Template:Fsn

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography Start‑class 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.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Ireland Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland 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.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Screenwriters Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Screenwriters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of screenwriting, screenwriters, and related topics 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.ScreenwritersWikipedia:WikiProject ScreenwritersTemplate:WikiProject Screenwritersscreenwriter articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I can't see a reason not to include it that isn't WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Wikipedia biographies reflect what is reported in reliable sources; if we removed negative coverage, then the articles for Jeremy Hunt and Katie Hopkins would be hagiographic to the point of major bias. Linehan's nomination (and subsequent disqualification) from the award was reported in reliable sources, and it should be included in the article as much as the hbomberguy stream was. Sceptre (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To start with, it uses defamatory language ("a satirical award given to unsavoury individuals") to describe a living person, which violates WP:BLP guidelines. It badly lacks the core Wikipedia tenet of a neutral viewpoint (WP:NPOV). In addition, it's not a major award and has no Wikipedia entry of its own, and he neither won it nor was officially announced as a finalist; it doesn't merit inclusion merely to be able to call a subject who is disliked by some editors a dick. Lilipo25 (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be removed from the page for The Last Leg too? 80.47.148.59 (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you have failed to provide a rational, logical argument for why it should be on the page for The Last Leg but not on this page I'm readding it. Also, I'm well aware of the WP:BLP guidelines and it does not breach them. It also fits the criteria of being a neutral viewpoint (WP:NPOV) 83.218.151.178 (talk) 10:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you do not even have a Wikipedia account and continue to attempt to negatively bias a WP:BLP article despite my giving you numerous "rational, logical" reasons why this is not ok, I will be reverting it when you do. Lilipo25 (talk) 12:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote the guidelines that say you can revert edits made by someone just because they don't have an account. Please can you also quote the guidelines in WP:BLP that say nothing that shows the subject of a page in a negative light, even if it is correctly sourced and relevant, is permitted. Also, I'm looking at your contributions to the talk page and I can't find the "logical, rational" reasons you have provided, would you mind restating them? Thank you 83.218.151.178 (talk) 10:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are no such guidelines and the content is entirely valid. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering where you were. So unlike you to wait weeks to post a Pink News smear job on the Linehan article. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't aware I was on a deadline. Would you prefer the Gay Community News, or the Times? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Times would be great. It's an actual news source, unlike Pink News, which just had to remove another false story about Linehan from its website last week.A common occurrence in their ongoing efforts to avoid being sued for libel by the public figures who don't agree with their ideology and are rewarded with half-truths and smears. Lilipo25 (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion aside, the truth of the matter is that there is no consensus on Pink News being or not being a reliable source, rather than a conclusion that it isn't one. But sure, I'll add references from GCN and The Times later. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Persecuting minorities is not activism. The way he treated trans people, if he made such comments towards black people he'd be racist. If he made such comments towards Muslims he wouldn't be an "anti-Muslim activist". Making derogatory comments is not a contribution to a noble cause but very simply hate speech and should be labelled as such. It's transphobia and the relevant section should be renamed as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.38.31 (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What would be a most suitable way to describe him? Transphobe would possibly describe his attitudes but it feels incomplete and misses out his actions. Using phrases like transphobe activist may be a more complete description? John Cummings (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for heaven's sake, people. This is an encyclopedia. It's meant to be unbiased and scholarly. No, you cannot call him a transphobe because you personally disagree with his views regarding trans activism's effect on women's rights. The article is already badly slanted and biased, but there are limits that could put Wikipedia in danger of legal action if breached and that's one of them. The WP:BLP rules exist just for that reason. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On this note, it's recently been edited to "anti-trans controversy." I reverted to anti-trans activism as there was consensus that this is the best wording for this section. It is descriptive, and also neutral. Yes, everyone can see that he is deeply transphobic, but this is still a value judgement, and the article should refrain from that no matter how obvious it may be.Wikiditm (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiditm:Can you link me to the page where consensus was reached on this? It seems heavily biased to call the category "anti-transgender" at all instead of something neutral like "transgender controversy", and I can't find the discussion on it. Thanks. Lilipo25 (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiditm:It has now been over six weeks since I asked for a link to this "consensus" that you cited as justification to revert to biased language like "anti-transgender activism". It is not the first time I have asked to see it (although I asked someone else the last time and not you), but once again, I am met with silence when asked where it is. I cannot find it myself, so I will ask yet again: where and when was this consensus that you cite reached, and may I see a link to the page? Thank you. Lilipo25 (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I do not use wikipedia often so just saw all your replies here. I think it is obvious that the consensus is for the current wording. If you have a reason it should be changed, and build a consensus around that, then I'll be happy for it to be changed. With all due respect, I don't think this will happen - the current wording is fine.Wikiditm (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your civil reply, it is much appreciated. In order for there to be a consensus, there must have been a discussion where a consensus was reached. No one has been able to provide a link to that, but trying to get neutral wording into this article or any other about issues regarding trans activism and women's rights is slightly more difficult than nailing Jello to a tree and I give up. Thanks again for being polite and not dismissive. Lilipo25 (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiditm:You have long reverted all attempts to make the wording n this section neutral and insisted that the biased wording "Anti-Trans" was reached "by consensus". I have now requested several times that you provide a link to this consensus and waited months for your reply. You have refused to respond. Since I can find no evidence of this consensus and you can provide none, it seems clear that there was no such consensus reached at all. Your refusal to respond is WP:DISCUSSFAIL. I will therefore change the language to the more neutral "Transgender Controversy". Lilipo25 (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversy" section headings are not favored by policy, particularly where there are no sources suggesting that the BLP subject is, in fact, participating in a "Transgender controversy". Reverted therefore per BRD. Newimpartial (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? You have never edited this page before, but you're now just going to follow me around Wikipedia and harass me by immediately revert anything I do in minutes out of spite bc I disagreed with your bullying on another page? You actually put a watch on my edits just to do this? This is WP:HOUNDING and is expressly forbidden as harassment.

Wikipedia "discourages" entire sections devoted to criticism and controversies, but there's no way activists will allow that section to be cut down and integrated into the article as it should be. Since the section exists, Wikipedia allows the use of "Controversy" in the section heading. Re WP:CRIT:

"Controversy" section: For a specific controversy that is broadly covered in reliable sources. Various positions, whether pro or contra, are given due weight as supported by the sources. The topic of the controversy is best named in the section title. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is not anything untoward in my adding yet another anti-trans activist BLP to my watchlist; this has nothing to do with your "bullying" accusation (which is unCIVIL, unsubstantiated, and a violation of WP:AGF), nor am I singling out any editor by doing so. I watch the pages of anti-Trans activists for POV and BLP issues, but this is one I had missed until recently.

Substantively, I don't see any evidence of a "controversy", what I see is what RS describe as "activism", so that is what the section should be called. We do not impose FALSEBALANCE by artificially creating "pro" and "contra" positions that do not reflect what RS say. Newimpartial (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I resent your declaration that editing for more neutral language makes me an "anti-Trans activist". That is offensive and an insult, again. You are WP: HOUNDING. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a page to my watchlist that is within my well-established areas of WP editing interest cannot misconstrued as HOUNDING. Please AGF, and provide some evidence (besides YOUDONTLIKEIT) that "controversy" - a heading that is unsourced and discouraged by policy - is somehow more neutral than "activism". Newimpartial (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current wording and section heading ("Anti-Transgender activism") is the neutral and long-standing wording. Editors should be aware that further reverts will result in them being reported for 3RR violations. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I figured you'd be along to join in. I can't help but wonder why you didn't respond any time during the last 2 months when I asked repeatedly for the link to the "consensus" that keeps being claimed was reached on this term and no one would reply at all.

As usual, there's no way to fight trans activists who want this page to be as negative as possible. You now have someone new joining in to help keep it that way. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't tell the difference between sourced discussion per BALANCE and being "as negative as possible", then you should not be editing the subject in question INO. Newimpartial (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For example, this section was opened by an editor who believed the heading "Anti-trans activism" was too sympathetic to the subject, but for some reason you find it to be too "negative". Newimpartial (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support "Anti-trans activism" or "Anti-transgender activism". I see "Anti-trans harassment", "Transphobic comments" etc. to be unjustified by the current sourcing, whilst anything with "trans(gender)" and not the "anti-" is potentially misleading to someone just skimming. "Controversy" is unjustified by the current sourcing for a couple of the paragraphs, which do not comment on alternate views to Linehan's. (I'm sure Linehan himself would much prefer "Anti-transgender activism" rather than "Transgender controversy" to be the title.) Can we please make sure that the "t" in "trans(gender)" is lowercase though? I've changed it to lowercase myself because I don't have reason to expect that anyone will find this typographical change controversial. — Bilorv (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently telling the true reason of the LGB Alliance controversy is bias, when indeed I was just stating the true reason for the controversy, rather than "people don't like how they treat LGB rights but others do". The LGB Alliance has attracted criticism due to their prominent views on transgender people, and also their perceived lack of focus on LGB People. The controversy is not due to transgender people saying "I want to be in it", but due to their prominent criticism of transgender people. It's all over their website, their advertising, their twitter, nearly all their material, it's a large focus for the group that is attracting the controversy, but no, apparently the reason for the controversy is apparently just because Transgender people aren't included. I could argue all day about how the LGB Alliance does indeed have a controversial view on transgender people, and how that would be very much unbiased to include in the article. In the end, skewing the reason for the controversy making transgender people seem like they're mad for being left out of the group is dishonest and biased. TheEthan8or (talk) 10:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I may add, why is Linehan in the LGB Alliance when he's straight? Oh yeah, it's because of their views on transgender people. This should be included. TheEthan8or (talk) 11:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having read through the paragraph and sources, I agree that the current wording is not accurate, and indeed may be misleading. Every article about LGB Alliance seems to concern their views on transgender people. There is nothing, for example, on gay marriage, adoption, or discrimination - issues which are typically covered by charities advocating for lesbian, gay and bisexual rights. In contrast, a key line from the Pink News article states "many in the LGBT+ community agree they are a transphobic hate group." This criticism goes well beyond what is currently stated in the article (that the disagreement is around simple exclusion). It also seems wrong to me to have the line "others disagree" and only cite members of the group itself. "Others" implies some element of independence and neutrality. A better wording here would be for example "LGB Alliance denies that they are transphobic, with members stating..." Finally, there are two links to the Spectator, which is strongly culturally conservative. I think the Times article is far preferred as a source for that statement, and the Spectator should not be featured.Wikiditm (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You both keep saying that anyone who has written in support of them is a "member" of the organization and must be discounted, but in fact LGB Alliance doesn't even have a membership. I have no idea why Linehan's sexual orientation should preclude him from supporting a gay rights organization, and frankly, Ethan attacking him for it is rather bizarre. There are many straight people who support gay rights and some were invited to the opening party. There are also many trans people who support the LGB Alliance and attended the opening, including Dr. Hayton. There is no reason to exclude her article simply because she supports the organization or to try to word it as if she is one of the people who runs the organization. She does not, nor does Linehan; their invited attendance at the opening does not make them part of the organization .And no, you cannot use PinkNews, which is an extremely biased website with a clear agenda against Linehan, as the source for most of this entry, and then discount a legitimate newspaper like the Spectator for leaning conservative. The bias against Linehan in this entire article by people with an agenda is out of control. My edit was balanced, gave both sides, and was properly sourced with newspaper articles. It is being deleted precisely for not being biased, and that is not okay. Lilipo25 (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "supporter" would be a better word. I think the article saying "others" in that context hides the fact that the people in question have featured as major speakers at events. With regards excluding Hayton's opinion piece, the statement that citation is backing up (that supporters deny LGB Alliance is transphobic) just doesn't need quite that many citations - there's two sufficient links to pieces in the Times which are enough. The statement that I'm "trying to word it as if she is one of the people who runs the organization" is utterly bizarre. My suggested wording was "LGB Alliance denies that they are transphobic, with members stating..." and I am happy to use "supporter" instead of "member" here. Nothing about this suggests that the people being cited run LGB Alliance. And then the accusation that me or other editors have some ulterior agenda is very rude and uncalled for. I am trying to ensure the article is unbiased and factual, and I agree with the original editor's criticisms of the section in question.Wikiditm (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Supporter" is a "better" word because it is true, while "member", as you know, means something completely different, is false and was fabricated as a means of dismissing the support of trans ppl who say LGB Alliance is not a hate group. No consensus was reached on the wording here. I am willing to agree to the wording as you went ahead and changed it, with the additional sentence that I have put in clarifying the controversy over the creation of LGB Alliance (the break from Stonewall).This strikes me as a more than fair compromise. Lilipo25 (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The additional information characterises LGB Alliance in a way which is apparently disputed by Stonewall (see the Independent ref on this). As such, it would need further sentences acknowledging this dispute, at which point the paragraph drifts from the subject of the article - it is about Graham Linehan, not differing accounts on the formation of a group which Linehan supports. The original wording was neutral (providing appropriate, equal coverage to supporters and detractors) and factual (accurately summarising each sides' view, using direct quotations to do so), and so doesn't need compromising.Wikiditm (talk) 07:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The additional information was sourced with news articles from WP:RS; whether Stonewall agrees with it or not is irrelevant as Stonewall does not dictate which news is included in Wikipedia and is not a WP:RS. You have inserted wording (without any consensus being reached in an open discussion, which you should not have done at all) which states that LGB Alliance is called a "hate group" by critics. As this is a very inflammatory statement, it is both relevant and important to include the reason why it is called that, according to WP:RS. Lilipo25 (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't whether Stonewall disagrees with it, but the fact it may well not be true.16:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiditm (talk • contribs)

It is completely true to say that the members who left Stonewall and created a new group SAID this was their reason for doing it. The fact that Stonewall doesn't like that they said it does not make it untrue that they did say it, nor does it have anything to do with whether or not the former member's statement should be included in Wikipedia, as it is contained in a WP:RS. Wikipedia is not here to do Stonewall's PR and their disapproval of a reliably-sourced statement has no bearing on Wikipedia content. Please stop deleting any edit that isn't entirely yours. Lilipo25 (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a breather on this. The paragraph, as it currently stands, is absurd. It reads like a child's stream of consciousness, it is irrelevant to the article topic (which is Graham Linehan) and it is factually dubious. It is highly unlikely that it will remain in that state, when the previous wording was neutral, legible, and most importantly factually true. It seems like you take it in turns to insult and abuse random editors when we are simply trying to maintain quality.Wikiditm (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly suggest that you need to "take a breather", Wikiditm . You have failed to show how the reliable sources are wrong in what they say the founders of LGB Alliance gave as the reason behind their organization's creation. You cannot show that the WP:RS are wrong, because it is true. You have refused all compromises offered by two different editors and inserted new text while the discussion was ongoing with no consensus being reached.

The entire section is frankly off-topic, vastly too long and is at this point merely an endless and overly-detailed list of reasons one particular group hates him, much of which you are responsible for inserting; the whole section should properly be condensed to a single paragraph with an overview of the issue instead of this, but there is no way those angry at him will allow this article to be edited as an encyclopedia article rather than a tool of revenge on someone with whom they ideologically disagree. The best that can be done is trying to make it ever-so-slightly more balanced, and even that is like nailing Jell-o to a tree in a tornado.

You have already gotten 90% of the edit you demanded. Now stop adding "disputed" to the bit of information that is properly sourced, true, and that you and Stonewall merely don't like. And I think that at this point, it only makes sense to ask the question: are you a member of Stonewall or in any way involved with their organization? Lilipo25 (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously?! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, seriously. If someone is repeatedly deleting/marking as 'disputed' information from WP:RS on the basis that Stonewall doesn't agree, it makes sense to ask if they are a member of Stonewall editing on the organization's behalf. And since one of the editors on this article literally tracked down my private social media account to harass me with thinly-veiled threats warning me to stop editing this page in the past day, I'm not here for faux outrage from any of you over me asking a logical question on the Talk page. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidtm has failed to prove (or even attempt to prove) that the included information is false or that the RS does not say it. Therefore, the "disputed" tag has no business in the article and should be removed. If no such proof is offered, I will remove it. Should anyone be under the impression that continued stalking of me off of Wikipedia will intimidate me into withdrawing from editing on this page: it will not. Lilipo25 (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have once again left all of your information in and cut down the properly-sourced information you deleted which explains what LGB Alliance is, in order to attempt a compromise. But it belongs in there, as the paragraph makes little sense to a reader unfamiliar with Linehan or the organization without at least saying what the organization is. The purpose of an encyclopedia article is not to make Stonewall happy or satisfy those who hate the subject of the article, but to inform readers who don't already know about the subject. Just saying "some people say it's a hate group but its supporters disagree" is not enough context to make any sense of its inclusion in the article. Lilipo25 (talk) 06:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're stretching things with the explanation and straying off topic, but it's brief enough and I'd support inclusion as a compromise. Have removed some extra words and the link to the LGB Alliance funding page. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to accept your edit as yet another compromise. (I don't know where the link to the funding page was, but if it was in there, it was certainly correct to remove it). However, I see that Wikiditm has now deleted part of your edit, as well, in the continuing effort to use only Stonewall-approved information, so I suppose it's a moot point. Lilipo25 (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing where they did what you claim. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, it's quite hard to compare versions when paragraph spacing is altered :-( Per WP:RSPSOURCES, neither Pinknews nor The Spectator are precluded from being used as sources. Perhaps three references to back the LGB Alliance as being transphobic and four defending it is overkill? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, and perhaps I wasn't clear in my statement there. I too feel that it is overkill, and the statements being made only really need a single citation. If we are going to cut the citation down to one or two, though, then I think the two we select should be the Times pieces. While the Spectator is not precluded as a source, it seems odd to me that we would cite it in support of something when the Times is the alternative.Wikiditm (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The LGB alliance bit of the article is bad and very obvious bias. I'm going to fix it up tomorrow. Awoma (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that there's been a lot of discussion about it here in the last few days, you should probably bring your proposed changes here first. --Equivamp - talk 00:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would say just state what the group says then state what the opposition says. At the moment it's all about what the group says, and not even in speech marks so it looks like wikipedia is saying that's the truth. Awoma (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]