Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:42, 1 June 2019

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ireland Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Screenwriters Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Screenwriters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of screenwriting, screenwriters, and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScreenwritersWikipedia:WikiProject ScreenwritersTemplate:WikiProject Screenwritersscreenwriter Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Fsn

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

Neutrality of social media section

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

• Have you got a source for him not being transphobic, because I'd really like to see it - on the other hand, there's this from 2016 https://medium.com/@AlexaEphemera/its-time-to-call-out-graham-linehan-s-ugly-transphobia-30b15be317a5 No-genius (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

A blog at Medium by a self-described "LGBTQ+ Rights Activist and Anti-Racist Feminist" is not a WP:RS. It is her singular opinion, nothing more. KalHolmann (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• Would his own words be an acceptable source, as they are with regards to other topics in the article? https://twitter.com/Glinner/status/1007218228752539648 ChungusConsulting (talk) 02:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you honestly find no third-party published reliable source reporting that Graham Linehan is a transphobe? KalHolmann (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Honestly? No. This isn't an issue that has been reported on, so of course: I cannot find a third-party published reliable source reporting that Graham Linehan is a transphobe. I can only show you him calling gender reassignment surgery 'mutilation' which I confidently believe to be transphobia whichever way you cut it. With respect this really seems like you are jumping through hoops to avoid discussing something which is very present in Graham Linehan's daily dialogue, and relevant to the discussion. I'd have liked to help so that this relevant feature about Graham Linehan could be included on his wiki page - but appreciate you're unwilling to let that happen. ChungusConsulting (talk) 02:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

• I hope we can find a way to write about this. It feels relevant to me, in that I see LGBTQ+ writers and activists posting examples of his transphobia constantly on Twitter. It's well-known and well-documented, but because there's not a lot of visibility for the community in traditional press, and there's a generalized disdain for social media, it doesn't fit neatly into WP:RS (from what I can tell). But people do know what they're talking about - and multiple verified users have pointed to Linehan's transphobia (search "linehan transphobia" and you'll see blue checkmarks as you scroll). A lot of marginalized communities organize and publicize primarily on social media for understandable reasons, and I'm not really happy with removing what is a big part of his online and social presence (he argues with trans activists all the time, and has an outsized impact on the UK trans community in particular) from the article. If we can't reference his (well-documented, clear) transphobia in any way that's considered reliable, would it be acceptable to make a simple statement of fact that he considers "TERF" to be a slur (search "terf from:glinner" on Twitter, for example) and actively defends a trans-exclusive definition of womanhood? That would convey important information about his transphobia to readers well-versed enough to pick up on it, though it's not as clear and direct as I would prefer. KingHanksley (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• has a recent Twitter thread documenting Linehan's transphobia. I can't link out to Twitter from here but you can find it on her timeline with the first posted dated June 13th. KingHanksley (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Opposition to transgender rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussing per WP:BLPTALK. Posting the material here is not cool. Toddst1 (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I've added what appears to be a neutral statement of fact, supported by a seemingly reliable source. Toddst1 (talk) 20:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

sources found

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not sure sources 3 & 4 are enough to support your claims that preceed them. "Reports to police" are typically not included as anyone can be reported for anything. Per WP:BLP, pending legal actions or allegations must be handled carefully. I could report you for Jay-walking even if I don't see it happen. That doesn't mean you are involved in a legal matter. Toddst1 (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the legal matter can be implemented after it's done. If the police ignores it, it might not be noteworthy enough for mention. But if there's an investigation, then it should most definitely get a notice in the social media section. I also read an article that he closed his twitter account after all the fuzz, if that's any interesting. Beatitudinem (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:DAILYMAIL should not be used, BTW. Toddst1 (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Commenting since I seem to have got involved in this. Sources 1 and 2 are not reliable enough to use (the Daily Mail and a blog). Sources 3 and 4 look better but I agree with Toddst1 that they are not that great. I think that for making such a serious claim about a living person we'd want multiple, more mainstream sources; WP:BLP says If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. Wham2001 (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Sorry - even (former) admins don't know every nuance of every rule. WP:BLP and more specifically, WP:WELLKNOWN apply with the same effect. WP:BLP says If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out Toddst1 (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Toddst1 on this, BLP exists for this almost textbook reason. The burden is multiple reliable third-party sources. Especially important is recientism; we are not an aggregate of up to the minute blog or red top news posts. Ceoil (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

It's also been reported in the Times, which I defy anyone to say is not an RS. I also expect various journalists in the Times and Speccie are going to use this as further proof of SJW snowflake no platforming crypto-Nazi trans activists in the coming days. Sceptre (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

That's very interesting, I didn't think the police were actually going to take this to the level of actually contacting him, let alone paying him a visit. This is also no longer a debate about not having enough reliable, third party sources, we have that covered. It's about whether this belongs in the article. And looking at a lot of the other content in this Misplaced Pages article, I do believe there is room for his transphobia, especially after all the media coverage he got, and the fact that he was warned by the local authorities over his behaviour. Beatitudinem (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree, FWIW. To the extent reliable sources document, this needs to be covered. Vashti (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Policy applies

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

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

Would it be better to say 'allegedly'? The source we use certainly doesn't mince words, or describe it as 'making comments'. A description of 'making comments' seems to push too far the other way, and would be misleading- I'd prefer the content kept out rather than use that euphemistic phrasing. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, but that is table stakes. Adding to the article that someone has "been reported to the police" for doing something is textbook hearsay even if the press reports it. I could report anyone commenting on this page to my local police tipline and then report that I did so to to the press (don't confuse that with WP:NLT - it is explicitly not) and "allegedly" wouldn't help. This is an encyclopedia after all. Toddst1 (talk) 03:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Is there a level of coverage at which the reason for the caution should be described? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

That's one of the best questions I've seen on a talk page. I'll have to think about that but I wanted to acknowledge that! Toddst1 (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Did he ever answer this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.152.234 (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think "He has been an opponent of transgender rights" is a fair or accurate reading. Its obviously loaded, and we would need multiple sources saying this to include something like that. Ceoil (talk) 07:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Arguing with an individual activist does not make one "an opponent of transgender rights" and a warning from a police officer is not a formal police caution. At the moment I'm not convinced that any of this is worth including, but if it is included it needs to be done with great care. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

He's very far from "arguing with an individual activist"; he's been laying into trans people from every conceivable angle for weeks and weeks. That said, this stuff needs to be documented and verifiable before it can go on the 'pedia. Vashti (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Most of the reliable sources only refer to Stephanie Hayden in any detail though there are some very brief mentions of a wider context . Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 controversies

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

Addition of Controversies section, with the Charity Stream.

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

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

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

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

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

"Transgender rights"

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

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

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

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

- "In December 2018, Linehan compared transgender rights to Nazism, saying “If you were around the time of something terrible happening like Nazism, would you be one of the people who said, ‘This is wrong,’ despite being opposed?"" This one is indeed about rights.

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

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

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

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

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

@Onetwothreeip:

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

Thank you for your concern here, I agree that we can do better than the current heading that I changed it to. It is important that we stay neutral about Linehan's issues with transgender people here, and let the audience come to a conclusion about his statements and activities. Calling him transphobic isn't appropriate here, but it's appropriate for us to say that he is widely considered to be transphobic. Overall the heading is not that important as long as it doesn't come to a conclusion, since the body of the section will detail, and I changed it hastily without thinking of a good heading because it was inappropriate to keep the one that was there. I will now be changing the heading to "anti-transgender activism", and I hope this would be an agreeable heading for all. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

That's definitely a better title. However, as 2.28.92.13 points out "Bigotry is not activism". So I wonder if "activism" is still being too charitable. I'd be happy to leave it as it is now - as "Anti-transgender activity". --Wickedterrier (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Anti-transgender activity

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

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

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

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

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

Using an opinion piece to say that 'transgender activists made various unsuccessful attempts to censor him' and not including anything about Linehan's transphobia, such as the police caution, is not including material from our sources in a balanced way. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Linehan explicitly says he is not transphobic. It's not our place to say that he is, allegations like that would need to be properly attributed (and not to a single issue tabloid-style blog like PinkNews). I am disappointed that you and another editor have removed the NPOV template, taken out high quality sources from The Guardian, Irish Times and Irish Independent and edit-warred back in the poorly-sourced, problematic material, complete with a personal attack in the edit summary! I am reluctant to balance out the existing section because it is already grossly disproportionate to the guy's 25-year career as a writer. Perhaps we should look at WP:RFC as a way forward? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bring back Daz Sampson: "Linehan explicitly says he is not transphobic. It's not our place to say that he is" We do not say anywhere in the article that Linehan is transphobic... PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

You just said we need to include material about his transphobia? Like the reported "police caution" which the source makes clear was not actually a police caution. Honestly, 90% of this tendentious WP:COATRACK, WP:ATP, WP:NPOV drivel needs to go in the bin. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bring back Daz Sampson: Sure, and we are including material about his transphobia, which is distinct from calling him a transphobe. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Bring back Daz Sampson: whilst I share some of your discomfort about the section as it currently stands and how its weight compares to Linehan's rather more notable career in comedy, BLP protects Hayden as well, and applies on talk pages as well as in articles. I don't think criticism of her is necessary to decide what we should say about Linehan's activities.May I suggest that we might start by assembling the highest-quality available sources on the topic, and seeing what they say? My thoughts on those currently in the article are as follows: I would rate The Sunday Times and The Guardian as suitable to use in a BLP. I am less happy with PinkNews which doesn't seem to be at the WP:BLPSOURCES level. Metro shouldn't be used as a source anywhere IMO and certainly not here. I don't know much about Newsweek or iNews. The National Lottery source is clearly primary and hence not suitable. I don't have time to do a web trawl now but might do later in the week, or somebody else could? Wham2001 (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes on reflection you're right about that - sorry - I've redacted that bit. As above I did find some better sources, only for them to be swiftly reverted out in favour of the weak/tendentious sources, which I found frustrating. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC about the transgender section

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

If you think Linehan has clarified or changed his views, that is something we can add into the article. It doesn't mean we would remove what is already there. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

We have to remove it, if it's breaching policy and/or irredeemably rubbish. Per WP:BLPREMOVE. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

What in the article is incorrect? Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the article presents an extremely neutral and brief summary of some very extreme activity on Linehan's part. What are your specific criticisms of the article content? Vashti (talk) 06:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I am seeing coverage of newsworthy and widely reported topics, sourced to multiple reliable sources. Really not seeing the issue here, or the need for an RFC. Bastun 08:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses guys, but since you have presided over the article getting into it's current abysmal state, I'm not surprised that you are still studiously ignoring the detailed objections outlined above. The purpose of the RfC is to hopefully get some balanced opinions from people more interested in building an encyclopedia than bashing Graham Linehan. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

You asked a question. You got some answers. WP:AGF. Bastun 14:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Seems fine as is to me as well. If I had a suggestion for changing it it would be to include a summary and make some paragraphs instead of just listing quotes, but I don't see a WP:UNDUE or WP:BLP issue here. LokiTheLiar (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

What I am seeing here is some distinct aggression, and it all seems to be one-sided. Bring back Daz Sampson, I understand that you feel the page is not neutral and I believe you want to improve it, but I think you would make more progress if you stopped accusing other editors of being tendentious and of editing in bad faith. Vashti (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Ireland articles
• Low-importance Ireland articles
• Start-Class Ireland articles of Low-importance
• All WikiProject Ireland pages
• Start-Class screenwriter articles
• Low-importance screenwriter articles
• WikiProject Screenwriters articles