Talk:Graham Linehan

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2025

Add "and convicted criminal" to the introductory line. ~2025-38148-51 (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Contentious edit proposed to a BLP article and an article where contentious topic procedures apply. Needs to be Talk page consensus first. SI09 (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

It's not contentious, pages of convicted criminals often feature the same or similar wording in the introductory lines or go onto explain the crimes they were convicted of in a paragraph immediately after the introduction.

See:

Martha Stewart, 'Convicted Felon', introductory lines.

O.J. Simpson, goes onto explain 1994 acquittal in the third paragraph followed by his 2008 conviction for armed robbery and kidnapping.

Mike Tyson, short mention in the third paragraph of his 1992 conviction for rape.

Lori Loughlin, mention in the second paragraph of her 2020 conviction for conspiracy to commit fraud.

R. Kelly, presents his 2021 and 2022 convictions for child sexual abuse in the first paragraph.

Mark Wahlberg, the second paragraph makes note of his felony conviction.

Jeffrey Epstein, 'child sex offender', introductory lines.

This is all the more important as Linehan's (criminal) legal troubles essentially rekindled an interest in him by both the media and public. He is a convicted criminal, and is known by the public as one, his Wikipedia article should reflect the objective truth.

Even if you don't believe that the words 'convicted criminal' should be in the introductory lines, you could add something along the lines of, "Linehan was convicted of criminal damage in November of 2025 at Westminster Magistrates' Court after damaging the phone of a 17-year-old transgender rights activist in October of 2024." BauhausDisco (talk) 12:05, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

The words "convicted criminal" should absolutely not be in the first line, as it would be a major BLP violation to give undue prominence to this conviction. I am not attempting to defend Linehan at all, but the difference between your other examples is that their criminal convictions are all the main reason the person is notable. Linehan is primarily known for both his anti-trans activism and his career as a writer.

I would also oppose adding that sentence on the same grounds Katzrockso (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

"but the difference between your other examples is that their criminal convictions are all the main reason the person is notable"

That is not at all accurate except for Jeffrey Epstein and arguably for R. Kelly.

Martha Stewart is a well known TV personality, Mike Tyson is a very famous boxer, Mark Wahlberg and Lori Loughlin are successful actors. There is a small case to be made that Simpson's acquittal (not a conviction, by the way) made him famous but he was already well known for being an NFL player and actor.

I was honestly surprised to learn that Mike Tyson and Lori Loughlin were convicted criminals when researching a rebuttal to your claim that it'd be a contentious edit to include the fact that Graham Linehan is a convicted criminal. BauhausDisco (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have been more clear in my response, the examples that add convicted criminal to the first sentence are examples of people whose notability derives from their criminal activity. This follows MOS:FIRST. This does not apply for this article, since Linehan's conviction is not a defining characteristic of his career (yet, perhaps later evaluations will give it increased prominence, but we don't know yet). Katzrockso (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Again, most people don't know about Mike Tyson's conviction, neither do they know about Wahlberg's felonies etc.

"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."

I think MOS:FIRST points towards the fact that his conviction should be covered, 'prominent controversy'. BauhausDisco (talk) 11:28, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

The edit request suggested adding the conviction to the first sentence. Katzrockso (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes. But it could be added to the introductory paragraphs. BauhausDisco (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

That's outside the scope of the edit request. Katzrockso (talk) 05:26, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

@BauhausDisco and Katzrockso: I have added mention of Linehan's legal issues to the end of the final paragraph of the lead. I hope this is sufficient to resolve the dispute. Feel free to let me know if you have any issues with this edit. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

That seems fine to me. Katzrockso (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. BauhausDisco (talk) 08:09, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Rephrasing for "anti-transgender activist"

I think we should rephrase "anti-transgender activist" into something else that won't sugarcoat who Linehan is and what he does. "Transphobe" could work, per Elia Ayoub: "Is a racist known as a anti-black/brown activist? Is a sexist known as an anti-woman activist? If an antisemite known as an anti-jews activist? 'Anti-transgender activist' is just a transphobe. There's already a term for it." Or we could do what was done for Andrew Tate's page and say "He has also gained notoriety for pushing transphobic views on X, formerly known as Twitter" or something like that. What do you all think? Any suggestions? Thanks!

(Also I know this is the talk page for Graham Linehan but I guess Anita Bryant's page could use a similar treatment; we could write something else instead of "anti-gay-rights activist.") FellowEsin (talk) 10:59, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

We've got to use what reliable sources call him. If you can find a suitable well-sourced alternate phrasing that's commonly used amongst reliable sources, feel free to suggest it DeputyBeagle (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Calls for repeal of 19th Amendment

I see that the material about Linehan's calls for the repeal of the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution has been removed. While I agree that the sourcing is not ideal (I've used PinkNews as a reference many times, but its coverage can be somewhat tabloid on issues like this, with a focus on the celebrity angle. WP:PINKNEWS notes that it "is generally reliable for factual reporting, but additional considerations may apply and caution should be used", which is a fair summary), I think the information is significant enough to merit inclusion if supported by stronger sources. In particular, many of Linehan's anti-trans views have been couched in feminist terms, which this seems to contradict somewhat.. GnocchiFan (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree Snokalok2 (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2026 (UTC)