDERID, yes it is. This is not negotiable in this scope, and I recommend against starting a discussion over at the Manual of Style page where these guidelines are described, because this topic is already much-discussed. Also, dude, "it"? Like, don't be a meanie. ~Mable (chat) 18:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

A Guardian article this morning ends with "[Monroe] now identifies as neither male nor female, though she says she prefers the use of female pronouns when being written about. “If it’s going to make an article inaccessible for people to read, then I very much prefer ‘she’.”" - shall we go ahead and apply the same preference here? Or is this more about how to deal with unusual pronouns in everyday press coverage (where you don't, as Wikipedia does, have the space to explain it at the top of the article), and a case of Monroe casually reassuring a journalist about how to transcribe this particular interview? --McGeddon (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Finally! I think this is perfect, and that using feminine pronouns is completely reasonable now. Great find, McGeddon :) ~Mable (chat) 10:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Given that it's slightly second-hand and the context isn't really as clear as it could be (this does read a lot like a journalist checking how to write up the interview), I've gone ahead as suggested above and sent Monroe an email asking for a clear preference for this Wikipedia article. --McGeddon (talk) 11:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Good idea. If they're happy with it, by all means we should revert to "she" - although personally I don't think the article is remotely unclear as it stands. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

(For what it's worth, I never received a reply to the email.) --McGeddon (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for trying anyway :) ~Mable (chat) 17:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Father being decorated for active service in the Falklands

There isn't record of anyone with the surname "Hadjicostas" receiving a Falklands War Gallantry award according to the list of awards on http://www.naval-history.net - See Here If there's been a name change, could someone please trace, or if the interpretation of "decorated for active service" is a GSM or similar, perhaps a little more explanation is required.

Looking again at the sources cited and at The London Gazette I see no evidence to support the claim (which is not central to the page); I have therefore removed it. Nedrutland (talk) 13:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)