Jump to content

Talk:Jack Monroe/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Birth name can be included

[1] Here is an interview in which she mentions her birth name, taken during her time in the public eye. This puts Monroe on the same page as Caitlin Jenner etc, who can have the birth name mentioned as it was in the public knowledge. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.255.104.151 (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe Monroe has ever actually been notable under that name, so there's no reason for it to be in the lead section. I don't know how big of an issue it would be to put the name in the personal life section, but I don't think we should base that on a quote from 2013. That being said, the whole paragraph is pretty interesting content for a biographical article: "At around the same time she changed her name by deed poll ... - 'M Monroe is a bit of a handle' she laughed ruefully – to her nickname Jack, short for Jack of all Trades." ~Mable (chat) 19:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I like this person, but reading all of this pronoun business when she obviously doesn't give a toss now and admits that "they" is a clunky formulation, makes me think of her (they) as some sort of a political football to be tossed around to score a point, not a person people are curious about. If she's notable enough to have her own extensive entry (and I think she is) than she's notable enough to have her birth name revealed in it. Also, her fangirls can't seem to resolve for themselves the fact that the mission of this entry is not to please Jack (formerly Melissa) Monroe its to inform others about Jack Monroe. This is an encyclopedia not a gender studies class project.Detmcphierson (talk) 03:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
This is why I said I am fine with her former name to be included in the article, especially if it can be used to create context on how Monroe settled on "Jack". It's not relevant in the lead section, because Monroe was never notable under that name. The whole thing is a mess though, yes, especially with the pronouns issue. The lead section is two lines, and one of them is entirely devoted to explaining Monroe's gender incorrectly... I really need to rewrite a lot of this article at some point >.> ~Mable (chat) 18:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I still think it is not remotely relevant given that Monroe's entire life as a public figure has been as "Jack". Pinkbeast (talk) 23:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the changes I made today are for the better. I wasn't really able to incorporate the "M Monroe is a bit of a handle" line well, sadly, and it might have even just been a joke? It's a bit difficult - feel free to suggest improvements. ~Mable (chat) 10:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think they are for the better and indeed you could immediately and obviously improve matters by removing Monroe's previous name which has no real relevance to the article and there is no consensus to include. I also don't see how the her/they issue got suddenly settled. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
See the #Pronouns (contd.) section for that one. Recent sources have been using feminine pronouns, and Monroe has gone on record saying she was fine with the situation. As for the inclusion of the name: maybe we should contact the WikiProject to gain some larger consensus on it? Seeing as she doesn't seem to mind it seeing published anymore per recent sources, I don't believe deadnaming is really an issue, at least not in sections other than the lead section. If it was, Monroe would have objected to the Telegraph source stating it as it did. ~Mable (chat) 04:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I did read that section; as far as I can see we were not really certain anything had changed. I read the Telegraph article as Monroe wryly acknowledging that oafs will keep bringing it up. Since it's not pertinent I don't think we should number ourselves amongst those oafs. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Your undo of the addition of name and date of birth are directly contrary to all other biography pages on Wikipedia. There are dozens of examples of people who are known by a name different to what they had when they were born and their wikipedia pages show their birth name. Why are you continually removing the birth name on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick47 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:GENDERID, not overemphasizing mostly irrelevant information that could do harm on this living person. Date of birth is, of course, completely fine. ~Mable (chat) 10:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
There is no over-emphasis taking place. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia containing factual information which can be verified by reliable sources. People who are listed on Wikipedia that are known as a name other than their given name at birth have their birth name shown in their article. This person is no different to anyone else. The person is known by a different name than the name they were given at birth. It is not harmful to document this publicly available information. For some reason, a couple of contributors are monitoring this page and reverting edits in a misguided belief that they are providing some kind of protection. That is not how Wikipedia works. It doesn't care about gender, or sexual preference, or any other attribute of a person, it presents factual information, and that's all it does. This person is getting special treatment for some reason and it's wrong to provide it. I can't find any example of anyone well known who uses a name other than the name that they were given at brith, who's name at birth is not shown in their article, except this person. Why is this person getting special treatment? Provide me with one example of any person - living or dead - who was known by a name other than their birth name, and who's birth name is not shown in their entry and I'll drop it. Otherwise, leave the name there and stop removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick47 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
If you review the article you will see that the name _does_ appear in the article. If you review the talk page you will see the arguments presented against putting it in the lead and links to other pages which also do not put deadnames in the lead. So you're asking for "one example" of something which isn't being done to this page while overlooking examples of other pages that do exactly the same thing as this one. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caitlyn_Jenner
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaz_Bono
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wachowskis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_Arquette
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Carrera
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teller_(magician)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duffy_(singer)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elton_John
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cher
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maddox_(writer)
All these people are known by a name other than the one they were born with and they all follow the same format on Wikipedia. Show me an example of anyone on Wikipedia that doesn't follow this practice other than Jack Monroe. You can't. Because there isn't one. Jack Monroe is getting special treatment. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick47 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Death_of_Leelah_Alcorn (not even a BLP). Just first I found from reviewing the earlier discussion, as I suggested you do. You would also have found the sentence "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" from the MOS. Monroe was not notable under the previous name at all. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
That's a ridiculous rule to have. Why should transgender people be treated differently to anyone else? I seem to be the only person who can see the hypocrisy here. The magician Teller has always been known as Teller, yet his birth name is shown in his article, why don't we apply the same rule to him? Utter nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick47 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
This is not an appropriate venue to discuss changes to the MOS. You've had it quoted to you since you couldn't take the time to find it for yourself; now please follow it. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I could name a few more myself as well, but this is indeed not the right place to discuss this. I am reminded of a Request for Change held last year in which a good number of editors even suggested to remove the birth name of people like Chuck Lorre from the lead, as they weren't ever really known under those names. Of course, there was no consensus for that, but I can promise you that consensus here would be against using Monroe's childhood name in the lead section. ~Mable (chat) 12:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Can't you both see the problem with isolating a group of people and treating them differently? You think it's a positive treatment but all people should be treated the same. Your own words are "of course there was no consensus for that" - there should be no consensus for applying one set of guidelines to EVERYONE in the world, and another set for a tiny group of people. And if this isn't a place to discuss it, where is? I won't do anything because I can't be bothered. But it's wrong to treat someone differently just because they are transgender, and that is what Wikipedia is doing. If you can't see that then I can't make you see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick47 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
In short: the balance of harms is different when it comes to transgender individuals' former names. This is the discussion that produced the change to WP:BIRTHNAME regarding transgender individuals, and this is a recent discussion rehashing the matter. I encourage you to let this go. You don't understand even the basics of our community, and your argument in favor of changing the guideline is far less persuasive than those that have already been rejected. All you will accomplish by this is frustration. Rebbing 12:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
There are two problems. First is that it shouldn't be offensive to refer to a trans person by their birth name - and if it is, how come it's ok to mention inside an article but not in the first line? - Second, this issue is one where the loudest people will always win so there's no point arguing. I like that you're telling me to let it go, because it shows that you are certain I will lose. I am not even going to try - there is no point. The "community" is wrong, but everyone is afraid to say it. I will not bother answering any more, if you want to have the "last word" then please do so. If you want to tell me what to do again, please do so. I don't care. This isn't an issue of being sensitive to people's feelings, it's a matter of retaining consistency on Wikipedia. Unfortunately we live in a world where everyone has to watch what they say in case they offend someone. Wikipedia should be immune to this nonsense, it's a repository of human knowledge and a database of information, not a myspace page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick47 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
"Everyone is afraid to say it", says man yelling at the top of his voice about it. Quite a familiar scenario. People aren't remotely afraid to say it, they come here and rant about it constantly. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
People sure do love identity politics, as is proven by the two links Rebbing linked above. ~Mable (chat) 09:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

overuse of surname

Can someone clean this up. Her surname is being used excessively and the article reads horribly as a result. I presume this arose originally when there was discord as to her preferred use of pronoun. AS I can see that issue has now been resolved and She can be used in replacement. 120.156.156.84 (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

You're right, the article has a bit too many uses of her name rather than a simple pronoun. I'm balancing it out a bit more, so it becomes a bit more of a comfy read. I don't think the issue is too big, though, luckily. The use of a surname never feels forced in the current article, and it doesn't avoid pronouns outright. ~Mable (chat) 11:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
There's not, as you say, consensus on pronoun usage and particularly if you'd asked (which you didn't) I would not have supported inserting a bunch more to replace "Monroe". Pinkbeast (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Deadname redux

Quick question: In this edit, an IP removed Monroe's childhood legal name. I think that's fine, but it does render the "M Monroe is a bit of a handle" quote confusing. Seeing as this quote looks a bit "jokey" anyway, should we just remove it? Or should we just add the name in again? Seeing as the name is used this exact way in the Telagraph interview [2], I think this works pretty well. Keeping things as they are right now would be a bit awkward. ~Mable (chat) 13:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm perfectly happy with the way it is now; I think given that the quote comes immediately after mentioning that Monroe changed their name, it is not confusing in context.
However, I also agree that the quote is not really very important and certainly would not be opposed to removing it. I would be opposed to reinserting Monroe's deadname for reasons discussed ad nauseam above; I was not happy when it was added previously. If removing the quote seems like an improvement to you, please go ahead. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
The current crop of anon(s) seem particularly persistent at crowbarring it into the lead. Maybe we should ask for semi-protection? Pinkbeast (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
On the off chance the IP ever reads this talk page, the relevant policy is MOS:BIRTHNAME. It 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". It gives the explicit example of Laverne Cox who does not; the supposed argument about consistency is bogus.
Furthermore, there is no cite to say Jack Monroe was born Anything Monroe (and a moment's thought will show it is highly improbable, if not impossible, that the child of a Mr and Mrs Hadjicostas was). The repeated removals are justified because this is an uncited (and improbable) assertion being added to a BLP, one that is also intended to attack the subject of the article; 3RR does not apply here. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure that I understand. Many people are born with names that are changed prior to becoming notable. The actor Mark Strong was born Marco Giuseppe Salussolia when he was a child. The name Mark Strong is the only relevant name he has and he was not notable prior to this name change, and yet his article mentions his birth name. Why should this not be the case for transgender and non-binary people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russledust (talk • contribs) 02:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that a persons's birth name is important information, but the issue is with the site level manual of style which states that wikis for non-binary folks like Jack should not include birth names (I assume prior names in general) unless the person was prominent before the transition/name change. Since Jack only became encyclopedically significant after the name change, Manual says no pre-transition name. In addition, a quick search produced no citable sources for a pre-transition name.Misterjosh (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC). Her original name was Melissa Hadjicostas, why should she be allowed to censor this?

I would like to get consensus to include Monroe's birth name in the opening line of the article. This seems to be required by MOS:BIRTHNAME. This says: "In some cases, subjects have legally changed their names at some point after birth. In these cases the birth name should be given as well." As noted above by Pinkbeast, the policy continues: "In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable prior to coming out." Monroe does indeed identify as non-binary and transgender, but she became notable no later than 2013 and did not come out until 2015. We know that she was notable in 2013 since this page was created in July of that year, and was supported by this Guardian article. The earliest mention of her coming out that I can find is an October 2015 article in the New Statesman. Monroe was therefore notable prior to coming out and should be subject to the first part of MOS:BIRTHNAME as quoted above. There are many possible references for Monroe's first name at birth, Melissa, e.g. this Guardian article. Her surname at birth seems to be more difficult to reference as no single online source suitable for referencing provides this. Her full birth name, Melissa Jayne Hadjicostas, is confirmed by a combination of her birth certificate (available from the General Register Office) and this Q&A with her father which mentions all of his children, one of whom is listed as "Melissa (Jack)". If this is too convoluted then surely an alternative would be "Jack Monroe (born Melissa,...)..." without mentioning a change of surname. Please let me know your thoughts. Cloudspert (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Cloudspert I agree with you, it should be mentioned. Forget the politics and include the facts. LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 10:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The earliest source I find for Monroe "coming out" is this Pink news article and the blog post that spurred it. Interestingly, Monroe referred to themselves as "a girl called Jack" and "Ms. Jack Monroe" at the time. However, Monroe has been using the name Jack for their entire professional career, including the 2013 Guardian article linked above. One could certainly interpret this as Monroe wearing their non-binary status on their sleeve since before they became notable. A quote from the blog post also gives their early opinion on deadnaming: "Calling someone by their former name, especially a person who identifies as genderqueer, genderfluid or transgender, is known as ‘deadnaming’ and is not only highly insulting but is an attempt to dimish them." This all being said, the deadname "Melissa" has never been a secret. I have zero qualms seeing it used in the article, because it is well-recorded by many reliable sources. I do not believe it should be used in the lead section, however, because it is not a name Monroe has ever been professionally known by. Rather, such a name would belong in an "early/personal life" section. I am completely neutral on whether the name "Melissa" should be listed in the infobox. ~Mable (chat) 11:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I think (as before) that we should not include it. Where someone had done anything notable under a deadname, it would be necessary to include it for completeness (eg we could hardly omit it from Chelsea Manning), but fortunately that is not the case here; Monroe's entire notable career has been under the name of "Jack Monroe". That they used to have a girl's name is self-evident to the reader; _which_ girl's name is not really relevant. The thrust to include it comes not from a genuine desire to improve the article but from a desire to attack its subject, something we should be highly suspicious of on a BLP. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
It is true that Monroe has been known as Jack Monroe during the entire period of Monroe's notability. However this is not the criteria required by MOS:BIRTHNAME in order to exclude a birth name from the lead sentence. The default is to include birth names in the lead sentence and only to exclude them if the individual is transgender / non-binary and "came out" prior to their notability. Monroe meets the first, but not the latter. Whether the individual was ever notable under the birth name is not relevant. See for instance Ralph Lauren who changed his name as a child, long before he became notable, but the lead sentence includes it. Cloudspert (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Removing the "M Monroe is a bit of a handle" quote has been suggested a few times and no significant objections have been made. It's rather trivial and doesn't contribute much to the article, and creates confusion as Monroe's deadname is not mentioned elsewhere (and oughtn't to be, as established above regarding MOS:BIRTHNAME). I believe we should move forward with removing that sentence, unless there are objections. Koricind (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I have no objectives removing that quote if we're not having Monroe's deadname in the article at all. In fact, the primary reason I put this quote in this article in the first place is to go along with the discussion of the name. We either write about the name, or we don't, I would suppose. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree, and as the consensus seems to be we don't write about the name, I went ahead and took it out. Koricind (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I think it's fine as was (quote, no deadname) but I also think it's fine as is (neither) so no objection. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Time to ask for semi-protection? This constant wave of IPs (surely at least some of whom are acting in concert) is getting a bit wearying. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Rather than dismissing this as annoying, take a little time to think why so many of us are objecting - is it really so unreasonable to take the view that to wreck the readability of an article in order to pander to a certain lobby is not fair? My concern is less with Jack's identity - I frankly couldn't care less how she chooses to live her life, but I get fed up when this form of pedantry extends to an article on Wikipedia. --192.76.8.69 (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Article semi-protected. IP, please read MOS:GENDERID. If you have a problem with that guideline, please take it up on that talk page. --NeilN talk to me 15:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I think the idea that the readability of the article is somehow wrecked is preposterous; singular they is common usage now (and indeed has been reasonably common usage forever, for all the pretence that it is some kind of neologism). The typical reader does understand it; they have been understanding it in sentences like "Somebody left their umbrella in the office. Would they please collect it?" all their life. The idea that somehow it becomes incomprehensible when used of a specific named person not an indeterminate one does not stand up to the slightest examination.
I presume there are "so many of you" because some 4chanesque sewer has decided to collaborate on it; it strains coincidence that this comes in waves and every single driveby IP (most of whom either have a history of vandalism or curiously have never felt the need to edit anything else at all) goes about correcting this great wrong in the same way. With any luck, we'll find it at some point and you can then be treated as meatpuppets usually are. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
+1 for wrecked readability. This article is offensive to biology and the English language. LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
singular they has been part of the English language for 600 years. LongHairedFop (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Respectfully, that's not really relevant. What is relevant, is using the better words that are available to us, which are also factually accurate instead of deliberately vague/misleading/confusing/political. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, after all. LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
The best pronouns to use in this situation would likely be those used by sources, seeing as Monroe doesn't have a strong preference. Looking at a few from February: Bath Chronicle uses 'they', Yahoo uses 'she', Joe uses 'they', 'The Mirror did not use any pronouns, Pink News interestingly uses 'she', and lastly The Independent uses 'she'. Also note the 2016 quote "“She” is fine". I personally think we have a good argument to change the pronouns used in this article to feminine. Either way, I do not believe this is a BLP issue, as neither feminine or gender-neutral pronouns could "harm" Monroe in this case. ~Mable (chat) 11:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Last time we did this we found an article by Monroe that refers to them as "they" in the "about-the-author" section. I think (and thought) that was a clear indication of their preference, much clearer than anything else we have found, and I don't see that anything has changed. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
How on earth can the preference of the subject be of any importance? If she were to self-identify as a skateboard, should we then refer to her as a skateboard? Of course not, because it is factually inaccurate. Wikipedia is about facts (sourced, of course) and nothing else. LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
And @Mable - I disagree with you there. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a political soapbox. Sources (rather, their owners/authors) tend to have their own political agendas as opposed with being concerned only with facts. So I don't think how sources refer to something or someone is any argument, especially in this case. I agree with your conclusion to use feminine descriptors, but not your method. LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Preference of the subject is all WP:GENDERID cares about: "Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources." I personally use a slightly broader interpretation here because Monroe has stated that they don't have a particular preference one way or the other. I noted that Pinknews was interesting because it is a news organization specifically in favor of LGBT topics. It using feminine pronouns for Monroe certainly suggests that this is a generally accepted thing to do. There is no problem with copying the "biases" of the average of all sources, as that is what neutral point of view is from the perspective of Wikipedia. I am not suggesting to use fringe opinions/sources; I am suggesting to use the generally accepted and least harmful (per BLP guidelines) usage. Lastly, I should note that I am a linguistical descriptivist rather than a prescriptivists, which may explain my interest in following sources when it comes to a case like this. ~Mable (chat) 15:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I dunno if Pinknews article has perhaps changed since you read it last, but it is certainly "they" now. If you are certain it was "she" beforehand it is difficult not to suppose it has been intentionally changed, which seems like a strong argument in favour of "they" to me. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Ah, how dumb of me: I thought a pronoun referring to one Katie Hopkins was referring to Monroe. The article indeed uses "they" throughout, which I do think is a minor "point" towards using gender-neutral pronouns. I still don't think it makes much of a difference. ~Mable (chat) 18:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
"Pinknews was interesting because it is a news organization specifically in favor of LGBT topics. It using feminine pronouns for Monroe certainly suggests that this is a generally accepted thing to do".
It seems to me that if that was true of the mistaken impression that they used feminine pronouns, it's just as true of the fact that they didn't. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

It is possible to use singular "they" without sacrificing clarity or elegance. It's sometimes harder than using gendered pronouns, for instance where an earlier clause contains a plural noun, but that's no reason to avoid it. I favour the use of singular "they". Jack doesn't seem to care, but there's a small chance that using "she" might confuse or even offend some readers who don't know where she stands on the matter. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Today's datapoint: "My name is Jack Monroe, and I’m an alcoholic." in The Observer has "This is her mea culpa" in the standfirst. jnestorius(talk) 22:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Political Hijacking

There is significant political hijacking of this article, especially radical transgender activism that results in reversion and revisions to fit an agenda beyond the scope of this article. It is unacceptable to control edits based solely on a personal political agenda. I suggest a significant rewrite without the dominance of biographical quotes about gender identity, as this is not what she is most noted for. Her work for poverty and nutrition is way outweighed by statements about her identity, personal feelings about her gender and subjective perceptions of others. 86.11.51.106 (talk) 09:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Pronouns redux

On the 5th of September Special:Contributions/113.37.159.155 added a fresh cite to the article and changed some (but not all, something I missed at the time) of the 'she' back to 'they'. Given that they wrote that article and it has a prominent "they" in the author bio, I don't really think the comment at the top of the article that Monroe prefers "she" can be accurate.

Since then we've had a series of driveby edits by the usual suspects, culminating in today's efforts by Special:Contributions/86.22.169.240 (who has a fairly long history of unpleasantness - besides their edit summaries, which make interesting reading, this is pretty odious) using the old trick of doing contentious edits with bogus edit summaries and then putting in a small uncontentious one last. Given the bogus edit summaries, I think it's pretty clear that they are NOTHERE.

I'm certainly willing to revisit the she/they question with editors who are here in good faith, but at the moment I'm not sure we really have a definite view of Monroe's preference and as such I think since we do definitely know they identify as non-binary we should default to "they". Pinkbeast (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm completely fine with using gender neutral pronouns, and I don't think there's any reason to go feminine or masculine. ~Mable (chat) 13:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
First time I've ever seen 'they' used in this way. So I don't see how it can be encyclopedic. Someone is obviously making a political point. It just looks like a misprint. Valetude (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
It has been in the English language for centuries, though, and it is commonly used when the person being referred to is of unknown gender. See our article on the topic, singular they ^_^ ~Mable (chat) 19:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
"They" this, "they" that...this article is ridiculous. The preference of the subject is 100% irrelevant. LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

nearly piled in for a minor edit, but it looks like it needs discussing first "It was at this point they changed their name to Jack Monroe" had me thinking like the name change was a joint decision. Might I suggest: "It was at this point that Monroe chose to use Jack as a forename" I am a little dubious about the "M Monroe" bit as well, I thought that was a french abbreviation for Monsieur at first. If we don't want to use the deprecated forename then lets just not have that quote at all, the "M" by itself is more confusing than explanatory. Alanbelllibertus (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

actually the "M" is in the quote in the source article. Reads a bit odd there too! I guess it can stayAlanbelllibertus (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
The suggested use of "forename" (or "first name") sounds good to me, as it also makes clear that Monroe didn't change their last name. ~Mable (chat) 04:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
done, I will leave the quote to others, but I suspect the Telegraph misquoted and it should have been "M. Monroe is a bit of a handfull", it just doesn't seem like a particularly good quote as stated. Alanbelllibertus (talk) 10:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Monroe did change their surname, and also dropped their middle name (their original name was Melissa Jayne Hadjicostas) - so specifying 'fore name' is misleading. Note the section above discussing the use of Monroe's original name in the article. Currently it is not mentioned anywhere in the article. I'd still like to put it in the lead sentence as this seems consistent with comparable articles and with the style guide, but I'm hesitant to do so since some people object. However there does seem to be agreement that the original name ought to be in the article somewhere, even if it's not in the lead sentence. So how about "It was at this point that Monroe, who had been born Melissa Jayne Hadjicostas, changed their name to Jack Monroe." The 'their' pronoun is always going to be prone to confusion, but this seems a lot less confusing than the previous wording while also incorporating the surname change and getting the original name into the article. Two birds with one stone?Cloudspert (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
It is not consistent with the style guide to put it in the lead - indeed, the relevant section of the MOS has been repeatedly mentioned here (and an obtuse reading of it is not sensible or appropriate), and comparable articles that also do not do it have been linked here. We have no idea what if anything happened to their middle name; since you appear not to use British English you may be unaware that it is perfectly commonplace in Britain not to use one's middle name or initial (eg in expressions of the form "M Monroe is a bit of a handful"). We also have no information on when or why they changed surname to "Monroe", beyond that it was before adopting "Jack". There is not agreement to put Monroe's deadname in the article anywhere and it is obnoxious (albeit unsurprising) to be so keen to drop it on the talk page. Leave it be. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I believe I gave my opinion on this topic as well as I ever will in the "Deadname redux" section (see The earliest source I find for Monroe ...). I do think we have strayed far off-topic for a section titled "Pronouns redux", however. ~Mable (chat) 17:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I have altered some of the pronouns as Jack does prefer female pronouns ‘until there is something that suits her’. On her website for the book called Cooking on a Bootstrap, she is called a SHE! LJ Ray Sutton Bridge (talk) 09:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

It's in the boilerplate text at the bottom of every post on her website

https://cookingonabootstrap.com/2018/10/11/cooking-on-a-bootstrap-now-six-pounds/

"ABOUT THE AUTHOR Jack Monroe Jack Monroe Jack Monroe is an award winning food writer and bestselling author. Books include A Girl Called Jack, A Year In 120 Recipes and Cooking On A Bootstrap. She has won the Fortnum & Mason Food and Drink award (ironically), the Observer Food Monthly Best Food Blog, Marie Claire 'Woman At The Top', Red Magazine's 'Red Hot Women', the YMCA Courage & Inspiration Award, the Woman Of The Year Entrepreneur award, the Women Of The Future media award and many more. She works with Oxfam, the Trussell Trust, Child Poverty Action Group, Plan Zheroes, the Food Chain and many food banks, schools and childrens centres to teach people to cook and eat well on a low income, and campaigns against the causes of poverty and austerity in Britain and abroad."Blitzcream (talk) 06:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  • I do think this can be considered "self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable [primary] sources," though I am not sure where that "until there is something that suits her" came from, Madlyn. Either way, very recent sources also use feminine pronouns. This doesn't seem like it needs to be a particularly controversial situation for us to use feminine pronouns as well, as she's clearly presenting herself as using them. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I would say anyone with a book called ‘A girl called Jack’ is identifying as female, wouldn’t you? That was AFTER her change from her birth name and so she was already finding herself. Jack has never had any trans feelings but because she dresses butch and chose to change her name to one used for either gender, people have never outright asked her, She uses her platform for whoever needs it regarding LGBTQ+ ......uvwxyz LJ Ray Sutton Bridge (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

LOOK at the website belonging to Jack Monroe https://cookingonabootstrap.com/2018/10/11/cooking-on-a-bootstrap-now-six-pounds/ and please read what is boxed in on the homepage. The spiel written about her own book on her own site calling her ‘she’. LJ Ray Sutton Bridge (talk) 03:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Uh... right now the article does say "she", because Blitzcream pointed this out above, and notwithstanding the drive-by awful people, the good-faith editors using this talk page have always wanted to find out as best as we can what pronouns Monroe prefers and then to use those. Hence, I'm not sure what change you are proposing to the article. (As for "Jack has never had any trans feelings" - there are multiple cites on this article written by Monroe where she refers to herself as trans.) Pinkbeast (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Birthdate

I have repeatedly removed the subject's full birthdate following WP:DOB: "With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it". The subject has complained that the inclusion of her full date of birth was a contributing factor in a recent fraud; the date is otherwise not widely available (the only source for the day/month was a now-deleted tweet by the subject). It should therefore not be reinstated. Eritha (talk) 09:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)Eritha

Eritha thank you Srsval (talk) 12:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm reverting again. Thousands of marginal public figures have their birthdates posted on Wikipedia. Removing her birthdate will not get her her money back. You could open an RFC about including birthdays on BLPs, but it is unlikely you will get very far. We do not allow subjects of articles to dictate what goes in them, per WP:CENSORED. Why should this individual get a special exception? I have not seen Monroe make any specific declaration that she wants this article censored anyway. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
This is not making a special exception, this is following the guidelines as they currently exist, as per the link/quotation I posted above. Monroe complained on Twitter about the inclusion of her birth date on this page, see also BBC report posted below. If you don't think identity theft and fraud are good enough reasons to take out a minor piece of information from a public figure's page, I suggest you start a discussion of that in a more appropriate forum, as you seem to have suggested I do. Eritha (talk) 08:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)Eritha

Consequence: SIM hijacking

The BBC reports (incorrectly) that Jack has "lost" £5,000 because a thief got her mobile phone number transferred, using her birth date "from Wikipedia". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-50043230

[In fact it is the bank that lost her £5k since they had custody of it and was they who transferred it to another bank (that also failed to identify a new customer properly), on the basis of an "instruction" that she did not send, over a known-to-be-insecure medium. She hasn't lost a penny and the bank doesn't have a leg to stand on.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.11.54 (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Too long, too detailed

Most of it should be trimmed. BLP and such. Zezen (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Monroe is autistic

This statement probably needs clarifying. The situation as described doesn't sound like a formal diagnosis, although we can't possibly know. However to clarify this I can only think of wording formulations which cast doubt on it, which I have no reason to do either. "Monroe identifies..." doesn't work. "Monroe claims to be..." certainly no, "Monroe believes..." etc... "A medical professional has suggested Monroe may be on the autistic spectrum, which she identifies with..." yukko. Any ideas? Or perhaps it's late and I'm being too picky over details.Lacunae (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC) "She was diagnosed with autism and ADHD when she was 11 but didn’t receive any medical support until she went to the doctor about an unrelated issue as an adult."-https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/jack-monroe-katie-hopkins-recipes-austerity-cookbooks-vegan-interview-190212

Birth name

Why is the birth name ... not included on the page? It is on the french wikipedia: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Monroe And can be found elsewhere online: (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.127.20 (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Birth name redacted per MOS:DEADNAME. —C.Fred (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Deadnaming is about not referring to a person by their birth name, but I don't see what's wrong with an encyclopedia recording what Monroe's birth name was.Gymnophoria (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Monroe was not notable under their/her birth name, so it is excluded per MOS:GENDERID. There is no reason to deviate from the MOS in this situation. —C.Fred (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2022

Jack Monroe uses they/them pronouns, not she/her 2A02:C7E:1474:F300:7090:C1AA:EE38:D184 (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. It appears they are comfortable with either set of pronouns. Per their twitter bio (They/She). ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Class

Jack Monroe self identified as middle class in this Guardian article.

https://amp.theguardian.com/society/patrick-butler-cuts-blog/2013/jun/06/food-poverty-jack-monroe-it-could-happen-to-anyone 2A00:23C7:6288:E901:A5C4:C269:4A4D:11AC (talk) 05:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of Monroe’s birth name

There’s nothing in the manual style of biographies that states someone’s birth name should not be included. The inclusion of Monroe’s birth name and the fact she doesn’t wish for the media to mention her birth name should also be included. My recent edit was removed and the reason given was “removed birth name as per BLP guidelines, Monroe was not notable under this name and so it should not be included)”. Nothing in the guideline mentions omitting someone’s birth name just because he or she was not known by that name. Loads of famous people are known by different names to their birth names and their birth names are included in the articles about them.--Emily19911991 (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The guidelines mention omitting the names of family members or someone’s name when referring to a single event who is not really well known. Monroe’s birth name was mentioned during her legal case a few years ago. Monroe has never hidden her birth name and I can provide lots of reliable sources stating her birth name - including Monroe mentioning it since she has spoken about changing her name via deed poll plenty of times.--Emily19911991 (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I assume the person that reverted your edit was referring to presumption in favour of privacy, perhaps specifically WP:BLPNAME or MOS:DEADNAME. I think since this page has been vandalised numerous times and trans people can often receive a lot of abuse it’s reasonable to assume that a person may want to keep a certain name or names private. I think it’s better we air on the side of caution and the person’s privacy unless there is a valid and substantial benefit to including their birth name. Personally, I don't think it would add much when compared to the possible upset and/or controversy it may cause. Helper201 (talk) 05:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
For consistency, why is the dead name/birth name displayed higher up on this Talk page? Nedrutland (talk) 06:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
@Helper201: Monroe doesn't hide her birth name and The Guardian article which is used a few times in the article states:

Monroe also spoke frankly about changing her name from (Redacted) to Jack. She said she felt the papers were "gleeful" about it, but added: "I was bullied about my name a lot at school, which is one reason I wanted to change it. I still get loads of smartarses on Twitter saying 'hey (Redacted)', of course."

I also mentioned that she experiences deadnaming and used that source. There's a difference between Monroe wishing for the media to not refer to her by her birth name - which is perfectly understandable - and deliberately trying to conceal it when she herself has openly stated it and has never made a secret about it. Mentioning her birth name is not using the same as using her birth name throughout the article nor is it referring to her by her birth name.--Emily19911991 (talk) 12:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Those people arguing that Monroe's birth name should not be mentioned should go to the talk pages of the articles Chelsea Manning, Lauren Harries, Caitlyn Jenner, etc, etc.--Emily19911991 (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
@Emily19911991: I'd need to read more of the sources on Harries to comment on her case, but as far as Manning and Jenner, both women were highly notable under their respective birth names. It would be a disservice to the reader and confusing mess to not include Jenner's birth name, because that's the name Jenner used while participating in the Olympics. Thus, they both qualify for the "notable under a former name" exception. —C.Fred (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm not trying to make an argument myself, just provide a possible explanation for why you were reverted. I think its best if Eritha answers for themself on why they did so. Helper201 (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
@Helper201: There is nothing in the two Wikipedia guidelines that mentions excluding one's birth name. They state not to refer to such people throghout the article and to respect the privacy of family members, etc. As you can by the other articles I linked to, the Wikipedia articles of trans people DO include the birth names of those people. There is no justification for ommiting Monroe's birth name when she herself has mentioned it and has spoken about changing her name via deed poll. The only thing that is important to do is to include a brief mention that she wishes for the media to not refer to her by birth name which is already included in the article.--Emily19911991 (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
@Emily19911991: I just re-read MOS:DEADNAME. Here's a key passage:
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. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name.[emphasis added]
Unless Monroe was notable under her former name, the former name should be omitted—per the Manual of Style, but specifically, through the guidelines related to gender matters. That also means this is an issue that is within the scope of discretionary sanctions (WP:ARBGS). —C.Fred (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Agree with this, and furthermore the article at the moment is just incoherent because of the absence of her name. It's stated at multiple points that Jack has changed her name etc etc but nowhere mentions what this name actually was. An encyclopedia encompasses information—in this case, the encylopedia omits a substantial part of a fact for very questionable partisan reasons. 2003:D3:1726:4B00:A001:C086:90A1:C550 (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The passage cited by C.Fred is exactly the guideline I was referring to when reverting the inclusion of Monroe's birth name. This issue comes up frequently on this page from people who are unaccountably insistent on deadnaming someone when there is no encylopedic interest in doing so; hence the specification of "if the person was not notable under a former name" in MOS:DEADNAME, which is what applies here, not the more general guidelines on former names designed for e.g. women changing their names on marriage. Eritha (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I have redacted some uses of Monroe's birth name in accordance with the biographies of living persons policy. I don't know much about Monroe other than reading one of their cookbooks, but to be honest, the name they associate with school bullying growing up is not important for an encyclopedia, so there's no real reason it needs to be here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I came to the talk page to see why their birth name wasn't included, and found the above discussion interesting. Personally I'd say that one of the things notable about them is the fact that they're non-binary (they're the only well-known non-binary person from the UK I can think of right now). Given this, their name change is by definition notable. However I can also see the other side of the coin - so overall my mind is evenly split between the two. Incidentally, their birth name hasn't been purged from the revision history. If this is to be treated as private information, should it be? As I say, interesting davidprior t/c 17:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

A bit of a random wikipedia joke, really. Wikipedia has many, many articles about people who were not notable under their birth names, yet include their birth names nonetheless. It would be expected of a proper encyclopaedia. That Wikipedia doesn't have such consistency shows that it has a long way to go to be taken seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.11.200 (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

How can it be private when it takes 30 seconds to find it on Google? Is Wiki lying by omission? Rustygecko (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

"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. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name." -- MOS:DEADNAME 06:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC) Eritha (talk) 06:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2022

Change Year of birth to 1978 (from Companies House information) 2A00:23C7:3507:E401:2066:B82E:C631:5EDC (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SpinningCeres 04:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
That appears to be a typo on the government website. It's unlikely that she was born when her father was 15. http://essexsafeguarding.blogspot.com/2012/05/esab-introducing.html Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2022

Unsubstantiated rumour-mongering.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Jack Monroe is currently the topic of numerous articles concerning her lack of transparency, mainly on financial matters. I think this needs to be updated on her current Wiki page. She currently has over 700 Patreons. They all pay between £1 and £44 per month and many are now asking for refunds as they haven’t received subscription based promises in over 2 years. Very much the same scenario as her original Kickstarter. (Worth looking at, also). There is an article written by a blogger called Awful Molly on Twitter. This basically states numerous contradictions in Jacks work. Every statement that’s questionable in this blog is actually Jacks own words. The Wiki page for Jack needs to be updated to show major discrepancies in her charity and fundraising efforts. The Trussel Trust have had to make public statements to acknowledge they were not involved in her recent Tee-mil fundraising. During the Twitter storm with Lee Anderson, Jack took many donations for legal aid, regarding her libel action against him. As of this day there is still no legal action pending. No letter requesting an apology for his tweets has been asked for either. He was asked this on a public Twitter platform. It’s right that people know these things because vulnerable people are admitting to sending her money and they clearly need it more than she does. NewTricks76 (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. We can't use blogs and Twitter fights as sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I think that defamatory edit requests like this are best just removed rather than replied to, with the requester given a warning if the defamation is serious enough. These are not serious requests to update the article with valid content. These are just excuses to spout off bile. DanielRigal (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I was exercising a bit of WP:AGF. It wasn't quite as bad as the requests I normally remove. That said, feel free to remove it entirely, no objection on my part. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Campaigning and politics (page section)

Some information in this section may need re-writing. Specifically, it is stated:

"Monroe was a member of the Labour Party[28] and appeared in a Labour campaign video in October 2013.[29] She left the party in March 2015 after disagreeing with its rhetoric on immigration,[30] and became a member of the Green Party of England and Wales.[31]"

Citation 28 is from January 2021, in which Monroe states in a tweet that they are a fully paid-up member of the Labour Party. It does not say they "were" (or is this case "was") a member of the party or left. Therefore, I'm guessing that perhaps sometime between the citation saying they left in March 2015 and January 2021 that they re-joined the party. This would also put into question whether or not they are still a member of the Green Party, as I don't think party rules for either party allow a person to hold dual party membership. Helper201 (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I've changed the paragraph to the following based off of the January 2021 tweet:
"Monroe appeared in a Labour Party campaign video in October 2013.[28] She left the Labour Party in March 2015, after disagreeing with its rhetoric on immigration,[29] and became a member of the Green Party of England and Wales, also in March 2015.[30][31] In April 2016, Monroe appeared online supporting the Women's Equality Party.[32] In January 2021, Monroe tweeted that they were a "fully paid up member of the Labour Party and have been for quite some time now."[33]"
Feedback is welcome. We could do with information on when they re-joined if its out there and if/when they left the Green Party. Helper201 (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2022

Please change: "Described as coming from a working class background,[7]"

To: Monroe has described herself variously as working class[7] and as middle class,

Quote: "I'm a middle class, well educated young woman who fell a bit by the way side. You think it doesn't happen to normal people, and you think we are all scumbags, eating burgers and watching day time TV. It can happen to anyone."

Sources: Guardian article: https://www.theguardian.com/society/patrick-butler-cuts-blog/2013/jun/06/food-poverty-jack-monroe-it-could-happen-to-anyone [3] Also available from her speech to Parliament: https://soundcloud.com/justfair/jack-monroe-mother-and-author [4] 2A00:23C5:581C:3901:3112:3BF3:422B:D019 (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
The content is adequately referenced.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Evidence of trolling

The section: “These accusations came about amid relentless online abuse and trolling directed at Monroe in aspects including homophobia and anti-LGBTQ+ hatred.” There is no evidence of homophobic or anti-LGBTQ+ bullying Tweets in the quoted source, only the subject’s own assertion and others’ reaction to that assertion. You previously asserted that “Twitter fights” were not an approved source, but were in fact the only source used by The Pink News article itself, with no other corroboration other than the subject’s own Tweet. She also in fact returned to Twitter shortly afterwards and has also subsequently left Twitter because someone commented that her mother’s roast potatoes looked “dire”. She also returned again within a few days. The blog by Awfully Molly mentioned in a previous talk thread is an excellent source with plenty of evidence, i.e. copious quotes from Jack Monroe herself. 2A00:23C7:3F02:A201:504A:FF66:BBEB:5948 (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jack_Monroe/Archive_2&oldid=1166232938"