Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:21, 20 October 2015

Biography C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Journalism C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Blogging (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging

LGBTQ+ studies C‑class

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

United Kingdom C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 July 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

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)

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)

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)

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: . 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)

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 by her previous name, 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 Misplaced Pages 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) 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) 22:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Corrected on 16 October, incorrectly implied Monroe was transgender by mistake.

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

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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) 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)

Hi, pretty new to editing Misplaced Pages 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) Misplaced Pages'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)

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) 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[REDACTED] 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. 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 little more frequently. --McGeddon (talk) 14:21, 20 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)

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) 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) 11:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

1. http://www.fortnumandmasonawards.com/
2. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/10057096/Telegraph-Food-and-Drink-team-celebrate-a-double-win.html
3. https://twitter.com/DrJackMonroe/status/653190794023706625
4. https://twitter.com/DrJackMonroe/status/653193878439337984
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Gender_identity
6. https://twitter.com/DrJackMonroe/status/654307619830648836

• C-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Journalism articles
• Low-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• C-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• C-Class United Kingdom articles
• Low-importance United Kingdom articles
• WikiProject United Kingdom articles
• C-Class Women writers articles
• Low-importance Women writers articles
• WikiProject Women articles
• WikiProject Women writers articles