Talk:Graham Linehan/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Encyclopaedic?

I am genuinely curious, can anyone sincerely claim this article comes across as an encyclopaedia entry about the writer Graham Linehan? It seems much more like a forum-thread style collection of grievances and a platform for people to make all sorts of value judgments about what they consider acceptable or unacceptable opinions. To approach a neutral informative article about the subject a good start would be to remove things like "YouTuber Hbomberguy held a 57-hour fundraising livestream that raised £270,000 more for Mermaids" (irrelevant), Linehan's "nomination" and "disqualification" by a comedian for a joke award as "Dick of the Year" (trivial) and the characterization of his views as "anti-transgender" (he has explicitly denied this). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.83.24 (talk) 23:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

You are, of course, correct. It is indeed nothing but a list of grievances by a particular faction and the changes you suggest would be proper editing and make it more encyclopaedic. Absolutely.

Good luck making that happen, though. Making the Linehan article read like an encyclopaedia article is supposed to read is the Gordian Knot of Wikipedia. It simply cannot be done under the Wikipedia editing system that is currently in place. Linehan is deeply hated by a group of editors who will revert any and all attempts to remove inappropriate material or headings. RFCs have failed. ANIs have been taken out. Bitter fights have been waged across multiple boards. Sanctions have been imposed.

But hey, if you want to take a crack at it, go for it. Lilipo25 (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

There has been a lot of discussion around this and there is now a very wide consensus in support of the section as it currently stands. Wikipedia has a transphobia problem but we're not allowed to mention it apparently. Awoma (talk) 13:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

You're not allowed to make personal attacks on talk pages. If you want to complain that other editors are acting in bad faith out with transphobic intent, do it at ANI with specific evidence. Please try to keep this a collegiate workspace. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Awoma There is not only not "a very wide consensus" for the section as it currently stands, there isn't even a tiny, breadth-of-a-human-hair consensus for it. The recent RFC had to be closed with no consensus after another long, contentious and ultimately fruitless battle. (For the sake of bare civility, I won't respond to the ugly insult or the go-around you put back in after Girth Summit redacted it). Lilipo25 (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

What is ANI? Awoma (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Awoma, WP:ANI. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Gottit. And how many times have you successfully fought an ANI against a transphobic editor? Awoma (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I can't answer that question, though a couple of them have been site banned in my memory. Certainly personal attacks are not officially tolerated on WP (though I have received my share). But I think it is within the TPG to point out that certain editors do not consider actions of this article's subject, which are perceived as hostile by LGTBQ+ communities as reliable sources indicate, to be ENCcyclopaedic, for some reason or other. Motives are an entirely separate question. Newimpartial (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

When you look at the number of "gender critical" edits on wikipedia, the motive is obvious. There's a reason that wikipedia has a reputation for transphobia, and forbidding people from talking about it is only going to make that reputation worse. Awoma (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Awoma your use of the word 'fought' is troubling. I'm not about to discuss my activities at ANI on an article talk page, it's completely off-topic. Keep this focused on the content, and don't throw labels at other editors - that's all I'm asking. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

LOL. That'll be zero then. Check yourself. Awoma (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

What does 'check yourself' mean? GirthSummit _(blether) 13:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Just so that we are clear, Awoma, "fighting" is not the officially intended activity on ANI (though fighting undoubtedly occurs, out of various motives). My own sense is that if editors regard ANI more as an administrative tribunal and less as a puppet court, things tend to go better than otherwise.

And to pick up a thread from elsewhere on the Talk page, I think it really can make a difference to have the two terms, "anti-trans" and "transphobic", while making one a synonym (or euphemism) for the other just confuses matters. "Transphobia", like "homophobia", carries with it assertions about motives which, while relevant when true, are just disruptive when thrown about without justification. "Anti-trans", like "anti-gay" or "anti-LGBT", is a more descriptive term that delineates actions and utterances opposing, or opposed my, trans and pro-trans communities in terms of rights, recognition, political demands or what have you.

So for WP purposes, a BLP subject can be anti-trans without being transphobic (or anti-gay without being homophobic), regardless of how unlikely this might seem based on the lived experience of some activists. And IMO moves to reduce one of these terms to the meaning of the other - from either direction - only serve to confuse the discussions among editors here. Newimpartial (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, I think the collapsed discussion on gender conversion therapy, at Talk:Graham Linehan#RfC on heading on Linehan's activities in relation to transgender causes and people, is worth looking at in this context. Newimpartial (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, why are you only reprimanding Awoma for it and not more or less the same action from Lilipo right above? --Equivamp - talk 14:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Equivamp, I don't believe that I'm reprimanding anyone - I'm asking that we all try to focus on content, and drawing attention to the policies on personal attacks. I am not exactly happy about Lilipo's assertion that there is a group of editors who hate Linehan - I think that goes too far in the direction of criticising other editors' motivations - but she at least stopped short of applying an label to those editors. I'd encourage everyone to keep this discussion focused exclusively on the content, and to leave speculation about others' motivations out of it. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

It's obvious why, no? You're just not allowed to say it. Awoma (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Awoma, I wasn't aware of a transphobic reputation being held about Wikipedia on other sites. If you could post links re same to my talk page, I'd appreciate it. As someone subject to a "trial" at AN/I recently for trying to accurately represent balance on trans-related issued on this and other articles, I'd be interested in reading such coverage. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Bastun, I think this SPA might need to find somethign else to edit. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Bastun, You may not have been aware of it because it doesn't actually exist. Perhaps Awoma was confusing Wikipedia's actual reputation for misogyny and hostility toward female editors and feminists with a reputation for transphobia? There are a great many news articles that have been written and studies that have been conducted about that. Here are a few to start with:

"Wikipedia's Hostility to Women" The Atlantic: [1]

"WP: Clubhouse? An Exploration of Wikipedia's Gender Imbalance" by Lam, et. al. [2]

"Wikipedia Has a Misogyny Problem" Verily [3]]

"Where are the Women in Wikipedia?"" The New York Times [4]

"Wikipedia Completely Failed to Fix Gender Imbalance" BBC [5]

"Why 'women's voices disappear' on Wikipedia and what Hamilton women are doing about it" CBC [6]

"Women Who Edit Wikipedia report Serious Harassment" Futurity [7] Lilipo25 (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

In your opinion, it doesn't exist, or maybe you just haven't noticed it. Like I say, I wasn't aware of it, which is why I asked. However, as trans women are women, they do undoubtedly suffer the misogyny and hostility you mention above. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

French source

[8]

So far as I can tell, this is just a French translation of the PinkNews source so it's not additional independent coverage. I also can't see much/any use of 45secondes on the English or French Wikipedia, a poor sign. — Bilorv (talk) 08:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Linehan's Twitter socking

I added a brief sentence about Linehan's recent self-outed alternate Twitter account which he deliberately revealed he had so he could call a man "a traitor to women, gay people and yourself", because the content was covered in a full-length article by PinkNews. Lilipo25 is edit warring over the content to introduce the following errors:

1. Violation of WP:UNDUE by introducing five lines of content (on my browser) about the topic, including lengthy weight to the open letter which is only of secondary relevance to the topic, which gives the open letter that Linehan did not sign and does not support more weight than anything Linehan has said or done relating to trans people (second to the Nazi experiments content, four lines but about two sets of comments).
2. criticised the creation of feminist and gay rights organisations which the signers deemed to hold is deliberate undermining of the letter. This isn't how we summarise people's points of view. We say their perspective and attribute it clearly, without the "but wink wink their opinion is wrong".
3. Introduction of an unreliable source, Gript, which is not a distinguished BLP-reliable publication so whose opinion is not of merit.
4. Everyone's favourite, WP:WEASEL, in the text ... a move that journalists pointed out ... which refers to one non-significant journalist's point of view.
5. Misrepresentation of a source's point of view, again about Gript, by reading the wording the writer used, would seem to clash with ... (emphasis mine) wrongly as would be at odds with ....
6. Verbose wording Linehan evaded the suspension with the creation of an account using an assumed name, deliberately revealing himself in order [...] Linehan's account was immediately suspended a second time by Twitter rather than the salient points In December 2020, Linehan evaded the suspension with the creation of account [...] which he used to call. I'd accept This alternate account was suspended by Twitter as an addition of content, but I honestly think it's so obvious as to not be worth noting.
7. Removal of the fact that Linehan's account posed as a trans man, a point so integral to the only reliable coverage—that of PinkNews—that it's in the headline.

Lilipo25 has shown intention to edit war, so I think we need some more voices in the conversation. The user has the intent to justify Linehan's [criticism of] the head of Amnesty International Ireland calling for women to be stripped of their political representation if they disagree with gender ideology's effect on their rights [which was also made by] human rights groups, women's groups and numerous newspaper op-eds (clauses reordered, original here). I suppose by this Lilipo25 means "calling someone a traitor on Twitter". Personally, I have no interest in condemning or justifying Linehan, just of noting that he was suspended but was subsequently active on Twitter (which raises some small, self-contained questions we can answer by a single sentence—the one I introduced). Pinging Bastun, JzG, NEDOCHAN, Newimpartial and -sche based on who has contributed to one of the last couple of threads, has shown a longer-term interest in the page, and who is recently activate (bit of an arbitrary cutoff / may have made mistakes so ping anyone who seems odd to leave out). Note that one editor thanked me for the edit at the time but I won't say who without permission. — Bilorv (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, is the Twitter socking really relevant to include in this article? Especially without including the broader background of what he's apparently "criticizing", it seems like all that happened was he made a sock account on Twitter after being banned, revealed it to insult someone, then got banned again. --Equivamp - talk 17:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I am also pinging Crossroads and Autumnking to notify them of the discussion, as I'm surprised to see both left off the list of those pinged based on participation in past discussions on this page. Lilipo25 (talk) 04:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong user name - should be Autumnking2012 Lilipo25 (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

A single sentence for a full-length PinkNews source is in line with what I consider standard practice across the articles I edit. With a topic like this I try to use every reliable source that exists, because there aren't too many of them. We could also say that the earlier part of the paragraph, about Linehan's suspension, is incomplete without mentioning that it didn't prevent him from being active on the site. — Bilorv (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

My own view is that the version which Lilipo has restored as of time of signing this post is better, however I do feel that his posing as a trans man should be made clear. Something like, 'using an assumed name of a trans man'. It's certainly relevant. The alternative is not including it at all. If it is included, I can't see how it benefits the article not to point out that he was posing as trans.NEDOCHAN (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@NEDOCHAN: thanks for the comment. Do you think that Gript is a reliable source? If so, could you expand a little on why? If not, would we be removing the content that only Gript covers? — Bilorv (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Several points: 1. Lilipo was reverted, but again reverted, themselves. WP:BRD should be followed - if reverted, discuss on talk, rather than re-revert. 2. Lilipo's version is too long; this article is about Linehan, and brief coverage of the ban evasion is appropriate and due. The ins and outs of the letter, less so. 3. That said, it would absolutely be appropriate to include the subject of the letter, moreso than is mentioned in Bilory's version. That can be done without (mis)representing what the letter was about (apparently some UK-based activists setting up an "Irish" anti-trans "organisation"), and without including more about criticism of the letter than Linehan's actual block evasion! 4. Gript is in no way a reliable source. 5. It beggars belief that we wouldn't include mention that Linehan was posing as a trans man on his sock account! I would therefore favour Bilory's version, with the addition of a sentence clause describing the subject of the letter. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

NEDOCHAN Bastun It "beggars belief that we wouldn't include that Linehan was posing as a trans man on his twitter account" (quoting Bastun) - unless, of course, he wasn't. What the bio on his sock account said, in full, was Fun trans guy or Graham Linehan, it's almost as if people can lie about their identity on here! Pink News, being as always exceedingly biased against Linehan, claims he was simply "posing as a trans man", but if so, then we also have to say that he was openly revealing he was, in fact, Graham Linehan, since he wrote that in the bio, too, and gave it equal weight. But anyone reading the bio could see that he was doing neither and was in fact humorously saying that since anyone can lie in their twitter bio about who they are, no one should assume that anything a bio says is true.

Bastun, your description of "what the letter was about" is a severe misrepresentation, not mine; the groups you refer to were neither set up by UK-based activists nor are they anti-trans "organisations" (no need for the sarcastic quotation marks there at all): they are several Irish feminist and gay rights organisations, set up by Irish women and homosexuals to advocate for their own rights. As for Gript, it has never been deemed an unreliable source by Wikipedia, but I can change the source to Phoenix Magazine, if preferred - the Phoenix article is behind a paywall, but I have access to it. As for my not discussing it on this page before reverting back, I responded to Bilorv where he wrote to me, on my own talk page, and he made no effort to post here before reverting back twice.

My own opinion is that Equivamp is correct and the twitter socking doesn't belong in the article at all, as an encyclopedia is not meant to be a long list of the grievances that one very biased publication has against the article's subject, and this one already reads like Pink News is writing it. But if we must include it every time they publish another hit piece on Linehan, no matter how inconsequential the subject, then we must at least include other sources that give more context to the story than the very slanted view they create. Lilipo25 (talk) 03:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Unable to comment further until much later today but yes, Phoenix is fine as an additional source. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Lilipo25: your misunderstanding of the situation is a perfect example of why we need to defer to reliable sources rather than make assumptions ourselves. Linehan used the "scarlysimon" account for months and of course did not joke that he was Graham Linehan in his bio until he had already outed himself with the "traitor" tweet. He posed as a trans man for a good long period prior to that tweet. (You can actually see him cite "scarlysimon" once on his blog.) This is why PinkNews correctly refer to the situation as such, based on investigative journalism backed up by editorial oversight rather than random guesses and wrong assumptions. — Bilorv (talk) 12:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bilorv: My "misunderstanding of the situation"? First, even your Pink News source never says what you are claiming: it says nowhere at all in their story that he only put the "Graham Linehan" in the bio after outing himself. So I don't even understand the point of you stating that as if it's fact and then telling me we need to "defer to reliable sources" like Pink News because I "misunderstand the situation". According to their own story, the account was immediately suspended by Twitter when he outed himself and so he couldn't have changed the bio after that. They make no claim at all that he did.

Secondly, let's not be silly here: Pink News actively prides itself on the fact that it does no "investigative journalism" when it comes to celebrities in its hit pieces. This is the same publication that started a worldwide fury against JK Rowling recently by claiming her new book was all about a transgender serial killer, and then when actual newspaper reviewers read the book and said there was in fact no transgender character at all anywhere in it, Pink News proudly responded that they had never actually read any of the book before writing their story on it and never would read it because she's a bigot. They aren't the exactly the staff of the New Yorker. Lilipo25 (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, your misunderstanding of the situation. My information comes from a primary source which is not reliable/significant/published for Wikipedia's purposes so I'm choosing not to provide it (screenshots of the account before it was suspended), but it is concrete fact that Linehan's account has been around for a lot longer than it has mentioned "Graham Linehan" in its bio. Uncontroversial fact—Linehan wouldn't try to hide it if you asked him, based on his newsletters and comments. Linehan had the account for at the very least a fortnight (possibly several months), posed as a trans man and commented on trans topics, and then recently used the account to call a man "a traitor" revealing it to be his own, also altering his bio and making a tweet pointing readers towards his blogs at the same time. The "traitor" comment was not the purpose or origin of the account, just the public identification of the account to Linehan. — Bilorv (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I forgot that there's one piece of evidence I can easily point you to—Linehan quoting "scarlysimon" (his Twitter account) on his blog on 25 November, a week before he connected himself to the account. Before you say "this is original research / doesn't prove that X", that's exactly the point I'm making. This is why we write what reliable sources say, rather than trying to debunk them ourselves and making basic factual errors in the process. PinkNews, as little as you hear it, has been identified as generally reliable for such simple statements of fact as "Linehan created an account on Twitter which ..." by the Wikipedia community as a whole, per WP:RSP, so your argument against its use here cannot be "it's not generally reliable for simple statements of fact". — Bilorv (talk) 18:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Sigh, Bilorv, we are supposed to assume that other editors are editing in good faith. In order to do that, you have to at least attempt to argue in good faith. This is so egregiously outside of good faith that I don't even know what I'm supposed to do in response here.

How can I debate this issue when you make utterly false claims about what the published sources say while sneering about how I 'misunderstand', and when I point out that your sources say no such thing at all, change your story to claim you actually got your information from a secret "primary source" you have access to but won't name because it can't be used on Wikipedia, then say no, wait, actually, it is from Linehan's own blog - except that nothing in Linehan's blog backs what you said in the least! Nowhere does that link or any other on his blog show that he changed his bio after revealing he was behind the sock. It doesn't even show the bio! Him quoting the sock account on his blog is apropos of nothing at all that is being disputed.

There is no evidence in any source at all that your story about Linehan changing his bio is true. I have not misunderstood. This is absurd. Lilipo25 (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

My story has not changed—I referred to non-Pink News evidence and Linehan's blog in my initial comment; there are multiple pieces of information which I have, of which I've given the one that I can. I've not been talking about the published sources but the truth of what happened, which you are wrong in your description of. PinkNews refer to him posing as a trans man because he posed as a trans man for a long time before the account mentioned the name "Graham Linehan". If you're interested in WP:AGF then why are you assuming that I'm lying about something that I have no reason to lie about when I have no history of lying on Wikipedia in 20,000 edits? — Bilorv (talk) 12:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

You right now in the above comment: My story has not changed....I've not been talking about the published sources

You yesterday in this comment [9]: Lilipo25 your misunderstanding of the situation is a perfect example of why we need to defer to reliable sources rather than make assumptions ourselves. Linehan used the "scarlysimon" account for months and of course did not joke that he was Graham Linehan in his bio until he had already outed himself with the "traitor" tweet. He posed as a trans man for a good long period prior to that tweet. (You can actually see him cite "scarlysimon" once on his blog.) This is why PinkNews correctly refer to the situation as such, based on investigative journalism backed up by editorial oversight rather than random guesses and wrong assumptions

I don't even know how to have a discussion with someone who repeatedly says something, then when it is shown to be wrong, simply denies they ever said it.

So instead I'll just ask: you keep saying you have personal access to "primary sources" with information on this situation that you can't cite in the article. In addition, you indicated that you know Pink News also has access to this information, but they have not published it anywhere. It is therefore reasonable to ask if you have an affiliation of any kind with Pink News or members of its staff? Lilipo25 (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely that's a reasonable question, and I'm sorry to have unintentionally given this impression. I have no financial or professional COI in regards to PinkNews and had no involvement in the article's research or publication. I choose to avoid all COI editing, but if I were to talk about news sources I had any involvement with then I would disclose it and not edit articles directly. — Bilorv (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I cannot help but notice that your wording is somewhat circumspect, @Bilorv:. You say you have no financial COI and didn't help write or edit this particular article, but that isn't what was asked: do you have an affiliation with Pink News of any kind, and if so, what is the nature of that affiliation? Lilipo25 (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

No, I have no affiliation with PinkNews of any kind. Otherwise comments such as the ones I made at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_305#PinkNews would be a violation of COI. If you'd like, I could disclose the information I can't present on-wiki to an uninvolved administrator by email, who could confirm that they do not relate to PinkNews. — Bilorv (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

New development, new source: [10]. I presume we would want to mention this in the same breath as the "scarlysimon" ban: [...] This account was banned, though Linehan told fans he was using a new SIM card to create a new Twitter account. — Bilorv (talk) 13:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

That's yet another hit piece from the same tabloid source, Pink News, and seriously, now we're going to add everything he says to his fans that Pink News doesn't like to this encyclopedia article? So much for your call for "brevity". Lilipo25 (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Enough. Quoting Linehan isn't "another hit piece", it's quoting Linehan. It's perfectly fine to use the same source. Considering we cover his Twitter ban, then yes, Linehan evading that ban and boasting about doing it again is absolutely due - obviously and clearly so. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I think you will have to explain to me why such a minor event, only covered by a source that should be used cautiously, is obviously and clearly WP:DUE. --Equivamp - talk 15:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, missed this. I believe coverage is WP:DUE because anti-trans activism is what Linehan is known for. As The Hand That Feeds You puts it, "I'd say an anti-trans advocate creating a sockpuppet account to pretend to be a transman, specifically to be quoted on his own blog, and then using that account to attack trans advocates, is worthy of at least a brief mention." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Bastun, when you are finally put in charge of Wikipedia, you will get to tell me when I must stop participating in discussions. Until then, do stop saying "Enough" to me, as I am not your child and I do not stop speaking on your command. Lilipo25 (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Quoting Linehan isn't "another hit piece", it's quoting Linehan. It's perfectly fine to use the same source. Considering we cover his Twitter ban, then yes, Linehan evading that ban and boasting about doing it again is absolutely due - obviously and clearly so. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The first three words of the article refer to him as "Disgraced comedy writer". It goes on to quote a completely random twitter user calling him "unhinged". Please stop pretending these articles about him by Pink News are objective journalism that merely "quote Linehan". You know they aren't. Lilipo25 (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

When you get put in charge of my head, you can tell me what I know and don't know. WP:RSP has concluded that "There is rough consensus that PinkNews is generally reliable for factual reporting, but additional considerations may apply and caution should be used." Pinknews reported on Linehan's socking, quoting him in its report: "Using the handle “scarlysimon”, Linehan told Amnesty Ireland executive director Colm O’Gorman that he was a “traitor to women and gay people” for signing a letter supporting trans rights." and "He told his supporters in a newsletter Wednesday (2 December): “I had a new sim card standing by and am back on the site under a new account.”" Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The sentence on Lenihan's socking currently reads "In December 2020, Linehan evaded the suspension with the creation of account posing as a trans man, which he used to call Colm O'Gorman "a traitor to women, gay people and yourself" for signing an open letter published by the Transgender Equality Network of Ireland." I think this needs some expansion - the letter in question was signed by 28 organisations and over 50 individuals. There needs to be some reference to that. As I argued at the JK Rowling article some time ago on a similar topic, we can't talk about "an open letter" without mentioning the subject of the letter. I therefore propose:

"In December 2020, Linehan evaded the suspension with the creation of an account posing as a trans man, which he used to call Colm O'Gorman "a traitor to women, gay people and yourself" for signing an open letter published by the Transgender Equality Network of Ireland and signed by over 75 individuals and organisations, that called for continued solidarity with the transgender community." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

And once again, as in every single discussion on this talk page, you have simply bulldozed and dismissed all the voices that disagreed with yours and made the determination that the article will be written your way, to depict Linehan as negatively as possible. We have two editors (Equivamp and myself) saying this is an inconsequential incident not worthy of inclusion at all and two (you and Bilorv) who of course want it in because Pink News has written yet another hit piece on him using it. NEDOCHAN was fairly neutral, but did say my version was better than Bilorv's. And from that, you of course take it for granted that it will be included, bulldoze over the other opinions to decide only your biased source will be used and the article will reflect Pink News' negative view. Every discussion here ends this way.

The incident doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia article at all. Only Pink News even reported it (with their article reprinted by a handful of unreliable tabloid sources like Metro UK). Pink News should frankly never be used in this article as a source, in accordance with the "caution" Wikipedia suggests regarding them. They are wildly biased against the article subject and since they report on incidents so unimportant that no legitimate news sources will cover them at all and therefore provide an unbiased source that can be used to balance theirs, the entire section is now simply a repetition of their personal vendetta against him.

If you will insist (and you will) on including the incident, then at the very least you cannot use Pink News' absurd description of the letter he was objecting to. Other, far more legitimate, political publications have covered the letter. "In December 2020, Linehan revealed that he had evaded the suspension by creating a twitter account with a false name, which he used to call Amnesty Ireland executive director Colm O'Gorman "a traitor to women, gay people and yourself" for signing an open letter published by the Transgender Equality Network of Ireland. The letter called for feminists who "defend biology" and question aspects of gender-recognition legislation to be denied a media platform and political representation, a move heavily criticised by women's groups."(The Phoenix and Spiked can both serve as sources for the second sentence, since you didn't like the original source I used). Lilipo25 (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

NPOV? The TENI letter was signed by the National Women's Council of Ireland, Dublin Lesbian Line, Migrant and Ethnic Minorities for Reproductive Justice, the Abortion Rights Campaign, and other feminist- and feminist-led groups, though... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Who signed the letter has nothing to do with the neutrality of the sources reporting on it. I consent to changing it to "heavily criticised by some feminist and gay-rights groups" (among those would be Women's Space Ireland, Radicailin, The Countess Didn't Fight for This and LGB Alliance Ireland) but not to using Pink News' false representation of the letter as merely "calling for solidarity with the transgender community" as you have done.

If you want to include Pink News' support of the letter in the article, then we will also be including those who condemned it (no, "brevity" does not mean we only represent the side you agree with): sources as wide-ranging across the political spectrum as the far-left Socialist Democracy (who called the letter "dangerous lies and hypocrisy"), Spiked ("McCarthyism"; "a chilling, authoritarian rant"), Phoenix magazine ("censorship") and the far-right Gript ("clashes with the Universal Declaration on Human Rights"). Also, public figures like the granddaughter of Amnesty International founder Sean McBride, Iseult White, who wrote an Op-Ed on it for the Irish Times (the letter "seeks to deny legitimate representation to people of conscience"), among others. Lilipo25 (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Spiked and Gript are not reliable. — Bilorv (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

False, Bilorv. Neither has been deemed an unreliable source by Wikipedia. If you want them to be, then you need to open a discussion on them in the Reliable Sources noticeboard. But you cannot continue to pronounce every conservative-leaning source "unreliable" simply because you don't agree with their politics. That's not how reliability works. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Spiked is far-left (at least in my opinion; I know there's differing views). There are of course millions of potential sources, and the onus is not on RSN to prohibit a source (there's not enough time in the world...), but the person trying to use a source to demonstrate either past precedent or substantial evidence that the website has a reputation for editorial fact-checking. I see little to no use of Gript or Spiked on the English Wikipedia (with Spiked receiving mostly negative views by editors when it is discussed, including on RSN), nor evidence that they have the requisite fact-checking policies (I'm more familiar with Spiked, which is just a source of polemic opinions with little regard for facts). — Bilorv (talk) 08:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out loud, you're going to try to claim Spiked is far-left now? You can always check the Media Bias site, which rates every source for their political affiliation [11]. And your description of Spiked as "just a source of polemic opinions with little regard for facts" perfectly suits Pink News, your favorite source for everything. Lilipo25 (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Where do I say I want to include PinkNews' "support" of the letter? I don't. Doubtful if Iseult White can be considered a "public figure", but in any case, notable ancestry does not convey authority. In a Republic, anyway. In contrast to the long-established groups and organisations who signed the letter that I mention above (NWCI and ARC have their own articles, Dublin Lesbian Line is a registered charity with a bricks-and-mortar address that's been around for a few decades, MERJ have been around for several years and have had speakers at Marches for Choice), "The Countess Didn't Fight For This" is a website registered in June, "Women's Space Ireland" is a website registered in April with a home page and website indicating transgender issues are its sole cause, and Radicailín (there's a fada) appears to be a twitter account created in August. Not very compelling. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Using only Pink News' description of the letter as merely "calling for solidarity with the transgender community" is including their support for it, and is meant to falsely convey that Linehan objected to that. When what he objected to - as did many others - is the call for feminists and gays who question any aspect of gender ideology to be stripped of their political representation and media platform. You may dismiss any group of women who don't adhere to the same viewpoint that you do, but fortunately they need neither your permission nor O'Gorman's to object to an authoritarian call that they be silenced from advocating for their own rights. As for White, I didn't say that her ancestry is what gave her authority on the matter. Her response was covered by the media and she was published in the Irish Times on it. If Pink News' opinions are allowable, the Irish Times' certainly are. Lilipo25 (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

This seems so trivial. I'm not sure it should be included in this article and I can't believe you have spent this much space arguing over what should be a sentence, at most, if it can be reliably sourced and I'm not sure your sources are reliable. I'm sure impersonation on social media doesn't rank up in the Top 50 things a reader might want to know about this BLP and his career. It should be a footnote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Graham Linehan article, Liz, where we have had entire sections opened on the Talk page over a single connective word ("but" or "and") in a sentence [12]. 90% of it is the same argument over and over: whether or not every anti-Linehan article Pink News publishes should be recounted in the Wikipedia article about him, and if so, how it should be worded. Lilipo25 (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I begin these discussions because you are the only editor who consistently undoes changes I make at this article that would never in a million years be undone at a non-politics topic (changing a connective, introducing a handful of words summarising a reliable source) and I won't let someone bully me into not making routine changes. — Bilorv (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

You begin these discussions specifically because you are looking to gather support from the usual anti-Linehan group to bully me into not making any attempts to make this article even slightly encyclopedic, rather than a listing of Pink News hit pieces on its subject. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Liz, I don't know how familiar you are with the topic, but Linehan's comments on Twitter and other social media (trivial as you might find them) are the only source of a large body of coverage about Linehan in the last two years and Twitter is the thing he is most well-known for since The IT Crowd. His ban definitely is one of the Top 10 things people know about him (or might want to know) and so I believe that the repeated ban evasion is relevant. I agree that it should only be a sentence. — Bilorv (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Also agreed, it should only be a sentence. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that when the two of you (Bilorv and Bastun) say "it should only be a sentence", you always mean that it should only include Pink News' heavily biased anti-Linehan account and anything that gives a more neutral viewpoint can't be added to that, because that would make it too long. You aren't concerned with brevity; you're concerned with keeping out anything that doesn't make the article subject look as bad as possible.

It's an unimportant incident that doesn't belong in the article at all and received zero coverage from any legitimate news media. Lilipo25 (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm concerned with including anything that has been mentioned in reliable sources and removing anything that has not been mentioned in reliable sources (or anything covered only in sources that do not mention Linehan by name). — Bilorv (talk) 08:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd say an anti-trans advocate creating a sockpuppet account to pretend to be a transman, specifically to be quoted on his own blog, and then using that account to attack trans advocates, is worthy of at least a brief mention. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, good thing he neither pretended to be a trans man nor attacked anyone for being a trans advocate, then. Lilipo25 (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Do try to keep up. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

See, I thought of saying that to you, but figured since sarcasm violates Wikipedia's rules on civility, I shouldn't. And there was a lot to read through here by the time you got here, so I thought perhaps I shouldn't blame you for not bothering and just accepting Pink News' nonsense on both those claims is fact. But it isn't. He never pretended to be a trans man, and he didn't criticise anyone for supporting trans rights - he criticised them for the same reason the Irish Times, the Democratic Socialist, Spiked, and at least four women's and gay rights groups did: because they publicly called for feminists, immigrants and gays who question the impact of gender identity legislation on their rights to be stripped of political representation and silenced. And that's, well, fascism. Lilipo25 (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah, the "it's fascist to defend trans people from anti-trans advocates" argument. I'll be dismissing your views from here on out.

For the record, I didn't "just accept Pink News". I've followed this on multiple outlets since he outed himself on his sock account. You can stick your head in the sand if you wish, but please don't try to pretend you're being impartial in your defense of Linehan. He criticizes trans rights constantly, while covering himself in the blanket of "just defending women". He's a transphobe, full stop. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't care what you think of Linehan, but pretending that stripping women of their political representation and their media voice is just "defending trans people from anti-trans advocates: is a frightening argument. It's pretty much the definition of fascism to take political representation from and silence groups with which you disagree. Have a look through history at how that ends, and ask yourself why a far-left publication like Socialist Democrats would call that letter "dangerous lies and hypocrisy". And since Pink News is the ONLY media outlet that covered the twitter socking (with a handful of tabloid press just reprinting their story verbatim), your "I've followed this on multiple outlets" is unlikely. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

stripping women of their political representation and their media voice

Ah yes, they've been so stripped of representation and voices that... they continue to have representation and are on national news constantly. Whereas trans minors literally had rights stripped from them this past week. Your cries of "Fascism!" are the frightening thing: you've turned it around so that the oppressors are the victims, and that's terrifying. We're done here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The idea that women's rights activists get "constant" news coverage - or even a fraction of the coverage that transgender rights activists get - is laughable in itself, but it has nothing to do with the fact that the letter we are discussing specifically called for them to be stripped of political representation and media platforms. That so much of the media expressed outrage over that, and that women fought back with the "We Will Not Be Silenced" campaign does not in any way mean the letter did not demand it and that it was wrong and more importantly, that it is what Linehan expressed outrage over.

I'm not going to get into an argument with you over whether medicalizing children is a good or bad idea; the court decided they were being endangered and you are free to disagree but that is, frankly, utterly unrelated to anything we are talking about. Your view of who the oppressors are is likewise your view and not a fact and has nothing to do with this. Lilipo25 (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

What court? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

They're referring to the decision in the Keira Bell case against the Tavistock GIDS in the UK. Lilipo25 (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah, right. Not sure what "medicalizing children" means, but I'm guessing your mean providing medical treatment. Not sure of the relevance of a UK court case to a letter written by an Irish transgender equality organisation, signed by over 20 other organisations, or Linehan's online reaction to one member of one of those organisations. Also puzzled as to how the story was "only covered by PinkNews", but was also covered by Phoenix and the other outlets you've also mentioned. I don't see what else we can achieve here, as clearly there is consensus for inclusion. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

First, I'm not going to get into a debate with you, either, on the issue of medicalizing kids, because just as I said to Hand That Feeds You when they brought it up (with their "trans minors had rights stripped from them this week" comment), it is completely irrelevant to this discussion. You are both attempting to goad me into a fight on a case that has nothing to do with this article.

Secondly, you are confusing two different sets of news coverage that have been discussed: Only Pink News covered the story of Linehan's Twitter socking. The Phoenix and all of the other outlets covered the actual news story of the letter from Irish organisations, which is what he made the comment to O'Gorman about.

And thirdly, I cannot even guess how you have come to the conclusion that "there is clearly consensus for inclusion" when we have three people saying it should not be included (Me, Equivamp and Liz) and three saying it should (you, Bilorv and Hand That Feeds You - NewImpartial entered this discussion about my editing in violation of an I-Ban), but that is consistent with how you do math on this article - 'consensus' always seems to be the same thing as your view, even when it isn't. Lilipo25 (talk) 20:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Because you're misrepresenting facts. Bilory, Nedochan, The Hand That Feeds You, Newimpartial and I all favour inclusion. (Just because there's apparently an iban doesn't mean they're banned from expressing that and shouldn't have their view or representation discounted, just because you disagree. I mean... "that'd be positively fascist", I believe, is how the argument goes?). Equivamp and you are opposed. Liz's words are right there, and those words are "not sure it should be included... a sentence at most", which is not the total opposition you claim it to be. 5:2:1. Not 3:3. Can you also lay off the personal attacks, please? You're accusing others of being sarky, while doing exactly that yourself. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, calling for women to be stripped of all political representation in a country if they have a viewpoint you don't like is exactly like Wikipedia admins banning an editor from interacting with or mentioning another editor due to abuse. You should definitely bring that up with the admins and get that fascist rule overturned. Lilipo25 (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

It's also interesting how Liz's "I'm not sure it should be included" means that her opinion shouldn't count bc isn't clear-cut enough, but NEDOCHAN'S "The alternative is not including it at all. If it is included..." doesn't disqualify their opinion from being taken as a vote for your side. And if you're going to complain that I'm being "sarky", it's probably best not to do it in the very next sentence after being so yourself (I mean... "that'd be positively fascist", I believe, is how the argument goes?) Lilipo25 (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Nedochan's full comment is directly above but I'll repeat the relevant part here: "My own view is that the version which Lilipo has restored as of time of signing this post is better, however I do feel that his posing as a trans man should be made clear. Something like, 'using an assumed name of a trans man'. It's certainly relevant. The alternative is not including it at all. If it is included, I can't see how it benefits the article not to point out that he was posing as trans." I'm at a loss to understand how you could take that as signifying opposition to inclusion. And yes, you've attacked other editors, all the way through this thread. Please stop. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Either you accept all comments that equivocate or none. Not the ones that lean toward your side only. And once again, you spend an entire page being sarcastic, bulldozing other editors and attacking, followed by a dramatic display of crying out "Please won't you stop being sarcastic and attacking! Oh, please stop!" It's a cynical ploy that has long since lost it's believability with anyone who can read. Lilipo25 (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Again - Nedochan didn't equivocate. It's perfectly clear what their view is. But even if they had, that's still 4:2:2. And fine, don't stop. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Exactly my view. Newimpartial (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, as this section was specifically created to discuss my editing (and clearly addressed as such), you know you aren't supposed to be participating in it. Lilipo25 (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

To the room: as I understand it, an iban is not supposed contribute to page OWNership or to impede editors from commenting on content issues, so long as they are not interacting with the editor the iban concerns. Responding with a "+1" to a comment that only addresses the content issue and not any behavioural matters with other editors seems to me to be entirely compliant with an iban. If this is not a correct interpretation on my part, then might that be a good reason (which I have lacked up to present) to get the iban reversed, since then it would be impeding me from contributing to the project through the discussion of content issues that I know something about? Newimpartial (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

It is possible that I am incorrect about the rules of an IBAN, as I have never dealt with one before this. I have asked the Admin who placed it to look at it. Lilipo25 (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The admin who imposed the IBAN says it does not extend to this because it's a content dispute, so I was wrong on that and withdraw my objection to the vote of the other party. Lilipo25 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I've re-added the second PinkNews source with the briefest description I can manage, given the following: the first sentence has remained in the article after much discussion and a weak consensus (I don't buy "4:2:2" because this isn't a vote but it seems there is more argumentation in favour of inclusion); the incident isn't really "complete" without mentioning that the account was banned and (according to Linehan) replaced; and we want (i.e. have a stronger consensus) to keep this material to a sentence (which I've accomplished with a cheeky semi-colon). — Bilorv (talk) 13:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

This compromise seems reasonable to me. Newimpartial (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus at all, Bastun, and you still have not answered Equivamp's very reasonable enquiry here [13], which I have also been waiting on your reply to before replying again. The sentence as it stands is no "compromise", it is simply 100% what you wanted from the start with no effort to include other opinions, just as you end every discussion on this page. Lilipo25 (talk) 07:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Your fixation on me is misplaced. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

My bad. I do confuse the two of you. Lilipo25 (talk) 06:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Due to the general unavailability of many editors over the holiday season, I suggest putting a pin in this discussion until after the New Year. We could all use a break anyway. Lilipo25 (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

"Lesbian erasure protests in London pride"

A sentence under the anti-transgender activism section reads "In 2018, Linehan praised lesbian erasure protesters at that year's London Pride event as "heroes"". It wasn't clear to me why this was relevant to the section, and looking at the sources they are not called "lesbian erasure protesters" but "anti-trans protesters." I changed the sentence to "In 2018, Linehan praised anti-transgender protesters at that year's London Pride event as "heroes"", but this was reverted by user Lilipo25. I think this wording is better for 2 reasons. Firstly, the reason for its inclusion in the section becomes abundantly obvious, rather than leaving the reader to guess. Secondly, it is better supported by the sources - they say "anti-trans protesters" not "lesbian erasure protesters." Awoma (talk) 19:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

We go by what the sources say, not what we would like them to have said. The sources describe the protestors as "anti-trans activists", not as "lesbian erasure protestors." So I would support your edit. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The source calls them anti-trans activists. The person who worded it "lesbian erasure activists" is merely POV-pushing. --Equivamp - talk 21:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

When I read "lesbian erasure protesters" I think of some dreamlike combination of Eraserhead and Mulholland Drive that produced a response like the Catherine Did It protests (which seem tragically to have passed out of Wikipedia's RECENTIST historical imaginary). Newimpartial (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

What an interesting read. What a strange place to find it. With such large photographs. I don't see this "Yahoo" taking off... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)