Talk:Monica Coghlan

Monica
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)


 * Do not disparage my work here by suggesting that I have some sort of "grudge" against persons named Monica. I have a "grudge" against only articles that do not appear to be notable. You may have noticed while checking out my user history that the AfD for someone who happened to be named Monica resulted in the deletion of the page with widespread support. As for your condescending attitude about my status as an American, I'll point out that you have edited "Ben Roethlisberger". He isn't a Brit last I checked. This article will be going to AfD, so you'll have every opportunity to make your case for its notability. Erechtheus 21:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I happen to be a Brit who lives in the USA - Pittsburgh to be exact so i am fully qualified to edit Roethlisberger if i so choose. I happen to think that your "work", as shortlived as it is, consists of going on a berzerker type rage of nominating articles for deletion, presumbably in some sort of attempt to make a name for yourself. It's quite obvious to me that you chanced upon this page whilst looking up other people called Monica, why else you would nominate someone from a timeframe and a country you are barely conversant with is beyond me. As for notability Coghlan was a central figure in probably the most notable court case in the UK during the 80s, which eventually led to one of the most notable cases in the UK in recent years, but then again you wouldnt have any idea about that. Good luck with your crusade.Cardigan3000 01:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you considered that it is the job of the article to tell me what may be necessary to know about its notability? If you have a more substantial case than your whining about some imagined quest that I'm on against the name Monica, make it at the AfD. Erechtheus 02:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you ever considered that the role of wikipedia isn't to pander to your whims. The article is self explanatory and pithy, if you can't understand it that may have something to do with the fact that you have no idea about British news items from the 1980s . I hope you go through the whole of wikipedia nominating articles for deletion merely because you have no clue about the subject matter.

Article expansion
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)


 * Actually expanding the article hasnt really shown that she is more notable. The only reason she is notable is through her connection with Jeffrey Archer which was amply demonstrated in the original article. Cardigan3000 18:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a fine point here. You're quite correct that the main reason she is notable is through connection with Archer, which connection the stub mentioned. However, I think what Erectheus may mean is that the stub didn't show that she was notable, in the sense that it didn't show that "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.". In other words, the stub didn't show that there were articles about her, and not just about Archer. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's what google is for. If someone is going to nominate an article for deletion they should at least make an effort to see if the person in question is notable.68.71.35.93 19:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No -- that's what the face of the article is for. In the world I'm familiar with, the concept is akin to a pleading. You might have a perfectly valid claim, but that claim still has to appear on the face of your pleading. Similarly, articles need to state the basis for notability. I'm not just some deletionist (nor someone with a "Monica" obsession) -- I'm somebody who is trying to contribute by literally hitting the random article button until I see an article fit for contribution by me. If that contribution is helping to flesh it out, I add things. If that something is a proposed deletion or an AfD, I do that. As Cardigan3000 has pointed out again and again, I'm an American. I'm not really the person to add depth to an article about a Brit. I can add a template that will move the article along toward either inclusion or exclusion. I would personally argue that the best person to judge an article like this one is somebody who is not particularly familiar with the subject matter. The person coming here for information about Monica Coghlan is probably situated more similarly to me than they are to Cardigan3000. Erechtheus 22:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone's notability is independent of whatever happens inside wikipedia.Cardigan3000 23:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That just isn't the case. Articles that do not establish notability are subject to speedy deletion, and (as we have witnessed) articles that establish only a minimal amount of notability are often targets for AfD. Erechtheus 23:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that your whole rationale for contributing to wikipedia is to establish "targets" for deletion. This is the point, if you believe an article is sub-standard then alter it,the idea of nominating articles for deletion is not to spur others on to improving an article. A person's notability is totally independent of whatever an article in wikipedia says about them. The quality of an article should be irrelevant.Nowhere in the guidelines does it say that he wikipedia article has to establish notability of a subject for it to merit inclusion, that is just your opinion, in fact the guidelines for notability themselves are not official policy either. For example someone could do a lengthy and informative article about someone unsuitable for wikipedia, say their local bank manager or teacher and the quality of the article should make no difference to it being deleted. On the other hand a very notable person, and there are several that don't have a wikipedia entry at all, should not be removed  merely because they have a weak article written about them. First you establish the notability of the person , then you decide whether the article should be deleted , not the other way round.Cardigan3000 18:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

American wording
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).


 * That's cuz it was written by me, guv, an, unfortunately, that's how I write naturally. Not a matter of choice, but of ability, as the bishop said to the actress. Beggin' your pardon. If you or some other fine fellow were to rewrite it in a manner more befitting a' the Queen's English, that would be luvverly. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Date style, however, I won't take the blame for; that's an account setting, and will be formatted to display depending on how you want to see it. See Help:Preferences. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no need for mockery. You have some very odd ideas about how British people speak. This has nothing to do with the "Queen's English", it's just that established Wikipedia style is to write articles in British English if they're about British topics. If I had written an article on an American topic using words and phrases off this list, I wouldn't start taking the piss when someone pointed out that it read strangely. 86.134.213.12 19:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No intent to offend, and an honest request for assistance. I write that way not intentionally, but because I can't write otherwise. It takes a greater degree of skill to imitate dialects than I possess - that was what I was intending to demonstrate. If you can edit the article to a more British English, please do so. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for writing it! 86.134.213.12 20:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * All of this stems from the American gunslinger who nominated the article for nomination during one of his afd sprees. Anon put in a lot of effort to stave off that effort that looked like succeeding . He should be thanked not ridiculed. How difficult could it be to simply change the slight errors he made?

"an Archer"?
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)

Her race?
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 letter claims she was "of mixed race", but the articles don't seem to mention it being a factor, and we can hardly state "a letter to the editor claims she was of mixed race". I don't feel right editing the quote, or leaving it out altogether, as she did become a bit of a symbol - prostitute wronged by peer and all. Any specific suggestions on rewriting? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:40, 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.

Really a fact, or an inferance?
"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)


 * Not as far as I am aware. I'm pretty sure he has never admitted it. What happened was that Kurtha (who occassionally presented a TV show about politics from the British-Asian perspective) saw a client with Coghlan and identified him as Archer (Coghlan herself did not recognise him). He also recorded the number plate of the car he had arrived in - which turned out to be Archer's. Archer claimed that he merely paid her to avoid scandal. Of course one may well wonder why anyone would do that - and pressure witnesses to lie in court - if there was no truth in the story. Paul B (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)