Talk:Kathleen Stock/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Allegations of transphobia

A section of this article alleges that Stock has made transphobic comments and tweets and that this has caused some controversy. My position is that Stock's "critical views on the UK Gender Recognition Act and trans self-identification" are mentioned at the beginning of the article, with three supporting citations, and as long as this isn't a real controversy that garners sufficient mainstream media attention or in some way affects Stock's work or influence, it need not be reiterated, certainly not to the extent that it is at the moment, with a full paragraph that is practically as long as the rest of the article. Additionally, the material I am referring to lacks sufficient citations, and the sources provided are not impartial—a tweet Stock has made, and a story in an LGBTQ publication—hardly neutral or strong sources that would suggest any sort of controversy worth mentioning. The user who has added this material has been insistent on reasserting their edits, so I'm putting it up here for discussion. If this receives no response within a week, I will delete the offending paragraph once more. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. CatCafe (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

A mobile user edited the paragraph later, leaving a sentence about toilets. I reverted to content of neutral tone version from Revision as of 01:05, 2 January 2021 by Revirvlkodlaku which provides reference to the debate I describe below in Talk. I regard this version as a first draft btw, but the current choice is whether the article should contain short, general, neutral tone statement. Mattymmoo (talk) 10:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Have reverted your edit per WP:BLP. Twitter is not a sufficient source. Nor is it appropriate to label a subject without any reference to sources - that does not qualify as a neutral tone. Best to wait for any discussion to play out here before making further edits. AutumnKing (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I've done some work to add section headings and more detail to these sections including additional references and new information.John Cummings (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

debate on sex and gender is hindered by labelling participants

The debate about sex and gender is taking place in many fora, often with very poorly defined boundaries. This debate bears on National legislation in the UK, in Scotland, on the regulation of sport, schools & prisons, and on social conduct and language. That debate should be covered, if possible, elsewhere on Wikipedia, but can be referred to here as Stock is a leading participant. I support the stance taken by [[User talk:Revirvlkodlaku|talk] , the paragraph should be deleted. Mattymmoo (talk) 13:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. CatCafe (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

What precisely are the two of you agreeing about? What are you proposing? Newimpartial (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Read it again = "the paragraph should be deleted". CatCafe (talk) 05:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Debate on sex and gender is hindered by labelling participants. Why does this even have to be stated? Certainly we can do better than say that person is not on our team. I was surprised when I came here that somehow the article did not attempt to weaken her status because of her positions. That Wikipedia had not completely caved for fear of no longer being part of the cool kids. I was surprised by the fact in this one case, Wikipedia resisted folding again to its weaknesses. Let's go for two in a row. Nanabozho (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

See also David Miller

There appears to be some similarities between the cases of Kathleen Stock and David Miller. The two points of similarity are, firstly, the reference to the need to protect "academic freedom" as a defence against action by the university and, secondly, the criticism of each academic coming from the student body. Here are some quotes from each persons Wiki page: Kathleen Stock:

• Equalities minister Kemi Badenoch, barrister Allison Bailey, and writer Julie Bindel spoke in Stock's defence, while vice-chancellor Adam Tickell condemned the campaign as a threat to academic freedom.
• A student with a transgender girlfriend said: "People I love very much are trans and are clearly upset by Professor Stock. There is the matter of academic freedom but these things should have limits. If someone wanted to espouse racist rhetoric in a lecture hall, should they be allowed to because of academic freedom?"
• [Stock] said that months previously she had complained to the University of Sussex alleging it had failed to protect her and to safeguard her academic freedom.
• Oxford historian Selina Todd described Tickell's statement as paying " lip service to academic freedom while assuring students of the university's 'inclusivity'" and criticised the Universities and Colleges Union for their silence.
• The head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Baroness Falkner of Margravine, described the attacks on Stock as disgraceful and said further regulation is needed. She said: "The rights of trans people must of course be protected, but the attempt to silence academic freedom of expression is the opposite of what university life is about".

David Miller:

• In a statement, Bristol University said it did "not endorse the comments made by Professor David Miller about our Jewish students" and also said "Equally, we must balance the rights and often wide-ranging views of students and staff with institutional policies and national law concerning academic freedom and freedom of speech."
• A few days later, Daniel Finkelstein, in a column in The Times, wrote that "waywardness has a place in academic life" and was sceptical of the merits of "cancel culture" .

Burrobert (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources that make this connection? Otherwise, inserting the link seems like WP:OR to me. There is some guidance here: MOS:SEEALSO. AndyGordon (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Not directly relevant. Better placed in the article on Academic Freedom. Should be removed from here Mattymmoo (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no policy stating that the See also section should only contain links that have been made by reliable sources. "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense". Burrobert (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Still, the core content policies including WP:OR apply to all Wikipedia content, and the choice of "See also" links is part of the content. AndyGordon (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying we can't use "editorial judgment and common sense" because they involve original research? Burrobert (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Dear @Burrobert, yes. Content policies like Wikipedia:No original research need to be at the heart of good editorial judgment. But also I wanted to apologise, as when I pointed you to MOS:SEEALSO I should have added that it was all that I could see specifically about "see also" and the phrase "editorial judgment and common sense" is not very informative. AndyGordon (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:OR includes: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. So far, a source for what links Stock to Miller has not been provided. Mattymmoo (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Transgender identity

Stock has notable views with transgender or gender identity not people according to most sources. So I am unsure why it is reverted back to her having an issue with people. Which people? This source says "However, although Stock rejects gender identity theory, she doesn’t reject trans people."[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatCafe (talk • contribs) comment by blocked sock

The section on this in the body is sourced to The Argus, in which the relevant passage is as follows:

“However, many trans women are still males with male genitalia, many are sexually attracted to females, and they should not be in places where females undress or sleep in a completely unrestricted way.”

Dr Stock vehemently denies that she opposes trans rights.

She said: “I gladly and vocally assert the rights of trans people to live their lives free from fear, violence, harassment or any discrimination.

“I think that discussing female rights is compatible with defending these trans rights.

“This has nothing to do with any particular trans people – it is about a general structural issue in our society and how to deal with it.”

Neither Stock nor Argus invokes the concept of "identity" or "identity theory" here - she describes it as a general structural issue in our society that is concerned with many trans women in particular. That sounds to me like an issue with (certain) transgender people. Newimpartial (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Putting "people" is a rhetorical trick used by activists where they conflate their demands for specific policies and their metaphysical ideas with "people", thus allowing them to tar any critics of those specific policies and ideas as attackers of transgender people. Never mind that some transgender people, like Buck Angel, Blaire White, Debbie Hayton, etc. disagree with these unelected activists and self-proclaimed "allies". It is thus POV and inappropriate. Nothing quoted above supports this terminology - quite the opposite, e.g. as noted here. Any fair reading of the sources shows that Stock's issue isn't with "people" per se, but the legal and societal doctrine of gender self-identification - that male/female/other are a matter of self-proclamation only. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Nah those and other sources confirm it's about identity or rights - not people, I concur with Crossroads edit and explanation here[2]. CatCafe (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC) comment by blocked sock

Crossroads, rather than charging in on the steed of rhetoric, maybe you could deal with the example I provided at length, in which the doctrine of gender self-identification is not invoked at all. And as far as I can tell, your strawman argument about activists and celebrities has nothing to do with this article.

And CatCafe, Stock is specifically disclaiming that the issue is about rights, isn't she? She is saying it is about people - but not particular trans people, rather many trans women. Who are normally understood by non-philosophers also to be people. Newimpartial (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I take that as you making the argument that 'Transgender women' is a more appropriate phrase than 'Transgender people'. Point taken, but I still believe the sources are better reflected using the term 'identity' or similar. CatCafe (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC) comment by blocked sock

No, "transgender women" are a subset of "transgender people". Other arguments made by Stock apply to transgender people other than transgender women. Newimpartial (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely, and even in the source quoted above, she says that This has nothing to do with any particular trans people – it is about a general structural issue in our society and how to deal with it. Not people, but something structural. This article says Her current research project focuses on conflicts of interests between trans women and natal women, and how to resolve them. Here, she examines arguments against expanding the concept of “trans women” to include anyone self-identifying as such. It's about gender self-ID. This book review says It was also a statement of a new orthodoxy, one in which sex gives way to feeling, and feeling trumps facts. This is the central argument of Kathleen Stock’s controversial new book... This book review shows she speaks of gender identity theory. These are the first three I checked; there are plenty more. It is clear that the sources speak of her as criticizing the concept of gender self-identification. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, did you read the passage I quoted above? It placed your quote in context - in that instance, she is concerned specifically about many trans women and their role.

I have already documented that the first of the points made in this article is not about gender self-identification (a concept that doesn't even come up in the relevant section). Do I have to go through each of the other points supported in the article as well, or will you accept reality: that gender identification isn't the only aspect RS indicate her as being concerned with? Newimpartial (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes Newimpartial. I'm well aware of what a subset is, duh. You just seemed to be making a point about 'women'. I don't think much of any of the above you present supports you want for it to say 'people'. CatCafe (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC) comment by blocked sock

Did you read anything I quoted? Her argument even there is about those trans women's self-identification. Self-ID/gender identity is how RS, versus your original research, relay her viewpoints. Certainly "people" doesn't cover her other points about self-ID. It is pure POV framing. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

, Crossroads, please take a deep breath and read my comment above where I quoted the passage surrounding (and including) your selected quotation. The Argus - the first RS we cite in the section - does not attribute the views of Stock's (that we are citing it for, on the issue I'm quoting her on) to self-ID. I'm not the one doing WP:OR or POV framing here. I am simply reading the source we use. What is it with you and ASPERSIONS, anyway?

I also don't understand what you mean by "people" doesn't cover her other points about self-ID. If she held these views, but not concerning people, do you think she would have attracted the criticism she has? Her views about trans people and societal structures are rather the point, not something more abstract. Or at least, the RS say so. Newimpartial (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

And I'm saying that when sources summarize Stock's views, they describe it as a gender self-ID matter. Fixating on a phrase plucked from "The Argus" doesn't change this. Your proposed text is like if we said "X has been criticized for his views on Black lives" in an article about someone who actually opposed defunding the police. The result is activist editorializing. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

That isn't a sensible parallel. The RS for this article note several controversial views of Stock's. Some are about self-ID and some aren't, but they are all about transgender people. I am not fixating on a phrase plucked from the Argus, I am evaluating the sources as a whole. Newimpartial (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Which claims and sources aren't about gender self-ID? And regarding the Argus, what is "general structural issue in our society" about if not gender self-ID (per context)? Crossroads ^-talk- 21:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

From the current article, Stock has called for trans women who have male genitalia to be excluded from women's changing rooms, characterising them as "still males" who may be sexually attracted to women. That's not self-ID (per the source given).

Likewise, our PinkNews source points out, In January, 600 philosophers signed a letter criticising the decision to give Stock an OBE. In the letter, the academics expressed concern about a “tendency to mistake transphobic fear mongering for valuable scholarship, and attacks on already marginalised people for courageous exercises of free speech”. That isn't limited to the discussion of self-ID. There is clearly more at stake. Newimpartial (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

That source doesn't say it's "not self-ID". Non-op trans women in women's changing rooms clearly is self-ID - they are in there because of self-ID. And PinkNews, itself a biased source, there attributes that view to the letter itself. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Re: Non-op trans women in women's changing rooms clearly is self-ID - they are in there because of self-ID - that's nonsense, or at least OR. There are lots of legal frameworks, including the one I live under, that "allow non-op trans women in women's changing rooms" without being based on self-ID in the sense Stock discusses in her work. So you're inserting terms like "non-op trans women" that neither Stock nor our sources use, then twisting them to make a claim that neither Stock nor the sources make. As I said, nonsense, or at least OR.

As far as the philosophers' letter is concerned, my point is that the RS documents that they are concerned about views of Stock's that extend well beyond "self-ID". It is these concerns that define the issues to be reflected in this article - in fact, other people's concerns about Stock's work is a major component of her Notability by now, and if anything is under- represented in the article. Newimpartial (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

When we get to specifics, the crux of the controversy is 'what is a woman?', gender-identity stuff. Those views are what the open letter speaks of: Stock is best-known in recent years for her trans-exclusionary public and academic discourse on sex and gender, especially for opposition to [amendments to*] the UK Gender Recognition Act and the importance of self-identification to establish gender identity...* Erratum: the original version of this letter incorrectly stated that Stock opposes the UK’s Gender Recognition Act. This was an error; it should have said that Stock is well-known for opposing amendments to the Gender Recognition Act that would have made it easier for people to self-identify their gender. [3] Crossroads ^-talk- 22:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, you need to chill out and cease trying to editwar. And regard you banging on about other's making aspersions, you were the one calling me a 'man', saying I wasn't human and putting faux warning tags on editors pages you don't agree with. CatCafe (talk) 23:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC) comment by blocked sock

I added sources here. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@CatCafe:, @Crossroads:, @Newimpartial: could the three of you please stop engaging in an edit war. I understand that there is a disagreement upon the wording. I am trying to read, catch up, and figure what the sources that are being used are saying so that I can contribute, however the constant revert/addition/revert cycle is making this difficult. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I just added supporting cite to the lede because Newimpartial is putting CN tags there. The lede currently looks fine and a good reflection of the rest of the article IMO. There should be no need for the cites in the lede that Newimpartial is demanding, but here we are. CatCafe (talk) 23:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC) comment by blocked sock

Removed. Crossroads tried to use a SPS reflecting the subject's POV to define what is controversial about their views. That doesn't work at Graham Linehan, and it doesn't work here either. It is a basic NPOV and ABOUTSELF fail. Reliable sources are required.Newimpartial (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC) explanation below Newimpartial (talk) 00:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Strike your falsehoods. Which of these three ([4][5][6]) is an SPS? None of them are; they are all top-quality published RS. And I never did any such thing at Graham Linehan either. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Do keep in mind that rejecting clearly good sources is a sign of WP:Tendentious editing; see WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH and WP:REMOVECITE. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I explain this situation below; the self-published source was added in the same sequence of edits, and I mistook it as being about the same issue (and mistook where the quotation for "gender identification" came from, since I also saw the phrase on her faculty page). Anyway, I apologize for my confusion. Newimpartial (talk) 00:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

You do realize that none of the sources you've added supports "transgender identification", the phrase you've been revert-warring into the article? Or do you? Newimpartial (talk) 00:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, well they all refer to 'gender identification', & seeing I was the one who added 'trans' as a prefix, I will revert back to 'gender identification', as Newimpartial that seems what you're now arguing for. Thanks. CatCafe (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC) comment by blocked sock

Ok. Taking the lead from revision as of 23:17 UTC, 8 October 2021, the contentious sentence appears to be She has gained public attention for her views on transgender identification. Prior to the edit war, per the revision at 20:36 UTC 7 October 2021 the sentence read She has gained public attention and criticism for her views on transgender people.

In the revision from 7 October, the sentence was uncited however was supported by the section labelled "Views on transgender people". As of the 8 October revision, that section has also been changed to "Views on transgender identification".

The crux of the disagreement appears to be whether the criticisms of Stock are because of her views on transgender people, as per 7 October, or on transgender identification, as per 8 October.

Starting with an analysis of the sources used in the "Views on" section on 7 October, Stock's own words are largely limited to the area of transgender identification. The criticisms however are not. In The Argus[ref 9] the criticism is a quote from an activist and refers to trans people. In The Spectator [16] criticism is restricted to the single unattributed quote "transphobic bigot". Citations 10-15 do not mention or contain any critical views. Citation 18 is a repetition of citation 14. Citations 19-28 deal with Stock being appointed as a trustee of the LGB Alliance, and criticism of that organisation. PinkNews [29] says that Stock has faced considerable backlash over her views on gender identity. in the opening paragraph, and in quotes from the student protest against her say that she is a transphobe and that she is espousing a bastardised version of ‘radical feminism’ that excludes and endangers trans people”.. The Times [30] contains the same quotes from the same group of students, and is used in the same manner. Citation numbers in this paragraph are based on 7 October revision linked above.

The citations used in the 8 October revision are the same, except they have been renumbered.

Next, looking at citations for the sentence in the lead as of 8 October. The Guardian [3] links criticism of Stock against trans people, per the open letter relating to her OBE. The BBC [4] limits criticism of Stock to transphobia. The Times Higher Education [5] also limits criticism of Stock to transphobia. Citation numbers in this paragraph are based on the 8th October revision linked above.

So, based on an analysis of the sources, criticism of Stock is either generalised to transphobia, or per both commentary on the OBE open letter and comments made by the students currently protesting against her, trans people. In my opinion, based on reading the sources in the article, where Stock is being criticised according to those criticising her, it is either generalised transphobia, or it is specifically against trans people. The opinion that the criticism is because of or limited to her views on transgender identification comes from Stock herself. Per WP:NPOV we have a duty to cover both points. As such I don't think either wording of the lead is properly balanced. Likewise I believe the "Views on" section heading is somewhat reductionistic, given that while Stock asserts she is writing only about transgender identification, those criticising her take a much broader view of the situation.

As such, I would propose the following change to the lead. "She has gained public attention for her views on transgender identification[3][4][5], which have been criticised as transphobic[22][23]". I am unsure of what change to make to the "Views on" section heading. Please note that the numbers in brackets for this suggestion refer to the citations as ordered on the 8th October revision linked above. They may have changed since. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes OK, but now it has been pointed out that the phrase 'gender identification' rather than 'transgender identification' better reflects the sources [3],[4]&[5]. Is the lede the best place for the criticism i.e. "...been criticised as transphobic[22][23]", or would this be best placed in the body? CatCafe (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC) comment by blocked sock

Re "gender identification" v "transgender identification", I saw that discussion happened while I was reading the sources. It's an easy one to fix in that sentence. As for criticism, WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, so it needs to be in both. Given that the Sussex University subsection already mentions how she is being criticised for her views on trans people, I believe adjusting the wording of the first paragraph in the "Views on" section is most appropriate. Proposal: "Stock has called for trans women who have male genitalia to be excluded from women's changing rooms, characterising them as "still males" who may be sexually attracted to women. For these views she has been criticised as being transphobic, although she has denied opposing trans rights, saying..." Everything after the ellipsis is kept as it currently is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sideswipe9th (talk • contribs) 01:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I have struck through the comments by a blocked sock. Newimpartial (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

"Transgender people" was first inserted in this edit and was first challenged in these edits, having been there for only 2 hours and 42 minutes. That's no "prior to the edit war"; it has never been stable like that or had consensus.

This source analysis seems to be directly compiling the words/claims of criticism by Stock's detractors as quoted in sources, and arguing how to describe the criticism based on that. That is WP:Original research and WP:Synthesis; we should be relying on how WP:Secondary sources describe the dispute as a whole, not just the words of her opponents that they report on. This is especially since, as you note, Stock's own words are largely limited to the area of transgender identification. The criticisms however are not. Especially as a BLP, we should be sticking to the secondary description of the issue as a whole, not doing our own compilation of what critics say, since their criticisms diverge from what she actually says apparently.

"Transphobia" is listed at WP:LABEL, which are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. (Emphasis added.) I'm not seeing that threshold met, and even if it were, that would need to be attributed, not just a WP:WEASEL "criticized as".

"Gender identification" instead of "transgender identification" is fine. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Stating that Stock has gained public attention for her views on gender identification is still both vacuous and WEASEL language, however, since it still gives the reader no idea where she stands on these issues or what form of attention they have received. This has primarily been critical attention, including calls from both students and her academic peers for her employment to be terminated - that is what the sources actually indicate, not that she has blithely "gained public attention for her views". Choke me on my own vomit, why don't you. Newimpartial (talk) 05:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd be fine with something like "She has been the subject of controversy for her views on gender identification." The calls to be fired belong in the body but not in the lead; since that is a currently highly-active campaign, putting that in the lead seems like boosting that campaign, which is inappropriate per WP:NOTADVOCACY. "Controversy" covers that plenty well. Crossroads ^-talk- 14:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that the objective of the campaigns doesn't belong in the lede. I think "subject of controversy for her opposition to gender self-identification" might work: at least that would indicate the main point she is making, to which her critics object. Newimpartial (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Firstly WP:NOR does not apply to talk pages, as it would make it impossible to evaluate article content and sources. Secondly this is explicitly not WP:SYNTH. We had this discussion on another article's talk page about what synth is and is not. Synth is combining of two or more sources to reach a conclusion not supported by either, A + B = C. Of the three sources recently added to the lead, two of them (BBC and Guardian) both state in their own voice that Stock is being accused of transphobia. The THE article uses transphobic in an anonymous quote.

With respect to the sources in the "Views on" section, the reason I said Stock's own words are largely limited to the area of transgender identification is because the majority of the sources in that section are either written by Stock (The Economist), an uncritical interview with Stock (The Badger, The Guardian second cite ), or present Stock's words in an uncritical way (The Guardian first cite, The Standard, The Spectator). Outside of the subsection on the campaign by students at Sussex University, the only two sources that even mention criticism of Stock are The Telegraph and The Sunday Times, both of which try to dismiss it as propaganda by activists and Stonewall.

Having done a review of the sources in the article, the balance of the sources is currently skewed towards either pro-Stock or uncritical of Stock. Now that's not unexpected for a relatively small article that's been expanded recently, but it is something we should address.

It's also important to note that 600 of her peers said that "Stock is best-known in recent years for her trans-exclusionary public and academic discourse on sex and gender, especially for opposition to [amendments to*] the UK Gender Recognition Act and the importance of self-identification to establish gender identity, and for advocating that trans women should be excluded from places like women’s locker rooms or shelters." in an open letter written after her OBE award. That would not happen if her views were not controversial, and I would suggest that the chief objection at this time is because of a lack of balance in the sources.

To sum up, it is correct in saying that transphobia is best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources. However at the present time we have a relatively biased source selection that does not mention the criticism at all. Of the RS that do mention criticism, they all state that she has been accused of transphobia. Given the widespread criticism of Stock, especially by her peers, we should address the balance issue in the sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I think we can agree that if RS are missing from the article, they should be added. The distribution of views in RS may not always be what we expect, though, and whether a wiki article has POV/bias is defined based on the sources, so it may not be that those sources are unrepresentative. They may be, or may not be. Regarding 'NOR on talk pages', when I speak of NOR I am speaking of proposed article text. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment - I understand that the controversies surrounding Stock are quite fluid, with debate developing to the point that we are going to have to distinguish clearly between support for Stock on "free speech" and "academic freedom" issues (e.g., what should the consequences be for Stock's interventions on trans issues) and support for Stock's positions on transgender issues themselves.

Once the article has some basic form and structure, though, we will have to to back to fixing terminology, because the phrase "gender identification" does not at all encompass the range of published positions for which Stock is being criticized, and "Honours" is a rather deceptive heading for a section where the negative reaction to Stock's OBE is much more noteworthy than her having received it in the first place - or at least, that is what the RS would lead us to believe. Newimpartial (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. There's a lot of editing on the main page at the moment, some of which is contentious, with no established consensus, and under discussion here. Do we maybe need to request an increased protection level for the article temporarily while we discuss and resolve the structural issues? Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm - there aren't that many edits, the edits are generally good faith (though informed by a range of different perspectives), and discussion is happening in parallel with the editing. I wouldn't say that this page shows the level of edit-warring that would justify protection. The Land (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

It's true that there isn't any edit-warring going on, but if we're to discuss a major restructuring of the article, it may help if we can slow the rate of edits/additions/reverts at least temporarily? That way we can get the structure right without risking loss of any recently added content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

That's not what protection is for. It's to prevent vandalism and other clearly disruptive edits, except for full protection, which is just used to stop multi-sided edit wars, of which I don't see any going on. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Sentence on published works in lede

Newimpartial, what's wrong? You add a CN tag on the lede demanding new sources, and then I make a minor edit and add a source as you demand one, then you delete it. Re the following sentence: "She has published on aesthetics, fiction, imagination, sexual objectification, sex, gender, and sexual orientation."[7]. CatCafe (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I mistook the self-published reference that you added as being a response to my failed verification tag. You are quite correct that the ABOUTSELF source is fine for the sentence you quote, but that wasn't the point where verification had failed, per my tag. As I say, I was confused by this. Sorry. Newimpartial (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I've just taken a read of the source used for this section of the lead, in light of the recent attention that has been on Stock. I believe this sentence, as it is currently written may be misleading. As far as I can see, Stock's commentary on sex, gender, and related fields is non-academic. Her academic publishing record only contains works on aesthetics, fiction, imagination, sexual objectification, and sexual orientation. In light of this, if another editor can concur, I think we should make the distinction clear between her academic and non-academic published works, as academic works are necessarily held to a higher standard than non-academic. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems I'm not the only person to notice this. This PinkNews piece has comments from the USSU trans and non-binary officer who states "Professor Stock has not released a single academic piece in a peer-reviewed journal about trans issues". Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The USSU officer is not correct; Stock has published this in The Philosopher. This article about the meaning of sexual orientation also discusses "trans issues". Crossroads ^-talk- 06:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

That piece in The Philosopher is difficult to evaluate, in part because it doesn't seem to be available for scrutiny. I've checked the usual sources; Google Scholar, JSTOR, Scihub, and I cannot find a copy of it anywhere. According to this review of works in the area, a version of it was available on Medium at one point in time but it has since been deleted. We don't even have an abstract to read, all we have to go on is a title. It would help immensely if we could evaluate this work if anyone knows of how to source a copy, as I am more inclined to believe the USSU officer and PinkNews than I am to believe Stock.

I disagree with your reading of "Sexual Orientation: What is it?" Having read that piece, it only tangentially mentions trans people and gender identity in one short section, on pages 11 and 12, as part of a literature review of other philosophers. The overall content of the work is on sexual orientation, and not trans people. I would argue that this does not meet the criteria for a published academic work on gender. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

You don't have to "believe Stock", just the academic publishing indexes. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

That is a misrepresentation of what I said. I said that we can't verify that the piece in The Philosopher is a piece on gender from the title alone. Neither the full text nor abstract of the piece is available for scrutiny to confirm that the title matches the content. The PhilPaper's entry for it has no keywords and no categories. The only information we have is the title, where it was published, and when it was published. Don't judge a book, or in this case a paper, by its cover.

I'd also appreciate it if you could respond to the substance of my second point as well. You've said you disagree, but you've not said why, or given any constructive feedback on an alternative. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:PAYWALL -- the inability of any particular editor to access a source for free is irrelevant. If it's important to you, you can pay. Or not -- no-one else is going to care. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not strictly a WP:PAYWALL issue. I'm unable to find any source for the paper, not just a free source. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so I'm still trying to find a copy of the paper but I'm now severely doubting whether or not the source publication is actually peer-reviewed. There's a lot of information here, much of it outside the scope of Stock. In short, the current version of The Philosopher seems to only have come into existence circa 2015 after the collapse or split of The Philosophical Society of England. The original version of The Philosopher has not been published since that time, and the current version only came into existence in 2015 following the split. There is no reference on the current website to a peer review process at all. Searching online, the only place that seems to authoritatively say the publication is peer reviewed is Wikipedia, for which the claim is unsourced and has been challenged in the talk page. I'm going to try and confirm, and if necessary seek an update to The Philosopher's entry, but at the moment this paper by Stock is very suspect as to whether or not is academic. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I've found confirmation that The Philosopher is not a peer-reviewed journal. In the words of its current lead editor: "The journal is very much rooted in what is going on in philosophy right now, i.e. featuring contributions from authors of recent books, analyses of emerging trends etc. as well as a strong desire to balance out contributions from well-established academics with exciting up-and-coming scholars and even non-professional philosophers. So, for the scholar I would say that they are likely to come across a wide range of themes and thinkers that may significantly broaden their horizons while at the same time not requiring them to trawl through a dense 10,000 word peer-reviewed paper or a whole book.

In light of this, I would like to restate that we need to reword that section of the lead to make clear the distinction between Stock's academic and non-academic work. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

For anyone else interested, I've made an entry on The Philosopher's talk page here discussing the issues with the publication, along with issues as to the state of that article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

One final note, thanks to the Wayback Machine I've finally been able to get a copy of one of the versions of the work published in The Philosopher, as Stock had previously posted it on her Medium. The work in question seems to have been commissioned directly by The Philosopher for the summer 2019 edition of that publication. In light of my earlier point about the lack of peer review, I want to reiterate that this seems not to be an academic work. It is a non-academic piece, published in a non-academic publication and commissioned by that publication for that issue. I am still trying to track down a copy of it as it was originally published to compare for differences and citations, however given the interview with the publication's editor I very much doubt there will be much of either. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Her body of work as a philosopher is rather insignificant/obscure, with a very low number of citations (roughly 400 not counting non-scholarly publications). Therefore, any mention of her philosophical work should be kept short. She is primarily known for anti-trans activism, including political writings and her role as a trustee of the LGB Alliance. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Better-source tag on Lesbian and Gay News

@CatCafe: just to let you know I've reverted the revert. Per consensus at RSN archive 334, LGN is an unreliable source. Editors need to check both WP:RSP and WP:RSN when determining if a source is or is not reliable. WP:RSP is only for sources that are frequently discussed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

OK are we saying that LGN are not reliable when stating Stock's sexual-preference and what the University LGBT and Women's groups said against the VC? I will remove them for you.CatCafe (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC) comment by blocked sock

Multiple questions here. With respect to the University LGBT and Woman's Officer statements, that claim appears accurate and verifiable per primary sources. With respect to the quote from Janice Turner, that does not appear in the LGN article.

The issue however is that the source itself is unreliable. Please see Template:Better source needed for why it's appropriate right now to put a better-source tag into the citation, so that a reliable source stating the same claim can be substituted in when one is found. I'll be doing a search some time tomorrow for this, but that tag serves as a note for any other editor to find a reliable source that can be used in its place. Until a better source can be found, or if there is no better source, it is better to leave the statement from the USSU in place. I'd remove citation 15 from the sentence quoting Janice Turner however as that's not verifiable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@CatCafe: please stop disruptive editing. For now the Template:Better source needed is the correct way to handle this situation until a better source can be found, or if after a search no such better sources then those statements can be removed. For now, leave it alone and search for a better source to slot in as a replacement. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of disruptive editing when I revert my own edits after I receive legitimate criticism. I would consider that you are disruptive editing when you refuse to allow me to revert my own edits. It you want to add the text under discussion please find a RS. CatCafe (talk) 02:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC) comment by blocked sock

Find me the policy that says reverting my own edits is disruptive editing. You criticised my addition - I removed it. Please stop the accusations in edit notes. CatCafe (talk) 02:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC) comment by blocked sock

Unfortunately due to time zones, it is 3am where I live. I will be searching for a better source for this tomorrow after I wake up. However the purpose for the better-source tag is so that any editor can preform that search and make the necessary change. Note that better-source is different from Template:Unreliable source?. Unreliable source is when a claim made is suspect. Better-source is when a claim made is not suspect, but the source of the claim is. The statement that USSU made in response to their vice chancellor is verifiable per primary sources. Namely the USSU Twitter account. However the secondary source currently used for that statement is unreliable. It's fine to leave the statement in for now, pending a search for a better source.

WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, point 5. Per WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM Instead of removing article content that is poorly presented, consider cleaning up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot, or tagging it as necessary. I have tagged the problematic part of the article content, so that I or another editor can correct it later. This is proper policy in this situation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)\

User:Sideswipe9th you are being unreasonable. You criticised my work and you put on CN tags. Then you convinced me that my sources were not RS, so I removed my own additions and cite and I'm in in the process of finding new sources to satisfy you. But then you are reverting my reverts of my own work and putting back nonRS. Why do you want to reintroduce back the nonRS you've criticised - that makes little sense considering you want it gone. Unless you are wanting to editwar? Now you want to make official complaints about me. Please realise that I'm trying to edit to fix the problem you raised, and you're doing the reverting. CatCafe (talk) 02:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC) comment by blocked sock

I do not want the claim gone, I want the source fixed. I did not criticise your work, I criticised the source. There is a large difference. I fully support the additions you've been making to the article over the last few days, they're good. And noting the statements by the USSU LGBT+ society and SU Women's officer is important given what is happening on the Sussex campus right now. The issue is not with the content, it's with the attribution of the content. The purpose of the Template:Better source needed tag is so that any editor can see that there's a problem with a source, but it's not related to the claim the source is making, so that a more appropriate source can be found. The claim is verifiable through primary sources, the secondary source that was in use is unreliable. Leave the claim be, but fix the source problem. If a reliable secondary source cannot be found for that claim, then state it here before removing the tag and the source. Until that has been done, it is appropriate to leave the better source tag in place, so that multiple editors can see that there is a specific problem with that source, and not the claim that the source is making. One editor may not find a better source, but multiple editors searching for it might.

The reason why I made the complaint is because the actions taken are making fixing this one small source problem far more difficult than they need to be. I thought it was a WP:3RR violation, clearly I erred in the interpretation of that rule. I had tried to resolve the situation here, however you kept the same removal which was not necessary. The statement is fine. The only thing that needs fixed is the source being used for it. That's all. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes you erred IMO as well. And I found one new source for you you instantaneously - even after the Women's Officer had deleted her tweet for whatever reason. Now perhaps you can find an additional source re the LGBT+ Society comment - otherwise half the sentence (I added) needs removing. I'm trying to help you out here. CatCafe (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC) comment by blocked sock

Alright. So the only source I can find for the Sussex Uni LGBT Society response to the vice chancellor is a Twitter post they put out on 9 October. This doesn't appear to have been picked up by any reliable secondary sources. With regards to the Student's Union at Sussex, they put out a statement on 8 October on their website, although I can't find a secondary source for this either at least in English. I know there's one French language secondary source currently in the article, but I'm not fluent enough in any second language to check non-English sources. Given that the women's officer at USSU has since deleted her post and USSU Twiter account for some reason, I'd suggest we link to the statement on the USSU website instead of a archived Twitter post.

On the topic of last night. Removing those statements in that manner was kind of a nuclear option. As I said before, the issue wasn't with the content in the article, it was with the source being used to support the content. The content didn't need to be removed at the time, all it needed was a Template:Better source needed until one or more editors could preform that search. I would have done it at the time, but it was late and I was getting ready for bed. As such I tagged that source in the hope that any editor could have seen the issue and resolved it before I woke up, without needing to remove the content until we could be sure that there were no reliable secondary sources for it. If it hadn't been resolved by the time I woke up, I'd have taken a look myself when I had the time/energy to do so. That is established procedure in these circumstances as the sentence itself was not contentious and was verifiable as factual based off primary sources. As such, I saw the wholesale removal of those sentences as disruptive. I tried to discuss it with you @CatCafe:, however for some reason that's still unclear to me you preferred to remove the content entirely pending. When it appeared as though we were in an edit war, I did a quick read of the WP:3RR and thought that this was a clear cut violation. Obviously my interpretation of that rule differs from the admin who reviewed it. As such I apologise for getting it wrong and taking that action. It would help if I could understand why you wanted to proceed in that way, as it seems to me that it would make it difficult for more editors than ourselves to engage with fixing the sourcing. I hope that helps you understand why I took the actions I did last night, and I'd suggest that outside of helping me to understand why you felt removal was the only option (which may be a topic for your/my talk page and not here per WP:NOTAFORUM) we leave it here and move on. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes on all that, there seems not to be good sources for the sentence: "The university's LGBT+ society and the Student Union Women's Officer both criticised the Vice Chancellor's response" - but I note the next paragraph expands on the Student Unions position. So I have removed the said sentence and we can rely on the better sourced next paragraph. CatCafe (talk) 01:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC) comment by blocked sock

But not to be outdone editor Newimpartial, rather than contribute here, thinks it better to report me at ANI for doing this. I have invited Newimpartial to contribute and discuss here, and assist with RS needed, but so far they can't be bothered, preferring to have me reprimanded. CatCafe (talk) 01:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC) comment by blocked sock

Struck comments by a blocked sock. Newimpartial (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Related to the previous discussion here about RS for comments by the USSU and its officers, PinkNews put out this piece a few hours ago with extensive commentary from Amelia Jones, the USSU officer for trans and non-binary students. Noting here to return to this tomorrow if no other editor picks up on it by the time I wake up. There does seem to be some useful commentary we can add for context. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I've had a read of the piece now and I'd like to propose adding the following paragraph into the reactions subsection, immediately following the paragraph from the UCU.

The University of Sussex' Students' Union officer for trans and non-binary students, Amelia Jones was dismayed by the comments from the vice-chancellor calling them "an adamant defence of Professor Stock" while condemning their lack of acknowledgment of trans and non-binary students and staff. She stated that "The vice chancellor still has not met with his own trans students to see how they are feeling" and that some students had swapped courses at the university to avoid being in classes with Professor Stock.

Any thoughts, additions, or rephrasing needed? Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

"Per consensus at RSN archive 334" – the Reliable sources/Noticeboard discussion regarding Lesbian and Gay News was never closed. Which means that there is no final determination on whether it is or is not considered acceptable as RS for Wikipedia purpose. That discussion can be re-visited and continued at any given time. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 06:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Not having a formal closure, and not having consensus, are two rather different things. There is a quite clear consensus to that discussion without there being a formal closure. Although I agree that a new discussion based on a longer baseline evidence - and without the now-banned SPAs and the brigading from the "gender critical" boards and twitterz that marred the previous discussion - might produce an even clearer result. Newimpartial (talk) 12:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

As Newimpartial said, closure and consensus are two different concepts. The discussion linked was the most recent entry for it on the noticeboard, and the consensus at the time was that it was unreliable. Consensus can change over time, and if an editor wants to challenge that consensus, the onus is on them to open a discussion at the relevant noticeboard. But until a new consensus is established, we should stick with the existing one, that the source is unreliable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Alex Sharpe review

There is now an additional academic review of Material Girls by a critical legal scholar, which someone more patient than I could work into this article: [8] Newimpartial (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly the kind of thorough, high-quality sources this article desperately needs. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The book doesn't have much coverage in the article and at present reviews are only used to describe the book content. If that changes, I feel this review is worth including, but that would be a significant change to the article. The Land (talk) 10:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

It is a hostile review of both books & amounts to soapboxing. Wikipedia's Voice would need to contrast a sympathetic view. Mattymmoo (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Is another high-quality, academic review with a sympathetic view available? Newimpartial (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I found these reviews. (There's also this interesting review by a gender-critical feminist who complains that Stock shows too much sympathy for gender identity theory and queer politics; go figure.)
Schazjmd (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Google Scholar

Should we include her Google Scholar profile[9] as is common in academics' biographies? She has an abysmally low number of citations for such a high-profile figure, which is interesting in itself. Some of the publications she lists in the profile are not scholarly publications at all, but political blog posts related to her activism in the anti-gender movement. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 06:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

At the moment we link to Stock's PhilPeople profile in the lead which largely seems to cover the same info. Maybe adding both to the her infobox might be a good idea? Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Intimidation and harrassment

The entry quoting Daily Nous is soapboxing for harrassment & intimidation. Protests targeted at a specific individual, demanding their dismissal, simply because they disagree with you on a public policy issue is harassment and intimidation. The entry is partisan should be removed as incompatible with the voice of wikipedia. Mattymmoo (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood the position of the Daily Nous and its editorial team. Newimpartial (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

A ridiculous assertion. It is a nuanced, balanced comment from the leading news website in philosophy, that if anything is rather sympathetic to her position regarding her right to free expression, while also pointing out that the students also have that right. It's funny how she and other trans-exclusionary radical feminists so often insist on relentlessly attacking trans people (in a manner that many would regard as transphobic harrassment in a workplace context), insisting on their own freedom of expression, while not tolerating any kind of criticism of themselves, not even the most nuanced and balanced criticism (such as the Daily Nous article). The students have made it clear that they don't disagree with Stock on a "public policy issue", they object specifically to transphobia at Sussex University, and UCU and others have agreed with them. Different! --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The only part of the quote I disagree with is the casting that this is an academic freedom issue. Stock isn't being criticised or protested against for her academic work, the condemnation is because of her non-academic work. The rest of it, and the article itself seems fair and reasonably balanced. Reading WP:NPOV this does not seem like a NPOV issue, because the content from the Daily Nous is properly attributed and clearly the opinion of the author of the source, not Wikipedia itself. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I actually agree with that, and I've seen a number of commentators make that point and point out that she hasn't published any scholarly papers at all recently.

I don't personally agree with the Daily Nous comment, but I thought it seemed like a reasonable attempt to understand both sides in the controversy over the student protests (which is rare in this dispute), making a good point that students have freedom of expression too. The Daily Nous is also widely read by philosophers. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 06:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi everyone, that quote from Justin Weinberg is a self-published post on his "popular philosophy blog, the Daily Nous" (insidehighered.com) It is a self-published source, and according to WP:SELFPUB "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Happy to discuss, but I am deleting it in the mean time. AndyGordon (talk) 06:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Weinberg is not making any claims about Stock. He is making a general point about academia, pointing out that "students themselves have under UK law a right to freedom of expression, including the right to (unwisely) call for one of their professors to be fired, and to do this in writings, on social media, on flyers, and through in-person demonstrations. They also have the right to publicly condemn her views". This is all uncontroversial. The Daily Nous is a notable, well-respected philosophy online newspaper. Weinberg is a well-respected professor of philosophy. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Dear @Amanda A. Brant, please also see WP:BLP "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." and WP:BLPSPS "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." The quote is about Stock "one of their professors" from a blog post about Stock, and we are discussing an article about Stock.

Which sources say that that Daily Nous is a newspaper? The wiki page does not.

From WP:SPS, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." The quote is about UK law. Is Weinberg an SME on UK law? (I don't know.)

Remember also "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources" so there may be other sources for the legal situation. Regards. AndyGordon (talk) 07:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Amanda A. Brant: Since you are a relatively new editor (account created 13 September 2021) you should consider becoming familiar with WP:BLP and WP:RS. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Balance

This article includes no less than 8 or 9 statements in support of Stock from people who have themselves been criticized for transphobic or at least problematic comments and activism. Many of them are active in the same fringe movement or organizations. It includes ridiculous variations of the "I have a black friend so I can't be racist" fallacy by quoting the world's only trans anti-trans activist (Debbie Hayton). Of course you can find one or two black people who might say outrageous things about other black people, but should their views dominate articles on racism? Are they representative of the group they claim to speak for, is the key issue here.

In comparison, the only criticism included in the article is the criticism from large and representative groups, including her own trade union with its 120,000 members, and a collective statement by 600+ philosophers and other academics. We should remove the "I have a trans friend" stuff about Hayton (a fringe figure with an unremarkable career as a schoolteacher) and only include the "letter of support" from Tickell because it is representative of something or someone (he speaks for the university). That, in addition to the coverage of her own views on the subject, is more than enough to represent her own (fringe) position. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 11:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, oddly, the editorial stance of The Times seems to carry disproportionate WEIGHT with certain readers, for some reason or other. Newimpartial (talk) 12:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it doesn't add anything new to the article, it's just more of the same conspiratorial propaganda from the anti-gender movement that serves to bombard the reader with a British anti-LGBT, right-wing perspective reminiscent of the Orbán regime in Hungary. We shouldn't approach this issue solely from a UK perspective at all; the anti-gender movement operates internationally, and they are criticized in other countries as well. They are certainly not viewed as mainstream in any other part of Western Europe. Consider Hungary: Our articles are not bombarded with newspaper articles from right-wing Hungarian newspapers that push the Orbán line on everything from LGBT to the rule of law; on the contrary the mainstream European perspective on these issues dominate our coverage. We shouldn't treat the UK differently in that regard. As far as LGBT issues are concerned, the UK is an outlier, just like Hungary, and we should treat the national debate in the country's right-wing press with far more caution. There is also a quality issue here; the coverage of LGBT issues in the British right-wing press has been criticized repeatedly for being conspiratorial and sensationalist, so they are not really very good sources when they are used just for commentary. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 12:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

In fact, PinkNews and the two Times and Telegraph newspapers are all considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Philip Cross (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The issue is not whether The Times in general is accepted as a source, but whether we need to bombard the article with a dozen comments representing a British right-wing, conspiratorial anti-LGBT perspective, and whether the article on Stock (a member of a very fringe movement, i.e. trans-exclusionary radical feminists) should include five or six times more support than criticism. It's an issue of balance, not only in terms of the local debate in the UK (or more precisely in its right-wing press), but globally. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Philip, we use BIASEDSOURCES on WP, but that doesn't mean we have to weigh the sources so heavily on one side of a dispute - particularly through the use of editorials. Newimpartial (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I did not add The Times editorial. Multiple feminists associated with The Guardian would take a similar view to those who have written for The Times. PinkNews appears to be the only UK reliable source taking a different view on this issue. Philip Cross (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The reliable academic sources geneally take a different view, as does the RS reporting on the student activists. Newimpartial (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Having had a brief look previously at recent coverage of Stock, when trying to find a secondary source for the statements made by USSU and their LGBT+ Society, there appears to be more media coverage about Stock and her views than about those criticising her. I agree however that the article is biased somewhat heavily in favour of Stock's position at the moment, with more statements in support of her than against. I would advocate for removing the recently added paragraph on the letter from The Times. The letter itself was written by only 16 trans people, some of whom are non-notable, and the reporting of it in The Times is disproportionate. 16 people does not the trans community make. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

This problem also increases with endless new additions about statements from the same (TERF) group and published in the same anti-LGBT newspaper, that now dominates the article in an inappropriate way.[10] This is not Stock's personal website, it's an encyclopedic article about her. Also note how misleading the edit is: The source makes it clear it's a statement from "GC Academia Network", a TERF group (self-described "gender-criticals"), and the statement itself uses extremist language ("women's sex-based rights", a term only used by the TERF movement), while the edit misleadingly claims they are just prominent academics (they aren't). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree, especially with regards to the open letter from the GC Academia Network. While more names have been added to the open letter since the Times piece was written, currently at 1259, about half (608) of the names on it are from students. Even limiting the search to the first 800 names as they are being added sequentially, results in over half (417) being students. As such The Times' reporting of it is overly sensationalistic, and misleading when it says "mainly university staff". Yes what I'm saying is OR, but to clarify I'm not saying we should criticise The Times' in the article, I'm saying that we should remove that statement entirely. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

We don't remove WP:RS because some editors' unsourced opinion is that the source is bad. Add RS with missing perspectives instead, if they exist (I suspect they do). None of the proposed removals would be appropriate. They amount to POV special pleading. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Presently, the only source that I can find covering the GC Academia Network open letter is The Times. I would like to know what policy "Add RS with missing perspectives instead" is quoted from, as I cannot easily find that text anywhere else on Wikipedia. Or if it's paraphrased, which policy it's paraphrased from. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not a quote; maybe you saw the italics double apostrophes as quotes in the diff? The idea is based on WP:NPOV ("all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources"). This doesn't mean 'I think RS overrepresent this view and I'm going to remove it'; rather, add the other RS viewpoints that are missing. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS states While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article.. I am arguing that the claims made by The Times' in relation to this open letter are not verifiable, and I'm also arguing that even if it was verifiable it does not improve the quality of the article. The open letter is available on Google Docs. The names are in a table. Any editor can preform an analysis like I have done to verify the claims made by the Times that the first 800 people who signed it are "mainly university staff". When I preformed the analysis, less than half of the first 800 names were non-students. Some of the names on the list are clearly fake, for example 962 is Dr Otto Octavius, and some names appear multiple times. The quality of the letter and its signatures is very clearly suspect. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The Times seems determined to discredit itself in its coverage of this issue, but it is not our job to give them an additional platform to do so. Newimpartial (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Newimpartial and Sideswipe9th. The key issue is that endless additions of demonstrably factually misleading/false commentary from The Times does not improve the quality of this article, and that The Times has a poor reputation in this topic area. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Find WP:RS criticizing it then. No attempt at a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and special pleading that The Times is bad because editors fancy themselves as independent journalists is going to succeed. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes. And this entire talk page could use more light and less heat. The light comes from sources not editors' own arguments. Some editors may need to review WP:NOT#FORUM.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The reliability of The Times in this circumstance is only part of the argument I'm making and it is a stand-alone part. I'll reiterate the other stand-alone part again which has yet to be addressed, WP:ONUS states While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. The article from The Times covering the GC Academia Network does not improve the article. As such, we do not have to include it per WP:ONUS. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

If you and Newimpartial want to "discredit" The Times, take it to WP:RSN. On the ONUS question, we seem to be at an impasse, so an RfC may be in order.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

That may he worth doing, but assembling the links and quotes to show that The Times is pursuing an agenda on this issue rather than simply reporting factually - and actually getting RSN participants to read the evidence - is a pretty big ask, particularly to obtain a carve-out from the general reputation of The Times when we are supposed to pay attention to source biases even for the most reliable of sources.

Anyway, instances where The Times is the only source making a claim or characterizing things in a certain way are the main matters at hand, and editors are already discouraged by WP:DUE from going out om a limb with a single source. Newimpartial (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Use of "gender critical"

@Bilorv: I've just reverted your last edit removing the term "gender critical" from the article. Its use in this manner is supported by the sources used in the article, though maybe an argument could be used for putting it into quotation marks rather than removal. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

And I have reverted it back. This is a term that was created and is endorsed by one side of a debate; WP:LABEL applies. Newimpartial (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Good point! I had forgotten that. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of value-laden labels, what about the paragraph about Falkner's comment which speaks of "attacks" on Stock in Wikipedia's voice? Referring to the student protests and the statements by UCU and academics who have supported the protests or otherwise criticised her as "attacks" doesn't seem neutral. I tried changing it to criticism of Stock, which it is, but an editor instantly changed it back to attacks simply because the source used that biased and value-laden label. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the solution here would be to put the word "attacks" in quotation marks, the same as "disgraceful" is, to clarify that the choice of language there is Falkner's/the sources and not Wikivoice. Or possibly to see if there's an alternative source for that section those comments, without The Times' paraphrasing of Falkner's words, and then modify that paragraph to better fit the source? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Yep, Newimpartial explains as well as I could what's wrong with "gender critical", though I do think my edit summary was clear enough. Onto the next point: "criticism" isn't appropriate (death threats, say, are not criticism), but neither is "attacks" in our own words. Bit clunky to say what The Times deemed to be "attacks" on Stock but it's the only thing I can think of. Very unclear from the source who specifically Falkner is commenting about (maybe that's intentional on the part of Falkner, or The Times). Is there a longer quote by Falkner that makes clear what she is talking about? — Bilorv (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The student group's statement, that has received public support from staff members, doesn't include any "death threats". If Falkner wasn't referring to anything the student group or academics at the University of Sussex have said or done, but something else, she should have made that clear. In any event, we shouldn't pay much attention to random comments on the Internet; anyone can claim to receive "death threats", and TERF groups have a long history of (often baselessly) interpreting any random comments on social media that they don't like as "death threats" and using it as anecdotal evidence in support of their views. The main issue in this case is the demand by the student group (without any death threats) and the response to it. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

As I've alluded to in another section, The Times' coverage of this has been very sensationalistic. According to The Times Stock has been told by the Sussex Police that she "must keep off campus and teach solely online because of threats to her personal safety.". However according to Brighton and Hove News, published an hour later, the Sussex Police said "We have established that police have not advised the victim in this case to stay away from the university campus." WP:RSP says that "The Times, including its sister paper The Sunday Times, is considered generally reliable.", however I'd argue that in this case their reporting is anything but accurate. I would be inclined to treat any reporting by the Times as suspect. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I made that point as well. Even though The Times may traditionally be considered acceptable as a source in most topic areas, its coverage of LGBT issues specifically has a long-documented history of transphobic, misleading, sensationalist and factually inaccurate reporting. We should treat them in the same way that we would treat a right-wing anti-LGBT pro-Orbán newspaper's reporting on LGBT issues. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Another source saying otherwise on one point does not establish that The Times is unreliable. That is a common occurrence. We especially do not reject RS based on sensationalized and unsourced personal opinion. If "attacks" is used by the source in its own words, then what non-personal-editorial-opinion, non-WP:OR reason is there to exclude that word? An edit like this falsifies the source and is a WP:BLP violation, because the individual criticized the attacks, not all "criticism". Also, some editors need to stop WP:SOAPBOXING on this talk page their opinions about the BLP and related topics. Lastly, many sources and critics of Stock and like-minded people use "gender critical" in their own voice. It is not forbidden to do so, and equating it with "race realism" is a false analogy, since no RS use that term in their own voice. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Using "gender critical" with attribution, such as which Stock describes as "gender critical", is fine if sourced. Using "gender critical" without attribution would violate WP:NPOV and MOS:LABEL; the opening of MOS:WTW specifies, Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, ... or endorsing of a particular viewpoint, which is clearly the case with "gender critical". The term itself takes one side of a controversy. Newimpartial (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd probably agree with you a couple of years ago, but nowadays I see a lot of critics of GCs use the term without comment, as well as mainstream newspapers. I suspect that this is because it's harder to discuss and criticize them if the public doesn't know who is being talked about because the terminology is all over the place. But, we can write creatively around it to keep it attributed if used, though it should be without seeming MOS:SCAREQUOTES. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

"Gender-critical" has basically the same meaning as anti-gender although it's a transparent attempt to make it sound more palatable (like "race realist" instead of "racist"). The fact that members of the anti-gender movement like to call themselves "gender-critical" is probably taken by many mainstream sources/people as an admission that they are in fact part of the anti-gender movement that scholars have described. So mainstream people may sometimes use "gender-critical" in their own voice as a synonym for someone considered part of the anti-gender movement, perhaps in a slightly mocking way (because the idea of being "anti-gender" or "gender-critical" is viewed as such a ridiculous and extreme position in itself by mainstream people, it's something most Western Europeans and educated Americans associate with concerning and bizarre press reports about the conditions in Orbán's Hungary). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 06:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

"The Times' coverage of this has been very sensationalistic". Personal opinions are irrelevant. For as long as The Times (The Sunday Times, The Times of London) continues to be considered a "Generally reliable" source, it can and should be used as a source in this biography — regardless of any editor's POV. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 06:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but that doesn't mean that everything The Times writes must be included in the article. The weight we put on coverage in the Times remains a matter of editorial judgement. In cases where the Times covers a particular aspect of a subject at greater length than other sources tend to, it's fine to omit aspects of what the Times is saying. The Land (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:ONUS states While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. If consensus is that coverage in The Times does not improve the article, we are under no obligation to add it. I and others are simply saying that, and the reasoning for why we are saying that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus against The Times being used as a source for this or any other article, and this is not the venue to arrive at one. WP:RSN is.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

While that statement is accurate as far as it goes, SMvCandlish has not offered a policy-compliant argument to include everything The Times has to say on this topic - and no such argument actually exists. In particular, we are not obliged to include claims or phraseology featured only in The Times. Newimpartial (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Potential sources

The following may become useful.

Extended content

Kathleen Stock @Docstockk (12 October 2021). "My former union branch @sussexucu has just effectively ended my career at Sussex University. This just sent to all members". Twitter. Archived from the original on 15 October 2021. Bannerman, Lucy (8 September 2018). "Trans Goldsmiths lecturer Natacha Kennedy behind smear campaign against academics". The Times. Archived from the original on 6 July 2021. Members of the group claimed that the philosophy department of the University of Sussex was "clearly an unsafe environment" because of the presence of Kathleen Stock, a professor who has argued against redefining the category of woman and lesbian to include men. Badshah, Nadeem (7 October 2021). "University defends 'academic freedoms' after calls to sack professor". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 7 October 2021. Hatchet, Jean (7 October 2021). "Smoked, but not fired". The Critic. Archived from the original on 9 October 2021. Martina Navratilova @Martina (8 October 2021). "This is not ok… it's worse than cancel culture- it's dangerous". Twitter. Archived from the original on 16 October 2021. d’Ancona, Matthew (11 October 2021). "The Kathleen Stock case is about much more than trans rights". Tortoise Media.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) Turner, Camilla (12 October 2021). "Lecturers' union has 'effectively ended' my career, says professor at centre of transgender row". The Telegraph. Archived from the original on 12 October 2021. Collins, Philip (13 October 2021). "Kathleen Stock, trans rights and a crisis of free speech in British universities". New Statesman. Archived from the original on 13 October 2021. Somerville, Ewan (13 October 2021). "Cambridge University 'Terf-spotting' guide condemned as a 'witch-finder's charter'". The Telegraph. Archived from the original on 14 October 2021. Donelan, Michelle (14 October 2021). "Intimidation of Kathleen Stock is an attack on democratic ideals". The Times. Archived from the original on 15 October 2021. (Donelan is MP and Minister of State for Higher and Further Education) Courea, Eleni; Woolcock, Nicola (15 October 2021). "Bookshops are scared to display my work, claims trans row author". The Times. Archived from the original on 14 October 2021. "Academic freedom in British universities is under threat". The Economist. 16 October 2021. Archived from the original on 13 October 2021. Anne McElvoy, Samuel Kasumu, Alison McGovern, Penny Mordaunt, Robert Winston (14 October 2021). Question Time Live From Nottingham. 14/10/2021 (Television production). United Kingdom: Brexit-Box TV (YouTube). Event occurs at 39:46. (Question Time presenter: Fiona Bruce. Left to right: Anne McElvoy, senior editor at The Economist; Samuel Kasumu, former senior advisor on ethnic minorities to Prime Minister Boris Johnson; Alison McGovern MP, Shadow Minister (Digital, Culture, Media and Sport); Penny Mordaunt MP, Minister of State, Department for International Trade; Robert Winston, Baron Winston, House of Lords, Vice-Chairman of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. → And only to see who is publicly supporting Stock (using Twitter): go to Stock's account @ https://twitter.com/Docstockk — and Search hashtag: #IStandWithKathleenStock.

Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

While I appreciate the collection, several of these sources are either inappropriate or already covered in the article through other sources.

All three of the Twitter links are WP:PRIMARY. The first one, about the letter from Sussex UCU is already covered by reliable secondary sources in the article (see reactions subsection). The second is straight WP:PRIMARY territory. And the third is inviting editors to preform original research which is forbidden.

The Critic is not a reliable source. Though discussion on it quickly veered into a discussion on Intelligence (journal) the users who did comment on it raised concerns about its notability and publication of fringe views.

I'd be interested to know what content the rest of these may add to improve the article however. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Campaign by students and reactions section

I've just done a first pass review on the reactions subsection to the ongoing campaign at Sussex university, removing and combining repetitive information, and re-ordering the paragraphs to better fit chronological order of events. I also clarified the distinction between comments made by the Sussex branch of the UCU from those made by the national organisation, as well as noting that the Sussex branch executive had received threats as a result of their statement. I'm still a little unhappy with the final paragraph, some of which would fit better in the first paragraph. Chiefly the statements by Baroness Falkner and Liz Truss, so I may take another pass at this later if no-one else does. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Please note that CatCafe has been blocked for a week for 3RR, and so may not be available to comment for a while. Newimpartial (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I saw that, thanks. More just a note here to keep myself right given what happened over the last 24 hours here, as I don't want that edit to be seen as disruptive. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Regarding CatCafe, Talk:Jessica Yaniv#Kiwi Farms drawing (for which reason he was also permanently blocked) is particularly illuminating. His edits come across (as many others have noted) as extremely biased and parts of this article previously gave the weird impression of being a hagiography. I suggest that we remove his recent biased edits. The article subject is primarily known for her anti-gender views and activism, and the current wording of the lead, which only refers to unspecified "views on gender identification", doesn't adequately summarise who she is or what she is known for. For example the letter signed by 600 academics (mostly philosophers) in response to the OBE should be mentioned; it received a huge amount of coverage and made her a well-known figure. We should also include something about the student protests and the UCU response, that Stock herself said "effectively ended" her career (so there's really no question that it's significant). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Amanda A. Brant: you should comment on content, not contributor; additionally, "indefinite" is not "permanent", and I don't know why you're using he/him pronouns for CatCafe but I don't believe you're correct. — Bilorv (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: pointing out that another editor has been indefinitely blocked from contributing to another article in these content areas (BLP and gender), for attempting to add a deeply abusive image is not a personal attack. Neither is pointing out that in light of their being temporarily fully blocked from Wikipedia that perhaps their recent edits should be checked to ensure no WP:NPOV violations. This is a contentious area, and ensuring the correct level of balance is a fine line to tread at the best of times. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

No, that clearly is a personal attack. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Lead

An attempt at summarising some of the key issues discussed in the article:

Kathleen Mary Linn Stock OBE (born November 1972) is a professor of philosophy at the University of Sussex. She has published on aesthetics, fiction, imagination, sexual objectification, sex, gender, and sexual orientation. She has gained public attention for her views on gender identification. Stock received broad media attention when she was criticised for "transphobic fear mongering" in a letter signed by 600 philosophers and other academics, who objected to her receiving an OBE. In October 2021, a student campaign calling for her dismissal received significant media attention. Stock said a statement by the University and College Union in support of the students' right to protest against transphobia at the university had "effectively ended" her career at the university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanda A. Brant (talk • contribs)

This is not a balanced summary of the body, per WP:LEAD. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. It was a relatively balanced summary at the time of writing, circa 9.30am UTC, October 13 2021. There have been a number of revisions since, including a series that I am not convinced has consensus given the various discussions on this talk page. Perhaps in addition to a complaint, an alteration could be proposed given the change in state of the article? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. The editor Crossroads has not offered any rationale or evidence for their assertion that the proposed wording is not balanced, nor any form of constructive input or counter-proposal that other editors could engage with. As discussed before, the lead is currently not a meaningful summary of the article and fails to explain what she is notable for. For that reason we are discussing an improved wording here. She is not really notable as a philosopher (see section below about her limited scholarly impact/abysmally low number of citations); she is primarily notable for her anti-gender activism and the related controversies surrounding her, especially the widely reported letter by 600 philosophers criticizing her views as both unscholarly and transphobic, and the student protests calling for her dismissal (including the controversy generated by the protests). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 10:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Amanda Brant and Sideswipe9th. Most of the material about Stock and thus most of the article is about protests against her. All of that needs to be referred to in the lead. The Land (talk) 11:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

It's really quite silly to assert that an entirely one-sided presentation in the lead is somehow "balanced". We can disagree with "the other side" (I do -- i.e., I disagree with them), but it does exist. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

What exactly is not balanced? It includes one sentence about the controversy that made her a well-known public figure back in January when she received an OBE and 600 philosophers condemned her views. Fact. And then it includes an entirely factual sentence that mentions the (widely reported) student campaign calling for her dismissal (that has generated a ton of controversy). And then it includes one sentence quoting her about the UCU statement that she says is of career-ending significance. Fact. Instead of just complaining, you could propose an improvement. For example, we don't absolutely need the last sentence about the UCU statement, but the other two are summarising the two things she is mainly known for. We are also not aiming for any kind of false balance here. This is not Stock's website. It's not LGB Alliance's (a fringe group) website either. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

You're accusing me of intentions I do not hold. I'm well aware that wikipedia articles are not subjects' websites -- thanks for the lecture. I have no intention of dealing with toxicity from other editors, especially when it leads to biographies that are unbalanced to the point of contravening BLP. Perhaps a discussion of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS will have to happen in a different venue? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The substantive point is that Stock has also received support from other academics. Are we going to include this in the lead? I think that way of writing leads produces awful text. The current version, noting the way her views on gender self-identification, gives readers what's needed, in my view. The effort to add "facts" from one angle but omit "facts" that might seem inconvenient from that angle is precisely what we must not do. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

'Are we going to include this in the lead'? Well - why not. I've just added it. It's odd in my view to have a one-sentence statement in the lead about controversy, when that is 90% of the article. The Land (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we need details in a lead, so I don't like your version. But I accept the need to compromise, so I've made an edit that leaves most of it intact. The part about "transphobic fear mongering" goes too far, though -- WP:UNDUE in the lead. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

OK- but we do have to mention the reason for the controversy, complaints etc. We can't just leave it silent and say there were complaints but not what about. If we're not saying 'transphobic fear mongering' then what wording would work? The Land (talk) 13:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

We do mention it: her views on gender self-identification. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually, that isn't what the letter says at all; it refers to Stock and others using their academic status to further gender oppression in light of her trans-exclusionary public and academic discourse on sex and gender.[11] As I have said before, this criticism is not at all limited to "her views on gender self-identification", and it is purest whitewashing to pretend that it is. Newimpartial (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

With respect to the recent letter of support, I have already mentioned my view on this in the balance section. That quality of the signatories to that letter is incredibly suspect. Only around half of the names are academics, and the signatories contain a number of false and repetitive entries. I do not believe this letter can be relied upon in the article because of these issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sideswipe9th (talk • contribs) 15:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial and Sideswipe9th both make good points here that I agree with. Certainly it's highly misleading to claim that the criticism from the large representative group of philosophers was merely related to her views on "gender self-identification"; the exact wording could be adjusted in accordance with the quotes mentioned by Newimpartial. I also agree that the "support letter" from the transparent TERF group "GC Academia Network," containing mostly obscure signatories (and a number of false names) at most merits a one-sentence mention below, and that it's misleading to portray them as "hundreds of academics" when it's primarily yet another statement from the overlapping groups within the TERF movement itself. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Nomoskedasticity nailed it. What is clearly POV and one-sided WP:LEAD writing is summarizing only the opposition to Stock and not the support. And, again, when it comes to summarizing why she is controversial, this has to be based on WP:Secondary sources describing the controversy. Not grabbing sound bites directly from her critics and, OR-style, saying that is the controversy. Of course partisans in a dispute will propagandize their case by using vague and moralistic terminology. We are supposed to be summarizing the sources that are secondary to and removed from the dispute, not the people engaging in it. Also, when it comes to reporting the letter in support of Stock, Wikipedia must describe it the way reliable sources do, rather than report on it according to editors' WP:Original research. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

As I said above and discussed elsewhere, Stock is not really notable as a philosopher (she has a very low scholarly impact) but rather as a controversial activist in a fringe movement, namely the anti-gender movement (from the lead on our article on that movement: "The idea of "gender ideology" has been described by scholars as a moral panic or conspiracy theory") and more specifically trans-exclusionary radical feminism (where she is even mentioned in the article), and as a trustee of an organisation that has been widely labelled a hate group (as discussed in its article). Her trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF) or "gender-critical" or anti-gender views are fringe views, of that there is no doubt at all. It would be completely wrong and biased to treat the "moral panic or conspiracy theory" that she and her supporters advocate as equally valid as the cricism of her, e.g. the criticism from 600 philosophers over transphobia at Sussex University. The lead was therefore quite balanced and reflected a mainstream, international perspective on this debate. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 06:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no "balance" in the lead as currently written.
"Stock received broad media attention in January 2021 when she was criticised for transphobia in a letter signed by 600 philosophers and other academics, who objected to her receiving an OBE.[6] In October 2021, a student campaign calling for her dismissal received significant media attention, and prompted both criticism and support of Stock.[7][8]"
In comparison to what precedes it, it is insufficient to merely state "prompted...support of Stock" and leave it at that. Where's the wordage that elucidates the support she has received? Right now, the composition of the lead is slyly bypassing WP:NEUTRAL. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 07:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary! If we were to elaborate on "support and criticism" (clarification: this refers to the sentence on the student protests) at all, we would need to elaborate on the extensive criticism of her fringe views. Most of the "support" she has received is from the anti-gender/self-described "gender-critical"/TERF movement itself, such as the "letter of support" from a declared TERF group (GC Academia Network). Apart from that she has mainly received some support for her right to freedom of expression, coming from a somewhat absolutist perspective (such as the statement by the vice-chancellor), that itself has become the subject of criticism and controversy. However, apart from the vice-chancellor's (controversial) statement, the statements of support (e.g. from the GC Academia Network) haven't really received the same kind of attention. There are really only two issues/controversies that really stand out in generating substantial debate and controversy, and making this somewhat obscure philosopher (ca. 400 scholarly citations) into a public figure (also internationally): The January 2021 letter by 600 philosophers criticising her, and the ongoing student protests. So those two issues need to be mentioned. The wording that mentions "support and criticism" is, if anything, overly balanced in her favour, but I find it to be an acceptable compromise for now. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Which is why you should not have re-added this. That was already summarized when describing the controversy over her views on gender self-ID. That is POV because it fails to describe the things like the letter from academics in her support, and hence a BLP violation. That some editors don't like that letter and have strong opinions on her views is not relevant. None of the details on competing letters need to be in the lead.

And you need to stop conflating her views with the heavily Catholic anti-gender movement. It is akin to saying that both socialists and American libertarians have the same ideology because they both oppose American police as an institution. Outside of a small amount of overlap reached for separate reasons (in this case on gender self-ID), the ideologies differ extensively. Catholics believe in gender roles, while Stock and others like her want to abolish them. Of course, critics say that isn't how that would work, but they also largely recognize that different worldviews are still at play. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

No, the so-called letter of support from a fringe TERF group called the GC Academia Network doesn't merit inclusion in the lead, and it hasn't generated anywhere near the same level of attention as 1) the criticism from 600 philosophers in January and 2) the student protests in October. They are not "competing" letters because they are on entirely different levels in all respects, both in the quality of the signatories, and in the level of attention they generated and thus in their significance. The initial letter is really the main reason for her current notability (she's an exceedingly obscure philosopher with about 400 citations), and the student protests are a direct result of the earlier controversy generated by that letter. The letter by the TERF group has had no discernible effect, it's just one of the many (minor) statements from various groups and people that are part of the ongoing controversy related to the student protests (generated by the January letter).

The TERF movement and the rest of the anti-gender movement are two sides of the same coin, they increasingly cooperate and they increasingly share the same terminology and views, and this has been extensively discussed by scholars (e.g. [12]).

The controversy is not about her views on so-called "gender self-ID", the criticism from the philosophers in January and the current student protests are specifically about transphobia at Sussex University, a much broader topic. This was also made clear in the statement by Taiwo Owatemi, the Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities, who said she was "greatly concerned by [Stock’s] work as a trustee for the LGB Alliance group" (widely considered a hate group), and which she said should be "rejected by all those who believe in equality." --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Your opinions about Stock and the letters are not relevant, only coverage in sources. And this source does not support the extreme degree of the claims you are making. Even though it explicitly says it is from a trans feminist perspective, it says, The TERF wars, then, are best understood as a series of complex discursive and ideological battles within (rather than against) feminism. That's what I've been saying.

As for "the criticism from the philosophers in January...are specifically about transphobia at Sussex University, a much broader topic", if that is so, then it definitely doesn't belong in the lead of an article on the BLP Kathleen Stock. And Owatemi is a partisan politician, not some neutral factual observer. As I said before, we have to rely on sources secondary to the controversy, not ones propagandizing as part of it. This applies to both sides of course. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The letter is in response to Stock's OBE, and is about her contribution to an anti-trans environment at Sussex and elsewhere (as well as being concerned with the ways other parties have amplified her views). Of course it is relevant here.

And if you are willing to remove the material from The Times, The Telegraph and everyone else that is propagandizing as part of this controversy, then we might as well go to AfD. That might be my personal preference, but I don't think it would help our readers in this instance. Newimpartial (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I Need to make a correction here, though I see as I was typing Newimpartial made the same point. The January letter was in response to Stock being awarded an OBE. That letter criticised both Stock directly for producing transphobic discourse, and more widely the environment that is protecting her from the consequences of making that discourse. We already have, or had as I've not re-checked while typing this reply, factual secondary sources in the article pointing out that the criticism she received from her peers in January, was because of her actions and the environment her actions create in wider society. Amanda A. Brant is correct in saying that Stock's primary claim to relevance is because of the criticism she has received over her non-academic content, not because of her academic work. Prior to the recent student protests, the two most notable events about her were that she was awarded an OBE, and that because of the award she received a large amount of criticism from her peers. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial's comment reveals a big part of the problem. The comment positions the secondary-source, mainstream media/newspapers as fake nooz propagandists in the same way the partisan activists themselves are. What a very postmodern, post-truth, alternative-facts, with-us-or-against-us way of speaking about the world. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Please don't do for my views about "truth" what you have previously done for my views about "biological sex" (namely, STRAWMAN them into nearly the opposite of my position). I am talking about what The Times and The Telegraph are doing on this issue in particular - which is absolutely propaganda - and not at all discussing the normative role of broadsheet papers of record, which the Times fulfils much of the time and the Telegraph, well, not so much. But I am attacking their practice on this issue, not the norm. Newimpartial (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

So far, the only RS covering the recent letter in support of Stock is The Times, whereas conversely almost every RS discussing Stock in relation to the current student protest has pointed out the January letter. The January letter is relevant to criticism of Stock. The GC Academia Network letter is not. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

"Most of the "support" she has received is from the anti-gender/self-described "gender-critical"/TERF movement itself, such as the "letter of support" from a declared TERF group (GC Academia Network).} – "Terf movement"? "declared TERF group"? Based on these statements, which are your opinions ... I don't think you should be editing this BLP. If you can't stay neutral, think neutrally, and edit in a neutral manner — you should not be editing a BLP subject in which you obviously have a very strong emotional investment about. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 07:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I might say the same about you. Based on your comments, you are in no position to tell me what I should and shouldn't edit. Trans-exclusionary radical feminism, abbreviated TERF, is an objective, scholarly and widely used term (especially among feminists), used in scholarship and general discourse when referring to this movement, and it's also the heading of the section describing the movement in our article on Wikipedia. It is well known that the term is only rejected by fringe, anti-trans groups such as LGB Alliance, which is widely considered a hate group, but just like we don't let climate change deniers or self-declared "race realists" dictate how we refer to their movements here, I'm not going to let fringe anti-trans groups/TERFs such as LGB Alliance dictate how I refer to their movement. GC Academia Network is a declared TERF group, that is an objective fact ("gender-critical" redirects to the section describing the TERF movement and including the term in the heading). I write from a mainstream, centrist liberal perspective, and where I live transphobia/TERF and "anti-gender" ideology are universally condemned and regarded as an extremist/fringe ideology/movement, and nobody would even raise an eyebrow when someone described an obvious TERF group such as GC Academia Network as a TERF group; it's just a description. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 07:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

"Based on your comments, you are in no position to tell me what I should and shouldn't edit." Exactly which comments of mine are you comparing? WP:NPOV, or WP:BLP, or WP:RS?
"widely used term (especially among feminists)" – "widely used" is a disputable assumption, and "among feminists" in real life is "among select feminists".
"GC Academia Network is a declared TERF group" – where did it declare itself to be a "TERF" group?
"it's just a description" – this all depends on the motive of those who create descriptions.
Nevertheless, your letting us all know your personal opinions and the perspective you're coming from is very helpful. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

GC [Gender-Critical] Academia Network is a declared TERF group because they call themselves "gender-critical". The fact that they don’t use the same terminology is immaterial; "gender-critical" redirects to TERF and describes the same thing (no climate change deniers call themselves climate change deniers either). From a broader international perspective (that includes the US and most of Western Europe), anti-trans groups calling themselves "feminists" are considered fringe groups by the vast majority of feminists. No respectable or well-established feminist organisations that I know of support TERF/"gender-critical" ideology; it's only promoted by new organisations dedicated entirely to anti-trans activism that are often labelled as hate groups and that established feminist organisations don't touch with a barge pole. (Compared to the UK, the US and other Western European countries have a stronger feminist tradition with more well-established feminist organisations that are part of the political mainstream, which probably explains why transphobia is such a marginal phenomenon among self-described feminists in other countries). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 10:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: please do not cast WP:ASPERSIONS about another editor. Your comments about Amanda A. Brant are a personal attack, and WP:NPA applies. Amanda's commentary is fine, there is a difference between discussion of terminology and casting ASPERSIONS on the motives of editors. Remember to assume WP:GOODFAITH, and that WP:COMPETENCE is required in a discretionary sanctions area. @Amanda A. Brant: I'll say largely the same to you, though I do recognise your comments were only as a response to those by Pyxis. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: WP:ASPERSIONS links to casting aspersions, where it is described as "To make damaging or spiteful remarks."
It also states, "These principles are an application of the policy against personal attacks".
Where in my comments have I made damaging or spiteful remarks, or a personal attack? Your desire to find fault in another editor is transparent. So let me put it this way ... don't threaten me with bogus accusations. Because falsely accusing an editor of making aspersions against another editor is not only uncivil, but may be considered harassment .Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: If you can't stay neutral, think neutrally, and edit in a neutral manner — you should not be editing a BLP. That is an aspersion. You are attacking the editor's motives, you are claiming they are making ideologically biased contributions and should not be contributing to this content area. That is a personal attack. It is fine to disagree with the arguments an editor is making, and indeed that is encouraged so that consensus can be reached. Attack the arguments not the editor. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: Full comment: ""Terf movement"? "declared TERF group"? Based on these statements, which are your opinions ... I don't think you should be editing this BLP. If you can't stay neutral, think neutrally, and edit in a neutral manner — you should not be editing a BLP subject in which you obviously have a very strong emotional investment about." – this is an observation based on the comments in this talk page made by said editor, and I made a WP:NEUTRAL-based suggestion to said editor, which you personally interpreted as, and twisted as, WP:ASPERSIONS. Your involvement in this goes beyond impartial observation, or else you would not have left the following comments in said editor's talk page:
Hey Amanda, my advice next time another editor makes an accusation like that is to not rise to their bait. Point out the personal attack and refer them back to policy. If they continue, then you can raise it through one of the noticeboards via WP:RUCD. I do agree with everything you've said on the talk page. ... and ... Don't worry too much about it. I've had the same accusation made against me. It's frustrating when it happens, but better to let the other editor make a fool of themselves, than get dragged into an argument on their terms. No-one comes out of the latter situation well.
You are creating animosity, and you are fostering hostility among editors. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 00:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Irish Times editorial

That particular editorial in the Irish Times has an interesting denouement. Newimpartial (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, Stock files complaints and threatens to sue anything that criticizes her views or even that just posts her past statements. Recent info has come out that she did the same to the Sussex student newspaper article on her in 2018 that just noted things she said and wrote and then responses from other individuals and organizations. Here's that article before the University forced it to be taken down after Stock's complaint. Silverseren^C 22:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

With regards to the proposed sentence On March 8, 2021, Stock spoke at the Irish Women’s Lobby (IWL) inaugural conference on the subject of British gender recognition law reform and against the argument of self-ID existing in Ireland and Irish society being fine regarding it., the WP:RSOPINION objection is that we can't rely on an opinion piece for a statement of fact. In this circumstance, citing either the Irish Women's Lobby website, Kathleen Stock's website, or the presentation itself would be allowable per WP:BLPRS and WP:BLPSPS.

In that circumstance, the following sentence The Irish Times writer Emer O'Toole pointed out about the presentation that in order for trans-exclusionary feminists to prove their arguments, the self-ID laws in Ireland have to be shown to be "not fine at all". O'Toole also noted that the conference showed "shocking transphobia, and a stone-cold absence of compassion for the humanity and wellbeing of trans women." attributed to the Irish Times would be acceptable as it provides a counter argument to the presentation she gave at that conference, though I think we could expand the quote to reduce what is being said in Wikivoice. There may also be other useful quotes in that piece that we haven't considered. Thoughts? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC), edited for clarity Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

You can probably just remove the last sentence commenting on the conference as a whole. And change the beginning of the sentence prior to that to "Concordia University Associate Professor Emer O'Toole pointed out..." and the rest being the same there. Since the point is the person pointing it out and not the Irish Times itself. Silverseren^C 23:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd maybe suggest something like Writing in The Irish Times Emer O'Toole pointed out..., just to keep it clear both who the opinion is from and what source it is in. I'll take a read of the piece now to see if there's any other quotes we may use. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Does this mean that other editors can cite all the opinion pieces they want? Since opinion pieces are apparently on the table.

No, this is the most egregious form of cherry-picking and WP:ILIKEIT/WP:FACTION disregard of WP:RS I have seen in a while. Opinion articles are not RS and do not meet WP:DUE. They are routinely removed from politically sensitive articles. Same goes for attempts to cherry-pick WP:PRIMARY sources and SPS. Two sides can play at that game, too.

And lastly, disappointing that people are seriously okay with "pointed out" as ostensibly neutral in disregard of common sense and WP:SAID. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Why would primary sources saying she gave a presentation at the IWL be cherrypicking? And the O'Toole statement would be based on the person saying it. There's already plenty of sources in the article quoting or noting the opinions of others on Stock. So long as they are notable people, then they appear to be okay to include. Silverseren^C 23:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Because selecting bits and pieces of primary sources simply is cherry picking, especially to make a point about Ireland and self-ID. The opinions of those others are noted only because published WP:Secondary RS report them. We don't go and cherry pick favored op-ed authors. Two sides can do that. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I take your point about MOS:SAID and would not object to changing that choice of language.

The quotation that O'Toole attributed to Stock "They’ve got self-id in Ireland, and it’s all fine there" is verifiable per the conference talk. Per WP:RSOPINION Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. it goes on to say A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion. Saying that these are the words of O'Toole and published in The Irish Times, with an inline citation is fine and satisfies WP:RS.

I disagree that using a primary source here is cherry picking. One of the objections to using this source was relying on it for a statement of fact. I agree, we can't do that. But we can use a primary source, namely one of the three linked before to satisfy that statement of fact. WP:BLPSPS states Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. The link to either Stock's website, or the YouTube video satisfies that as it is a source written/published by the subject of the article, though I'd accept an argument that Stock's website is the better fit of the three choices per policy, if not the most logical per content.

An op-ed is also not a WP:PRIMARY source. WP:SECONDARY states [A secondary source] contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. The primary source in this instance is the presentation Stock gave at the conference. The opinion piece in the Irish Times very clearly gives that author's analysis on the events of that conference.

Having said all of this, I might actually have my own objection now per WP:INTEGRITY, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. This is because of how the piece uses Stock's words. In order to verify that Stock did indeed say that, you need preform OR, you need to watch Stock's presentation at the conference. Also because of the way that sentence is worded in the piece, we would be required make a delineation between what Stock said at the conference, and O'Toole's reaction to that. While part of the following paragraph in the Irish Times piece continues about self-ID working in practice in Ireland, it would possibly be SYNTH to combine those points in a logical manner. That said, I'm not entirely sure, and would like feedback from other editors before categorically saying I object. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your additional reasons to not use the opinion source. I'm skeptical that Stock said 'self-ID in Ireland is fine' unless quoting her opponents, since it contradicts her argument. As for PRIMARY, Stock has written and said a great deal of things, including a whole book on this topic. The only reason to pick one thing out of all of that - something that secondary reliable sources have apparently not - could be to support some POV. Regarding PRIMARY/SECONDARY, opinion pieces are not reliable sources; when Wikipedians say "secondary sources" we mean secondary reliable sources, not just, say, some blog analyzing some other blog. And as for opinion pieces in general, while they are not banned per se, they almost always do not meet WP:DUE. Across articles on politicized topics, it is the case that opinion pieces are routinely reverted. There is no end to stacking them up on each POV. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

You are correct in that when Stock said "self-ID in Ireland is fine" it was as a summary of the arguments she had received from people on social media and elsewhere in response to her statements against self-ID. She wasn't agreeing with the statement, just saying that it was a summary of the arguments she had received as a counter to her own position. Both the editorial and the conference talk to make that clear.

I obviously disagree with your interpretation of WP:DUE, WP:RS and what I think is a tangential reference to WP:RSOPINION. WP:RSOPINION does allow us to use op-ed pieces, as long as we're not relying on them for statements of fact, and that we correctly attribute the passages used as the opinion of the author who wrote the piece. I read WP:DUE in a more narrow context than you do, and certainly would not use that to blanket the majority of opinion pieces. If it was to be interpreted that narrowly, why would RSOPINION exist? I would ask the same question with regards to WP:RS, if opinion pieces are not reliable sources, why does the policy point RSOPINION exist in a form that says we can use opinion pieces albeit carefully? Although I also recognise that those questions are taking us away from the content at hand, per WP:NOTFORUM and I'd be happy to continue this discussion at on either of our respective talk pages. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

And Silver seren, what is the point of this comment? Or is it just a WP:FORUM violation? Crossroads ^-talk- 23:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I was pointing out another source available for quotes from university groups, including the philosophy department and the Sussex Centre for Gender Studies, as we still have the web archive of the article. Silverseren^C 23:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

If the article is retracted, it is not a reliable source. Doesn't matter why - and it may well have misrepresented her words for all we know. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)