Talk:Graham Linehan

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)

Quote and marriage woes

This edit restored a quote that was initially added here and then immediately removed; since this risks devolving into a revert-war, we should probably stop and discuss it. One thing I'd immediately point out is that the reason for the revert is that he didn't say his anti-transgender activism was the cause of his marriage ending - but the original version didn't say that, it just says it caused marriage woes. I think that summarizing his views as anti-transgender activism is reasonable, but either way the quote is inappropriate here. As it says on WP:QUOTES, Quotations that present rhetorical language in place of the neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias can insert a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia articles and Quotations embody the breezy, emotive style common in fiction and some journalism, which is generally not suited to encyclopedic writing. If people want to propose alternative wordings we can hash that out, but I don't think a quote is the way to go, especially given the WP:FRINGE nature of Linehan's views here. --Aquillion (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

I have had a go at doing both. We obviously can't say he said something that he didn't, so the easiest and most NPOV is to write what he actually said. In keeping with CONSENSUS, I have kept the 'anti-transgender' classification next to the quote to make sure that our CONSENSUS is clear. So we can call it what we want to, but we're not putting words into his mouth. NEDOCHAN (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2026 (UTC)