Talk:Graham Linehan/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Phrasing of line "Linehan is a vocal critic of transgender rights activism"

It seems like a violation of WP:NPOV to include a phrase used by TERFs in the line "Linehan is a vocal critic of transgender rights activism". The phrase "transgender rights activism" is rarely used in good faith, and rarely by neutral parties. I'd suggest reverting it to the previous phrasing of "Linehan is a vocal critic of transgender rights" — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeputyBeagle (talk • contribs) 12:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed; the alternative would be to say, "what he calls 'transgender rights activism'", to make it clear that this is his terminology and not WP's language, which must be NPOV. Newimpartial (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

"What he calls" is not good as it's openly disdainful, rather than NPOV. The largest body of related discussion was on the heading name, with the settled title "Anti-transgender activism", so I think we should use wording close to that. For instance: "Linehan is an anti-transgender activist". But as it was a past phrasing, I've changed it back to "vocal critic of transgender rights" (fairly similar meaning but with different words) for the time being. — Bilorv (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Newimpartial (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

It is highly inappropriate that a discussion begun by DeputyBeagle calling feminists a sexist slur has been not only taken seriously by the two of you, but taken to override all of the very, very long and contentious previous discussions over the past year (which you both participated in at length) on the exact phrasing of Linehan's views, and which already resulted in the compromise of "transgender rights activism". This is an attempt to simply override all of that discussion. We can do another RFC, this time concentrating on this precise sentence fragment, and spend months with all of the usual parties slugging it out again on the exact same topic we've all argued exhaustively, or we can just stick with the compromise none of us were thrilled with but were living with. Putting it back. Lilipo25 (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Could you link to this discussion? A search for "transgender rights activism" in the archives only returns the RFC about the section heading, nothing about that part of the lede sentence. Parabolist (talk) 10:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Also failing to find anything. Could you point out where the discussion of that sentence (as opposed to the section heading) took place? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Nor I. Also worth noting that according to the page for the term TERF, "In academic discourse, there is no consensus on whether TERF constitutes a slur". If you can link any discussion showing consensus on the phrase "Transgender Rights Activism", it'd be appreciated. As far as I can see, it was edited in without discussion in October. DeputyBeagle (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Note this: [1] The WP:BLP policy is a higher standard and forbids inserting a claim (via rewording) into a BLP that is not reliably sourced and is our own WP:Synthesis of sources. See WP:BLPREMOVE. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Would the BBC be good enough for you? Seems pretty clear to me. Parabolist (talk) 09:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
    • You'd be the only one it's clear to. "Sorry, page not found". Lilipo25 (talk) 09:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Excellent catch, you have my thanks. I've fixed it. Linehan talks about "his views on trans rights." Parabolist (talk) 09:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
        • You have not fixed it. It still says "Sorry, page not found." What are you doing? Lilipo25 (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
          • • Bizarrely, copy pasting the link from the edit window still has it work, so I have no idea what sort of formatting faux pax is mangling the link itself. It's reference 48 of this very article! "Father Ted creator Graham Linehan on trans rights" BBC Two, Newsnight. Give it a listen. Parabolist (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
              • I can't' 'give it a listen', as the link in the article opens an interview with Prince Andrew, not Graham Linehan. And it doesn't say anywhere in the article that he's a 'critic of transgender rights'. It just says he has views on trans rights. Lilipo25 (talk) 10:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
                • (The link had an extra pipe character. Since the video opens with a short clip from Father Ted followed by narration about Linehan, I've no idea where Lilipo25 ended up.) — Bilorv (talk) 10:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
                  • I honestly don't know what to tell you here. I've opened the link to reference 48 repeatedly and while it shows a short written article on Linehan, when I click on the accompanying video, all I get is Prince Andrew. I've gone through all of their 'available interviews' videos and the Linehan one isn't there. Unless the BBC only gives access to certain videos depending on location (I'm in Canada), I don't know why I'm unable to see the Linehan video. Lilipo25 (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
                    • Video works for me in the UK. Must be a region locked thing DeputyBeagle (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
                    • It's working for me, too, though I'm in Ireland. The BBC definitely does region-lock at least some of their Player content, though. It may be a caching issue if you're seeing some content, just not the right content? Or some international rights thing is preventing playback in Canada (BBC is normally available free-to-air in Ireland, though most online Player content isn't). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 01:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

If the phrasing "critical of trans rights" cannot be agreed upon, may I suggest using the phrase "anti-transgender activism" instead as that was already agreed upon as reasonable wording elsewhere in the article DeputyBeagle (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

That seems fine to me, and as it's already achieved consensus for the section heading, should be acceptable as a compromise. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Exactly my initial suggestion—see my first comment in this section. @Crossroads: you're edit warring to reinstate something that had "consensus" via no discussion outside of edit summaries, rather than this substantive discussion with several users. You also say that "Even Newimpartial favored this". Well I'm not Newimpartial, am I? I have my own opinion. The base assertion "... vocal critic of transgender rights activism" is such a poor summary of comments including: comparing medical treatments with scientific consensus for trans children to Nazi experiments in the Holocaust (... in two interviews); objecting to all (white?) people who identify as transgender; and rallying to defund a charity that provides support and advice to transgender youth. It maybe does summarise the Rowling comments and if I'm being really generous, the doxxing of Hayden. But by and large this is not opposition to "activists" but to medical and social infrastructure that allow for the existence of transgender people.

If WP:BLP is the claimed reason for your revert then change it to "anti-transgender activist" for the time being as we've had very lengthy discussions over that term being an accurate summary of sources and BLP-compliant (hence suitable for use as a header). I've no clue what you mean by "Editors own OR that that is what the sourced material indicates". Do you mean one user (also not me, doesn't speak for me) who made a typo in a URL? In future, please revert me overtly (by mentioning my username in the edit summary) rather than silently—this ensures you're not bypassing proper scrutiny of the edit. — Bilorv (talk) 10:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I cannot imagine how you came to the conclusion that Crossroads making ONE edit constitutes "edit warring". That phrase does not mean "made a change I don't like". Your response here is full of distortions and half-truths about the article subject straight out of Pink News, meant to smear Linehan, and your own personal and very strong dislike of him. Saying things like "he opposes the existence of trans people" is hyperbolic nonsense. Frankly, you don't sound like you could possibly edit an article on this Living Person with any neutrality due to the strength of your personal dislike.Lilipo25 (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring isn't about number of edits. I'm a big fan of The IT Crowd, actually, (though that doesn't stop me from criticising its egregious misogyny, even for UK standard in 2006–10) so I judge what comes out of Linehan's brain and mouth on a case-by-case basis. — Bilorv (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring IS about number of edits. It requires multiple reverts. Please read WP:EW and familiarize yourself with the definition. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

"... [E]ditors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions". Three is "repeated" (or "multiple", if you like). But edit warring is more about context and about instating something contested either instead of discussing or before a discussion has reached a conclusion (this distinguishes it from e.g. anti-vandalism). Anyway I don't understand why you're trying to defend an edit you didn't make rather than clarifying for all of us what you meant above by ... override all of the very, very long and contentious previous discussions over the past year (which you both participated in at length) on the exact phrasing of Linehan's views, and which already resulted in the compromise of "transgender rights activism". Was this a misremembeing or something else? I'm one of four people who seem confused by what you meant. — Bilorv (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Since there seems to be no objection to using the phrase anti-Transgender activism here, I've gone ahead and made the change. I feel it's slightly awkwardly worded so if anyone can make it flow better, it'd be appreciated. DeputyBeagle (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

And to respond to Crossroads' edit summary in the most appropriate forum - just because I made an edit last year to head off (what I saw as) a potential edit war in the lede does not mean that said edit has my permanent endorsement as the most appropriate editorial choice. DeputyBeagle's proposal, for instance, does seem more appropriate to me. (For those scoring at home, I fairly often reinstate stable or compromise versions when that course seems correct, even if the text is not really optimal.) Newimpartial (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv, you made two edits on the same material for my one, so if I was edit warring, so were you. I also meant "editors'", plural; I made a typo. That seemed to be what people were thinking on the talk page - that it was a summary rather than a claim, which it is. Anyway, I suppose it's better to have one contentious phrase repeated rather than two separate contentious phrases; the "anti-transgender activism" was RfC'ed and "critic of transgender rights" was not, so the former is marginally better (even though I still maintain it's a policy violation). But important procedural point: There was never a consensus for that phrase; the RfC [2] closed as "no consensus" and it remained for status quo reasons. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I made an edit implementing an initial consensus and then a single revert of an edit which seemed (and still seems) to be based on a (good faith) misunderstanding/misremembering. — Bilorv (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Question for supporters of the claim: Supposing the "no consensus-status quo" RfC didn't exist and you had to put a source after the "anti-transgender activis[t/m]" claim, what would be the best source you'd use? Crossroads ^-talk- 05:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Probably any of the sources from the section of the page with that title. Parabolist (talk) 08:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

My take is a little bit different. Some of the PinkNews sources ended up being purged during the RfC discussion, because that happened to take place in between the little-participated RSN discussion that decided PinkNews wasn't reliable, and the well-participated one that decided that it was. So I'd look first at the PinkNews material that may have been dropped from this article's references and not restored. Newimpartial (talk) 12:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I've looked at this again, Crossroads, after your most recent revert, and I think the most balanced supporting text is from gcn, his consistently critical campaign against trans issues and his adamant stance on gender identity. So I'd be fine with campaigner against trans issues, which is also supported by other RS that use "against trans issues" as their framing. But there isn't any BLP issue in referring those who campaign against trans issues as anti-transgender activists, nor have any of the times you've argued that anti-transgender activism is covered by WP:LABEL been met with any substantial support. Newimpartial (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure the new phrasing of the line "Since 2018, Linehan has made many media appearances and commented extensively on transgender issues" is a good summation of the issue. It doesn't actually mention his views in any way, and basically just says "Linehan has opinions on trans stuff" DeputyBeagle (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

That phrasing was premised on the "anti-transgender activism" being moved earlier in the lede, which I support. Over the last two or three years Linehan has clearly produced a lot more activism than he has comedy, and the lede shouldn't be in denial about that. Newimpartial (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that RedWarn without a cookie cutter edit summary is not an acceptable rationale, but I do happen to disagree with the change. In the last two or three years Linehan has had only a fraction of the fame he had for Father Ted, for instance (someone should expand and overhaul that part of the article massively). The anti-transgender comments are only significant because of his previous fame, and he's not really a subject expert or an activist who has contributed to legislation passing or cultural change in any demonstrable way. This would be like introducing Bobby Fischer as an American chess player, often considered the greatest of all time, and a Holocaust denier. All coverage of the latter part is predicated on and repeatedly alludes to the former, so the two aspects are not on the same level. (The comparison here is that both are public figures who later became very well-known for extreme bigotry, though Linehan does happen to have made specific ahistorical comments about Nazi experiments. And this is not an endorsement of the inadequate lead actually at Bobby Fischer so don't start quoting it to me.) — Bilorv (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I happen to disagree with this perspective, and think it is worth talking about why. I don't actually find the distinction between "what made somebody notable" and "what they are recently notable for saying or doing" is really a viable one, and it seems like a weird kind of CRYSTAL to me, to assume that someone's lasting importance will be based on what first brought them into public view. David Icke strikes me as the extreme case of this: I have seen it argued that the lede of his article should emphasize his athletic career and minimize the reptile aliens, which seems quite absurd to me in that instance even though the initial platform for his unusual beliefs was created by his athletic career. The same with J K Rowling - not that the recent criticism she has faced over trans issues has eclipsed her standing as an author, but scholarly as well as journalistic commentary on her has clearly shifted towards the latter, and it seems to me that our job is to reflect the recent RS of highest quality rather than to protect a BLP subject's early accomplishments in the face of later changes in their public engagement. So too, here, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I think these are not good comparisons, for different reasons - Icke is far better known for his wacky conspiracy theories than his athletic career - I'm old enough to remember him on TV but I bet that 95% of the population couldn't even tell you he was a professional goalkeeper. Alternatively, I'll also wager you that not many "people in the street" coould tell you why Rowling has been controversial recently. Black Kite (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Clearly we live by different "streets". For people in my social media under the age of 35 or so, that's the main thing she's known for, now. Pretty much a by-word. Newimpartial (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry but there is no way in hell that "the main thing" JK Rowling, creator of Harry Potter, history's bestselling book series, is "known for, now" is her views on trans rights. Likewise, Linehan, for now, is clearly notable first and foremost as a TV writer, and the vast amount of coverage about him ever published in reliable secondary sources covers him in that capacity. It is the very opposite of WP:CRYSTAL to keep the focus on the situation now rather than guess at whatever he might be more notable for in the future. Popcornfud (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

In the case of Rowling, the highest-quality sources (scholarly studies) are increasingly focusing on her participation in Trans debates rather than her fiction. I'm not saying we should be disproportionate, but we also shouldn't be over-reliant on media reception from 20 years ago (in the case of Rowling) or 10 years ago (in the case of Linehan). And I specified that this was what Rowling is known for in a sub-demographic of my social medias, in response to a comment about "people in the steet". I wasn't generalizing. Newimpartial (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

We all live in a community which is a selectively biased echo chamber of some sort, but there's a need to see outside it as much as you possibly can while editing. This may be the main thing people you know talk about post-2020 relating to her, but it's not the main body of reliable sources that have been written about her in all history, by a factor of 1000 or more. The sources about her from 2020 are eclipsed by orders of magnitude by the coverage in every year from 2001–7. We have a global scope, write for people of all ages etc. The same applies to Linehan. Ask 1000 British people "who is Graham Linehan?" and you might get a hundred who know the answer; the under 35s may indeed know him more for anti-transgender comments (even then, Richard Ayoade's fame in this demographic may still mean you get more "IT Crowd man"), but not a single over 35 out of the sample would say that as the first descriptor. — Bilorv (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I get what you're saying about echo chambers and I don't really trust algorithms, either. But when I do a "news" search on Google (which at least does me the small favor of generating unique results) and look at the first 50 entries (basically the last year), fully 40 of them relate to the trans controversies. Now some of those may be passing mentions, and that isn't necessarily his peak year of fame, but the search excludes social media and other SPS so it is restricted to RS (mostly mainstream RS), so I do think that says something about what he is known for now. I am also not convinced that he was 100x that famous in 2006, either, but I'll let someone else try to calculate those metrics. Newimpartial (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM. Popcornfud (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

RECENTISM would be if I said the balance of this year's coverage outweighs the balance of coverage from 10 years ago. Which is not my position. Newimpartial (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I guess I'm misunderstanding because that seems to be exactly what you're saying when you point out that there are lots of news articles about the recent trans issues that "seem to say something about what he is known for now". If that isn't the point you're trying to make I'm not sure why you're bringing that up at all. Popcornfud (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

To be succinct (not my strength), I would say that GL is now also known as an activist against trans-positive things, not that he is now mostly known as an activist against trans-positive things. The recent coverage is mostly about that, but my dispassionate view is that he is also known for that, not mostly. And obviously each case is to be judged on its merits: David Icke is not J K Rowling is not GL. Newimpartial (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

He certainly is now known for his transgender mania, no disagreement there. He's still more notable big-picture-wise as a TV writer and I'd bet against that changing unless he really does go postal at some point. Popcornfud (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I made this change based on two aims. Firstly, the lead should summarise the body. Currently, the lead doesn't do this. It says that Linehan is an anti-transgender activist but I think it's impossible for a reader to really have any reasonable expectation around the content we see in the article just from this. I thus added the statement "Since 2018, Linehan has made many media appearances and commented extensively on transgender issues". Readers' expectations about the body would then be bang on - we would expect to see elaboration on what these comments were, any impact they had, backlash or support they received, etc. This is precisely what the body then details. I worded it in that fashion as a near-identical sentence begins the relevant section, and it is NPOV. My second aim was to fix the poor flow in the lead, which is currently 4 short, unrelated sentences, two of which start with his name, and two of which start with his pronoun. I did this by combining the two sentences about writing credits into one, and combining the two sentences about who Linehan is into one. I added the statement summarising Linehan's activism to the end (reflecting the order of writing credits/anti-trans activism seen in the article body) and added the connecting "Since 2018" so that this flows better from the sentence before it - Readers would understand that there is a chronological implication as well as importance, as in "The biggest thing he did was father ted... and also credited in brass eye... but since 2018 he's also notable for this..." The result is clearly a huge improvement on the current wording, but it seems there is opposition on two points. One is that the anti-trans activism should not feature in the first sentence, and the other is that the wording of the sentence summarising Linehan's activism is too vague. With regards the latter point, I think the fact that the lead includes the term "anti-trans activism" makes it clear what side Linehan is on, but am open to changes. With regards the former point, I think it is much more convenient and better English to have "He is a X and Y" rather than "He is a X" and then new sentence "He is a Y". But again, I'm not wedded to the change, so am open to other suggestions. Can we reach together a version which is better than both options? Awoma (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I like the added detail in regards to the specific comments he has made on the issue. However, I must object to the reintroduction of the phrase "transgender activism". That phrasing is almost exclusively used by his side meaning that line shows significant bias, as discussed earlier. DeputyBeagle (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Sadly, following my comment above, a couple of editors have decided to just edit to their preferred version instead of engage here. The result is expectedly poor. The flow issues still exist in the first paragraph, and the information contained in the second paragraph is not a summary but a collection of arbitrary pieces of information from body. It manages to fail "lead follows body" by calling Linehan a "critic of transgender activism" which is not a wording found anywhere in the rest of the article. It also simultaneously contains elements which are biased against Linehan and biased towards him. As you rightly point out, the wording of "transgender activism" is a transphobic dogwhistle, and should never be presented in wikipedia's voice. In the other direction, the majority of the lead is now focused on an aspect of Linehan's life which most would consider objectionable, and so this second paragraph seems to me to have undue weight. If editors could engage on here rather than warring on the page that would be great. Awoma (talk) 07:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure about what you're talking about here, but if you're referring to the paragraph I added to the lead about the trans stuff, that is consistent with WP:LEAD. The trans section in the article is huge and so it should be summarised in the lead; this is not WP:UNDUE.

However, the lead should also cover his TV career in much more detail - it's far too short. If there's an imbalance here, the solution to not to cut the trans stuff from the lead, but to beef up the coverage of his career (in the lead and the article - both are lacking). Popcornfud (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

What in the name is "anti-trans activism"?

Persecuting minorities is not activism. The way he treated trans people, if he made such comments towards black people he'd be racist. If he made such comments towards Muslims he wouldn't be an "anti-Muslim activist". Making derogatory comments is not a contribution to a noble cause but very simply hate speech and should be labelled as such. It's transphobia and the relevant section should be renamed as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.38.31 (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Probably also worth mentioning that "trans rights activist" (or TRA) is a term used in transphobic communities to talk about people who are transgender regardless of their politics. It's not a neutral term. Transphobes routinely use it to deny trans people their identities and it is not widely used outside transphobic communities (just like "gender critical"). The article should just clarify that he's an opponent of trans rights. The "activism" he is a critic of is as simple as "being trans". We don't call the KKK "anti-black activists" and I don't think Wikipedia lends credence to Russian claims about "homosexual propaganda" either, so there's no reason to use transphobic language here. -- 2001:16B8:18A5:D300:C55F:7884:43D:5320 (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

What would be a most suitable way to describe him? Transphobe would possibly describe his attitudes but it feels incomplete and misses out his actions. Using phrases like transphobe activist may be a more complete description? John Cummings (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh, for heaven's sake, people. This is an encyclopedia. It's meant to be unbiased and scholarly. No, you cannot call him a transphobe because you personally disagree with his views regarding trans activism's effect on women's rights. The article is already badly slanted and biased, but there are limits that could put Wikipedia in danger of legal action if breached and that's one of them. The WP:BLP rules exist just for that reason. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

On this note, it's recently been edited to "anti-trans controversy." I reverted to anti-trans activism as there was consensus that this is the best wording for this section. It is descriptive, and also neutral. Yes, everyone can see that he is deeply transphobic, but this is still a value judgement, and the article should refrain from that no matter how obvious it may be.Wikiditm (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Wikiditm:Can you link me to the page where consensus was reached on this? It seems heavily biased to call the category "anti-transgender" at all instead of something neutral like "transgender controversy", and I can't find the discussion on it. Thanks. Lilipo25 (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

found the transphobe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.165.109 (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Wikiditm:It has now been over six weeks since I asked for a link to this "consensus" that you cited as justification to revert to biased language like "anti-transgender activism". It is not the first time I have asked to see it (although I asked someone else the last time and not you), but once again, I am met with silence when asked where it is. I cannot find it myself, so I will ask yet again: where and when was this consensus that you cite reached, and may I see a link to the page? Thank you. Lilipo25 (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I do not use wikipedia often so just saw all your replies here. I think it is obvious that the consensus is for the current wording. If you have a reason it should be changed, and build a consensus around that, then I'll be happy for it to be changed. With all due respect, I don't think this will happen - the current wording is fine.Wikiditm (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your civil reply, it is much appreciated. In order for there to be a consensus, there must have been a discussion where a consensus was reached. No one has been able to provide a link to that, but trying to get neutral wording into this article or any other about issues regarding trans activism and women's rights is slightly more difficult than nailing Jello to a tree and I give up. Thanks again for being polite and not dismissive. Lilipo25 (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Wikiditm:You have long reverted all attempts to make the wording n this section neutral and insisted that the biased wording "Anti-Trans" was reached "by consensus". I have now requested several times that you provide a link to this consensus and waited months for your reply. You have refused to respond. Since I can find no evidence of this consensus and you can provide none, it seems clear that there was no such consensus reached at all. Your refusal to respond is WP:DISCUSSFAIL. I will therefore change the language to the more neutral "Transgender Controversy". Lilipo25 (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

"Controversy" section headings are not favored by policy, particularly where there are no sources suggesting that the BLP subject is, in fact, participating in a "Transgender controversy". Reverted therefore per BRD. Newimpartial (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? You have never edited this page before, but you're now just going to follow me around Wikipedia and harass me by immediately revert anything I do in minutes out of spite bc I disagreed with your bullying on another page? You actually put a watch on my edits just to do this? This is WP:HOUNDING and is expressly forbidden as harassment.

Wikipedia "discourages" entire sections devoted to criticism and controversies, but there's no way activists will allow that section to be cut down and integrated into the article as it should be. Since the section exists, Wikipedia allows the use of "Controversy" in the section heading. Re WP:CRIT:

"Controversy" section: For a specific controversy that is broadly covered in reliable sources. Various positions, whether pro or contra, are given due weight as supported by the sources. The topic of the controversy is best named in the section title. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

There is not anything untoward in my adding yet another anti-trans activist BLP to my watchlist; this has nothing to do with your "bullying" accusation (which is unCIVIL, unsubstantiated, and a violation of WP:AGF), nor am I singling out any editor by doing so. I watch the pages of anti-Trans activists for POV and BLP issues, but this is one I had missed until recently.

Substantively, I don't see any evidence of a "controversy", what I see is what RS describe as "activism", so that is what the section should be called. We do not impose FALSEBALANCE by artificially creating "pro" and "contra" positions that do not reflect what RS say. Newimpartial (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I resent your declaration that editing for more neutral language makes me an "anti-Trans activist". That is offensive and an insult, again. You are WP: HOUNDING. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Adding a page to my watchlist that is within my well-established areas of WP editing interest cannot misconstrued as HOUNDING. Please AGF, and provide some evidence (besides YOUDONTLIKEIT) that "controversy" - a heading that is unsourced and discouraged by policy - is somehow more neutral than "activism". Newimpartial (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The current wording and section heading ("Anti-Transgender activism") is the neutral and long-standing wording. Editors should be aware that further reverts will result in them being reported for 3RR violations. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I figured you'd be along to join in. I can't help but wonder why you didn't respond any time during the last 2 months when I asked repeatedly for the link to the "consensus" that keeps being claimed was reached on this term and no one would reply at all.

As usual, there's no way to fight trans activists who want this page to be as negative as possible. You now have someone new joining in to help keep it that way. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

If you can't tell the difference between sourced discussion per BALANCE and being "as negative as possible", then you should not be editing the subject in question IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

For example, this section was opened by an editor who believed the heading "Anti-trans activism" was too sympathetic to the subject, but for some reason you find it to be too "negative". Newimpartial (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I support "Anti-trans activism" or "Anti-transgender activism". I see "Anti-trans harassment", "Transphobic comments" etc. to be unjustified by the current sourcing, whilst anything with "trans(gender)" and not the "anti-" is potentially misleading to someone just skimming. "Controversy" is unjustified by the current sourcing for a couple of the paragraphs, which do not comment on alternate views to Linehan's. (I'm sure Linehan himself would much prefer "Anti-transgender activism" rather than "Transgender controversy" to be the title.) Can we please make sure that the "t" in "trans(gender)" is lowercase though? I've changed it to lowercase myself because I don't have reason to expect that anyone will find this typographical change controversial. — Bilorv (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing "anti-trans" nor "phobic" in his views. It does not reflect his positions, in fact, it's a complete hatchet job, opinionated take on it. "Views on transgeder issues" would be a more adequate title. 92.238.89.128 (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

However, IP, by policy WP follows the sources rather than the opinions of editors. Newimpartial (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The fact his views are anti-transgender is surely not up for debate? It's been verified by numerous reliable sources, and is also obvious from just looking at what he's said. He's certainly not pro-transgender!Wikiditm (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

It is, of course, very much up for debate. He is anti-self-ID because he believes, as many others do, that it is a policy that is harmful to women's sex-based rights, and anti-medicalisation of children with puberty blockers, particularly by the Tavistock Centre (which just last night was exposed by a Newsnight investigation as putting kids on the experimental blockers without proper evaluation first and over the objections of many health care officials - just as Linehan had said they were doing all along and which this article suggests makes him 'transphobic'). Lilipo25 (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Those are all anti-transgender stances. His motivation for them may be transphobia, or may be women's rights, it doesn't really matter. Those stances are all against what transgender people are widely campaigning for.Wikiditm (talk) 07:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Once again, this article doesn't say that makes him transphobic: the sources say it makes him transphobic. This article follows the sources. Newimpartial (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Once again, other reliable sources agreed with him, but every time any are included for balance, they get reverted again. Which allows for the justification of biased section headings like "Anti-transgender activism".Lilipo25 (talk) 02:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

What "reliable sources"? Newimpartial (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The heading "anti-transgender activism" is a violation of WP:LABEL: "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." I don't see the term "anti-transgender" sourced anywhere, and even if it were, it would need attribution, which is not feasible for section headings. Why can't we just use the lead wording, which has bipartisan endorsement from Lilipo25 and Newimpartial: "critic[ism] of transgender rights activism"? How is "anti-transgender" - which is vague - actually better? Crossroads ^-talk- 17:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

This is clearly correct and in line with Wikipedia policy. Lilipo25 (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

If the heading were to be changed, say, to "criticism of transgender rights activism", then this wouldn't accurately reflect the content in the section underneath, most of which does not actually refer to transgender rights activism (having read through it, next to none of it does). WP:LABEL refers to value-laden terms, which the current heading "anti-transgender activism" is not. It is neutral and accurate, and reflects the content underneath.Wikiditm (talk) 07:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Please do not remove properly sourced and accurate content. If we're going to include his tweeted defense of Rowling (which is a minor occurrence not covered by any UK newspaper or outlet and not really worthy of inclusion in a Wikipedia biography anyway), then we must include specifically what he was defending her against, as it is included in the source. In addition, he did not address his comment to Hozier; he tagged Hozier in to the conversation and that is what the source says, so you can't change that (although, frankly, Hozier is irrelevant here and takes the paragraph off on a tangent).

Hi. I haven't done any such thing. I reworded a paragraph which was very distant from the source backing it. I did this to improve readability and also make it accurately reflect the source, which it now does a lot better. The final sentence is still not very readable, and will need improving in the future, but is ok for now.Wikiditm (talk) 07:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The original paragraph was very close to the source; your rewording was inaccurate at best. Lilipo25 (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

If you consider my rewording to be inaccurate or not close to the source, then please say how and we can work on improving it and getting it closer to the source. Merely branding it inaccurate is not particularly helpful.Wikiditm (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I believe I already outlined (in the above and below comments) how it was inaccurate: stating that the tweet was to Hozier instead of saying that Hozier was tagged, as the source says, and removing six words from his direct quote in the source that specifically stated he considers trans rights to be human rights. Also, you changed it to say that he defended Rowling's comments, when the source says that he defended her from abuse she was receiving over those comments; the meaning is very different. Lilipo25 (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

This is pretty ridiculous. The distinction between "tweeting to someone" and "tweeting generally but only tagging one person" is wafer thin. I deleted 6 words from a quote which didn't change the meaning. Neither of these changes are at all substantial. And then you make up that I changed it to say he defended Rowling's comments, which I did not. Please keep the spirit of cooperation in mind.Wikiditm (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

"Cooperation" doesn't mean agreeing with egregiously biased edits, and I would appreciate it if you would permanently cease using the tactic of pretending that I am simply difficult and 'uncooperative' when you make them and receive civil, reasoned disagreement in response.

The distinction is hardly "wafer thin" - I have frequently tweeted to all of my followers but tagged a person who might be interested in the tweet. That doesn't mean the tweet is addressed to that person alone, and you cannot make an assumption that is not in the source. And deleting only the six words in the short direct quote being discussed which specifically contradict the "he's transphobic" narrative being pushed here is blatant bias. Lilipo25 (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Most importantly, you absolutely cannot alter the words of his tweet, which is quoted in full in the source, to delete the part where he agreed that trans rights are human rights. The edit I made already stuck very close to what the source says. Thank you. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I removed a part in parenthesis to improve readability. It is not great to quote things in full if readability can be improved (and meaning still conveyed) from part of the quote, especially when the full thing is pretty cumbersome.Wikiditm (talk) 07:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Cumbersome? It's a tweet - less than 280 characters in total. And the tweet is the subject of the paragraph. You removed a total of six words which contradicted him being "anti-transgender"; it didn't make it more "readable" but merely changed the intent and meaning of what he said. Lilipo25 (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the meaning and intent of the tweet, which seems to be primarily about criticising Hozier's approach to the topic, was changed by removing the brackets. On the other hand, it became a lot more readable, which was why I made the change. Perhaps there's a better solution?Wikiditm (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

A better solution would be not to remove part of a direct quote that is neither long nor cumbersome, but changes the meaning of what he said to eliminate his support of trans rights as human rights. Lilipo25 (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Most of it is criticism of transgender rights activism. Gender self-ID, medical transition of children, Mermaids, Tavistock Centre, and so-called "gender ideology" are all about transgender rights activism. The portions that are not about activism per se aren't really 'activism' on his part either - in fact, criticism more closely fits the section as a whole. "Anti-transgender" is obviously a value laden label, same as "transphobic" is, which is specifically mentioned at WP:LABEL. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to start an RfC on this and it would be great to have your input there.Wikiditm (talk) 07:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I also agree with Crossroads reasoning above. The section header "Anti-transgender" neither reflects the content of the section nor is it in anyway a neutral term. It is also an extremely vague descriptor. The change to "Criticism of transgender rights activism" is a much clearer descriptor. Happy to comment in RFC if started. AutumnKing (talk) 07:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I concur with Autumnking and Crossroads. Crossroads has made a very clear case to change the section heading and backed it up with Wikipedia rules. There is no doubt that "Anti-transgender" is neither neutral nor clear and should be removed. I will also be happy to comment in RFC if started. Lilipo25 (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I've just started an RfC on the topic of this heading below. Tagging everyone who has participated in the discussion above and would welcome comments. John Cummings Lilipo25 Newimpartial Bastun Bilorv Crossroads AutumnKing. Wikiditm (talk) 10:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Popcornfud and Ceoil have also recently edited the section and should be notified of the RFC. Also Bring back Daz Sampson, who was very involved in the debate over this heading on the ANI that you opened last month. Lilipo25 (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Reading the section it now seems to do WP:NPOV well. It is not an attack piece and neither heated not agressive, and does not offer criticism or condemnation. But it also doesn't shy away from presenting the facts and truth of Linehan's behaviour, or give false equivalence to fringe opinions as some articles on controversial figures have done. Rankersbo (talk) 11:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Strongly disagree the wording is NPOV. I disagree with Rankersbo the introduction accurately meets NPOV criteria. Wikipedia needs to be a neutral source, not giving a one-sided perspective. It is not factually true that Graham Linehan is an "anti-trans" activist. He has campaigned against some of the worst excesses of trans rights activism as it relates to women's rights. Here is an example of an article - by a transwoman - backing up his activism: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-graham-linehan-fell-foul-of-the-transgender-mob Not at all clear how he can simultaneously be 'anti-trans' and supported by trans activists. It's important Wikipedia is a neutral source, and doesn't fall prey to narratives or witch hunts, but instead is factually accurate. Claiming "X is a witch" does not make X a witch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.66.44.72 (talk) 11:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't feel NPOV to me in the slightest, it seems a simple change to Activism would be a huge improvement. Jimblackler (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Reddit

Just to make editors aware, there is currently a massive storm stirring on Reddit right now. Linehan accused a trans individual of covering up for their pedophilic family members, and said individual is an admin on Reddit. This has apparently reached the point of comments about this person being wiped by Reddit admins, and entire subReddits being threatened if their mods don't crack down on the topic.

I don't know that we'll see any articles with enough information to cover the topic on this article or on Reddit, but we may get new/IP editors showing up trying to "spread the word" here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Graham Linehan. A person, unconnected to Graham Linehan, has been recently employed by Reddit. This has nothing to do with Graham Linehan's page, or his talk page. 20:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:448A:106C:243E:50B2:3EE:1D71:3985 (talk)

It's a heads-up as to potential irrelevant commentary coming in I feel Rankersbo (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

If there's no connection then why did Linehan's pageviews triple yesterday ([3])? (Previous, larger, spike is from his House of Lords speech.) — Bilorv (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know. The point is just because Graham Linehan wrote something on his blog about this, doesn't make it about him. 36.71.142.100 (talk) 05:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has argued that this is something that should be included in the page, just that there is a potential for activtity based on these events. Rankersbo (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand that: it just comes across as an attempt to smear Linehan 'he accused a trans individual', whereas this would have been a shit storm with or without his involvement, once people became aware Challenor had been employed by Reddit, since Challenor is a figure who is known by thousands of people in a negative light, from the 2018 time frame. 36.71.142.100 (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, it's just the way you're seeing it. Rankersbo (talk) 13:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

You're reading way too much into it. They're not commenting on Linehan, it's just that he said something notable and they were just noting that this page might see an increase in activity here. DeputyBeagle (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Police warning for harassment?

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/oct/07/graham-linehan-police-warning-complaint-by-stephanie-hayden-transgender-activist-twitter https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio-web/graham-linehan-given-harassment-warning-after-transphobia-report-1.3654626

This seems notable? Celebrities usually have warnings like this on their wikipedia pages, don't they? Or is it only arrests and convictions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.18.79.98 (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• It's already in the article - 3rd paragraph of "Anti-transgender activism". Black Kite (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)