This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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]]
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
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
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)
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)
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
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 ( talk • contribs) 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 (
talk •
contribs)
16:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
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.
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 ( talk • contribs)
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 ( talk • contribs) 16:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 14:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Midnightblueowl ( talk · contribs) 19:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
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 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.92.63 ( talk • contribs) 20:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
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:
See /info/en/?search=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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Genesis P-Orridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:31, 9 January 2017 (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)
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)
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)
And made up pronouns aren't terms. 2602:306:CCDE:AF10:D8E7:C2D0:6C49:BFB2 ( talk) 20:49, 6 March 2016 (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)
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)
I notice that once you get to the Childhood section, you still have to read the obnoxious third-person pronouns. "P-Orridge was born Neil Megson, and their father was..." Come on. I know the issue frustrates editors, but the "they/their" thing is so, so stupid. Couldn't you do something like use "Megson" in every reference to him as a child, and then when you get to the part of his life when he started calling himself Genesis P-Orridge, switch to "P-Orridge" in every instance? 63.152.87.222 ( talk) 16:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Genesis P-Orridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Genesis P-Orridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.rocknrolldating.com/interview/genesis-p.-orridge-pt.-i{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.rocknrolldating.com/interview/genesis-p.-orridge-pt.-ii{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://rocknrolldating.com/interview/genesis-p.-orridge-pt.-iWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
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:
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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]]
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
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
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)
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)
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
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 ( talk • contribs) 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 (
talk •
contribs)
16:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
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.
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 ( talk • contribs)
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 ( talk • contribs) 16:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 14:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Midnightblueowl ( talk · contribs) 19:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
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 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.92.63 ( talk • contribs) 20:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
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:
See /info/en/?search=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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Genesis P-Orridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:31, 9 January 2017 (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)
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)
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)
And made up pronouns aren't terms. 2602:306:CCDE:AF10:D8E7:C2D0:6C49:BFB2 ( talk) 20:49, 6 March 2016 (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)
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)
I notice that once you get to the Childhood section, you still have to read the obnoxious third-person pronouns. "P-Orridge was born Neil Megson, and their father was..." Come on. I know the issue frustrates editors, but the "they/their" thing is so, so stupid. Couldn't you do something like use "Megson" in every reference to him as a child, and then when you get to the part of his life when he started calling himself Genesis P-Orridge, switch to "P-Orridge" in every instance? 63.152.87.222 ( talk) 16:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Genesis P-Orridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Genesis P-Orridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.rocknrolldating.com/interview/genesis-p.-orridge-pt.-i{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.rocknrolldating.com/interview/genesis-p.-orridge-pt.-ii{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://rocknrolldating.com/interview/genesis-p.-orridge-pt.-iWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
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: