Talk:Graham Linehan/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

"Anti-transgender activism" - sources please

I asked above and received none, but to be fair to everyone, this deserves its own heading for maximum visibility. This is likely going to need another RfC in the future since this issue comes up repeatedly. Last time's "no consensus-status quo" result isn't helping. So I make a simple request:

• Are there any reliable sources that verify the specific claim that Linehan is an "anti-transgender activist" or that he engages in "anti-transgender activism"?

Any answers that dance around the question, appeal to "summarizing" (i.e. WP:OR), or otherwise do not present a reliable source I will take as a "no". Crossroads ^-talk- 19:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Is the Irish Tatler a RS? This is the only thing on Google I can find. I have (half-deliberately) avoided looking into this debate so far but this does push me more towards the feeling we should avoid the term. Popcornfud (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I have already proposed campaigner against trans issues as a reliably sourced alternative. Newimpartial (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

How can one be a campaigner against trans issues? If one campaigns against trans rights then isn't that just a type of trans issues campaigner? If one is campaigning to reduce the profile of trans issues (the only thing I think "campaigner against trans issues" would actually describe)... then that's sort of a contradiction by definition, isn't it? — Bilorv (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I think "anti-transgender campaigner" is easier to understand, but Crossroads has been arguing that even if "anti-transgender" is sourced - which is easy - that it is SYNTH unless the noun following is used in the same sources as part of a phrase. And I have sources pointing to him "campaigning against trans issues" but not his "anti-transgender campaigns". Sigh. Newimpartial (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I did link a source below calling him an anti-trans campaigner verbatim. --Equivamp - talk 23:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say all that. And we never discussed "campaign" before. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think an issue with the original RfC is that it was never made completely clear whether "anti-transgender activism" meant "anti-[transgender activism]", or "[anti-transgender] activism". Trying to make this more clear was the reason behind my proposal to change it to "Opposition to transgender activism". I can see from more recent discussion that there's a perception that the phrase "transgender activism" is a transphobic dogwhistle, but I'm not sure I agree. For example, this article by Gay Community News in Dublin describes Linehan's opposition to mainstream trans activism. I would be surprised if GCN were to be described as a transphobic source. More to the point of your question though, the same source associates him with a lengthy campaign from anti-trans activists. This article from The Daily Beast explicitly calls him an Irish anti-trans activist, though WP:RSP suggests using caution when using this source for BLPs. --Equivamp - talk 20:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

That's right; you did. I concur. Newimpartial (talk) 00:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

This Star Observer calls Linehan a noted anti-transgender campaigner and former comedy writer. --Equivamp - talk 20:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The Gay Times makes a similar point when they say of GL, The writer was known for comedies like Father Ted and The IT Crowd, but over the past few years has been more known for his anti-trans views. Newimpartial (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't verify "activism"/"activist". Crossroads ^-talk- 20:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the GCN source verifies the claim, but the point about trans activism is worth noting. By comparison, "socialist" is used as an inaccurate term of abuse by some on the right wing, but that doesn't mean "socialist" is always such and can never be used as the most accurate descriptor. It is the truthful description sometimes and so is "transgender activism", and pretending it isn't in such a situation actually reduces clarity. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, the same source that you are embracing for using the term "(mainstream) transgender activism" in this context (gcn) is also my source for his consistently critical campaign against trans issues and his adamant stance on gender identity.[1] It would be profoundly inconsistent for you to suggest that it is a reliable source for "transgender activism" in this context (and who else used that label? The Telegraph?) and not for his "campaigns".

We have many sources for Linehan being anti-trans or anti-transgender in his publicly communicated views and in his actions/campaigns. If you still think activism is SYNTH - which I don't, but anyway - then let's replace it with campaigns or something. Pretending that there is any question about anti-trans just isn't a viable position based on the available sourcing IMO. And pretending that his interventions in this space are all responses to so-called "transgender activism" would very clearly be taking a position (The Telegraph's position, essentially) in the debate. Newimpartial (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Equivamp is correct, imo. At the moment, it reads like he is 'anti-transgender' and that he opposes transgenderism itself. It seems clear to me that is it the activism to which he's 'anti',not the transgenderism itself. It certainly shouldn't read as it does.NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

If the BLP subject opposes the things trans people and their representatives ask for, harasses trans people and is deplatformed repeatedly for such behaviour, in what sense is he not against transgenderism itself? Are there any non-WP:MANDY sources that suggest that he is not opposed to "transgenderism"(whatever that is supposed to be)? What I see here is a distinction in search of a difference. Newimpartial (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't have a current strong opinion on whether the heading is supposed to read [anti-transgender] activism or anti-[transgender activism]. Actually, the sources I posted in this section make me feel that the former is well-sourced. --Equivamp - talk 15:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The Telegraph article [2] literally says in the subhead "The writer's battle with trans activists has cost him his Twitter account and many friends." Also Graham Linehan compares trans activists to Nazis. Black Kite (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Only the first quote is from the Telegraph and can be deemed reliable. The second is from Metro UK, an unreliable source according to Wikipedia, and is not surprisingly highly misleading. Lilipo25 (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there is any question that Linehan opposes what he considers to be trans activists. The question is whether his anti-transgender campaigns are confined to opposing trans activists. Based on my reading of the sources, I don't think they are. Newimpartial (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, there's no evidence of that, apart from the harrassment of the trans lawyer, the harrassment of women on the lesbian dating service, the episode of the IT Crowd .. the thing with Linehan is that he claims not to be transphobic - for example he "agrees, of course, that gender dysphoria is real" in a mainstream newspaper interview [3], but then when he thinks he's got the right audience, it's "voices who have been silenced for fighting a dangerous ideology that tells children it’s possible to be born into the wrong body." [4]. Black Kite (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The sources calling him that are, of course, Pink News and the websites that simply reprint Pink News stories. So no, I would say there aren't reliable sources saying it. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I think there's a simple solution. Simply remove the hyphen so what's adjectival is subjective. Anti transgender activism.NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Being purposely vague is not generally Wikipedia policy. WP:VAGUE says to avoid vagueness wherever possible, so choosing to insert it is not the way forwards DeputyBeagle (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:MANDY. Pink News is a reliable source. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Pink News is considered generally reliable as per WP:RSP. Your disagreement with their conclusions does not change that fact. DeputyBeagle (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Nor does your agreement with their conclusions mean that WP:RSP merely deems it "reliable" instead of what it actually says, which is There is rough consensus that PinkNews is generally reliable for factual reporting, but additional considerations may apply and caution should be used. As this is a case of subjective description and not "factual reporting", the reliable tag does not extend to it. The "caution" part does. Lilipo25 (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that he opposes transgender activism. So 'opposition to transgender activism' seems NPOV. He's in favour of same-sex attraction and sex based privilege. At the moment that is not coming across at all. At the moment it reads as if he has a problem with trans men and women, and that's not the impression I get when reading most of the sources cited.NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The issue is that just using the phrase 'transgender activism' is a violation of NPOV because it's a phrase almost exclusively used by those on his side. Additionally, he seems to be attacking more than just 'transgender activism'. He's attacking the structures that help transgender people. Trying to destroy Mermaids and comparing puberty blockers to Nazi eugenics is a direct attack on trans people, not just the activists. DeputyBeagle (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

This is always the problem when you've got someone who insists they're not transphobic but then does or says things that are, or could be interpreted as such; most reliable sources will then not label him directly as such, they'll simply quote his statements so you run into the issue of synthesis. Black Kite (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

One could argue that opposing the promotion of structures which 'help (depending on opinion) transgender people' is opposing activism, so opposing that is opposing the activism. Are the structures activism, or the thing itself?NEDOCHAN (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not dissimilar to someone saying they're pro-Judaism but opposed to Israel, which is a structure that supports Judaism. That's not an uncommon stance among those who wouldn't want to be described as anti-Semitic.NEDOCHAN (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

In that case, we need to follow what the RS say, and what they say (inter alia) is that he engages in "anti-transgender campaigns". Newimpartial (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Well that's kinda the issue, isn't it? You can't separate out the two. Saying you're against trans activism but not transphobic is absurd. You can't destroy 'trans activism' without directly attacking trans people and the structures that support them. DeputyBeagle (talk) 11:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with this characterisation; the two statements are not incompatible. It is very possible for someone to disagree with the tactics used by (and/or claims made by) trans activists but not dislike trans people for being trans. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

It's definitely not absurd to say you're against trans activism and not transphobic. NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Regardless, it's obvious he is not criticising the tactics used by 'trans activists'. Comparing medical transition to Nazi experiments is not about activist tactics. Misgendering and deadnaming trans people is not criticising activists. This is quite obviously an attack on trans people. DeputyBeagle (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Or creating a profile on a lesbian dating site in order to share transwomen's profile pictures to your blog readers ("In a second blog post, Linehan shared screenshots of various women and non-binary people’s profiles from Her, declaring that they should not be on the app because they are “not lesbians”.").[5] That's got nothing to do with trans activism, its simply transphobia. Black Kite (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Distorting what he's said and leaving out the context makes it much easier to label it in a way that's useful to our own arguments. He didn't say all medical transition is comparable to Nazi experiments. He actually said that giving children drugs that had never been tested for use by children who were not experiencing precocious puberty was like the Nazis testing drugs on kids. I greatly dislike Nazi comparisons and don't approve of what he said, either, but distorting the context to make it fit what we want just muddies the waters in an already contentious topic. Lilipo25 (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The Telegraph article writes campaign against trans ideology. NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and the Telegraph editors probably believe that trans ideology. All part of the unique service they provide their readers their POV. Newimpartial (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Have I missed something re the reliability of the Telegraph? NEDOCHAN (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Have you read The Daily Telegraph? Its stories have been described by RS as climate change denialist and transphobic, among other things. It certainly comes with its own POV, which is conservative at best and FRINGE at worst. Newimpartial (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The Telegraph is easily the strongest of the sources offered so far, having a green "Reliable" rating on Wikipedia and no caution that it is only reliable for 'factual' statements as Pink News has on it. Lilipo25 (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The PinkNews clause you've focused on specifically exists to contextualize the second sentence, about PinkNews and labeling celebrities. Otherwise what would it mean, that PinkNews is reliable for factual reporting, but unreliable for fictitious reporting? It is reliable BECAUSE the reporting it does is factual. The second sentence in the entry for the Telegraph is also worth a read. It's not disqualifying, but it does inform how we should use it. Parabolist (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I can find no evidence that the second part of this sentence "specifically exists to contextualize the second sentence" (about reporting people's sexualities): There is rough consensus that PinkNews is generally reliable for factual reporting, but additional considerations may apply and caution should be used. I'm sure you understand that it does not refer to "fictitious reporting"; non-factual reporting would be subjective descriptions (like choosing whether to call someone "against transgender ideology" or "transphobic"), as opposed to a statement of verifiable fact, such as a direct quote or citing someone's age. Lilipo25 (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Describing a subjects actions is what reporting is. Just because you disagree with the reporting, it doesn't then become "non factual". Subjective in this case would refer to opinion pieces or editorials. If a reliable newsroom runs a report, not an editorial, then what it contains is reporting. If a newspaper calls Linehan a comedian, we would then call him a comedian, even if someone came in here and said "Well he's not funny, so thats subjective, you know?" Parabolist (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm unsure if you understood my comment. It being "non-factual" has nothing to do with whether or not I or anyone else agrees with it. Whether to use the term "against transgender ideology" or the term or the term "anti-transgender" or the term "transphobic" (or any one of a hundred other similar expressions) to describe the same person is a subjective choice on the part of the writer. That isn't a judgment on the rightness or wrongness of the choice; it's simply what "subjective" means: not a hard-and-fast factual statement like "He has been employed as a comedian" or "He is 52 years old." Lilipo25 (talk) 05:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, but how can we KNOW he's a comedian? He writes comedy shows, the factual statement would allow only 'writer.' This just isn't how it works. If a reliable source makes the choice to use a specific phrase, then thats factual reporting. Your saying that there is a divide between 'factual' and 'subjective', but there is a massive venn diagram overlap between the two. When PinkNews chooses to report on Linehan as an anti-trans campaigner, that is factual reporting. Is the wording subjective? Yes. There's literally no way to describe his views that isn't subjective, because unlike age, ideology requires subjectivity. So we rely on reliable sources to decide which subjective phrasing is factual. When someone is allegedly funny, and writes for comedic television shows, we don't say "X is a writer, who has written for shows described by many as funny." We look at a source that says "X is a comedian", and say the same. Is there a line on his CV that says Comedian? It doesn't matter. Parabolist (talk) 07:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Your reasoning is very strange. The subjective opinion of whether or not someone is considered funny by other people does not alter the fact of whether or not they have worked as a comedian one iota. "Comedian" is an employed position. Has he been hired in that position? If the answer is 'yes', then he has been a comedian. If 'no', then he has not (it's worth noting that being a writer on a comedy series is not the same thing as being a comedian, so I have no actual idea if he has ever worked as a comedian or not). Whether or not he was funny while doing it is a subjective analysis. Whether or not he worked as a comedian is not.

I honestly don't know what is being gained by pretending that you can't tell the difference between opinions and facts, or between subjective statements like "he is a homophobe" and factual statements like "he is 52 years old", but the point is that Pink News is only considered reliable for factual statements and this isn't one. Lilipo25 (talk) 08:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, it is factual. It is subjective. They are not opposites. If it isn't factual, you should start a discussion on RSN about why PinkNews is publishing non-factual information. Or take it up with the bevy of other sources who've described him this way. Parabolist (talk) 09:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Both Pinknews and the Telegraph are regarded as reliable sources by Wikipedia. Let's not rehearse the "Is Pinknews reliable?" debate for the third time in several months. This is just a distraction. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I suppose that's quite a neat way of referring back to the original question. It doesn't seem as if any RS have the term as applied.The Telegraph article writes 'campaign against trans ideology'.NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

PinkNews[6] refers to him as an anti-trans campaigner, as well as other sources mentioned earlier in the discussion. That'd be acceptable instead of activist, along with rephrasing 'Linehan became an anti-transgender activist, arguing that transgender activism endangers women...' to remove the phrase 'transgender activism', or at least make it incredibly clear that it's his phrasing and not a widely used term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeputyBeagle (talk • contribs) 23:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, all of this is diversionary, anyway. We have a section (the name of which is backed by an RFC) on Graham's "anti-transgender activism," and a consensus of sources that talk about his anti-transgender activism, which is the only thing he's really in the news for these days. "anti-transgender activist" makes the most sense. --Parabolist (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is diversionary. After all, this is the OP's question. Are there any reliable sources that verify the specific claim that Linehan is an "anti-transgender activist" or that he engages in "anti-transgender activism"?NEDOCHAN (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

We're not attributing the phrase to a specific source, this is for the lead. We're summarizing the body of the article, which has a large section on his anti-trans activism. If this is the real sticking point, I could suggest "anti-transgender campaigner", which hews more closely to the Telegraph (which we all agree is very reliable) description, among others? --Parabolist (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The only way your point, Parabolist, could make any sense is if you include the word ideology. If you don't, it appears you're missing the point.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I was going to add a source to the sentence about him joining the Her app - the Metro - largely because it was the first newspaper that came up on Google. Then I saw that not only the page is semi-protected, but everyone is having a barney about what constitutes a reliable source. Oh well, if someone wants to consider this a semi-protected edit request and add this source for me I'd appreciate it. --92.20.219.208 (talk) 08:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

By chance I've just added a source before seeing this, but note that per WP:RSP that Metro is not reliable (and generally tabloids are unreliable). — Bilorv (talk) 10:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Metro just got most of their story from PinkNews anyway. Black Kite (talk)

I'm surprised to hear Wikipedia considers Metro an unreliable source. It seems to be suffering from guilt by association with the Daily Mail simply because they have the same owner, when it's nowhere near as notorious for falsehood and editorialising as that publication. --92.20.219.208 (talk) 11:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Why are some of the commenters in this conversation determined that the article should call Linehan transphobic? That isn't neutral, it isn't undisputed, and it isn't encyclopedic. It's a view shared by many, and it's reasonable to represent that it's a view shared by many, but it's plainly not a dry fact - it's a judgement. Linehan disputes that he's "anti-transgender", and many agree with him. Both perspectives can be represented under a neutral headline, but "anti-transgender activism" flagrantly promotes one of the existing views as the objective truth. Clicriffhard (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

What reliable sources support the characterisation you wish to use ("vocal on transgender issues")? And why would we use a phrase that deliberately avoids giving information—do you think the pertinent facts are that Linehan has spoken on transgender topics, or what Linehan has said on transgender topics? That there is an "anti-" does not connote a negative value judgement (cf. "anti-Apartheid activist") and the phrase is not close to "transphobic". — Bilorv (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bilorv. Would you agree that "anti-Apartheid activist" means that the activist is against Apartheid? I think that's self-evident, and by the same token, "anti-transgender activist" means that the activist is against transgenderism or transgender people, which is to all intents and purposes synonmous with being transphobic. Again, many people think that Linehan is indeed against transgender people, but many people also dispute that, including Linehan himself - it's not an encylopedic fact and shouldn't be represented as one, as it currently is. That is, on the most basic level, non-neutral.

"Vocal on transgender issues" was the first genuinely neutral phrasing I could think of, but I wouldn't have a problem with any other genuinely neutral way of referring to Linehan's particpation in trans issues. It's the transparent bias that bothers me. Clicriffhard (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree that "anti-transgender activist" means that the activist is against transgender people ("transgenderism" is often considered to have negative connotations so you may want to avoid it in future – see GLAAD). This is not synonymous with "being transphobic" as that's a value-laden notion: you might think it's synonymous with "being transphobic" but that's a morality you're ascribing to the situation. For instance, one person (presumably a Christian) might think "anti-Christian" means "a huge bigot" and a person like myself might think it's an accurate description of their views and not a negative at all. If you disagree with the factual content i.e. the statement "Linehan is against transgender people" then you'll need to argue not on grounds of neutral wording but on grounds of fact, which for Wikipedia's intent means "reliable sources" (and I've yet to see you analyse any in the article or present any new ones). Linehan is not a reliable source for his political beliefs because, unsurprisingly, many internet figures lie about their political beliefs. (If the rule is "it's not neutral if the subject disputes it" then we cannot characterise most white supremacists as white supremacists, for instance.) If there are "many people" who contest the description (and those people's opinions are relevant for the purposes of Wikipedia) then you'll easily be able to point me to some. — Bilorv (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for letting me know that "transgenderism" is a word some people dislike. If you could suggest an alternative word with approximately the same meaning (from the OED entry for "transgenderism": "The state or quality of having a gender identity which does not correspond to one's sex at birth, or which does not otherwise conform to conventional notions of sex and gender"), I'll be happy to use it.

Secondly, I'm happy to point to plenty of people who disagree about the characterisation of Linehan's views - and both you and I surely know that they exist - but could you please clarify whether that's actually what you mean? Needless to say, most of these people don't have jobs with major newspapers, so I don't want to hunt down a bunch of tweets and blogs only to find that I've been sent on a wild goose chase. If you want reliable sources specifically, please see the BBC article linked later in this comment.

The question about whether "anti-transgender" = "transphobic" strikes me as disingenuous, but in any event it doesn't matter. Let's remove the word "transphobic" from the discussion entirely and focus on the edits that were reverted. For example, the article said that "In 2021, Linehan said that he and Serafinowicz had separated following financial problems caused by his activism against the transgender community". The article that's cited says nothing of the sort: it says that Linehan's "transgender views" cost him his marriage in the title, and in the body of the article it clarifies that his views led to his work being rejected leading to financial strain, which he believes ended his marriage. So it should be straightforward to remove the flagrant editoralising of that article, right? And yet when I did so, it was instantly reverted by Black Kite and you doubled down on that. Please explain that.

In the interest of providing a neutral way to refer to Linehan's views (while leaving plenty of space to go into the specifics, but allowing people to form their own views of what those specifics tell you, rather than enforcing your own editorial gloss), here is some phrasing from the BBC (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p08305wc): "Linehan’s vociferous arguing online, including comparing treatment of gender dysphoric children to Nazi experimentation, makes him a very divisive figure in a debate already marked by toxicity and anger. Linehan says he is speaking up for women who are being harassed and intimidated, but critics have accused him of being a transphobe abusing a vulnerable minority."

Do you see the difference? Because they take neutrality seriously, they've represented the opinions of his detractors and supporters as exactly that - opinions - and only state as fact that he argues vociferously online about trans issues, which is remarkably similar to the edit I tried to make that was insta-reverted :"Linehan became vocal on transgender issues".

Lastly, if anyone can please show evidence of the consensus that's been referred to, I'd really appreciate it. So far, you've linked to an RfC that concludes "no consensus", and I can see from the discussions that I'm not the first person to ask for a link to a consensus only to be blanked by the same few editors who keep insisting that there is one. If there is, please show me. Thanks. Clicriffhard (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources is what I mean by "... and those people's opinions are relevant for the purposes of Wikipedia". You present one BBC source but the BBC has a particular writing style that de-emphasises motivation. Where is your analysis of the sources that led to the current wording, and what is wrong with them? And where is your counterargument to the reasoning I already presented for why Wikipedia does not blindly parrot the opinion of internet people themselves when talking about their views? — Bilorv (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

As for the "transgenderism" point, unfortunately I don't think there's a single word without negative connotations that expresses the meaning you say. I would very much like there to be as I'm often in want of one. You can usually rephrase sentences to use "transgender" as an adjective or use a more tortured phrase like "the property of being transgender"; in some specific contexts "gender non-conformance" or "gender dysphoria" might match the sentence's intention (but the first can be too broad and the second too specific). In the specific case of the phrase "the activist is against transgenderism or transgender people" you could have "the activist is against transgender people" or "the activist is against gender self-identification". I think you'll agree that it's no ideal situation. — Bilorv (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not ideal, but it's fine - I can rephrase sentences as you suggest without it preventing me from making any points I want to make. Thanks for the info, and sorry for coming in a bit hot yesterday. I'll try to be a bit less combative.

On the point about "blindly parroting", I don't think I want to provide a counterargument given that I'm not proposing that the article parrot Linehan's self-characterisation as fact. To be clear, I'm proposing that ostensibly neutral descriptors (such as those in the lead and the section title) neither describe him in the terms of his detractors (e.g. "anti-transgender") nor in the terms of Linehan and his supporters (e.g. "pro-women", "anti-misogyny" or whatever else). None of those terms are neutral, and it would be simple to substitute a phrase that is neutral and then go on to present the various opinions as opinions. Incidentally, it seems to me that a writing style that "de-emphasises motivation" - or at least contextualises motivation as a matter of perspective - is essential to neutrality when somebody's motivation is a contentious point in itself.

I'm not sure if this will be an answer to your question about sources as I'm not sure which sources you're pointing me to, but I've looked at the most recent RfC and note that AutumnKing struggled to find examples of Linehan being called "anti-transgender" in reliable mainstream sources. I agree - I'm struggling to find anything in (for instance) broadsheet newspapers' websites or the BBC, which talk instead in terms of "views on transgender issues" ([7]), "comments on trans issues" ([8]), "outspoken commentator on/discussion of transgender issues" ([9]), "outspoken commentator on transgender issues" again ([10]), "outspoken stand on gender identity" ([11]) (although, FWIW, I don't read this as particularly neutral either), and so on. There may well be an example of a similarly reliable mainstream source calling him an "anti-transgender activist" or talking about his "anti-transgender activism", but I can't see that it's the norm.

On a point of process (and given that you're certainly more experienced on Wikipedia than I am), would it be better in your opinion for me to open a new RfC as DeputyBeagle suggests or continue this conversation in its current form for the time being? Clicriffhard (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I think starting an RfC would be the way to continue, but only if you are confident that you wish to do so. I share your opinion that there has not yet been a consensus on this topic, though since the last RfC was only closed six months ago I don't quite believe that one would be reached by a new RfC. Starting a new RfC would desirably be motivated by a change in situation or a new set of arguments, though I think intractable conflict continuing from lack of a concrete consensus from the last one is a justification. As for the sources, it's very difficult because the Times and the Telegraph deliberately violate media standards when discussing transgender topics in a way that we simply cannot allow ourselves to do, while PinkNews is quite tabloid-esque so not the source to imitate tone from. But take something like The Telegraph's Mr Lineham, who is a regularly vocal critic of transgenderism: on the face of it this may seem much closer to what you added than to what was there before, but if you replace the inappropriate term "transgenderism" and rephrase to use less heated language then I think that you end up with semantic content closer to "anti-transgender activism", in terms of information conveyed. — Bilorv (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll start an RfC in the next few days, but if you don't mind I won't try to do it right now - I haven't done this before, so I'll come back to it when I'm a bit less tired and more likely to get it broadly right. That is, unless somebody starts one before me.

Just a quick point on sources/neutrality for now: it seems to me that, while reliable sources and a neutral POV are both essential to Wikipedia, they're clearly not the same thing as one another, and nor does one follow automatically from the other. To put it more plainly, a statement isn't made neutral by appearing in a reliable source if it wouldn't have been neutral otherwise. So, while I agree that the neutrality of statements in e.g. The Telegraph and Pink News should be examined, I assume that that's the case with every well-sourced statement. Quoting from WP:WIKIVOICE (bolding mine): "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject)". In other words, whichever sources are referred to for descriptions of Linehan, if the language we reproduce is not going to be attributed to its source/author, we retain a responsibility to limit ourselves to clearly nonjudgemental language and to avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts, and standard article formatting doesn't allow us to attribute the language at all in a section header or easily in the lead. Don't get me wrong - if the balance of opinion is that Linehan is anti-transgender then of course both the opinions *and the balance of opinion* should be reflected (and attributed) in the body of the article's text, but surely not in a section header or the lead.

Anyway, interested to know your thoughts about that. Clicriffhard (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm still just in disagreement that "anti-transgender activist" is a term of disparagement. You and I might use it that way, but I've certainly encountered a lot of people on the internet who would wear it as a medal. I don't quite agree with: a statement isn't made neutral by appearing in a reliable source if it wouldn't have been neutral otherwise. On Wikipedia there is no notion of neutrality outside of reliable sources, so if the statement isn't made in RS then it's not neutral (it doesn't even really "exist" as a fact within our bubble, except a small number of edge cases). Then, there are some statements of opinion which are not neutral if appearing in any number of reliable sources ("This film had good acting"). But there are some statements which become fact rather than opinion when appearing in many reliable sources rather than just a few (e.g. "[Political figure X] is right-wing", which is fact for Thatcher but opinion for Obama). I'm arguing that "anti-transgender activist" is in this last category. — Bilorv (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not the one you were asking, Clicliffhard, but I'll put in my agreement about how important it is to avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. The thing is, I don't think the fact that Linehan has taken as his personal mission to campaign against transgender rights, on transgender issues, is "seriously contested", except within the ambit of WP:MANDY. And there hasn't been any consensus in any WP venue I've seen that "anti-transgender" is judgmental language - some editors see it that way, some do not, and no consensus has yet been articulated. Newimpartial (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The RfC concluded "no consensus" and as such the phrasing kept as "anti-transgender activism". If you want to change it to "vocal on transgender issues", you should start a new RfC. Your edits were reverted because there was a discussion here which you ignored. DeputyBeagle (talk) 11:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The article does not call Linehan transphobic, and none of the commenters above, that I can see, have argued that Linehan should be described as transphobic in the article. Can you provide diffs? until such time as you do, I think it's only fair to remove the tag you've placed on the lead, because if it's added as a result of your opinion above, it would appear to be wrong. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bastun. Please see my reply to Bilorv. Thanks. Clicriffhard (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's be honest, Linehan's behaviour goes beyond just being "against trans activists" and is literally just transphobic trolling, unless you honestly think that the WI are deeply embedded in the thin wedge of the trans erasure of women (although given his obsession cost him his marriage, he probably does believe that). "Anti-transgender activism" is a compromise to stop people complaining about us calling a manual geomorphological modification implement a spade, in the same way we don't describe Tucker Carlson a white nationalist even though he is one, and anything less would be like calling Carlson a "race realist". Sceptre (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree that we need to or ought to label Linehan or, for that matter, Tucker Carlson. If their actions speak for themselves then people will form the inevitable conclusion from reading the dry facts of what they've said and done, in which case the label is unnecessary. If their actions leave any room for interpretation then it isn't the job of an encyclopedia to make people's minds up for them. Clicriffhard (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The job of this encyclopaedia is to follow the reliable sources, and the reliable sources do characterize Linehan - in remarkably consistent ways. Newimpartial (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that - I've just searched for "Linehan" with "transgender" or "trans" in The BBC, The Times, The Guardian, CNN and so on, and couldn't find a single example of the publication itself calling Linehan an "anti-transgender activist" or even "anti-transgender". If those sources exist to the extent that they're "remarkably consistent", could you please show me where, or at least point me to a comment that's collected them together previously Clicriffhard (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I've already marked my ballot for "anti-transgender campaigns", which is supported by a number of sources as previously cited. Newimpartial (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, which sources? Clicriffhard (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The ones I discussed here. Newimpartial (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

That comment only mentions one article from one source. The source is GCN (Dublin), which - correct me if I'm wrong - doesn't appear to be established as a reliable source, and the part you're drawing on appears to be a single sentence that doesn't actually make sense (what would "against trans issues" even mean?). Is that really all there is? Clicriffhard (talk) 02:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

My linked comment doesn't just refer to the one source it links; I am referring to the sources cited in the discussion to that point (including those in my own previous comments). Please read the discussion in the section thwt is visible from the diff I included: it isn't long, and is mentions several sources. Also there is no requirement for a source to have an RSN entry for it to be reliable. Newimpartial (talk) 02:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok - you linked to a comment so I thought that was what you wanted me to look at. Reading the previous comments in that discussion, I can see that you've referred to one other article, in Gay Times. I guess my question on both articles would be: what makes these reliable sources? And particularly, what makes them more reliable than e.g. The Guardian, The Times, and The BBC, who've generally referred to Linehan in a much less tendentious way? Clicriffhard (talk) 03:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I am a little confused as to where we are going with this. I don't think the characterisation of Linehan's behaviour is unfair or inaccurate. Is the problem people are having that because his actions take place in the realm of social media, we struggle to find reliable sources to accurately document his actions? "Graham Linehan has attacked someone on social media again" not being exactly news? Surely this is more a question of avoiding WP:SYNTH and WP:OR than anything in the realm of WP:NPOV Rankersbo (talk) 14:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Mention of this article by Linehan/Metro

The Wikipedia article gets some mention here: https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/ethics-in-gender-journalism Popcornfud (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC) - update, looks like the post has been removed? or I don't see it any more anyway. Popcornfud (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Warning that this link contains harassment and privacy violations of named women (but anyone who's seen Linehan's Substack before will be unsurprised by this). A very sad day for both Linehan and the Metro. It's unfortunate that Linehan says On that point, I found it interesting that Metro staffers rely so much on Wikipedia. Here’s one reason that’s not such a great idea because I can think of a million excellent ways to continue this thought, but what he means is "there's a social media rumour that a trans academic is an editor". It really is concerning how heavily a senior member of Metro's team and possibly the original journalist is relying on a Wikipedia article—not the many citations it provides, but the article prose with no further fact-checking. I guess it's another good reason Metro is not a reliable source (though I am increasingly pessimistic that any of the major UK newspapers these days don't have the same dependence on Wikipedia as their first and only source for some types of claims). WP:CITOGENESIS is the relevant idea here. Also, I wonder if Linehan is aiming to evoke the Gamergate harassment campaign with the title "Ethics in gender journalism"... — Bilorv (talk) 13:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The link has gone, but I think it does show the importance on clearness and accuracy in this article, and that we should not be seeking to make the article more vague and weasely. Rankersbo (talk) 10:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

This article is unbalanced

Most of the lede is devoted to transgender issues, and 40% of the article as well. Two or three years of attention to Twittering &c shouldn't outweigh someone who has actual notability for his career, not just for making offensive statements on the internet. 2001:448A:1061:16B3:5868:1F62:C13C:D301 (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the amount of coverage for his recent exploits is appropriate and WP:DUE based on sources, but I agree that the article needs much more coverage of his TV career. Popcornfud (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

If you'd like to make a much-needed expansion of the coverage of his TV career then you can write the content and put it in an edit request, and another user can add it to the article for you. If not, then yes, it isn't news to us that this content needs improving in this direction (but at least for me I've already got a thousand things on my to-do list of higher priority). — Bilorv (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, there has been discussion on this talk page about how the lede needs improving. The issue is that despite a general agreement that there needs more info on his career, nobody seems to have the time or inclination to add that info. If you want to do it, go ahead. That being said if you're trying to imply that we should cut down on the trans topics, that's not a good option. That level of detail is important for what's become a very important part of his image DeputyBeagle (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Linehan's name is currently much more associated with transphobia and being banned from social media. That's mad, Ted. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Was he ever notable for anything else? I had not even heard of him before the controversy. Dimadick (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

    Dimadick, very much so. He wrote one of the funniest things ever shown on TV: Father Ted. Also a documentary about IT staff, called The IT Crowd. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

    Yes, he is/was a major British comedy writer. Popcornfud (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

    Popcornfud, Father Ted was a genuine original. I know it owed a lot to Dermot Morgan (and the incredible ensemble of Ardal O'Hanlon, Pauline McLynn and Frank Kelly), but there are some absolutely priceless moments that come entirely down to the writing, like the "small / far away" conversation. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Remove trans section from intro

There is no need for the section at the start of this page.

‘After an episode of The IT Crowd was criticised as transphobic, Linehan became an anti-transgender activist, arguing that transgender activism endangers women and likening the use of puberty blockers to Nazi eugenics programmes.’

It’s misleading, unbalanced and badly written. The article is already flagged as unbalanced, why is this allowed?

Instead of being impartial it is an editor with an agenda who has added it which is against the spirit of Wikipedia.

The trans issue is covered comprehensively on the page without this section. El dude brother2 (talk) 00:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The lead section is a summary of the body of the article, so mention of the issue is needed. --Equivamp - talk 00:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@El dude brother2: have you reviewed the previous talk page discussions about this topic? What new point do you have to make? Are you also familiar with WP:LEAD? Some of your comments suggest that you may not understand the purpose of the lead section. — Bilorv (talk) 02:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

El dude brother2, it's the thing he's best known for these days, per sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think so. Not for 80/90% of the population.

It is mentioned in the article which is great. Just don’t agree with it being in the lead section. Also the wording of the lead section is not neutral. El dude brother2 (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

a) In your opinion. It's been discussed at length and the consensus is the lead wording is fine. b) It doesn't matter that you "don't agree with it being in the lead section." It's there in accordance with WP:LEDE, "The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." That's what this one does. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Completely agree that it's non-neutral, but it seems that a small clique of editors have effectively colonised the article and are working very hard to keep it that way. If you look back at the history of the article and talk page, various people have made attempts to improve its neutrality and just hit a brick wall of blanket reversions, claims of a consensus that doesn't really exist, opinions stated in weak sources being advanced as proof of the article's factuality, implausible contentions about the basic meanings of words... If you want to make a concerted effort to break the stranglehold, I'm happy to contribute my perspective, but honestly, I'd suggest you save yourself the bother and tap out now. Clicriffhard (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Dare I ask what you think is non-neutral about the lead summary? Popcornfud (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

With respect, I don't want to waste any more time on this, but you can find it in the talk page archives. Clicriffhard (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Clicriffhard, I read that all at the time and I'd rather not trawl through it again either. Could you at least explain whether it's the lead wording you object to, or is it more that you object to the wording in the article body, which the lead summarises/reflects? Popcornfud (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to repeat myself, thank you. Clicriffhard (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I know you object to the use of the term/heading "anti-transgender activist". Assuming that is a fair summary of your main complaint, then it seems to me that the problem as you see it is in the article, not the lead itself.

What I'm trying to get at is whether critics of the lead think it is a bad summary of the article (eg undue weight?), or if what the lead is summarising is actually rotten. Those are different things. Popcornfud (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Both the lead and parts of the article have had tendentious language inserted into them by people who clearly want it to be less of an encyclopedic article and more of a validation of their own opinions. I personally have no issue with the amount of space given to Linehan's views on transgender issues, nor with the mention in the lead, given the extent of his activity in that area and the coverage it's received, but biased language like "anti-transgender activism" and misrepresentations of the contents of cited articles have absolutely no place in a serious encyclopedia and don't reflect the genuinely neutral way his interventions have generally been described in the most reputable sources.

But look, we all know this stuff and the people who are turning themselves inside out to argue against it or reverse any attempt to improve the article simply don't care - sorry to say so, but you can only take "assumptions of good faith" so far. And I have no quarrel with you personally but I don't want to get drawn back into what seems like a fruitless cause, so I'll leave it there unless somebody else wants to advance the conversation formally. Clicriffhard (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. It was me who wrote that lead, doing my best to summarise the trans stuff as it was presented in the article body. Personally I don't have an opinion about the wording "anti-transgender activist", but used it as that was the wording used in the article body. I was interested in hearing if you felt the lead did not fairly summarise the body. Popcornfud (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah here now. The reason Glinner's hit any sort of headlines at all within the last two or three years have entirely been based off his anti-transgender views and activism thereof. It's hardly a great misjudgment of some variety that the main reason he's known right now is included in the header. Hardly some sort of shadowy cabal of Wikipedia editors trying to bludgeon something in, given it's been discussed at length already. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 15:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I would urge caution that the section heading ‘Anti-Transgender Activism’ may now be in breach of UL Law, after the Verdict in favour of Maya Forstater (vs Center for Global Development) clearly states that holding feminist and pro-women right’s view, including the belief that sex is binary and immutable is a protected characteristic and is not anti-transgender.

I strongly suggest that this is changed to ‘Women’s Rights Activism’. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammach (talk • contribs) 17:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

This is inaccurate. It is not consideed a protected characteristic in itself any more than it is to be a conservative or a feminist or whatever, and the ruling made no decision on whether it is "anti-transgender". Beyond that, even if it was a protected characteristic this page would not be in any sort of breach of law given we are not discriminating against Linehan for his views. 'Women's Rights Activism' is an inaccurate title as discussed in earlier (now archived) topics. DeputyBeagle (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

University of Limerick bye-laws do not generally apply to Wikipedia; nor do UK laws. Everything in the article is reliably sourced. And Glinner, given his attacks on women, is not an example of a women's rights activist (which we usually call "feminism"). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Interesting that this account was created in 2007, made a userpage and then... nothing until this month. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Apart from voting "Keep" on the AfD for a trans-exclusionaary activist (which to be far was a Keep). Intriguing. Black Kite (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Other work section additions

Shouldn’t his YouTube channel and blog be mentioned in this section? Both are very active and sources of income, and without any mention the page isn’t neutral Acvny (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Should they be? Genuine question - is having a YouTube channel and a blog in any way notable? I mean, George R. R. Martin and Neil Gaiman are both well known for their blogging, yet their blogs merit only a line each on their respective articles (Gaiman's entry also covering specific project-related blogs). Not sure how neutrality comes into it at all. Where can one find Linehan's blog - all I can find is a substack email newsletter? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

We absolutely can't link his substack, for reasons that should be obvious from previous discussions. Black Kite (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Acvny: the way we decide what to mention and in how much detail is based on reliable secondary sources. Barring some very simple biographic information or uncontroversial details, which are appropriately sourced by primary sources, something is important if and only if news articles or books (in the case of Linehan) mention it. That Linehan makes money off these things is a reason to not mention it—because we're a free encyclopedia and we detest advertisements. — Bilorv (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Activism timeline

When did Linehan start his anti-transgender activism? The infamous IT Crowd episode was aired in 2008, but when did he start getting heavily criticized for it? Assuming it didn't start in 2008 (transgender rights were a niche topic back then), Stephanie Hayden's lawsuit places an upper limit of October 2018 on it, but I can't seem to do better. I would add a start date myself but no one can give a straight answer I can cite: even the RationalWiki article, which is almost entirely centered around his anti-transgender beliefs and activities, can't give a straight answer. It's a huge omission for a biographical article. Little help? --Iquebarr (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

His approving comments about the protests at the 2018 London Pride march move the upper bound to August 2018 --Iquebarr (talk) 01:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

As I understand he was never heavily criticised for the IT crowd storyline, it was one or two people saying they felt it was off. Rankersbo (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2021

Change the opening statement "Graham Linehan (/ˈlɪnəhæn/, born 22 May 1968) is an Irish anti-transgender activist and television writer" to "Graham Linehan (/ˈlɪnəhæn/, born 22nd of May 1968) is a television writer and a pro-choice, political activist who campaigned, with Amnesty International, to change Ireland's abortion laws. He is also a controversial voice on transgenderism and believes a person cannot change sex." 81.109.229.147 (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Why would we do that? I don't see any RS supporting it. Newimpartial (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:28, 15 August 2021‎

Yep, not a summary of the body of the article (WP:LEAD) and not even suitable for inclusion in the article without reliable sources and neutral rewording. — Bilorv (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

"Anti-transgender activist" was added to the lead sentence recently, and created a redundancy. [12] That has been reverted now. Most sources describe him as a television writer, so, per WP:DUE and WP:LABEL, something like that doesn't belong there. As has been discussed before on this talk page, it is few sources that could be said to support the "anti-transgender activist" label. The activism stuff is already covered later in the lead and it is nonsensical to list it twice. The only reason he became notable and anyone paid attention to his views is for being a television writer. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't see that the descriptor came first, which is ridiculous, but having it in the first sentence is not wrong as the first sentence often summarises the lead (and the lead summarises the body). Notice that the other descriptor, "television writer", is also completely redundant to the very text that follows: "He created or co-created the sitcoms ..." — Bilorv (talk) 11:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I dont' feel that "anti-trans activist should be in the first sentence". The first sentence should identify the subject's notability. He is notable for his TV writing. If did wasn't a TV writer no-one would care about his views of trans people. Also, he isn't really an "activist" is he. It is not like he spends hours each week campaigns and raising funds for anti-trans causes. Rather he just write opinions and created a hoax or two against trans people. I fully support mentioning his anti-trans stance in the lede, as it is now a noteworthy part of his public persona. But the first sentence should really just say he is a television writer. Ashmoo (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

What a person is known for can change over time. And frankly, he's better known for his anti-trans activism than as a writer at this point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Possibly for the reason that his anti-trans activism means producers and creatives won't touch him. Black Kite (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2021

Please change

Relative(s) Peter Serafinowicz(brother-in-law)

To

Relative(s) Peter Serafinowicz(former brother-in-law)

No longer a brother-in-law as divorced.

 Done I just removed it entirely. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Do we have a source for the divorce? I knew they had separated, but never seen it referred to as a divorce. I mean equally Peter and Graham are almost certainly not on cordial terms so possibly as well to remove. Rankersbo (talk) 08:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Misintepreting of edit

@Bilorv Just wanted to apologise. I checked out the edit in the differences panel and thought it was adding it but it was actually removing it. Very sorry DeputyBeagle (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Not a problem, DeputyBeagle, it happens to us all. Pinging Captain Cornwall, who made the original edit, just so they see this. — Bilorv (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)