Talk:Graham Linehan/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

The Day Today

He's also in a edition of The Day Today, in the "Sorted" section.

IT Crowd

Removed the phrase "family friendly"; most episodes are unsuitable for under-12s.

Linehan's quote that the show "contains no strong language or violence" presumably implies that any swearing or violence is mild (e.g. "I've got shit on my face!") rather than strong (i.e. "fuck"). Most of the first series episodes received BBFC 12 certificates (although the DVD had a 15 certificate, presumably down to extras). Mrstonky 04:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Year of birth

Changed it from 1969 to 1968, since this is what he states in his own blog: Why, Thats Delightful! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.39.254.238 (talk) 11:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Atheism

Added category- Irish atheists. Reference- article from Graham Linehan's blog, last line, "I think it’s a bad moment for atheists. We don’t come out of this one smelling good at all." IrishPete (talk) 04:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

List of TV/film/stage scripts?

Most of Linehan's written output has been TV/film/stage scripts. As a writer, he is primarily a dramatist. But such work have no heading under his works in the article. Anybody? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 08:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality of social media section

Editors of the article's social media section have been less than punctilious in adhering to WP:BLP constraints, especially in citing dubious sources. Editors should be alert to potential violations of WP:NPOV here. KalHolmann (talk) 03:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

A blog at Medium by a self-described "LGBTQ+ Rights Activist and Anti-Racist Feminist" is not a WP:RS. It is her singular opinion, nothing more. KalHolmann (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Can you honestly find no third-party published reliable source reporting that Graham Linehan is a transphobe? KalHolmann (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Honestly? No. This isn't an issue that has been reported on, so of course: I cannot find a third-party published reliable source reporting that Graham Linehan is a transphobe. I can only show you him calling gender reassignment surgery 'mutilation' which I confidently believe to be transphobia whichever way you cut it. With respect this really seems like you are jumping through hoops to avoid discussing something which is very present in Graham Linehan's daily dialogue, and relevant to the discussion. I'd have liked to help so that this relevant feature about Graham Linehan could be included on his wiki page - but appreciate you're unwilling to let that happen. ChungusConsulting (talk) 02:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I hope we can find a way to write about this. It feels relevant to me, in that I see LGBTQ+ writers and activists posting examples of his transphobia constantly on Twitter. It's well-known and well-documented, but because there's not a lot of visibility for the community in traditional press, and there's a generalized disdain for social media, it doesn't fit neatly into WP:RS (from what I can tell). But people do know what they're talking about - and multiple verified users have pointed to Linehan's transphobia (search "linehan transphobia" and you'll see blue checkmarks as you scroll). A lot of marginalized communities organize and publicize primarily on social media for understandable reasons, and I'm not really happy with removing what is a big part of his online and social presence (he argues with trans activists all the time, and has an outsized impact on the UK trans community in particular) from the article. If we can't reference his (well-documented, clear) transphobia in any way that's considered reliable, would it be acceptable to make a simple statement of fact that he considers "TERF" to be a slur (search "terf from:glinner" on Twitter, for example) and actively defends a trans-exclusive definition of womanhood? That would convey important information about his transphobia to readers well-versed enough to pick up on it, though it's not as clear and direct as I would prefer. KingHanksley (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • [Parker Molloy] has a recent Twitter thread documenting Linehan's transphobia. I can't link out to Twitter from here but you can find it on her timeline with the first posted dated June 13th. KingHanksley (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Policy applies

Folks, I appreciate that there are many folks that find this guy's political opinions to be quite distasteful. I don't like them myself. What I can stand up for is the core policies of Wikipedia - the most important of which are WP:V and WP:BLP. You can't go interpreting stuff and conclude he's guilty of things - like has happened on this page today - that's WP:SYN. This isn't a gossip page - it's an encyclopedia.

I've opened a request on WP:BLPN to ensure that additional eyes help keep this on an even keel. Toddst1 (talk) 02:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Would it be better to say 'allegedly'? The source we use certainly doesn't mince words, or describe it as 'making comments'. A description of 'making comments' seems to push too far the other way, and would be misleading- I'd prefer the content kept out rather than use that euphemistic phrasing. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment, but that is table stakes. Adding to the article that someone has "been reported to the police" for doing something is textbook hearsay even if the press reports it. I could report anyone commenting on this page to my local police tipline and then report that I did so to to the press (don't confuse that with WP:NLT - it is explicitly not) and "allegedly" wouldn't help. This is an encyclopedia after all. Toddst1 (talk) 03:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Is there a level of coverage at which the reason for the caution should be described? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
That's one of the best questions I've seen on a talk page. I'll have to think about that but I wanted to acknowledge that! Toddst1 (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Did he ever answer this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.152.234 (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't think "He has been an opponent of transgender rights" is a fair or accurate reading. Its obviously loaded, and we would need multiple sources saying this to include something like that. Ceoil (talk) 07:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Arguing with an individual activist does not make one "an opponent of transgender rights" and a warning from a police officer is not a formal police caution. At the moment I'm not convinced that any of this is worth including, but if it is included it needs to be done with great care. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
He's very far from "arguing with an individual activist"; he's been laying into trans people from every conceivable angle for weeks and weeks. That said, this stuff needs to be documented and verifiable before it can go on the 'pedia. Vashti (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Most of the reliable sources only refer to Stephanie Hayden in any detail [1] [2] [3] though there are some very brief mentions of a wider context [4]. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Opposition to transgender rights

Here's something else on him, from a source with a Wikipedia article no less (Gay Star News) - No, bi people are not ‘appropriating gay culture’

Not transphobia, but very closely related 195.147.228.111 (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Please don't delete things from the talk page discussing why facts backed by sources keep getting removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.20.60 (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Please see your talk page. Poorly sourced potentially libelous material will be removed from the article and/or the talk page per WP:BLP. Toddst1 (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Should we add something about his campaign to get funding removed from a children's charity? It's been covered by Pink News. https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/12/17/big-lottery-fund-grant-mermaids/ 92.13.111.119 (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

why are linehan's opinions on trans people not touched on at all in this article?

his (exclusionary) stance on trans people is basically his entire social media presence at this point. several sources have confirmed he has received a formal warning from the police regarding his social media activity.

discussing this isn't libellous. libel implies a false statement. —mountainhead / ? 15:07, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussing per WP:BLPTALK. Posting the material here is not cool. Toddst1 (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I've added what appears to be a neutral statement of fact, supported by a seemingly reliable source. Toddst1 (talk) 20:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

sources found

I found several sources that back up the claims against Linehan transphobia.

Source 1: He's in a legal matter surrounding his transphobic tweets [5]

Source 2: He has even made transphobic statements through his work, such as an episode in the IT-Crowd, and regret some of the stuff he's said and how he portrayed trans people. [6]

Source 3: He has been criticised by other actors for his transphobia [7]

Source 4: He's getting more known for his transphobic slurs and harassment than his actual work [8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatitudinem (talk • contribs) 16:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure sources 3 & 4 are enough to support your claims that preceed them. "Reports to police" are typically not included as anyone can be reported for anything. Per WP:BLP, pending legal actions or allegations must be handled carefully. I could report you for Jay-walking even if I don't see it happen. That doesn't mean you are involved in a legal matter. Toddst1 (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the legal matter can be implemented after it's done. If the police ignores it, it might not be noteworthy enough for mention. But if there's an investigation, then it should most definitely get a notice in the social media section. I also read an article that he closed his twitter account after all the fuzz, if that's any interesting. Beatitudinem (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
WP:DAILYMAIL should not be used, BTW. Toddst1 (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Commenting since I seem to have got involved in this. Sources 1 and 2 are not reliable enough to use (the Daily Mail and a blog). Sources 3 and 4 look better but I agree with Toddst1 that they are not that great. I think that for making such a serious claim about a living person we'd want multiple, more mainstream sources; WP:BLP says If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. Wham2001 (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Toddst1: Just to say, as a former admin of English Wikipedia, I'd expect you to know that WP:BLPCRIME does NOT include already well known public figures: "This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN." Linehan is clearly outside of the scope of WP:BLPCRIME, and it is a known fact at this point that Mr Linehan WAS reported to the police over his behaviour on Twitter, which is the only thing the subsequently reverted edit by the IP user stated. Eilidhmax (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry - even (former) admins don't know every nuance of every rule. WP:BLP and more specifically, WP:WELLKNOWN apply with the same effect. WP:BLP says If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out Toddst1 (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I am in agreement with Toddst1 on this, BLP exists for this almost textbook reason. The burden is multiple reliable third-party sources. Especially important is recientism; we are not an aggregate of up to the minute blog or red top news posts. Ceoil (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
It's also been reported in the Times, which I defy anyone to say is not an RS. I also expect various journalists in the Times and Speccie are going to use this as further proof of SJW snowflake no platforming crypto-Nazi trans activists in the coming days. Sceptre (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
That's very interesting, I didn't think the police were actually going to take this to the level of actually contacting him, let alone paying him a visit. This is also no longer a debate about not having enough reliable, third party sources, we have that covered. It's about whether this belongs in the article. And looking at a lot of the other content in this Wikipedia article, I do believe there is room for his transphobia, especially after all the media coverage he got, and the fact that he was warned by the local authorities over his behaviour. Beatitudinem (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree, FWIW. To the extent reliable sources document, this needs to be covered. Vashti (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 controversies

I've removed two sentences from the end of the personal life section in this diff. Whilst Pink News appears to be a reasonable publication it has a fairly strong POV, such that I am not comfortable with controversial statements such as these being sourced to it with no other references. A quick trawl with google suggested that the only coverage of these incidents in more mainstream publications was opinion pieces; [9] and [10] were the best that I could find for the Mermaids event. I don't see sufficient sourcing here for a BLP, but I'd appreciate others' views. Wham2001 (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Addition of Controversies section, with the Charity Stream.

This seems like it's going to only get bigger as the media picks up on it, it's also a controversial issue which is being edited a lot, with some vandalism being mixed in with genuine additions and recording of the events. I think this needs to stay on but I can understand the frustration of the vandalism, is it possible to keep in the more serious stuff after it calms down?

Again, I'm not sure how wikipedia works, and big ups to you all for looking after a page that has suddenly become very controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.250.228.219 (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

My previous understanding was that wikipedia does not support controversies sections on pages of living people, but looking at a few other pages, like Katie Hopkins, it seems this isn't so. Perhaps not policy any more?Wikiditm (talk) 09:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah a lot of notable people have controversy pages, again I'm not a wikipedia editor only a user but it seems fine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.250.228.219 (talk) 10:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm the one who added the section. I would have put it under personal life, but I didn't feel like it ray fit. On that note, I think much of the late stuff in Personal Life would be better suited to a controversies section. Given Linehan's positions I think it's fair to call him a controversial public figure, and much of the discussion around and involving him at the moment involves or centres on his views on trans people, so a section dedicated to that might be more appropriate than tagging it on the end of personal life. OCuin (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

"Transgender rights"

Onetwothreeip replaced the heading "Transphobia" with "Transgender rights" saying "Neutral heading". [11]

I don't believe the new header is more neutral. In fact I would argue that it's whitewashing.

- "In August 2018, Linehan said the anti-transgender protesters at London Pride were "heroes", and that transgender women were "erasing" cis lesbians." This does not mention rights, only his support for a hate group.

- "In October 2018, Linehan was issued with a Police Information Notice under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 for alleged harassment and divulging of private personal information against Stephanie Hayden, a transgender woman he had been engaged in a discussion with on Twitter. Linehan alleged that Hayden revealed his contact information as well." This does not mention rights, only harassment.

- "In December 2018, Linehan compared transgender rights to Nazism, 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?"" This one is indeed about rights.

- "Linehan later criticised the PinkNews ongoing coverage of his comments, saying "when a magazine purportedly for gay people, collaborates in homosexual erasure by indulging the straight fantasy that men can be lesbians, something has gone deeply wrong."" Again, this is not about rights. Telling trans women they're men is just plain old harassment.

- "In January 2019, Linehan's comments and behaviour towards transgender people and transgender rights led to a 57-hour fundraising livestream on Twitch organised by YouTuber Hbomberguy (Harry Brewis) which raised over US$340,000 (£264,000) for the transgender support services charity Mermaids UK." This one does indeed mention rights, but as far as I'm aware, Mermaids doesn't actually lobby on rights issues.

- "Linehan had previously lobbied via the blog Mumsnet to have a £500,000 grant from the Big Lottery Fund (BLF) revoked, a campaign which saw the BLF announce they were "re-considering" their decision to give the charity the grant." This one also is not about rights. He's campaigning to have the funding removed from a charity which helps trans children transition. This just hurts trans people, it doesn't impact our rights.

4.5 of the above are hate with no mention of rights while only 1.5 are related to rights.

As such, calling this section "Transgender rights" is misleading the reader as to what the content is, and perhaps giving a whitewashed image of what he's actually doing - he's not making legal arguments about trans rights (at least not as far as this section goes), he's just harassing people and promoting hate.

@Onetwothreeip:

--Wickedterrier (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern here, I agree that we can do better than the current heading that I changed it to. It is important that we stay neutral about Linehan's issues with transgender people here, and let the audience come to a conclusion about his statements and activities. Calling him transphobic isn't appropriate here, but it's appropriate for us to say that he is widely considered to be transphobic. Overall the heading is not that important as long as it doesn't come to a conclusion, since the body of the section will detail, and I changed it hastily without thinking of a good heading because it was inappropriate to keep the one that was there. I will now be changing the heading to "anti-transgender activism", and I hope this would be an agreeable heading for all. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
That's definitely a better title. However, as 2.28.92.13 points out "Bigotry is not activism".[12] So I wonder if "activism" is still being too charitable. I'd be happy to leave it as it is now - as "Anti-transgender activity". --Wickedterrier (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Here's a new article from The Daily Dot which discusses Linehan's transphobia - ‘IT Crowd’ creator says women can’t ‘nut,’ and women beg to differ. Leading sentence: "The IT Crowd creator Graham Linehan has soured his reputation over the past year thanks to his rampant transphobia. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Anti-transgender activity [sic]

No context here, it's written as if we should be aware of these protesters (?) at London pride. Until now we were reading about a comedy writer. It reads as if it has been shoe-horned in by a trans activist using Linehan's article as a WP:COATRACK. Having looked at some better sources than PinkNews (with all due respect to PinkNews) the protests were feminists who think they should have "sex-based" protections ie. women-only spaces to stop intact males pretending to be women then raping people in women's prisons, cheating at women's sports etc. etc. I don't think we should be taking a side in this dispute but it behoves us to accurately describe both sides of it.


Stephanie Hayden appears to be a serial complainer/publicity-seeker who has had numerous other people wearily 'warned' by the police and is now threatening to sue Mumsnet (or is bragging about it on Twitter, at any rate). I think we need to state that her "civil proceedings" against Linehan were ultimately withdrawn. Anyway, this paragraph doesn't even reflect the dispute. Anyone who clapped eyes on Stephanie would be in no doubt as to her transgender status. The crux of her withdrawn complaint seemed to be that Linehan deliberately "misgendered" and "dead-named" her by talking about some of her pre-transition antics. Linehan neatly summarised the dispute himself.


Again we'll need to look beyond PinkNews, and try to balance this out a bit. Linehan also has his supporters who see him as courageous for standing up to his noisy detractors, the (in his words) "Woke Stasi" on Twitter. He doesn't agree with chemically and/or surgically 'transing' pre-pubescent children. He doesn't agree that lesbians should be labelled 'transphobic' if they're not sexually interested in male bodies. He doesn't want males to 'self-ID' their way into legally-protected female spaces then rape them or cheat them out of their sporting achievements. We may not agree with all these views but they do exist outside of Linehan in a recognisable, current intellectual space. To my mind they are not particularly fringe or extreme, as seems to be implied by the article in its current form.


Again this seems like publicity-seeking, of tangential relevance to Linehan. If we must have it in the article we'd need a better source. We'd also need to properly outline his beef with Mermaids UK. Recent articles in The Times may facilitate this rather than recourse to sub-par, biased drivel such as 'The Daily Dot' and 'PinkNews'. Linehan went on RTÉ to articulate his views, despite unsuccessful attempts to deplatform him, and gave extended interviews in the Irish Times and Irish Independent.

All in all this section is too long, unnecessarily diffuse, inadequately sourced, and currently reads like a personal attack on Linehan. Let's get back to basics and simply state his views and the response to them. If you're not here to build an encyclopedia but want to be a 'trans activist' then unfortunately you are likely to be disappointed with the outcome and may wish to get a blog or head back to Twitter. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Using an opinion piece to say that 'transgender activists [...] made various unsuccessful attempts to censor him' and not including anything about Linehan's transphobia, such as the police caution, is not including material from our sources in a balanced way. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Linehan explicitly says he is not transphobic. It's not our place to say that he is, allegations like that would need to be properly attributed (and not to a single issue tabloid-style blog like PinkNews). I am disappointed that you and another editor have removed the NPOV template, taken out high quality sources from The Guardian, Irish Times and Irish Independent and edit-warred back in the poorly-sourced, problematic material, complete with a personal attack in the edit summary! I am reluctant to balance out the existing section because it is already grossly disproportionate to the guy's 25-year career as a writer. Perhaps we should look at WP:RFC as a way forward? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@Bring back Daz Sampson: "Linehan explicitly says he is not transphobic. It's not our place to say that he is" We do not say anywhere in the article that Linehan is transphobic... PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
You just said we need to include material about his transphobia? Like the reported "police caution" which the source makes clear was not actually a police caution. Honestly, 90% of this tendentious WP:COATRACK, WP:ATP, WP:NPOV drivel needs to go in the bin. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@Bring back Daz Sampson: Sure, and we are including material about his transphobia, which is distinct from calling him a transphobe. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Bring back Daz Sampson: whilst I share some of your discomfort about the section as it currently stands and how its weight compares to Linehan's rather more notable career in comedy, BLP protects Hayden as well, and applies on talk pages as well as in articles. I don't think criticism of her is necessary to decide what we should say about Linehan's activities.
May I suggest that we might start by assembling the highest-quality available sources on the topic, and seeing what they say? My thoughts on those currently in the article are as follows: I would rate The Sunday Times and The Guardian as suitable to use in a BLP. I am less happy with PinkNews which doesn't seem to be at the WP:BLPSOURCES level. Metro shouldn't be used as a source anywhere IMO and certainly not here. I don't know much about Newsweek or iNews. The National Lottery source is clearly primary and hence not suitable. I don't have time to do a web trawl now but might do later in the week, or somebody else could? Wham2001 (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes on reflection you're right about that - sorry - I've redacted that bit. As above I did find some better sources, only for them to be swiftly reverted out in favour of the weak/tendentious sources, which I found frustrating. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC about the transgender section

The consensus is that the "Anti-transgender activity" section is fine in its current form.

Cunard (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is this section in its current form WP:UNDUE? Is it still "less than punctilious in adhering to WP:BLP constraints, especially in citing dubious sources. Editors should be alert to potential violations of WP:NPOV here"? (h/t User:KalHolmann) Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

If you think Linehan has clarified or changed his views, that is something we can add into the article. It doesn't mean we would remove what is already there. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
We have to remove it, if it's breaching policy and/or irredeemably rubbish. Per WP:BLPREMOVE. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
What in the article is incorrect? Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the article presents an extremely neutral and brief summary of some very extreme activity on Linehan's part. What are your specific criticisms of the article content? Vashti (talk) 06:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I am seeing coverage of newsworthy and widely reported topics, sourced to multiple reliable sources. Really not seeing the issue here, or the need for an RFC. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses guys, but since you have presided over the article getting into it's current abysmal state, I'm not surprised that you are still studiously ignoring the detailed objections outlined above. The purpose of the RfC is to hopefully get some balanced opinions from people more interested in building an encyclopedia than bashing Graham Linehan. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
You asked a question. You got some answers. WP:AGF. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Seems fine as is to me as well. If I had a suggestion for changing it it would be to include a summary and make some paragraphs instead of just listing quotes, but I don't see a WP:UNDUE or WP:BLP issue here. LokiTheLiar (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
What I am seeing here is some distinct aggression, and it all seems to be one-sided. Bring back Daz Sampson, I understand that you feel the page is not neutral and I believe you want to improve it, but I think you would make more progress if you stopped accusing other editors of being tendentious and of editing in bad faith. Vashti (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Support current text (via FRS) - Reading the article, the section appears to neutrally present the information and avoid editorializing. If there are other issues that have received RS coverage that are not adequately covered, please ping me with them or expand the article to include them. StudiesWorld (talk) 09:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Strongly oppose current text It is highly POV and misleading, focusing on a few incidents out of context, without the slightest explanation of his views or the wider debate they are part of. It is essentially a hatchet job. Mezigue (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Support current text: It is not WP:UNDUE. It is adhering to NPOV. It's just a summary of his activities and each claim is sourced. If you want to challenge a specific claim for accuracy, challenging an entire section is not the way to do it. As has been said before, if there's new updates, those can be added. But as to what's already there, perhaps objections should be raised on a claim by claim basis. Otherwise, I don't see a problem. Disagree with Mezigue. It's not POV and trying to add "context and explanation" to his views would, on the other hand, be WP:UNDUE. It would be like if he were a flat-earther and it was argued that all his 'theories" and explanations should be added for balance. Usedtobecool (talk) 07:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Support current text It's not WP:UNDUE because anti-transgender activities compromise a significant portion of Linehan's current activities. Furthermore, the variety of news stories about these activities demonstrates that they are noteworthy. Additionally, I think the article is adhering to NPOV: it merely states the facts of what's happening. It's true that it lacks all the context that these activities are occurring in, but it's not in the scope of this article to rehash all that. The section should link to transphobia to provide this context. 李艾连 (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Current text seems fine; there are enough sources for a section and the text seems neutral. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Support current text His views and actions regarding the topic have been widely covered in news sources, as the citations show. William Avery (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)

Support updated text. I added a (hopefully neutral) paragraph to this section yesterday without having seen the talk page, to open with a general overview of Linehan's position, which was sorely lacking. The previous version, a jumbled timeline of quotes (it mentions his supporting some lesbian protestors two paragraphs before any context for why he might do that), wasn't helpful to someone unfamiliar with Linehan's thoughts on the subject. The IT Crowd backstory needs more context (was the trans character a sympathetic portrayal, a punchline, or what?), but I couldn't find a neutral summary of it and don't remember the episode. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Update: It seems it is not only transvestite 'activists' baying for Linehan's blood. He is also embroiled in a similar feud, this time with a Sieg Heiling dog. In light of this perhaps we should cobble together a fresh paragraph or seven of Linehan-bashing, pinned to some execrable tabloid/blog sources? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Calling transgender people transvestites has really just made your position and your intentions obvious. Do you intend to stop raising these issues now? Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Like 99% of visitors to this article I am an interested layperson with no specialist knowledge of 'trans' issues. No offence intended, but I don't really care about them either. You obviously do, but this isn't the forum for that. I just want to read about the article subject without having to wade through reams of badly-written, biased drivel making a mockery of our BLP policy. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I would agree that you don't have specialist knowledge, but it's clearly of strong interest to you. I don't have any specific interest in transgender issues. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Also agree you don't have knowledge, and that you have a clear bias. Can we get this RfC closed, now - it's been over 30 days and there's a clear consensus for retention of the current text. 100%, bar the proposer. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
With all due respect, Bastun, users describing the text as "sorely lacking", "jumbled", "a hatchet job" etc. are not 100% in support of it. I'll assume you are not deliberately peddling falsehoods, so you must have some fairly serious comprehension issues. I think I'll downgrade the value of your repeated contributions accordingly. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah, yes, sorry - I missed the one editor apart from yourself who opposed the original text. And yes, one other editor saw a "sorely lacking" omission - and made useful additions, without needing to remove anything else. Guess that makes me 66% incompetent all right... :eyeroll: BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NPOV Dispute

This page is clearly biased against Linehan, be it intentional or not. Having an opinion on social politics and hating a group people are not necesarilythe same thing. Though it is implied here that it is. As an example, if someone feels that money should not be given to cancer research, that does not mean he hates everyone who gets cancer. His views are misrepresented here, even if some of them may be misplaced in a progressive society. Also, it is not emphasized that this all started with him defending himself against public social media attacks based on an episode of TV he wrote about a decade before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netherhero (talk • contribs) 02:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Netherhero: What changes would you make to make it less biased? PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
The facts of the issue are laid out and referenced and state Linehan's position, including quotes. The very first sentence of the section in question references the IT Crowd and earlier in the article it states this series began in 2006. That all seems fairly neutral and well balanced. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I have read a good deal about this matter. I have enough information to know that what is written about him here, are only the facts which show him in a negative light. However I do NOT have enough information to write an entire article, but unfortunately neither did the person who addressed the gender issues on this page. The original posters should fix it to let the facts speak for themselves, rather than making them say what they want people to hear. If people want to leave a biased article up, I'm not going to try to stop them, I just saw something that I felt needed to be challenged, so I did. Netherhero (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@Netherhero: In the absence of any specific complaints, is it okay if I remove the tag? PeterTheFourth (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
My complaint is that the information presents a biased perspective. There is not a single piece of information showing Linehan from a perspective which is not in line with his "twitter enemies" . The tag should stay until someone changes that. People should be warned of biased information, so there is no reason for the tag not to be there. Netherhero (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
As you're unable to present a single example of content that violates WP:POV, I've removed the tag. --Wickedterrier (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I was unaware Wikipedia was a Stalinist dictatorship

All editors are equal but some are clearly more 'equal' than others. WQUlrich's blatant ability to control and puppet like an MI5 black propagandist exactly what is or is not kosher for this page is downright absurd and the reasons he gives for reverting my edit are also completely nonsensical and based on total lies. Linehan's quotes and his reasons for opposing sexual reassignment surgery and shared restrooms have been repeatedly sourced throughout the article, not to mention its side-effects being observable scientific facts regardless of Linehan's opinions. The quote from mumsnet on his opposition to Mermaids UK was directly sourced from the preceding citation and the outrageously subjective statement that "the previous version was "clearer"" is an obvious WP:POVPUSH in order to keep a false, one-sided narrative present in the article to WP:CHERRYPICK sensationalist quotes from Linehan whilst ignoring the quotes that soberly outline his perspectives on the debate to misrepresent him to the reader as a lunatic bigot and not allow them to see his side of the story. Not to mention that telling the reader that Linehan refusing to call a male-to-female transgender by feminine pronouns is somehow LESS WP:CLARITY than filling the article with WP:FRINGE jargon about "Deadnaming" and "Misgendering", words completely invented out of thin air by the transgender movement to demonize and make Eleusinian Mysteries out of innocuous and easily understandable things. This is a clear example of extreme Transgenderist bias and uneven political vetoing power on a supposedly neutral Wikipedia article in violation of practically every single clause Wikipedia has. PowerOfGinger (talk) 07:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The article is clearly biased against Linehan and the language - particularly the subject heading "Anti-transgender activism" - violates WP:NPOV. I agree with you that those who personally dislike Linehan and his views should not be solely in charge of determining what is allowed in this article, and it appears that they are.
Having said that, you automatically lose any internet argument when you accuse your opponent of being Stalin (or Hitler, or an 'M15 black propagandist, for that matter'). That kind of angry hyperbole is never helpful to any debate, and makes it much harder to take your POV seriously. Lilipo25 (talk) 08:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Hyperbole, much? You seem to be on a mission. WP:NOTHERE. You also seem remarkably familiar with policy and guideline pages for someone with only 6 edits... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Apologies for the indent. You are correct, that was done in error. Mea culpa. Lilipo25 (talk) 10:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a political battleground

. Linehan's criticism of transgenderism is not controversial or fringecruft at all, in fact the concept of "Sexual Reassignment Surgery" - essentially genital mutilation, chemical castration and artificial destruction of the human endocrine system - that many people who campaign for "trans rights" want as valid treatment for gender disassociation is what's actually controversial. The concept of "transphobia" itself as a factor of significance on wikipedia is WP:BIAS and WP:FRINGE, similar to labelling criticism of Muslim societies or Islam as a religion as "Islamophobia".

Linehan is a Comedian, this article should function as an article of Graham Linehan the COMEDIAN not give a huge fifth of the article to angry ramblings about his tweets on transgenderism. The segment "Anti-Transgender Activism" should be relabelled "Opinions on transgenderism" and heavily cut down relative to WP:WEIGHT . SillyString999 (talk) 09:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Why are you so afraid of his very public political positions being documented? Hmmm. I wonder. Also "transgenderism" lol. No bias here, obviously. 72.181.99.6 (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
[citation needed] Vashti (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I saw this and made a similar subhead edit and one or two others. It read as distinctly POV to me so I've toned down the commentary without deleting anything. 82.71.12.56 (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
There are several sections above where these issues have been addressed by multiple editors, and the consensus is that the current (restored) version is neutral and accurate. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
It clearly doesn't read neutral. It sounds like Wikipedia siding on the complex debate about trans-activism with the activists who want to tar any concern about self-ID and it's impact on women's spaces, child transitioning or gender binaries, as transphobic. If an article is going to touch on deeply complex issues which require a reader some knowledge of the debate to recognize that an at first seemingly abhorrent phobic opinion can have rational, liberal and inclusive roots, then the article needs to either make that clear or provide links to elsewhere on wiki or the wider internet for further reading.
This article makes Linehan sound like just any old transphobe/homophobe. Yet further reading reveals so many layers to the issue, not to mention further background into the Twitter row, that leaves one with a completely different impression - i.e. Linehan is well-meaning and his issue does not come from some distaste or aversion to people who transition. I'd suggest if a Wikipedia article is at odds with the deeper reality, then Wikipedia is not much better than a tabloid. 46.233.116.222 (talk)
You're obviously a big fan. But misgendering people, deadnaming them, doxing them - these are all well referenced. Nowhere in the article does it state that his issue comes from distate or aversion to people who transition. This Wikipedia article is in accordance with reliable published sources. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
The section as it currently appears is neutral, well-sourced, includes Linehan's responses via secondary sources where possible. It's good. If you end up feeling like the section makes Linehan seem transphobic, then maybe that's just because he is?Wikiditm (talk) 07:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Probably one of the best thing to learn is that vile, abusive and harmful speech aimed at minority groups is not justified just because you think you are right - and whether or not Linehan is right is a matter for protracted debate. Vashti (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
The best thing to learn, actually, is that those "minority groups" you speak of are a miniscule proportion of people campaigning for the legal right to share bathrooms with little girls and to have children with mental disorders castrated and deformed for life with Puberty blocking hormone injections that cause brain damage have recently been proven to have killed thousands of people, not some farcical notion of an oppressed people huddled about a campfire on a cold Auschwitz morning that ""trans rights"" activists falsely portray themselves as in order to mine pity for a crybullying campaign against the sane few who criticise them and want to protect women and children. Again, this is WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and the concept of """"deadnaming"""" and """misgendering""" is pure Trans Rights WP:FRINGE jargon nonsense and belongs nowhere in a sensible Wikipedia article. PowerOfGinger (talk) 07:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Wow, you really went full mask-off with your hatred of trans people there. Cool. 72.181.99.6 (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
They're both long gone. Learn from my error, let it go. :-) Vashti (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
You are aware that there are time stamps on everything, so anyone who actually cares to look can see that you have carried on and on deleting all sourced material that didn't trash the subject, making libelous statements in the edit history comments and arguing on this page until everyone ELSE just walked away and let you use the article to push your own personal agenda, right? Lilipo25 (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I will absolutely accept whatever judgement of my activity consensus sees fit to make. Vashti (talk) 09:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Please read WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NPOV. Vashti (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
You could do with some reading yourself ,Vashti - you were on your own soapbox by calling Linehan's comments "vile, abusive and harmful speech aimed at minority groups" before PowerOfGinger responded to you with what was also a bunch of soapbox opinions, you know (and before I get called a "big fan" of Linehan for saying so, I have never seen him perform either in person or on television - or wherever he does his act - and have no interest in doing so. But this article is very badly biased against a Living Person and there appears to be a small group of activists determined to keep it that way, led by you and Bastun - and that's neither right nor in accordance with Wikipedia rules).
For just one example, the article should not be calling the lesbian protesters at Pride "anti-transgender protesters"; from their point of view, they were simply defending women's rights to things like fair competition in women's sports. It is never up to Wikipedia editors to state which side's POV is correct, but merely to state facts as they happened. Specifically, they were protesting proposed legal changes to the Gender Recognition Act of 2004, and that's what the article should say - only that, with no editorializing from either side.That's encyclopedic. The way it is written now is not, and it is most assuredly not 'neutral', but the group of anti-Linehan editors here refuse to allow any neutrality into the article. Fighting to make the article appropriately neutral seems pointless in the face of such determination to make sure it isn't, but at least don't lecture other users about being on their soapbox in response to your own soapbox speech. Lilipo25 (talk) 09:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Actually, NPOV demands we report on what the reliable sources say, and in this instance what they call the eight protestors. Which would in fact be anti-trans protesters. We could certainly include additional references. such as those included in the linked article, if you feel stronger referencing is needed. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Then I must say it's odd that we're using as our "reliable source" PinkNews, which in addition to being highly biased on the topic, is notoriously anti-lesbian and anti-feminist to the point that it has repeatedly been accused by well-known feminist leaders of encouraging the rape of lesbians, as well as numerous instances of hate speech toward them. AfterEllen specifically claimed that the PinkNews article on Linehan that is used as a source for this article "painted Linehan in a distorted light" because he is a lesbian ally. Seems a particularly strange choice of source if we're concerned about abusive and harmful speech toward a protected minority group.
As Vashti suggests I do a sourced edit, I will do so. Women and lesbians are also protected minority groups that the article currently features abuse toward, so I will try to fix that with some conservative edits of that section. But I note that many people have already done so in efforts to make the article more neutral, only to have all edits simply reverted back to the biased version that depicts lesbian feminists and those who support them as bigots. Lilipo25 (talk) 10:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Just to be 100% clear on this lovely Sunday morning: when I said Linehan's opinions were a matter for protracted debate, I didn't mean to suggest that a Wikipedia talk page was an appropriate venue for that discussion. Plus I'm hardly leading the charge on this article; I keep an eye on it because I have an interest in seeing that it isn't overrun by WP:FRINGE abuse of a protected minority group, as Ginger's comment so amply demonstrated. Bastun is doing sterling work on the article as I hope he will continue to do, and he's covered the reasons multiple editors and an RfC have found that the page meets NPOV. If you feel the page isn't neutral, provide sourced edits that improve it. Vashti (talk) 09:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Also just to be 100% clear, it's trans-exclusionary radical feminists you're talking about in your last comment, Lilipo25, not lesbian femnists - the vast majority of whom are fully supportive of the T in LGBTQ+. Seeing as we're talking about soapboxes...
I am not aware of a debate about PinkNews not being a reliable source, but we can add additional ones... It's not like they're rare. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
It is debatable which branch of feminism is the minority and which has more lesbian members, but that isn't a debate for this page, Bastun. Nor is a discussion of misogynistic terms which I will not in fact use. I said 'lesbian feminists' because that's what I meant.
I have done an edit. I used all the same sources (except for PinkNews), but gave a more accurate representation of what the sources actually said instead of cherrypicking out only what sounded negative toward Lineham. I had to remove only one part, the sentence about him calling lesbians "heroes", because I can find it in no other source except the very slanted PinkNews hit piece. Everything is sourced and the article has a much more neutral tone now, which I imagine will get it deleted, but I tried. Lilipo25 (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
There's no consensus on the reliability of PinkNews. I would say it's reliable for citations regarding the pro-trans side of the argument, and for simple matters of fact such as "did X say Y" or "did X happen". However, WP:BIASED - sources are not required to be neutral; they should be taken as a whole with other sources of varying viewpoint. PinkNews certainly is not considered an unreliable source like the Daily Express, or a deprecated source like the Daily Mail.
Seconding that the anti-trans viewpoint is very much a minority viewpoint among lesbians. Lilipo25, I understand it's a common anti-trans activist assertion that all real lesbians and real feminists agree with you, but it is not factual. Please don't bring it here.
I encourage you to make edits that *improve* the article. However, note that this is not an article on anti-trans rhetoric. Here, we are only documenting Linehan's views and activism, which have been adequately documented as anti-transgender. Wikipedia is in no way required to give "equal time" to extreme views. To cite WP:NPOV, "For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field." You might be more interested in editing e.g. TERF. Vashti (talk) 12:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I said I wouldn't bother trying to keep the article fair with you two automatically reverting everything to keep it a hit piece for your agenda and I won't, but I will say it's beyond offensive for you to write something in the revert note as obviously disingenuous and callous about what I wrote as "linehan's reasons for stating that trans people existing is an injustice as great as Nazism aren't important " when you clearly know he said nothing of the kind and I wrote nothing of the kind; he said the angry response he received to his views made him realize he was someone who would keep doing the right thing and standing up to attacks and criticism, even if he had lived in Nazi Germany. Not even close to the same thing; you know he never compared trans people "existing" to Nazism, and using the Holocaust to spread a lie (both about what he said and how I wrote it) to further an agenda is seriously not okay. Lilipo25 (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I think you're on shaky ground with this objection, since you defended Ginger's comment above (which was both vile and antisemitic), and went so far as to insert more of Linehan's into the text. Unless you and Linehan believe he, and those like him, are likely to be murdered by the state, *all* Holocaust comparisons in politics are borderline antisemitic at best and a bad idea. Vashti (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
If you read my comment above again, you will see that I did not defend Ginger's comment - I just criticized yours. I never even read all of Ginger's comments bc they're just hyperbolic wingnuttery. But that's neither here nor there; you deliberately lied in a comment about what I wrote and put it in a note to make sure it stayed in the history after my edit was deleted. If it hadn't been a false Holocaust comparison that I never made (because the subject never made it), I wouldn't have cared, but that is not okay. Seriously, think about why you considered that an acceptable thing to do, no matter what yours or my viewpoints are. Lilipo25 (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I didn't comment on you, and I certainly didn't lie about you. I gave my honest opinion on Linehan's comment, and even in the note I explicitly attributed my summary of his statement to him, not you. Please don't take that as a judgement on you. Vashti (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I finished my edit before seeing your comment, but I did not make any "anti-trans" statements or write any "extreme views", nor would I be interested in doing either of those things. As for what you call an "anti-trans viewpoint" being a minority among lesbians and feminists, that is debatable but as I said to your friend, this is not the place for that debate; your POV on the matter is clear. This is about making the article more representative of what the sources actually say and making the POV more neutral, which many people have tried to do only to have it changed back to the biased version repeatedly.
I am not interested in edit warring; I have done a fair and accurate edit and I fully anticipate it being deleted for that. I won't keep trying. Lilipo25 (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Your POV is also clear - as when you put my comment and Ginger's in the same category of offensiveness, and stated that the existing article features abuse towards women and lesbians. Were I bringing my POV to this article, I would have responded in far stronger terms than "please read WP:SOAPBOX". I would encourage you to continue editing pages with which you are less personally involved. Vashti (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
In case you're interested, here's the RFC which approved the section as neutral earlier this year. Vashti (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
And I would strongly suggest you take your own advice on that "less personally involved" point, Vashti. Lilipo25 (talk) 14:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Decision on: Labeling or categorizing BLP subjects as TERFs or trans-exclusionary radical feminists

The RfC consensus is: we should generally provide in text attribution when using the term "TERF" in a BLP. Pyxis Solitary yak 11:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
The RfC has been archived: Labeling or categorizing BLP subjects as TERFs or trans-exclusionary radical feminists. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 05:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:Trans-exclusionary radical feminism

I have removed Category:Trans-exclusionary radical feminism because this article does not even contain the word TERF, radical feminism, or even just feminism (diff). This was later reverted by Vashti saying that Linehan is certainly part of the trans-exclusive feminist movement. (diff). @Vashti: is that how reliable sources label Linehan consistently? --MarioGom (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Also note there was recent consensus in a RfC about using in-text attribution to the TERF label for biographies of living persons. --MarioGom (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I would prefer to see the category renamed (as I believe is in progress right now) than Linehan removed from it. What you have there is a badly named category, not a category error. Vashti (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
The name of the category is what it is at the moment and it does not match what this article describes. Given that this is a BLP we should remove the category. If the current category discussion leads to a category name that fits here or if there is another existing category that is more appropriate, that could be used. But there is no reason why this article should be in the Category:Trans-exclusionary radical feminism (TERF) category. --MarioGom (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Hm. Yes, I agree, let's lose it until the category is renamed. Vashti (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Whatever you do, this is a BLP and held to strict policy enforcement. As a BLP, it cannot be labeled as trans-exclusionary anything without providing in-text attribution in the body of the article that supports the category. Read the consensus reached in the above-linked RfC about labeling BLPs. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 05:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

(redacted header)

WP:NOTFORUM--gnu57 20:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Linehan is now making a list of 'gender critical' / TERF therapists to do CONVERSION THERAPY on young trans people. This man is unwell. MinishLAN (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

As that results in Page Not Found, and it appears Pink News have taken it down, it may be the thing he was taking legal action over. Khamba Tendal (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
It is. There is no list of therapists who do 'conversion therapy' that he is compiling and that story is a perfect example of why PinkNews is NOT a reliable source and should never be used. Nothing in PinkNews qualifies as unbiased journalism; it is composed of distorted facts, half-truths and open hit pieces on public figures who disagree with their politics and fawning, uncritical love letters to the ones who agree. Lilipo25 (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
The article was in relation to this tweet: https://twitter.com/Glinner/status/1224378341630844929 in which Linehan asks for his followers to assist a psychotherapist in compiling a list of therapists who support trans conversion therapy. Wikiditm (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
The link you provided doesn't go anywhere. And at no time did he ask his followers to help compile a list of therapists who support "trans conversion therapy". Never happened. Someone was compiling a resource for parents of gender-nonconforming children and he asked his followers for recommendations of gender critical therapists. A gender critical therapist supports the idea that it's perfectly ok for anyone to not conform to stereotypical gender roles. Characterizing that as him compiling a list of "trans conversion" therapists is ridiculous. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
You should now be able to click the link to the tweet.Wikiditm (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Graham_Linehan/Archive_1&oldid=959301268"