Talk:Graham Linehan/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

"Known Internationally"

"Linehan is known internationally for his anti-transgender activism." This statement is supported by original synthesis, in that it is not said by any one of the sources provided, but instead relies on a collection of sources from various countries being used to construct the conclusion that Linehan is known internationally for his activism. This is textbook synthesis and should be removed unless there is a source that actually says it. Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you're right, it seems like synth.
I don't think we need this intro sentence — we can cut straight to "In 2013, the 2008 IT Crowd episode "The Speech" was widely criticised as transphobic and sexist when it was repeated; critics said it used gender stereotypes and trivialised violence against transgender women." And tell the whole sorry story from there.
If we do want a topic sentence, it must be possible to source "Linehan has been involved in anti-transgender activism since [whenever]" and use that instead. Popcornfud (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
I like that second formulation. I hate "known for" framing in almost every conceivable situation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. It's a bugbear of mine, particularly "best known for". It needlessly introduces unidentified third parties in order to do the knowing and is almost never cited. Wikipedia should always be about what is known, significant and sourced, so we don't need to explain anything this way. Often it's simply a reflection of how the editor who wrote it knows them, which is of no significance.
I'll give it a few days, and if no one objects, I'll implement Popcornfud's suggestion. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 08:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Regarding "best known for" — couldn't have put it better myself. That one always makes me grit my teeth. Popcornfud (talk) 09:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
"has been involved in" is rather weaselly passive. I really dislike it compared to "known for." — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
"Linehan has been an anti-transgender activist since..."? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
As much as I'd like that phrasing, we'd get people howling for our blood if we wrote it in absolute terms like that. We'd need rock-solid sourcing, and I don't know that we're at that point. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
We've been saying in the first sentence of the article that he's an anti-transgender activist for as long as I can remember. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
This is why I'd vote to skip the first sentence entirely — it's just simplest. Popcornfud (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Why would you like that phrasing if it's not supported by the reliable sources? H Remster (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
The entire section is named "Anti-transgender activism", so it seems pointless to quibble about saying it in the opening sentence, unless we rename the section, and to what? But it seems far easier to skip attempts to label things, and simply state how it came about and what he actually did/said. Let the reader decide what it is. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
I've removed the first sentence for now as I'm persuaded that it is indeed textbook WP:SYNTH. We can add a new topic sentence if we want, but that sentence had to go. Popcornfud (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
I restored it. We can't remove the line and all those sources without causing a major WP:V issue with the first sentence of the lead. I went with "Linehan has been involved in anti-transgender activism", though I agree with THTFY's critique. I actually think the sourcing is plenty rock-solid for "has been an anti-transgender activist". We have major news sources, an academic book, and a peer-reviewed paper. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
That's fine with me, just want to kill the synth. We can improve from this position. Popcornfud (talk) 12:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Changed from "Linehan has been involved in..." to "Linehan is known for his involvement in..." The latter is factual and verifiable. The former is just too weaselly, making it sound like a passing fad, like collecting bottle caps, or something, rather than pretty much all he has done or talked about for the last few years. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I would argue the exact reverse. Either he is, or he isn't, is a fact. Being "known for" introduces the opinions/knowledge of unspecified people doing the knowing. Who knows? Is what they know a fact? Why is what they know more significant than what simply is? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
+1 to that, especially the last point: "Why is what they know more significant than what simply is?"
We might find better wording than "has been involved in", but it's at least completely straightforwardly true, whereas "is known for" adds a layer of complication. Popcornfud (talk) 11:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Fair points. Would be happy to change to the present tense, then - "Linehan is involved in..." BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Works for me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2023

Enough. In the future, these comments should simply be removed per WP:FORUM. These drive-bys are not suggesting improvements to the article, they're just WP:POV-pushing. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 10:50, 1 October 2023 (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.

Graham Linehan is a campaigner for women's rights. 2A02:C7C:7886:8500:F4BA:20E8:1890:A094 (talk) 06:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Can you show any campaigning for womens rights that are unrelated to trans people or indeed any source that shows he supports trans peoples rights in any respect. Rankersbo (talk) 10:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)


not an anti-trans activist 2A00:23C6:9227:AD01:950:AA6D:3986:88B2 (talk) 07:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

His output consists of abusing anyone who supports trans people, particularly women. [1]

Rankersbo (talk) 10:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Graham Linehan is pro-active in the protection of women’s rights. 2A00:23C8:6F12:D901:85B8:72D1:5224:1C6B (talk) 08:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Tollens (talk) 09:16, 1 October 2023 (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.

To those wondering why there's been an influx of edit requests...

It's probably because of this Daily Mail piece, where he says "If anyone edits my Wikipedia page to say 'campaigner for women's rights' [..] rather than 'anti-transgender activist' [...], the edit reverts back within 15 minutes."
(Also, if you're coming here to try implement this edit, save your time - this has already been discussed at length and there is consensus against it.) — ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 13:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

"Anti-transgender" should link to different page

It would make more sense for the term 'Anti-transgender' used throughout this article to link to one of the following

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-gender_movement (which is part of a series on Transgender topics)

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-critical_feminism

than to link to

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transphobia

Either that, or change the use of the term "anti-transgender activist" throughout this article to "transphobic activist".

If the term "anti-transgender" is interchangeable with "transphobic", why not just say "transphobic activist"? WarrenWilliam (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I have to say I was a little surprised by that link too, from a WP:POV perspective. However, it's an issue to do with the page anti-transgender and where that redirects to — and not a matter for the Graham Linehan page. Fee free to start a discussion at the page for that redirect. Popcornfud (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Are there sources that associate Linehan with gender critical feminism or the anti-gender movement? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes, there are sources linking Linehan with gender critical feminism.
Here are two:
• A 2019 article in the New Statesman, which said that "Gender-critical feminism is gaining ground" and that Linehan had become a "warrior on the subject".
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2019/05/how-email-secret-location-led-me-most-vibrant-feminist-meeting-year
• A 2023 article on Mail Plus, which said, "Linehan advocates gender-critical feminism, which says that sex is biological, binary and immutable."
https://www.mailplus.co.uk/scottish-edition/comment/312477/reason-debate-and-tolerance-have-given-way-to-a-dangerous-new-fanaticism WarrenWilliam (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The Daily Mail is not a reliable source. Can't comment on the New Statesman, as I never heard of it. Also, "anti-transgender" is very much compatible with "transphobic". LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 08:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Personally speaking I agree, but from an encylopaedic perspective it's also compatible with the pages on gender-critical feminism or anti-gender movement. We might need a disambiguation page. Popcornfud (talk) 09:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes, a disambiguation page would make sense.
That, or collapse the "Transphobia" and "Anti-gender-movement" Wiki pages into a single page.
I have yet to come across a meaningful distinction between "anti-gender activist" and "anti-transgender activist".
Also, the phrase "anti-transgender activist" isn't used once on the "Transphobia" page, whereas "anti-gender activist" is used multiple times on the "anti-gender movement" page. WarrenWilliam (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The New Statesman is a political weekly magazine here in the UK. It (like The Guardian) has a reputation for left-wing transphobia; it is not a coincidence that Helen Lewis used to be a deputy editor there. I think that it might have lost some of its anti-trans bias more recently, but I'm not sure, to be honest. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 12:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Lost Agent

Is it possible to add that he's now said in October 2023 he recently lost his TV agent, because the company also represents David Tennant, who he repeatedly calls a "groomer"? Footage of him speaking at a tory party event saying so here. https://twitter.com/ICanSeeForever1/status/1708740095245783536 WorthPoke2 (talk) 09:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

My feeling is that unless a reliable source covers this, no we can't, the footage isn't something we can use directly here. Rankersbo (talk) 10:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, concur. If a reliable source reports it, sure, we can include it alongside what he's said about losing his wife and kids to his activism. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 10:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm guessing (hoping really) that the Daily Mail is not a reliable source?
See this article CurdyKai (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not, though I'd be surprised if another more reliable one hasn't picked this up. Appears to be all tabloids at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 10:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Update: the Independent has covered it and it's been added to the article. Seems that's sorted so. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 14:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Should the first sentence be reordered to say 'anti-transgender activist and comedy writer'?

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.

Hi all

Looking through the article and his IMDB (unless I've missunderstood something) it appears he hasn't been a working professionally as a comedy writer since 2017, he only wrote on the first season of Motherland so his last writing credit (at least acording to IMDB) appears to be Count Arthur Strong in 2017 (6 years ago). My question is should the first sentence be reordered to reflect that he is more well known currently as an 'anti-transgender activist' since he doesn't seem to have done any paid comedy writing for 6 years. Also perhaps it should be changed to 'anti-transgender activist and comedy writer and director' since he has directed IT Crowd, Count Arthur Strong etc.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so Lukewarmbeer (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
RS refer to him as, for example, "The creator of Father Ted" [2] Lukewarmbeer (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
I take John's point, but (a) we follow the WP:RS even if they shy away from accurately describing his behaviour. and (b) he wouldn't be notable if he was an accountant from Croydon who got similarly obsessed with trans people and their supporters. Rankersbo (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
'Similarly obsessed with trans people.' The bias regarding Graham on here is concerning. Benson70 (talk) 11:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
What else would you describe it as - the man tanked his own career, marriage, and finances in pursuit of his crusade. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:02, 5 November 2023 (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.

Linehan says he is a victim of cancel culture...

Hi all

Reading this sentence in the intro

Linehan says he is a victim of cancel culture, and that his views have lost him work and ended his marriage.

To me this reads as though Wikipedia is suggesting it is possible to be a victim of cancel culture, that this is a real thing that's possible, rather than a common trope used by (at least in the UK) right wing media and people criticised for their actions. Is there a way of rewriting this sentence to make clear the idea that someone can be a victim of cancel culture in the same way as being a victim of a crime is just an idea Linehan is proposing and not a factual statment?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

To me this reads as though Wikipedia is suggesting it is possible to be a victim of cancel culture, that this is a real thing that's possible
I don't think this is the necessary implication. It's just saying he says that. Popcornfud (talk) 01:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
I just re-read this and while I see John's point, I agree with Popcorn's explaination, so it's a no from me too. Rankersbo (talk) 06:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
We could change "says" to "claims", to make it more clear it's just his opinion, but otherwise I don't think this needs any serious rewrite. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Or perhaps "Linehan has claimed that he is a victim of cancel culture, in such venues as interviews in internationally distributed magazines and the conference of the governing party of the United Kingdom, where he was an invited speaker", but the weight of the irony might cause an implosion in WP's servers... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Be careful of WP:CLAIM. Wikipedia doesn't have an opinion about whether cancel culture is real. Popcornfud (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: I think thats a good solution. John Cummings (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

The verb “claim” suggests we doubt his statement. It shouldn’t be used unless that is also what the plurality of sources say. “Say” is the most neutral option otherwise. Popcornfud (talk) 00:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Rather than running afoul of WP:CLAIM, I think we just shouldn't repeat self-aggrandizing claims from Linehan himself unless verified by a reliable source. The essay WP:MANDY is sometimes controversial but this is IMO exactly what it's for. Loki (talk) 03:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
That's a good point. We should probably just toss that bit entirely. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Removed from Lead now, can be discussed later on. Providing balance to the claim would probably end in WP:synth and make the opening too wordy, while later on there will be room to state he says this, but others disagree. Rankersbo (talk) 11:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Is it not important to state the real person's own words/stances about qctikns and criticisms loged against them in thir own bio article? It certainly has been deemed important in articles about people accused of both criminal and non-criminal behaviors in countless It's not our job to decide whether the speaker is "aggrandizing" himself or not; NPOV should dictate that we, at minimum, state his stance on what has happened to him, and about claims levied against him, in regards to the events highlighted throughout the article. Additionally, to claim that he is aggrandizing himself, and to remove his quote for that reason, is clearly not an action in line with NPOV. In fact its quite the opposite. Deciding ourselves that his claim is aggravating is not our call. If reliable source stated that, it be included with the quote. I verified this in line with most other real persons articles...
...I just looked at various other bio articles of real persons, and such claims about being persecuted are regularly included in bio's where the person faces accusations of actual crimes. To not allow his own opinion on his own circumstances because its self aggarandizing in your point of view, is the antithesis of taking an NPOV. 99.75.147.243 (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
You should read WP:NPOV, your understanding of what NPOV requires is very different from the actual policy. Also, WP:ABOUTSELF which was already linked above. JaggedHamster (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Is it not important to state the real person's own words/stances about qctikns and criticisms loged against them in thir own bio article?
WP:MANDY applies. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
I'd have thought this is the only place to bring up the issues I've raised in the article. Benson70 (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Again, WP:MANDY applies. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 13:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
The issues you raised have been repeatedly discussed and dismissed. See the Archives. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
As I understand it - this issue related only to the lead, we are still mentioning his claims of being a victim of cancel culture in the article aren't we? Rankersbo (talk) 10:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 November 2023

No. See the FAQ. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Change "anti-transgender activist" to "women's rights activist" 95.145.34.23 (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Any scope for an FAQ/adding a "round in circles" template?

I'm not the most familiar on procedure/how to make a FAQ section but on some pages where we repeatedly get the same edit request over and over again (e.g. Talk:Elon Musk getting flooded with requests to change it to "business magnet"), there's a template saying that there tends to be discussions that go round in circles, and an FAQ on why we're not installing certain edits/terminology. Given the long-running and incessant amount of requests to change the lead to "women's rights activist", would it be a good idea perhaps to add one of these here? — ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 12:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

A FAQ is a good idea. I'm not familiar with the template on Musk's page, I'll have to look into it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea. I've gone ahead and made a placeholder page here: Talk:Graham Linehan/FAQ
Everyone, please feel free to edit that page with the questions and answers you think are appropriate. Once it's ready we can display this page on the main Talk page here. Popcornfud (talk) 10:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Excellent. I've added the question to which I referred in the original post. Not sure if there's anything else that can be added but I'll leave the second placeholder text there. Many thanks for making the page. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 10:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I've made some edits and tweaked this talk page to display the FAQ at the top. We can continue to edit and update this FAQ if necessary. Popcornfud (talk) 11:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
So... answer with "See FAQ above" ande delete after two days, or go straight to revert with "See FAQ, WP:NOTFORUM" as reason? Rankersbo (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
I would say "See FAQ, WP:NOTAFORUM" and close the section so people don't keep arguing the point. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
I'll go for hold back and watch, then follow the example set, I think. Rankersbo (talk) 12:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
I'd suggest adding "Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth before starting or contributing to discussion on this page".
Many people get confused about this (I did at first) and it leads to (GF) contributions like that from User:Tomsega below - and the frustration (I think) that demonstrates. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 08:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Anti-trans activist label sourcing

I don't think we need two sections on the same subject. This one has been dormant for a couple of weeks, so collapsing.

The recent edit is an improvement, but citation bundle is still a mess. The sentence being supported is:

Linehan is involved in anti-transgender activism

Reviewing the sourcing, we only need Guardian. 14 April 2022 source to support this sentence. The rest of the citations are lower quality, with many of them not supporting the activist label. The nonsupporting and unnecessary citations should be removed. TheMissingMuse (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

No. Contentious descriptors, such as anti-trans activist, require multiple sources per both WP:BLPSTYLE, WP:BLPRS, and WP:VOICE. The quality of the citations within the bundle are fine. There are multiple high quality news organisations, one research paper, and one chapter of a book published by a reputable university press. This is fully in line with WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:BLPRS.
I did however correct one mistaken citation in the bundle. observer.com is not The Observer (a UK compact and sister paper to The Guardian), it is The New York Observer. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Your phrasing is interesting. You lead with the goal, that the political descriptor remain. Since that requires multiple sources, you're opposed to removing the bundle. Since sources must be reliable, you assert that these sources are reliable. That it's not AT ALL clear to readers WHICH sources in that bundle support the descriptor and HOW they do is not considered a problem to you, as your goal as a "trans activist" (mentioned on your Talk page) is for the political descriptor to remain. Why activist-types are allowed to camp out on BPL pages is beyond me. BrianH123 (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
For the record, there's nothing on her talk page about being a "trans activist", nor her user page. But in any case, please don't cast aspersions on other editors. WP:Focus on content, not on other editors or what's on their pages. Thanks. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 21:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Ser beat me to it, but I'll add comment on content, not contributors and ask you to strike your comment. I'm equally lost as to where you got "trans activist" from, but if you were in fact referring to her user page where she says she's trans I'll just note that "trans" =/= "activist". Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Most of these sources are green at WP:RSP. Now, not all sources that are green at WP:RSP are of equal quality (e.g. the NYT and an arbitrary medical journal would both be generally reliable, but I know which one I'd go with if they disagreed on a medical issue), but they're all of sufficient quality to be used to cite this statement. Loki (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
In this case, it's their reliability and relevance that is in question. Several of the cited sources are non-supporting, a couple are not of sufficient quality:
Of the sources in the bundle, only two of them have the necessary reliability and content to support the opening sentence. TheMissingMuse (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
You can also use "gender-critical activism" of course as they're the same thing, gender-critical being the "nice" way of saying transphobic. Here's The Times with "gender-critical activist" [3], or the Independent [4]. Black Kite (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
The issue isn't which term being used. It's the sourcing of the term. As noted above, only two sources in the bundle are appropriate for sourcing the sentence they are attached to. The other sources should be removed - or attached to content that the sources support.
I will add that the sources Black Kite links to are of much higher quality than most of the sources currently in the bundle. TheMissingMuse (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
"You can also use "gender-critical activism" of course as they're the same thing, gender-critical being the "nice" way of saying transphobic"
That's nothing but facetious WP:SYNTH; these two are not even remotely synonymous. You cannot infer "anti-trans activist" from "gender-critical". Zilch-nada (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
No, those are essentially the same thing. Note we're not saying that in the article, but we're fully free to say it here. GC is just the polite way of saying transphobic. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
"we're not saying that in the article": then why did @Black Kite say "You can also use "gender-critical activism" of course" concerning "of the sources in the bundle"? Suggesting that "anti-trans" can be inferred from "gender-critical" was clearly an argument concerning the article, as we are discussing sources.
"GC is just the polite way of saying transphobic" - seriously, [citation needed]. That is nothing but a facetious opinion and you know it. Zilch-nada (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
If you want to infer things, by all means, feel free. I was pointing out that it's not currently in the article, and your outrage is misplaced.
And no, it's not "facetious opinion", the entire point of the gender critical movement is to politely push transphobia. Or not so politely, in cases like Linehan. It's similar to how "ethnonationalist" is just a polite word for racism. Arguing that GC and transphobia are not even remotely synonymous is laughable.
That said, this page is for debating the inclusion of content in the article. Do you have anything on that front, or is this just WP:FORUM posting? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
You're the one inferring nonsense. GC and transphobia are not synonymous. Pick up a thesaurus. Or cite anything reputable saying that "GC is a form of transphobia" as opposed to there being a contentious link, which there is. That link is contentious, not a link that follows the syntax of a thesaurus or dictionary.
"GC is just the polite way of saying transphobic" - Because you have backed up this claim with no evidence, I have no duty to acknowledge such a childish, politically-charged, propagandistic statement. Defend your claim "essentially the same thing", please.
"That said, this page is for debating the inclusion of content in the article. Do you have anything on that front, or is this just WP:FORUM posting?" Likewise. Zilch-nada (talk) 23:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
"Pick up a thesaurus" is a ridiculous argument. And since you've devolved to name-calling & ranting, I'm done with you. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
You implied their synonymity, you ought to back it up. Zilch-nada (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Vox supports. Read the sentence before Linehan's name is mentioned. Loki (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
To be clear, are you agreeing that all the other low quality or non-supporting sources should be moved or removed? This would keep The Guardian, Pink News, and Vox. TheMissingMuse (talk) 14:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that I checked Vox and you're incorrect about what it says. I haven't checked the other sources yet. Loki (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Can you quote the portion of Vox that you think supports characterizing Linehan as "involved in anti-transgender activism"? The sentences you refer to make no mention of activism. In fact, activism isn't discussed in the Vox article at all. TheMissingMuse (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
From the Vox article: It has become increasingly common for upper-class white people to express anti-trans views. For example, Irish comedian Graham Linehan, who now lives in the UK, has become infamous for his Twitter obsession with trans people and trans issues, which he claims is merely "defending women." In context, Linehan is used as an example of "upper-class white people [who] express anti-trans views". That seems like it fully supports it to me. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
That does not support describing him as an anti-trans activist. As noted, the article doesn't mention activism at all. I'll grant that the artile does mention Linehan once in passing, but this really isn't the kind of source to use in a WP:BLP. I'll update my summary above. TheMissingMuse (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Well, go back one more sentence and it says:

Wednesday’s ruling has already been seized upon by the usual anti-trans voices who are propping it up as the latest example of the alleged suppression of free speech. It has become increasingly common for upper-class white people to express anti-trans views. For example, Irish comedian Graham Linehan, who now lives in the UK, has become infamous for his Twitter obsession with trans people and trans issues, which he claims is merely “defending women.”

A source doesn't have to use the exact words as we do. It's clear in context that they're calling him an anti-trans activist when they say he's one of the usual anti-trans voices. Loki (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
The article makes no mention of him being an activist, or activism. You are synthesizing that information, which should not be done in a WP:BLP. TheMissingMuse (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Upon checking some of the others:
  • Rabble: Supports. Are you just ignoring the headline? And everything before the mention of Linehan's name? It's an article about anti-trans activism, of course it supports activism.
  • Independent: Again, supports activism. Read the previous paragraph.
I can't check Manchester University Press right now because of the paywall, but in general I am not impressed by the amount of effort you've put in here. It seems like you just searched Linehan's name and counted it as "no support for activism" if activism was not mentioned in literally the same sentence. Loki (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
If you think there is support for that characterization, providing the relevant quote would go a long way in clarifying that support. I'm not finding anything in the Independent which characterizes Lineahan as an activist. I do see him characterized as a "gender critical hardliner". You may be referring to the preceding paragraph which does not mention Linehan. Likewise with Rabble, Linehan is mentioned once in passing as one of the "anti-trans bloggers". There is nothing in the article that identifies him as an activist. However, the Rabble articles does say "a popular TERF bullying tactic is to subscribe trans people to these newsletters en masse without their consent." That's something an activist might do, but there is no indication that Linehan is doing that, or that he is described as an activist. We are dealing with a WP:BLP here. If a source isn't clear about these kind of controversial statements, it's not appropriate to use as a source. TheMissingMuse (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Independent:

The attack has echoes of the extremist QAnon movement and its predecessor, Pizzagate, whose followers believe that celebrities and senior Democrats are united in a fantastical conspiracy to abduct children. It also mirrors rhetoric that has taken root among extreme anti-trans activists in the UK. On Ovarit, an invite-only Reddit clone devoted to “gender critical” discussion, posts tagged “Trans Groomers” stretch back at least a year. Father Ted creator Graham Linehan, a gender critical hardliner who was kicked off Twitter in 2020 for “hateful conduct”, described positive media depictions of trans life as “grooming” as early as December 2020, and has baselessly cast similar aspersions against individual trans people.

It's clearly mentioning a phenomenon and then giving specific examples.
Rabble: The title of the article is The alt-internet of anti-trans activists. (And this characterization is backed up in the subtitle and the first line of the article.) Everyone mentioned in the article, including Linehan, is being called an anti-trans activist. Loki (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
You left out the paragraph break that separates the two paragraphs and their topics. The Independent 2022/04/14 article does not describe Linehan's posting on Ovarit or Twitter as activism. As discussed above, the Rabble article is discussing how anti-trans activists are subscribing people to Linehan's Substack. It's not calling him an activist. Binding the headline to anyone mentioned in the article is WP:SYNTH.
We should not be using these low quality sources that do not directly support the claim. There are higher quality sources that can be used instead, notably: The Guardian, Pink News, The Times [5] and The Independent 2023/08/17 article about Linehan [6]. TheMissingMuse (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
You keep insisting they do not directly support the claim but, as Loki demonstrates, many of them do. You're going to need a better argument, or to drop the stick and move on. If you feel there are better cites that support the label... just add them. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Loki is developing his own synthesis of the sources, inferring that content in one paragraph applies to another, and that the title applies uniformly to all subjects in the article. This is a clear violation of WP:BLP. It baffles me that these low quality source that mention Linehan only in passing are being used to support content like this when much better sources are available that support the identical content. I suppose the next steps are to bring this to a noticeboard or an RfC. TheMissingMuse (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
That is not synthesis. If it were, we'd have to scrap 90% of the articles on this site.
If you want to claim this is a BLP violation, take it to a report board. I don't think you'll get very far. As I said, if you have better sources, add them. Nothing is preventing you from doing that. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Anti-trans activist label

Not going to get pulled into the mud slinging on this, but in all objectivity 'anti-trans activist' is a very contentious and controversial description, for which there's never going to be consensus and for which at the very least there would need to be a citation/source, preferably from the person himself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomsega (talk • contribs) 11:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The lead sentence in a BLP usually states a person's name, date of birth, nationality and what they are notable for - which may or may not be "a job". Linehan is absolutely best known now as both a comedy writer and an anti-trans activist. The lead does not need to be referenced, as it summarises the body of the article. We generally do not use what the subject of a biography says about themselves - see WP:SPS. There are multiple reliable sources in the article body describing Linehan's anti-trans activism and describing him as such. And there is absolutely consensus for inclusion of the term to describe Linehan. See the FAQ. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
@Bastun To define an individual in such a way, the facts really ought to be incontrovertible. I'm not sure any of the given sources adequately evidence the "anti-trans" label beyond echoing what were straw men arguments to begin with. He certainly doesn't deny individual freedom on this issue (as religious leaders and authoritarian regimes do). From what I gather, he has publically questioned early affirmation and things like puberty blockers. This wouldn't seem to justify the leap to define someone as an "anti-trans activist" any more than, say, if a celebrity questioned the practise of circumcision, and the Wiki jumped to state "actor, singer, antisemite."
I don't particularly give a toss, of course, and I can see the argument (over how to define his views) either way; the point is this is too questionable a thing to state so matter-of-factly. Tomsega (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
The thing is though, Linehan hasn't just criticised youth transitioning and puberty blockers. There's a large section in the article dedicated to his anti-transgender activism in great detail, including far more than the two arguments you refer to. Reliable sources widely describe him as being an anti-transgender activist, and that's what we go with. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 21:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Can you actually offer a credible source that defines him as an anti-trans activist, though, other than the likes of Pink News? Most only state that he's courted controversy by wading into this. Others are taken out of context or take statements out of context. The Irish Times article typifies this, with a nuanced position within, "[Trans acceptance] is obviously wonderful ... I disagree fundamentally with certain aspects of current activism. They don’t realise the damage done by certain outrageous claims.” The title is then reduced to just 'Trans activists don't realise the damage they do.'
Again, mentioning the point in the third paragraph would be fair enough; stating 'anti-trans activist' like it's a defining occupation in the opening line is subjective, ideological, and deserving of a citation needed tag. (And in my view, painting those who live only a couple of doorsteps down on the political spectrum as extremists -- when there are scores of actual fascists and fundamentalists at the other end of the street -- is the shame of the culture wars).
Tomsega (talk) 08:23, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Can you actually offer a credible source that defines him as an anti-trans activist, though, other than the likes of Pink News? – Yes, plenty. They're already cited in the article body. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 09:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
I remain unconvinced. I don't believe the sources are credible enough or fair and balanced. That's my view and I can only disagree (accepting that any other view would be reverted by one section of the community in any case).Tomsega (talk) 10:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
this isn't demonstrating a 'nuanced' take, this is him couching transphobia in language that gives him a way out by shallowly claiming support. it's intellectual cowardice and a common tactic used by other anti trans activists. Minty420 (talk) 07:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
also unrelated but transphobic activists like lineham ARE the fascists and fundamentalists you referred to earlier. Minty420 (talk) 07:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
LOL. That's a hilarious statement about Lineham who is known to have been all his life a Socialist and an atheist. Hubertgrove (talk) 11:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

That's nice, you're entitled to your opinion. Nonetheless, there is a significant number of reliable sources that describe Linehan as an anti-trans activist. In fact, here's an interview with him where the interviewer opened by describing him as a crusader against transgender activism, and his response essentially embraces it, to the extent he defends calling transgender activists "Nazis". Wikipedia goes by what the reliable sources say. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Re: 'Wikipedia goes by what the reliable sources say', there's also an obligation for the citations to accurately reflect what's contained - even more pressing when these sources are random websites and magazines, not academic ones. I don't believe there is any source here to evidence Graham Linehan calling transgender activists nazis in any direct way. Again, if you'd care to read the quotes in context:
"I’m now in a position where I can now answer the question honestly of, 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? I feel happy in myself that I’ve been one of the people standing up and saying “no, this is wrong”"
The point is an analogy with authoritarianism, ie., 'would you speak out for what you think is right even if there are dire repercussions?' Many have made this comparison between cancel culture and authoritarianism. And it's willful misrepresentation to leap at this remark and equate it with him directly calling not just some but ALL trans activities "nazis" (obviously Pink News was very eager to paint these remarks as such). It's a bit like defining Richard Dawkins as an Islamophobe in one sentence and choosing only the Muslim Herald as the source to back that up. Tomsega (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
You went off on a tangent here, since the article does not cite him calling transgender activists "Nazis." But all this is beside the point: the article has plenty of WP:RSes that label him as anti-transgender. The fact you personally are not convinced is irrelevant. You can either start following dispute resolution to try and invalidate all those RSes, or just accept that you're not going to make any headway here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Indeed. I think we're starting to veer into WP:ICANTHEARYOU territory now. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Agreed on that.. Tomsega (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The phrasing is in clear violation of WP:BLP, in particular using activist wording in violation of WP:BLPSTYLE: "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves". I've gone ahead and updated the FAQ to be policy based instead of POV based. Reviewing the article as a whole, it's clear that there has been some serious activist editing, and the entire section is in violation of WP:NPOV. TheMissingMuse (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I reverted the FAQ change. There's already a BLP reminder just below the FAQ, and removing any reference to existing consensus on the "anti-trans acitivist" topic is unhelpful. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
As written, the FAQ answer advocates for violation of WP:BLP. TheMissingMuse (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. WP:BLPSTYLE tells us that Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects. In this circumstance, reliable secondary sources, as cited in the article, describe Linehan as an anti-trans activist. For us to document that in a non-partisan manner, we use the descriptors that they do. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
On this point, it's clear there is no consensus. The FAQ advocates for a partisan description in clear violation of WP:BLPSTYLE. Non-partisan here does not mean "repeating the exact phrasing used by partisan sources". TheMissingMuse (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia documenting something in a non-partisan manner often means we adopt partisan labels, when those are how a given topic are described by reliable sources. To do otherwise would see us breach WP:NPOV, as it would see us engaging with a dispute instead of describing one. In that respect, we are biased towards how reliable sources describe a topic, and biased against how unreliable sources describe a topic. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
I can only suggest that you spend more time reviewing WP:BLP. Policies for BLP pages are more conservative and careful than other articles. TheMissingMuse (talk) 03:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
the entire section is in violation of WP:NPOV @TheMissingMuse: can you give some examples or more detail? Popcornfud (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
The first sentence of the section is a perfect example: Linehan became involved in anti-transgender activism after the 2008 episode "The Speech" of The IT Crowd, written by Linehan, was widely criticised as transphobic and sexist when it was repeated in 2013. That sentence not supported by any source at all. The citation is to a link dump of a variety of partisan articles generally not appropriate for a WP:BLP. I'm actually agog to see that kind of citation practice is being used WP:BLP. You have a highly partisan statement in violation of WP:BLP without any kind of direct sourcing support. TheMissingMuse (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
That sentence is supported by a citation bundle, a long established practice across many article types, including BLPs. In addition to several high quality media sources, there are also two scholarly sources, so this very much represents high quality sourcing. While the bulk of the sources are there to support the descriptor of anti-trans activist, the Empire and Eugenics research paper supports the assertion about the specific episode of The IT Crowd being Linehan's entry point into anti-trans activism. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Although I haven't gone through all the citations in that bundle, I do think MissingMuse has a point in that it's very difficult to know exactly which citation any part of that sentence is supported by. Popcornfud (talk) 02:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
I've reviewed those sources, and none of the articles have wording remotely supporting that sentence. If I am mistaken about this, anyone should be able to highlight the specific source, and the wording used in that source. TheMissingMuse (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
From Empire and Eugenics: This online transphobia has been spearheaded by former comedy writer Graham Lineham, who took to the 'gender critical' movement after an episode of his television show The IT Crowd was criticised for its offensive portrayal of a trans woman. Note the source does misspell Linehan's surname if you're trying to do search on it's text. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
That quote does not support the first sentence of the section. If you really think that "Linehan became involved in anti-transgender activism after the 2008 episode "The Speech" of The IT Crowd, written by Linehan, was widely criticised as transphobic and sexist when it was repeated in 2013" is a paraphrasing of "This online transphobia has been spearheaded by former comedy writer Graham Lineham, who took to the 'gender critical' movement after an episode of his television show The IT Crowd was criticised for its offensive portrayal of a trans woman" there is not much to discuss here. TheMissingMuse (talk) 03:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't see how it's not the same sentiment? Both sentences make the point that Linehan became involved in anti-transgender activism/transphobia after the transphobic IT Crowd episode.
Am I missing something here? It's very obviously a paraphrase to me. DeputyBeagle (talk) 15:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
It's not our job to use sentiment as guide for making up facts. If a fact is not supported by the source, it should not be included in the article. TheMissingMuse (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
It seems like a straight paraphrase to me as well. I'm simply not seeing your objection here. --Aquillion (talk) 04:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The sentence in the source does not say that he became involved in activism, list the year of the re-showing, and does not characterize the criticism as 'widely' or 'transphobic'. TheMissingMuse (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Well that's why we have a citation bundle. Oftentimes to get the complete story set out in wikivoice, we need to splice together thoughts from multiple sources. The Guardian article cited calls it activism. The Independent article cited in the next sentence says the episode has been criticised as transphobic.
From a cursory glance over the sources I haven't spotted one that cites the year of the rerun, but I may be missing it. If it's not there I can't imagine it would be hard to source, and it's not a particularly egregious or WP:BLP violating issue. DeputyBeagle (talk) 09:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
You are describing WP:SYNTH. If you want to make factual statements about a living person, you have to have sources which directly supports the content. TheMissingMuse (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
I think you may have misunderstood the point of WP:SYNTH. It's not saying that any combining of sources is bad, but that combining of sources to present an new argument not expressed in either source is OR. That's not what's happening here. DeputyBeagle (talk) 10:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Given that the sentence has been updated, I'm not sure I understand your position here. Can you be specific with respect to changes you think should be made to the existing article? TheMissingMuse (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
If it's felt that this is an issue, we could move bundle 29 earlier in the sentence, as all of the sources support the descriptor, and then re-cite the Empire and Eugenics paper specifically for the fact about the episode's reception? That would I think address that problem. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
I think that would be fine. I would propose unbundling the anti-trans activism clause from the info about the episode. Something like:

Linehan is involved in anti-transgender activism. The 2008 episode "The Speech" of The IT Crowd, written by Linehan, was widely criticised as transphobic and sexist when it was repeated in 2013.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
That first sentence is going to need some robust secondary (preferably tertiary) sourcing from a mainstream non-partisan outlet. TheMissingMuse (talk) 03:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Since that objection applies also to the status quo, does the proposal seem to you to be an incremental improvement? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
It's certainly an improvement. TheMissingMuse (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
> mainstream non-partisan outlet
Can you give some examples? It's hard to think of an outlet that everyone with an opinion on this issue would agree is "non-partisan". Popcornfud (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
News articles from mainstream national organizations with wide circulation and readership. Like NYT, BBC, Washington Post, BBC, Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, The Atlantic, Bloomberg, CNN, The Economist, Forbes, LA Times. Etc. Partisan sources that have a vested interest in controversial topics covered in a BLP should generally be avoided, but if they are included they should be directly attributed. Sources like academic papers are not generally useful as they have a narrow readership and cannot be used to establish WP:DUE weight, especially for BLP articles. TheMissingMuse (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to the idea of unbundling it, but that wording definitely needs working on. By making them seperate sentences like that it almost downplays his transgender activism by swiftly moving onto the criticism of the episode, rather than showing that the criticism of him and of the episode are linked. DeputyBeagle (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Yeah I could see unbundling the activism clause from the rest of the sentence, but I'm not sure I agree with this specific proposal. It gets the cause and effect the wrong way around. The sentence ordering somewhat implies that the episode was an instance of his activism, whereas the sourcing states he got into the activism because the episode was criticised. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Trying to address your and DeputyBeagle's reasonable concerns, could we go with:

Linehan is involved in anti-transgender activism. He began making anti-trans statements online after the episode "The Speech" of The IT Crowd, written by Linehan, was widely criticised as transphobic and sexist.

First sentence would get the bundle, second sentence would get Empire and Eugenics. I wouldn't be surprised if there are more sources out there for the timeline, but E&E doesn't quite cover the old 2008/2013 language. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Yeah I like this. If we want to include the years, which I think would be informative as it shows that Linehan's anti-trans views weren't always present, and gives context for why his career as TV comedy writer just stops in the early 2010s, there was an interview with him earlier this year in The Times that amongst other content says He knew virtually nothing about this now consuming subject until 2013, the year a 2008 IT Crowd featuring a trans subplot was repeated. We already cite this interview extensively in the article (cite number 19).
Cite wise, I'd keep the bundle for the first sentence as FFF suggests, and then use both Empire and Eugenics and The Times for the second. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Yep I like this wording a lot better DeputyBeagle (talk) 09:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The first problem with that sentence is the wording: 'anti-transgender activism'. Linehan is not an activist of an anti transgender sort, he is, though, against transgender activism. The sentence's meaning can easily be read to label him transphobic (anti transgender) when he is very obviously not and often says so. Tracy Picabia (talk) 09:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
We have covered this so many times. Read the archives and the FAQ. DeputyBeagle (talk) 10:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
I think we may be missing something here if we just say "We have covered this so many times".
Can we not find some alternative or supplementary wording that would improve the article and prevent the "so many" from feeling the need to make the same point?
If we gathered together that "so many" our consensus might change.
Either way it shouldn't be left unaddressed. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
It hasn't been left unaddressed, though. It's been addressed multiple times, with the same arguments coming up again and again, mostly being made by newly-created single-purpose accounts. The bottom line is we report on what the sources say, and there is ample justification for using the wording that we are using. And when somebody arrives again, and makes the same old arguments, then all we can do is refer them to the archives and the FAQ. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
You seem to dismiss people who are interested enough to create the "newly-created single-purpose accounts". Is that reasonable?
You also acknowledge that not all are.
I'd totally agree that many RS describe Linehan as an anti transgender activist. What I can never find is any that really state what that is. I would suggest that many of the editors raising objections to this description of Linehan see it as some kind of dismissive smear of the points he has raised, some would see it as inaccurate because they haven't grasped the fundamental principle of that it's RS not Truth that make Wikipedia - which is it's greatest strength and weakness. Much of the RS we rely on here would be regarded as opinion peices in other articles - but with this type of article there isn't much else to go on.
Anyway those are my thoughts on why these issues have to be covered so many times. It tells me that the article needs improvement (like a brief elaboration on what we actually mean) - not that we have the 'wrong type of interest' in it. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 08:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Fair points. With regard to the new accounts, my frustration arises from the fact that it's usually obvious that they haven't bothered to read recent discussions on this talk page, let alone the FAQ or the archives, and most seem to follow the pattern of "(how dare you, this is a disgrace,) change anti-trans activist to gender critical." If someone wants to know what anti-trans activism is, though, they can a) follow the link; or b) read further into the article. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for being open minded about that.
I agree that people rarely read as much as they should - and with the amount of stuff we generate in these discussions I can be guilty of that too.
In our Lead we say is "an Irish comedy writer and anti-transgender activist" linking to the Transphobia article.
When we refer to Transgender Activism we link to the Transgender rights movementarticle - which is a much broader topic.
That seems to me where we start to fall down on this. We are effectively saying (among other things) that he supports fearing, being adverse to, hating, being violent towards, or angry towards people who do not conform to social gender roles.
I don't think the sources support that. They do describe him as an anti transgender activist but they don't define that. Neither do we so we need to tidy up what we mean.
Without trying to revise other articles on this could we say that Linehan is described as an anti transgender activist in that he actively opposes many (several, some??) tenants of the Transgender rights movement?
Maybe you can find a better way but can we look for something that more accurately describes what the generally wooly sources actually do say about him. Our references really aren't helpful on this. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, we had a discussion a while back because it used to be phrased that he was against transgender activism, and the result was to change it.
I don't think the wording we have right now is very clear, and it could do with clarifying, but it was the result of intense discussion and compromise DeputyBeagle (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Without trying to revise other articles on this could we say that Linehan is described as an anti transgender activist in that he actively opposes many (several, some??) tenants of the Transgender rights movement?
Being against transgender rights is anti-trans. Flat-out. He doesn't just oppose specific bits of trans rights activism, he opposes trans rights activism as a whole. That's just plain anti-transgender, and his activism is focused on belittling and harassing transgender individuals & rights groups. The man attempts to hide his transphobia as "women's rights" advocacy, but we have lots of RSes that see right through it to label him as anti-trans. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Graham_Linehan/Archive_11&oldid=1197498222"