Talk:Genesis P-Orridge

Unacceptably Hagiographic article

This article was obviously heavily written by a huge ptv fan. The problem is almost any attempt to do a single en masse edit to fix it will inevitably be reverted because its almost not possible to write a legitamite article about GPO that is the length of the current article. It would appear unseemly that so much work would be getting deleted. So I'm posting this here to get everyone to agree that this article needs to be cleaned up in a major way.

Amen to that. It doesn't seem wholly terrible, to be fair, but it does smack somewhat of being a biography lifted from a fansite... 193.63.174.211 (talk) 08:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I just came here without any knowledge of who P-Porridge was, and this was a very difficult read. It wasn't clear if it was a person, a band, a solist who shared the name with a band or what. And it's filled with elliptic references to things explained later in the article or even events not described in the article at all. To add to the parciality, the badly managed pronouns make it even more confusing. I think the most clear way to address this to someone not familiar with the person's name is to address to this person with the pronouns relevant to that period of time. Make it clear "and from this point onward, this person should be referred to as male/female/etc " and move on. I had to come to the Talk section to even begin to understand P-Orridge's life, I think that says a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.27.215.246 (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

---

I have a few queries about this piece-

• "These people cut up and re-arranged reality" - this seems like a personal interpretation of artistic intent. If P-Orridge claimed that this was the intent of his work, it should perhaps state that this is the case.
• "There was Neil Megson, who was born and raised" - I think "Neil Megson was born and raised" would sound better, but I'm not sure if there's some reasoning for "There was".
• "A-choo" - at the end of 'Early Life'. I'm not sure what this means.
• P-Orridge's prison sentence is mentioned, but I think it needs further explanation.
• "it's not clear whether Neil died somewhere along the line" - I think this needs a little more explanation that we're talking about the identity Neil and not the physical Neil.
• More information is needed on his "political exile". Cnwb 23:07, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I'm addressing your very valid concerns. Many thanks. Alecw

I've got a feeling that this was written by his first wife. I've deleted some of the merciless flak but without flak, there's almost nothing left.

There is a lot of very pro P-Orridge POV. I've removed the most egregious eaxample, but there is a lot more to do, even at the expense of there being almost nothing left. --Fire Star 火星 17:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've had a go at tidying up some of the article. Too much still read like a fan/reviewer or someone speculating - GPO's career is remarkable enough without all the hyperbole - or mythmaking that it attracts.

Rrose Selavy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the "GPO was the last person to speak to Curtis" reference . It seems possibly more appropriate for the Ian Curis article , if at all but Without further corroboration, which is impossible, it seems a mix of trivia and legend making by association and little to do with the rest of the section and GPO's career..

Rrose Selavy (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Shirley Ghostman?

One of the listed aliases is given as Shirley Ghostman -- this is one of the comic personæ of character comedian Marc Wootton. Surely a piece of Vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuttyskin (talk • contribs) 13:31:17 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Good call. I just spent a few minutes on Google, and I couldn't find anything to support it, so I've gone ahead and removed it. Cheers, -- irn (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I have just had to delete the same thing, again!

Nuttyskin (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Genesis P-Orridge did not consider h/erself transgender

I see in discussions above about pronouns, some have called P-Orridge transgender. Here's an interview where, in h/er own words, s/he definitively says s/he is not transgender/transsexual:

"Are you transgender?"

G P-O "No. Well, some people would say so. [Laughs] It’s funny you should ask that very question. Jaye used to know this guy George Petros who worked at Propaganda magazine and other magazines in the ’80s and ’90s. He used to come visit us at the old place, Gates Institute and when we were getting really into Pandrogyne. We were really giving him all this information about it being an evolutionary stage and so on, and then he decided to do a new book. He asked us to be in the book and we refused".

"Why?"

G P-O "Because we’re not transsexuals. It would misconstrue what we are trying to do and make it much too easy for those that would rather not listen. That’s not to say we don’t believe [being trans] is an evolutionary signal; we do believe that. We even did an interview for ABC TV News once and we said transgender people are the stormtroopers of the future. They’re the ones breaking through to the next phase."

"Right."

G P-O "And we do try and support GBLT [Editor’s Note: LGBT] and transgender and so on, but we do find it’s a little bit awkward to fit in."

"Sure, because so much of it comes from art and this very specific love that you have with this person as opposed to a broader identity."

G P-O "Yeah, it inevitably affects peoples’ concepts of identity, but even that wasn’t what it was about."

"Right. So then it’s a little bit strange when the Village Voice or the New York Times refers to you as “she” right?"

G P-O "Well, no when we write “she,” we put “s/he.”"

"Right, and that’s to signify…"

G P-O "Me and her."

"But some publications just print it as “S-H-E” as though to signal you are transgender."

G P-O "Well, it will take a long time to educate people and correct language. Even when they’re on our side, they’re not always getting it all. We imagine it is the biggest project we’ve taken on. It’s working to a degree."

Full interview here:

https://themuse.jezebel.com/a-unique-case-inevitably-genesis-p-orridge-on-h-er-li-1842381043 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.167.227 (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, kind of a moot point because the article doesn't use the word "transgender" to describe P-Orridge. (It does use the term "third gender". This was, incidentally, unsourced, so I found a source and added it, although I wish I could find a source that directly quotes P-Orridge using the term.) WanderingWanda (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I decided to drop the term "third gender". To quote my edit summary: After searching around some more...I'm not seeing instances of P-Orridge using the term. Instead, I'm just seeing a lot of references to P-Orridge's concept of "pandrogyny", which the article already covers. WanderingWanda (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Birth name in lead

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Per above, I dispute the removal of the birth name from the lead on the following grounds:

• 1) Misapplication of guidelines in forcing deletion of stable content - [1], [2], [3].
• 2) Clearly MOS:CHANGEDNAME not MOS:DEADNAME - note we included the birth name for years, while the artist was still alive, without objection.
• 3) Artist's use of nom de plume (dating back to late 1960s) predates, by decades, any explicit connection between name change and gender identity.
• 4) Plethora of WP:RS sources include birth name, it's the norm in this context (an artist who worked under an assumed name).
• 5) Stable inclusion of birth name in lead for 4 1/2 years years without issue (for three of those the artist was still alive).
• 6) Inclusion of birth name in article, in one form or another, since August 2003. Acousmana (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.[4][5][6] 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)

These direct P-Orridge quotes should go some way toward clarifying the matter:

• “We know that Neil Andrew Megson decided to create an artist, Genesis P-Orridge, and insert it into the culture...Some people take their lives and turn them into the equivalent of a work of art. So we invented Genesis, but Gen forgot Neil, really. Does that person still exist somewhere, or did Genesis gobble him up? We don’t know the answer. But thank you, Neil.” See.
• "My original name was Neil Andrew Megson’, Genesis BREYER P-ORRIDGE states. ‘A couple of years ago I started to wonder what happened to Neil. I have become an artwork with no author. In a sense, Neil destroyed himself by creating me." See
• "Well, there are very simple ways to change your identity. Change your name. The name is the first way that other people exert power over you. If you change your name you take on a huge challenge. Neil Megson thought he could make an artwork that was an extension of Andy Warhol's idea of the superstar, and create consciously a character as an art piece, which was Genesis P-Orridge. But Neil hasn't been seen since 1969. Gone. Subsumed." See
• "It was one of the only times we really upset my mum...We were hitching down to London and stopped off at my parents’ place: Erm, there’s something we need to tell you. We’re not Neil Megson anymore, we’re now Genesis P-Orridge. And she just started crying. She saw it as a rejection. And it was, but not of her. It was a rejection of the traditional way people labelled and limited their culture."See
• "Thee ultimate aim of Pandrogeny was never merely physical. It was to be so integrated mentally that we would be able to find each other’s consciousness beyond thee body.And because consciousness is just a form of energy, we would be able to blend and truly becoum [sic] one.See
• View the following trailer for the documentary The Ballad of Genesis and Lady Jaye, it opens with a statement re:Megson identity. Acousmana (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

<Hi all! So responding to the 3OR here, looks like some interesting discussion :) It seems to me that the thing everybody agrees on is that the article should be presented consistently, so that is a great start. I think the second thing everyone agrees on is that Genesis is referred to by different names in source material. It seems that this is a useful disambiguation to provide on an article which is meant to be informative. Perhaps there is a way to present this information that everyone is agreeable with. For example in the lead state once something along the lines of 'Genesis is referred to in media by other names including...' Remain factually correct, with no attached value statement? Is this a possible compromise? Regarding consistency it seems that all you all need is simply to agree on a form that can be used consistently throughout the article? I see there is some talk of a poll. First and foremost, wiki works by consensus. However, a poll can be very useful. Editors, is it possible that you would all be able to achieve a consensus to respect the outcome of a poll for this decision? :) Linn C Doyle (talk) 04:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)> Linn C Doyle (talk) 04:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

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)

@Acousmana: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)

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)

@Acousmana: 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)

Date/age error in later life section

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.