Talk:Graham Linehan/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Dick of the Year

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

LGB Alliance Controversy

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Ok this is pretty outrageous. I have been attempting to keep this paragraph accurate and neutral. Judging from comments on here, and the thanks I received for my initial edit wording, it seems like this (or something like this) is the preferred wording of several editors. In response, I've been met with a barrage of insults and accusations, that I'm editing on behalf of Stonewall, that I'm stalking people, that I have an agenda... All of which is totally uncalled for, but is being used to bully through a wording which isn't supported by anyone but the user above. Surely wikipedia has ways to alleviate problems like this? The reason I've marked the statement as disputed is because it is disputed, for example in the Independent ref. I don't think the statement should be included at all, as it's irrelevant to the article, poorly written, unbalanced, and factually dubious.Wikiditm (talk) 06:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I did not, in fact, state anywhere that you were the person who stalked my private social media account. Nonetheless, one of the editors of this page has done exactly that and that's just a bit more egregious than you being asked if you have a WP:COI. I have been declared on this very talk page within the past 6 months to be too "personally involved" to edit it due to what one of your contingent assumed to be my sexual orientation (also more egregious than you being asked if you have a WP:COI), and yet still managed not to sputter in indignation in response. So please do spare me all of the 'outrage' at a simple conflict-of-interest inquiry.

The entire article is unbalanced and poorly written, and this whole section is one long stream-of-consciousness mess. There is no real reason at all to even include the LGB Alliance in it, but since it's been added in order to claim that supporting the organization makes him "anti-transgender", it is necessary to include brief information about what the LGB Alliance is and why this is claimed. If you insist on an ever-growing, detailed list of all the ways he has supported one side of a debate over another instead of a proper summary of his involvement with the issue, then that increases the number of explanatory tangents required, and decreases the quality of the article.Lilipo25 (talk) 08:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Arbitrary section break

Can we please not just delete chunks of referenced text, without discussing it here first? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Frankly I find it ridiculous to claim that the section on Linehan's anti-transgender activism is too long. Over the past two years, it's what he's been known for, sometimes tweeting hundreds of times a day about it. The man does little else. Amekyras (talk) 02:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Divorced

It appears that he got divorced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.222.75 (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

We'll need a reliable source WP:RS before we can add that. Popcornfud (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

There have been rumours of a divorce for ages, stemming from Serafinowicz' lack of support for Linehan's views on transgender rights, and her choice to revert to her maiden name at some point last year. If that's the reason you say they got divorced, then this isn't good evidence, and a proper reliable source is needed.Wikiditm (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Confusion over edits

There appears to be some confusion from another editor over the nature of some recent edits made by myself. I initially made this edit [1] which was primarily to remove a recently depreciated source per WP:RSP. In the process I removed a sentence which was only supported by that source (aside from a WP:SELFPUB source), and changed a section title. I now realise that this last action was counter to a Talk page discussion, for which I apologise. Black Kite then readded the sentence here [2] with a different source. I then made a further edit to reword the sentence to give it further context as well as presenting a more WP:NPOV, here [3], although I still had reservations that it was potentially WP:UNDUE for a WP:BLP. Bastun then reverted all my edits here [4] with the following edit summary This content, including the section heading, have been discussed at length on the talk page. Restoring consensus version, replacing the pinknews ref with Black Kite's one. I acknowledge that my changing of the section header ran counter to the previous Talk page discussion, however, the content I was replacing was not previously discussed on the Talk page. Additionally, Baston did not replace the PinkNews references, but reinstated them. I therefore partially reverted the edit here [5], retaining the consensus section title, removing the PinkNews references again, and reinstating content that did not breach consensus. Bastun proceeded to revert my edit again here [6] removing the PinkNews references in a subsequent edit.[7]. In Bastun's edit summary, they accuse me of making large edits covering multiple issues, and again claim that the wording regarding London Pride is subject to consensus. Please don't make such large edits covering multiple issues. There are at least two issues here. Restoring discussed consensus wording. This is not the case. My edits removed a depreciated source, and reworded a single sentence, about which no Talk page discussion had taken place. Bastun's last edit has in fact led to the sentence in question being duplicated within the article. I will now edit the page to remove the duplication, and restore the wording per my edit here [8], keeping Black Kite's source as I did the first time, and rewording to accurately reflect the content of sources, give the reader context and to maintain WP:NPOV. AutumnKing (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Please revert. Please check the talk page archive, where coverage of Pride and the protest has been discussed. What was there has consensus for inclusion. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I missed the archive, I was looking for is further up the page. As you can see from my edits, once a replacement source for the PinkNews one was added, I have not attempted to remove the content, despite my inclination that it is WP:UNDUE, which therefore abides by consensus. I feel the rewording, and the additional source I have added, provide the reader with greater context to the comments. Without the rewording, the sentence implies that the protesters were generally against transgender people; the reword gives their context. It is also factual. Acknowledging that their viewpoint is controversial gives balances and adds to WP:NPOV. AutumnKing (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. Describing anti-transgender protesters as anti-transgender protesters is perfectly accurate and fully complies, though. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Popcornfud, your edits have removed the term "anti-transgender" from the sentence about the anti-transgender protesters, while your edit summaries suggest you only want to remove the word "controversial". Want to restore the former? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we need to characterise them as anti-transgender when we say they carried banners reading "transactivism erases lesbians". Popcornfud (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, the reason it was deleted is that we don't need to say Linehan described them as "heroes" when we also say he praised them. I added the "praise" to paraphrase the "heroes" quote. Popcornfud (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Non-binary identity announcement

Linehan announced at https://twitter.com/Glinner/status/1271449417304936449 (during Pride month and on the fourth anniversary of Orlando nightclub shooting, no less) of being non-binary. This is likely mockery, but it's not totally clear from the context of that post alone. WP:TWITTER suggests that this might be usable as a source unless it's an extraordinary claim; given Linehan's anti-trans activism and background as a comedy writer, would this fall under WP:EXTRAORDINARY as self-satire? os (talk)

It's a parody tweet. (And a rather nasty one.) Popcornfud (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

It seemed that way to me, but I really didn't see enough context there to be sure. I was trying to look for a source use policy or recommendation on when authoritative sources might indulge in parody, such as comedy writers who might alternate between self-disclosure and humor (whether the humor is any good or not is another matter), but I couldn't find anything specific on that, outside of the specific use notes at WP:SOCIALMEDIA. I wasn't sure if it would be WP:UNDUE to make mention of this as a potential parody or not under discussion of Linehan's social media, especially given the large body of mockery of trans people which has come from Linehan in the past, but until it's clarified by Linehan to be an actual parody, or a qualified expert publishes something in a reputable source examining how it might constitute a parody, I am not sure it can even be mentioned, because someone could argue that stating it is merely parody might just be conjecture and non-encyclopedic. It would be great to find a reputable discussion of Linehan's social media posts which mock LGBT people, because there have been a number of them that I have seen; Linehan's social media controversy pertains often to this particular topic. The only mention I see is the "Dick of the Year" award. os (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, we can't add coverage of his tweets until they're covered in reliable sources. We can't just link to his tweets and give our own assessment of what he's doing. Popcornfud (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

School is listed as in the incorrect location

change the reference that Whitehall is on the south side of Dublin, to the north side. Plunkett's is in Whitehall in Dublin 9 on the north side of the city http://www.plunketcollege.ie/location JGSaxcat (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

marking as answered! --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 19:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Choice of connective

In this edit, I changed the connective in the following sentence from "and" to "but": He has said that "anyone suffering from gender dysphoria needs to be helped and supported", and has voiced concern over early transgender intervention for children. The reason is simple—as I said in my edit summary, "uncontroversially, one clause is about increasing support for gender dysphoria and the other about restricting it". This change was reverted by Lilipo25 who argued that "The two parts of the sentence are not directly contradictory and it isn't up to Wikipedia to suggest they are." I don't agree with this argument, because the word "but" doesn't imply a contradiction e.g. in the sentence "I will do my laundry this week, but I haven't gotten around to it yet". It implies only a link between two clauses that express one positive and one negative statement (grammatically, not evaluatively). "I want my edit in the article (positive), but I will not edit war to put it there (negative)." For an example to make clear the separation between grammar and evaluative opinion: "I am wrong (positive), but I will not let it damage my confidence (negative)." My edit is purely an edit in terms of cohesion, not an ideological one as Lilipo25's is.

If this is a hill any user feels like dying on, they should argue instead with the claim my change actually requires: "anyone suffering from gender dysphoria needs to be helped and supported" is a quote which expresses support for something (positive) and "has voiced concern over early transgender intervention for children" expresses opposition for something (negative). The question of what you think about Linehan's views is irrelevant to this claim. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 06:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

This may end up on the lamest edit wars list. "but" and "and" clearly both work fine in this sentence.Wikiditm (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The connective term "but" implies a judgment (saying that his second statement contradicts his first), but frankly, one connective word isn't even close to important enough to merit an entire section discussion of its own on the Talk page and I don't care enough to debate something this small, so do whatever you want. Lilipo25 (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with "but", but/and if it's controversial, I think it's easy and probably better to sidestep the issue entirely by just making them two sentences. He has said that "anyone suffering from gender dysphoria needs to be helped and supported". He has also has voiced concern over early transgender intervention for children. (Drop "also" if you like.) -sche (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

This is probably the best option. Even "and" could be said to be connecting the two statements in a WP:SYNTHy manner. --Equivamp - talk 20:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Banned again

He seems to have been banned again, as of 27 June.

I attempted to source the article, but was told my sources form Metro were unreliable. I have some links to other sources which might be usable instead, but I'm not 100% sure. Independent, Mirror. Also, I noticed that there were some other Metro articles that were sourced in the article, but these don't appear to have been removed? ISD (talk) 09:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I had added the Metro article, but have replaced it with the Mirror article as it's a more reliable source. The Independent article doesn't mention that it's a permanent ban, but the Mirror article quotes Twitter saying that it is - hence needing both. Tvcameraop (talk) 10:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Just spotted in the Irish Post that mentions the permanent ban. Is this allowable as a source? ISD (talk) 10:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks fine. There's nothing bad about adding a source that it turns out is poor and is later removed though. Feel free to add something and then if others need to improve or correct something they can. See WP:BOLD Wikiditm (talk) 10:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Mirror should be fine as a source for this, but a better source would still be welcome. I'm happy with the current wording, but as soon as Linehan comments on this we will need to cover his comments also.Wikiditm (talk) 10:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Independent and Guardian now added. Black Kite (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Linehan has now put out a statement on his twitter ban. See [9]. Unfortunately it's not a very clear statement. There doesn't seem to be anything there that could go in a concise "Linehan said of the ban..." sentence.Wikiditm (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Let's wait for secondary sources to cover his response — they will help us ascertain what parts of it may be due inclusion. -sche (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikiditm, Virtually all such statements are WP:MANDY stufff. Guy (help!) 14:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Completely inappropriate quote

Due to the sensitivity around this page, I will not make the edit. Purely for reasons that this is an encyclopaedia, this section is frankly absurd. By all means state that he supported someone and that objections were made but an incorrectly spelt, informal and attacking quote from a seemingly random person with starred out swearing? Come on. Look at it...this is an encyclopaedia.

In June 2020, Linehan defended J. K. Rowling from abuse after she made comments which were called transphobic. He linked to a blog post featuring screenshots of abuse Rowling had received, writing: "People who parrot meaningless meme-speak like 'Trans rights are human rights' (Who says they aren't? No one) while ignoring the abuse received by women who speak out against gender ideology ... You are literally useless." Hozier, named in Linehan's tweets, responded "You won’t drag me into your weird, obsessive little culture war, mate. I wrote a message in solidarity of a group who’s life expectancy ranges in the 30’s solely due to murder and suicide (is it any wonder). Is your back not *aching* from bending to punch so f******* low."

NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Balance? Neutrality? His actions provoked a reaction. We shouldn't cover what he did, without also covering the reaction (which is every but as ungrammatical as Linehan's tweet, already quoted.) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think either quote is necessary and the section (if included) should state things rationally, fairly and in appropriate language. This is NOTNEWS NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

NEDOCHAN You are, of course, correct. The quote is highly inappropriate and doesn't belong on Linehan's page. I am exhausted. Someone else needs to remove it. Lilipo25 (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we need to quote Hozier's entire reply, although it seems appropriate to mention it or quote some of it, such as the first sentence. (I notice the whole thing has been removed at present, amid all the back-and-forth...) -sche (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it's re-inclusion would probably be WP:UNDUE. It was not nearly as widely covered as the rest of the material in that section.Wikiditm (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I think if we're including an attack on named individuals then the response of one of those individuals is due for inclusion, in the interests of balance and neutrality. Removed the starred out swearing, lest it offend the sensibilities of passing MMA fans. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

In this discussion four editors have taken issue with this quote and argued that it shouldn't be included as is. One, who put it in, disagrees. And then put it in again! Here is the place to discuss, don't just reinstate your preferred option.NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

You don't think it should be included and in fact want the whole section removed, so hardly balanced. Lilipo wants the quote removed. -sche says it should be included, reduced. I say it should be included (and reduced it). That's 2:2. Wikiditm at least explains why they believe it shouldn't be included, rather than just WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and since their contribution it has been further covered in the media by the likes of broadsheet.ie, evoke.ie, hotpress.com, etc. So, a weak 3:2. Certainly not 4:1. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

How's this?

In June 2020, Linehan criticised comments made about J. K. Rowling after she made comments that were called transphobic. He linked to a blog post featuring screenshots of abuse Rowling had received, describing them as "ignoring the abuse received by women" and "literally useless".[50]. Hozier, named in Linehan's tweets, responded by describing Linehan as conducting an "obsessive little culture war" and accusing him of persecuting a group whose life expectancy was in the 30s "due to murder and suicide".[51]

NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

More paraphrase is better, but Linehan didn't call the blog posts "literally useless", he was addressing the posters: "You are literally useless". The paraphrase is rather mealy-mouthed on this point.

Likewise, "ignoring the abuse received by women" is pretty shady quote selection: the phrase was, "ignoring the abuse received by women who speak out against gender ideology". This matters, because he is not engaging on behalf of a group defined by sex or gender, but rather a group defined by sex or gender and what he calls "ideology" ("ideology" standing in for what is now the common-sense belief that sex and gender identity are two different things).

TL; DR I think a paraphrase is a good idea, but would like to see the Linehan part try a little harder to capture what he actually said. Newimpartial (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I already changed to ensure that it's clear that it was directed at the posters, not the posts. I will also add to the first quote.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Snuck in ahead of you, after I saw you fix the first part. Hope you don't mind. :) Newimpartial (talk) 12:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I am happy with this as a COMPROMISE. NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Likewise, and I appreciate the compromise. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I strongly suggest leaving out the "life expectancy" bit, since it refers to a myth (search for the phrase "life expectancy" in Trans woman for where the myth is currently documented and debunked), and it's of lesser importance here (out of all the things Linehan and Hozier were saying back and forth), so simply omitting it seems better than e.g. adding an explanatory footnote. (I should've said this in my earlier comment.) I would replace it by summarizing Hozier's statement that Linehan was punching down (or with nothing). -sche (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The current wording could definitely be interpreted wrongly, with the life expectancy claim apparently being endorsed by wiki rather than attributed to Hozier along with the rest of his comments.Wikiditm (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable and I see no reason not to make that edit.NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Pinging User:JzG, who undid the change and reinserted the inaccurate text in wikivoice - care to join the discussion? -sche (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

-sche, I read it, it does not include "punching down" as such. Guy (help!) 21:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Also no objection to -sche's edit. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The issue of it appearing that the article states that the life expectancy thing is true is a slight problem. It's caused mainly by Hozier's atrocious grammar. If we start putting (sic) it'll look like editorial mocking as otherwise I'd suggest doing that. I'll move the quotes out and that might fix it.NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I have moved the quotation marks to ensure that it's what Hozier said that's being described, not a statement of fact. Re the 'punching down' thing, that point is already made, otherwise there would be no justification for using the word 'persecuting', as the article does.NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, -sche has changed this without further discussion. I think the quote as is doesn't read well and that by placing the quote marks where they are here we represent the source well and ensure that the life expectancy quote is clearly coming from Hozier. What are your thoughts?NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

It's amusing to see someone claim I have "changed this without further discussion" in the very thread where that same person is one of several people explicitly agreeing with my proposed edit. I take it you changed your mind? That's fine, but there are still the other users who agreed with the proposal. :) If the wording can be improved further, hopefully other people will weigh in. :) -sche (talk) 02:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not amusing. I agreed in principle with

'summarizing Hozier's statement that Linehan was punching down (or with nothing)'. It's the quote itself that reads badly and that's what this is about. You just went ahead and reinstated it. Without further discussion.NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I think we should either summarise the quote in a way that we're happy with or not have it at all.NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)