Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:25, 13 November 2024

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: 30 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days) 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 article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Arts and Entertainment 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 This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance). 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. 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.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Can you change "anti-transgender activist" to "women's rights activist"? No. Misplaced Pages is primarily based on reliable secondary sources, and these describe Graham Linehan as an anti-transgender activist. Per discussions on the talk page, there is consensus among editors to use this wording. Please see the talk page archives to review these discussions.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I will change “critics” to Matt Berry and journalist Jack King. 2601:4A:4201:AF0:91DE:8C5B:BBC1:FF82 (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you referring to the text "Critics said it used gender stereotypes and trivialised violence against transgender women"? And you think the two names you mentioned should be at the start? The problem is that information needs a reliable source and the reference in the article does not mention those people. Johnuniq (talk) 06:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

"anti-transgender activist"

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

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

FAQ - reliable secondary sources

Wording of FAQ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This seems a fair point.

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

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

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

What exactly am I missing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Very well:

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

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

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

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

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

6: the text is already quoted;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Biography articles of living people
• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Low-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group 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