Talk:Graham Linehan/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 12

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2022

Graham Linehan fights for sensible gender discussion with a qualified and balanced view on this matter.He is NOT transphobic. Given the disgraced Tavistock clinic, I feel that this blight needs to be addressed. Please change your erroneous entry on your page to “real gender” discussion expert rather than the blank bland ill ill formed entry which is currently the provided information. 79.73.217.155 (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC) The information states that Graham Linehan is transphobic. This is untrue .. in other words.. a lie. This deep thinking and knowledgeable man has been “cancelled “ due to the idiotic woke society which is stifling free speech and even more importantly free thinking. As a medical practitioner.. having seen a wonderful interview on GB news with Graham Linehan and Dan Wooten, I am disgusted at the abuse that a truth warrior has been so abused. I am a qualified medical practitioner who examines all the available evidence clinically, examines all the availabile evidence and reaches a balanced coherent opinion.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Complete gibberish EvergreenFir (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the use of "coherent" at the end of that confused rant was quite ironic. Black Kite (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Another factor that is incorrect in the article is to state that in an episode of the IT Crowd (actually Series 3 Episode 4) Douglas (played by Matt Berry) physically attacks a trans woman. This is in fact not true. In the scene, which plays out like an over the top action movie, it is her who attacks him. What's more, Douglas's character is not only made to look ridiculous for his feelings but at the end of the episode he's seen crying in bed, deeply regretting his prejudice. That doesn't sound very much like the actions of a transphobic writer. At every stage in the episode Douglas is the butt of the joke. Ascolti (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

We are straying into the realms of WP:OR here. My understanding was that Linehan was criticised for this episode, and over the years dedicated more and more of his life to campaigning against trans issues. As editors we shouldn't be judging whether or not that criticism was valid, just that it happened and what happened afterwards. The thing is we need to report what the RS are saying, not analysing the episode ourselves. Rankersbo (talk) 07:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Twitter ban evasion

Unsure whether it should be written about as it does feel notable, but haven't found any solid sources outside of Linehan's own blog.

The article currently notes that Linehan "was" an active twitter user, but he does currently seem to operate an active twitter account behind the username "Oliophi". He's relatively open (he makes jokes, etc) about it being him on his twitter and he frequently posts screenshots of twitter on his blog where they show him operating that account. No secondary sources such as press have written about this obviously and I can't find anything to cite outside of perhaps his blog though. LegateLaurie (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, LegateLaurie, but I don't believe this is something we should mention. Linehan's blog is not a reliable source for anything except statements of the form "Linehan said on his blog that..." If no reliable sources have commented on this then neither can we. Wikipedia does not engage in investigative journalism or even synthesis and inference of basic facts, not because these things are bad, but because it is not the place of an encyclopedia that aggregates reliable sources. Frankly, this isn't groundbreaking information that readers are hugely missing out on. The more general pastiche of Linehan's behaviour is clear whether or not he is currently evading Twitter's ban. — Bilorv (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Bilorv here. The crucial point is simply this: "No secondary sources such as press have written about this". By all means keep an eye out for a RS mentioning it but, until they do, I can't see that there's anything to be done? If properly sourced, I would think that it did merit a passing mention, but no more than that. Clicriffhard (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2022

Article is unusually prejudiced against Graham Linehan. It looks like an activist has edited it . I have read this article before , and it diddnt have all the “ant trans activism” in it. This is an encyclopaedia, not a propaganda page. Sort it out please 2A02:C7E:2D50:FB00:10CE:67AA:7419:64A5 (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Evidence for paragraph ?

This Paragraph "After an episode of The IT Crowd was criticised as transphobic in 2008, Linehan became involved in anti-transgender activism. He argues that transgender activism endangers women, and he has likened the use of puberty blockers to Nazi eugenics programmes. In 2020, he was suspended from the social network Twitter for "repeated violations" of the rules. Linehan said his views had lost him work and cost him his marriage, and said that he was a victim of cancel culture."

has no links, no evidence, no backup

IT crowd criticism - by whom, where, link ? ~ Eugenics - link ? ~ Lost work - link ?

Much weaker paragraphs are regularly removed, let alone left at the top of articles IanBDunne (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

That paragraph is in the lead, which summarises the rest of the article and often omits repeating the citations used in that later content. There are citations for all those points later in the article. MOS:LEADCITE has more info on this in general. It does say "Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead.", so it is a good point that we should include those citations in the lead as well. JaggedHamster (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

That's a very good point, but given the tensions around this article, I'd suggest that editors who support the current phrasing of the lede should be given a few days to match up the citations from the body of the article with each statement in the lede before anyone starts deleting anything. Apart from anything else, some of the statements in the lede are not really in dispute, e.g. He argues that transgender activism endangers women, and he has likened the use of puberty blockers to Nazi eugenics programmes is pretty well supported in the body of the article. Clicriffhard (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

He argues that transgender activism endangers women There's not a single citation for this part, because it's a summary of several related statements he has made which are cited in the anti-transgender activism section. See the sentences He also described the trans movement as providing "cover" for "fetishists, con-men, and simply abusive misogynists", and He linked to a blog post featuring screenshots of abuse Rowling had received, describing those who wrote them as "ignoring the abuse received by women who speak out against gender ideology" and "literally useless".

and he has likened the use of puberty blockers to Nazi eugenics programmes Well cited in the anti-transgender activism section, see the paragraph beginning In a December 2018 interview with Derrick Jensen, Linehan remarked.

In 2020, he was suspended from the social network Twitter for "repeated violations" of the rules. Well cited in the anti-transgender activism section, see the paragraph beginning On 27 June 2020, Linehan's Twitter account was permanently suspended following what Twitter called "repeated violations of our rules against hateful conduct and platform manipulation".

Linehan said his views had lost him work and cost him his marriage, and said that he was a victim of cancel culture. Again, well cited in the anti-transgender activism section, see the paragraph beginning In March 2021, Linehan gave oral evidence to the Communications and Digital Committee of the House of Lords.

IT crowd criticism - by whom, where, link ? Again, well cited in the anti-transgender activism section, see the paragraph that contains He became involved after the airing of a 2008 episode of The IT Crowd, written by Linehan, was widely criticised as transphobic and sexist; critics said it used gender stereotypes and trivialised violence against transgender women.

MOS:LEADCITE states The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. Accordingly, because this is well cited in the body, and one of the fragments is a summary of several related statements, I do not see a guideline specific reason that this requires citations in the lead. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

In my view, no citations are needed here as it is a summary of material sourced in the body of the article. — Bilorv (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)