Talk:Genesis P-Orridge

message: If you don't wish to include their birth name in the lead, you might want to rewrite the second paragraph where it says "Megson... adopted GPO as their nomme de guerre" leaving the reader with no idea who Megson is and why they are relevant IdreamofJeanie (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, the article was swapping between names and MOS:GENDERID  is clear on only using one. Changed references as suggested. Rab V (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: the name should stay in the lead, there is insufficient evidence to support the change based on the guidelines cited. Not a "recent" death, and the artist didn't self-identify as transgender. Acousmana (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: BLP policy states deaths within two years are recent deaths. Also DEADNAME explicitly applies to non-binary people; P-orridge did not identify with their assigned sex at birth so the policy applies. Rab V (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: it states, "The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside." So, it's actually six months unless there is a good reason. It also has zero to do with WP:UNDUE, as you have also claimed. Sorry, but I'm going to dispute your justification for this deletion. Acousmana (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think DEADNAME outlines why there is the good reason needed to keep the name out beyond 6 months. I also do not see RS mentioning the old name or giving it prominence, especially recent RS since publications have created modern standards for how to discuss trans and nonbinary people. If we are still at an impasse, we can start a poll or RFC to try and see if there is consensus. What options would you like in such a poll? Rab V (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Instead of remaking the same arguments, I think we are more likely to establish consensus through a poll or RFC. Do you have preferences for options you'd like to see represented in a poll or RFC? Rab V (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Also I am confused on your point 2. Why are you arguing MOS:CHANGEDNAME but not MOS:DEADNAME applies? Is it because you don't think P-Orridge is trans or non-binary or because the name had been included previously? Even if it's the second I see the name was also removed in October on similar grounds. Rab V (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: my understanding of MOS:DEADNAME is that is applies to name changes that are explicitly connected with a change in gender identity, this is simply not the case with P-Orridge. They assumed the name for an art project initially in 1969, and then changed it by deed poll in 1971. The pandrogony project began in the mid 1990s, and that is when an explicit physical exploration of gender identity began. The artist has also openly referred to their previous identity by name, without issue, but as an other. Acousmana (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

text: 3OP requested already, the artist did not in fact identify as trans, the artist also did not have an antipathetic relationship with their birth name, non-binary is applicable, but purely in the context of the artist's pandrogony project, and in that context the definition moved beyond reductive notions of identity and the labels that come with it. The artist's entire career has been a exploration of identity as a "cut up" experiment, but the overarching theme has been the notion that 'we are all one'. It harms no one if we include the birth name, in fact, it asks our readers to engage with the idea of identity as malleable, configurable - such as the artist wanted - so if you remove the name, you are actually doing a disservice. Acousmana (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a quote or anything that specifies how P-orridge feels about their birth name? Otherwise I wouldn't necessarily come to your same assumption based on the themes of their art. Rab V (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: there are some quotes, and there is a video, if you think it will help here i will find them. Acousmana (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Let's keep Acousmana's configuration with birth name at the top and again at discussion of birth family. GPO was not stressed about the birth name, and most obits included the birth name. And BLP counts for six months after death unless something very unusual is extending the period of mourning. Binksternet (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

text: thanks for your input here, some additional sources have been included above, if these don't suffice, next step probably RFC, don't feel a poll is warranted at this stage, nor do I think it's the best way to deal with the question at hand.  Acousmana (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes well evidenced :) First and foremost if any editor believes a poll is inappropriate, then it most certainly is not appropriate :P So is there anything I stated that you could find yourself in agreement with, or anything that you would amend to make it agreeable to yourself?Linn C Doyle (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: it would seem there is sufficient evidence to warrant birth name inclusion in the lead, some other consistency issues with respect to stray "Megsons" were addressed. Might be worth noting also that the sentence, "Leaving London, P-Orridge hitch-hiked across Britain before settling down in the Megson family's new home" actually referred to P-Orridges's parents family home. There was another outstanding issue with naming consistency, most of the article employed the surname P-Orridge, one section switched to Breyer-Porridge, based on the notion that during this period P-Orridge and Lady Jaye were one person - a single entity called Breyer-Porridge, I have changed this to simply P-Orridge, there may be objections to this, if it's a big deal, can be changed back. Also, if there are concerns about pronoun usage - the question of whether or not we should use  "s/he", "h/er", and "h/erself," as preferred in later years by P-Orridge - this could be discussed further is there are objections to simply using 'P-Orridge' throughout.  Acousmana (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  So yes including the birth-name in the lead seems totally agreeable. And double yes, P-Orridge throughout seems sensible for consistency. These are just my opinions, so definitely leave this discussion open for a few weeks and see if any other editors wish to weigh :) What I do think might be an agreeable statement is 'we should respect the identity of someone when discussing them'. If P-Orridge has declared that there is a wish to be referred to henceforth with a particular identity, then I would also say I see no harm in respecting this, provided the preference is verified, and the article is consistent.Linn C Doyle (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth name in lead 

message: Starts off by saying he met Lady Jaye at age 45, which would mean 1995. But then goes on to say they moved to Queens together in 1993. I'm assuming the 1993 is wrong, but needs fixing by someone more interested than me in digging into it all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.73.221 (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date/age error in later life section 

message: The article currently has the prose:
::P-Orridge went by gender-neutral pronouns.
-this seems ambiguous. "went by" could indicate this is no longer true. I considered altering it to *goes by", but that implies they are still alive. Does anyone have thoughts or suggestions? 73.6.77.46 (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're overthinking this. In the context of an article surrounding the discussion of someone who is no longer walking among us when past tense is used throughout the article such as "was" ... went by is appropriate and understood. Centerone (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Just stopping by to say, I've changed it to "P-Orridge used gender neutral pronouns." This phrasing feels more respectful and also a little more natural - personally, I would only use "go by" when mentioning someone's nickname that they don't feel that strongly about. Nicknames just don't really fall into the same category as pronouns. And, yes, I agree, it's perfectly fine to use the past tense here. People will understand. Birdsinthewindow (talk) 03:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender pronoun wording