Jump to content

Talk:Graham Linehan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2025

[edit]

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

 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The edit request suggested adding the conviction to the first sentence. Katzrockso (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But it could be added to the introductory paragraphs. BauhausDisco (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's outside the scope of the edit request. Katzrockso (talk) 05:26, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

That seems fine to me. Katzrockso (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. BauhausDisco (talk) 08:09, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

[edit]

In the section 'Harassment and criminal damage charges' it states, "In her judgment, District Judge Clarke said she was not satisfied that the “complainant was giving entirely truthful evidence” and that, in contrast, Linehan was a "credible witness"."

In reality, Clarke also stated that "I am not prepared to say that they have given evidence which is entirely incapable of belief and in some aspects, accept that they were giving the court honest evidence."

You cannot just chop up the judgement in an attempt to frame his victim as a liar, Clarke based that specific sentence on a small number of inconsistencies in evidence (most of which are based in just forgetting stuff over a long time period) and removing the context surrounding the quote is attempting to be quite defamatory.

You should either include the full quote or just axe off stuff that misleads the public. BauhausDisco (talk) 08:25, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Lukewarmbeer As you are responsible for having made the edit, please see the above. BauhausDisco (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No? Lukewarmbeer (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You made the edit on the 25th of November 2025 at 11:19.
"Added result of trial with citation."
You've repeatedly tried to tone down Linehan's behaviour in your edits. We're supposed to be unbiased. BauhausDisco (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed these quotes as inappropriate. It pulled them out of context (for example, the full context of one of them was:
The judge said she accepted some of complainant Sophia Brooks' evidence, but found they were not "entirely truthful" and not "as alarmed or distressed" as they had portrayed themself to be following tweets posted by the comedy writer.
While Linehan's comments were "deeply unpleasant, insulting and even unnecessary", they were not "oppressive or unacceptable beyond merely unattractive, annoying or irritating", the judge said, and did not "cross the boundary from the regrettable to the unacceptable".
The latter half was omitted and the entire thing framed in a way that omitted what the judge was skeptical about, which gave the false impression that the judge was doubting the entire account. And the "in contrast" was pure editorializing that wasn't present in the source at all. --Aquillion (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much :) BauhausDisco (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive reliance on The Daily Telegraph

[edit]

This article cites The Daily Telegraph extensively, solely for Linehan's anti-transgender activism. In that topic area, the Telegraph requires attribution, which most of these citations lack. We should replace it with a source that doesn't require attribution when possible, and attribute the things that are only citeable to the Telegraph. --Aquillion (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the ones where we were already relying on better sources, and added attribution in places where doing so was easy; there's still a handful of things that should probably be examined to see if other sources exist. --Aquillion (talk) 14:41, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean by "the Telegraph requires attribution" - could you explain? I think I'm missing something. Popcornfud (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:TELEGRAPH: In regards to transgender issues, there is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Telegraph. Editors consider The Telegraph biased or opinionated on the topic, and its statements should be attributed. --Aquillion (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks. (Personally I don't think this is a great solution - injecting text along the lines of "according to source X" doesn't seem helpful to me as the citation already does that job, and it isn't clear to the general reader what additional information that text is supposed to be adding, so I don't see how it can alleviate the problem of a potentially unreliable source. But that's an argument for a different talk page...) Popcornfud (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Graham_Linehan&oldid=1348197822"