Talk:Kathleen Stock/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Lede Workshop

Since it looks like the RfC might collapse, I thought I'd set up this workshop as Aquillion suggested. Tewdar (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• To propose a rewording use - #:Proposed rewording: New wording here
• To propose an addition use - #:Proposed addition at location in sentence: Addition here
• To provide critique, spelling, formatting, sourcing comments on a proposed addition or rewording, adjust indent levels as appropriate - for first reply #::, for second reply #::, etc.
• Please leave the gap of # between each Current wording block, to make it easier for other editors to edit later. Thanks Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Try not to waffle on too much, eh? (👍, 👎 or "+1, -1" preferred - if you hate it, suggest something else instead of bah-booing...) Tewdar (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of this folks is to feed back into and provide questions/options for an RfC if/when the current one collapses in a week's time. Keep critiques brief, egregious policy issues, spelling or grammar comments, that sort of thing. You don't have to be in favour of a potential wording or addition to give constructive feedback on it. Once we have the options for the RfC, we can let that process deliberate on the merits for/against each option. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC) edited post RfC collapse Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The lede

2. Current Wording: Kathleen Stock OBE is a British philosopher and author.

   😐 Tewdar (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

   I suspect this is probably the least controversial sentence in the lead, I don't think it needs adjusting. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

   I'd prefer 'writer' over author, but I'm not going to war about it. Writer covers more of her work and is more common in News search results. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

   I would also prefer "writer" over author, and I think it's worth formally proposing the change. Newimpartial (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

   Why not just propose it then? Tewdar (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

   Don't really have a preference between "writer" and "author". Otherwise think this sentence is fine. Loki (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

   Proposed rewording: Kathleen Stock OBE is a British philosopher and writer.

   👍 Tewdar (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

   Again, think it's fine either way. Loki (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

   Either is fine by me. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

4. Current Wording: Until her resignation in 2021, she was a professor of philosophy at the University of Sussex, which she joined in 2003.

   👎 Tewdar (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

   It's factual, part of the difficulty is there are no reliable sources to say when she was made professor, other than one part of her author biography on Amazon.com saying that for at least part of the period at Sussex she was a reader.Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

   😐 Loki (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

   Proposed Rewording: She is a former Professor of Philosophy at the University of Sussex.

   👍 Tewdar (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

   👍 Loki (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

   Proposed Rewording: From 2003 to 2021, she was a member of the faculty at the University of Sussex.

   To sidestep the "professor" vs. "reader" problem. If "member of the faculty" sounds too American, we could just say "worked at" or "taught at". gnu57 19:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

   👎 I think this sounds more pejorative than we mean. Loki (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

   Proposed Rewording: From 2003 to 2021, she taught at the University of Sussex.

   👍 Loki (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

6. proposed addition after last job: In November 2021 she joined the University of Austin
8. Current Wording: She has published academic work on aesthetics, fiction, imagination, sexual objectification, and sexual orientation.

   👍 Tewdar (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

   Yeah, another factual point. Not much controversy in her academic work. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

   👍 Loki (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

   👍 Is good. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

   👎 She's mainly published on aesthetics, fiction, and imagination - the referenced source only lists one work on sexual orientation, and that was in 2019 and looks like a defence of her ideas of the role of "biological sex" in attraction. I'd suggest cutting "and sexual orientation" out of the lede on her academic work, which has been pretty much exclusively on fiction and aesthetics. NHCLS (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

   She has published on sexual orientation, and sexual objectification. Eliminating that is misleading readers into thinking she has never academically published outside those other topics. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

   She's published once on sexual orientation (and I'm not sure it's peer-reviewed, rather just a talk she gave at the Aristotelian Society), compared to multiple peer-reviewed papers on the other subjects (fiction, aesthetics, imagination, objectification) - putting in in the very front of the article potentially gives it undue prominence and could mislead readers into thinking that she has a lot more academic expertise in studies of sexuality than she actually has. And given that the one thing she's published on sexual orientation is an attempt to defend her view of "biological sex" and there's a whole section in the lede about her views on gender identity, I'm not sure how readers would look away thinking she's never said anything about the subject (in that one thing she's written, she even has a footnote thanking "the Aristotelian Society for supporting my academic freedom to present this paper" and by her own website "In previous academic work, I've written extensively on the nature of fiction and imagination. I've now write about sex and gender identity" - something that indicates to me like it's less directly relevant to a summary of her academic career as far as the lede goes. NHCLS (talk) 10:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

10. Current Wording:Her views on transgender rights and gender identity have become a contentious issue.

    😐 Tewdar (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

    😐 It's okay but could be clearer. Loki (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

    👍 at least compared to the alternatives below. Yes, it is vague, but this is the lead; its purpose is to summarize the body. And the issue is complex enough that I don't think we're going to boil it down to a sentence or two. This much is clearly an accurate summary and serves to give the reader enough context to understand the rest of the article, which is all it needs to do. --Aquillion (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

    👍 NHCLS (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

    Proposed Rewording: Her views on sex, gender identity, women's rights and transgender inclusion have become a contentious issue.

    👎 Not really, it's basically just her views on trans issues that are the contentious issue. Loki (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

    👎 any mention of her views on woman's rights as contentious; I don't think the sources support the idea that that is what the dispute is over, at least not as something we can state unattributed in the article text. --Aquillion (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

    👎 her views on sex is unhelpful, confusing (especially given the mention of "sexual orientation" immediately previous) and not easily fixed (since any attempt to specify terminology very quickly takes a side in the debate). Also, are any of Stock's views on sex contentious, apart from those that intersect with gender identity? I don't think so. I also share Aquillion's concern about woman's rights - it is only where these intersect with gender identity and transgender issues that they become controversial. Newimpartial (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

    Proposed Rewording: Her views on sex, gender identity, women's rights and transgender inclusion have become a contentious issue, attracting accusations of transphobia as well as raising concerns about academic freedom.

    😐 Tewdar (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

    I don't think this is the right way to add the academic freedom issue to the lede - it is a second-order issue, prompted not by her work as such but by the reactions to it. The same is true of "free speech" issues, btw. Newimpartial (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

    Eh, both accusations of transphobia and concerns about academic freedom are pretty uninformative. I'd rather keep the current wording and go with a slightly shortened version of the next sentence. XOR'easter (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

    😐 Again, I do not think that this is a good summary of which of her views are actually contentious. Loki (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

    👎 per my comment above regarding characterizing her views on woman's rights as controversial. -Aquillion (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

    👎 her views on sex is unhelpful, confusing (especially given the mention of "sexual orientation" immediately previous) and not easily fixed (since any attempt to specify terminology very quickly takes a side in the debate). Also, are any of Stock's views on sex contentious, apart from those that intersect with gender identity? I don't think so. I also share Aquillion's concern about woman's rights - it is only where these intersect with gender identity and transgender issues that they become controversial. (Part deux.)Newimpartial (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

    Proposed Rewording: Some transgender activists have accused her of transphobia for her views on transgender rights and gender identity.

    👍 My proposal. I'd prefer instead of "some transgender activists" to name examples if possible, but this seems to me to be the clearest description of why her views have attracted controversy. Loki (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

    I don't support this - Stock's critics are not confined to transgender activists, since they include many who are not transgender, or not activists, or both. And a representative selection of Stock's critics have accused her of transphobia. Newimpartial (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

    @Newimpartial: 👎 it and suggest something else, then... Tewdar (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

    👎 to attributing it to "some transgender activists", which is simultaneously still vague (so it doesn't solve the problem it's trying to solve) and inaccurate (I don't think the sources support the idea that only transgender activists hold this opinion, which this text implies.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

    Proposed Rewording: She has been accused of transphobia for her views on transgender rights and gender identity.

    👍 Per my objections above; I don't think the sources support the idea that the accusations come solely from transgender activists, and it is appropriate for the lead to give a broad summary - MOS:WEASEL specifically does not apply to the lead in this context (precisely because it is often impossible to boil down an attribution for widely-held and yet still controversial views to a single group or even a reasonable list of groups that can be summarized in the lead section.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

    👍 I think specifying who accused her will lead to a lot of unnessecary name-listing and conflict. I always understand MOS:WEASEL to mean you should always attribute an accusation, but I don't feel like it matters if that attribution happens in the sources provided, rather than the text of the article.Licks-rocks (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

    👍 I still think we should specify who has accused her of transphobia but this is definitely one of the better proposals. Loki (talk) 05:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

    👎 "Transphobia" is a WP:LABEL which, per LABEL, requires attribution when used. As XOR'easter said above, it's also pretty uninformative. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

    No, Crossroads; if the body bears out that Stick has been accused of transphobia and that this is a major fact for which she is known, we do not need to attribute it in the lead. Also, please stop misquoting LABEL: it applies to adjectives such as "transphobic", but not factual phrases such as "accused of transphobia". Newimpartial (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

    WP:LABEL: "in which case use in-text attribution" is quite clear. And situations like that are what the "by whom" tag is for. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

    Proposed Rewording: Her views on gender identity and gender self-identification have become a contentious issue.

    👍 Per the sources listed and discussed under #Sentence in lead summarizing her views above. "Transgender rights" is a vague term that exists only as a redirect, and the sources above show that the right being spoken of is gender self-identification. We should be specific about this, with an informative wikilink. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

    No, Crossroads; you keep asserting that the sources above show that the right being spoken of is gender self-identification, but the sources do not actually support that, and it takes you a huge amount of SYNTH - or magical thinking - to reach that conclusion when you try. Newimpartial (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

    👎 While better than the first two, it's not really her views on "gender identity" that are contentious but her views on trans issues and trans people. Loki (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

    Proposed Rewording: Her views on gender identity and transgender inclusion have become a contentious issue.

    👍 I prefer "inclusion" or "inclusivity" to "rights" Tewdar (talk) 09:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

    😐 Not a huge fan of this one; it seems a bit wishy-washy to me still. But, it's better than the versions that don't mention the central point of contention (trans issues) at all. Loki (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

    👍 Clearer than others. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

11. Current Wording: In December 2020, she was appointed Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE), in recognition of services to higher education, a decision which was subsequently criticised by a group of 600 academic philosophers who argued that Stock's "harmful rhetoric" contributed to the marginalisation of transgender people.

    A bit too much detail for lede maybe. Tewdar (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

    😐 Agreed it's a bit too much for the lead. Loki (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

    Proposed rewording: In December 2020, she was appointed Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE), in recognition of services to higher education, a decision which drew criticism from hundreds of academic philosophers.

    👎For the same reason I oppose the current wording for the next question. Just like the "over X" the "hundreds of" is "poking the coals." It sounds BIG and IMPORTANT. which we should avoid doing in wikivoice. Besides, what's a few hundred people in a world were even fringe petitions can easily bolster their numbers into the thousands using social media. I think the current wording is better, though as others have pointed out it contains a lot of unnecessary information.Licks-rocks (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

    Not sure if this is needed in the lede or not, myself...Tewdar (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

    Prior to the protests and her resignation, this was what she was most notable for, being awarded an OBE and the significant amount of criticism from her peers. While the situation has developed since, it should still be mentioned. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

    👍 I think this rewording is better, and my understanding as an American is that an OBE is a big enough deal in the UK that we shouldn't cut a mention to it entirely. Loki (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

    👍 This is better, but for the love of everything holy, please get rid of the first comma. Newimpartial (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

    Proposed rewording: In December 2020, she was appointed Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE), in recognition of services to higher education.

    👎Mentioning the OBE without the criticism is UNDUE - the controversy about the OBE is much more prominent in the sources than the OBE itself. Newimpartial (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

    Proposed rewording In December 2020, she was appointed Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE), in recognition of services to higher education, a decision which drew criticism from a group of 600 academic philosophers.

    👍 I think this gets rid of the unnesecary information while also steering clear of the problem I pointed out above. Hence this proposal. Licks-rocks (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

1. Current Wording: In October 2021, a student campaign called for her dismissal, leading to a group of over 200 academic philosophers from the UK signing an open letter in support of Stock's academic freedom.

   👍 Why even change this. This is perfectly good. We could also add the letter from legal academics. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

   Proposed rewording: In October 2021, a student campaign calling for her dismissal resulted in widespread media coverage.

   I'd like to avoid all the stuff about how many academics signed what, tbh Tewdar (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

   👍Tewdar (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

   Yeah, the current version manages to be simultaneously too detailed (the body text does not back up why the number matters) and too vague ("academic freedom" is a buzzword). XOR'easter (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

   It's a buzzword, but I think the right buzzword for this situation. That the Stock/Sussex issue is primarily an "academic freedom" issue is a major and noteworthy POV here that deserves a mention in the lead somewhere. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

   Is there a more clear or specific way of describing that POV, though? XOR'easter (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

   👍 Agreed with avoiding detailed descriptions about who signed what when. Loki (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

   👍 I think the "over 200 academic philosophers" bit we have in it now sounds a bit... I'm thinking of a dutch idiom here. "poking the coals"? It sounds like we want to emphasize how many there were, which we're not supposed to do in wikivoice, especially with the emphasis on their credentials. I think this is the version that avoids that effect the best in all directions. Licks-rocks (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

   👎 It's POV to leave off the hundreds of academics who supported her while leaving the mention in the lead of the hundreds of academics who criticized her. The academic freedom angle is a major part of the topic, as noted by Firefangledfeathers. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

   And, there was another letter in support of her academic freedom by legal academics, as well as a letter signed by 400 academics defending her at the time of the OBE. Mentioning only the letter against her in the lead amounts to cherry-picking. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

   👍 The simple fact that the campaign existed is all we need to say; we don't characterize its reception at all or nose-count who supported it, so there's no need to go into depth on these things here. The important thing here is to give the reader a basic skeleton of her biography; the back-and-forth blow-by-blow goes in the body. --Aquillion (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

   To be consistent, then, we wouldn't mention the opposition to the OBE either. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

   Proposed rewording: A student campaign in October 2021 called for her dismissal, raising concerns about harassment and threats to academic freedom on university campuses.

   👎This proposal makes it sound as though the main impact of the student campaign was to raise concerns about harassment and threats to academic freedom. This is mistaken. There were two impacts of the student campaign: one was to intensify already-existing pressure for Stock to leave Sussex (which she did) and the other was to raise concerns about academic freedom and free speech (and potentially about harassment as well, but the balance of RS coverage deals with academic freedom and free speech, I think). I'm not sure how to integrate the academic freedom issues into the lead section, but I'm quite convinced that this isn't it. Newimpartial (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

   Why not just mention both - something along the lines of "due to her controversial campaigning against trans rights, students led a campaign for her dismissal. The campaign for her dismissal, however, was met with opposition by some academics, who said it contravened her academic freedom"? NHCLS (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

   There's a massive difference in meaning between 'views on trans rights' and "campaigning against trans rights". The sources do not support the latter. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

   "something along the lines of" - the students weren't arguing for her dismissal based on her simply holding those views, they were arguing for her dismissal based on her campaigning for those views, and the academics who defended her argued that that campaigning fell under her academic freedom. I'm just trying to come up with a way to integrate the academic freedom issues into the lead section, as Newimpartial raised concerns about how to do it. NHCLS (talk) 10:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

3. Proposed addition at end of lede: On 28 October 2021 Stock resigned from the University of Sussex.

   Could we link this to the student campaign in Wikivoice, perhaps? Tewdar (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

   As part of Stock's media tour post resignation, she's made a number of comments in different outlets. When speaking on BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour she said I don't know that the student activity would be there if the colleague activity hadn't been there, so it seems as though post resignation she's disputing that it was just the student campaign that was the result of her resignation. Or at least insinuating that the student campaign was because of an underlying staff campaign against her. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

   Fine, let's not bother to link the events. Tewdar (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

   👍 Agreed with this addition. Loki (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

   👍 But should the announcement of the University of Austin thing be added? NHCLS (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

   👍 A resignation is an important part of any career, so obviously due for inclusion. --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Lede Candidates

• Add viable potential whole-lede candidates for the "final" RfC to be held in a "week" here. Oh, and add THREE #s between candidates, please.

• Nobody cares about your opinions in this section, just add a line beginning with #: under the suggestion, express support (👍 or support), oppose (👎 or oppose), or neutral (😐 or neutral), and be on your way. I will move any and all waffling to the "Waffles" section below. Tewdar (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

1. Kathleen Stock OBE (born in Aberdeen, Scotland) is a British philosopher and writer. She is a former Professor of Philosophy at the University of Sussex. She has published academic work on aesthetics, fiction, imagination, sexual objectification, and sexual orientation. In December 2020, she was appointed Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) in recognition of services to higher education. Her views on gender identity have become a contentious issue. In October 2021, a student campaign calling for her dismissal resulted in widespread media coverage. On 28 October 2021 Stock resigned from the University of Sussex.

   😐 Tewdar (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

   👍 Crossroads ^-talk- 01:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

5. Kathleen Stock OBE (born in Aberdeen, Scotland) is a British philosopher and writer. Until her resignation in 2021, she was a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Sussex, which she joined in 2003. She has published academic work on aesthetics, fiction, imagination, sexual objectification, and sexual orientation. She has been accused of transphobia for her views on transgender rights and gender identity. In December 2020, she was appointed Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE), in recognition of services to higher education, a decision which was subsequently criticised by a group of 600 academic philosophers. A counter letter defending her was signed by more than 400 academics. In October 2021, a student campaign called for her dismissal, leading to a group of over 200 academic philosophers from the UK signing an open letter in support of Stock's academic freedom. Another open letter in support of Stock's academic freedom was signed by legal academics. On 28 October 2021 Stock resigned from the University of Sussex.

   👎 Tewdar (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

   👎👍 (mixed). Crossroads ^-talk- 16:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

9. Kathleen Stock OBE (born in Aberdeen, Scotland) is a British philosopher and writer. She is a former Professor of Philosophy at the University of Sussex. She has published academic work on aesthetics, fiction, imagination, sexual objectification, and sexual orientation. Her views on gender identity and transgender inclusivity have become a contentious issue, attracting accusations of transphobia. A student campaign in October 2021 called for her dismissal, raising concerns about harassment and threats to academic freedom on university campuses. On 28 October 2021 Stock resigned from the University of Sussex.

Waffles

Discussion of lede candidates

Do we actually have any evidence that A counter letter defending her was signed by more than 400 academics? I thought many of the signatures on that one were from fictional characters non-academics. Please verify. Newimpartial (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

No, we don't. We had superheroes signing it I think. We should remove that from the article body, if it is there. Tewdar (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It's cited to a reliable secondary source, namely The Economist. It is not the place of editors to dismiss that based on personal guesses or opinions. Any such things were almost certainly trimmed off by the time the news reported on it. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads views on #2 immediately below. Tewdar (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't like this version of the 4th sentence (summarizing her views), but if people do want to keep the negative details of things like people opposing her OBE, then this version is the most balanced. I prefer the first one though. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC) revised

@Crossroads: would you prefer it if it said "transgender inclusivity" rather than" rights", then? #1 is very unobjectionable, but it leaves out what others will consider to be important information Tewdar (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, #2 goes on way too much about the bleddy letters imo. Tewdar (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: discussions like this are why I think we need to have an RfC survey question for each constituent sentence of the lead, per the sections below , instead of a single question with three+ alternative lead whole formulations. The involved editors here clearly aren't going to agree on a single lead wording, let alone multiple to be proposed to an RfC. We should be presenting alternatives for each sentence, as each sentence is stand-alone in their own right. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The sentences are not standing-alone as much as they should be. Tewdar (talk) 23:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: I really can't see how, as I've already said I think they are pretty standalone and none of the proposed changes affect the readability of the previous/subsequent sentences. Could you explain? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Reflist

References

Meta-discussion

I tried to keep everyone's comments when I brought across the structural changes, apologies XOR'easter for missing yours. If anyone else's are missing, the structure should be solid now so again apologies and feel free to re-add. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Not to be outdone, I think I was the one to edit conflict with XOR'easter. So you both have my apologies. I had noticed that and meant to put it back, but XOR'easter was faster than I. Newimpartial (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• For the fourth section, my idea was to break it apart into individual phrases, words, and characterizations that people have objected to and evaluate consensus on each one individually. That is, views on... "woman's rights", "transgender rights", "gender roles"; "accused of / accusations of transphobia" and if so to attribute to "transgender activists", whether to reference "academic freedom" in the same sentence, etc, with each quoted bit as an individual question. Trying to do it in one go as unified sentence proposals is likely to deadlock because people's objections focus on so many of those words and break down in different way; it is more useful to reach a point where we can say "all right, we have a consensus to use this word or phrase, so given that, is this version acceptable?" Also, breaking it down like this leaves us with some room to massage the resulting sentence for readability reasons once we've nailed down the parts editors consider particularly important; and if there's one specific bit we're deadlocked on, that will make the precise point of contention clear. --Aquillion (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Please, delete all of it and split it up and start again... Tewdar (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

As Tewdar says, feel free to split that. I only combined them in the format change to prevent repetition, and wasn't considering that it might be that individual components of that sentence may be more/less acceptable than the other points. If you think it'll help, go ahead and split it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

What, you didn't think "accused of transphobia" should get its own section?!?! I think we might have to start again. Again... Tewdar (talk) 09:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Definitely don't need to start this again. As I said it was mostly for the convenience of the editors commenting on a proposed wording, that it was easier to see the whole sentence and how it would read together than as separately discussed sentence fragments. There is a middle ground of course, have both, with the fragments as child discussion points. For example:

• Proposed rewording: This is a sentence made up of, one sentence fragment, a second sentence fragment, and a third

• Proposed wording, fragment 1: This is a sentence made up of,
• Proposed wording, fragment 2: one sentence fragment,

etc.

That way editors can see both the full sentence at a glance, and the constituent parts that are being proposed for changes.

I'd also gently remind editors that the purpose of this is to feed back into an RfC in a week's time. Feedback on proposals should be limited to egregious/clear policy violations, grammar, and spelling mistakes. The merits for one proposal over another should be saved for that RfC. I'll draw up a sample of what the RfC could look like later today, based on the least controversial of the sentences. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: jumped the gun a little. Though I was going to go for a different format, where the RfC would be a survey with questions on each sentence. This workshop is for figuring out the alternatives for each sentence. Proposed format to follow. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Just let everyone pick their favourite and send them all to the RfC. It'll be a lot more simple I expect. Tewdar (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Simpler than that even. Unless we have an egregious amount of proposed rewordings for each sentence, send them all to the RfC, where they can do trial by combat. We don't need to pre-filter unless we get too many survey choices. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Just let me know when the RFC is opened. I don't have this page on my watchlist, which is already massive. GoodDay (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

A proposed RfC format

Proposed RfC question/survey format Proposed overall question: How shall we word the lead of this bio article? Feel free to vote on one or all of the survey proposals independently, but only one vote per proposal please. First Sentence Current Wording: Kathleen Stock OBE is a British philosopher and author. Proposed rewording: Kathleen Stock OBE is a British philosopher and writer. Justification for rewording: Some editors prefer the use of writer over author. But there is no clear consensus or strong feelings for either option. Should the first sentence: A) keep the current wording B) use the proposed rewording First Sentence Survey Sample survey response I prefer option A because reasons. RandomEditor (talk) time/date. Sample survey query Does option A not fall afoul of policy X? RandomEditor 2 (talk) time/date. Sample survey response I prefer option B because reasons. RandomEditor3 (talk) time/date. Second Sentence Current Wording: Until her resignation in 2021, she was a professor of philosophy at the University of Sussex, which she joined in 2003. Proposed rewording: She is a former Professor of Philosophy at the University of Sussex. Justification for rewording: Proposed rewording: From 2003 to 2021, she was a member of the faculty at the University of Sussex. Justification for rewording: This side steps the "professor" vs "reader" problem. Proposed rewording: From 2003 to 2021, she taught at the University of Sussex. Justification for rewording: Should the second sentence: A) keep the current wording B) use the first proposed rewording C) use the second proposed rewording D) use the third proposed rewording Second Sentence Survey Third Sentence Current Wording: She has published academic work on aesthetics, fiction, imagination, sexual objectification, and sexual orientation. Proposed rewording: She has published academic work on aesthetics, fiction, imagination, and sexual objectification. Justification for rewording: Stock has mainly published on aesthetics, fiction, and imagination - the referenced source only lists one work on sexual orientation, and that was in 2019 and looks like a defence of her ideas of the role of "biological sex" in attraction. Should the third sentence: A) keep the current wording B) use the proposed rewording Third Sentence Survey Fourth Sentence Current Wording:Her views on transgender rights and gender identity have become a contentious issue. Proposed rewording: Her views on sex, gender identity, women's rights and transgender inclusion have become a contentious issue. Justification for rewording: Proposed rewording: Her views on sex, gender identity, women's rights and transgender inclusion have become a contentious issue, attracting accusations of transphobia as well as raising concerns about academic freedom. Justification for rewording: Proposed rewording:Some transgender activists have accused her of transphobia for her views on transgender rights and gender identity. Justification for rewording: The proposer believes this to be the clearest description of why Stock's views have attracted controversy. Proposed rewording: She has been accused of transphobia for her views on transgender rights and gender identity. Justification for rewording: Proposed rewording: Her views on gender identity and gender self-identification have become a contentious issue. Justification for rewording: Proposed rewording: Her views on gender identity and transgender inclusion have become a contentious issue. Justification for rewording: Should the fourth sentence: A) keep the current wording B) use the first proposed rewording C) use the second proposed rewording D) use the third proposed rewording E) use the fourth proposed rewording F) use the fifth proposed rewording G) use the sixth proposed rewording Fourth Sentence Survey Fifth Sentence Current Wording: In December 2020, she was appointed Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE), in recognition of services to higher education, a decision which was subsequently criticised by a group of 600 academic philosophers who argued that Stock's "harmful rhetoric" contributed to the marginalisation of transgender people. Proposed rewording:In December 2020, she was appointed Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE), in recognition of services to higher education, a decision which drew criticism from hundreds of academic philosophers. Justification for rewording: Fifth Sentence Survey Sixth Sentence Current Wording: In October 2021, a student campaign called for her dismissal, leading to a group of over 200 academic philosophers from the UK signing an open letter in support of Stock's academic freedom. Proposed rewording: In October 2021, a student campaign calling for her dismissal resulted in widespread media coverage. Justification for rewording: Proposed rewording:A student campaign in October 2021 called for her dismissal, raising concerns about harassment and threats to academic freedom on university campuses. Justification for rewording: Should the sixth sentence: A) keep the current wording B) use the first proposed rewording C) use the second proposed rewording Sixth Sentence Survey Addition at the end of the lead Proposed wording: On 28 October 2021 Stock resigned from the University of Sussex. Justification for wording: Proposed wording: On 28 October 2021 Stock resigned from the University of Sussex. In November 2021 she joined the University of Austin. Should: A) the first proposed wording be added at the end of the lead? B) the second proposed wording be added at the end of the lead? C) the end of the lead should remain unchanged? Addition at the end of the lead survey

Discussion on proposed RfC format

This then continues in this format for all sentences with the various proposals on open vote. This will result in seven questions, because there is seven sentences. Unless we receive a large number of responses for a single sentence, possibly the fourth sentence, we don't need to filter all of the proposed rewordings. Let that be handled by the RfC. As I've been saying, the purpose of this workshop should be to feed back into the next RfC, with predefined survey questions/answers, and justifications for each proposed change. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It needs to be broken down into a lot more than seven sections in a simple way. Tewdar (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Only for maybe the fourth sentence. The first, second, sixth and seventh have self contained replacements where the choice is either the current wording or one of the proposed replacements. The third sentence has no proposals to be changed at this time at all. The fourth sentence is trickier because it is longer, and has more contentious elements. We can workshop the format for that separately though, possibly by splitting into sub questions deliminated by commas in the sentence? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I think sending a bunch of sentences to RfC, then trying to formulate a coherent lead after all the bombs have finished falling, will be a total disaster. Why not just let Crossroads and Newimpartial and me and you and everyone else send their preferred version of the lede to the RfC? Most of these sentences will be "package deals", in that acceptance of one depends on rejection or acceptance of another (eg the OBE and the bleddy letters) and their combined structure, rather than just their content, will be important. Tewdar (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Primarily because the involved editors here cannot reach consensus. While I won't speak for the others, I know that Crossroads and I will very likely not agree on a proposed wording for the fourth sentence for example even for submission to an RfC, much less on what it should be in the article. Each sentence is already stand-alone and is subject to WP:MOSLEAD. It's only the fourth sentence that would prove difficult for this format, and we can tweak specifically for that question. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

To explain further what I mean, here's a description of each sentence. First sentence, is Stock's name, postnominal, and very brief description of her career roles. Second sentence is where she worked until recently. Third sentence is a description of her academic publishing record. Fourth sentence is why she is notable, and the controversy surrounding it. Fifth sentence is about her OBE award, and the criticism of it from her peers. Sixth sentence is about the student protest surrounding her prior role at Sussex. Seventh sentence is a proposed addition giving the date of when she resigned from Sussex. Each of those is stand alone, choices made in the first or third sentence have no impact on the fourth, or fifth. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

An example of an RfC with a similar format is the one currently ongoing at Talk:LGB Alliance. For that RfC there is four questions, with each one proposing wording for a segment of the first sentence of the lead. At the moment on this article, we only need that granularity for the fourth sentence of the lead. The other sentences are A/B or A/B/C options. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

no, it needs to be either broken down into very basic units for this one, or else whole chunks, because people are just going to go, "I'm okay with that, but only if we also have this and this and this, and I want that, but only if it goes here, and 😭😭😭..." Tewdar (talk) 19:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

A sentence is the logical basic unit to break it down to, with the exception of the fourth sentence because it is the most contentious. The whole "I'm okay with that, but only if we also have this" isn't a concern for the RfC because that survey is "Here are the options for this sentence, pick one." At the time of the RfC, people will not be proposing new wordings, they will only be voting on and discussing the merits for the options on the table. We, the involved editors here, can't reach consensus on what the sentence should say, but we can agree on the several different formulations that fit into an RfC. It's in the name, Request for Comment, not Request for Content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, since we just reset an RFC, perhaps we can let this discussion run for a bit and see if it turns up any clear consensuses. And if it doesn't, then we can break down the specific points that people seem to be deadlocking on and run more specific RFCs for those. --Aquillion (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

There's a fairly reasonable chance we could avoid another interminable RfC, in my view. Hey, Crossroads even thumbsupped one of my suggestions above! 😮 Sure, nobody else will accept it I don't think, but maybe we're getting somewhere... Tewdar (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think a second RfC can be avoided, given that the early closure of the first was contingent on the intermediate time being used to sort out the structural issues with the first. Regardless of the first RfC, there is still a seemingly intractable deadlock preventing consensus on the most contentious of the sentences, which is part of why @GoodDay: started the first RfC. That issue still very clearly remains present. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

To help visualise a format for the RfC, I have copied all of the currently proposed re-wordings from the workshop and expanded the prior sample. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

One thing that would help, and something that has been lost with the current workshop format, would be if the proposers for each rewording or addition could write a very brief one/two sentence summary in support of each proposal. Which is also why I suggested that comments at this stage should be restricted to egregious policy violations, spelling, and grammar issues only at this stage, as there will be plenty of time while the next RfC is open to discuss the merits of each proposal then. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: related to what I was saying earlier with respect to the fourth sentence. Upon review for filling out this template example, while it is the most complex on account of it being the most contentious, corresponding with the largest number of variations, at the moment we only have proposals for complete rewordings of that sentence. The possible issue of word or phrase order swapping hasn't happened yet, and may not happen at all. It may be a lack of imagination on my part, but if we are clear with the framing of the RfC, that it is to vote and comment on a set of proposals, and not to nit pick on "I support A but only with B later" I think we won't have that problem. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC) edited for clarity Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

"#4", as you have it above, asks people to vote on a) her "views" and b) "accusations of transphobia" simultaneously, without a separate option to accuse her of transphobia somewhere else. We need to ask whether to include the accusations of transphobia at all, not as part of the question on how her views should be summarized. Tewdar (talk) 08:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

"harassment" and "academic freedom" must be separate questions Tewdar (talk) 08:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The "justification for rewording" comments definitely need to go. Tewdar (talk) 09:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The OBE award, and the criticism of that, need to be separated. We'll see how much "nitpicking" we get then, shall we? 🤔 Tewdar (talk) 09:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

At the moment there aren't separate proposals for "views" and "accusations of transphobia". If you, or any editor thinks that a version of that sentence should not include a reference to transphobia, then that should be proposed as an alternate wording. Furthermore the "accusations of transphobia" or its variants make no sense in any sentence other than 4.

This is also true for the "harassment" and "academic freedom". There is no proposed sentence fragments for those as separate. "Academic freedom" appears in only one of the proposed rewordings for sentence four, "harassment" does not appear in any proposed rewordings for sentence 4. This is also true for sentence 6, where "academic freedom" and "harassment" only appears in one of the proposed rewordings.

The OBE award and criticism in sentence 5, again, there is only a single proposed rewording.

Re "justification for rewording" needs to go? Why? The proposer for each sentence will obviously have views on why their proposed version is better than the current wording. That is important information for the editors brought by the RfC to use in determining which option to vote for.

I understand the point you're trying to make @Tewdar: but at the moment, it is really not an issue. The concerns you are worried about are not happening. Many of the comments in the workshop for each option right now are kinda against the spirit of the workshop. They are critiquing the proposed survey options in the same manner as they would be in the RfC. That is not what we should be doing at this time. That level of critique should be left for the RfC, and comments now should be much more limited as I've repeatedly been saying. The purpose of this workshop should be to feed definite survey options into the next RfC, which is required as part of the early closure of the last RfC. We don't need to pre-filter those options now unless we get a truly large number of options for a single sentence. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment - much as I hate to agree with Tewdar, I believe that they are justified in some of their interventions above. I have three issues with the proposed format, as I understand it: (1) There are, in my view, dependencies among the proposals (or what ought to be among the proposals) that preclude treating each issue as a completely separate !vote. (2) In my view, the idea that all proposals made to date should be included among the choices for each sentence (or sub-sentence unit), regardless of whether they are supported by any editors, is mistaken and - combined with my third point - would make the next RfC as unwieldy as the first, though for different reasons. It seems to me that it is better to narrow the choices ("prefilter") so that they reflect the best expression of each major alternative proposed, rather than every piece of spaghetti that has been thrown so far. (3) Because of (1) and (2), the idea that all of these decisions could be made by a parallel series of votes to be made all at once by each editor seems farcical. There are some sentence elements (like writer/author in the first sentence), that I don't think deserve RfC treatment at all, or at least not while major aspects of NPOV and BLP application remain to be decided. And other aspects can only, I think, be decided sequentially - for example, the possible discussion of "academic freedom" and "free speech" in the lead section might best be handled by an added phrase or sentence, but the current RfC structure would only allow this to be an additional question that editors would answer at the same time, in parallel as they !vote on two other ways this could be mentioned. I don't see how this format could work. (For example, another way to get at this specific question would be to ask first "should issues of academic freedom be included in the lead?" and as a second question, to offer three different proposed locations and phrases where it would be included. Asking those two questions at the same time makes sense in my view; asking about over 100 different permutations of lead language choices does not.)

My suggestion, in this context, would be for editors to propose one contested issue to RfC first, and agree on a small number of options as suggested in my parenthetical example above. Another way to get at something similar might be to pick the most challenging multibarreled sentence and agree on limited choices (ideally only two) for each element of that sentence. In any event, we should run an RfC that asks a question that can actually be answered - trying to answer questions about multiple sentences in parallel at the same time seems to me to doom the RfC or at least to put the closer in an impossible situation. Newimpartial (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

My concern would doing it this way would be that we could/would wind up having multiple RfCs, with a new one starting almost immediately after one finishes. At some point, both here and on that noticeboard there would be RfC fatigue. Unless you're suggesting an RfC on proposed additions, eg "Should the lead include the term academic freedom/free speech/accusations of transphobia/etc" followed shortly by a second RfC that asks something like "based on the previous RfC, here's the 2/3/4 wordings incorporating the proposed additions. Pick one"?

That said, the most contentious of the sentences and the one with the most proposed rewordings is the fourth, which currently begins "Her views on..." Should we limit the RfC to just that sentence? How would we deliminate it for the question/survey answers? What should the question be? And how would we structure the RfC surrounding that? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Here are the main outstanding issues as best that I can make out. If there's other stuff people still think is controversial, feel free to expand: Tewdar (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Her time at the University of Sussex - how do we best describe this period? eg...
  • She is a former Professor of Philosophy at the University of Sussex.
  • Until 2021, she was a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Sussex, which she joined in 2003.
  • From 2003 to 2021, she taught at the University of Sussex.
  • From 2018 until 2021, she was a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Sussex.
  • Do we mention her resignation here, or after the student campaign?

• Her published academic work: what to include?
  • aesthetics?
  • fiction?
  • imagination?
  • sexual objectification?
  • sexual orientation?

• Her contentious views: what are they mainly about?
  • transgender rights?
  • transgender inclusion?
  • transgender people?
  • gender identity?
  • gender self-identification?
  • sex (the trait)?
  • women's rights?

• Do we mention that she has been accused of transphobia because of her views, and if so, to whom do we attribute these accusations?
  • Nobody - just say "accused of transphobia"?
  • Transgender rights groups?
  • Academics?
  • Transgender rights groups and academics?
  • Various public figures?
  • Don't mention that she's been accused of transphobia?

• Academic freedom - do we mention this and if so, where, and how? With "her views"? With the student protest?e.g.,
  • Campaigns for Stock's dismissal have led various public figures to respond in defense of academic freedom?
  • Academics and other public figures made/responded with public pronouncements in support of Stock's academic freedom?

• Her OBE - do we mention this? Do we include the letter criticising this appointment?
  • Mention only the OBE
  • Mention the OBE and the letter criticising the appointment
  • Mention the OBE, the letter criticising the appointment, and the letter defending her
  • Don't mention the OBE

• The student campaign aimed at removing Stock from her position - how do we describe this?
  • Do we say it's been described as a harassment campaign?
  • Do we say it led to Stock's resignation?
  • Do we say it contributed to Stock's resignation?
  • Do we include the commentary in response to the protests eg. the letter(s)?

I am Spartacus Tewdar, and I came up with the initial bullet points above. Perhaps someone else might like to add stuff. 😁 Tewdar (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

With respect to her academic work, the first four points (aesthetics-sexual objectification) are uncontroversial and form the bulk of her academic publishing history. It's only the last one that's questionable, per the point NHCLS raised above. I don't think we need to ask for all five subpoints, maybe only the last one.

My biggest issue with the "who do we attribute" type questions are that they're too open ended and they're requesting content not comments on content. For those we should be presenting alternatives with sourcing, so that those alternatives can be discussed on their own merits in the RfC, rather than leaving it open for the RfC to request sourcing. To do the latter leaves us in the same mess the first RfC had. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

No, sorry, I wasn't suggesting we send this off to the RfC as-is. I'm suggesting we focus on this stuff, work out some options, and send it off when we're done. So for instance, we can attribute "accusations of transphobia" to nobody, trans rights organizations, trans rights organisations and academics... whatever. Tewdar (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Should we not nail down the structure of the RfC first then? Because surely that would provide the framework for to get the most out of the discussions here? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

My basic take on this is that, at a very minimum, we will need to RfC the most contentious issues as separate questions and then RfC a complete lede that tries to implement those decisions. Some of the "less important" questions could be deliberately left out of the first RfC for the second, but something like this is the only way I can see getting away with only two RfCs. And in this scenario, the first RfC would need at least three parts, something like views of options, options related to accusations of transphobia, and options related to the student campaign or academic freedom, if those are the three or four most pressing issues. Of course, as I have said elsewhere, my gut instinct is to RfC these one after the other, but I grasp the contrary insight that attention from the noticeboards etc. is a finite resource. Newimpartial (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I would be wary of having more than two RfCs on this, lest the folks over there form the same concerns about the admins and why this article needs so much "outside" intervention. I'd still prefer the format I proposed of a single long RfC, but having seen this alternate one take shape between yourselves I can understand better the concerns you're both raising. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so I think this is very useful as a framework to talk about what to RfC, and in what order. I don't think we are equally far along in each of these areas, and also don't think they are equally important. Here is my baseline evaluation of the work to date, but I await the reactions of other editors. My sense is that generally people want more important issues resolved before less important issues, and I would strongly recommend that we not RfC any issues until the proposals relevant to it are mature. Here's my take:

her time at the university of Sussex - discussed but not fully, proposals unfinished, low importance (added)

published academic work - mature discussion, proposals fairly advanced, low importance

contentious views - discussed but not fully; if we could restrict the "sentence four" discussion to her views alone, and not the reactions to them from various parties, proposals might be nearly advanced enough to RfC IMO, but we haven't agreed on that scope at this point; high importance

accusations of transphobia - discussed but not fully, proposals unfinished, high importance

academic freedom - scant discussion, proposals very scant, medium importance

OBE - discussed but perhaps not fully, proposals fairly advanced, low importance

student campaign - discussed but not fully, proposals fairly scant, high importance.

Feel free to change Tewdar's bulleted list; of there are significant changes, I will revise this with strikethrough and italics per TPG. Newimpartial (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC) first item added by Newimpartial (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment - I also wanted to say again that, much as admin in various fora place a high priority on the lede of this article, the way these questions ought to be resolved is to write the article properly first and then to edit the lead accordingly. (This doesn't mean it could be done without RfC, but does imply that resolving main body issues one by one based on the DUE sourcing for each might be better in the long run than multibarreled RfCs.) Seeking input on the lead section, and then being constrained (?) to edit the article to fit a pre-determined lead, seems bass-ackwards to me, though I recognize that administrators "want what they want". Newimpartial (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• I strongly suggest holding only one RfC. More than that, and the community will be fatigued and wonder just why it is so difficult. We can do it as a multi-question RfC, like the one at Talk:LGB Alliance, and I don't think we need a second one once we know what should and shouldn't be mentioned from the question array on the first - finalizing the wording at that point should be pretty easy. Also, could we perhaps simplify by leaving off the matter of how to describe how much time she was at Sussex? Does anyone really care that much how that is described? I think we can settle that amongst the small group here. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The issues outstanding at the moment would leave the RfC with many more questions and permutations than the one at LGB Alliance. If you think the options for this one could be simplified to be anywhere near comparable, that would be wonderful, but I am not seeing any concrete proposal to make that happen...leaving off the "time at Sussex" issue (which wasn't even on Tewdar's initial list) would not be enough. Newimpartial (talk) 13:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
    • What are our current thoughts on this? We should have, in theory launched the second RfC back on Tuesday 16th November.

  I would be OK with limiting the scope of this to the most contentious parts/high importance parts that Newimpartial has noted and that we struggle to get consensus on; namely "Her contentious views", the accusations of transphobia, and the student campaign. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm inclined to agree that trying to set a lead by !vote and write (even constrain near- or long-term future additions to?) the body to suit it seems back-asswards; maybe we should be asking more general questions like "how much weight should the article [not just lead] give X?" or "how should the article describe Y?"; I don't know. I do think there'll be a lot of "X on question 4 iff Y on question 2, otherwise it'd be POV" !votes which will complicate ascertaining whether X has consensus, but I don't know if voting on various 'complete lead' wording options would be any neater (since then some people might say "I like lead 2 better except cut the bit about X which doesn't seem due based on what's currently in the body" or "lead 3, but only if X is added like in lead 2, based on how much weight it's got in the body", which also brings us back to the issue that maybe we should be writing the body first). Looking over the "Proposed RfC question/survey format" sentences, I'm also sceptical that some things like "writer" vs "author" need to be in an RfC when there are so many other questions that are more important to ask. Meh. I know this content has been discussed at length and everyone is just trying to get something resolved. -sche (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

So.... How it's going? GoodDay (talk) 06:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I propose that we start a new RfC to discuss this workshop 😁👍 Tewdar (talk) 07:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

It appears as though the dispute has petered out. GoodDay (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps people have decided that it's not too bad as it is, and any wider community involvement might give them an even less desirable result than the current status quo? 🤔 Tewdar (talk) 12:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Reflist

References

"Wife" would be a better description of Kathleen Stock's partner

Various sources (inc https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/dec/05/kathleen-stock-interview-university-sussex-transgender-headlines-2021 ) say that Kathleen Stock is married (her wife is called Laura).

Hence I suggest that in the personal life section where it says:
She lives in Sussex with her partner and two sons from a previous marriage.
it would be better to say:
She lives in Sussex with her wife, and two sons from a previous marriage.

Perhaps someone with sufficient powers to do a change to an extended-confirmed protected page (I don't have those powers) would like to make that change.

--Jinlye (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

latest job

I think I read that after resigning at Sussex she was hired by a very controversial right wing private university. It woud be good to mention this .2A01:CB08:8BE:AA00:E4A0:B1B5:7FD3:F589 (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean University of Austin? that's in the academic career section of the article.Melissa Highton (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

missing referent

The sentence below refers to a "Tickell" but the article no longer identifies who that is:

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 University and College Union for their silence.[53] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:97F:6000:3A02:13E0:41B6:56AF (talk) 10:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I didn't go back in history to see how it was written when you read it, but currently, the first paragraph in that section introduces Tickell: University of Sussex vice-chancellor Adam Tickell. Schazjmd (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Missing Date of Resignation

Add to beginning of 3.1.3 'Resignation' section: Stock announced her resignation on Twitter on the 28th of October 2021. Citation: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/28/sussex-professor-kathleen-stock-resigns-after-transgender-rights-row — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkylarWoodward (talk • contribs) 18:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done although I didn't use that exact wording. Thanks for the ref. Schazjmd (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Over Six Feet Tall

In the Personal section of this article it ends with the brief statement: "She is over six feet tall.". A paragraph ending with this totally unrelated, matter of fact and dogmatic statement. Why not add her eyes are blue and she cuts her toe nails with scissors? Why of all the physical attributes pick out this one and have it dangling on the end of a closing paragraph. I can't remember the last time I saw such a laughable construction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.174.43 (talk) 07:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I removed it as WP:UNDUE. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

“Her views on transgender rights and gender identity have become a contentious issue.”

The phrasing of this sentence pushes the notion that Stock’s views have been widely rejected when they have not. In my opinion, a better phrased sentence would be:

”Stock’s views on transgender rights and gender identity have been a source of controversy. ^[3][4][5][6]”

Another variation would be:

“[…] controversy and have been criticised by several LGBTQ+ organisations.^[3][4][5][6]”

I would’ve made a bold edit if the article wasn’t protected, however, I thought it’d also be wise to discuss this with other editors to see if this rephrasing would be acceptable and if any amendments were necessary. Regards, Yasslaywikia (talk) 12:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Personally I don't see how this sentence suggests or implies that her views have been widely rejected. I also wouldn't expand it, as leads should be concise, and it's explained in more detail in the body of the article. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough! To elaborate on my thoughts of the current phrasing, the word 'issue' seems to convey that what Stock has said has been widely rejected given that people want to get rid of issues. The transgender rights section for political views of J. K. Rowling, a person who has similar views and faces similar criticisms as Stock uses the following sentence to describe the level of controversy/contention surrounding her views on the matter:

"Rowling's responses to proposed changes to UK gender recognition laws and her views on sex and gender have provoked controversy.^[47]"

For me, phrasing the sentence in question in a similar way to this uses more neutral language and reflects the nature of the criticism of Stock's views by LGBTQ+ activists and groups for her stances on transgender rights and gender identity. For example, she has been supported (to some degree) by Rishi Sunak,^[1] who is an incredibly influential figure in UK politics given that he's the Prime Minister of the UK. It's not a big issue, although I would prefer it if alternate wording was used. Yasslaywikia (talk) 12:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 May 2023

In the subsection on ‘Gender Wars, change

On the same day as the Oxford Union speech, Channel 4 broadcast Gender Wars, a documentary featuring Stock as the main representative of the gender-critical side of "the trans issue". The film was criticised for its focus on Stock, but also praised as giving "voice to both sides of the transgender debate".

To

On the same day as the Oxford Union speech, Channel 4 broadcast Gender Wars, a documentary featuring Stock as the main representative of the gender-critical side of "the trans issue". The documentary centred around an earlier speech Stock made during a debate at the Cambridge Union on the ‘right to offend,’ which attracted protests and garnered extensive media coverage at the time. The film was criticised for its focus on Stock, but also praised as giving "voice to both sides of the transgender debate".

[This change adds a sentence on the context/content of the program] FrenchConnection2019 (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Done. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Appearance at Oxford University vs Oxford Union

The Oxford Union, although it draws its membership primarily from Oxford University, is not officially associated with or part of Oxford University; it is a private institution; the title of the section should probably be changed to reflect this Mostlythunder (talk) 23:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done You're absolutely right. Oxford Union is largely independent from the university itself. I've renamed the section now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)