This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Monica Coghlan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from Monica Coghlan appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 6 August 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article was nominated for deletion on July 31, 2006. The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm not sure why an American would nominate this for deletion seeing as they would have very little idea about this parochially British person, although i suspect judging from list of articles proposed for deletion someone has a grudge against people called Monica, suffice to say that Coghlan was a very notable figure in the downfall of Jeffrey Archer and was probably known throughout the country at the time. I don't see why an article should be removed just because it is short. As for the guideline for notability in wikipedia i think this covers it :Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events. Cardigan3000 02:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Now that someone has actually shown that this subject is notable, I am more than happy to see that it has received treatment here. Nice work, AnonEMouse. Erechtheus 16:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this has anything to do with the comments above about Americans nominating British topics for deletion or vice versa (no reason why there should be anything wrong with this, as long as standard ideas about notability are adhered to), but why is this article on a British topic written in American English? Examples include use of American date style throughout, referring to what in the UK is usually called cannabis as "marijuana", use of the rarely encountered phrase "real estate" which is much more common in the USA, calling the News of the World a magazine when everyone in Britain knows it's a tabloid newspaper, and the strange "£50 bills" instead of "£50 notes". Archer is also gratingly referred to as "Lord Jeffrey Archer". Doesn't this indicate the younger son of a duke or marquess? All this makes the article look really odd, and in accordance with the manual of style, which prescribes use of the appropriate variety of English for the topic, should be rewritten in British English. 86.134.213.12 18:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
He is "Lord Jeffrey Archer" because he is (still) in the House Of Lords (the UK upper chamber of parliament).
An anonymous edit in early January added a sentence to the Jeffery Archer section: The amount allegedly given by Archer to Coghlan, £2000, is now known in English slang as "an Archer". Later, a link to the Urban Dictionary to cite it was added and quickly (and appropriately) removed. I'm not English, so I don't know for sure, but is this true, or was it just a quickie attempt to bash Archer? It's not a phrase I've ever encountered, and it seems unlikely that the £2000 figure is commonly cited with a nickname of that nature. Can we get an RS cite on this? Horologium talk - contrib 23:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I had never heard of her, and as I read the article, the last sentence stood out.
'Following her death and Archer's conviction for perjury, on 20 July 2001 the English Collective of Prostitutes wrote an open letter to The Guardian newspaper supporting her vindication, and calling her unjustly "branded by her sex, race and class and by the prostitution laws which label and condemn women."'
It made me wonder what her race was -- information that doesn't seem to appear in the article. Now, I don't feel that that there'd be any particular need to mention her race, if it weren't for that sentence I quoted. But, my reaction to it was: 'Huh? What did I miss? What was her race? Coghlan? Is that an Irish name? I'd better go back and read the article again. What's happened to my reading comprehension?' I don't think that's a good way for an encyclopedia article to be written. Would it be better to simply leave out the reference to her race, since there's nothing in the article that sounds as though it's relevant? Marieblasdell 07:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
The ECP's claim that 'she was unfairly branded by her race' is unfounded. Her race was rarely mentioned by the media, despite the large amount of media coverage she received. This is confirmed by the fact that the large majority of people don't know what race she was. She appeared to be mixed race, but it is difficult to specify exactly, due to the lack of media articles mentioning her race. The media coverage of her, the general public's view of her, and the legal proceedings involving her, would have been been exactly the same, regardless of what race she had been. In any case, her race (mulatto?, Eurasian?) should be stated on the article, especially considering the fact that the quote claiming she was persecuted because of it is still present. Werdnawerdna ( talk) 16:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
The only clue I have on this is that (in secret recordings with Archer when he was planning to pay her to go abroad to avoid scrutiny etc) she suggested that she could "go back to Tunisia" (which is primary an Arab country in North Africa of course) - but whether that was due to it being part of her original heritage or if she had previously been there for another reason etc I don't know.
"One of Coghlan's clients....was Jeffrey Archer". Is that really an undisputed fact since JAs perjury case? I mean, has JA admitted it, or has a judge pronounced that to be true? Not that I want to defend JA at all, but I/m just curious. 80.2.204.109 ( talk) 00:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Monica Coghlan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from Monica Coghlan appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 6 August 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article was nominated for deletion on July 31, 2006. The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm not sure why an American would nominate this for deletion seeing as they would have very little idea about this parochially British person, although i suspect judging from list of articles proposed for deletion someone has a grudge against people called Monica, suffice to say that Coghlan was a very notable figure in the downfall of Jeffrey Archer and was probably known throughout the country at the time. I don't see why an article should be removed just because it is short. As for the guideline for notability in wikipedia i think this covers it :Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events. Cardigan3000 02:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Now that someone has actually shown that this subject is notable, I am more than happy to see that it has received treatment here. Nice work, AnonEMouse. Erechtheus 16:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this has anything to do with the comments above about Americans nominating British topics for deletion or vice versa (no reason why there should be anything wrong with this, as long as standard ideas about notability are adhered to), but why is this article on a British topic written in American English? Examples include use of American date style throughout, referring to what in the UK is usually called cannabis as "marijuana", use of the rarely encountered phrase "real estate" which is much more common in the USA, calling the News of the World a magazine when everyone in Britain knows it's a tabloid newspaper, and the strange "£50 bills" instead of "£50 notes". Archer is also gratingly referred to as "Lord Jeffrey Archer". Doesn't this indicate the younger son of a duke or marquess? All this makes the article look really odd, and in accordance with the manual of style, which prescribes use of the appropriate variety of English for the topic, should be rewritten in British English. 86.134.213.12 18:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
He is "Lord Jeffrey Archer" because he is (still) in the House Of Lords (the UK upper chamber of parliament).
An anonymous edit in early January added a sentence to the Jeffery Archer section: The amount allegedly given by Archer to Coghlan, £2000, is now known in English slang as "an Archer". Later, a link to the Urban Dictionary to cite it was added and quickly (and appropriately) removed. I'm not English, so I don't know for sure, but is this true, or was it just a quickie attempt to bash Archer? It's not a phrase I've ever encountered, and it seems unlikely that the £2000 figure is commonly cited with a nickname of that nature. Can we get an RS cite on this? Horologium talk - contrib 23:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I had never heard of her, and as I read the article, the last sentence stood out.
'Following her death and Archer's conviction for perjury, on 20 July 2001 the English Collective of Prostitutes wrote an open letter to The Guardian newspaper supporting her vindication, and calling her unjustly "branded by her sex, race and class and by the prostitution laws which label and condemn women."'
It made me wonder what her race was -- information that doesn't seem to appear in the article. Now, I don't feel that that there'd be any particular need to mention her race, if it weren't for that sentence I quoted. But, my reaction to it was: 'Huh? What did I miss? What was her race? Coghlan? Is that an Irish name? I'd better go back and read the article again. What's happened to my reading comprehension?' I don't think that's a good way for an encyclopedia article to be written. Would it be better to simply leave out the reference to her race, since there's nothing in the article that sounds as though it's relevant? Marieblasdell 07:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
The ECP's claim that 'she was unfairly branded by her race' is unfounded. Her race was rarely mentioned by the media, despite the large amount of media coverage she received. This is confirmed by the fact that the large majority of people don't know what race she was. She appeared to be mixed race, but it is difficult to specify exactly, due to the lack of media articles mentioning her race. The media coverage of her, the general public's view of her, and the legal proceedings involving her, would have been been exactly the same, regardless of what race she had been. In any case, her race (mulatto?, Eurasian?) should be stated on the article, especially considering the fact that the quote claiming she was persecuted because of it is still present. Werdnawerdna ( talk) 16:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
The only clue I have on this is that (in secret recordings with Archer when he was planning to pay her to go abroad to avoid scrutiny etc) she suggested that she could "go back to Tunisia" (which is primary an Arab country in North Africa of course) - but whether that was due to it being part of her original heritage or if she had previously been there for another reason etc I don't know.
"One of Coghlan's clients....was Jeffrey Archer". Is that really an undisputed fact since JAs perjury case? I mean, has JA admitted it, or has a judge pronounced that to be true? Not that I want to defend JA at all, but I/m just curious. 80.2.204.109 ( talk) 00:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)