Jump to content

Talk:Graham Linehan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 36.71.142.100 (talk) at 12:12, 25 March 2021 (→Reddit). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

What in the name is "anti-trans activism"?

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

Probably also worth mentioning that "trans rights activist" (or TRA) is a term used in transphobic communities to talk about people who are transgender regardless of their politics. It's not a neutral term. Transphobes routinely use it to deny trans people their identities and it is not widely used outside transphobic communities (just like "gender critical"). The article should just clarify that he's an opponent of trans rights. The "activism" he is a critic of is as simple as "being trans". We don't call the KKK "anti-black activists" and I don't think Wikipedia lends credence to Russian claims about "homosexual propaganda" either, so there's no reason to use transphobic language here. -- 2001:16B8:18A5:D300:C55F:7884:43D:5320 (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What would be a most suitable way to describe him? Transphobe would possibly describe his attitudes but it feels incomplete and misses out his actions. Using phrases like transphobe activist may be a more complete description? John Cummings (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, for heaven's sake, people. This is an encyclopedia. It's meant to be unbiased and scholarly. No, you cannot call him a transphobe because you personally disagree with his views regarding trans activism's effect on women's rights. The article is already badly slanted and biased, but there are limits that could put Wikipedia in danger of legal action if breached and that's one of them. The WP:BLP rules exist just for that reason. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On this note, it's recently been edited to "anti-trans controversy." I reverted to anti-trans activism as there was consensus that this is the best wording for this section. It is descriptive, and also neutral. Yes, everyone can see that he is deeply transphobic, but this is still a value judgement, and the article should refrain from that no matter how obvious it may be.Wikiditm (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikiditm:Can you link me to the page where consensus was reached on this? It seems heavily biased to call the category "anti-transgender" at all instead of something neutral like "transgender controversy", and I can't find the discussion on it. Thanks. Lilipo25 (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
found the transphobe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.165.109 (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikiditm:It has now been over six weeks since I asked for a link to this "consensus" that you cited as justification to revert to biased language like "anti-transgender activism". It is not the first time I have asked to see it (although I asked someone else the last time and not you), but once again, I am met with silence when asked where it is. I cannot find it myself, so I will ask yet again: where and when was this consensus that you cite reached, and may I see a link to the page? Thank you. Lilipo25 (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I do not use wikipedia often so just saw all your replies here. I think it is obvious that the consensus is for the current wording. If you have a reason it should be changed, and build a consensus around that, then I'll be happy for it to be changed. With all due respect, I don't think this will happen - the current wording is fine.Wikiditm (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your civil reply, it is much appreciated. In order for there to be a consensus, there must have been a discussion where a consensus was reached. No one has been able to provide a link to that, but trying to get neutral wording into this article or any other about issues regarding trans activism and women's rights is slightly more difficult than nailing Jello to a tree and I give up. Thanks again for being polite and not dismissive. Lilipo25 (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikiditm:You have long reverted all attempts to make the wording n this section neutral and insisted that the biased wording "Anti-Trans" was reached "by consensus". I have now requested several times that you provide a link to this consensus and waited months for your reply. You have refused to respond. Since I can find no evidence of this consensus and you can provide none, it seems clear that there was no such consensus reached at all. Your refusal to respond is WP:DISCUSSFAIL. I will therefore change the language to the more neutral "Transgender Controversy". Lilipo25 (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Controversy" section headings are not favored by policy, particularly where there are no sources suggesting that the BLP subject is, in fact, participating in a "Transgender controversy". Reverted therefore per BRD. Newimpartial (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding me? You have never edited this page before, but you're now just going to follow me around Wikipedia and harass me by immediately revert anything I do in minutes out of spite bc I disagreed with your bullying on another page? You actually put a watch on my edits just to do this? This is WP:HOUNDING and is expressly forbidden as harassment.
Wikipedia "discourages" entire sections devoted to criticism and controversies, but there's no way activists will allow that section to be cut down and integrated into the article as it should be. Since the section exists, Wikipedia allows the use of "Controversy" in the section heading. Re WP:CRIT:
"Controversy" section: For a specific controversy that is broadly covered in reliable sources. Various positions, whether pro or contra, are given due weight as supported by the sources. The topic of the controversy is best named in the section title. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is not anything untoward in my adding yet another anti-trans activist BLP to my watchlist; this has nothing to do with your "bullying" accusation (which is unCIVIL, unsubstantiated, and a violation of WP:AGF), nor am I singling out any editor by doing so. I watch the pages of anti-Trans activists for POV and BLP issues, but this is one I had missed until recently.
Substantively, I don't see any evidence of a "controversy", what I see is what RS describe as "activism", so that is what the section should be called. We do not impose FALSEBALANCE by artificially creating "pro" and "contra" positions that do not reflect what RS say. Newimpartial (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I resent your declaration that editing for more neutral language makes me an "anti-Trans activist". That is offensive and an insult, again. You are WP: HOUNDING. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Yes, I figured you'd be along to join in. I can't help but wonder why you didn't respond any time during the last 2 months when I asked repeatedly for the link to the "consensus" that keeps being claimed was reached on this term and no one would reply at all.
As usual, there's no way to fight trans activists who want this page to be as negative as possible. You now have someone new joining in to help keep it that way. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't tell the difference between sourced discussion per BALANCE and being "as negative as possible", then you should not be editing the subject in question IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For example, this section was opened by an editor who believed the heading "Anti-trans activism" was too sympathetic to the subject, but for some reason you find it to be too "negative". Newimpartial (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support "Anti-trans activism" or "Anti-transgender activism". I see "Anti-trans harassment", "Transphobic comments" etc. to be unjustified by the current sourcing, whilst anything with "trans(gender)" and not the "anti-" is potentially misleading to someone just skimming. "Controversy" is unjustified by the current sourcing for a couple of the paragraphs, which do not comment on alternate views to Linehan's. (I'm sure Linehan himself would much prefer "Anti-transgender activism" rather than "Transgender controversy" to be the title.) Can we please make sure that the "t" in "trans(gender)" is lowercase though? I've changed it to lowercase myself because I don't have reason to expect that anyone will find this typographical change controversial. — Bilorv (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely nothing "anti-trans" nor "phobic" in his views. It does not reflect his positions, in fact, it's a complete hatchet job, opinionated take on it. "Views on transgeder issues" would be a more adequate title. 92.238.89.128 (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
However, IP, by policy WP follows the sources rather than the opinions of editors. Newimpartial (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fact his views are anti-transgender is surely not up for debate? It's been verified by numerous reliable sources, and is also obvious from just looking at what he's said. He's certainly not pro-transgender!Wikiditm (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is, of course, very much up for debate. He is anti-self-ID because he believes, as many others do, that it is a policy that is harmful to women's sex-based rights, and anti-medicalisation of children with puberty blockers, particularly by the Tavistock Centre (which just last night was exposed by a Newsnight investigation as putting kids on the experimental blockers without proper evaluation first and over the objections of many health care officials - just as Linehan had said they were doing all along and which this article suggests makes him 'transphobic'). Lilipo25 (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all anti-transgender stances. His motivation for them may be transphobia, or may be women's rights, it doesn't really matter. Those stances are all against what transgender people are widely campaigning for.Wikiditm (talk) 07:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, this article doesn't say that makes him transphobic: the sources say it makes him transphobic. This article follows the sources. Newimpartial (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, other reliable sources agreed with him, but every time any are included for balance, they get reverted again. Which allows for the justification of biased section headings like "Anti-transgender activism".Lilipo25 (talk) 02:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What "reliable sources"? Newimpartial (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The heading "anti-transgender activism" is a violation of WP:LABEL: "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." I don't see the term "anti-transgender" sourced anywhere, and even if it were, it would need attribution, which is not feasible for section headings. Why can't we just use the lead wording, which has bipartisan endorsement from Lilipo25 and Newimpartial: "critic[ism] of transgender rights activism"? How is "anti-transgender" - which is vague - actually better? Crossroads -talk- 17:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly correct and in line with Wikipedia policy. Lilipo25 (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the heading were to be changed, say, to "criticism of transgender rights activism", then this wouldn't accurately reflect the content in the section underneath, most of which does not actually refer to transgender rights activism (having read through it, next to none of it does). WP:LABEL refers to value-laden terms, which the current heading "anti-transgender activism" is not. It is neutral and accurate, and reflects the content underneath.Wikiditm (talk) 07:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove properly sourced and accurate content. If we're going to include his tweeted defense of Rowling (which is a minor occurrence not covered by any UK newspaper or outlet and not really worthy of inclusion in a Wikipedia biography anyway), then we must include specifically what he was defending her against, as it is included in the source. In addition, he did not address his comment to Hozier; he tagged Hozier in to the conversation and that is what the source says, so you can't change that (although, frankly, Hozier is irrelevant here and takes the paragraph off on a tangent).
Hi. I haven't done any such thing. I reworded a paragraph which was very distant from the source backing it. I did this to improve readability and also make it accurately reflect the source, which it now does a lot better. The final sentence is still not very readable, and will need improving in the future, but is ok for now.Wikiditm (talk) 07:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The original paragraph was very close to the source; your rewording was inaccurate at best. Lilipo25 (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you consider my rewording to be inaccurate or not close to the source, then please say how and we can work on improving it and getting it closer to the source. Merely branding it inaccurate is not particularly helpful.Wikiditm (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I already outlined (in the above and below comments) how it was inaccurate: stating that the tweet was to Hozier instead of saying that Hozier was tagged, as the source says, and removing six words from his direct quote in the source that specifically stated he considers trans rights to be human rights. Also, you changed it to say that he defended Rowling's comments, when the source says that he defended her from abuse she was receiving over those comments; the meaning is very different. Lilipo25 (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty ridiculous. The distinction between "tweeting to someone" and "tweeting generally but only tagging one person" is wafer thin. I deleted 6 words from a quote which didn't change the meaning. Neither of these changes are at all substantial. And then you make up that I changed it to say he defended Rowling's comments, which I did not. Please keep the spirit of cooperation in mind.Wikiditm (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Cooperation" doesn't mean agreeing with egregiously biased edits, and I would appreciate it if you would permanently cease using the tactic of pretending that I am simply difficult and 'uncooperative' when you make them and receive civil, reasoned disagreement in response.
The distinction is hardly "wafer thin" - I have frequently tweeted to all of my followers but tagged a person who might be interested in the tweet. That doesn't mean the tweet is addressed to that person alone, and you cannot make an assumption that is not in the source. And deleting only the six words in the short direct quote being discussed which specifically contradict the "he's transphobic" narrative being pushed here is blatant bias. Lilipo25 (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most importantly, you absolutely cannot alter the words of his tweet, which is quoted in full in the source, to delete the part where he agreed that trans rights are human rights. The edit I made already stuck very close to what the source says. Thank you. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a part in parenthesis to improve readability. It is not great to quote things in full if readability can be improved (and meaning still conveyed) from part of the quote, especially when the full thing is pretty cumbersome.Wikiditm (talk) 07:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cumbersome? It's a tweet - less than 280 characters in total. And the tweet is the subject of the paragraph. You removed a total of six words which contradicted him being "anti-transgender"; it didn't make it more "readable" but merely changed the intent and meaning of what he said. Lilipo25 (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the meaning and intent of the tweet, which seems to be primarily about criticising Hozier's approach to the topic, was changed by removing the brackets. On the other hand, it became a lot more readable, which was why I made the change. Perhaps there's a better solution?Wikiditm (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A better solution would be not to remove part of a direct quote that is neither long nor cumbersome, but changes the meaning of what he said to eliminate his support of trans rights as human rights. Lilipo25 (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most of it is criticism of transgender rights activism. Gender self-ID, medical transition of children, Mermaids, Tavistock Centre, and so-called "gender ideology" are all about transgender rights activism. The portions that are not about activism per se aren't really 'activism' on his part either - in fact, criticism more closely fits the section as a whole. "Anti-transgender" is obviously a value laden label, same as "transphobic" is, which is specifically mentioned at WP:LABEL. Crossroads -talk- 01:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to start an RfC on this and it would be great to have your input there.Wikiditm (talk) 07:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Crossroads reasoning above. The section header "Anti-transgender" neither reflects the content of the section nor is it in anyway a neutral term. It is also an extremely vague descriptor. The change to "Criticism of transgender rights activism" is a much clearer descriptor. Happy to comment in RFC if started. AutumnKing (talk) 07:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Autumnking and Crossroads. Crossroads has made a very clear case to change the section heading and backed it up with Wikipedia rules. There is no doubt that "Anti-transgender" is neither neutral nor clear and should be removed. I will also be happy to comment in RFC if started. Lilipo25 (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've just started an RfC on the topic of this heading below. Tagging everyone who has participated in the discussion above and would welcome comments. John Cummings Lilipo25 Newimpartial Bastun Bilorv Crossroads AutumnKing. Wikiditm (talk) 10:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Popcornfud and Ceoil have also recently edited the section and should be notified of the RFC. Also Bring back Daz Sampson, who was very involved in the debate over this heading on the ANI that you opened last month. Lilipo25 (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the section it now seems to do WP:NPOV well. It is not an attack piece and neither heated not agressive, and does not offer criticism or condemnation. But it also doesn't shy away from presenting the facts and truth of Linehan's behaviour, or give false equivalence to fringe opinions as some articles on controversial figures have done. Rankersbo (talk) 11:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree the wording is NPOV. I disagree with Rankersbo the introduction accurately meets NPOV criteria. Wikipedia needs to be a neutral source, not giving a one-sided perspective. It is not factually true that Graham Linehan is an "anti-trans" activist. He has campaigned against some of the worst excesses of trans rights activism as it relates to women's rights. Here is an example of an article - by a transwoman - backing up his activism: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-graham-linehan-fell-foul-of-the-transgender-mob Not at all clear how he can simultaneously be 'anti-trans' and supported by trans activists. It's important Wikipedia is a neutral source, and doesn't fall prey to narratives or witch hunts, but instead is factually accurate. Claiming "X is a witch" does not make X a witch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.66.44.72 (talk) 11:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't feel NPOV to me in the slightest, it seems a simple change to Activism would be a huge improvement. Jimblackler (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I have already proposed campaigner against trans issues as a reliably sourced alternative. Newimpartial (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I did link a source below calling him an anti-trans campaigner verbatim. --Equivamp - talk 23:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say all that. And we never discussed "campaign" before. Crossroads -talk- 04:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(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)[reply]
That's right; you did. I concur. Newimpartial (talk) 00:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This Star Observer calls Linehan a noted anti-transgender campaigner and former comedy writer. --Equivamp - talk 20:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
That doesn't verify "activism"/"activist". Crossroads -talk- 20:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
WP:MANDY. Pink News is a reliable source. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It's definitely not absurd to say you're against trans activism and not transphobic. NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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

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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bastun. Please see my reply to Bilorv. Thanks. Clicriffhard (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Again, which sources? Clicriffhard (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The ones I discussed here. Newimpartial (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Reddit

Just to make editors aware, there is currently a massive storm stirring on Reddit right now. Linehan accused a trans individual of covering up for their pedophilic family members, and said individual is an admin on Reddit. This has apparently reached the point of comments about this person being wiped by Reddit admins, and entire subReddits being threatened if their mods don't crack down on the topic.

I don't know that we'll see any articles with enough information to cover the topic on this article or on Reddit, but we may get new/IP editors showing up trying to "spread the word" here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with Graham Linehan. A person, unconnected to Graham Linehan, has been recently employed by Reddit. This has nothing to do with Graham Linehan's page, or his talk page. 20:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:448A:106C:243E:50B2:3EE:1D71:3985 (talk)
It's a heads-up as to potential irrelevant commentary coming in I feel Rankersbo (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no connection then why did Linehan's pageviews triple yesterday ([12])? (Previous, larger, spike is from his House of Lords speech.) — Bilorv (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. The point is just because Graham Linehan wrote something on his blog about this, doesn't make it about him. 36.71.142.100 (talk) 05:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone has argued that this is something that should be included in the page, just that there is a potential for activtity based on these events. Rankersbo (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that: it just comes across as an attempt to smear Linehan 'he accused a trans individual', whereas this would have been a shit storm with or without his involvement, once people became aware Challenor had been employed by Reddit, since Challenor is a figure who is known by thousands of people in a negative light, from the 2018 time frame. 36.71.142.100 (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Graham_Linehan&oldid=1014141744"