Talk:Graham Linehan/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2022

Under anti-transgender activism, the event in the 2008 episode of IT Crowd that's being described as transphobic is summaruzed as a man reacting violently upon discovering the woman he was dating is trans. He does not react violently when he discovers she's trans. He attempts to break up with her because he's uncomfortable with dating a trans person. She punches him in the face, which initiates the physical altercation.

I don't know what else the show creator has done in his personal life to be considered transphobic, but there's no reason to mischaracterize the events in the show here.

I suggest the line be replaced with something along the lines of "A character attempts to break up with his girlfriend after learning that she is trans and she initiates a fistfight". 2600:8804:18A:7400:912A:CE3F:1094:6E5A (talk) 01:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Popcornfud (talk) 02:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Conservative Party supporter

UK Conservative Party supporter (October 2022) - confirmed in his recent YouTube videos Fen999 (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

This may be verifiable, but not due weight unless another outlet has seen fit to report on this party allegiance. — Bilorv (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

From the lead:

is an Irish television writer and anti-transgender activist.

The citation poorly backs up the first (it just says he's a writer, not television writer), and never mentions the second descriptor. Surely we can find a better citation? It's usually good practice to cite contentious claims in lead, even if we don't usually need citations in the lead. DFlhb (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the reference. There's nothing contentious about either claim, both of which are extensively referenced in the body; and the reference itself is a dead link. The archived version is just about the book itself and doesn't mention Linehan - it's not an appropriate reference. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing contentious about either claim Not disputing that, just think it would avoid any further extensive talk page arguments :) DFlhb (talk) 11:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

A further search reveals the author refers to the character Father Jack from Father Ted, "which is written by the Irishmen Arthur Matthews and Graham Linehan." We can definitely do without it. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2022

Dear Wikipedia, In terms of balance and fairness, could the editors of this page please mention the court controversy surrounding the Tavistock Clinic and its subsequent closure, plus the recent controversy surrounding the Mermaids charity pushing an aggressive Conversion Therapy policy.

Given the testimony of some young gay people who converted and now want to re-transtion, it would appear that Graham Lineham's warnings in aome cases might be vindicated and it is only fair to him that this touched upon in a Wikipedia page.

Many thanks, 2A00:23C5:C1B8:3901:3D76:4831:A5AC:E0F7 (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

We are not here to be "fair to him." We summarize what reliable sources say about the subject. So you'd first need to provide reliable sources which not only cover those topics, but demonstrate how they relate to Mr. Linehan. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:15, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, but we find it difficult when - as here - the vast majority of available sources are POV but we aim to be NPOV. Even perennial sources may be non-reliable in particular areas. An uncritical reliance on the weight of normally reliable sources may skew our article. Springnuts (talk) 10:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The page seems to needlessly hammer home a point and is often not phrased (IMHO) to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

On the other hand the point that is being hammered home is rather central to the man.

Instead of requesting that "the editors of this page" spend some time and effort improving it - why don't you register an account WP:REGISTER and become "an editor of this page". Then you can get together some sources, write some words and then put them forward for discussion and consensus here. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 09:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Activism?

He’s not an anti-transgender activist though. It might be best to be more balanced. 31.50.88.150 (talk) 07:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times. Please check the talk page archives. This is the most balanced way to describe him. Equivamp - talk 07:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

It's all he does, these days. Check the references. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

How on earth do you know that it is 'all he does'? What a ridiculous statement. Can you give an account for how many hours a week he spends on so-called 'anti-transgender activism'? Otherwise, you are not in a position to say that is 'all he does'. Kont Dracula (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Check the references. If he has published or broadcast anything recently, please add it to the article, with proper citations. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

He is obsessively anti-trans. His fixation has been discussed here many times.

StrongPencil (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

"Anti-transgender activism" is an ambiguous term. There is a huge different to being

• an activist who is "anti-transgender" (we redirect "anti-transgender" to transphobia) and
• an activist who opposes (some but not all of the demands of) "transgender activism"

Lineham denies being transphobic. What terms does Lineham himself own? Springnuts (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

We go by what reliable sources say, not by what the subject self-describes as. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Of course (though WP:SELFSOURCE might apply here for a de minimis inclusion) but I did not suggest that we simply paste in a self description. The main issue is how we resolve the current linguistic ambiguity where we say

Linehan became involved in anti-transgender activism. He argues that transgender activism endangers women ...

as if the second phrase is simply restating and amplifying the first. But there is a significant difference between

• anti-transgender activism (we redirect "anti-transgender" to transphobia, so this is a synonym for transphobic activism) and
• opposing (some but not all of the demands of) transgender activism (we redirect "transgender activism" to Transgender rights movement, so this is a synonym for "opposes (some but not all of the demands of) the transgender rights movement"

I'll float a rephrase - let's see if it lasts. But we should not be ambiguous (and of course we should follow all other policy in WP:BIO &c &c). Springnuts (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

We are not ambiguous. He is involved in anti-transgender activism, full stop. He claims he's protecting women, but also has no problem throwing women who disagree with him under the bus. He wants to pretend he's only against "transgender activism," but engages in anti-trans bigotry.

So at this point, I don't know what you actually want changed. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted those changes. The first, as it's clear from the Belfast Telegraph it was his activism rather than mere "views" that led to his marriage breakup; the second as it introduces far more ambiguity than what you perceived to be there originally! Trans-rights activism doesn't force puberty blockers on anyone! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that the article says both meanings of the ambiguous phrase. Springnuts (talk) 08:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

That's not what I said. What i said is immediately above. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:59, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@Bastun I do apologise: it was not clear that I was referring to the previous comment and not to yours immediately above my words. It appeared that I was putting words into your mouth. Your words of course mean what you say. I was thanking The Hand That Feeds You for clarity that the wording in the article includes the meaning that he

engages in anti-trans bigotry. 

Springnuts (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, I was confused! :-) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Information RE Twitter un-suspension removed

Hi friends,

First time posting something like this so apologies if it's not the right format/place.

A commit of mine, which mentioned Linehan's Twitter account was restored, was reverted yesterday with the following comment: "not cited to a reliable secondary source and poorly integrated into the article" - @Popcornfud

Two questions on this:

1. Is a secondary source needed? The original source was a link to Linehan's Twitter profile, which is once again available. I thought this would be proof in-and-of itself.

2. The intro paragraph mentions Linehan's suspension. To me, it made sense to include information about the un-suspension in the same paragraph (though my initial commit did have it as a new line).

I don't particularly mind that it has been removed, just curious about the above two points for future reference.

Thanks, CurdyKai (talk) 14:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi there. I understand why this feels weird and counter-intuitive.

The reason is due to Wikipedia:Verifiability. Here are two relevant parts from that policy:

1. Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy.
2. Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic.

For these reasons, citing Linehan's Twitter account isn't ideal. It's not a reliable secondary source, and it doesn't clearly and directly say "Linehan was unbanned" — the user has to go to his Twitter account and figure that out for themselves.

Additionally, the fact that he was unbanned is not necessarily notable for Wikipedia. If it's covered by a reliable secondary source, then that will demonstrate it is notable. Popcornfud (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

This is all now moot, as I have discovered an Independent article that mentions the unbanning and I have added this coverage to the article. Popcornfud (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! I'll keep this in mind on future edits CurdyKai (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Former TV writer?

Would it now be more accurate to describe him as an "Irish anti-transgender activist and former television writer"?

He talks about his activism being his main source of income here https://twitter.com/Glinner/status/1606602633732657153?s=20&t=JZpcUkRBXUcZX5z0BDl9qw

He has also spoken several times about the end of his TV writing career. Megajeffzilla (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, it was enough of a fight just to get "anti-transgender activist" into the lede. I don't want to know how much arguing it would take to make this change. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The reason his "anti transgender" views are discussed is because of his other activities - not the other way around. 10 BAFTA"S and multiple nominations. Season three of "Motherland" was in the Guardian's top TV of 2021 list. In spite of that we have more than one third of the article devoted to the anti transgender section plus the other mention. We have already gone to UNDUE IMHO. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 09:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the material on the anti-transgender stuff is pretty well supported by the sources, though it could probably benefit from some trimming. The imbalance is mainly produced by the fact that there isn't enough coverage of his TV career, not that there's too much on the anti-trans stuff. Popcornfud (talk) 09:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure you've understood the comment you claim to be agreeing with. And the use of scare quotes suggests you are not arguing in good faith on this issue. The issue about the nature of his activism is settled and will not be reargued here. If you feel there should be more content relating to his TV career, you should add it. As for his views being notable only because of his TV career, I don't see the relevance of that to the topic under debate - plenty of people become notable for one thing before abandoning that career and becoming notable for something else. Also, series three of Motherland being in the top TV of 2021 has close to nothing to do with the subject of this article. Megajeffzilla (talk) 10:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Also the reference made is to Season 3 of Motherland, a show which Linehan has not been involved with since Season 1. One of the creators was his now ex-wife who had reverted to her maiden name on the Motherland credits before the 2020 Christmas special and their subsequent divorce.

I agree if the problem is with balance, the coverage of his writing career needs increasing. Rankersbo (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you referring to the quotes I used and my good faith? Lukewarmbeer (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

For us to include this in the article, we would require some reliable secondary sources to say that he is no longer a TV writer. Popcornfud (talk) 09:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems plain his output has dried up, but I agree we need a RS to notice this otherwise it's just us doing WP:OR. Rankersbo (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest that, in this case, the primary source (the tweet mentioned above) is reliable enough under Wikipedia's rules. I can't imagine any reasonable person reading it would understand it to mean anything other than his TV writing career is, as things stand, over. I've considered other potential formulations, but they're clumsy, contradictory and misleading. For example, "is an Irish TV writer whose main source of income is now anti-transgender activism" - wouldn't you expect a notable TV writer's main source of income to be TV writing?

Perhaps "an Irish anti-transgender activist initially notable as a TV writer" works? Megajeffzilla (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

> I would suggest that, in this case, the primary source (the tweet mentioned above) is reliable enough under Wikipedia's rules.

I'm afraid it isn't. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability: Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic.

It's safest to stick to reliable secondary sources — and frankly I don't see Linehan himself as a reliable source. Popcornfud (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Linehan says a lot of things. Wait until reliable secondary sources are regularly using the term. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's just not enough to say "I'm afraid it isn't" and then quote a section of Wikipedia rules which in no way backs up your argument. In fact, the rules you quoted are closer to supporting my position. The use of this one source for one piece of information would still leave the article largely based on reliable secondary sources.

I would also point you towards the section on self-published or questionable sources as sources themselves:

"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

This policy also applies to material published by the subject on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, LinkedIn, Reddit, and Facebook."

I would argue very strongly that, in this case, the tweet in question meets those criteria and is, as such, suitable for inclusion. Megajeffzilla (talk) 14:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy entirely backs up my argument, in that we should rely on reliable secondary sources over primary sources, and treat primary sources with caution.

It is in Linehan's interests to talk up how much his anti-trans position has cost him work, cancel culture is to blame for everything, etc. His social media posts shouldn't be treated as reliable material for Wikipedia.

He also doesn't even say he is a former TV writer in that tweet. He just says that "covering all aspects of the gender cult on my site [...] is now my main source of income". Popcornfud (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you appear not to be reading my comments properly before responding to them. I'm also concerned that you have misunderstood Wikipedia's sourcing policies as they apply to primary sources. There is nothing in the policy that indicates that primary sources are to be dismissed merely because a Wikipedian doesn't like the look of it. Do you have any arguments against the use of this primary source that fall under a specific rule for sourcing?

As for the use of the wording "former TV writer", I address this above. Megajeffzilla (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Your reading of Linehan's tweet depends on supposition and guesswork and so goes against WP:OR. Wait for the plurality of reliable secondary sources to state this information unambiguously. Popcornfud (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. And we have a secondary source naming him as a former TV writer to support the primary source, so your latest shifting argument is academic. I'm sure you'll have another WP policy to throw at me in response to this, but I'm not sure I'll find the energy to respond. Megajeffzilla (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I had a look for how secondary sources from the last year refer to him. [[1]] has "Former comedy writer Linehan". [[2]] has "The comedy writer has become a TV pariah since becoming an outspoken campaigner against gender self-identification", which still refers to him as a writer in the present tense even though acknowleding his TV work has dried up. In general most sources still referred to him as a writer in the present tense, I think it probably needs to stay as-is for now, and we can check again how secondary sources are referring to him in a while. JaggedHamster (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that one secondary source along with the primary source from his Twitter suggest that something needs to be changed.

How would you feel about "an Irish anti-transgender activist, initially notable as a TV writer"? Megajeffzilla (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I think you maybe want to listen to the five other editors saying 'not yet'? Article is fine as is, for the moment, and can be updated when there are enough reliable secondary sources ("Chortle"?). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The article is fine, I'm suggesting it could be better. Surely the whole point of Wikipedia is to improve things through editing and bold editing at that?

We have a primary source and at least one, arguably two, reliable secondary sources that indicate Linehan is no longer a TV writer. (Can one be a TV writer and a TV pariah?).

I'll add a friendly reminder that consensus on Wikipedia does not rely solely on weight of numbers, but also on the correct application of Wikipedia policies.

Obviously this article has generated a lot of toxicity and bad feeling on the talk page, but that's no reason to ignore perfectly adequate sources. If we don't publish updates to controversial articles because we're worried that it may lead to lengthy arguments, what does that say about Wikipedia's willingness to prevent such behaviour negatively impacting the quality and independence of its articles?

I'll also add a slightly less friendly note pointing out that I did not appreciate the tone of your reply to my comment, which was made in good faith in order to garner an opinion and directed at someone other than yourself.

It's unlikely I'll revisit this talk page any time soon, and I would also humbly suggest that a number of other Wikipedians could do with a lengthy break from it themselves. Megajeffzilla (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2023

Change 'anti-transgender activist' to 'gender critical activist'. Defining a movement by what it is against is not a neutral way of reporting on it, and there is clearly still open discussion and diverse perspectives concerning the construct of gender. Seventhousandnoughtfive (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: We don't need euphemisms to obfuscate a political stance. "Gender critical" conveys nothing to the reader. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Defining a movement by what it is against is not a neutral way of reporting on it

This is incorrect. See also Anti-abortion movements. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2023

Change "activist" and "activism" to a more accurate term, such as "partisan," "critic," or "detractor." The term "activism" implies an effort to bring about political or social change; Linehan advocates for staying the course and not making policy changes in regards to transgender issues. 66.130.235.63 (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

No. He is described as an activist by reliable sources, and your definition of activism is simply wrong. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

It's synthesized from the Oxford and Cambridge definitions of activist. Linehan has also been described as a critic by reliable sources, and critic is more applicable by definition. Please reconsider. 66.130.235.63 (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree that he has, by most definitions, become an activist and I can't see that word misrepresenting what he 'is' (in this context) and so it is Encyclopaedic.

I do, however, think that the NPOV has been thrown out with the bathwater in parts of this article and that never serves Wiki well. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 09:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

misspelled name

Munroe Bergdorf's name is misspelled Bergdof 172.87.3.125 (talk) 07:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Already fixed by Michael Bednarek — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:29, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Pink news reference - my edit reverted by User:HandThatFeeds

The pinknews reference does NOT say the transgender activism led linehan to question anything, it says that Linehan said the following words - "“No one knows! We don’t know! I don’t even know, I’m not even sure I’m 100 per cent on climate change anymore because I’ve been lied to so conclusively by all the people I used to trust.”" This is an EXACT quotation of the PinkNews article.

This means he believes he has been lied to by others about one topic and has lost some confidence on other topics - this does not show or even allege any causal connection between his activism and his questioning on other subjects.

The pinknews article's own 3rd paragraph says:

"He explained that since his political rebirth as an anti-trans activist, he has found himself more intrigued by misinformation and conspiracy theories." (again an EXACT quotation)

does not make a claim about causality. Thus your claim that anti transgender activism has led him to (your preferred wording) have doubts on COVID vaccines and anthropogenic climate change is not supported by the evidence you cite. After all, Post Hoc is NOT propter hoc.

I would in fact argue that the pink news wording "he has found himself more intrigued by misinformation" is in fact weasel wording.

pink news quote Linehan exactly as follows:

"“If another massive pandemic happened, good luck to the government trying to get anybody to do anything. Because no one knows whether they were all just conned for a few years, or whether their life expectancy is being shortened as some people like Brett Weinstein have said about some of the vaccines."

A better summary or interpretation of Linehan's words for pinknews to have chosen would be "intrigued by notions of misinformation" since "intrigued by misinformation" clearly implies being taken in by falsehoods, as opposed to worried about doubts surrounding about important issues - which is clearly what Linehan meant by "If another massive pandemic happened, good luck to the government trying to get anybody to do anything."

To the person who reverted my edit, I ask that you cite your evidence that

1. I have mischaracterised the text of the reference, and in particular that

2. I have misquoted the words that pinknews attribute to Linehan.

Also please direct me to the alleged long standing concensus that Linehan's antitrans activism caused him to "question the safety of COVID-19 vaccinations and the scientific consensus on climate change"

This causal relationship the alleged concensus around it is what you are clinging to

Until then I have restored my edit

Japanscot (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Your proposed changes don't seem to be verifiable to the source to me, as the phrasing experiences with the what he sees as dishonesty in public discourse around gender critical and transgender issues isn't supported by the PinkNews source. It's unclear from the PinkNews reporting that when Linehan said I’m not even sure I'm 100 per cent on climate change anymore because I've been lied to so conclusively by all the people I used to trust if he is referring solely to what he perceives as people lying to him about climate change, or if it's more broadly applied to climate change, Covid, and gender.

The existing content that I restored does seem to be verifiable to the PinkNews reporting. The paragraph on his political rebirth does make the link between his anti-trans activism being a cause for his later interest in misinformation and conspiracy theories. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

---------

It's unclear from the PinkNews reporting that when Linehan said I’m not even sure I'm 100 per cent on climate change anymore because I've been lied to so conclusively by all the people I used to trust if he is referring solely to what he perceives as people lying to him about climate change, or if it's more broadly applied to climate change, Covid, and gender.

I argue that it is.

Linehan is quoted as saying

“What is COVID misinformation? We don’t know anymore! One of the big problems with where we are at the moment as a society is we literally do not know who to believe.

“If another massive pandemic happened, good luck to the government trying to get anybody to do anything. Because no one knows whether they were all just conned for a few years, or whether their life expectancy is being shortened as some people like Brett Weinstein have said about some of the vaccines.

“No one knows! We don’t know! I don’t even know, I’m not even sure I’m 100 per cent on climate change anymore because I’ve been lied to so conclusively by all the people I used to trust.”

he refers to his lack of at least some people's lack of surety regarding COVID vaccines "What is COVID misinformation? We (not I, but We) don’t know anymore!"

Since it is not in question that Linehan is Gender Critical in his views, then the "conclusive lying to" he is talking about is surely regarding gender issues and transgender debates, rather than COVID - after all he said - "We don't know" regarding COVID, but it is not in doubt that he has very strong convictions regarding gender issues.

What he believes to be lies from those whom he used to trust regarding transgender issues and how his conviction that he's been lied on these issues has meant he "even" has doubts about climate change. His use of the words "not even sure" means he himself is suprised to say that regarding climate change.

The paragraph on his political rebirth does make the link between his anti-trans activism being a cause for his later interest in misinformation and conspiracy theories.

No it does not.

Definition from the Oxford Dictionary of English.:

"lead (with object) be a reason or motive for (someone)"

The quoted article absolutely does not support a causative relationship.

The article says that one followed the other, and quotes Linehan talking about that. It certainly does not say that one LED to the other - "led to" means a causative relationship. The cited article states that one followed the other and makes no mention whatsoever of causes. The article is evidence of "x subsequently y" not "x led to y"

The article says:

"He explained that since his political rebirth as an anti-trans activist, he has found himself more intrigued by misinformation and conspiracy theories."

The phrasing "since his political rebirth.....he has found" is in the form of "since event in past" ....."event using present perfect tense"

tells us that the relationship described by the word "since" is a temporal one not necessarily a causative one. A use of "since" describing a causative relationship would be in the form of "I cannot go the cinema since my bank account is empty" or

"since our now deceased pet Rover was a dog, Rover had four legs" or

"since jo is a politically reborn anti-trans activist jo is intrigued by conspiracy theories" (with verb tenses agreeing)

The article said that one followed the other and not that one caused the other. If they wanted to say that one caused the other, they would have said - "Due to", or "because of"

If I say "since I turned 30 years old I have lived in Whitefield" does not imply a causative relationship between not being 29 anymore and living in a particular place, merely when the second thing happened. Japanscot (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is a massive wall of original research, unfounded suppositions, and odd semantics. None of what you have said on the interpretation of the quotations from Linehan is verifiable to the PinkNews source, and has a rather large air of original research to it. As such we cannot by policy include that in the article. If there are other reliable sources, that are independent from Linehan and the YouTube interview, and that support your interpretation, then I'd have to ask for you to provide them. Otherwise there's really not much else to do here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a distinction without a difference. --Pokelova (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Here is why it is not a distinction without a difference - the dictionary definition of lead to is about causes not merely temporal order,

Definition from the Oxford dictionary of English.: "lead (with object) be a reason or motive for (someone)"

and the article says nothing about his anti trans activism causing the doubts on covid vaccines and climate change. Again "I’m not even sure I’m 100 per cent on climate change anymore because I’ve been lied to so conclusively by all the people I used to trust.”" is an expression of surprise on Linehan's part. His conviction, his sincere belief, that he was lied to on transgender issues caused him to doubt other things, not his transgender activism in itself. Japanscot (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that in context, the ...since his political rebirth as an anti-trans activist, he has found himself more intrigued by misinformation and conspiracy theories clearly indicates that one led to the other, ie. that his anti-trans activism led him to misinformation and conspiracy theories. It's a common idiom or rhetorical structure used to indicate how someone has changed as a result of something, not a statement of two random unconnected points. --Aquillion (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2023

In 2020, he was suspended from the social network Twitter for "repeated violations" of the rules; it was restored in 2022 after Twitter changed its content policies.

He has been once again banned on the 15th of April 2023. I believe this should be added after that sentence. YungCatgirl (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Let's wait until this gets coverage in a WP:SECONDARY source to demonstrate that this is a notable event. We don't want to just smash every breaking-news event into this article over and over again, WP:RECENTISM style. he might be unbanned again in a few hours, who knows.

Also, note that if he is unbanned then his Twitter account will not show him having been suspended before, so the source won't stand the test of time. As a general rule social media isn't a good source for Wikipedia. Popcornfud (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: per WP:RECENTISM. M.Bitton (talk) 00:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

On his conduct on the site (WP:OR so not going on the page) combined with the stated aim of the owner to allow transphobia, there could be a series of "He was banned, he was restored he was banned again". And as stated we need this to be picked up in WP:RS to write here as the actual twitter status is ephemeral and his blog is unreliable because of WP:MANDY.

And I do appreciate the way the media like to tone down the sort of abuse that goes on in anti-trans circles make it difficult to source an accurate picture of the behaviour of people like Linehan. Rankersbo (talk) 08:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with the others, this absolutely needs to wait until we have secondary sources. For all we know, Elon will reinstate Graham by Monday morning (because of course he would), making any update obsolete. Until we have actual sources reporting on it, we should wait. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

There is https://www.cityam.com/graham-linehan-aka-glinner-banned-from-twitter-again/ Rankersbo (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with CityAM, and I'd have preferred to wait until Monday to make sure it sticks. But eh, this will do. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the source is not great IMO. Popcornfud (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

The text as added has a mistake in it. The event by Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull/Posie Parker was held earlier today (16 April 2023). However Linehan's suspension/block was the day before. Given that the block happened prior to the event, it would make more sense to read the paragraph Linehan’s latest ban was for joking about killing protestors at a controversial women’s rights activist event in Belfast called Let Women Speak, although he had already received warnings from the platform about his behaviour. from the CityAM source as ..joking about killing protestors at a forthcoming controversial.... Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

He seems to be tweeting today. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 09:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Yup, he was already reinstated Sunday evening, so this whole exercise was moot. Probably should just be removed from the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I've removed it. This is the entire problem with WP:RECENTISM. There is no reason to think this episode of being banned and unbanned (what was it, 24 hours? 48 hours?) is going to be of any long-term importance for our article. Popcornfud (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2023

Change “anti-trans activism” to “anti-trans activity” or another more descriptive heading. According to Oxford dictionary, an activist is someone who campaigns to bring about social or political change. Transgender people exist and that will not change politically or socially. The word “activist” in this context implies that opposing a group of people may bring about a change in which they do not exist. That is the objective that the Nazis had and it would be inaccurate to call them “anti-Jewish activists” 2600:1000:A010:4781:D426:D30A:F6FF:DEA1 (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. The implication is yours. Linehan actively campaigns against trans rights. See (many) previous talk-page sections - there is no consensus to change this heading. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes he actively campaigns against trans rights, and the heading does not currently say “anti-trans rights activism” and so the implication is in the current text 2600:1000:A010:4781:D426:D30A:F6FF:DEA1 (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your request flies against the terms used by the sources we must cite by Wikipedia rules. His activism is to remove rights from trans individuals, potentially for their elimination. That does make it "anti-trans activism."

If you want a stronger heading, you need reliable sources which use stronger terms, and enough of them to show it's more accurate than the current citations. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Soapbox instance

It also seems he has a Soapbox instance (implementing ActivityPub) as an alternative to his Twitter account. I discovered this while searching mstdn.io's federation blocklist so I could add to my own. The @Glinner account does not seem to be active as of now, maybe because of his reinstatement on Twitter? MeowcaTheoRange (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Anti-Trans?

Linehan's views are described here many times as 'anti-trans', yet it seems to me he shares the same views as J. K. Rowling, and nowhere in her article, nor in the article on her political views where there is an entire section devoted to her views on the trans issue, is she definitively described in Wikipedia's voice as 'anti-trans'. And those articles have had a lot of scrutiny and discussion. So I suggest that this article be brought into alignment with that one, unless someone can show that Linehan is genuinely 'anti-trans' as opposed to objecting to self-ID (and all that comes with it) and use of puberty blockers etc for children, like J.K. Rowling. LastDodo (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

This article has also had a lot of scrutiny and discussion. Check the archives for the many times this topic has been discussed. Equivamp - talk 16:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

The difference between Rowling and Linehan is in the sourcing. Sources about Linehan pretty consistently describe him as an anti-trans activist or close synonym, whereas sources about Rowling do not consistently use a similar descriptor for her. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I still can’t find out what “anti trans” actually means. It would help these kind of discussions if we knew.

We should also recognise that for many the term isn’t a negative any more

I’d agree re sources but I think that’s why relying on reliable sources is unreliable*. They are both saying pretty much exactly the same thing

Linehan is, according to the sources we (must) use, any by what that expression is used to mean - anti trans I think he’s happy to be so called now

I understand where you’re coming from but this has been well aired and really is done for some time to come Lukewarmbeer (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

If you think Wikipedia shouldn't be using reliable sources then you need to have a much bigger conversation somewhere else. This isn't the place to debate the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. Popcornfud (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I still can’t find out what “anti trans” actually means As a grammatical contraction the definition is pretty literal. Against (or hostile to) transgender. An anti-trans activist is therefore typically someone who is an activist for causes which would have a negative effect or are outright hostile to trans and non-binary people.

As for the rest of your comment, I'm not entirely sure what it is you mean. Could you please rephrase and restate the points? Unless I'm mistaken, some of what you've said seems to go against multiple policies (WP:RS, WP:V) as alluded to by Popcornfud. I'm not sure that Linehan's acceptance of the label that is used by RS to describe him is any particular reason for us to do otherwise. And that we have had a historical issue of editors who say Linehan is not anti-trans, he is [insert other term here] is not really any different from the editors who ten years ago were making requests like Alveda King is not an anti-abortion activist. She's a pro-life activist. Without casting any aspersions about editors who have contributed to this discussion, trans and non-binary rights are a hot-topic item, both in the UK and the US at the moment, and as a result of that we often see edit requests along POV lines that go against what reliable sources state. Unless and until RS start describing Linehan in some other manner, the volume of such requests is not a reason to change our content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I imagine it will save some discussion time if anyone here who actually knows of material differences between the views of Linehan and Rowling could state what they are. LastDodo (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately due to the controversial nature of this page, discussion is going to be endless whether we have the most ironclad arguments or not. People still come in very frequently and try again to get it changed. We won't save any time if we try to iron it out now DeputyBeagle (talk) 22:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

The short-short version is that Rowling has mostly couched her anti-trans views in supporting specific people or groups which are anti-trans, but wording such support as "protecting women's spaces." There are very few reliable sources willing to call her out based on that.

Linehan started out similarly, but devolved into outright anti-trans activities in broad daylight, including fake profiles on various social media sites where he pretended to be trans in order to "expose" transgender individuals as "dangerous." His rhetoric is blatantly transphobic. That's the difference and the reason our articles have differing levels of commentary.

Finally, in my personal opinion, Rowling has enough financial & political clout that she has people willing to bend over backwards to cover for her. Linehan does not, and he has also alienated a lot of people who would've otherwise defended him. So Rowling gets more favorable press coverage. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Please….Read what I said.

I think we have got the description right.

I also think that we both think that both (forgive me) Rowling and Linehan can be described as anti trans and we both agree that we can’t because the reliable sources don’t.

BTW I did say we must use reliable sources. If I could find a better way I’d propose it. We both know the limitations (good and bad) it imposes.

I was also trying to encompass LastDodo’s concerns I don’t think I succeeded Lukewarmbeer (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I did read what you said. But as I said I was unsure of what you meant. Could you please rephrase and restate what you've said, so that I may better understand your point(s)? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I’ll do my best.

I was trying to explain to LastDodo why we can only say things that are backed by that sources we have

As can be seen with the reporting of the MMR vaccine controversy even the most august of these sources are not always reliable and in this case had a profoundly negative effect on the public perception of vaccines over many years, even decades. But that’s what we have. So although Linehan and Rowling say very much the same thing they are treated differently (in general) by the media and that is (has to be) reflected in our articles.

When starting out in Wikipedia this can be hard to get your head around

Your definition , for me, is too subjective to be of much use Emily Bridges would say that British Cycling is Anti Trans (and much more). Whatever our opinions NPOV means we will need to wait and see how reliable sources portray their decision before we can comment That is (has to be) the Wikipedia definition of what anti trans means in each individual case Lukewarmbeer (talk) 05:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

We have the reliable sources already, I'm not sure what we need to wait for. If you want to argue any of the particular sources the page used aren't reliable, that's a discussion that can be had at WP:RSN DeputyBeagle (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

We get so many people say "He's not anti-trans hes..." when Linehan obsessively tweets vitriol at anyone who has the remotest sense of "live and let live" towards trans people, let alone being trans supportive.

We need to be able to back up what we say with sources, and unfortunately the reliable sources tend to summarise the behaviour such that it takes out the vitriol, aggression and constantness of their conduct. So we say what we can. Rankersbo (talk) 11:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Also they are tonally different, even if their views are similar, the ways they are expressed are different. They both use euphemisms for what they do, and dysphemisms for trans supportive actions, but Linehan is wholly more aggressive and abusive with his behaviour, while Rowling has a veneer of reasonableness- showing support to others who openly express hate and aggression. Rankersbo (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can make out from what has been written here, the differences are 1. Linehan is more direct and aggressive than Rowling and willing to resort to methods she is not (e.g. fake Twitter account), and 2. Rowling has better PR. So, mainly surface stuff. Whether they have different views or not seems an open question; the comment I am responding to describes their views as 'similar'. A example of what I would consider a material difference justifying the quite different treatments in the two articles would be, for example if Linehan had expressed actual dislike of trans people in general (e.g. 'I hate trans people'), or advocated for different policies (e.g. 'trans people should be forced to live according to norms of their biological sex') or something, views which Rowling has not expressed. I'm not sure differences in PR and method are enough to justify the difference here. I realise people will say 'reliable sources!' but the net result, if the noted differences are the only substantial ones, is a difference in treatment that could be somewhat confusing to the reader (as it was to me and is why I'm here). LastDodo (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The difference of treatment in our articles is, indeed, due to the different treatment they get in reliable sources. We are bound by that. Full stop. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Either the two have essentially the same views, in which case reliable sources are wrong and the different treatment here is misleading, or they have materially different views, in which case we should be able to articulate their differences here. Which is it, in your opinion? LastDodo (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth Lukewarmbeer (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

You're still circling around the point of whether we should follow RS - That's a discussion about whether to change wikipedia policy, it's not a discussion for here DeputyBeagle (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

As DeputyBeagle says, you've put the cart before the horse. We can only describe them in ways covered by reliable sources. That limits our options here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

If the RS are correct, then the two have different views, so we should go ahead and articulate them in the article. Or you can tell me the RS are wrong, but we are bound by Wikipedia's policy to follow them anyway. Which? LastDodo (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The RS never explicitly say that they have different views, it's just different articles written by different people describe them differently.

Regardless, it doesn't really matter if RS is right or wrong. We follow what RS says. As Lukewarmbeer pointed out earlier, WP:TRUTH is the pertinent essay here DeputyBeagle (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

No. This is an article about Graham Linehan, and on this article, we report on what on the reliable sources say about Linehan. We don't introduce OR by doing our own 'compare and contrast'. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, LostDodo has set up a false dilemma here. We are not required to make both articles align to some nebulous standard of "they believe / don't believe the same thing." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I think this hits the nail on the head, and expresses what I was trying to articulate. Rankersbo (talk) 11:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

It is not a false dilemma, and @DeputyBeagle pretty much bit the bullet and implicitly conceded it is possible the RS are wrong but we have to follow them anyway (verifiability, not truth). If you all concur with that position then I will shut up and go away. (The alternative position is to articulate the reason for the difference in the RS, an articulation that this article would certainly benefit from given the otherwise confusing inclusion of the term 'anti-trans' which doesn't appear in the JKR article). The articles taken together will be misleading but that is a consequence of Wikipedia's rules, which clearly fail us in this instance, and we can't do anything about it. (If anyone wants to tell me why Wikipedia's rules haven't failed us here, I would like to hear it). LastDodo (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be implying I'm taking a different view to others here, I'm not. It is a false dilemma. Unless sources are frequently actively comparing Rowling and Linehan, it doesn't really matter if they're described differently.

If you think the rules have failed us, make a discussion in the appropriate places. |Policies and guidelines can change, but that's the policy as it is now DeputyBeagle (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The rules haven't failed us here. You're starting from a false assumption and then working backwards to justify the premise that either RS are wrong or Wikipedia's rules are wrong. I do suggest simply moving on. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Create an account, let me know and we can discuss the issues you raise on your own talk page. This isn't the place. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 08:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

What HandThatFeeds said. There isn't an issue here. Contrast our articles on J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis. The former mentions Lewis 17 times and the latter mentions Tolkien no less than 27 times. Why? Because there are multiple reliable published sources that discuss the two: their friendship, their interactions through college, their shared interest in religion, their literature, how critics compared them and their respective works, etc. The existence and prevalance of such sources means we meet both WP:V and WP:DUE. By contrast, there are simply no reliable sources discussing Linehan and Rowling in the either the number or manner you would need to see to justify inclusion. Can we put this to bed? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it has been put to bed :) Lukewarmbeer (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

This article has far too much focus upon Linehan's views of transgenderism. This guy had a pretty decent comedy writing career. Why isn't there more or a focus on that? 2600:8800:7C80:48B0:F90A:76B6:BDBD:C086 (talk) 05:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I partially agree. But... in RS Linehan has become noted for this. The way it's dealt with in this article isn't encyclopaedia though. It's just a piling on of perceived wrongs he's committed and a bit of gloating at what woes speaking his mind has brought him. When I have the time and energy I will propose a rewrite on that section. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 08:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

If you read the archives you'll see this has been discussed before. The anti-trans activism isn't written about excessively in the article given how notable he's become for it lately. The comedy section is too sparse though and needs expanding. Feel free to expand upon that section, it definitely needs work DeputyBeagle (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2023

Anti-Transgender Activist is a euphemism for Transphobe. Please correct/add reference to prevent misinformation. 217.33.107.175 (talk) 08:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: We go by what WP:RS write. Also, using "activist" means he is actually doing something, whereas using "transphobe" doesn't Cannolis (talk) 08:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Also we have had pushback from people who wish the desctiption to be more euphemistic and WP:POV than it already is. A blunt description like that would break the consensus. Rankersbo (talk) 09:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

And yet it links to transphobia ("[[transphobia|anti-transgender]] activist") - perhaps it should not. catslash (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

"Anti-transgender activism" section is too long

Regarding this edit, how many screens the section takes up rather depends on your screen size and zoom level. On a typical laptop at standard zoom, the section is about two screens long. And as for reading on mobile...

In any case, it's much longer than a typical Wikipedia section and would benefit from subheadings, possibly broken up chronologically. I may attempt to do this work later if no one else is interested. Popcornfud (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Chronological subheadings sound good to me. Something like "Before 2019", "2019–2021", "2022–present" looks even-ish. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Excellent. Much appreciated. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 10:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

WorthPoke2 has broken the section up with descriptive headings (and just to note, they shouldn't use Camel Case (now fixed). One section in the new additions confused me, the reference to 'H'/Watkins from Steps. I couldn't follow what was being said, so I've edited it, based on the source. Can someone check that to see I have managed to add, rather than remove, clarity, please? I'm not familiar with that episode, and am no longer on Twitter. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Capitalisation, but not CamelCase, but thank you for the correction!

Splitting based on his Twitter ban and reinstatement seems like a somewhat natural set of breaks (Pre-ban to June 2020, between bans to end of 2022, and post reinstatement). Splitting by chronology seems to make sense based on events. While this does make it a bit Twitter-centric, a lot of his activism has involved or revolved amount it. WorthPoke2 (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. However, I'm not sure it's the best way to divide the periods. It creates the impression that his ban status on Twitter is somehow defining or particularly important and I don't think it is. Popcornfud (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

From Linehan's perspective, I would suspect that the ban was particularly important for all that followed. Twitter was, and appears now again to be a big deal for him, as he is a prolific tweeter. As far as I understand the timelines, the Twitter ban was responsible for his shift to Substack and that coincided with an increase in his activism and greater polarisation of his views on gender.

For ourselves writing a biography, the period before the ban, the period where he was banned, and the period after the ban was lifted, by happenstance create three discrete time periods (2018 - June 2020, June 2020 - December 2022, December 2022 - present) that seem like reasonable breaks in and of themselves if we're writing this section entirely chronologically. The other way to chunk the content would perhaps instead be to break it down by activity; eg, activism against against Pride events, commentary on Tavistock and Mermaids, commentary on other celebrities, the whole Her dating app thing. That's a bit more messy though I think, as while you could be chronological within each subsection, you couldn't be chronological between subsections. It's also a little less clear where the boundaries of each activity lie. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Linehan admitted he tried to have his solicitors edit this page.

From the Telegraph:

"“My solicitors monitored [my Wikipedia page] and they tried to change it to ‘women’s rights activist’. It switched back within 15 minutes,” Linehan said."

Did they disclose this at the time? https://archive.ph/0lEZP#selection-1115.0-1118.0

Is there action that can be taken for this? WorthPoke2 (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• We don't take action against living human beings for trying to get something done--the "something", if it really is "women's right activist", being a ridiculous edit not supported by any reliable sources. Being a trans-hater does not make one a women's rights activist, which at any rate is not the kind of thing that can be self-ascribed here. Now, I went through the edit history, and I have no idea what he is talking about; I do not see anyone trying to change it to that, and it being reverted. Perhaps it was just another bit of "comedy". Anyway, there are plenty of eyes on this article, and I don't think it will be turned into some weird BLP violating puff piece. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  There are plenty of eyes on this article, and no-one sees that as weird. H Remster (talk) 10:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

  I mean, it's an article about a controversial person in a contentious topic area which tends to attract a lot of POV-pushers. It'd be weird if there weren't plenty of watchers. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

  OK, you may have a point there. It would be informative to see a comparison with an article about an equally controversial person in a different contentious topic. H Remster (talk) 12:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2023

Graham Linehan is not an anti-transgender activist. He is an advocate for child safeguarding and the sex-based rights of women and girls, including women like me who have been forced to share intimate spaces with violent men allowed into women prisons amd shelters. 2603:7000:31F0:8080:9C9C:1E28:555B:E5EB (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done This is not a forum. Express the change you want to the article in the form "Change sentence X from 'Y' to 'Z'", and back up your proposed change with citations to reliable sources. Opinion isn't enough. Bear in mind there are multiple sources referenced in the article already, describing Linehan as an anti-transgender activist, and accounts of his anti-transgender activism. The vast, vast majority of attacks against women are by cisgender men - but, as I said, WP:NOTFORUM. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

"This is not a forum." *Treats this as a forum* H Remster (talk) 09:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2023

Graham Linehan (/ˈlɪnəhæn/; born 1968[1]) is an Irish comedy writer and a women’s rights activist. 2A02:C7C:7CA0:7700:3184:5AB8:648B:72E7 (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done This has been discussed at length on the talk page and there is consensus against it. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 23:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)