Talk:Graham Linehan/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

A new proposal for how to describe his views

It appears at present there is, yet again, a dispute over the term "anti-trans activist". I previously asked for sources supporting that phrase and got very little. By my reading, only one BLP-passable source used it (I admit I skimmed the latter part of that discussion), the Australian LGBT paper the Star Observer. (The Irish Tatler appears not to be an RS but full of ad-articles.) Certainly there are far more sources than one talking about his trans-related comments, but they don't use that phrase, which brings up WP:DUE issues. I and others also argued that the phrase is not allowed per WP:LABEL, but others argued that it is. Prior to that there was an RfC on it, but it ended up closed as "no consensus", and it remained as the status quo.

At that time, the phrase was only a section heading, but since that time has duplicated into the lead and then into the first sentence. Given the near-lack of sources, would the BLP Noticeboard approve of this term appearing more in Wikipedia than in published sources? I think not.

So how about this: "campaigner against the transgender rights movement". This seems a readily agreeable summary and to be accurate to sources. It also specifies what he opposes with a wikilink, rather than a more vague term. In the previous discussion where I asked for sources, Newimpartial supported "campaigner against trans issues", which seems very close to my proposal. "Trans issues" is an uncommon term, but basically means "trans[gender] rights". And the article on that is transgender rights movement. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I think "anti-transgender" was held up by the sources in that discussion. "Anti-transgender campaigner", maybe? --Equivamp - talk 23:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

That seems little different. I think it was only the one source that was RS for BLP and supported the claim directly. Did I miss one? Crossroads ^-talk- 20:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

A few. From the original discussion:

• GCN, Among the anti-trans campaigners was Father Ted writer Graham Linehan.
• Daily Beast, [...] Irish anti-trans activist Graham Linehan [...] (A source to be used with caution for BLPs, but it helps illustrate the wide use of the term)
• Star Observer, [...] noted anti-transgender campaigner and former comedy writer Graham Linehan.
• Gay Times, The comedy writer was one of the most anti-trans accounts on the social media platform. [...] over the past few years has been more known for his anti-trans views.
• Pink News, The former comedy writer and anti-trans campaigner [...]

And there are more which weren't in that discussion, for example:

• The Observer], [...] anti-left writers who are frequently also anti-trans. The most egregious of these is Graham Linehan [...]
• Vox, It has become increasingly common for upper-class white people to express anti-trans views. For example, Irish comedian Graham Linehan [...]

It just doesn't seem feasible to continue to argue that "anti-trans" is not supported. Even the previous discussion seemed more focused on the word activist than anti-trans. --Equivamp - talk 23:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, you're proposing this in place of 'anti-trans activist' in the lead sentence only, and not the section heading? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

In all places, though some is better than none. The heading would be "opposition to the transgender rights movement" or similar. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, that specific section heading (or an essentially identical one) was suggested in the RfC and failed to gain consensus. --Equivamp - talk 01:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

We have a weak but passable consensus for the current phrasing. Your phrasing seems to be dancing around the point. I'm not sure I see the point in going through this process again or in changing the wording. DeputyBeagle (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

"campaigner against the transgender rights movement" is verbose. If you work on shortening it, without changing the meaning, you get "campaigns against transgender rights" or "anti-transgender rights activist". I'm not sure what "anti-transgender activist" connotes differently to "anti-transgender rights activist", but I wouldn't be fussed if we added the word "rights". — Bilorv (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd argue that being "anti-transgender rights" is inherently anti-transgender, so that would be a meaningless distinction. And it puts us right back where we started: Graham Linehan is an anti-trans activist. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

That is much less specific though. Even just "transgender rights" is an improvement. It's something specific that we can wikilink and that people can read about. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

It's much more accurate, though. He doesn't confine himself to campaigning against the transgender rights movement - creating fake accounts on dating apps, posting peoples' images without permission, creating sock accounts to avoid bans (received because of hate speech), deadnaming and misgendering people (as detailed in our article, and again more recently). I would therefore oppose any change. Graham Linehan is an anti-trans activist. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the current wording. It is far more accurate to describe Graham as an anti-transgender activist, than being against transgender rights. The sources linked above reflect that his activities go beyond that of simply opposing transgender rights, as does the content of the anti-transgender activism section in the article's body. Any change of language to restrict it as has been proposed would not be supported by WP:RS and could be argued as an attempt at minimising the scope of his actions. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's OK as-is, though if someone wants to change "activist" to "campaigner", fine. Equivamp demonstrates that "anti-trans" is a common descriptor in RS, and it's more straight and to the point than phrases like "campaigner against the transgender rights movement" (as if he were only responding to a particular movement or specific rights—and as if one could oppose transgender people having rights without that being "anti-trans", anyway—when many of the things RS and our article discuss him doing have little connection to any legal rights). -sche (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Anti-transgender campaigner and former comedy writer is clearly the most accurate phrasing IMO. But I'll settle for "anti-trans activist". Newimpartial (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

If you want to change "activist" to "campaigner", go for it. I would also agree with adding "former" to "writer", but I know someone argued "even when people are retired, or say they intend not to work again, we tend not to put 'former'". (I don't think this is always true about living people, but it does make me realize that after someone dies we ironically do seem to drop "former"s and just say someone "was a [whatever] and writer" even if, when they were alive, they were a "former [whatever]" via not having done it for a long time.) -sche (talk) 18:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree with "former". It would be very unusual to use it in a situation like this and I don't see what sources we have to see that he's never going to write again (his last credits are in 2017, not that long ago). — Bilorv (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, there's no need for "former". Popcornfud (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Intro Lacking Neutrality

As the title says, the second paragraph focuses too heavily on his political beliefs. It should be moved to the anti-trans activism section. Cynosure-NULL (talk) 23:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

That stuff is already covered in the anti-trans activism section. The lead is a summary of the article.

The lead definitely requires expansion to better cover the other stuff, though. The problem is that it isn't really that well covered in the article either (coverage is kind of all over the place and lots of citations missing), so it's hard to summarise in the lead. The anti-trans stuff is very thorough, though, so it's much easier to summarise. Popcornfud (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2021

I would like to have included some of his writing credits Graham also co-wrote a TV movie Never mind the Horrocks <www.imdb.com/title/tt0115287/?ref_=nm_flmg_wr_19/> and the feature film The MatchMaker<https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119632/fullcredits/writer?ref_=tt_ov_wr_sm> 165.73.228.154 (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. IMDb is user generated, and therefore unreliable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Graham is listed in Never Mind the Horrocks' end credits as one of the writers, though I'm not sure how you'd cite that, or if that's even allowed. Would a show's starting or ending credits be considered WP:PRIMARY or WP:SECONDARY? I can't easily find a streaming source for The MatchMaker to verify for that film. Both of the Wiki entries for Horrocks' and MatchMaker list Graham as one of the writers, but as what appears to be common for other writers, those aren't sourced. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Inaccurate description of his stance

It would appear that Linehan's stance is best described as "anti-transgender-activist activism" (awkward as that sounds), and not "anti-transgender activism". He has not critiqued the act of being transgender or displayed any intolerance of it, but rather has criticized the behavior of a certain group of transgender activists. As much as those activists may wish to confound the two, they are vastly different things. It is analogous to the difference between being anti-Islam and anti-ISIS. It is very misleading to describe him as an "anti-transgender activist".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.234.107 (talk • contribs) 14:57, July 12, 2021 (UTC)

The first thing i noticed when i read the first line was that it was odd calling him an anti-transgender activist when he is not anti-transgender, he is anti the activism. I think it needs to be changed to something more accurate as suggested above. --Rcclh (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

That's a common refrain of his and, as reliable sources show, no one believes this hair-splitting. His actions are against transgender rights in total, not just "anti-activism." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

How Linehan labels his stance, and what his stance actually is, are in fact two different things. He is active against transgender *rights*, not just transgender *activism*. Newimpartial (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

This article seems to be extremely biased, even if he is an "anti-transgender-activist activist" I doubt he would self-identifies as such, isn't that what matters? He's primary well known for being a writer, after-all if he wasn't a writer it would be unlikely there would be an article here on him. 77.98.149.223 (talk) 11:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

As has been mentioned here before, it does not matter whether he considers himself an anti-transgender activist as per WP:MANDY DeputyBeagle (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

You can't half-apply a rule. If WP:MANDY says that "of course someone would say he's not X" then it also says that "of course opponents of someone would say he is X". Do the source using the term actually source it? The burden of proof is still on those making a claim. For example, source #30 says the protestors were 'anti-trans' but they were merely protesting a lobbying group, not trans people - the article is clearly barely aware of what the issues are or would be at stake and is repeating unnamed sources and their unproven claims. InverseZebra (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

So are you saying that people do not have the right to self-identify? PorziaMedici (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

What they are saying is right there in black and white - don't put words in their mouth. And replying to a month-old comment without pinging the author is highly unlikely to elicit a response. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

The anon-IP is incorrect when they state "he has not... displayed any intolerance of it" - reading the relevant section and it's sources demonstrates quite the opposite. Apparently even a show featuring trans people is enough to have him boycott the entire network. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Describing Linehan as an anti-transgender activist is not writing "from a neutral point of view". It is clearly a contentious claim. Shouldn't it be removed until there is clear consensus on it's use? I was told there was consensus on this page but I don't see it. Electricia (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Take a look at the Talk page archives, perhaps? Newimpartial (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

You can find a lot of discussion about this in the talk page archives, and when something has been discussed and a status quo stands for months, it musn't be undone by one individual, because that goes against how decisions are made on Wikipedia, by a community. If you want to then I think opening an RFC is a perfectly reasonable step, because that's a way to solve a protracted content dispute, but superimposing your own opinion onto the article directly when it goes against many others is not the right way to proceed. We got a weak but functional consensus for the status quo at this discussion and no consensus sufficient to overturn the status quo here.

The base problem is that everything is contentious. To not talk about it does a disservice to both supporters and opponents of Linehan. To use a misleading euphemism like "gender critical" is to assume correctness of Linehan's position. To use "transphobe" is to assume incorrectness. So "anti-transgender activist", a cold, flat description of what Linehan is doing, is the least contentious.

I think perhaps the issue with the phrase is that supporters of Linehan actually don't want people to know what Linehan's position is, because they would be alienated by that and less likely to listen to him. We see this a lot with the alt-right: they say "we're liberals actually" and so on and it's a propaganda tactic to draw people in. So we see this endless tide of supporters come in to contest the description. Like I've seen now on multiple occasions people who will argue for months and months and months that Linehan and similar figures are not anti-transgender, that this is just a slur against them and we're doing it because we hate women and so on, and when they're finally banned for crossing a line they leave a rude final message on their talk page calling us all tra**y and mentally ill and degen****e per***ts who are not actually the gender we say we are and so on. (I say "we" referring to all editors, not just trans ones, because that doesn't seem to matter to these trolls.) They were never actually in earnest disagreement that they are anti-transgender—what they're angry about is that stating the truth clearly and openly in the article works against their recruitment tactics. Such is, of course, not true of every editor who opposes the description, but it makes up a lot of complaints you'll find in the talk page archives. — Bilorv (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I’m not a supporter of Linehan. I just think it’s a contentious statement that goes against Wikipedia policies such as writing from a neutral point of view and removing contentious material. “He holds contentious views on trans issues” is a neutral statement, “anti-transgender activist” isn’t - it’s a statement that many people disagree with. Wikipedia is meant to be objective. Electricia (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't tell you anything though—what are the nature of his views? You might as well say "he has opinions about politics". It's not neutral to whitewash. I also don't think it would stop the complaints flooding in. I, for one, don't believe his views are "contentious", because that implies there are two equal sides to the matter, or at least some valid support for his position. What reliable sources have you read that endorse Linehan's views? We can see others like PinkNews consistently condemn them. And you say that "['Linehan is anti-transgender' is] a statement that many people disagree with"—who? You can't just assert that point: you need to name them and explain why they disagree, and why an encyclopedia would consider those views significant/reliable. — Bilorv (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

PinkNews is hardly a neutral source. LGB Aliance has a rather different view.Dejvid (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

PinkNews is just one of the reputable sources used, and there are others; whereas the whole raison d'etre of the LGB Alliance is to oppose trans rights. Hardly comparing like with like, there. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The whole raison d'être of the LGB Alliance is to protect the rights of sexual minorities. Trans rights are not sexual rights, as gender dysphoria is a medical condition. You might disagree with the LGB Alliance, but it is intellectually dishonest to frame the charity in this way. PorziaMedici (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

LGB Alliance is an anti-trans organization backed by American far-right Christian groups. They are using trans rights as a wedge issue to push a conservative agenda under the disguise of a gay charity. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Your response has no bearing on what I have said.

Furthermore, there is no tension between conservatism and being a gay charity. Many forms of conservatism are relative to time and place.

See: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conservatism/ PorziaMedici (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I directly responded to your statement. Do you have any intention of justifying your attempts to change the article lead, or are you going to keep spouting personal opinions without relevance to your edit? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

You did not respond to my comment.

I said: 'The whole raison d'être of the LGB Alliance is to protect the rights of sexual minorities. Trans rights are not sexual rights, as gender dysphoria is a medical condition.'

And you said: 'LGB Alliance is an anti-trans organization backed by American far-right Christian groups. They are using trans rights as a wedge issue to push a conservative agenda under the disguise of a gay charity.'

Your response does not impinge on the fact that the LGB Alliance is there to protect the rights of sexual minorities. Nor does your response imagine on the fact that trans rights are not sexual rights. There is no necessary conflict between conservatism and being a gay charity. You are using a caricature of conservatism to support your response.

Please tell me where I have stated my personal opinions?

This entire talk page is full of users seemingly pushing an agenda without supporting their claims. Please link unbiased sources that conclusively prove that the LBT Alliance is a hate organisation, and that Graham Linehan holds a philosophical position which has been compared to racism. I have no found any. PorziaMedici (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Correction of mistakes:

You did not respond to my comment.

I said: 'The whole raison d'être of the LGB Alliance is to protect the rights of sexual minorities. Trans rights are not sexual rights, as gender dysphoria is a medical condition.'

And you said: 'LGB Alliance is an anti-trans organization backed by American far-right Christian groups. They are using trans rights as a wedge issue to push a conservative agenda under the disguise of a gay charity.'

Your response does not impinge on the fact that the LGB Alliance is there to protect the rights of sexual minorities. Nor does your response impinge on the fact that trans rights are not sexual rights. There is not a necessary conflict between conservatism and being a gay charity. You are using a caricature of conservatism to support your response.

Please tell me where I have stated my personal opinions?

This entire talk page is full of users seemingly pushing an agenda without supporting their claims. Please link unbiased sources that conclusively prove that the LBT Alliance is a hate organisation, and that Graham Linehan holds a philosophical position which has been compared to racism. PorziaMedici (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Graham Linehan, not the "LBT Alliance". The talk page is here to improve the article, not serve as a forum for you to practice debate. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

“I, for one, don't believe his views are "contentious", because that implies there are two equal sides to the matter, or at least some valid support for his position” ~ your personal opinion should have nothing to do with editing a Wikipedia page. There is a lot of support for many of his views, whether that support is ‘valid’ I suppose depends on whether you view people with different opinions to yourself valid. The statement about LGB Alliance is not neutral either, whether you agree with them or not, they are a registered charity.

“What reliable sources have you read that endorse Linehan's views?” ~ I’m sure everyone is aware of numerous high profile supporters of many of Linehan’s views. These are reported regularly in the mainstream press. Numerous academics, as well as authors, actors, politicians and so on support his views. They may not all be explicitly supporting Linehan himself, but their views align with his: Actor and gay rights campaigner Simon Callow CBE on Stonewall in The Times today for example, Baroness Nicholson on single-sex hospital wards, Martina Navratilova on women in sport, Simon Fanshawe OBE, J.K Rowling CH, OBE, HonFRSE, FRCPE, FRSL, Joanna Cherry QC, the two Police and Crime Commissioners who recently spoke about the need for single-sex spaces – all people who have spoken about issues around gender identity that share the same views as Linehan on these subjects and have and been reported on in mainstream media by reputable sources.

It’s disingenuous to suggest that there is not widespread support for many of his opinions on sex and gender. Of course many people strongly disagree with him. This is evidence that he holds “contentious” views – it is even stated at the top of this page that the subject is ‘controversial’. It’s obvious that he is a controversial figure. Saying so is not whitewashing, it’s stating the facts rather than posting contentious material, it is being neutral rather than taking a side. Electricia (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

your personal opinion should have nothing to do with editing a Wikipedia page — This is part of my argument. The whole point is that your personal opinion is not related to editing Wikipedia, and I was using my personal opinion as an example of why the claim was not, as you argued, uncontentious, and that's why you need to give sources (which you are yet to do). I’m sure everyone is aware of numerous high profile supporters of many of Linehan’s views. These are reported regularly in the mainstream press ... – Can you actually point me to them? Like, why aren't they in the article? They should be in the article if these sources exist and I'll have a go at summarising them. I'm not aware of JKR or Cherry supporting Linehan or praising his views. I'm aware of their views, and JKR's in particular is very different to Linehan's. The source has to actually refer to support for Linehan, not be synthesis assumptions that two people opposing trans rights have the same views. There's having concerns that people would have called you trans when you were a child but you're not (JKR), and then there's thinking trans children are the victim of modern day Nazis (Linehan). — Bilorv (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

PorziaMedici, when your edits are challenged, the WP:ONUS is on you to demonstrate that you have consensus for their inclusion. Reverting, until you have done so. Note, you have already received your 3RR warning for edit-warring. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2021

<variety.com/1997/film/reviews/the-matchmaker-3-1117340007/>

<https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/culture-magazines/matchmaker-1997>

<comedy.co.uk/tv/never_mind_the_horrocks/>

There are the citations 165.73.228.154 (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done: ideally in future you could be even more specific about which text you'd like to be introduced where. Here is the edit I've made—reply here or message me on my talk page if it's not what you had in mind. I left the Encyclopedia.com source out as I'm more familiar with Variety and know that it's reliable and sufficient for the information we're adding. — Bilorv (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Birthdate

Is there any official date of birth for Linehan? 86.29.114.58 (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Not an objective article

This article reads as if written by a person or persons that very much dislike GL. I believe that Wikipedia needs to maintain objectivity if it is to retain the excellent reputation which it currently has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.244.222 (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

It reads neutrally to me, outlining both positives and negatives, and backed by reliable sources. If you have specific changes you wish to make, by all means propose them. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Can you point out the specific sentences that make you think that, and give relevant reliable sources that should be in the article but are not, or show how sources that are cited are being misconstrued? — Bilorv (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I could comment on Lienehan's behaviour but it would violate WP:NOTFORUM (part 4). Suffice it to say the wording on this article does seem to lie in the WP:NPOV zone between the IP user's view and my own. Rankersbo (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

What Does it Mean?

What does fa tiban ka ho mean? DieselEstate (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

All apologies. I see now that I may have put my question in the wrong place. DieselEstate (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

“Activism”

Seems like the wrong word to use for a notorious bigot, no? Should I edit the pages of Nazis and call them “Anti-Jewish activists”? Call it what it is, transphobia, or risk looking like bigots yourselves. Your choice. JMwins19 (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Please don't be so aggressive. The current wording is a compromise, because Wikipedia can only use descriptors based on what reliable sources say. We also have very strict rules regarding biographies of living persons, so using a term like "bigot" requires very strong sourcing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The choice of language is a long standing compromise that reflects reliable sourcing on this topic. I'd like to direct you to the following discussions from the talk page archives; Archive 5#Phrasing of line "Inehan is a vocal critic of transgender rights activism", Archive 5#What in the name is "anti-trans activism"?, Archive 6#"Anti-transgender activism" sources please, and Archive 7#A new proposal for how to describe his views.

Also as both Equivamp on your talk page, and HandThatFeeds has said here, please avoid personal attacks as you have done here and in your edit summaries on this page. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

JMwins19, I must admit to being confused. You appear to be annoyed that the wording is not strong enough, and yet your alternative wording was in my view weaker. I would argue being an activist is not necessarily someone who works for positive ends, and what Linehan does, with his you tube channel and his lashing out with vitriol at anyone prominent who speaks up for transgender people is not merely holding views. I hold sympathy for your perspective if not for the way you are expressing it. Rankersbo (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

That's my read on this as well. Stating that He is more recently known for his anti-transgender views lacks the scope of his actions, including but not limited to; his podcast, his Substack, his appearances at protests, his YouTube channels, which go far beyond mere views. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Women’s rights.

Graham is not anti-trans at all. He simply recognizes that biology is real, that sex is immutable, and that there are divisions by sex ( not gender) in such things as sports, prisons, domestic violence shelters recognizes reality. To be more fair you could edit it to read that some consider him to be an anti trans activist while others see him as arguing for women’s rights and safety. The Depressed Philosopher (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The wording has been referenced from reliable sources and has been discussed extensively here. I recommend you read back through the archives to see the points raised already DeputyBeagle (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

you could edit it to read that some consider him to be...

No, please see WP:WEASEL. Reliable sources have documented his anti-trans activities and advocacy, he has been labeled appropriately. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Television Writer

The opening of the article describes him as "an Irish television writer". As he no longer writes for television (irish or otherwise), should it be changed to "former television writer"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A442:581E:1:D8A5:FDBF:262F:2159 (talk) 11:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I think this is something that has come up before. I think we would need to properly source that he has given up comedy rather than just assume that from his lack of recent credits. Rankersbo (talk) 13:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed it has come up before - I once changed the opening to "former television writer" and it was swiftly reverted. I still believe it should read "former" - Linehan himself has admitted he no longer works in TV and that his anti-trans views have cost him his career. Ninehundreddollarydoos (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

It shouldn't read "former". In general, we don't attempt to keep tracking whether a person currently is working on projects related to each of their descriptors in the lead sentence of an article, as doing that would be an absolute nightmare. For instance, the statement at Bo Burnham, Robert Pickering "Bo" Burnham (born August 21, 1990) is an American comedian, actor, musician, singer, and filmmaker is not a claim that Burnham is currently touring the stand-up circuit, acting professionally, writing music, singing and making a film, all simultaneously, but that these are the substantive roles he's had that make him notable (and "is", not "was", means little more than "Burnham is alive"). He may never work in the film industry again, but it's rare to find a source of someone saying "I will never work in the film industry again", and even if we had one it would be unlikely that we'd use it. — Bilorv (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

That he torpedoed his career is an important fact about him. He is not a television writer anymore, but he used to be. I am using a wooden table, it used to be a tree. It is no longer a tree. It is an ex-tree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A442:581E:1:68B4:1E13:9C65:EF5E (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Linehan is NOT trans phobic.

GL is not transphobic. He has criticized some transsexuals, and straight and gay people too, who advocate for life changing medical interventions on children, children who are clearly too young to make such important decisions. Children are by nature fickle, hence the length of time they are dependant on adults to make the correct decisions for them.124.244.164.104 (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Please see multiple previous discussions on this point. Although, the article doesn't actually call Linehan transphobic at any point - it mentions his online abuse of a transgender person that was described as transphobic, and it mentions that the episode of the IT Crowd was described as transphobic, but at no point does it say "Graham Linehan is transphobic". Black Kite (talk) 09:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Being a prominent person who expresses solidarity with transgender people is enough to become a target of Linehan's aggression. However a lot of the evidence is WP:OR. To say he just questions treatment for trans kids underplays the ferocity of his behaviour towards trans people and those who resist the movement to remove their rights.

E.G. Billy Bragg updated the song sexuality to include the lyric

“Just because you’re they, I won’t turn you away. If you stick around, I’m sure that we can find the right pronoun”.

Just a vague word of support for transgender people was enough to trigger Linehan into posting a whole article attacking Bragg. Matt Lucas expressed solidarity and was on the receiving end of a similarly agressive comment.

You can't claim anyone who is so triggered by the mildest support for transgender people isn't transphobic.

Rankersbo (talk) 12:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I am well aware of that (indeed I was at a Bragg show where he did that version of "Sexuality"), but we still have to WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Unless there are sufficient RS actually saying that Linehan is transphobic, we don't say it in Wikipedia's voice. Black Kite (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Well that's what I meant by WP:OR. To state he is transphobic in the article we have to rely on WP:RS. But the person who opened this section was arguing he is not transphobic. This is plainly untrue. However the article must stick to what can be found in reliable sources, which it does.

We cannot go further and state it outright because the sources on that are primary. I am not arguing for using stronger wording in the article, to reply as if I am is to misread what I wrote.

For the purposes of answering a hit-and-run talkpage comment they are sufficient however. Rankersbo (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Failure to follow source - comparison with Nazism

Hi, I see two issues here. (Anti-transgender activism - third paragraph)

1. The quoted source reports that Lineham says in the interview 'If you were around the time of something terrible happening like Nazism, or whatever it happened to be, would you be one of the people who said, "No, this is wrong", despite being opposed?' In the rendering in the Wikipedia article 'or whatever it happened to be' is omitted, making it seem that Lineham makes a precise comparison with Nazism instead of simply giving it as an example of something terrible.

2. The article asserts that 'Linehan has compared the medical transition of children to Nazi experiments on children' This is not supported by the quoted sources, and is a complete misreading, facilitated by the omission stated above. He is saying that the consequences of transgenderism, of which he lists a number in the interview, are terrible, as are those of Nazism and other unstated things. Going by the quoted sources, he does not mention Nazi experiments on children or medical transition. I am not sure that they are in the interview at all.

I suggest that this sentence 'Linehan has compared the medical transition of children to Nazi experiments on children, saying: "If you were around the time of something terrible happening like Nazism, would you be one of the people who said, 'This is wrong,' despite being opposed?"' is changed to: 'Linehan has compared the impact of transgenderism to Nazism, saying: "If you were around the time of something terrible happening like Nazism, or whatever it happened to be, would you be one of the people who said, 'This is wrong,' despite being opposed?"'

I will not be corresponding on this; I just wanted to make the point. Jontel (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Jontel: I believe the "Nazi experiments on children" views come not from that interview, but a Newsnight one, though the sources may have got lost somewhere in one of the many reshuffles of this section. In the Newsnight piece, he is asked about the comparison to Nazism and says "there's a couple of parallels [to the Nazi regime]... one is that at the moment children are basically being experimented on with puberty blockers". He then talks for a minute and ends with "... that's why I compare it to eugenics programmes and things like that". Sources like CNN and Gay Times explicitly say that this is a comparison to the Nazi experimentation on children.

Re (1), also, I've added an ellipsis, but the omission of the intervening clause actually comes from iNews, not ourselves (and it's normal to transcribe quotes slightly more concisely as people speak less eloquently than they write, and the "like" in "like Nazism" means that "or whatever it happened to be" is implicit). By the way, the word "trangenderism" has negative connotations, similar to those of "the gay agenda" (see wiktionary), so please consider avoiding it. — Bilorv (talk) 11:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Bilorv: Thank you for engaging with this. That the reference to Nazi experiments came from another interview would explain the discrepancy. As everything in Wikipedia should be sourced, the sources you reference should be added immediately after the assertion. Moreover, the article currently falsely places the reference in the Resistance Radio interview by mixing material from the two interviews in the same sentence. Jontel (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I was waiting a bit to see if I was misunderstanding, but I take it that the silence means there is no disagreement on my summary, so change is necessary to fix this factual error.

There's rather a problem with the current section in that it orders information chronologically rather than thematically, which may make awkward my change that has attempted to merge this "Nazism" paragraph with the later Newsnight paragraph. Nonetheless, it at least addresses the conflation of the two interviews, and there's really no value to two separate paragraphs on the same view that Linehan has expressed on two different occasions. No doubt there is more improvement to be made to this content. — Bilorv (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Bilorv I agree with you that linking themes is preferable to strict chronology, but I would suggest distinguishing the two references to Nazism a bit more clearly so that the para is less likely to give the false impression that the 2018 remark was also related to puberty blockers / treatment for children.

For clarity (and based on the cited sources), the 2018 remark is part of Linehan's long response to a question about why he involves himself in a discussion that the interviewer compares to "a third rail - you touch it, you die". In other words, it is about taking contentious positions on transgender issues in general - not any one transgender issue in particular - and Linehan's admittedly ridiculous belief that taking the positions he has in the face of heavy opposition indicates that he would also have said "this is wrong" in response to historical atrocities like Nazism if he'd been around at the time. I think by placing the 2018 reference to Nazism before the 2020 reference to Nazism (and separating the sentence about 2018 Pride off from that paragraph, as it appears to be a non sequitur unless I've missed the link), you can keep the broad theme together but it will be clearer that the first remark was about Linehan's activism in general and the second a comment on the specific subject of puberty blockers etc.

Incidentally, I'm about to make a minor edit to correct a verb tense, but won't try to redraft that paragraph until you and others have had a chance to respond. Clicriffhard (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think I see what you're getting at with distinguishing the two separate remarks, which you can rewrite as you want (though I would urge concision). The Pride sentence is indeed a non sequitur, and I did consider leaving it as a separate paragraph, which is probably best. However, as the section is currently organised chronologically, there are similar non sequiturs throughout. — Bilorv (talk) 23:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I've had a go, although I'm sure it can be improved further - see what you think. For concision I've removed Linehan's comments about Pink News because they're incidental and I don't think they add much, but the article they come from is here if anyone's very keen to put them back in. Given that it's a two-line quote/statement, my view would be that we should either be including both sentences or neither, rather than one or the other as it was before.

I've made a separate edit to remove what struck me as a trivial reference to The Last Leg's "Dick of the Year" award from what is probably an overly long section, but that's easily reverted if people think it adds anything.Clicriffhard (talk) 02:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Yep, fair enough, I think that paragraph reads better than how I had it. No objection to the other changes either, really. I'm not too sure if the section is overly long or just lacking structure (presumably there was little to say about the topic when the section was first added, and then available information ballooned over time). I would say that the rest of the article is too short, though. — Bilorv (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Confused why making something vague and open to interpretation is preferable to just stating what the dispute was about?

I don't understand the reversal of this edit of mine, why leave it up to the reader's imagination? https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Graham_Linehan&diff=prev&oldid=1081512669 Wojacks (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The transphobia is the controversial part of the episode and is what the dispute was about; without it the rest of the sentence doesn't make any sense, because it makes it sound like there was a furor over the fact that they just "broke up." Additionally, the source doesn't even say that they broke up; it does say that the character was transphobic. Our focus and characterization need to reflect what the sources identify as the crux of the dispute, rather than what editors personally feel it was. --Aquillion (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

"In the episode, which aired in 2008, Berry’s character Douglas, dates a transgender woman and promptly breaks up with her after she tells him she is trans." https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/matt-berry-transphobic-it-crowd-episode-b1944874.html So can we describe what actually happened in the episode now? "Reacts with transphobia" is useless, nobody knows what that means. Wojacks (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we do, and we already describe what actually happened in the episode. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Can you quote that here for me? I can't find it in the article. Wojacks (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

It's right there in the article. And there is a clear consensus to retain it. I think we're done? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

You think "reacts with transphobia" describes what happened in the episode? That can mean anything. Wojacks (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Let's not embellish source here to try and push an agenda. Be accurate to the sources you cite. I think we shouldn't tabloid it and it should read so that the actions are clear and not left for the reader to imagine, in the hope that they imagine violence or worse to add weight to the statement. JT (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

To me the transphobia of the episode is not really in the way Reynholm reacts, but the intended humour of the episode. As soon as we learn the woman is transgender, we are shown increasingly exaggerated masculine traits of hers—being into sports, messily eating wings, and eventually her violent physical aggression. The joke is clear: not only are trans women actually men, but men are nothing more than disgusting animals without self-control. It's a very transphobic subplot and also a very anti-feminist one, though the latter may not be of note as sexism is one of the main forms of humour in the programme. This is why the episode was met with negative reception (despite the outstanding A-plot), not Linehan's (willfully) wrong interpretation that it was because a character was transphobic towards a trans person.

Screen Rant covers this reasoning a little bit, in addition to what was another major complaint, that the episode trivialises violence against a transgender woman. Other sources such as NME, Chortle and the ones currently in the episode do not really substantiate why the episode was seen by viewers as transphobic.

I would prefer either a rationale that mentions at least that viewers thought the episode trivialised violence against transgender women (and possibly also that it relies on the character's masculinity for humour) or no rationale whatsoever, just the statement that it was criticised as transphobic. Neither that Reynholm "reacts with transphobia" nor that he breaks up with the woman are better than no explanation, as they are quite incomplete and fall into the trap of taking Linehan's straw man at face value. — Bilorv (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Good luck getting that in a succinct encyclopaedic para. I knew about the incident and that GL had taken offence at someone expressing the opinion it was transphobic. Never read such a detailed description. I liked Father Ted, but never got into the IT crowd. I question whether "reacts with transphobia" is the best wording, but I don't have a better one to offer. The reverted description removes rather than increases meaning and clarity, and is a degradation not an improvement. Rankersbo (talk) 10:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Well other than being vague and useless, "reacts with transphobia" can't be said in Wikipedia's voice anyway. Not wanting to date someone because they're trans doesn't qualify as transphobic so the article shouldn't state it as fact. Wojacks (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Except "Not wanting to date someone because they're trans doesn't qualify as transphobic" - isn't all that happens, though, is it - or are you forgetting the violence? The current wording is less vague and useless than your proposed version; repeatedly saying your version is better won't result in a change in consensus. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Not wanting to date someone because they're trans doesn't qualify as transphobic and this isn't an accurate description of Reynholm's reaction. — Bilorv (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Citation? I guess the definition given by everybody except the only-online crazies. And the character's reaction was to break up, the trans character's was to hit him, then they got into a fight. So again, can't say that the character "reacts with transphobia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wojacks (talk • contribs) 15:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Current version: He became involved after the airing of a 2008 episode of The IT Crowd, written by Linehan, drew criticism on Twitter for its storyline. The episode features a man who reacts with transphobia after realising that the woman he is dating is transgender.[21]

Proposed replacement, following Bilory's comments: He became involved after the airing of a 2008 episode of The IT Crowd, written by Linehan, was widely criticised as both transphobic and sexist, sterotyping gender tropes and trivialising violence against transgender women.(using Screenrant and NME references) The episode features a man who reacts with violence after realising that the woman he is dating is transgender."(repeat references)

Thoughts? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Keep it in perspective, not "widely", some Twitter accounts. And that's also an innacurate summary, the character breaks up then the trans character reacts with violence. Wojacks (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

not "widely", some Twitter accounts. is not accurate. Here's some reliable sources on the matter.

• PinkNews - Channel 4 has pulled a controversial episode of The IT Crowd from its streaming platform after “numerous complaints about transphobia”. and After years of complaints from trans people and allies, Channel 4 has finally removed the episode from its streaming platform – and it’s safe to say creator Graham Linehan is not impressed.
• ScreenRant - With a growing trend of violence against trans women, audiences started to speak out against the episode which trivializes the issue for cheap laughs. Channel 4 decided to pull this IT Crowd episode from their streaming service in 2020 after numerous complaints about the blatant transphobia it displayed.
• The Independent - The IT Crowd star, Matt Berry, has commented on a controversial episode of the show that many labelled “transphobic”.
• NME - An episode of The IT Crowd has been pulled from Channel 4’s catch-up service All 4 after it was widely condemned as transphobic.

In addition, here's an extract from Graham's Substack:

A week or so ago, I got a letter from Channel 4 telling me they were taking the episode down as part of a wider effort of ‘cleaning house’ of ideologically incorrect content. “Specific to this conversation is the IT Crowd episode, The Speech, which has, over recent months had numerous complaints about transphobia.” Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I think "widely" is a bit of a dubious term, to be honest - it's not obvious if it means, say, five sources or hundreds, and it may imply a consensus that doesn't exist.

It's clearer to the reader if we instead get specific. The sources actually given there say that Channel 4 received "numerous complaints about the episode". So why not report that? Channel 4 received numerous complaints saying the episode was transphobic.

I hope it goes without saying that we can't use Linehan's substack as a source. Popcornfud (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware we can't use Linehan's blog as a source, even for statements of WP:ABOUTSELF it is inherently of questionable quality. However it is nonetheless interesting in context. If Graham wanted to downplay the response to the episode, why parrot the words of Channel 4 in their decision to remove it from their streaming service?

Re: The sources actually given there say that Channel 4 received "numerous complaints about the episode". The only sources that actually say that are; PinkNews in their headline, ScreenRant, and Graham on his blog. All of whom are either quoting the Channel 4 decision (PinkNews & Graham) or paraphrasing it (ScreenRant). For sources that use their own voice, The Independent use many labelled “transphobic”, NME use widely condemned as transphobic.

Accordingly I think we're fine to keep using widely, given that we have sources that use that term in their own voice. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think we need to attribute it at all. By my reading of the Irish times source, Linehan himself says that her reaction was intended to be transphobic; he just distinguishes between the character's views and his own: After it aired, he was called a bigot on Twitter. Linehan distinguishes between the character, who is transphobic, and calling the episode, or himself, transphobic. So the fact that the character was transphobic seems uncontroversial. --Aquillion (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Still not sure what's meant by "widely", I'd rather be specific instead of vague. It seems to have been from Twitter accounts as the article currently says, but if it was some other source specify that. As for the character, I don't think we can say for a fact in Wikipedia's voice that his reaction was transphobic, given it doesn't meet that definition anywhere except very far left online circles. Wojacks (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

It meets the definition used by The Irish Times, which (unless you have another source disagreeing with them) is all that we care about. And, as I pointed out, the wording in the Irish Times indicates that Linehan intended for the character to be transphobic - see the excerpt I pointed out above: After it aired, he was called a bigot on Twitter. Linehan distinguishes between the character, who is transphobic, and calling the episode, or himself, transphobic. I'm simply not seeing any indication that whether the character was transphobic is a point of contention. If you want to be more cautious towards Linehan we could include his argument that the character's views do not reflect his own, but nobody in RSes seems to be arguing that the character was not transphobic, and both Linehan and the Irish Times seem to be acknowledging it. I think Cromwell's rule applies here - if both Linehan and the Irish Times agree that the character's portrayal was transphobic, and your only answer to that is your personal feeling that that definition of transphobia only reflects "the very far left", it is possible that your understanding of how the term is used today might simply be wrong. --Aquillion (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Am I wrong, because of this one source that probably didn't pay attention to the details of the episode? Again, I've never seen a definition of transphobic that says not wanting to date somebody because they're trans is transphobic, certainly doesn't say it in any dictionary or the Wikipedia article on transphobia. If we're going by public opinion I'm guessing less than 10% of people think so. Wojacks (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

What's confusing you about "widely"? It's what the sources say. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I like the rewording, it's clearer. It doesn't water down the transphobia. Rankersbo (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Aquillion: my point is that the character's transphobia is not really related to why the episode is transphobic. It is only Linehan's contention that this was the reason for backlash, and not either of the primary reasons. — Bilorv (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Because "widely" makes it seem a lot bigger than some Twitter accounts, which apparently is what the sources are going by, so if it was just some Twitter accounts we should just say that. Wojacks (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I mean... it's what the sources directly say. And your personal opinion that it's "just some tweets" isn't really borne out by the facts. For instance, The Independent, which is a RS, calls it a transphobic episode of The IT Crowd in the article voice; Screenrant says that Channel 4 decided to pull this IT Crowd episode from their streaming service in 2020 after numerous complaints about the blatant transphobia it displayed and refers to While some fans look back fondly on the show's best episodes, the ugly transphobia at the heart of "The Speech" has tainted its legacy in the eyes of many. The Telegraph says Linehan became embroiled in the trans debate after a 2013 episode of The IT Crowd was criticised for transphobic jokes. Attributing it as a widespread opinion (as the more cautiously-worded sources do) is already us being cautious compared to sources like the one I listed. --Aquillion (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I mean is the point that the episode was bad, or that being criticised over it was a factor that led to him down his current path. Rankersbo (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

In those quotes I don't see anything to justify "widely". Wojacks (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

JFC. Too bad. You keep using these words, "widely" and "vague". I do not think these words mean what you think they mean. Our sources say "widely", so we say widely. We do not assume they are wrong, because we don't like the implication. Sorry if this comes across as snarky, but really, read WP:NPOV and WP:V. What we have here is attributed, balanced, and due for inclusion. We've wasted enough time on this and there's a very clear consensus for inclusion. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Undid the edit, there's not a consensus, there's several disputes about different subjects, whether "widely" is appropriate as well as how to summarise what happens in the episode. And as far as I can tell only one source said "widely"? Also the edit was incorrect regarding what happened in the episode. The character in question doesn't react with violence to the trans character after finding out, the trans character reacts with violence after being dumped. Wojacks (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Wojacks: there is, as Bastun has said, a very clear consensus for inclusion of the content you keep removing. Do not remove this again without firmly establishing a consensus amongst the editors active on this page. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Wojacks: there is clearly consensus here. Please don't revert against it. If you truly feel otherwise, start an WP:RFC, but judging by this discussion you will not get the satisfaction you want. Just let it go. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest Wojacks reads WP:DROPTHESTICK. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Throughout the series the character was also shown to be deeply misogynistic as a comic device lampooning masculine small-mindedness. I don’t recall much uproar about that and I see all those episodes remain available for streaming. 82.12.129.134 (talk) 07:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I think whether or not the episode was transphobic or not is irrelevant, we're not the arbiters of that. We can only summarise the commentary made, not do our own analysis. What's relevant is that it was criticised, how it was criticised, and that the criticism was engaged with by the writer. Rankersbo (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Linehan's solicitor

I don't think this quite qualifies for a {{Press}} or a {{Connected contributor}}, but Linehan told GB News: [Wikipedia] has very heavily biased moderators [sic]. My solicitor tried to change an edit from anti-trans to pro-feminist and it was changed back within 15 minutes. So well done to us for reverting undisclosed paid editing within the hour. Let's hope Linehan quickly realised that flagrant violations of our community-written rules will not have his desired outcome. — Bilorv (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm guessing the solicitor was the IP behind this edit, but the same person might have been among the SPAs that repeated similar edits afterwards. I suppose we may never know the extent of this, but my intuition even before reading this section was that people quite close to Linehan were making COI edits today. It is pleasant to have one's presuppositions explicitly confirmed, at least for one instance. Newimpartial (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

As the GB News piece was from the end of April, I'm not so sure if the current set of editors who were being disruptive were connected to Linehan in some way, or if they were perhaps just followers of his blog who spotted an opportunity. At least we'll have some relief for the next twelve months now that protection is restored. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2022

Change "is an Irish television writer and anti-transgender activist" to "is an Irish anti-transgender activist and former television writer". 86.19.241.1 (talk) 06:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this has been discussed on the talk page before, most recently here, but lacks consensus. Edit requests are for uncontroversial changes or changes with already established consensus. — Bilorv (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

References

anti-transgender activist

Surely this needs to be re-worded? He is [anti] [transgender activists], not an [anti transgender] [activist] i.e. he is not anti transgender people, he is anti the activists! This is proven when the article expands to "He argues that transgender activism".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcclh (talk • contribs) 16:49, July 27, 2022 (UTC)

Please see the archives, this has been discussed thoroughly. Consensus of reliable sources is that he is anti-transgender, not just anti-activism. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)