Talk:Graham Linehan

"anti-transgender activist"

im not sure this wording is great; we dont describe homophobes as "anti-gay activists". borrowing phrasing from nick fuentes' article, the correct description would seem to be "known for his transphobic views". 2001:8003:B061:1300:182:E5C2:439F:CFB5 (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

FAQ - reliable secondary sources

The reliable sources are in the article itself. If you are not here to engage in improving the article, per your statement, then this section violates WP:FORUM. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi - I'm not silly enough to try to edit this page, as it's a hornets' nest. I would just like to take issue with the FAQ statement, 'Wikipedia is primarily based on reliable secondary sources, and these describe Graham Linehan as an anti-transgender activist'. I can't find a single RSS that uses this phrase. That is all. NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC) Oh and for the avoidance of doubt, I will not respond to this discussion for the reasons above.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Wording of FAQ

I accept that I shouldn't have said that I wouldn't discuss, but I don't think 'hatting' was appropriate. On reflection, I can see that one of the sources does use the phrase, but the others don't, and it's certainly not the usual way he's described by RS. Cherry picking concerns aside, I understand that CONSENSUS has been reached to use this wording, so my suggestion is that the wording of the FAQ says this (i.e. consensus has been reached), rather than suggesting that the majority of RSS describe him this way, as they clearly don't. NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I think you need to read the FAQ wording more closely. It already says Wikipedia is primarily based on reliable secondary sources, and these describe Graham Linehan as an anti-transgender activist Per discussions on the talk page, there is consensus among editors to use this wording.

You seem to be reading something into the phrasing that isn't there. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I think you need to read my point more closely. The wording says, 'reliable secondary sources, and these describe Graham Linehan as an anti-transgender activist'. The point I am making is that, on the whole, the reliable secondary sources do not use this wording, as is evidenced by the fact that of all the sources given (which one could argue have been cherrypicked, although I'm not getting into that), only one does. So, for the sake of getting the FAQ wording correct, a more accurate reason for the chosen wording should be given. I accept that the wording reflects CONSENSUS, but I do not accept that the wording reflects the way in which RSS describe the subject on the whole.

To be clear, I am taking issue with the wording of the FAQ, which suggests that RSS choose this wording more often than they do not, which is simply not the case.

Something along the lines of 'The current wording reflects WP:CONSENSUS based on the majority of editors' collective assessment of RSS, as shown by extensive discussion. Please do not change it without CONSENSUS.' NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I read your point, I simply disagree. No, it's not only one source that calls him that. There are literally eight citations for the statement in the first sentence of that paragraph! I think you're basing your claim on the fact all those sources are condensed to a single citation link, meaning you didn't actually bother reading them. You just saw the single cite template and assumed it was just one cite. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I have read all of them. One refers to him as an 'anti-trans activist'. The others, even the absurdly unbalanced 'Vox' article, do not. I could be wrong, so please do enlighten me with quotes from them which use the same epithet, as I can only see one instance of its being used. NEDOCHAN (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like you're cherry picking the sources to ignore the ones that list him as an example of an anti-trans activist, instead of labeling him directly. That's not going to fly. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am taking issue with the wording of the FAQ. It currently reads, when referring to Reliable Secondary Sources, 'these describe Graham Linehan as an anti-transgender activist'.

My issue is that, of the sources chosen, only one does.

My point is that the wording of the FAQ should be changed, because at the moment it implies that this is the usual epithet applied in RSS, when of the eight sources chosen to support this take, only one does. And I can't find any others anywhere else.

I think it'd be better to explain the fact that this epithet represents a consensus among editors, which is true, rather than suggest it's the normal way for RSS to describe him, which isn't true.

This seems a fair point.

I also think you might be kind enough to take back the 'you didn't actually bother reading them' comment, which I took as a unprompted PA. NEDOCHAN (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, more than one does, you're just refusing to listen because it doesn't suit you. I'll not be responding further to this disingenuous argument. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

My points are two. 1. that only one source describes Linehan as a an 'anti-transgender activist'. 2. That the wording of the FAQ suggests that the majority of sources do.

What exactly am I missing?

Also a bit rich that you hatted my comment about not replying, and then say exactly the same after throwing out a personal attack for good measure. NEDOCHAN (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Look at citation number 30 on the article - "Sources covering Linehan's anti-transgender views". This citation is used in the first sentence of the "Anti-transgender activism" section.

There are 8 sources in that citation, each of which labels Graham an anti-transgender activist.

Both of your points are false. CurdyKai (talk) 09:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

If my points are false, I would invite you to show me more than one instance of 'anti-transgender activist' being used as a label in the given citations. NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

You're clearly not having this conversation in good faith. This will be my last reply on this topic.

Read the sources in the citation. Each has more than one instance of that label being applied to Graham. CurdyKai (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I have just read all of the [30] sources (aside from one, which I don't have access to). For all that I could read, it is correct that only one of those sources calls him an anti-trans activist. One has 'anti-trans activists' in the title of the article, but doesn't explicitly call him one in the text itself (it actually decribes him as a blogger rather than an activist; the article discusses a lot of people, so I don't think we can take this as him being labeled as an activist specifically).

Most instead describe behaviour/acts that may be interpreted as activism by some people (possibly quite reasonably). However, we can't apply labels in wikivoice because we interpret a source author's words in a certain way - they have to indicate that label themselves.

Given the lack of provided sources, i'm going to have to agree with NEDOCHAN that the FAQ is incorrect in stating that there are sufficient reliable secondary sources for this label. (There may be more reliable sources out there somewhere that explicitly call him an activist, but if this is the case, they should be cited rather than a bunch of sources that don't actually call him that). TBicks (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit: one describes him as an "anti-trans campaigner, but it's Pink News, which is obviously a biased source on this topic, and we should be looking for reliable unbiased sources before applying a label like this. TBicks (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting the sources. All of the sources in [30] use him as an example of an anti-trans activist. We do not need a specific order of words to understand that they're calling him by that label. That level of pedantry is not helpful. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

That simply isn't true, and it isn't pedantry to point out that if the vast majority of sources require interpretation of other wording, it's not a commonly used label in the sources. TBicks (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I think you are coming from the right place but remember that Wikipedia is not truth. It is RS as selected (and interpreted) by interested editors - who follow an article like this and police it energetically.

They have been patient in trying to explain why they interpret the RS as they do. You are not going to budge them.

To me anti trans activist is a label applied to anyone who expresses their gender critical beliefs, especially if they have a platform of any kind. That's certainly Linehan and the RS report this aspect of him so there is little for me to disagree with there.

I'd say best call it a day with this. I will. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Current wording seems fine to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

As pointed out, reference 30 contains eight separate sources, all of which identify Linehan as an anti-trans activist. The FAQ wording is fine. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

One of the eight chosen sources does. Surely if that's wrong you could simply quote them verbatim? NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

This comes up quite a lot and the confusion arises in the understanding of the meaning of the words Anti Transgender activism. The words now seem to generally be understood as referring to people who 'actively' assert that the world should generally be organised in terms of the sex that people were assigned at birth and (usually) campaign to exclude trans people from from women (or men) only spaces and work to block access to transpositional medical interventions - particularly for minors. There is no doubt that in these terms Linehan is Anti Transgender. It's not a slight or an insult. It's a (rater broad) label, within what those words now are understood to mean, for what he believes and espouses.

I think it might be helpful to have a little - better worded - explanation of this in the FAQ section to save this cropping up time and again. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Very well:

1: The Guardian: "Appearing alongside British television writer and anti-trans activist Graham Linehan last year...";

2: the text is already quoted, but uses the phrase anti-trans voice;

3: Observer.com: "The site has embraced a slate of anti-left writers who are frequently also anti-trans. The most egregious of these is Graham Linehan, who in February tried to identify and shame trans women off a dating app, and who was permanently suspended from Twitter for transphobic vitriol."

4: Vox: "It has become increasingly common for upper-class white people to express anti-trans views. For example, Irish comedian Graham Linehan..." (I concede this is a somewhat weak example.)

5: Pinknews: "The former comedy writer and anti-trans campaigner lost his 'blue tick'..."

6: the text is already quoted;

7: Rabble: Headline "The alt-internet of anti-trans activists"; the article goes on to include Linehan, saying: "Substack is host to anti-trans bloggers like Graham Linehan"

8: The Independent: "Father Ted creator Graham Linehan, a gender critical hardliner who was kicked off Twitter in 2020 for 'hateful conduct'..."

Eight sources, five of them explicitly using the phrase 'anti-trans activist' or interchangeable phrases such as 'anti-trans campaigner', 'anti-trans voice', etc. This is not synthesis or OR. Another uses the phrase 'online transphobia... spearheaded by Linehan.' Another 'suspended... for transphobic vitriol.' That might not be using the exact or an interchangeable phrase, but it's certainly describing anti-trans activism. I mean... WP:SKYISBLUE? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

As I read that summary it the sources all use different terms that are synonyms for "anti-transgender." At the risk of taking this off piste, is this argument using pedantry over the terminology as an attempt to remove any statement that says he is anti-transgender?

AIUI the term is chosen because "transphobe" is not WP:NPOV, "Gender Critical" violates MOS:WEASEL/MOS:EUPH and "women's rights activist" violates WP:MANDY/MOS:EUPH.

I have some sympathy with the idea that sitting on social media abusing people who don't agree with his position on trans rights should not constitute activism, but don't have a better suggestion for that portion of the phrase. Rankersbo (talk) 13:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

At the risk of taking this off piste, is this argument using pedantry over the terminology as an attempt to remove any statement that says he is anti-transgender?

That is definitely my take on NEDOCHAN's stance. It's an attempt to pedantically demand specific phrasing in order to undermine the label. Very weak argument and not in good faith. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

THTFY - this is about the most egregious failure to assume good faith I have ever seen. NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

So one. Thanks for clarifying. NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Bastun - you have shown one example from sources picked to support the wording to support your earlier attestation that 'all (of which) identify Linehan as an anti-trans activist'. The sources could just as readily be used to support 'gender critical hardliner' or 'anti-trans campaigner'. I think I have made my point that saying 'secondary sources... describe Graham Linehan as an anti-transgender activist' is inaccurate. And, predictably, I have been set upon by people missing my point, failing to assume good faith, and telling me that I'm wrong in spite of the fact that everything I have said is demonstrably true. NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

What's the point you're trying to make? The sources all say either anti-trans activist, or a similar phrase that is incredibly similar in meaning.

We can cede that, yes you're correct, not all of them use the exact phrasing "anti-trans activist", but it comes off like you're using that disingenuously because they are obviously all expressing the same sentiment.

What do you actually want us to change? We can't use all 8 descriptions at once, so we chose one where the meaning can be corroborated widely even if not the exact wording in every source DeputyBeagle (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reasonable reply. I think that the wording in the FAQ should be changed (thus avoiding disputes) to emphasise that CONSENSUS is the reason for the choice of epithet, rather than suggesting that most RSS use this epithet, as the former is true, and the latter is not. NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It is verified by RS. 'Anti-trans' is exceedingly well-sourced. 'Activist' is the only bit that isn't in every source but unless you're specifically arguing over the use of the word 'activist' rather than the whole phrase, I don't see the argument

The Guardian uses it explicitly. Rabble use it implicitly to refer to him. Pinknews uses a phrase so similar that it's splitting hairs to call it different. DeputyBeagle (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the argument either - except as I mention above.

I could be wrong it seems to me that people are offended by the use of the term and rail against it because it seems to suggest that Linehan simply doesn't like trans people per se and the use of the label and attempts to dismiss his arguments.

If we were to make it clear that isn't the case and clarify that we approach the subject with NPOV and that we 'report' the RS rather than comment or colour the article with POV this might not keep happening. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

No, it would keep happening, sadly. This is a moral crusade and the people who are upset about it will not stop. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

No, not one. Clearly not just one. I believe we are now veering into WP:IDONTHEARTHAT territory. Basically, what DeputyBeagle, Rankersbo, and HandThatFeeds has said applies - you appear to be arguing from the pedantic standpoint that because only two (not one) of the eight sources use the exact phrase "anti-trans activist", the FAQ is inaccurate. This is not the case. An "anti-trans activist" is using their "anti-trans voice" to engage in "anti-trans campaigning" in line with their description as a "gender critical hardliner." These are synonyms. That's it. As to you being "set upon" - I don't see that here. People are disagreeing with you, politely. Nobody is attacking you. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Would it be worth blocking the user from editing the article and talk page? This has veered into farcical. CurdyKai (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

That would require something like an ANI report which... would be an ugly mess, and likely premature. Unless disruption reaches levels where that becomes a necessary step, we can just sum up that NEDOCHAN's suggestion does not have consensus, close the discussion, and move on. Assuming they WP:DROPTHESTICK, at least. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

No, and an AN/I report isn't warranted, imho. Such AN/I discussions generate much more heat than light! :-) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2024

Edit anti-transgender activism to transphobic activity. As bigotry is not a form of activism. 2600:1700:1590:8820:7533:E300:4BA1:36BC (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

•  Not done Whilst many of Linehan's activities may have been transphobic, to actually use that epithet in Wikivoice we would need to have multiple reliable sources using the term. For obvious reasons, RS tend to shy away from anything like that and use "anti-transgender" and similar phrases. Black Kite (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Removal of information on upcoming work

Hi folks,

I see @Popcornfud reverted an edit which provided information on Linehan's plans to move to Arizona and start a production company. The edit was reverted with "ce", but I'm not sure which part of WP:CE this refers to.

I believe the information added was accurate and notable, though the source could probably be replaced with something more reputable.

Is there something I'm missing here? CurdyKai (talk) 10:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• They didn't delete it, they just moved it into an existing paragraph? Black Kite (talk) 11:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  You're right, can't believe I missed that in the diff!

  Apologies for the confusion. CurdyKai (talk) 11:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)