Talk:Graham Linehan/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Anti-transgender activism?

I don't have a dog in this fight. Coming here to find out who this fellow is. That said, the article comes off as biased. One warning flag is the term "anti-transgender activist". Is he a fellow that truly believes no one should be transgender or something like that? If so, then "anti-transgender activist" seems appropriate. Or is he anti-"transgender activist"? Someone who objects to what he perceives to be excesses of transgender activism? If so, "anti-transgender activist" is quite biased, because it gives the impression that he really doesn't think that transgender people should exist. Perusing the citations, it seems that transgender activists are using that term in blogs, and I believe in this case they are primary sources and not secondary sources per Wikipedia's guidelines. In any case, activist blogs wouldn't be considered reliable. Wouldn't "gender-critical activist" (a term used in the first citation) be more appropriate? Not only is it a more neutral term, it is in fact supported by the citation ("anti-transgender activist" is nowhere in that citation). "This online transphobia has been spearheaded by former comedy writer Graham Lineham, who took to the ‘gender critical’ movement after an episode of his television show The IT Crowd was criticised for its offensive portrayal of a trans woman, and has since been warned by the police for his harassment campaigns." Rendall (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

This issue has been extensively discussed - please see the talk page archives. While consensus may change, in the absence of new sources, it's unlikely to do so. There's a reason 'gender critical' is in scare quotes, for example - it's the non-neutral term preferred and used by TERFs. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Could you link to these extensive discussions? They are not on this talk page. Rendall (talk) 10:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

They are in the archives, linked near the top of the page. There are discussions in at least Archives 5,6, and 7, and there may be others elsewhere. Black Kite (talk) 11:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with you that the article doesn't give a neutral reading of the sources, and I've seen an awful lot of people express the same view by now. I haven't seen anything approaching a consensus to change the tone of the article, and I honestly don't know if that's because it's a minority view or because we're less organised than those who want to keep it as it is and/or think that "anti-transgender" is not a value-laden term. If you want to test that in a formal process, please ping me and I'll throw in my views. Until/unless someone does that, there is no prospect of change, and I personally don't have the time, patience, or political acumen to drive that argument.

But yes, I agree. The article expresses an opinion, not the mere facts. At best, it reflects the opinions of overtly opinionated sources. At worst, it's simply an inaccurate reflection of the sources. Best of luck trying to address that. Clicriffhard (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. This is also not my battle. I do note that I am not the only one to have raised these specific issues with the term. While I did not read through to the end of the archive, the objections never did seem to be actually resolved so much as exhausted. Consensus has not been reached. It has been blocked.

It's unfortunate for everyone, even for the people whose opinion is that Linehan is truly anti-transgender. As it is, all I know is that he was once a comedic writer who angered people who now in turn control his Wikipedia page. Given that, a reasonable reader would conclude that anything here will be cherry-picked to craft a particular negative impression. Perhaps he really is anti-transgender, but I cannot trust this article to inform me properly. A neutral POV would have given me the confidence to read here about his anti-transgender activities. Rendall (talk) 08:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused. You're objecting to the heading "anti-transgender activism" but also want to read about what you describe yourself as "anti-transgender activities" 🤔 You say you did not finish reading the archive. Have you actually read the article? There are extensive direct quotes from Linehan and explanations of his various positions. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I would like to read an unbiased article, Bastun. Truth wherever it leads. If the article were neutral, I would happily read about his anti-transgender attitudes. As it stands, I don't trust the entire topic as presented and gatekept here. I don't actually believe that the quotes were not cherry-picked and presented to craft the impression of "anti-transgender" rather than "anti-transgender-activism". So, while I skimmed the article to get the gist, no, I did not read the article in depth. Why would I? The bias is right there in the heading and in the talk page. Rendall (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

To add, I know that I could be wrong, and "anti-transgender activist" could be truly the best, most unbiased presentation of his attitudes. But it's a pretty strong assertion, and the citations do not in my opinion support that. The first, arguably the strongest and most reliable of the 3, a presumably peer-reviewed paper, only talks about how he "joined the gender-critical movement". The others are blog posts by transgender activists. Clear bias. Source it better if that really is the best, most unbiased term.

Rendall (talk) 13:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

To add even further, to my mind, someone with anti-transgender attitudes is equivalent to a monster. A Nazi. Being transgender is not a choice. And being anti-immutable-characteristic is truly reprehensible.

However, someone who disagrees with transgender activism in contemporary practice is simply a Culture War partisan. Perhaps misguided, but their fundamental attitudes are not genocidal. Perhaps even pro-social.

So, when I see "anti-transgender activist", if I don't see that this person believes that transgender people should not exist, I'm going assume Culture War casualty and dismiss anything after.

Rendall (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

If you are not willing to read what the sources say about the subject, are not willing to read the article you are commenting on about the subject, and are then going to present your original ideas about what "anti-transgender", for example, means, I am not sure why other editors would be expected to humour your interventions on this talk page. You don't have to harbour genocidal intentions for the label "antisemitic" to correctly apply - when used by reliable sources - and the equivalent is true of "anti-trans". The fact that Linehan has repeatedly engaged in msigendering and deadnaming, while alleging that mainstream treatments for gender dysphoria are akin to Nazi eugenics experiments, certainly goes well beyond his WP:MANDY "I only oppose activism" self-rationalisation. Newimpartial (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

"Anti-transgender activist" is not supported by the citations and I will thank you not to add "notifications" or "sanctions" on my talk page simply for disagreement. On the talk page. This is ridiculous. I was done with this, but your "notification of sanction" called me back. If you continue I will consider it harassment Rendall (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

If you are tempted to consider the application of the standard, neutral ACDS GENSEX notice as "harassment", then I'd suggest that you ought to read up on the discretionary sanctions system that is currently in place - the notice is part of the mandated process, not an expression of disagreement (and I have placed ACDS notices on the Talk pages of editors with whom I do not disagree).

The prior consensus supports "anti-transgender activist", based on this article's sourcing, so if you think CONSENSUSCANCHANGE on this matter it is up to you to convince other editors, rather than ratcheting up the volume on your own WP:OR, unsupported "reasoning". Newimpartial (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

If there is truly a "term of art" called "anti-transgender activism" that is not partisan and refers to "anti-[transgender activism]" then sure. But that isn't the case.

So, we're just talking about language and the impression that words impart. That is not "original research". And in my case, I'm not even insisting on changing the term. But its use here is generally poorly sourced.

I understand that people feel strongly about this. Still, quick-to-close, quick-to-archive, quick-to-sanction, insistence-that-consensus-was-long-ago-reached comes off as manipulative and gate-keeping.

Let's revisit the Wikipedia guidelines, which I believe have been transgressed here.

Contentious material about living persons that is... poorly sourced - should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. WP:RS

Notably, Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced. WP:V Remember, just because you may not find material contentious, does not mean it is not contentious.

These are the citations for using the term anti-transgender activist. Let us go through them, one by one:

The first citation appears to be from Transgender Studies Quarterly, a peer-reviewed academic journal. This would be acceptable, except that "anti-transgender activist" appears nowhere in the text. "...joined the 'gender-critical' movement" does. This citation does not support the use of the term and should be removed.

rabble.ca is an activist website. Furthermore, the cited article is an opinion piece by a student, not a subject matter expert. This should be considered poorly sourced and not WP:NPOV.

Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal and group blogs WP:RS

This is The Guardian, considered generally to be reliable. The term does appear here as in Appearing alongside British television writer and anti-trans activist Graham Linehan last year, Deves... This would appear to be the sole citation that uses the term that is also WP:RS I do note that it does not actually impart information on why he is called that.

This is a chapter from a book that (from its blurb) assembles "a diverse group of commentators, activists and academics", to explore "the contemporary free speech wars to try to understand how this issue has become increasingly charged. It asks how the spaces and structures of 'speech' - mass media, the lecture theatre, the public event, the political rally and the internet - shape this debate. The contributors examine how acts such as censorship, boycotts, and protests around free speech developed historically and how these histories inform the present. The book explores the opposing sides in this debate..." While it does specifically refer to Graham Linehan as an "anti-trans activist", this is a collection of essays and opinions. Penny Andrews, the author of that chapter, is expressing an opinion and not a peer-reviewed fact. This citation should be considered poorly sourced.

To recap, the only citation that is both WP:RS and WP:NPOV is from The Guardian, and it is used in passing. All other citations are poorly-sourced and should be removed.

As an aside, nearly all of the uses of the term appear to be either in opinion pieces or by activists or both: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22anti-trans+activism%22&atb=v310-1&ia=web Using this term without qualification implies activism, not WP:NPOV.

Finally, let's review what the guidelines are about Biographies of Living Persons WP:BLP. The use of this term violates:

WP:BLPSTYLE BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves... Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. [emphases mine]

WP:CONTENTIOUS This article has been continuously challenged on the use of this term anti-transgender activist, but the discussions on this have variously been closed, archived and its proponents threatened with sanctions.

WP:BLPBALANCE Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. Rendall (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Further, let us, for the sake of argument only, assume that anti-transgender activist is a neutral term of art used in the field of transgender studies and is not a value-laden term. What do Wikipedia guidelines say then, irrespective of sources?

Neologisms are expressions coined recently or in isolated circumstances to which they have remained restricted. In most cases, they do not appear in general-interest dictionaries, though they may be used routinely within certain communities or professions. They should generally be avoided because their definitions tend to be unstable and many do not last. Where the use of a neologism is necessary to describe recent developments in a certain field, its meaning must be supported by reliable sources. [emph. mine]

It goes on:

Adding common prefixes or suffixes such as pre-, post-, non-, anti-, or -like to existing words to create new compounds can aid brevity, but make sure the resulting terms are not misleading or offensive, and that they do not lend undue weight to a point of view. [emph. mine]

MOS:NEO

Given all of that, it is extremely clear that anti- explicitly cannot be added will-he-nill-he to any old term unless it is widely used in reliable sources. This is regardless of consensus arrived at by the editors of this page.

In short, find a reliable source for its definition, and for its wide use specifically with respect to this person, or its use is at best MOS:NEO, but more likely WP:OR and WP:CONTENTIOUS, and should be removed immediately, per WP:BLP. Rendall (talk) 10:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I think you make some great points. If the reliable souces aren't using Anti-transgender activist, why is wikipedia? Maybe this should be revisited. Masterhatch (talk) 10:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• You're mistaken about - it's a book published by an academic publisher, and the author of that particular chapter has a PHD in information, media and communication. Such books are not mere "collections of opinions"; they're top-quality sources (probably the highest-quality books available.) You are unlikely to find a higher-quality source on Linehan's politics in this regard. Similarly, your objection to is baffling - it says "This online transphobia has been spearheaded by former comedy writer Graham Lineham, who took to the ‘gender critical’ movement after an episode of his television show The IT Crowd was criticised for its offensive portrayal of a trans woman, and has since been warned by the police for his harassment campaigns." Paraphrasing that as "anti-transgender activism" is clearly accurate, while actually being less strident than the source. Would you prefer that the article voice have an even closer paraphrasing of the fact that he spearheaded online transphobia or has been warned by the police for his harassment campaigns? Because, if you think that that source is sufficient, I would think that "anti-transgender" would be an acceptable compromise as a paraphrase, tone-wise, compared to what it actually says. That said, there's also several sources mentioned in previous discussions, which I've added to the article. --Aquillion (talk) 11:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  if you think that that source is sufficient, I would think that "anti-transgender" would be an acceptable compromise as a paraphrase, tone-wise, compared to what it actually says.

  If the argument is that "anti-transgender activism" is a less strident way of referring to Linehan's involvement in "online transphobia" (per the source) then surely that description should be attributed per WP:CONTENTIOUS, not watered down to try to limbo it under the barrier. Clicriffhard (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

You are also mistaken about [1]. While Rabble.ca does host a forum, it is primarily a magazine offering independent RS coverage; this particular piece is not an opinion piece and the freelancer who wrote it has also written for the Edmonton Journal and cbc.ca - their status as a law student is not relevant to the reliability of the source, which is not user-generated but rather is subject to editorial oversight in the usual way.

Your dismissal of these sources based on your own, original, inaccurate claims about their nature suggests an attempt to vindicate a POV by discrediting "opposing" sources, rather than a policy-compliant attempt to reflect NPOV based on the highest quality sources available. Newimpartial (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

It's plainly an opinion piece. I assume you've read it?

Worth noting that the more reliable sources you mention have explicitly tagged each of Dalwood's pieces for them - which take a similar tone and approach to her pieces for Rabble - as "OPINION". They've also introduced her as "law student Charlotte Dalwood" repeatedly, but I think I agree that that isn't particularly significant. Clicriffhard (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to link this and forgot: https://muckrack.com/charlotte-dalwood/articles Clicriffhard (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I have read it and no, I do not think it is an "opinion piece" (nor is it labeled as such). Newimpartial (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Then I highly recommend that you read it again, perhaps with the opening lines of Rabble's "mandate" in mind:

rabble.ca delivers intentionally progressive journalism. The rabble.ca site aims to present a range of opinion from people who are engaged in struggles for social justice, peace, and inclusive society.

We can also use Rabble's own definitions to save time:

A ‘fact’ describes things or events and is capable of being verified. An ‘opinion’ is a viewpoint based on a value judgment that cannot be proved or disproved.

And a quick handful of sample quotes from the article if they're necessary:

TERFs are a subculture with a persecution complex

Fain’s been unusually productive, to be sure. But her work is just the latest example of anti-trans feminists setting off for greener pastures when it suits them.

...the migration of extremist digital communities to platforms tailor-made for their worldview is more than just a trend du jour. It’s the future of the internet. That’s a problem.

Please, help me verify these facts...

Clicriffhard (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe all of these points are well-documented here - they are all quite clearly factual, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

That's a three-thousand word article, and you haven't identified which part of it you think is capable of verifying any of those statements as factual. Could you please help me out? I'm really struggling to see how an article that mind-reads the "TERF subculture", expresses contempt for "anti-trans feminists", and makes predictions for the future of the internet can possibly be said not to contain the opinions of the author - and those are only three examples picked out in a hurry.

No obligation to convince me or anyone else, of course. Clicriffhard (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you read the article; when I did so, it certainly satisfied me that all three points you raised above had been documented external (and prior) to the piece in rabble.ca. Newimpartial (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I've read it. It doesn't appear to address my questions.

Again, how can Dalwood's prediction for the future be factual? How would you verify it, short of 1.21 gigawatts and a discontinued sports car? Forewarning: if you send me the complete works of Shakespeare and tell me airily that the answer's in there somewhere, I will tap out. Clicriffhard (talk) 22:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

There are different ways of talking about trends. One is Rabble's glib, It's the future of the internet. Another is offered by The Atlantic:

Now, though, there are early signs that the bubbles are moving even further apart. Pundits and politicians on the right have been threatening to migrate en masse away from the Big Tech platforms they view as censorial, and set up shop on a “free speech” site such as Parler or Gab. Activists on the left, who have their own disdain for Big Tech, have long been at the forefront of the push for decentralized social networks such as Mastodon. Meanwhile, getting banned from a social-media platform and creating a knockoff of it is effectively a rite of passage for toxic groups at this point.

I don't see a non-semantic difference between the two claims in context, however, and I interpret your narrow reading of Rabble's syntax as insisting on a distinction that is without any real difference in the context of our topic. Newimpartial (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The violations of Wikipedia guidelines are so egregious and widespread here for a biography of a living person, that I would ask the editors who want to keep the term anti-transgender activist to address all of the points I have raised, not simply address 1 or 2 of the more arguably weaker. Further, "inaccurate claims about their nature" or "No, it's you who are doing original research!!" and such are not my burden to address. Use of the term must unambiguously refute the violations of the guidelines. To my mind, that would look something like a citation or source that discusses and defines the term itself where it is not a neologism and, that this well-defined, non-contentious term is fairly applied to the biographical subject. Without something similar, the term must be removed to comply with Wikipedia guidelines Rendall (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

You "argued" that the rabble.ca source was an opinion piece at a user-generated site - but it isn't, it is independent RS journalism.

You argued that the TSQ piece doesn't support the label, but Aquillion has shown that it does.

You have argued that a published book, meeting academic standards, should be dismissed as a "collection of opinions".

What argument do you think you have made that remains, after these source-based concerns are dismissed? We have quality sourcing for the statement that Linehan is an anti-trans campaigner - and many more sources than these three were produced in prior discussion on Talk. There are no sources, other than occasional statements by the subject repeated in more credulous sources, that would question this. WP:BLP policy and WP:NPOV require us to follow the sources on these matters and to ignore your personal feelings unsubstantiated handwaves towards guidelines that are, in fact, being scrupulously followed.

Perhaps you should take a look at WP:SATISFY before you place further demands on the time and attention of other editors to no real purpose. Newimpartial (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

You sound upset. I recommend calmly going through each point I raised and refuting them. My allegation is serious, and per guidelines does not even need consensus if true. Remember, assume good faith, and I can assure you I am operating in good faith. If it is true that you have scrupulously followed all BLP guidelines, then it should be demonstrable. Rendall (talk) 12:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to make an attempt to steel-man the case for anti-transgender activist.

To emphasize, my intent isn't to remove the term, but I strongly feel that it is not supported by the sources. To that end, I'll add some sources here that support or discuss the case for it. For clarity, I'm taking anti-transgender activist to mean an activist who campaigns against being transgender.

As a point, though, I don't like the current solution of gesturing at the correctness of the term by including a cluster of articles that don't use the term itself. That really smacks of original research. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Graham_Linehan&type=revision&diff=1109357117&oldid=1108329021

Anyway, to that end, this is the scooping article that discusses Linehan's removal from Twitter, and why they made that decision: https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/27/graham-linehan-suspended-twitter-12909978/ I consider this to be a reliable source.

I'll add more here as I come across them. Rendall (talk) 11:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

That would be a useful article but unfortunately, per WP:METRO, it's considered a generally unreliable source. JaggedHamster (talk) 12:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Good call. Rendall (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Surely the differences are obvious? The phrase there are early signs that the bubbles are moving even further apart describes events in the present, which makes them at least theoretically possible to prove or disprove.

If you'd rather move on, how is That's a problem a verifiable fact and not a reflection of Dalwood's opinion? This honestly feels like WP:GASLIGHTING. Clicriffhard (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

You may feel gaslit, but I feel like I'm being subjected to a PHIL 101 exercise in fact and opinion, from one of my analytical philosophy nightmares. In actual communicative language, complex utterances (like journalistic articles) contain statements that are more factual and statements that are more opinionated. That does not mean that the opinionated statements are unrelated to fact (and I still insist that the difference between early signs language and future language is purely semantic - one is not more "fact" and the other more "opinion", in any meaningful way). And there is no WP consensus that "one drop" of opinion turns a piece into opinion, either; there is currently a rather open discussion at RSN about this question in particular.

So in this context, I can only see your objection to the rabble piece as an attempt to win a dispute by discrediting "opposing" sources, rather than a policy-based attempt to discern appropriate article sourcing. Newimpartial (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

You made an argument based on inadequate sourcing for the term "anti-trans", and this argument has been refuted in its entirety. Are you claiming to have made another argument? If so, you should perhaps specify what this other supposed argument actually is.

As far as your claim that your allegation ... per guidelines does not even need consensus if true - this Talk page has had a well-publicized RfC on the phrase "anti-transgender activism" which resulted in the phrase being retained in the article. You do not get to place your own feelings about what policy requires ahead of the formal processes of the community.

As I have said before, if you think CONSENSUSCANCHANGE your task is to convince other editors of this, rather than to repeat self-regarding, essentially monological arguments and then to insist that other editors WP:SATISFY you concerning your objections. That simply isn't how a collaborative project works, and past a certain point such demands become disruptive to the project. Newimpartial (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that it has been refuted at all much less "in its entirety". Regarding CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, I would agree with you, normally. However, a violation of BLP guidelines does not need consensus to change.

Further, even if what you assert here is true, that every source is reliable, it still does not follow the guidelines. The term "anti-transgender activist" to refer to anti-[transgender activist] is, among other problems a neologism, an easily confused term, (is he anti-transgender or anti-activist? unclear), and a contentious label. Given that this happens on a BPL, it's not a style issue.

You keep talking about our disagreement about the reliability of the sources. Those are arguably the least compelling argument against. Remember, we want to work together to craft an article that even those pro, con and neutral can agree is a fair article. Rendall (talk) 12:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I feel like I need to emphasize this point. Normally, yes, an editor who wants a change would need a consensus. Not so with BLP. The guideline is that contentious labels must be removed immediately. Therefore, the burden is on those would would like to keep the term to demonstrate that they do not violate the guidelines as outlined above. If not, it must be removed. Rendall (talk) 12:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

When there has already been an RfC, closed by an uninvolved Admin, one editor does not get to overrule the closure because they disagree with the closer about the application of WP policy - even BLP policy. Is this somehow unclear to you? Newimpartial (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Is this the RfC you're referring to? The conclusion is no consensus. Rendall (talk) 13:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes: no consensus, but if there had been an overriding BLP issue (since BLP concerns were raised at length in the RfC), said BLP issue would have been deployed in the close or in a subsequent closure review. You can't now insist that your personal opinions override the community's process. Newimpartial (talk) 13:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

So, you and the other editors were not telling the truth when you said there had been consensus. There is, in fact, no consensus. Rendall (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Moreover, there was only minor discussion of BLP, disputes over reliability. Rendall (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The description in the lead has consistently produced support for the current version, while your allegation that "anti-trans" is subject to WP:LABEL has never achieved community consensus.

Don't accuse other editors of not telling the truth, without evidence, please - you are going back to casting WP:ASPERSIONS, which is inherently disruptive. Newimpartial (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The evidence is in this conversation, no? Your comment yesterday, for example:

The prior consensus supports "anti-transgender activist", based on this article's sourcing, so if you think CONSENSUSCANCHANGE on this matter it is up to you to convince other editors, rather than ratcheting up the volume on your own WP:OR, unsupported "reasoning".

Clicriffhard (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The consensus of discussions since the RfC supports anti-transgender activist. The close of the RfC explicitly supported "anti-transgender activist" as the STATUSQUO, in the context of the no consensus close. Newimpartial (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Nobody's disputing that "anti-transgender activist" was accepted as the status quo ante in the absence of a consensus. The problem is that you and others keep stonewalling any discussion by invoking this elusive consensus, when the only real test of the premise found that there was none. What's the basis for stating as fact that a consensus has since emerged for the use of "anti-transgender activist" in Wikivoice, when you've been heavily involved in the disagreements that have continued consistently since that RfC? Whether or not it's deliberately untruthful to declare a consensus, it certainly gives a very misleading impression of the article's history. Clicriffhard (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

This discussion - in which you participated - was one of many that resulted in a policy-relevant consensus to include. Newimpartial (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

And claims of the elusive "consensus" pre-date that dicussion. With apologies for quoting myself, this is what I said at the time:

Lastly, if anyone can please show evidence of the consensus that's been referred to, I'd really appreciate it. So far, you've linked to an RfC that concludes "no consensus", and I can see from the discussions that I'm not the first person to ask for a link to a consensus only to be blanked by the same few editors who keep insisting that there is one. If there is, please show me. Thanks.

As I say there, editors such as Crossroads and Lilipo25 had previously asked for the evidence of a much-mooted consensus only to be suddenly blanked in conversations that had been very active up to that point, or told that "it's obvious that there's a consensus" a few short months after an RfC found that there was none. So there's adequate evidence that you and others have claimed a consensus when that wasn't true, even if you're right that one has since emerged.

If you'd like to explain how you're so sure that a consensus has now emerged, I remain all ears, but it sounds like you've simply decided that you won the argument. Let me remind you that one of the arguments you've used repeatedly - then and now, and quite reasonably - is that "no consensus" means the wording stays as it is. The fact that people ultimately accepted that does suggest that no clear consensus was established for changing it, but it doesn't suggest that there is now a consensus in favour of "anti-transgender activist". That just remains the status quo. Clicriffhard (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why you would cite the prior intervention of an editor who was subsequently site-banned as a result of their activity in this subject area. And the existence of two or three editors who disagree with the consensus everyone else supports doesn't really negate that consensus (in spite of Crossroads' usual claim that any position he supports with which at least one other editor agrees represents the real consensus). Newimpartial (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Relevance of the site ban to my point or Lilipo25's? Sounds like a classic ad hominem to me.

Actually, forget that - I'm still waiting for you to explain how you're so sure that a consensus has emerged in the time since there was explicitly "no consensus". What's changed?

Clicriffhard (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Is there an informal way to ask for a wider community opinion on this topic? Wider here meaning, not on the Graham Linehan page? What does the broader (not Graham Linehan editors) community think about this? Thoughts? Rendall (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the answer would have to be an RfC, if anyone has the time.

And I'm still waiting to hear an explanation for the claims of consensus that have been made at regular intervals ever since the last "no consensus" RfC (as documented in this chain), but I think the best I can hope for is another digression or a dismissive reference to WP:SATISFY, which at this point only reinforces my impression that the consensus doesn't exist. Clicriffhard (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I provided an explanation of the nature of the current consensus at some length previously; having given an explanation cannot of course ensure that you HEAR the explanation.

The community understanding of natural consensus on Wikipedia simply doesn't require - and frequently doesn't produce - the kind of "proof text" you and Rendall seem to be calling for. If most editors over time agree that consensus exists, and edit on that basis, then it exists. Newimpartial (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The "no consensus" RfC closed on 20 Sep 2020. Claims of a consensus on "anti-transgender" were made on 4 October 2020, 11 February 2021, 15 February 2021, 25 February 2021, 20 April 2021, 15 May 2021, and so on and so on and so on. There's never really been a point where you and a few others stopped claiming a consensus. When did those claims become true, and what changed?

Call this sea-lioning if you like. I would prefer to see it as questioning the latest dubious claim, which appears to have no more basis in fact than the last one that came around. Clicriffhard (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I call it sealioning. When most editors agree over time that consensus exists, then it exists by definition. There isn't a point where you can break the chain of provenance and wikilawyer a consensus to be invalid. Newimpartial (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

But there is no provenance and nothing to break.

And no, it isn't sealioning. Please withdraw that, I'm tired of hearing you complain about personal attacks when you fling them about like confetti. Clicriffhard (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

You said Call this sea-lioning if you like. Did I misunderstand you? I don't see how taking you up on your clear offer could be a personal attack. Newimpartial (talk) 23:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it's highly unlikely that you understood that as a "clear offer" to insult me. Clicriffhard (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't an insult. For one thing "sealioning" is an activity and doesn't comment on the contributor. Also, it was a description that you yourself invited. If what you actually meant was, don't ever call me out for moving the goalposts an arbitrary distance and demanding more and more detailed explanations, then I suggest that you not say, call it sealioning if you like. Newimpartial (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings and meant no insult. However, any assertion that consensus has been reached on this matter is false. It's not an aspersion to say so.

Further, given that the RfC was no-consensus, anyone who participated in the RfC who later asserted that consensus has been reached was knowingly not telling the truth.

Sadly, this practice of asserting consensus, especially to new editors raising the issue in the Talk page, does come off as status quo stonewalling, and this is documented repeatedly in the archives.

The friendly, truthful thing would be to say something like "anti-transgender activist is the status quo, but we have not been able to reach consensus".

I suggest letting go, welcoming the discussion and being open to proposed changes!

Rendall (talk) 11:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

You appear to be replying to me, but you didn't hurt my feelings - this appears to be a failure of mind-reading on your part.

Please read WP:CONSENSUS. On Wikipedia, a consensus can be developed without a formal process and with a minority of editors objecting to the consensus. This appears to be the case here: we had a no-consensus close, a long-term consensus has developed around the status quo, and a small number of editors object to this consensus.

Your assertion that anyone who participated in the RfC who later asserted that consensus has been reached was knowingly not telling the truth is misleading/untruthful, since consensus can be, and has been, developed over time since the last formal process. I would advise you to be CIVIL, and to refrain from patronizing exercises in mock-civility if it is within your power to do so. Newimpartial (talk) 13:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

You and the others who have asserted consensus have been repeatedly asked for years to demonstrate this but have not. And calling actual civility "patronizing exercises in mock-civility" is baiting. Please stop. Rendall (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Sniping about CIVILity seems off-topic for this page, so I have replied on that theme here. A consensus in favor of the status quo language for "anti-transgender activism" seems obvious to me from the widespread support shown on both the article history and in the history of this Talk page - support from many, many editors - subsequent to the no-consensus RfC that enshrined the status quo. But as I have repeatedly noted, WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, and a new RfC could certainly produce a new consensus in the future. I am unclear as to why those opposed to the status quo are spending their time launching accusations against editors who support the consensus version, rather than laying the groundwork for an alternative. Newimpartial (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Widespread and many, many are subjective terms that can hide bias. I've been thinking of ways to survey the various editors' opinions in the archives. It's not a very friendly environment to those of us with a different opinion, so perhaps others walk away like I almost did. Rendall (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I simply fail to understand why you and the many who have preceded you in your view are so loath to work up some sourced alternative text regarding Linehan's activities and then to propose an RfC? I would be happy even to participate in the discussion of options, and might even endorse an alternative to the present text - the desire to re-litigate past discussions that have, in reality, preserved the status quo seems incomprehensible to me compared to the alternative (and an eventual RfC would obviously encourage participation from outside this Talk page, as well). Newimpartial (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I am blunt by nature, but never uncivil. Your culture may interpret blunt statements as incivility, but that does not make it so. If you say consensus has been reached without a corresponding support from the archives, and then I read in the RfC no consensus has been reached, then I will say bluntly that you said something untrue. Your culture might require more finesse, but at the end of the day, this was an untrue statement no matter how it is decorated.

> "the many who have preceded you in your view"

Interesting you say that. Since there have been many with the view that anti-transgender activist is biased, then there is no consensus.

> are so loath to work up some sourced alternative text

As it happens, I'm going even one better: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Graham_Linehan&diff=1109887119&oldid=1109885541

No distractions, now: if you believe me to be in error when I said you were not telling the truth, where in the archive is there agreement that consensus been established? If you cannot find one, then you should consider that you and those who agree with you are incorrect. Rendall (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

FFS, do I have to say this again? Please read WP:CONSENSUS - Editors usually reach consensus as a natural process. Since the RfC, we have had repeated "natural" processes of both editing the Article and of discussion, and each of these has systematically reinforced the status quo, turning it from the result of a WP:NOCON RfC close to a local (article level) consensus. There is no requirement in WP norms or guidelines that consensus can only result from a formal process (though of course a more recent formal process, if conducted according to policy, will always take precedence over an older, informal, edit-based consensus, just as it would overrule an older formal process at the same WP:CONLEVEL).

While I didn't know I had to spell this out at quite such a granular level, this is quite literally what I have been saying all along.

And by the way, you can't start a "steel man" exercise by invoking the weakest available source. Maybe start with The Guardian?

In any event, if you intend to invoke controversial essays as justification for your continued pattern of personal attacks on other editors, your continued editing within the area of multiple discretionary sanctions seems, ahem, improbable. Newimpartial (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

So, no, then. You cannot. Rendall (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

How to say "I am not willing to accept Wikipedia's understanding of CONSENSUS" without saying "I am not willing to accept Wikipedia's understanding of CONSENSUS". Newimpartial (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, to be clear, it is not necessary for the marine mammals to acknowledge the consensus in order for a policy-backed consensus to exist and to be effective. Almost precisely the opposite is the case. Newimpartial (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it's disingenuous in the extreme to dismiss the prior RfC as just a finding of "no consensus". See what the closer actually said: There was some heatetd discussion as to whether "Anti-transgender activism" is the status quo ante; having investigated both the article's history and the talk page archives, it looks like there were discussions on this matter in early 2019, namely Talk:Graham_Linehan/Archive_1#"Transgender_rights" which first establishes a consensus for "Anti-transgender activism". This was swapped to "Anti-transgender activity" by an editor that felt that the phrase "activism" was too charitable. Soon afterward, there was an RfC on the general content of that section, which was closed in favor of the section standing as it was. The subheading title was soon switched back to "activism", and remained without serious opposition for several months. While the opposition to this subheading has grown beyond tendentious swaps to "Pro-woman activism" in recent months, such objections do not apear to have ever gained a solid consensus to override the status quo ante, and thus "Anti-transgender activism" remains the status quo. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC) Can we not move on from that one bugbear? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Concerning the statement, The term "anti-transgender activist" to refer to anti-[transgender activist] is, among other problems a neologism, an easily confused term, (is he anti-transgender or anti-activist? unclear) - this is codswallop. An anti-transgender campaigner, or activist, is someone who campaigns against the political objectives and social needs of trans people. This is how all RS use the term - activism directed against trans rights and trans people. This is neither "easily confused" nor a neologism, nor does it mean anti-transgender activist, which would be a complete red herring in this context. Linehan has at times made the argument that the latter is what he is doing, but not even the most credulous of sources have validated his self-serving statements on this matter. Newimpartial (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the meaning of "anti-transgender activism" is clear enough as a simple matter of linguistic construction. It means "activism that is anti-transgender", just as any other "anti-[x] activism" is "activism that is anti-[x]". If it were activism against transgender activism that was being described then I suppose it would be "anti-transgender-activism activism". Clicriffhard (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Not at all focused on article content. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It was a clear attempt at intimidation because you disagree with what I have said here on this talk page. It was inappropriate, because I made no edits on the article page and clearly had no intention to do so. I didn't need your notification. Rendall (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC) Perhaps unfortunately, we have a discretionary sanctions system that applies in all namespaces (including Article and Talk space), but only to editors who have been notified of said system and of the specific area of sanctions. It is therefore necessary for the functioning of the system to notify each editor when they begin to participate in a particular DS area, agree or disagree with their contributions. Newimpartial (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC) No. You attempted to intimidate me for disagreement. On a talk page. Rendall (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC) WP:ASPERSIONS (and some rather poor mind reading). Newimpartial (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC) Ok. I'm sorry. It's disconcerting and intimidating to get something like that. I suggest not doing that unless someone is editing the main article. Rendall (talk) 04:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC) It's a silly system, IMO, but it's the system we have. I agree it's disconcerting to receive the notice (having received three or four myself when I've begin editing in areas that have such "sanctions", sometimes years after I've begun doing so!) but it's quite normal - even expected, to receive them. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC) OK. Point taken. It's literally the first time after 12 years editing on this site. I'm truly sorry that I freaked out and flung accusations around. Rendall (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Please don't close this discussion. There is no need. Someone else might be interested in discussing this and have good things to say. Rendall (talk) 04:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

As well, please do not archive it. This same discussion has been archived 3 or 4 times already. Clearly, it comes up again and again. Archiving and closing it in that light might be perceived as an attempt to end active discussion Rendall (talk) 04:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

All discussions eventually get archived. It's not uncommon for things that are the focus of hot-button real-world disputes to continuously attract people who disagree with the consensus of mainstream coverage - see eg. a similar issue on Fascism, which is continuously plagued by people who dispute the mainstream consensus on its position in the political spectrum; or climate change or evolution. Since (as you said above) you don't have a dog in this fight and therefore don't feel strongly about the topic, there seems little need to keep it open in any case - you had a question, you received an extensive answer from many people, and that answer isn't likely to change. --Aquillion (talk) 11:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Another good example of the continuous attention attracted to topocs through hot-button real-world disputes is the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory where editors constantly arrive on Talk to say, essentially, "this isn't necessarily a conspiracy theory; it is also a real thing my political opponents are up to". People also continuously arrive at the BLPs of trans people to insist that pre-transition names and pronouns should be used. The fact is that when consensus has been reached on a topic through the correct reading of sources and policy, it is not necessary to reopen it each time another editor arrives on the page with feelings about it. Newimpartial (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Since (as you said above) you don't have a dog in this fight and therefore don't feel strongly about the topic, there seems little need to keep it open in any case

With the best in the world, someone who doesn't have a strong opinion about Linehan but does have strong opinions about Wikipedia policy / article bias is exactly the kind of person we need discussing this article, whether they come down on your side or not. If we assume good faith from all then it's very difficult to understand why anyone would want to shut Rendall down. Clicriffhard (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The talk page is exactly the place where you want content disputes to be settled. Who cares if the flat-earthers talk about how globe is incorrect when describing the Earth, as long as it's on the talk page? I don't care so much about the topic but I do see conduct here that I find upsetting, particularly what seem to be attempts to exhaust and end the discussion prematurely, particularly when it comes to biography of living persons guideline violations. I have acknowledged that closing, archiving, and sending discretionary sanction notifications are within the rules and probably innocent, but in context can appear to be attempts to control discussion by motivated editors. While I am new to this subject, I am not a new editor and even I found that disconcerting. A newcomer might find it completely off-putting. Check WP:NOBITE

Rendall (talk) 07:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I have acknowledged that [...] sending discretionary sanction notifications are within the rules and probably innocent, but in context can appear to be attempts to control discussion by motivated editors - they usually come across as some sort of thinly-veiled threat, but hey, even Jimbo gets them sometimes... 😂  Tewdar  21:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Problems I have with this topic is that I have witnessed first-hand the behaviour of Linehan and the movement he is part of. I have also read press reports and they tend to be watered down, lack WP:NPOV and use WP:Weasel words. Whether or not his view is correct (I say not) he is aggressive, abusive and obsessive about the way he expresses it. My problem is showing this in a way that is not WP:OR. This is why I have largely avoided adding prose to this page. Rankersbo (talk) 11:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The Morally offensive views section of the WP:NPOV policy page is pretty great.

What about views that are morally offensive to most readers, such as Holocaust denial, which some people actually hold? Surely we are not to be neutral about them?

We can maintain a healthy, consistent support for the neutral point of view by attributing emotionally charged views to prominent representatives or to a group of people. Those who harbor attitudes of racism etc., will not be convinced to change their views based on a biased article, which only puts them on the defensive; on the other hand, if we make a concerted effort to apply our non-bias policy consistently, those whom we consider to have morally repugnant beliefs opposite to our own may consider an insight that could change their views.

The fact that an idea or topic is morally outrageous is not a reason to leave it out of Wikipedia. If a morally outrageous idea or practice has received notable coverage from independent sources (not just its originator), we provide a valuable service by describing it as well as the criticisms and opposition it has received

Rendall (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

This is ridiculous "anti-transgender activist" is as partisan as it can get. "Gender-critical activist" is the most sensible definition. Who on Earth authored this? 80.235.135.28 (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

No; it would be more partisan to refer to a person as a "transphobic bigot", for example. But on Wikipedia we follow the sources, which do not care about your feelings (or about your question concerning possible extraterrestrial authorship, for that matter). Newimpartial (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

IP, let's make this the best page we can. If you find good, reliable, non-partisan sources discussing Linehan's anti-transgender/gender-critical behavior, post them here. Some editors seem to be irascible over this topic, but let's trust the process and remain steadfast and correct at ever turn. Rendall (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

"Gender critical" is entirely a term made up by anti-trans activists to soften the appearance of their own activism. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree with "gender critical" or "anti-transgender", for what it's worth. Both are partisan, self-serving, and value-laden terms. Neither gives the slightest nod to neutrality. Clicriffhard (talk) 23:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. The polarization around this makes discussion difficult. Rendall (talk) 05:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Have been pinged. This got way too long for me to consider it worth anything more than skimming, but there's no point arguing with the locals on this matter, they're obviously convinced that the term is nothing but encyclopedic. I suggest the editors who want to change it look up a big collection of WP:RS that briefly describe Linehan, and if most of them describe him in other way excluding this label, then start an RfC on this question with that big pile of sources as evidence and point to WP:DUE. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Huh. Deliberately introducing WP:FALSEBALANCE? An interesting take on "winning" a dispute. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

This, uh, doesn't seem to be a very charitable interpretation of what Crossroads is saying here. I thought Crossroads was saying that, if the majority of all reliable sources are not describing Linehan the way our article (and its sources) describes him, then we should have an RfC based on all these sources to try to override the local consensus. Sounds reasonable to me...  Tewdar  16:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Be that as it may, Crossroads' proposal rests on his peculiar opinion that sources not including a designator can be used as sources disputing that designator - an opinion for which there is no consensus on WP. Newimpartial (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Tewdar, for pointing that out. Yes, I had an "if" clause in there for a reason. And not cherry-picking a tiny minority of BIASEDSOURCES (potentially, as I have not examined the sources on this guy in a while) to push through prominent text is just normal application of WP:DUE. If the shoe was on the other foot, and a couple sources were calling him a "women's rights activist" or somesuch absurdly tendentious term, I doubt certain editors would be singing the same tune. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

What exactly do you think the bias of The Guardian is on this matter? Asking for a friend... Newimpartial (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm entirely convinced by this "well, no one says he isn't an anti-trans activist" kind of logic being presented here. If we had, say, fifty comparably reliable and relevant sources describing "Tewdar, the ocarina-playing sausage-maker..." and only three sources describing "Tewdar, the ocarina-playing sausage-maker and anti-trans activist...", you could probably make a reasonable case that the 'anti-trans activist' descriptor isn't particularly due a mention in the lede, especially if those three sources were perceived as especially partisan on such matters.  Tewdar  09:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I think DUE in this scenario would depend on how the sources that don't use "anti-trans" in the lead describe your anti-transgender activities. If they generally use synonyms and paraphrases - calling them "anti-transgender campaigns" or "opposition to transgenderism", say - then exclusion would not be merited; rather, it is a matter of choosing an appropriate synonym. If the other sources refer to you as working on support of trans people, however, and sourced are evenly divided, then we would need to "some say...others say", or some such.

It seems clear to me which of these hypotheticals comes closer to the actual sourcing for this BLP... Newimpartial (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

A further possibility, of course, is that most of the sources don't bother to describe a person's trans-related activities at all. If a hundred sources provide a mini-bio of a subject, and only SausageNews and TransOnline bother to mention that subject's views on transgender issues, why should we? Not that my knowledge of Linehan extends much beyond Father Ted, and so this hypothetical example may or may not be relevant to this particular case...  Tewdar  13:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think that hypothetical applies in this case. The RS for the last 5 years + don't tend to ignore Linehan's shenanigans on trans issues, (presumably because he isn't really doing anything else...). Newimpartial (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. And this is why I made the comment I did. Literally all he does now is this stuff. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. And when Linehan does make a media appearance or interview, the focus is almost entirely upon his anti-trans activities and the impact those have had on his personal and professional lives. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

The wiki article mentions "In 2018, Linehan praised anti-transgender protesters at that year's London Pride event who had carried banners and flyers saying that "transactivism erases lesbians", calling them "heroes"."

- describing him as "anti-transactivism" would be more accurate than describing him as "anti-transgender activism". Camberstowe (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

"In recent years he has used the platform to critique what he calls “trans ideology” which he says misrepresents trans people and lesbians; and in 2018 he was accused of comparing trans activism to nazism." Camberstowe (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

This is something which has been discussed at length already on this page. "anti-transactivism" as a term is at odds with the reliable sources cited in the article, which describe him using terms like "anti-trans campaigner", "anti-trans activist", "anti-trans blogger" and so on. Although it may be in your opinion a better term it wouldn't be an accurate characterisation of what reliable sources say, which is what we need to use as the basis here. JaggedHamster (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Not my opinion at all. Linehan has made it clear he is "anti-transgender activism", not anti-transgender.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Graham_Linehan Camberstowe (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia content is not supposed to defer to your opinion or your original research. Rather, it is based on what reliable sources have to say. Newimpartial (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I previously mentioned a Guardian article where he is quoted as saying "transactivism erases lesbians". Can you provide reliable sources that he is anti-transgender? Camberstowe (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

The article, and this talk page plus its archives, are full of reliable sources for that, plus extensive discussion of them. I'm sure you don't want to just retread previous discussions, of which there have been many, in part due to an unfortunate amount of Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing in the past. JaggedHamster (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

If the evidence was that strong, it'd be cited in the main article. As far as I'm concerned, Linehan's sayings and actions are a good primary source for his sayings and actions, and I've not been presented with convincing evidence that he is anti-transgender rather than anti-transactivist. Rather, I've seen instances where he is pro-transgender. Camberstowe (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Camberstowe, no fewer than eight such sources are attached to the first sentence of the section entitled "anti-transgender activism". There is a certain expectation that you actually read the sources provided in the article.Newimpartial (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

The main article has the sentence "In a September 2022, he stated that his anti-trans activism had led him to begin questioning the safety of COVID-19 vaccinations and the scientific consensus on climate change "because I’ve been lied to so conclusively by all the people I used to trust." - the article to which it refers, from PinkNews, refers to a video on Youtube (Knight Tube - Graham Linehan on comedy, gender ideology and being cancelled", where he doesn't even refer to his "anti-trans activism" - that is PinkNews' opinion! Rather, the interview has a section called "Is it fair to label Graham "anti-transgender"?, where the interviewer Stephen Knight says on Wikipedia, Linehan is described as an "Irish writer and anti-transgender activist", and Linehan replies: "We've tried to change that, and every time we change it changes back within 15 minutes". PinkNews completely misrepresents what is said in the interview and so does Wikipedia, so should not be considered a reliable source. Camberstowe (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

completely misrepresents what is said in the interviewYou do not seem to understand the relationship between WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY sources in relation to WP policy. Until you do, there is little point in continuing this discussion. PinkNews has been discussed extensively, by the way, and found to be a generally reliable source - when you say that it completely misrepresents what is said in the interview you appear to be engaged in unsubstantiated kvetching. Just because Linehan may deny that he is engaged in anti-trans activism, that doesn't mean his own opinion outweighs the reliable sources. Newimpartial (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

"In a September 2022 interview, Linehan stated that his anti-trans activism..." - it's a fact that in the interview cited here, he does not cite his "his anti-trans activism". What Pink News says is irrelevant to this passage on Wikipedia. Linehan could still be engaged in "anti-trans activism", but it would still be false to say "In a September 2022 interview, Linehan stated that his anti-trans activism...". Camberstowe (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

PinkNews is considered a reliable source per WP:RSP. If you feel this is wrong you'll likely want to look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, where it has been discussed quite a few times already. There is a procedure outlined there for if you feel the subject needs revisited, although please note it was discussed very recently and the consensus did not change. JaggedHamster (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

PinkNews may well be generally considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. This has no bearing on one sentence in one article. "PinkNews claims that in a September 2022 interview, Linehan stated that his anti-trans activism..." is true, but "In a September 2022 interview, Linehan stated that his anti-trans activism..." is false (Linehan never says that, nor is an accurate paraphrasing of what was said). You only have to hear the actual interview being cited to determine this. Camberstowe (talk) 04:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

References

References