Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:43, 25 February 2021

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Graham Linehan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 3 months

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.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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[REDACTED] 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

Misplaced Pages "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, Misplaced Pages 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 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 of transgender rights activism"? How is "anti-transgender" - which is vague - actually better? Crossroads 17:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

This is clearly correct and in line with Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Linehan's Twitter socking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also agreed, it should only be a sentence. Bastun 13:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

stripping women of their political representation and their media voice

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

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

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

What court? Bastun 13:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your fixation on me is misplaced. Bastun 11:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

French source

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

"Lesbian erasure protests in London pride"

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

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

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

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

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

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 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: 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 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 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 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)

"... 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 closed as "no consensus" and it remained for status quo reasons. Crossroads 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" claim, what would be the best source you'd use? Crossroads 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)

"Anti-transgender activism" - sources please

I asked above and received none, but to be fair to everyone, this deserves its own heading for maximum visibility. This is likely going to need another RfC in the future since this issue comes up repeatedly. Last time's "no consensus-status quo" result isn't helping. So I make a simple request:

• Are there any reliable sources that verify the specific claim that Linehan is an "anti-transgender activist" or that he engages in "anti-transgender activism"?

Any answers that dance around the question, appeal to "summarizing" (i.e. WP:OR), or otherwise do not present a reliable source I will take as a "no". Crossroads 19:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Is the Irish Tatler a RS? This is the only thing on Google I can find. I have (half-deliberately) avoided looking into this debate so far but this does push me more towards the feeling we should avoid the term. Popcornfud (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I have already proposed campaigner against trans issues as a reliably sourced alternative. Newimpartial (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

How can one be a campaigner against trans issues? If one campaigns against trans rights then isn't that just a type of trans issues campaigner? If one is campaigning to reduce the profile of trans issues (the only thing I think "campaigner against trans issues" would actually describe)... then that's sort of a contradiction by definition, isn't it? — Bilorv (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I think "anti-transgender campaigner" is easier to understand, but Crossroads has been arguing that even if "anti-transgender" is sourced - which is easy - that it is SYNTH unless the noun following is used in the same sources as part of a phrase. And I have sources pointing to him "campaigning against trans issues" but not his "anti-transgender campaigns". Sigh. Newimpartial (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I did link a source below calling him an anti-trans campaigner verbatim. --Equivamp - talk 23:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say all that. And we never discussed "campaign" before. Crossroads 04:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think an issue with the original RfC is that it was never made completely clear whether "anti-transgender activism" meant "anti-", or " activism". Trying to make this more clear was the reason behind my proposal to change it to "Opposition to transgender activism". I can see from more recent discussion that there's a perception that the phrase "transgender activism" is a transphobic dogwhistle, but I'm not sure I agree. For example, this article by Gay Community News in Dublin describes Linehan's opposition to mainstream trans activism. I would be surprised if GCN were to be described as a transphobic source. More to the point of your question though, the same source associates him with a lengthy campaign from anti-trans activists. This article from The Daily Beast explicitly calls him an Irish anti-trans activist, though WP:RSP suggests using caution when using this source for BLPs. --Equivamp - talk 20:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

That's right; you did. I concur. Newimpartial (talk) 00:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

This Star Observer calls Linehan a noted anti-transgender campaigner and former comedy writer. --Equivamp - talk 20:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The Gay Times makes a similar point when they say of GL, The writer was known for comedies like Father Ted and The IT Crowd, but over the past few years has been more known for his anti-trans views. Newimpartial (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't verify "activism"/"activist". Crossroads 20:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the GCN source verifies the claim, but the point about trans activism is worth noting. By comparison, "socialist" is used as an inaccurate term of abuse by some on the right wing, but that doesn't mean "socialist" is always such and can never be used as the most accurate descriptor. It is the truthful description sometimes and so is "transgender activism", and pretending it isn't in such a situation actually reduces clarity. Crossroads 20:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, the same source that you are embracing for using the term "(mainstream) transgender activism" in this context (gcn) is also my source for his consistently critical campaign against trans issues and his adamant stance on gender identity. It would be profoundly inconsistent for you to suggest that it is a reliable source for "transgender activism" in this context (and who else used that label? The Telegraph?) and not for his "campaigns".

We have many sources for Linehan being anti-trans or anti-transgender in his publicly communicated views and in his actions/campaigns. If you still think activism is SYNTH - which I don't, but anyway - then let's replace it with campaigns or something. Pretending that there is any question about anti-trans just isn't a viable position based on the available sourcing IMO. And pretending that his interventions in this space are all responses to so-called "transgender activism" would very clearly be taking a position (The Telegraph's position, essentially) in the debate. Newimpartial (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Equivamp is correct, imo. At the moment, it reads like he is 'anti-transgender' and that he opposes transgenderism itself. It seems clear to me that is it the activism to which he's 'anti',not the transgenderism itself. It certainly shouldn't read as it does.NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

If the BLP subject opposes the things trans people and their representatives ask for, harasses trans people and is deplatformed repeatedly for such behaviour, in what sense is he not against transgenderism itself? Are there any non-WP:MANDY sources that suggest that he is not opposed to "transgenderism"(whatever that is supposed to be)? What I see here is a distinction in search of a difference. Newimpartial (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't have a current strong opinion on whether the heading is supposed to read activism or anti-. Actually, the sources I posted in this section make me feel that the former is well-sourced. --Equivamp - talk 15:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The Telegraph article literally says in the subhead "The writer's battle with trans activists has cost him his Twitter account and many friends." Also Graham Linehan compares trans activists to Nazis. Black Kite (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Only the first quote is from the Telegraph and can be deemed reliable. The second is from Metro UK, an unreliable source according to Misplaced Pages, and is not surprisingly highly misleading. Lilipo25 (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there is any question that Linehan opposes what he considers to be trans activists. The question is whether his anti-transgender campaigns are confined to opposing trans activists. Based on my reading of the sources, I don't think they are. Newimpartial (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, there's no evidence of that, apart from the harrassment of the trans lawyer, the harrassment of women on the lesbian dating service, the episode of the IT Crowd .. the thing with Linehan is that he claims not to be transphobic - for example he "agrees, of course, that gender dysphoria is real" in a mainstream newspaper interview , but then when he thinks he's got the right audience, it's "voices who have been silenced for fighting a dangerous ideology that tells children it’s possible to be born into the wrong body." . Black Kite (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The sources calling him that are, of course, Pink News and the websites that simply reprint Pink News stories. So no, I would say there aren't reliable sources saying it. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I think there's a simple solution. Simply remove the hyphen so what's adjectival is subjective. Anti transgender activism.NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Being purposely vague is not generally Misplaced Pages policy. WP:VAGUE says to avoid vagueness wherever possible, so choosing to insert it is not the way forwards DeputyBeagle (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:MANDY. Pink News is a reliable source. Bastun 23:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Pink News is considered generally reliable as per WP:RSP. Your disagreement with their conclusions does not change that fact. DeputyBeagle (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Nor does your agreement with their conclusions mean that WP:RSP merely deems it "reliable" instead of what it actually says, which is There is rough consensus that PinkNews is generally reliable for factual reporting, but additional considerations may apply and caution should be used. As this is a case of subjective description and not "factual reporting", the reliable tag does not extend to it. The "caution" part does. Lilipo25 (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that he opposes transgender activism. So 'opposition to transgender activism' seems NPOV. He's in favour of same-sex attraction and sex based privilege. At the moment that is not coming across at all. At the moment it reads as if he has a problem with trans men and women, and that's not the impression I get when reading most of the sources cited.NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The issue is that just using the phrase 'transgender activism' is a violation of NPOV because it's a phrase almost exclusively used by those on his side. Additionally, he seems to be attacking more than just 'transgender activism'. He's attacking the structures that help transgender people. Trying to destroy Mermaids and comparing puberty blockers to Nazi eugenics is a direct attack on trans people, not just the activists. DeputyBeagle (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

This is always the problem when you've got someone who insists they're not transphobic but then does or says things that are, or could be interpreted as such; most reliable sources will then not label him directly as such, they'll simply quote his statements so you run into the issue of synthesis. Black Kite (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

One could argue that opposing the promotion of structures which 'help (depending on opinion) transgender people' is opposing activism, so opposing that is opposing the activism. Are the structures activism, or the thing itself?NEDOCHAN (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not dissimilar to someone saying they're pro-Judaism but opposed to Israel, which is a structure that supports Judaism. That's not an uncommon stance among those who wouldn't want to be described as anti-Semitic.NEDOCHAN (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

In that case, we need to follow what the RS say, and what they say (inter alia) is that he engages in "anti-transgender campaigns". Newimpartial (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Well that's kinda the issue, isn't it? You can't separate out the two. Saying you're against trans activism but not transphobic is absurd. You can't destroy 'trans activism' without directly attacking trans people and the structures that support them. DeputyBeagle (talk) 11:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with this characterisation; the two statements are not incompatible. It is very possible for someone to disagree with the tactics used by (and/or claims made by) trans activists but not dislike trans people for being trans. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

It's definitely not absurd to say you're against trans activism and not transphobic. NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Regardless, it's obvious he is not criticising the tactics used by 'trans activists'. Comparing medical transition to Nazi experiments is not about activist tactics. Misgendering and deadnaming trans people is not criticising activists. This is quite obviously an attack on trans people. DeputyBeagle (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Or creating a profile on a lesbian dating site in order to share transwomen's profile pictures to your blog readers ("In a second blog post, Linehan shared screenshots of various women and non-binary people’s profiles from Her, declaring that they should not be on the app because they are “not lesbians”."). That's got nothing to do with trans activism, its simply transphobia. Black Kite (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Distorting what he's said and leaving out the context makes it much easier to label it in a way that's useful to our own arguments. He didn't say all medical transition is comparable to Nazi experiments. He actually said that giving children drugs that had never been tested for use by children who were not experiencing precocious puberty was like the Nazis testing drugs on kids. I greatly dislike Nazi comparisons and don't approve of what he said, either, but distorting the context to make it fit what we want just muddies the waters in an already contentious topic. Lilipo25 (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The Telegraph article writes campaign against trans ideology. NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and the Telegraph editors probably believe that trans ideology. All part of the unique service they provide their readers their POV. Newimpartial (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Have I missed something re the reliability of the Telegraph? NEDOCHAN (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Have you read The Daily Telegraph? Its stories have been described by RS as climate change denialist and transphobic, among other things. It certainly comes with its own POV, which is conservative at best and FRINGE at worst. Newimpartial (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The Telegraph is easily the strongest of the sources offered so far, having a green "Reliable" rating on Misplaced Pages and no caution that it is only reliable for 'factual' statements as Pink News has on it. Lilipo25 (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• 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