Talk:Genesis P-Orridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Musicians (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Industrial (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Industrial, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Industrial music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Timeline?[edit]

Hey, the article says that Megson was born in 1950, but later states 'In 1965, while attending Hull University, Neil subsumed himself into the character of Genesis P-Orridge'. This suggests that Megson was attending university by the age of 15 - if true, a quite unusual circumstance that bears further explanation. If untrue, we could do with finding out the correct dates. SpaceyHopper 16:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Check: [[1]]

It seems now to have been corrected to - Born spring 1950, started secondary school autumn 1961 (age 11), started university autumn 1968 (age 18). Seems perfectly normal. There remains some slight confusion as an early biography of the artist instead says "born in [...] 1947", but this is probably misdirection and/or nonsense (rather expected when band names like Thee Temple Ov Psychick Youth are par for the course) and doesn't tally up so well with the rest of the timeline. 193.63.174.211 (talk) 08:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Heavy intro[edit]

Let's assume I don't have the faintest clue who Genesis P-Orridge is (true), then the first paragraph still leaves me a bit in the dark afer reading: what does

a manipulator of words and sound, a performance artist, in the truest sense, an exile, a returnee and advocate of various counterculture ideas, sacrificing most comfortable notions of identity, gender and even DNA

mean, exactly? It sounds like fan praise of those "in the know", but it just confuses me. How can anyone "sacrifice the comforable notion of DNA", for example? Even if you explain this in the remainder of the article, you shouldn't just dump it on the reader in the beginning. Keep it simple in the intro.

Similarly for

His former wife and PTV collaborator, Paula, is no longer mentioned in liner notes of any of the reissues of the music or writings since the mid-1990s. Sometimes this cropping is extremely awkward for those familiar the 12 years of PTV that Paula was so much a part of. This is certainly a rewriting of history but perhaps it's also out of respect for peoples' private lives.

I'm still in the intro here. I don't understand what the relevance is at this point. Also, I'm wondering what the background is of mentioning that it's "extremely awkward for those familiar..." or "certainly a rewriting of history but out of respect for people's private lives..." Is this based on quotes by anyone? Do we have them? Are we summarizing other facts? Which ones?

Finally, does the fifth section really need to have such a long title? Couldn't you call it "Later developments" or something like that and break it into subsections?

The article looks like fascinating stuff, incidentally. I'm guessing this might end up in the distinguished company of Wikipedia:Unusual articles. Keep up the good work. JRM 01:50, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

These are good points. I see the error in my ways and do appreciate, very much, your feedback. Alecw
The Lead section was also excessive, so I have made a corresponding edit, but none of the information has been lost, with repetitive content removed and other content relocated to a more appropriate section.--Soulparadox (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

John C. Lilly's breast implants?[edit]

Maybe I'm just ignorant about John Lilly, but I haven't found any reference that says that he had gotten breast implants. Hence, why the "...like John C. Lilly before him" mention? Anarchivist | Talk 16:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The reference was unnecessary for a variety of reasons, I've since killed it. :bloodofox: 14:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

POV and grammar issues.[edit]

I really like this article. Theres certainly alot of love put into it. However, Im finding , that perhaps its a little uncritical and perhaps would do well if someone (who isnt as gramatically impaired as I!!) had a look over it and gave it a clean up. It strikes me that the principle issues are grammar, and perhaps the POV issues. It just needs a little more detachment. -Duck monster

Unacceptably Hagiographic article[edit]

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 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)

Categories: Fluxus/Transgender and transsexual musicians[edit]

I'm very seriously considering doing a massive editing job on this. Before I attempt this, there are two things that I have issue with in the categories section:

The first one is Fluxus. I've read enumerable interviews with the subject and the only times that Fluxus was mentioned it was derogatory.

Secondly, the transgender thing. I read an interview where the subject talks about the breast implants and the explanation has absolutely nothing to do with "being a woman trapped in a man's body" or anything remotely typical of a transgender kind of situation. The hyperlink: "Pandrogenous" redirects to "Transitioning (transgender)". It strikes me as an attempt to button-hole the subject's behavior into something more palatable.

Neither of these category targets are specifically mentioned in the text. The Fluxus article lists the subject among many others on a lengthy list, without further comment. If no one objects, I plan to remove those two categories in the near future.

Steve Lowther 08:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, no objection. No encouragement either...I went ahead and did what I proposed above. I also tweaked the article a bit, removed a lot of the links in the text (some was a bit excessive) tried to keep the Neil and Genesis names consistent with the chronology...a few minor adjustments in language just to improve the tone. I only worked on the text part way into the section 1971 to 1976. I'll take another crack at it later.

Steve Lowther 11:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think if you actually read the articles on Fluxus and transgender you would realize that both apply to GP-O, and neither of them are offensive.75.49.251.170 (talk) 08:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Factual Mistakes??[edit]

The article states: "Throbbing Gristle was formed 18 October 1976 at the ICA as a four-piece rock band

The first Throbbing Gristle performance was at the Air Gallery in London on July 6, 1976."

The band was formed in October 1976 but played its first concert three months earlier in July 1976?? What kind of nonsense is this? It not nonsense you fucking nimrod, the band could have played a free form concert and than officially formed in 1976. Suck on that, low iq boy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.115.162.248 (talk) 19:32, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

The statement "The IR logo was a faded, high-contrast black-and-white photograph of Auschwitz's main ovens" is actually incorrect. This was long thought to be the case but is in fact an exterior photograph of the Tate Modern Art Gallery in London, England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Almightybooblikon (talkcontribs) 21:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


No, it is in fact true that the original Industrial Records logo is a photo of the main oven at Auschwitz. The confusion arose because, when the reformed Throbbing Gristle performed at the Tate Modern in 2007, all the advertising featured an updated Industrial Records logo, using an image of the gallery treated to look the same as the original Auschwitz log as a satirical visual gag just for this one-off event.D. Molan's book "Sympathy for the Devil: Art and Rock and Roll Since 1967" displays the two versions alongside each other for comparison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JakeC70 (talkcontribs) 16:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Death[edit]

Source: http://www.genesisp-orridge.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.212.94 (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Genesis Breyer P-Orridge and her reactivated Psychic TV aka PTV3 are terribly sad to announce the cancellation of their November North American tour dates. This decision is entirely due to the unexpected passing of band member Lady Jaye Breyer P-Orridge.

Genesis P would seem to still be alive. The band member "Lady Jaye" seems to have died. / edg 00:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that this is Wikipedia an open forum which seeks historical truth as we know it; I feel the need to understand where the information about Lady Jaye's passing is coming from.Has there been an official statement released by her parents? Is it official how she actually died or are we taking it on the word of PTV3 and co?20:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zietthis (talkcontribs)

Wikipedia is not an "open forum", and its standard is verifiability, not truth. http://www.genesisp-orridge.com/ is the source used for this information. Usually, band/artist sites are considered reasonable sources on the death of a band member, but if you feel a need to pursue this further, please share what you find. / edg 15:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

She was more than a "band member" - she was also his wife and as such, noting her death here is unquestionably appropriate to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JakeC70 (talkcontribs) 16:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Birth year?[edit]

Two are listed. Which is it?! Amber388 (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If it's 1950 as stated, the reference to Megson attending Hull University in 1965 seems highly unlikely. AuntFlo (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

His site Bio says 1950 for bith year and 1968 for Hull which coincides with the use of the name on the Early worm recording from 1968 (in the article) so I've changed it to 68.

Rrose Selavy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

TOPY[edit]

Surely some mention of the influence Genesis had in Thee Temple ov Psychick Youth should be in the article? As a founding member s/he is integral to the founding and continued ethos of the TOPY network. - Al.locke (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I just read the article for the first time, and that was my thought. It's a huge omission.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

This article refers to p-orridge as "he". They used to identify as "s/he" and now I believe identify as "we" in interviews since the death of their wife.

Either way I think using a male pronoun to refer to this person is misleading and possible offensive. Don't know what the wikipedia policy is here tho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daresbalat (talkcontribs) 14:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Pronouns[edit]

This article refers to p-orridge as "he". They used to identify as "s/he" and now I believe identify as "we" in interviews since the death of their wife.

Either way I think using a male pronoun to refer to this person is misleading and possible offensive. Don't know what the wikipedia policy is here tho. Daresbalat (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think an answer is needed on this as soon as possible, since yes, misgendering P-Orridge would be offensive, and to do so is arguably a factual error as well (if anyone disagrees with the latter point, I suggest they look into the difference between "sex" and "gender"). genesisbreyerporridge.com uses "h/er" in the bio, but I'm not sure how accurate or up-to-date this is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.19.231.177 (talk) 10:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm very uncomfortable with the use of the second person plural pronoun ("they") - no matter what gender or lack thereof P-Orridge identifies as, it's simply very bad grammar to use a plural pronoun to refer to a single person (particularly as frequently and consistently as this article does). I feel like any alternative ("s/he" or "he" or even alternating "he" and "she" or something) would be much better. As it stands it is very difficult to read and does not need to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.150.220 (talk) 10:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Very true. I came here to find out a little bit about P-Orridge, and the first "they" used in the article left me tied in paroxysms of confusion that were not remedied till near the end of the article. I know that "s/he" wishes to be a "they," but the English language still does not work that way, no matter what "s/he" wants. Personally, I vote for a major rewrite, referring to P-Orridge in a gender-neutral way as one singular entity. Let's use the pronoun "it." 68.212.233.113 (talk) 01:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I also was totally thrown off by "they." The first time it appeared in the article, I thought Genesis P-Orridge must be a band, not an individual, but when I double-checked the top of the article, it indeed says "born Neil Andrew Megson." Using "they" makes this article an extremely awkward read, and it continues to be confusing even once you realize it was intentional. But I think "it" would sound less than human -- potentially insulting/offensive, and possibly confusing as well. I vote for s/he, his/her, etc., as the best option for easy reading and clear understanding. Annie OK (talk) 05:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, if we are to be properly inclusive and respectful of all types of self image, shouldn't integrated multiple personalities also get a look in? If G. P-O is now self-identifying as "we", then wouldn't "they", in the plural rather than neuter sense, actually be the correct third party pronoun for once? ;) 193.63.174.211 (talk) 08:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

"shouldn't integrated multiple personalities also get a look in?" Because that's, what, a thing that exists? 2602:306:8320:AF00:E1EA:BC87:9BB5:ADCE (talk) 23:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

This argument is in fact absurd.
A he is a he is a he. I'm a he; he's a he.
The article on Queen Victoria does not flip the royal "we" into "They were the longest-reigning queen."
99.238.74.216 (talk) 03:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Article title[edit]

According to the documentary The Ballad of Genesis and Lady Jaye, Genesis Breyer P-Orridge (or Breyer P-Orridge) is the current preferred name of this artist. The subject personally corrected me when I wrote about a 2011 event in Los Angeles and used "Genesis P-Orridge." Per MoS, we should use a subject's preferred name. I'll change it back in a few days if there are no objections. Comments welcome. Jokestress (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

  • As far as I gather (and somebody correct me if I'm wrong), it is Wikipedia policy to usually use the term which is best known; which in this instance would be "Genesis P-Orridge". (Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC))

Pronoun errors[edit]

This article contains consistent pronoun errors. According to Wikipedia's MOS:IDENTITY policy, the gender pronouns that must be used in Wikipedia articles are those that reflect the subject's latest expressed gender self-identification. Breyer P-Orridge's website, which lists a copyright date of 2012, as of the date I accessed it (December 31, 2012) describes this person using the pronouns s/he, h/er, and h/erself. Therefore, these are the pronouns that must be used in the article. I am replacing all masculine pronouns that refer to the subject with pandrogynous pronouns of the type appropriate for Genesis Breyer P-Orridge. Rebecca (talk) 11:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that's a valid argument, but do you have to use the made-up "pandrogynous" term? And does that still hold for the years before "s/he" assumed this persona when, at least outwardly, s...s.. - oh, blast it, I haven't had enough coffee for this - they would have been identified as male?
(Or in other words: being inclusive and respectful of non-binary gender identities is all well and good, but let's bear in mind we're dealing with a performance artist who seems very happy to mess about with language for the heck of it, and thus not get TOO cozy with either themselves or whatever strange terms they may come up with, when this is supposed to be an impartial reference work. Fair enough, we don't have any non-awkward neuter-type pronouns in English, but that might as far as we need to go) 193.63.174.211 (talk) 08:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
(And allow me to clarify that "made-up" accusation: putting "pandrogynous" into search, which I did in order to see if the word could be linked to an explanatory article, just redirects to "androgyny", a setting that could well have been added by a fan of "GPO". There's no mention of the term on that page itself, though there's some outwardly similar-sounding ones like Pangender. Quite how that differs from androgyny in any meaningful way is something I can't quite grasp at the moment - can someone fill me in on the fine detail of what would make someone androgyne rather than pandrogyne/pangendered or vice-versa? (Or indeed, "pandrogyne" rather than "pangender"... if that's not inviting open clique-warfare between tiny overspecific factions within the wider alternative-gender community)
It smacks of the selfdiagnostic waffle of "tumblr.txt", or a thousand different cod-surrealist open-mic poets... What's to stop me making up a likely-sounding piece of terminology and trying to popularise it by applying it to myself, for attention seeking purposes, even though it's a complete fabrication with no real definition behind it, and harming the cause of a great many actual trans/etc folks in the process?) 193.63.174.211 (talk) 08:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Let me address the pronoun issue first because I think it's pretty cut and dry. Yes, Breyer P-orridge's preferred pronouns are pretty atypical. They are pretty atypical even within the transgender community. It's fine for you to personally look askance at h/er preferred pronouns, choose not to use them in talk pages, view them as simply a part of Breyer P-orridge's performance art, and so on. All the same, these are the pronouns by which--according to all current information we have--the subject of this article identifies h/erself with. So YES we should use these pronouns in accordance with Wikipedia's MOS:IDENTITY guidelines. And YES if we are to follow these guidelines (and I see no compelling policy reason not to) we need to use the pronouns for the subject's ENTIRE life. The guidelines are very clear that this is what should done for ALL gendered terms, regardless of how a person may been presenting themselves to the world in the past. Of course, you are free to view Breyer P-orridge as merely a disingenuous attention seeker, but that is pretty obviously your point of view and is not something that should overly influence how this article is written in my opinion.
Now, in terms of the whole pandrogynous thing. It does not matter if the word is "made up." All words in every language were made up by somebody at some point. I do agree with you though that the word appears to enjoy extremely limited usage. Therefore, sufficiently defining it in the article is probably necessary. I think the most standard approach here would be to put the word in italics, followed by a definition. Putting a word in italics (not quotemarks) is the typical way of introducing a new or unfamiliar term to people in an encyclopedia article. Context could also be provided that Breyer P-orridge is the person who coined this term (if that's true, and if a quality source can be found to verify it). But I do not agree with how you put quotemarks around "become" and "single pandrogynous entity," and I am removing those quotemarks. Quotemarks are not appropriate here because the language in question is a paraphrase and doesn't appear in the source document. The quotemarks make it appear to be a direct quotation when it's not. Your strategy of putting quotemarks around something to indicate skepticism toward it is POV and not appropriate for an encyclopedia. This article needs to be written using NPOV. Rebecca (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
"This article needs to be written using NPOV." And that is exatcly what you are NOT doing. You are so biased you can't even see it yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.119.11.65 (talk) 10:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Citation review[edit]

I have found a few dead links and repaired some bare URLs, so I will do some further research to try and replace the outdated citations.--Soulparadox (talk) 04:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I fixed or replaced the dead links. —Torchiest talkedits 04:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Genesis P-Orridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 19:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment: As a significant contributor to this page, I am not entitled to undertake a GA review of it, but I would like to express my personal opinion that this article is not yet ready for GA staus, and in my experience (having undertook a number of GA reviews and brought five articles up to GA status), it would surely fail a review. Many of the sections, such as those on Throbbing Gristle, are far too short and lack sufficient quality references. I am more than happy to help built this article up over the next few weeks and months, as I own a number of books on the subject of P-Orridge and TG, but think that ideally, this GA review should be withdrawn at this current juncture. Sorry to be the barer of bad news! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I think it's pretty close, and I'm planning on continuing to work on it. I didn't expect it to get picked up immediately, and figured it would be ready by the time someone finally looked at it. But by starting this page, you've officially placed yourself as the reviewer, which means it can't be picked up by an uninvolved contributor. —Torchiest talkedits 20:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

transmedia activations[edit]

I met Genesis a couple of times at Islington Park Street. Transmedia Activation was not considered to be part of the Exploding Galaxy. Gerald Fitzgerald was not one of the founders of the Exploding Galaxy, he joined it soon after it was founded. Nor did he call himself a kinetic artist, though he did call his dramatic works written for the Exploding Galaxy "kinetic dramas". He was certainly one of the founders of Transmedia Activation, a name which was adopted to differentiate it from the Exploding Galaxy, though they did perform at one or two gigs after the Galaxy had disbanded which had already been booked in the Exploding Galaxy name. If Genesis ever met David Medalla it would have been much later and not through Transmedia Activation which Medalla was not in contact with. Currently the phrase Exploding Galaxy in the David Medalla article redirects to Genesis P-Orridge and the phrase Transmedia Activations in the Genesis article redirects to David Medalla, the latter redirection is particularly inappropriate, but really both are, as Genesis had only the slenderest connection with the Exploding Galaxy. I'm Edward Pope and was a member of the Exploding Galaxy and a visitor of Transmedia Activation. By far the best source on the Exploding Galaxy is a new book "99 Balls Pond Road, the Story of the Exploding Galaxy" by Jill Drower, Scrudge Books 2014. Being self-published and written by a Galaxy member the information in it is unlikely to make it to Wikipedia for some time, but I have a copy and can vouch for its general accuracy. It's 522 pages long, full of photos from the time, and costs £59 but it may be obtainable from libraries and I'm happy to answer any queries about those days. The later part of the Transmedia Activation paragraph sounds very plausible to me. ed@edpopehistory.co.uk

Pronouns (again)[edit]

P-Orridge might use "s/he", "h/er", and "h/erself", but the manual of style for gender-neutral language and self-indentification doesn't, and frankly would confuse a reader completely unfamiliar with the subject material. However, to try and avoid any possible edit war on this, I have avoided the first person singular pronoun in the prose wherever practical, so the problem is less significant than before.

What the problem seems to be is that our guideline is "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns .... that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification." Since in that case, the answer is possibly "none at all", we'll have to defer to reliable and independent sources, which (unless I'm mistaken) come out as "he". (And, no P-Orridge's own website is not an independent source, though per WP:BLP can be used for first-hand information).

I'll ping Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT for more thoughts. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

very simple, use the surname, the "s/he", "h/er", and "h/erself" is unacceptable on every count and should be addressed asap. Semitransgenic talk. 10:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
We need to be very clear on this issue before making serious alterations to this page. Let's get more editors who are well versed in these issues in on this, User:Ritchie333. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
That's kind of why I pinged WikiProject LGBT. After "Manningate" I expected them to leap on this and dive in with opinions. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
let me reiterate, it's very simple, use the surname, the "s/he", "h/er", and "h/erself" is unacceptable on every count and should be addressed asap, furthermore the current level of inconsistency is laughable. Semitransgenic talk. 02:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I think that it is important for you to articulate why the terms "s/he", "h/er", and "h/erself" are unacceptable, Semitransgenic, paying particular attention to Wikipedia policy on this issue. I'm not saying that you're wrong, but it needs to be made crystal clear why it is unacceptable, rather than simply repeatedly stating that it is. It is of little use to the debate if you simply express your opinion without outlining a particular argument rooted in the appropriate use of policy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I think that it would also be appropriate to ping User:Rebecca in on this, given that she has expressed a very well argued opinion in favour of using P-Orridge's chosen pronouns in the article on the basis of Wikipedia's MOS:IDENTITY guidelines. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
MOS:IDENTITY states that gendered pronouns that reflect the "latest expressed gender self-identification" should be used in addition to pronouns and possessive adjectives, Orridge has been playing with gender for years now, it's an art project, if Orridge turned around tomorrow and said, "actually...now I'm a fucking horse," are we then going to start using he/horse, her/horse? Semitransgenic talk. 05:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
In that particular case then I suppose that yes, according to MOS:IDENTITY, we would indeed make use of "he/horse". But let's not drift into the realms of straw men and reductio ad absurdum; the fact is, P-Orridge identifies as "s/he" for artistic/philosophical/religious/spiritual/personal reasons that we may or may not fully understand, and has been doing so since at least the late 1990s. Further, MOS:IDENTITY is pretty clear that we should use an individual's preferred gender pronouns when discussing them here at Wikipedia; thus, on that policy alone, I think that User:Rebecca's argument that we have no other choice but to use "s/he" etc is a strongly compelling one. However, from my own perspective, I think that the real question which we should be asking is whether MOS:IDENTITY itself is appropriate as a form of guidance on this particular issue, or whether we might be better suited in looking to other policies for guidance. I think we'll need to get further editors in on this one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
this is navel gazing of the highest order, what we should really be doing is using the most common sense solution to here, which is use the surname, as far as I'm concerned we should not be creating special cases like this, it is entirely unnecessary, and if we really wanted to adhere to this person's view of self we should be using a term such as "the universal essence", "godhead", "bhagwan", in fact, why don't we do this for all the articles about gurus, holymen, etc. especially the ones who claim/claimed to be gods, yes let's do that, what an awesome fricken idea. Semitransgenic talk. 22:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
As I said before, let's not end up in the realms of reductio ad absurdum, it doesn't aid the discussion at hand. And regarding common sense, the problem is that it is a subjective concept, mediated through the lense of cultural norms and values; one person's common sense is completely alien to another. So I think that it will be difficult – and indeed perhaps impossible – to objectively ascertain "the most common sense solution" in this case. Again, Semitransgenic, the point here is that you have to make use of policy. You might (and clearly do) think that using "s/he" is ridiculous nonsense; and as your opinion goes, that is fine. But this is Wikipedia, and we are bound within the remit of previously agreed upon policy. Unless we have something other than MOS:IDENTITY to work with, then I think that we are going to have to go with Rebecca's suggestions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
"then I think that we are going to have to go with Rebecca's suggestions" excuse me? are you this editors representative? there is a discussion taking place here, on this talk page, in this section, yet this person has offered nothing. Instead you are promoting a position on their behalf. Right now the article is a mess, there is no consistency in title usage and until we reach a consensus regarding the best approach here, this cannot be addressed properly. This one opinion you are promotion, one that is highly idiosyncratic (therefore controversial) does not suffice. We have a simple choice here, we use the surname throughout, or we use "s/he" throughout, since the latter is highly idiosyncratic, in the context of existing MOS guidelines, the most common sense approach here is to employ a surname. Semitransgenic talk. 12:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Come on, of course I am not their representative. But we must take into account that in December 2012, they articulated a well reasoned argument – on the basis of policy – for the use of "s/he" and related pronouns throughout. I see myself not as "promoting a position on their behalf" but as accepting that they are the only user on this entire talk page to have articulated a proper argument as to what sort of language we should use when it comes to the issue of pronouns. Others – including yourself – have expressed their opinions, but none (and in this I include myself) have been able to articulate a properly reasoned argument for any alternative to that suggested by Rebecca. Now, I really think that we need to try and get more voices on board with this discussion here, else it shall just be the two of us stuck in the same somewhat cyclical debate. We have various options available to us: third opinion (which I'd probably advise against as we could do with a few further voices), requests for comment (perhaps our best option), or the dispute resolution noticeboard. Do you have a particular preference for any of these methods ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Major source[edit]

The book RE/Search: Modern Primitives has an entire chapter on Genesis & Paula P-Orridge. I've cited it once for their appearance in it, but there's a lot of material that can be mined in it.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  23:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

I'm nominating this wiki article for a NPOV decision. Things like this shouldn't be in the article in their current form:

   "Orridge received widespread press criticism and police harassment after being falsely accused of ritual sexual abuse in 1992"

Falsely? Where is the source? Who found P-Orridge falsely accused?

   "P-Orridge's work sought to force h/er audience to think in ways that are alien to mainstream, Christian-dominated Western society;"

Her work didn't sought to? No, we need quotes and descriptions from verifiable sources what P-Orridge and critics SAID about the work.

Those are just a few examples, but this article speaks too informally and too POV.

Another huge POV issue:

  • The s/he h/er thing was never resolved. That's extremely non-standard english. If we're going to use it in the article, and I believe there was no consensus from other editors about the wiki "legality" of using such terms, shouldn't it be explained somewhere inside the article BEFORE its use? We can't pretend this is standard English or even common slang/regional English.
  • Overall, I believe this article could get away without gender pronouns most of the time.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style:

   "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision."

In most cases, I believe using P-Orridge will suffice.

This wiki article reads like a zine. I love zines, but this is wikipedia.

- Brandoid (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

While there are undoubtedly problems with this article, I am personally unconvinced by the claim that it is dominated by NPOV perspectives. After all, both of the sentences that have been highlighted as potentially problematic are actually supported by the reliable references contained within the article. Moreover, with regards to the use of third gender pronouns, the article currently follows Wikipedia's Manual of Style on Identity. If there is no support forthcoming for Brandoid's position then I might suggest that we remove the tag from the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Support proposal above, article is a mess, we need to use the surname here. Semitransgenic talk. 21:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
But MOS/Identity is quite clear in these matters. We are to use the gender pronouns that the individual in question uses for themselves. That goes for third gender individuals as much as those who sit within the male-female gender binary. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

An RfC has been held to deal with the issue of pronouns, and the two sentences highlighted as potentially problematic have been re-phrased. Given that there do not appear to be any other concerns that have been raised regarding neutrality, I will remove the unsightly tag from the top of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

RFC: is the idiosyncratic use of s/he and h/er acceptable in this article?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus against using the s/he and h/er pronouns in prose. The discussion centers around the guideline MOS:ID#Gender identity and what pronouns should be used. The majority opinion is that it will be confusing, isnt an option in the guideline and we are not held to follow others. As a side note, I think it would be interesting to see what would happen if a visually impaired reader, using a screen reader, would hear when s/he and h/er came up in the text. AlbinoFerret 16:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Is the idiosyncratic use of s/he and h/er acceptable in this article, or should we use the person's surname? Note also this editorial comment. Semitransgenic talk. 14:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

As a primary contributor to this article, I would like to argue the case for retaining the use of P-Orridge's preferred gender pronouns throughout the article. To provide a little background to the situation, it is important to clarify that although born biologically male, P-Orridge is transgender and identifies as a form of third gender that s/he terms "pandrogynous". Accordingly, s/he has developed her own non-binary gender pronouns. Now, we already have a policy to guide us in situations just like this one, the Manual of Style section on Identity. As it says there: Wikipedia articles should "give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources... Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise." That's a pretty explicit policy.
As I see it, the only argument against using P-Orridge's preferred pronouns in this article is that they appear to be idiosyncratic and unusual, and most readers will be unfamiliar with them. As far as I understand it, that viewpoint is not one rooted in any particular Wikipedia policy and thus I do not think it carries much validity here. Furthermore, avoiding using P-Orridge's favoured pronouns could certainly be interpreted as an affront to h/er (and to trans and non-binary folk more widely), which might result in complications as a result of our Biographies of Living Persons policy. At the heart of it, we have a crystal clear policy to guide us in these matters, so let's stick to it and keep the pronouns! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Moreover, I think it worth adding a quick critique of the concept that this article would actually be improved were we to use P-Orridge's surname in place of every pronoun. If that proposed change was actually to be impleemented, the whole article would be bombarded with "When P-Orridge was in the U.S., P-Orridge met with David Tibet, and it was there that P-Orridge..." We would have the word "P-Orridge" appearing repeatedly in almost every single sentence. Something so maddeningly repetitive would be just awful to read, wouldn't it? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
"s/he" and "h/er" are fine by me here. Midnightblueowl's point on why not to use "P-Orridge" instead is a strong one - David Gerard (talk) 12:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The Manual of Style mentions preferred "pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns"; it does not mention idiosyncratically used pseudo-words.  Also please note that that section of the MOS is currently undergoing its own  RfC (actually a pair of them) (Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 123#Revisiting MOS:IDENTITY in articles about transgender individuals); so perhaps this RfC should be put on hold (or at least not be formally closed or archived) until the result of that RfC, (probably around by the end of this month).
Richard27182 (talk) 12:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
(made a small change to my wording) Richard27182 (talk) 07:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Richard27182 above. The policy states they should be "referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification" - the thing is that those self-identification terms only serve the subject themselves - they do not improve our understanding of the biography, and quite frankly they are confusing. They are pseudo-words in the sense that they are not 1) widely used in vernacular and 2) seem to be based on personal endeavour rather than reliable sources. We are not a politically correct text; we are an encyclopaedic. Just because I'm Bill Gates and want to be called a gljdfksduck doesn't mean my encyclopaedic biography should too. If a transgender male would like to be called he, then that's fine. But s/he is an invented term that counts with no use otherwise. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
But how do you draw a clear line between "idiosyncratically used pseudo-words" and other words? Many words are idiosyncratic, being used by very small groups of people and not appearing in dictionaries (technical jargon, or religious jargon, for example) and if a word is genuinely being used as a part of language, can it fairly be called "pseudo", or rather is it just niche? Personally, I think that rejecting the word because it is idiosyncratic can result in a whole host of new problems and issues arising. Nevertheless, I concur with your second point; this RfC should not be closed until the decisions of the MOS Identity debate are concluded, as it may undoubtedly have repercussions for this article too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a niche text; it is meant for a general audience, and as such the line beween '"idiosyncratically used pseudo-words" and other words' is clearly established by gauging its use and the quality of the sources that use it. Pseudo doesn't mean it's unused, it means it's invented and has no backing - which would in fact be violating WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not a place for advancing agendas. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Midnightblueowl.  The primary purpose of my posting was the second part; about not closing or archiving this RfC until the other RfC (concerning the MOS) is final. But concerning the other point, drawing a clear line between "idiosyncratically used pseudo-words" and other words, I would say that a word is valid for use in Wikipedia if it can be found in a commonly used or well respected dictionary and/or found in a textbook, trade publication, or commonly recognized religious book. I would not consider a "word" Wikipedia-worthy if it was just made up by somebody and some other people just started using it. That would be more or less the standard I would apply.
Richard27182 (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I think our first priority should be to the reader and using made up pronouns is not very helpful to them (even with the note that very few would read in any case). Nor would it be particularly pleasing to use P-Orridge in every second sentence. Personally I would rather have the discomfort of reading P-Orridge than the confusion of h/er. Also one of the cited articles from 2006 says that P-Orridge uses “we,” “us,” or “our" as pronouns [2] (the article incidentally uses he and I could find no mention of h/er), which makes me think this is more of a marketing gimmick than a serious identity issue. If h/er stays could something be added to the article about it in more detail than "while also adopting gender neutral and alternating pronouns" and then something in the lead so a reader does not think we are just being flippant. AIRcorn (talk) 07:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
    • To quote the AP style guide, "The guidance calls for using the pronoun preferred by the individuals who have acquired the physical characteristics of the opposite sex or present themselves in a way that does not correspond with their sex at birth." Using chosen pronouns is evidently not considered too confusing for general newspaper readers, so we should be ok on this one - David Gerard (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
      • I have no problem with whatever pronoun is used, I just don't think we should use made up ones. If you can find a reliable newspaper article that uses s/he then I might be convinced differently. AIRcorn (talk) 08:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • SNOW oppose this usage. Wikipedia does have a relatively new policy of referencing the subjects of BLPs according to their own preferred gender identity, but that is clearly a a very distinct issue from what we are talking about here. In other cases for transgender individuals, the terms in question conform to common English syntax and grammatical principles and we are simply opting to show the individual in question respect with regard to their self-determination of this aspect of their identity. In this case, we are talking about utilizing, in prose, a neologism that is not in any remote sense typical or likely to be familiar to the average user.
I certainly have no objection to noting in certain statements "Genesis P-Orridge prefers to refer to themselves using the pronoun 's/he'" but adopting that usage in our own neutral and encyclopedic discourse would be a blatant violation of long-standing community consensus on how we employ language on this project. We are here to discuss the topic of the article with precision and clarity for our readers. We simply cannot achieve such encyclopedic tone while also attempting to indulge or validate niche/idiosyncratic uses of language which may or may not catch on. And, although it is not really germane to our decision here, this usage almost certainly won't spread, because of the awkwardness of the construction, which is clearly meant to be a statement more than an operative option. For those who think this is a workable option for an article attempting to achieve encyclopedic tone, consider some questions. How does one pronounce s/he? I can think of at least four options (all of which are awkward or ambiguous in spoken language) and our readers will clearly be confused to this point. What is the concordant possessive pronoun for this personal pronoun "h-er/-is"? How do you pronounce that? What are the rules governing the morphology and syntax of these pronouns with regard to the usual rules of English grammar?
Our existing policy on utilizing the preferred gender identities of the subjects of BLPs is clearly meant to reference choices existing within normal English usage (hence, Caitlin Jenner is referenced as she), but it does not require us to adopt non-standard or idiosyncratic usage in our own prose, especially where such usage would confuse our readers, break syntax, and destroy the concordance between phonetic and textual language that is predicate need of all writing which our readers rely upon. Snow let's rap 02:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
However, if you oppose the use of the "s/her" third gender pronouns, then what do you suggest that we use in their place? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
That's a fair question, and one we are forced to confront because of the fact that MOS:ID#Gender identity presently directs us to utilize a subjects preference in lieu of what sources use, contrary to every other context in which we make content appraisals across the project. I would suggest that, if that principle is not repealed--it is under discussion at present as has been noted here--then in order to conform to the reading of the rule, we have a few options. We could utilize the most recent gendered identity that P-orridge has adopted, but given that could obviously change on a whim with regard to this particular BLP, I'm not inclined to do that. Instead I would suggest that we structure the sentences here syntactically so as to avoid a pronoun where possible and where necessary we could use the gender-neutral singular "they". Wikipedia does not have an absolute policies on whether the singular they is ever appropriate; it is generally just avoided for clarity. In the early twentieth century, style guidelines and English prescriptivists were quite opposed to this usage, but modern style guides, dictionary guidelines, and common usage all allow for it. Moreover, it's been used in English for centuries and most people clearly can derive the meaning and appreciate the utility in context. It may lead to some inelegant prose in places, but that's unfortunately unavoidable due to MoS:ID; this option is at least leads to much more easily comprehensible, precise and organized prose than the alternative. Snow let's rap 21:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that using s/he and h/er is fine. I support it in that I think we should use whatever reliable sources use. Like an above user quoted from the Wikipedia Manual, we should "give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources..." I think that the average person should be familiar with up to date information in reliable sources, therefore using these terms should not be a problem. However, if the terms are not used in up-to-date reliable sources, than we have a whole other issue here. I also agree in that we should not be using the subjects surname in replacement of these terms in order to avoid way too much repetitiveness. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually, that's a misrepresentation/paraphrasing of the section being quoted (although I realize it is a good-faith, unintentional mistake). If we look at the actual reading of the guideline verbatim, it becomes clear that the section actually makes it obvious that s/he is precluded from use, and that MOS:ID#Gender identity mandates us to use he or she, whichever the subject has most recently preferred, but not any idiosyncratic pronouns which do not have established grammatical usage in English:
"Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification."
Note that the examples of gendered nouns make it clear that we are talking only about options which exist in common English usage; if we were to adopt the P-Orridge standard here, and apply it to MOS:ID, we'd end up with word soup every time we had to reference a gendered noun; the above examples would become something like "m/wo-man", "waiter/ress", chair-m/wo-man". Or something there-like, because every person (most of whom do not have linguistic training such that they can reliably pull apart the morphemes of a given word) would be applying their own standard of to combine the various parts of the two gendered forms and meaning therefore becomes thoroughly confused.
So to my mind, while I question the wisdom of having a MOS:ID#Gender identity exemption to WP:V at all, it is clear that, as it is currently written, it explicitly allows for a choice of existing personal pronouns, possessive pronouns, and gendered nouns, but, by it's very formulation, discludes other options. The reasons for this are obvious. Look at the hoops we have to jump through to make sense of this ourselves, let alone for our readers. We even have a footnote in the lead to try to contextualize this issue for the reader, which includes an excerpt from the above policy. Anytime that you have to explain a Wikipedia policy inside an article, you know without a fact that something has gone terribly wrong with your approach to that content.Snow let's rap 21:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to state my actual "!vote" until after formal closure of the other RfC I mentioned.
Richard27182 (talk) 07:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I wish that discussion had been more widely advertised for the community. It looks destined to end in another "no consensus" and we really need to clarify these issues. Preferably (in my view) by repealing the guideline, but in any event, at least by more clearly addressing the many specific linguistic and style issues that arise because of it. Snow let's rap 01:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Snow Rise.  I don't think there's cause to be quite so pessimistic.  This RfC won't auto-lose its RfC template until around December 3rd.  And if we feel a need, we can always extend that date.  RfC may be extended beyond 30 days by changing the first timestamp to a more recent date.  (See Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs.)  The RfC is (automatically) being promoted on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All.  And it can manually be promoted in the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Village pump.  The promotion on the Village Pump can be reworded and updated from time to time during the run of the RfC to attract more attention.  And I'm sure I would be able to suggest even more we could do if I were not so new to all this.
Richard27182 (talk) 11:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, it can always been promoted at WP:Central discussion and the talk page of the relevant policy itself (in this case Wikipedia talk: MoS). It probably would not be appropriate to promote via WikiProjects in this instance as it could be seen to constitute de facto WP:canvassing. But reason I am not optimistic in this case is that !votes are very broadly distributed across the various proposal. Part of the problem is that the RfC was not well formulated, in my opinion. Any time you construct an RfC on policy that has numerous different options, it's generally going to result in the adoption of the status qou, simply because the calls for altering our methodology get diffused over increasingly particular approaches and no real consensus is formed. Had I been the one presenting the issues, I would have formulated an initial inquiry into whether the guideline was advisable, practical and consistent with our deeper and more crucial policies based on much broader and longer-standing consensus.
I suspect presenting the issue in detail and asking contributors to decide in that sort of straight up or down manner would have resulted in at least a slight majority of experienced editors voicing disapproval of the guideline. But if it were resolved to keep it, then we could proceed to the other questions raised; that is, how to refine the guideline to actually make it workable in terms of grammar and Wikipedia style guidelines. By conflating the two issues together as was done in that RfC, we're pretty much gaurunteed that it will not amount to much more than a spinning of wheels. Which is problematic, because this issue really needs to be addressed and now it will be another few months (at a minimum) after thsi RfC closes (I believe almost certainly as a non consensus) before someone else can raise the matter again without looking as if they are just being contrarian and acting in bad faith. Snow let's rap 21:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


Update as of 17 November 2015: So, two weeks after this RfC was opened, we currently have three statements that support the continuing usage of P-Orridge's preferred third gender pronouns in this article, one that favours their replacement with "P-Orridge" in each instance, and one statement that opposes the use of P-Orridge's self-chosen pronouns but which doesn't endorse any particular alternative. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

  • It should not be used in Wikipedia's voice. We should notr that P-Orridge presently prefers this, and thereafter avoid using pronouns, per MOS:IDENTITY's instructions to rewrite to avoid confusion constructions with regard to TG (in this context, I should qualify I mean "transgender" not "Throbbing Gristle" >;-) people, and MOS:NEO, MOS:JARGON against using such constructions generally, and MOS:TM against using made-up proprietary styles generally, and MOS:NPOV / WP:NOT#SOAPBOX against campaigning (linguistic, socio-sexual or otherwise), and somewhere (I forget) that advises against using "he/she", "zie", and other awkward combined-pronoun and made-up-pronoun constructions. Primary WP:ABOUTSELF sources – the subjects personally – about how individual subjects refer to themselves has nothing to do with how Wikipedia uses the English language to communicate with our readers. If I were notable, and I made it known that I preferred to be referred to as "His Psychotronic Majesty, Zorkonn the Space-God", I would not expect WP to comply with this, though it might note somewhere that I'd made such a demand, if reliable sources had reported on it.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  21:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Question How do mainstream reliable sources refer to the subject? --NeilN talk to me 21:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Genesis P-Orridge#Notes sums up the sources. AIRcorn (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Made up terms aren't pronouns. --NeilN talk to me 22:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

And made up pronouns aren't terms. 2602:306:CCDE:AF10:D8E7:C2D0:6C49:BFB2 (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

If GPO's pronouns are a gender identity issue, then retain them where necessary, but rewrite as many instances as possible (without clumsiness or repetition of the surname multiple times in one sentence) to use GPO's name. — Extended comments: (1) Are GPO's pronouns an indication of gender or, as the article implies, an art project? If they're an art project, MOS:ID is arguably inapplicable. (2) To rewrite most or many articles to use only a name and no pronouns would be clumsy and poor style (especially where the pronouns in question are ordinary English pronouns like "she"), but to rewrite this specific article might be OK. At a minimum, without bending or making any exception to the relevant guidelines, we could use the name in most places and so reduce the currently excessive number of instances of pronouns. (3) If it is decided that GPO's pronouns are indeed a gender identity matter rather than an art project, and yet we don't want to use them, then using the surname instead would seem to be necessary, since picking a different, gendered pronoun (like "he" or "she") would be non-NPOV. — By the way, I dispute that s/he is per se neologistic; its application to a specific known person might be new-ish and uncommon, but as an abbreviation/blend of she and he it's probably been used on forms etc for quite a while. -sche (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


  •  That other RfC I mentioned (concerning gender identity and the MOS) is taking forever to reach a final conclusion.  And upon reflection, I finally decided that which way it goes won't make much difference as far as this article is concerned.  So I'm going to make my official "!vote" now.
     The MOS calls for using "the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns.........that reflect [the] person's latest expressed gender self-identification".  It says absolutely nothing about having to use made-up pretend pronouns or imaginary genders.  The MOS obviously did not anticipate having to deal with a situation as bizarre as this one; but it's all we have to work with and we'll have to do the best we can to follow its guidance as it applies to this case.
     Glancing over the article, I noticed that P-Orridge was born as Neil Andrew Megson.  Unless P-Orridge's parents had a very bizarre sense of humor, I believe we can conclude that P-Orridge was born biologically male, and that, at least during the earliest part of life would have been gender identified as male.  Unless he at some point declared his gender identity to be female (the only other valid possibility), then P-Orridge's most recent (non-imaginary) gender identification would by default still be male.  Therefore I believe that according to the guidelines of the gender identification section of the MOS, when referring to P-Orridge with a pronoun, the male form should be used.
    Richard27182 (talk) 08:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Essentially, Megson's view is that he is neither male nor female, "they" is also used in the article to refer to him/her. This is all well and good in P-Orridge land, more power, but it simply does not follow that we should pander to this personal vision on Wikipedia. It stems from his spiritual beliefs from what I can see and has zero to do with the kind of gender self-identification issues MOS highlights. Semitransgenic talk. 17:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Semitransgenic.  I don't know where P-Orridge got the idea that he is neither male nor female, or where he came up with all those pretend pronouns; but I agree with you 100% that "This is all well and good in P-Orridge land ........ but it simply does not follow that we should pander to this personal vision on Wikipedia."  The big question is how can Wikipedia show appropriate respect for this subject without appearing to buy into things that would call into question Wikipedia's judgement and sensibility?
Richard27182 (talk) 07:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
@Richard27182 it appears his Pandrogeny Project, originally initiated with his (now deceased) female partner, was "an attempt to unite as a pandrogyne, or single entity, through the use of surgical body modification to physically resemble one another." From what I can see, now it's just him, alone, trying to dissolve (symbolically) the masculine/feminine dyad, within his own being; in an attempt to become something "other." Guessing it's him lending expression to non-dualistic thought, "toward the one" and all that. Also, from what I have seen in interviews, he now studiously avoids the term "I" and refers to himself as "we." I don't think we are disrespecting this individual by following MOS as it currently stands. Semitransgenic talk. 09:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "his gender identity to be female (the only other valid possibility)" - with respect, I think that you're in very dangerous and factually dubious territory there, Richard. Western society has tended to emphasise a male-female dualism but anthropological and historical investigation has shown that a great many societies have understood a distinct third gender category. Moreover, many people living in the West – including P-Orridge – identify with this third gender (and that's leaving aside intersex individuals). If someone is third gender, it is up to us to respect that in the encyclopedia rather than force them into a binary that they don't belong to. 10:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
we are not forcing anything if we use a surname. Until a provision exits for what you describe, we work with what we have rather than making exceptions.I suggest we revert to surname here, and Midnightblueowl can crack on with the third gender descriptor debate over on the MOS board. Semitransgenic talk. 15:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Well there is no consensus for a change, so it would be premature to make alterations of that nature at the moment (particularly as quite a few editors have expressed criticisms of such a change). It's a difficult situation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
you mean there is no consensus to keep it as is, it currently contravenes our guidelines. Semitransgenic talk. 18:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
That's not quite how the consensus system works at RfC; if there's no consensus for a removal, then it stays. Besides, removing the currently used wording would be in clear violation of our MOS Identity policy. That's the problem; we have policies that both favour and oppose inclusion of these third gender pronouns. We're stuck between a rock and a hard place. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
maybe we should just use hee/haw, because this is a fricken joke. Enjoy the rest of your P-Orridge. Semitransgenic talk. 14:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
[inserted  06:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)]
My official  "!vote" / opinion  remains what I wrote on 08:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC).  However I would like to suggest a possible alternative proposal.  P-Orridge's (IMO made up) pronouns largely seem to be derived from actual English male and female pronouns (and combinations): for example "s/he" and "h/er."  Suppose we were to briefly discuss early in the article P-Orridge's personal gender identification and the pronouns he created, and from that point on, whenever a pronoun is needed to refer to P-Orridge  use "he (or she),"  "him (or her)," etc.  This would avoid using the actual P-Orridge pronouns as though they were bona fide English words (which seems to be what many editors object to) while still recognizing P‑Oridge's declared gender identity as best we can while still using actual English pronouns.  (The only other way to do that would be to use the neuter form of pronouns; and I don't think it would be very nice to refer to a person as "it.")  This is not a perfect solution, but it does get around one of the main issues discussed in this RfC.
Richard27182 (talk) 06:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Update as of 27 November: at present we have three statements that support the continuing usage of P-Orridge's preferred third gender pronouns in this article, one that supports the continued usage of them if they are reduced, three that favour their replacement with "P-Orridge" in each instance, one that calls for their replacement with male pronouns, and one statement that opposes the use of P-Orridge's self-chosen pronouns but which doesn't endorse any particular alternative. (In all, we have no consensus whatsoever). Personally I am concerned by the way that those opposing the use of P-Orridge's pronouns have tended to dismiss MOS:Identity because of either a lack of acknowledgment that third gender individuals exist and a claim that third gender pronouns are "made up" (i.e. idiosyncratic and not in common usage within the English language). Moreover, I am concerned at the attitude that our policies on WP:Technical Language, and MP:Manual of Style automatically trump an individual's gender identity (as embodied in WP:Identity), whereas I believe that the latter should clearly take precedence, particularly when dealing with a Living Person. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

 Absolutely no disrespect intended,  but I believe that the term "made up" can be applied to any word(s) or phrase(s) that are coined and used by a person or group of people, but which have not (yet) made it into mainstream usage.  This would include not just P-Orridge's pronouns, but even new technical terms which do not (yet) appear in any dictionary, textbook, trade publication, etc.
 I would say that P-Orridge's pronouns are an excellent example of neologisms (which MOS:NEO advises us to avoid).  Mentioning them in the article and describing how P-Orridge uses them is one thing; but actually using them throughout the article as if they were legitimate mainstream words is quite another.  Wikipedia is not supposed to play a role in helping to introduce and/or establish new trends (in language or in any other area).  Wikipedia does not lead, it follows.
Richard27182 (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Challenging the "consensus" verdict[edit]

With respect to AlbinoFerret (who I thank for taking the time to review this RfC), I would like to challenge the way that this RfC has actually been closed. It is true that I am on the 'losing side' as it were, but at the same time this is not just a matter of sour grapes from me; I have, for instance, never challenged an RfC before, even when it came to a decision with which I disagreed. Albino's comment that we have a consensus in favour of opposing the use of P-Orridge's given pronouns is not borne out from examining the above discussion; rather we have a state of no consensus albeit where a small majority endorses the removal of those pronouns, with no consensus at all in what should replace them. This is a classic case of "majority opinion" being confused with consensus, when in fact they are not the same thing. The view of many who contributed to this discussion was that in situations like this (which is a BLP), MOS:NEO trumps MOS:ID#Gender identity. While this is a valid position for people to hold, it does not mean that it is automatically the correct one on Wikipedia. Any editor establishing whether consensus has been achieved is supposed to rely not simply on majoritarianism but rather seriously consider the policies that are presented. I do not think that this has happened here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

MOS is a guideline. As such consensus can overrule it unlike a policy. But the problem is, those guidelines dont speak to this exact situation. There is consensus against using the pronouns in the RFC. AlbinoFerret 21:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
There was the support of a small majority. I'm not sure that that is the same thing as consensus. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Here is the policy on that [3] AlbinoFerret 15:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
If there's consensus about not using P-Orridge's "s/he", why is it still all over the article space? :bloodofox: (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)