Revision as of 14:14, 12 November 2024 editFirefangledfeathers (talk | contribs)Administrators31,647 edits →Wording of FAQ: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:30, 12 November 2024 edit undoNEDOCHAN (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,722 edits →Wording of FAQ: ReplyTag: ReplyNext edit → | ||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
:I think you need to read the FAQ wording more closely. It already says {{tq|Misplaced Pages is primarily based on reliable secondary sources, and these describe Graham Linehan as an anti-transgender activist Per discussions on the talk page, there is consensus among editors to use this wording.}} | :I think you need to read the FAQ wording more closely. It already says {{tq|Misplaced Pages is primarily based on reliable secondary sources, and these describe Graham Linehan as an anti-transgender activist Per discussions on the talk page, there is consensus among editors to use this wording.}} | ||
:You seem to be reading something into the phrasing that isn't there. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 12:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | :You seem to be reading something into the phrasing that isn't there. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 12:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | ||
::I think you need to read my point more closely. The wording says, 'reliable secondary sources, and these describe Graham Linehan as an anti-transgender activist'. The point I am making is that, on the whole, the reliable secondary sources do ''not ''use this wording, as is evidenced by the fact that of all the sources given (which one could argue have been cherrypicked, although I'm not getting into that), ''only one does''. So, for the sake of getting the FAQ wording correct, a more accurate reason for the chosen wording should be given. I accept that the wording reflects CONSENSUS, but I do not accept that the wording reflects the way in which RSS describe the subject on the whole. | |||
::To be clear, I am taking issue with the wording of the FAQ, which suggests that RSS choose this wording more often than they do not, which is simply not the case. | |||
::Something along the lines of 'The current wording reflects WP:CONSENSUS based on the majority of editors' collective assessment of RSS, as shown by extensive discussion. Please do not change it without CONSENSUS.' ] (]) 16:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Current wording seems fine to me. ] (] / ]) 14:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | :Current wording seems fine to me. ] (] / ]) 14:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:30, 12 November 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Graham Linehan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
view · edit Frequently asked questions
Can you change "anti-transgender activist" to "women's rights activist"? No. Misplaced Pages is primarily based on reliable secondary sources, and these describe Graham Linehan as an anti-transgender activist. Per discussions on the talk page, there is consensus among editors to use this wording. Please see the talk page archives to review these discussions. |
Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I will change “critics” to Matt Berry and journalist Jack King. 2601:4A:4201:AF0:91DE:8C5B:BBC1:FF82 (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Are you referring to the text "Critics said it used gender stereotypes and trivialised violence against transgender women"? And you think the two names you mentioned should be at the start? The problem is that information needs a reliable source and the reference in the article does not mention those people. Johnuniq (talk) 06:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
"anti-transgender activist"
im not sure this wording is great; we dont describe homophobes as "anti-gay activists". borrowing phrasing from nick fuentes' article, the correct description would seem to be "known for his transphobic views". 2001:8003:B061:1300:182:E5C2:439F:CFB5 (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
FAQ - reliable secondary sources
The reliable sources are in the article itself. If you are not here to engage in improving the article, per your statement, then this section violates WP:FORUM. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hi - I'm not silly enough to try to edit this page, as it's a hornets' nest. I would just like to take issue with the FAQ statement, 'Misplaced Pages is primarily based on reliable secondary sources, and these describe Graham Linehan as an anti-transgender activist'. I can't find a single RSS that uses this phrase. That is all. NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
|
Wording of FAQ
I accept that I shouldn't have said that I wouldn't discuss, but I don't think 'hatting' was appropriate. On reflection, I can see that one of the sources does use the phrase, but the others don't, and it's certainly not the usual way he's described by RS. Cherry picking concerns aside, I understand that CONSENSUS has been reached to use this wording, so my suggestion is that the wording of the FAQ says this (i.e. consensus has been reached), rather than suggesting that the majority of RSS describe him this way, as they clearly don't. NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think you need to read the FAQ wording more closely. It already says
Misplaced Pages is primarily based on reliable secondary sources, and these describe Graham Linehan as an anti-transgender activist Per discussions on the talk page, there is consensus among editors to use this wording.
- You seem to be reading something into the phrasing that isn't there. — The Hand That Feeds You: 12:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think you need to read my point more closely. The wording says, 'reliable secondary sources, and these describe Graham Linehan as an anti-transgender activist'. The point I am making is that, on the whole, the reliable secondary sources do not use this wording, as is evidenced by the fact that of all the sources given (which one could argue have been cherrypicked, although I'm not getting into that), only one does. So, for the sake of getting the FAQ wording correct, a more accurate reason for the chosen wording should be given. I accept that the wording reflects CONSENSUS, but I do not accept that the wording reflects the way in which RSS describe the subject on the whole.
- To be clear, I am taking issue with the wording of the FAQ, which suggests that RSS choose this wording more often than they do not, which is simply not the case.
- Something along the lines of 'The current wording reflects WP:CONSENSUS based on the majority of editors' collective assessment of RSS, as shown by extensive discussion. Please do not change it without CONSENSUS.' NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Current wording seems fine to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- Start-Class biography articles
- Start-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Low-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Arts and entertainment work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Start-Class Ireland articles
- Low-importance Ireland articles
- Start-Class Ireland articles of Low-importance
- All WikiProject Ireland pages
- Start-Class screenwriter articles
- Low-importance screenwriter articles
- WikiProject Screenwriters articles