Talk:Kathleen Stock/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Sentence in lead summarizing her views

I reverted the rewrite because it seems WP:UNDUE in its emphasis, especially regarding the sources quoted at the end of the sentence. Most that I know of focus on self-ID, and not the more vague "transgender rights"; the emphasis on 'women-only spaces' also seems undue, and even how to describe such spaces - as single-sex, women-only, or otherwise - is something that we have to be very careful about. I will post in a few hours a new array of WP:MAINSTREAM media sources and how they summarize the dispute. Then we can reach a consensus on the talk page as to how to change it, if it should even be changed at all.

Meanwhile, the status quo in place (originally from October 9th) is informative enough and is BLP-safe. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, you have reverted to a version that had been explicitly challenged on Talk before your revert. See above.

Also, your proposed future course of action seems to violate WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY principles, as your practice of dismissing highest-quality, more specialized sources that you don't like in favor of The Times and The Telegraph violates our sourcing policies. But my all means, propose what you like on Talk, just don't revert-war the article any more. Newimpartial (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Not an accurate description of what happened, per the above section, or of how I edit, and you should stop being focused on me. The WP:WIKILAWYERING above has been addressed. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Here are the promised quotes from mainstream media sources on what views of Stock's the controversy is focused on. I also included most of the ones already being cited for it:

• The controversy centres on her view that a person’s self-declared gender does not trump their biological sex, “particularly when it comes to law and policy”. The Independent
• The University of Sussex's vice chancellor has defended a professor after protesters tried to have her sacked for her views on gender identity. BBC News
• A professor accused of transphobia for her views on gender identity is quitting her post at the University of Sussex. BBC News
• Kathleen Stock, the philosophy professor at the centre of a row over her views on gender identification and transgender rights, has announced her resignation from the University of Sussex. The Guardian
• A university has said it will not tolerate threats to “academic freedoms” after a professor faced calls to be sacked over her views on gender identification. The Guardian
• An academic who was subjected to “bullying and harassment” by her students because of her views on transgender rights has resigned. The Times
• Kathleen Stock, a philosophy professor and a trustee of the LGB Alliance, was due to appear at the charity’s conference today but was forced to withdraw after a campaign by students to get her sacked from her position at Sussex University. In recent weeks, students in balaclavas have carried banners around Brighton reading “Stock Out”. Stock has previously argued that institutions should not prioritise gender identity over sex and said she does not believe in reform of the Gender Recognition Act to allow self-identification. The Times
• The academic has been repeatedly accused of alleged transphobia over the past month for her views on gender identity, with a group of students actively campaigning for her to be fired. The Argus
• “It is quite a strange situation to work somewhere where people make it clear that they loathe you,” reflected Kathleen Stock, professor of philosophy at the University of Sussex, on the backlash she faced for her views on gender identification. Times Higher Education
• A professor at the centre of a row over her views on gender identity is leaving the University of Sussex. Evening Standard
• Kathleen Stock, a professor of philosophy, had been the subject of a protest campaign at the University of Sussex because of her views on gender identity. i News

Even now, it is clear that if we are to follow the WP:WEIGHT of the sources as a whole, the controversy centers on gender self-identification or gender identity. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC) updated Crossroads ^-talk- 03:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Adding stuff from the above sources, only content from the first few paragraphs:

• From the first Independent source: "A philosophy professor who became embroiled in a row over transgender rights..." and "had faced calls to be sacked over her stance on gender identity."
• From The Times: "stepped down after protests in Brighton over her 'transphobic' views."
• From the first Guardian source: "amid accusations of transphobia."
• From Express & Star: "Kathleen Stock, a professor of philosophy at the University of Sussex, faced calls to be sacked amid accusations of transphobia."

Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads: the sources you provide do not seem to support your conclusions; at least, they support other conclusions just as well.

To be more specific, The controversy centres on her view that a person’s self-declared gender does not trump their biological sex is not accurately paraphrased as being about "self-identification", and neither are all of the references to gender identity. If you mean to imply that all of these are actually about self-identification, that is OR, and you should snap out of it. Your leaving out all the factual PinkNews pieces, while including The Argus and Times Higher Ed (neither having much of a track record in this subject matter), ie also telling in itself, particularly given your recent comments about what you do (and don't) recognize about your own editing. Newimpartial (talk) 03:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Other sources not listed above:

• "Students have been organising under the slogan “Stock Out” since 6 October, when they launched a campaign calling on the university to terminate Stock’s employment over her trans-exclusionary views and position as trustee of anti-trans charity LGB Alliance." PinkNews
• "has faced death threats and calls from students that she be removed from her post amid accusations of "transphobia", which she denies." The Telegraph

Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

If we're analyzing this to determine the best language for the lead, we should be aware that Crossroads and I have both focused on newer sources which have come out since the resignation announcement. Predictably, they have highlighted the controversy focused on the university, and not other flare-ups of contention. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I didn't include PinkNews because unlike the other sources, they openly have a clear editorial slant in covering the debate. I know that WP:BIASEDSOURCES can still be reliable, but that does still have to be accounted for. Even adding them in, they don't outweigh all the other sources.

As for when the sources mention "transphobia" as quoted above, they are attributing that claim to her opponents. I see no good NPOV reason to describe the controversy in their terms (even with attribution) rather than with the neutral description of the secondary sources. 'Her views on gender self-identification/identity' (whichever we end up with) is far more informative to readers than a vague 'she's been called transphobic for her views'. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I can't follow your argument. Are you suggesting, for instance that "... her views on gender self-identification/identity" is good but "... her views on gender self-identifcation/identity, which have drawn allegations of transphobia" is too vague? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to bring the Zanghellini paper back up here again. It's from April 2020, so predates the current situation by approximately a year and a half. Also at some point the Express & Star article was removed, so I'm adding it back in again as it is an RS and Firefangledfeathers has referenced it. Note that the Express & Star is neither the Daily Express nor the Daily Star and hasn't as far as I can see been raised at WP:RSN as unreliable.

• A professor at the centre of a row over her views on gender identity is leaving the University of Sussex. Express & Star

Crossroads your reading of the passages that Firefangledfeathers highlighted is not accurate. The Independent, The Guardian, and The Express & Star all use transphobia in their own voice. The Times is the only one that uses quotation marks for the word transphobia, however it does say in its own voice that what Stock is being criticised for is her views on transgender rights, which is significantly wider than transgender/gender self-identification. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers, "allegations of transphobia" would just get a "by whom?" tag. And rightly so, since that is a WP:WEASELly attribution for that WP:LABEL. A lot more sources describe it in terms of identity or identification than "transphobia".

I replaced Express & Star in my list because the article appears to be a word for word duplicate of the Evening Standard article.

Sideswipe9th, there appears to be confusion over "what their own voice" means. In their own voice would be if they said something like, "Stock has been controversial due to her transphobia." None of them have done that. They attribute the "transphobia" claim to her opponents, usually the student campaigners. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Crossroads: that is a very narrow definition for what counts a source's own voice. Could you perhaps link to policy for that? As I can't seem to find anything to back up that assertion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:WIKIVOICE talks about this. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I've re-read that several times now, including the inline FAQ, and I can't see how that supports your definition. WP:ASSERT maybe, but that relies upon the definition of transphobia being subjective. A direct parallel would be a racist or homophobe claiming they are not racist or homophobic, eg David Starkey comes to mind. If we were in one of those other situations, with the same source selection, but simply transposing transphobia for racism or homophobia, how would we proceed? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th, just to be completely clear, the argument you are making is that we can take sources saying Stock's opponents called her transphobic, and use that to justify outright saying in the article text "Stock is transphobic"? Crossroads ^-talk- 00:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, that's clearly a misinterpretation of MOS:WEASEL in at least two ways. "They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution." and views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your second quote, the sources do attribute the transphobia accusation more specifically than you proposed. I guess I had forgotten that WEASEL had that first quote about the lead, although my personal view is that, even though it may technically be permitted, the same reasons given against weasel words in the body apply in this case. And regardless, WP:LABEL definitely does still apply to accusations of transphobia, which states that such labels should be widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject if used, and in which case use in-text attribution. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Crossroads: that's a pretty bold and somewhat fallacious interpretation of my question. At the moment I'm trying to understand your thinking, so that I can better understand your objections, rather than stating my own. Perhaps you could address that before trying to guess at my own thinking on this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• Since we have two or three sections about the same thing: Why didn't you just change "Her views on gender identity and transgender rights, which include the belief that not all trans women should have access to women-only spaces, and her opposition to the idea that a person's legal sex should be entirely determined by how they self-identify, have become a contentious issue" ----> "Her views on gender identity and transgender rights have become a contentious issue", instead of starting yet another crappy interminable debate? Clearly it is not just her views on gender self-identification that are contentious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tewdar (talk • contribs) 08:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Seeing as Stock has resigned her position, at the University. I'm guessing that 'might' affect the intro. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Not sure why or how that would affect this sentence we're discussing. That's not really connected to this sentence about her views. Silverseren^C 17:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the first sentence of the lead has already been updated in reference to her resignation. This discussion is about other sentences in the lead. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Tewdar, only a minority of those sources present it as about "transgender rights". It's a vague term - rights to what? The sources are clear that the issue is gender self-ID as a right. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

You keep saying The sources are clear that the issue is gender self-ID as a right, but that isn't actually the consensus view of the sources, and your repeating it over and over again does not make it true. Many of Stock's objections to trans women in "women's spaces" - such as her contention that legally and medically transitioned people may still be "dangerous to women" - have nothing at all to do with self-ID. Yet these are still part of Stock's discourse that is perceived as trans-exclusionary and labelled "transphobic" by her critics. Newimpartial (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know (remember?) where she has supposedly made this claim or where you are quoting those words from. I am the one who presented sources describing the controversy as a whole. With few exceptions, they speak of it as about gender identity or gender self-identification. We do have to follow WP:WEIGHT. We should be imitating the reliable secondary sources rather than deep-diving into her and her opponents' writings for sound bites or to synthesize our own interpretations about her views or the controversy. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I presented Stock's piece here. And several of the sources you have offered for "it's about self-ID" don't actually say that, but rather describe the issue as gender identity or accusations of transphobia. But you insist on your own OR interpretation that the issue is all about self-ID. As an editor who pays attention to nuances, I find your insistence on "it's about self-ID" (which is unsupported by your own selected evidence) incredibly frustrating, especially now that it has become your one-against-many crusade. Newimpartial (talk) 04:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I didn't present sources with the goal that it would say "self-ID" forever, but for discussion. The sources above variously say "gender identity" and "gender identification", among other things. The latter clearly to me is about gender self-ID, and the former I think can be understood that way in the light of the context and the other sources. Maybe some will disagree and that's fine. You are arguing against a dogmatic invented version of me, not my actual points or what I'm trying to help with here. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, and thanks for the sources. I am probably also being misled by the dogmatic invented version. One part of that is that you have repeatedly opposed additional descriptors of Stocks views. Are there any that you'd support in the lead? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps present proposals for article's intro & see which one gets a consensus. We may require an RFC. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of "views on gender identity and transgender rights" proposed wording

Quick consensus check: would you support or oppose "Her views on gender identity and transgender rights have become a contentious issue" (first proposed by Tewdar, I think) as compared to the current version? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. I have reasons to oppose this compared to what I view as the "ideal" version, but I see this as an incremental improvement. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support but only when compared to the current version. I'd be interested to see Firefangledfeathers' ideal version, and this as an interim improvement pending another one later seems like a good idea. I Oppose Crossroads' proposed alternative. As I've said before, Stock's views go beyond those of just gender self-identification, as well as the proposal being somewhat redundant. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC) addition to alternative Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose because "transgender rights" is a vague term, which just links to "transgender rights movement". 'Rights to what?' people will think. Yes, a few sources do use the term, but the context of those same sources, as well as other sources listed above, go on to make clear what specifically is meant - gender self-identification. This also applies to sources that use "gender identification". (e.g. [1][2]) I therefore propose instead: Her views on gender identity and gender self-identification have become a contentious issue. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support "gender identity and transgender rights" is a reasonable basic description of the areas which have been controversial. The various sources in the article certainly do not "make it clear" that "gender self-identification" is all that is meant by "transgender rights". And as for "rights to what?" - you reverted the answer to that question, Crossroads...it was right there in the lede. Tewdar (talk) 08:17, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. I prefer the new suggestion: Her views on gender identity and gender self-identification have become a contentious issue. — on the following basis:
  "Changing the concept of “woman” will cause unintended harms", by Kathleen Stock (6 July 2018).
  "Why self-identification should not legally make you a woman", by Kathleen Stock (1 October 2018)
  "#140 Kathleen Stock: When “Gender Identity” Meets Material Reality", interview with Kathleen Stock (5 May 2021)
  "Material Girls: A Conversation With Kathleen Stock", interview with Kathleen Stock (14 May 2021). Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. I prefer the alternative proposal from Crossroads. AndyGordon (talk) 08:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Crossroads' suggestion, and any suggestion which does not include the word "transgender", as this is the crux of the matter and the relation of a phrase like "gender self-identification" to the transgender community is thoroughly unapparent to a layperson. Rather than "transgender rights" in the original proposal, I would prefer "transgender people". — Bilorv (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Would you support "transgender rights" as an improvement over the current version, or is that change the condition for your support? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, I certainly support it as an improvement over the current version. — Bilorv (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • None of the sources frame it as "transgender people". That would be POV and a BLP violation. A lot of people (off-wiki) who advocate for certain policies use this framing on this topic to conflate critiques of specific policies with attacks on a set of people - thus allowing them to tar any critics of those specific policies and ideas as attackers of transgender people. This is despite the fact that a number of transgender people, like Buck Angel, Blaire White, Debbie Hayton, and others disagree with such unelected advocates and their self-proclaimed "allies". I don't endorse the views of the named individuals, but my point is that the trans community, like any other, is not a monolith.
    If you want the word "transgender" specifically used, "transgender identity" or "transgender self-identification" are possibilities.Crossroads ^-talk- 23:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
    • "Transgender identity" would make sense to me, but I have no idea why you repeatedly raise Blaire White as an example to me in situations where she is completely irrelevant. I am more than familiar with her and her views. I don't believe I ever said she disagreed with Stock, nor implied it in my suggested text. As an analogy, many individual women are misogynistic (we might call it "internalised misogyny"), but that does not mean that misogynists are not bigoted against women. — Bilorv (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• I believe this proposal has consensus over the current version and will be implementing the change. I will happily self-revert if someone shows that I've misinterpreted the consensus here. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

There are 3 supports and 3 opposes. This clearly does not have consensus. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv also supports the wording, though they didn't include a bolded !vote, and Newimpartial said in the section below that they prefer this wording to the previous status quo. And based on what I wrote in the same section, I think it's fair to count me as a weak/tentative support (though I am interested in seeing Newimpartial's response to your related query). Colin M (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I count 6 support, 3 oppose. The three oppose are Crossroads, Pyxis, and AndyGordon. The 6 support are Firefangled, myself, Tewdar, Newimpartial, Bilorv, and ColinM. Note that the later three are noted in the subsequent subheading below this one. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Support = 3
Oppose = 3
Oppose Crossroad's suggestion = 1.
All the yada-yada shows only 7 editors (so far) participating in this discussion. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

No; please read the following sections. Sideswip9th has counted correctly. Newimpartial (talk) 12:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

There are no "Support" or "Oppose" declarations in the following sections. We cannot read people's minds -- and we should not be expected to read between the lines.
If someone can write a block of text, they can certainly take a moment to add "Support" or "Oppose" to whatever they're going on about. This specific section is titled: Discussion of "views on gender identity and transgender rights" proposed wording and requests a "Quick consensus". Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 13:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Pyxis, consensus is determined based on the opinions expressed by editors (as far as they are compatible with policy), not based on their use of bold text. To use myself as an example, I offered a ranked choice below that was precisely formulated and which clearly expressed my preference for the text under discussion here over the version to which Crossroads had reverted. There was no reason for me to make a bolded !vote in this section to do so - and as neither version was the one I most preferred, I chose to express my preference below, rather than here. Not to speak for Bilorv, but that case seems quite similar. Newimpartial (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Newimpartial on this. WP:NOTBURO applies here. Colin M (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: please don't misrepresent my position again. I made it entirely clear that I was in support of the proposal. You do not need to read my mind, but the words I wrote (which you're seemingly unwilling to do if they're not in bold). Discussions are not votes and no "vote" is required, preferred or given additional weight to a comment. Sideswip9th, Newimpartial and Colin M are, obviously, correct in this matter. — Bilorv (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: to confirm counting for Crossroads' proposed version there were 3 support, and 3 opposed. The three supports were Crossroads, Pyxis, and AndyGordon. The three opposed were myself, Bilorv, and Newimpartial. The three who have not voiced a direct opinion on Crossroads' proposed version but did vote previously were Firefangled, Tewdar, and ColinM. The most strongly supported version per consensus was the one proposed by Firefangledfeathers. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of "accused of transphobia for her views on gender identity" proposed wording

New proposal - using Crossroads' set of recent, mainstream RS - which I do not accept as neutral, but which are, if anything, biased in sympathy rather than opposition to Stock - the key terms that occur most frequently are "gender identity" and "transphobia". I would therefore propose She has been accused of transphobia for her views on gender identity, which is very close to the BBC's own language but is also similar to the language used in The Guardian, The Independent and many other sources cited above. What is more, there are no sources I know of that take the position that Stock has not been accused of transphobia - this is a basic fact about which everyone, including Stock, agrees, although there is certainly disagreement about the merits of the accusation. Newimpartial (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of allegations/accusations of transphobia, but I'm unsure about tying it so directly to views on gender identity. Not opposed, just unsure. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

One of the BBC sources makes the connection directly, so it isn't SYNTH, and no other source casts doubt on it, that I've seen. Unlike "transgender rights" and "self-identification", each of which are unduly narrow IMO, "gender identity" actually does cover the range of topics for which Stock is criticized. Newimpartial (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm with Bilorv (below). I think this is an improvement over the current version. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I support this new proposal, though it's not perfect either. — Bilorv (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd support this proposal as well as Firefangledfeathers' earlier one, and I'd still like to see the ideal ones that both Bilorv and Firefangledfeathers have mentioned. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Only about half of the sources presented use this specific term, which doesn't seem to meet the widely used by reliable sources threshold named by WP:LABEL (and "transphobic" is one of the words specifically named there). This is an extremely morally charged word, and hence is not as informative. This doesn't seem to be an improvement. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Half is huge. I understood it was at least three, but it's very surprising to hear that as many as half of the relevant sources use this specific term when there are many terms and phrasings to choose from. I don't encounter such wide usage of shared language often in research for my own content creation. — Bilorv (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, this isn't ordinary text but has to satisfy WP:LABEL. That guideline obviously isn't specific about what "widely used" means, and editors can have good faith disagreements about what it does mean in practice, but I would expect a healthy-margin majority before I would support it. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, I don't think your MOS:LABEL objection applies here: the way the guideline is framed, we are to avoid adjectives like this in wikivoice unless they are widely used. But thus doesn't put transphobic in wikivoice (or into the text at all); it puts accused of transphobia in wikivoice. That Stock has been accused of transphobia is (1) widely supported by sources, (2) not disputed by any sources and (3) the main reason Stock is better-known now than she was last December. I don't see any policy-relevant reason - certainly not LABEL - to exclude the accusations of transphobia from the lead paragraph. If you like, though, I would be happy for the BLPN to look at this question (although it seems clear cut to me). Newimpartial (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC

That is not correct. WP:LABEL does not allow for such labels in wikivoice at all, nor does it then leave attribution as a lesser option when there aren't enough sources. It first requires widespread usage to include it at all, and then requires attribution if used. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid nothing in WP:LABEL applies to accused of transphobia or similar constructions - that is a complete misreading of the guideline. If you insist on continuing your one-against-many crusade, I am fine to broaden the CONSENSUSLEVEL through an RfC, though that should not really be necessary. Newimpartial (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

are best avoided unless [1] widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case [2] use in-text attribution. -WP:LABEL. It always requires in-text attribution if used anyway. If "widely used" did not still apply then it would be meaningless. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, I agree with Newimpartial that LABEL doesn't apply here. We are not calling Stock transphobic. Newimpartial, I don't think an RfC is reasonable right now, and I also think it's too soon to call Crossroads' objections one-against-many. It's likely we'll see other contributors share their views in the next couple days. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Of the eleven sources Crossroads provided at the beginning of this discussion, seven state that Stock is accused of transphobia in their own voice, though Crossroads and I have differences of opinion of what that means in practice (Independent, BBC 1 & 2, The Guardian 2, The Argus, The Evening Standard, i News), though i News does differ slightly in saying that she is alleged to be transphobic. The Times 1 and Times Higher Education also use transphobic, but do so in scare quotes. While we could add more sources, we're already well past the point of majority and depending on how you define it into a super-majority. How many more sources are needed? We can only use so many before we enter the realms of WP:OVERCITE. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

With respect to the MOS, MOS:LABEL is the wrong one to be using here. MOS:ALLEGED is a closer fit to what is being proposed, however with ALLEGED in mind I would also direct editors towards WP:SUBSTANTIATE. Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution. As we can provide one or more attributions via undisputed reliable sources for the POV that Stock is accused to transphobia, I don't think there are any policy issues preventing it from being said. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

"If you insist on continuing your one-against-many crusade...." Don't start riding the personal-jabs bus again. It's predictable and expected, yes, but it's also unpleasant. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

It's predictable and expected, yes, but it's also unpleasant - title of my sex tape. Newimpartial (talk) 11:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

You can be dismissive and you can mock, but the WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA record is created and will remain. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

As is yours, as has previously been noted (by others) in response to your contribution at AE. When incivility is directed at me, I may joke, but that seems more in tune with policy than escalating ' as other editors are known to do. Newimpartial (talk) 12:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

"as has previously been noted (by others) in response to your contribution at AE." Keep it up. The register is ringing. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 13:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Ideally, our summary should roughly mirror the way the matter is summarized in RS. So instead of just counting how many sources use the term "transphobia"/"transphobic", I think it's important to consider where in the article they occur. I checked the sources linked above by Crossroads, and The Argus and this BBC article were the only ones that used the term in their first paragraph (or subhead) summarizing the controversy. The other sources generally led with wording that was more similar to the previously discussed options (i.e. speaking of her views on {gender identity,gender self-identification, transgender rights} as being the subject of {controversy,protests,a row}). For that reason, I still think those previous options are preferable. Colin M (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Colin M:, how would you feel about "Her views on gender identity and transgender rights have become a contentious issue"? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Between that option, the current wording, and the proposed "gender identity and gender self-identification" wording, I'm undecided on which is best. I think there's merit to being more specific (and it seems like there's consensus that Stock's only contentious views on transgender rights are related to gender self-id). But I also see Bilorv's point, that the term "gender self-identification" is sort of jargony, and less recognizable to the average reader than "transgender rights" (though at least we can wikilink the newly-created gender self-identification article). Colin M (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Colin, I do not agree that all of Stock's views that are controversial with respect to transgender rights are related to self-ID. Her view that people who have transitioned medically and legally under the current (non-self-ID) UK legal regime should be excluded from "women's spaces" is one such transgender rights issue that is not about self-ID. Newimpartial (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clarifying. In that case, I do think the broader "transgender rights" wording is looking more apt. Colin M (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial:, what are your thoughts on my proposal? As compared to the status quo, not your proposal? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

By rank order, my preferences are:

(1) "accused of transphobia for her views on gender identity";

(2) "views on transgender rights";

(3) "views on gender identity and transgender rights" (I would actually prefer "views on transgender rights and gender identity", which would tie for (2));

(4) - tie - anything with "self-identification" which, as I have said before, defers unduly to the subject's preferred language and which is not supported strongly by the sources currently under discussion (selected by Crossroads), compared to (1)-(3). Newimpartial (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Order change is fine with me. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, what is your source for the claim that Stock believes that people who have transitioned medically and legally under the current (non-self-ID) UK legal regime should be excluded from "women's spaces"? Perhaps specifying what is meant by "medical transition" would help. Ping Colin M since he'll probably be interested in the reply based on his reaction above. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Crossroads: not withstanding Newimpartial sourcing it from another article, closest match in the current version of the article is from The Argus in 2018, cite ref 31 at the time of this reply. Note that medical transition does not require bottom surgery, nor does the stricter requirements for a Gender recognition certificate require it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, The Argus will do for that one - it isn't rocket science. Newimpartial (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Even so, the argument is based on a quote from her and saying that means we should use some other term. Seems pretty WP:SYNTHey. At least stick to arguments based on sources themselves summarizing the controversy. The Independent, for example, summarizes it as Stock believes that female-only spaces such as changing rooms should not be open to self-identifying trans women. Perhaps it is more up-to-date, or perhaps self-identification has different meanings in different contexts. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

If the problem is that I haven't provided the optimal quote, here is one from Zanghellini (2020) Indeed, Stock (2018c) elsewhere clearly states that she favors a policy that would exclude “all [natal] males from female-only spaces”: this clearly covers all trans women, regardless of whether they have a gender recognition certificate and how they obtained it.

Anyway, perhaps I am not understanding you, Crossroads. Which proposed article text are you referring to as SYNTHey? Newimpartial (talk) 01:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

It was a SYNTHey argument for giving extra weight to a certain phrasing. Lest anyone respond with 'but that's okay on a talk page', well, I'll note in the same vein that "Stock 2018c" cited by Zanghellini has been deleted by the author. My point about other sources who say it differently (like The Independent) possibly being more up to date or illustrating that self-ID has multiple meanings still applies. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Nope. The best-quality source we have makes this argument, and does so based on other Stock primary sources, not just 2018c; this reading is also supported by other secondary sources and Stock's own words. If you want to go down this road, it is your argument about more mealey-mouthed phrasings possibly being more up to date that is OR. And the idea that self-ID has multiple meanings that would cover such cases seems to be your most novel contribution here; your only argument in its support is original, indeed. Newimpartial (talk) 12:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, apart from the two that open with accusations of transphobia, The Independent leads with a row over transgender rights; The Times uses her views on transgender rights in the opening of one piece and the debate over trans rights in the second (which Crossroads neglected to mention); similarly, The Guardian goes for her views on gender identification and transgender rights (Crossroads somehow left out "transgender rights" in his quote from this source).

Meanwhile, the second BBC piece goes for her views on gender identity as does the Evening Standard. Similarly, iNews uses her views about trans issues. Finally, in its other piece, The Guardian invokes her views on gender identification (but in the second paragraph specifies accusations of transphobia). Times Higher Education goes with gender identification.

Now, I am not convinced that "summary of summaries" is the best way to proceed - I prefer to summarize the body, per LEADFOLLOWSBODY. I am also not convinced that these opening paragraphs, which per modern web practice are usually one sentence long, are really comparable to our much longer lead paragraph where the text in question would be placed in the third sentence. However, if we were to base this part of the lede on the first paragraph mentions compiled by Crossroads, the non-SYNTH phrase would clearly be her views on transgender rights, per BALANCE and DUE. Newimpartial (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC) edited by Newimpartial (talk) 01:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I did not leave out "transgender rights" in my quote above at all. It's right there. And a source like The Independent clarifies what it means by "transgender rights" by saying over her stance on gender identity. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I have made the correction above re: The Guardian (sorry), but you did neglect to include transgender rights in your selection from The Times. And I don't agree that the rest of The Independent article somehow negates the initial description in terms of "transgender rights". That sounds like selective use of sources. Newimpartial (talk) 01:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

When The Times used the term in that article, it was in reference to Boris Johnson's comments on the LGB Alliance. That's why I didn't mention it. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Meta discussion

Ya'll come to a compromise yet? Or, is an RFC gonna be required. GoodDay (talk) 04:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

With only one editor objecting, perhaps my proposal has the necessary degree of consensus (as a "least worst", anyway) - in which case, no RfC might be required. Newimpartial (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Let's make our readers aware that Germaine Greer, John Cleese, the BBC, the Guardian, Jess de Wahls, Michael Che, Dave Chappelle, Margaret Atwood, Bristol University Feminist Society, Leeds University, Sussex University, almost every UK university probably, Benedict Cumberbatch, and Rupert Read from the Green party have also been "accused of transphobia" in their article ledes (if they all even have articles here). Hey, perhaps we could add a slot to living persons' infoboxes for this purpose? 🤔 Tewdar (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Which of these figures or institutions is primarily known for accusations of transphobia and the impact of same on their careers? I'll wait.

You are comparing things that are not really comparable. Newimpartial (talk) 13:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Is JK Rowling "primarily" a transphobe, then? Tewdar (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

She is primarily known among gen Zs for her trans-exclusionary views, and the controversies surrounding them, - according to the RS - if that is that you mean. To get back to Stock, "Trans-exclusionary" is the term used in the available academic source, as I recall, but Crossroads' preferred "mainstream" sources talk about "accusations of transphobia". Note that, in this conversation, you are the only one calling inquiring whether Stock anyone is a transphobe in your own voice, so you might want to clamp down on that for BLP reasons. Newimpartial (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC) corrected by Newimpartial (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC) more corrections by Newimpartial (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, Jess de Wahls is pretty much only notable for this. Tewdar (talk) 13:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Where did I call anybody a transphobe in my own voice? You been drinkin' the Newfoundland Screech again? Tewdar (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Too early in the day for screech, even on NL time (GMT -2.5).

Thanks to that gentle nudge, I went down the rabbit hole and return with awareness of the central western time zone in Australia. Newfoundland doesn't have the world's most obscure time, after all. Newimpartial (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

More corrections made once I noticed when the conversation was supposed to be about Rowling and when it was on topic for this page. Clearly alcohol was required. Newimpartial (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• @13:55: "Too early in the day for Screech"
• @14:47: "I haszh fixshed all th'errorszhh, now,thankshh to Shcreeecshh..." 😁 Tewdar (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Do all yourselves a favour & open an RFC on the matter. Tempers appear to be flaring & we don't need to have editors reporting each other to boards. Input from more editors, may break the logjam. I'll set up the RFC & let each of you put forward (in green letters) your proposals. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

We do appear to have rough consensus at the moment. However, I'm sure there is always an RfC in the horizon - given the recent shift in the sourcing, it may be time to RfC the way "accusations of transphobia" are integrated in the lead, for example, now that they feature so prominently in the RS (much more so than the last time we had that discussion). Newimpartial (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

"Do all yourselves a favour & open an RFC on the matter." – It's time. Let the chips fall where they may, and then move on to the next indubitable battle over wordage. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: we have a pretty strong consensus here of 6/3 for a certain wording, I'm not sure an RfC is really necessary right now. Also lay off the WP:BATTLEGROUND aspersions. Wikipedia is not about WP:WINNING after all. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

"Philosophical Problems With the Gender-Critical Feminist Argument Against Trans Inclusion"

This publication:

Zanghellini, Aleardo (April 1, 2020). "Philosophical Problems With the Gender-Critical Feminist Argument Against Trans Inclusion". SAGE Open. 10 (2): 1–14. doi:10.1177/2158244020927029. Retrieved October 19, 2021.

It is basically entirely about Stock and her arguments, referencing her and her online articles throughout (since she doesn't have any academic publications to cite). What's the best way to incorporate it into the article? Silverseren^C 20:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

That paper is actually one of the discussion points in the section above this one! Newimpartial cited it in their comment at 16:42, 16 October 2021 if you'd like to follow that discussion. I do agree that it should be included in the article, but at least one editor is objecting to it because of the journal. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

What's wrong with the journal? SAGE Open is a fine journal, peer-reviewed and everything. And Sage Publications has a strong academic background. Silverseren^C 21:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I would direct you to the comments above by Crossroads on 21:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC). I agree that as a scholarly source its fine, I'm just pointing out that one editor has objected so more discussion may be needed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see their comments. They're...pretty dumb comments. Especially the "gender critical is the same as saying race realist" one, which, sure, both are terms showing that the person is a part of a hate group. Not sure why that means we can't use the term though when both terms are...the terms that the hate groups describe themselves as. Those are their terms they use to avoid blatantly using self-descriptors such as racist or transphobic that would plainly reveal what the hate groups are about. And we've only be using them as terms from the reliable references themselves. Silverseren^C 21:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I'd have phrased it quite that way, but I don't disagree with what you're saying. I just wanted to point out the relevant conversation points to get you up to speed on this source. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Silver seren, please strike your comment about this BLP and all other gender critical persons as being "in a hate group." BLP policy applies to talk pages, and saying a BLP is "in a hate group" unless they're actually in a hate group is libelous. Hate campaigning is a serious accusation, not to be thrown at those you're at ideological odds with. Thank you. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:A488:E050:C64A:EC9F (talk) 10:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for finding this! One immediate response before reading: does the paper contradict our current article language: that Stock has published "articles in peer-reviewed academic journals"? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

She has published articles on her actual subject matter, philosophy of fiction in literature. Though her last article on that was years ago as far as I'm aware. Her older articles get reprinted as book chapters a lot, so that fills up her Google Scholar listing. And she's never published an academic article on anything related to trans topics. It has nothing to do with her education background, for one. Silverseren^C 21:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Thanks for gently nudging me out of my brain fart moment. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

From memory of when I last read this paper after Newimpartial linked it, the only point I objected to was classifying Stock's piece in The Philosopher as academic writing. That source isn't peer-reviewed, and she was commissioned directly by that periodical to produce the article. See my comments under Sentence on published works in lede as well as my recent revamp of The Philosopher for more info as to why. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, yeah, it's a periodical, not an academic journal. Not sure how anyone could seriously claim it counts as academic writing. It's basically a self-written high end magazine article on a specific topic. Nothing scientific about it. Silverseren^C 21:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Until the revamp, our article on The Philosopher said it was a peer-reviewed journal, which was apparently an error. I never said we shouldn't use the SAGE Open source whatsoever; what I objected to was privileging its description over that of many others. My points, though, do apply - that it is a WP:BIASEDSOURCE because it clearly is arguing for a particular position, and hence should be attributed and treated with proper WP:WEIGHT, and that as far as academic sources go, it isn't the best sort, being in a pay-to-publish megajournal. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

AndyGordon edits

@AndyGordon: I've reverted your edits adding the Natacha Kennedy material from The Times. If you're unaware, this page is under WP:CRP and WP:1RR, so reinstating edits like this is gonna require consensus. My thoughts are generally this: the BLP issues are big here. The claim that a rando trans Goldsmiths prof organized a systematic campaign to fire Stock and other academics is patently an example of [s]urprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources. The Times seems to be the only source reporting this outside of non-RS like the Daily Mail, so we would avoid covering stuff like this per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. And in a general sense, the article is extremely vague about the specific involvement of any of these parties in given actions; did Kennedy encourage attempts to fire Stock et al., or merely circulate a warning list of "professors to avoid" for trans students that was taken up by people who did? We need to be serious about getting BLP issues right and avoiding gossip. Material from the The Cut I'm less immediately concerned with, but it seems to devote an undue amount of coatrack on Rowling/Forstater on the basis of a v brief statement Stock once wrote an article abt them that which doesn't allow us to say much interesting about her or why in particular she cared about the case. Maybe the stuff about intentionalism is more useful? We don't have a lot of info about her non-trans-related work. Dunno what other people think.

(There's some prior discussion about the Times article at Talk:Aimee_Challenor#Smear_Campaign. Also, this is less important but using The phrase "This Is Not a Drill" is the title of Stock's post on Medium to summarize The Cut's “This Is Not a Drill” is the title of a Medium post on the case by the British philosopher Kathleen Stock is a little too WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASEy for my taste -- understand it's easy to get into this pattern where people are hyperconcerned w/ exact wording obvs, but "is the title of" just screams for rephrasing...) —0xf₈e₈ 💿 (talk) 12:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on this. Have I got this right: your BLP concern is for Natacha Kennedy, essentially that the "smear campaign" is covered by only one WP:RS, the Times article? I cannot see other RS at this point. Fair enough, we should not cover the campaign by Kennedy based on a single RS, as per the presumption in favour of privacy in WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Thank you, I hadn't properly internalised that.

Thinking on it, what we should cover is that multiple RS do say that Stock's views make students "feel unsafe". Apart from the Times article we are discussing, here are four other RS:

“Kathleen Stock makes trans students unsafe, Sussex still pays her” Sussex University students campaign to have ‘transphobic’ professor Kathleen Stock sacked | News | The Times

"Of those who were willing to talk, all were supportive of the trans community at Sussex and were concerned about trans students feeling unsafe." Campus in the spotlight: how Sussex became focus of row over trans rights | University of Sussex | The Guardian

“Sussex is full of queer and trans students, and also the fact we’re paying £9,000 a year to feel unsafe on campus is quite interesting,” Sussex university students protest against professor Kathleen Stock (pinknews.co.uk)

"In her original email accompanying the flags, which I believe she has tweeted today, she mentioned ‘negative media coverage around the proposed reforms to the Gender Recognition Act’ which she claimed was making ‘trans students feel unsafe’."Kathleen Stock: Academic claims she was victimised by trans flags (pinknews.co.uk)

I would propose to insert the following text:

Stock has been accused by campaigners of making students feel "unsafe".[cite pieces above plus Times article] In 2018, Stock responded: "What would make a philosophy department unsafe is if its academics weren’t allowed to challenge currently popular beliefs or ideologies for fear of offending."[cite Times article] AndyGordon (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding "is the title of" please go ahead and suggest a paraphrase. Thank you. AndyGordon (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

ok, I will make a new topic with my rewrite. AndyGordon (talk) 08:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe not, sorry, I'll do it here. This is my proposed rewrite of the reverted text about TheCut article. I would like a consensus to include it. Please give your views.

On 18 December 2019, Stock posted This Is Not a Drill on Medium, a call to support the cause of Maya Forstater following a legal ruling against her. Author J. K. Rowling also sided with Forstater and took to Twitter, making the first direct expression of her views about transgender issues, in a tweet that included the hashtags #IStandWithMaya and #ThisIsNotADrill. AndyGordon (talk) 08:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

That rewrite looks fine, appropriately succint and paraphrased, no issues on my end. Thanks for hearing me out! —0xf₈e₈ 💿 (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Stock's new job

Seems like after resigning from University of Sussex, Stock has become one of the founding faculty at the newly formed University of Austin. Note for whomever can add this to the article that this is not University of Texas at Austin. University of Austin is a new institution announced by Bari Weiss about 5 hours ago. I'm not sure the institution is notable enough, because of its newness to warrant its own article as of yet. But we probably want to cite this employment status change for now. While not citable, on Stock's Twitter she has said that she's not moving to Austin and will be involved remotely from the UK.

As before, I'd add this myself, but I've not met the extended confirmed requirements as of yet. I'd suggest this sentence to be inserted as the third sentence in the lead, before She has published academic work on.... Suggested wording On 8th November 2021, she accepted a position as a founding faculty fellow at the newly formed University of Austin. with an inline citation to the Argus article linked above. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• Palantir Founder Is Backing Bari Weiss’ No-Degree ‘University’'

Stock is also mentioned over here in this article. Silverseren^C 17:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I added she is joining Uni of Austin, from The Telegraph (link). Solipsism 101 (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Academic posts

There has been a lot of confusion about her academic journey. From the Wayback Machine, it's clear that Stock was a lecturer when she joined Sussex.[3] By 2007, she was senior lecturer.[4] By 2013, she was reader.[5] At some point, she was head of department and deputy head of the school (or a college in other systems).[6] In 2018, she was made professor.[7] She studied for her BA from 1991-95, MLitt 1995-96, PhD 1997-2001.[8] Posting it here as I am not familiar with linking archives. Solipsism 101 (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

People have said she was reader in 2007 because in a book published in 2007, the Amazon description says she's a reader.[9] However, it appears that description was updated at a later date. In the text of the book, Stock is listed as a lecturer. Solipsism 101 (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

RFC: What should be in the lead?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What shall we have in the lead of this bio article? I leave it to you (plural) to put forward your proposals (preferably in green lettering) in this RFC. Anyone may expand this RFC into 'more' areas (beyond the four, I thought appropriate). I open this RFC for more input & to hopefully avoid any more editors reporting editors to WP:AE. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposals

• A- lead section to open with, "Kathleen Stock OBE is a British philosopher and author. Until 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"

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

The first paragraph & the opening to the second paragraph are fine with me. GoodDay (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Clarification added per GoodDay. Newimpartial (talk) 02:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• B- same as A, except the "her views" sentence would read, Her views on gender identity and gender self-identification have become a contentious issue. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• C - [...] She has been accused of transphobia for her views on gender identity. Loki (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
• D - Close the RfC without editing the article content. Refile one week post-closure, with that time period being used to determine the RfC question, sourcing, and survey options. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• E - [...] 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. 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) 10:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• F
  • TBAN everyone participating in this discussion
  • Ping four or five random editors - even (shudder) student editors would do - and get them to bash out a new lede in thirty minutes
  • Problem solved. Tewdar (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• etc, etc.

Survey

• D, because none of the presented options are good enough. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC) striking 02:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
• A - as it's my proposal. GoodDay (talk) 01:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• B, 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- 04:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

As discussed in #Sentence in lead summarizing her views and previously, the RS document that Stock's controversial views on transgender rights are not at all limited to issues of "self-identification" so it would be whitewashing to be unduly specific and mislead readers by omission. Also, per the sources assembled by Crossroads, "Transgender rights" predominates in the introduction of the subject, on the "summary of summaries" principle. Newimpartial (talk) 11:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• (invited by the bot) This seems more like opening a discussion than an RFC. But suggest leaving out "transgender rights". This can mean some many different things, including implying that she opposes rights which her and nearly everybody supports. In short, the range includes false unsourced negative characterizations of her in a BLP. North8000 (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, except that the characterization of the issue as transgender rights is not unsourced; the sources provided in the previous section (by Crossroads, who opposed this option) that emphasize "transgender rights" include The Independent, The Guardian and The Times (twice). This sourcing represents a wide range of political/editorial spectrum, and better sourcing from RS than has been offered for "gender self-identification". So neither false nor unsourced, then, and I don't see how "views on transgender rights and gender identity" can be negative since it doesn't characterize those views as pro- or con-. Newimpartial (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I just gave my opinion. That the term "transgender rights" is so broad that it can have a disparaging meaning. Such as implying advocating denying rights based on that attribute. North8000 (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
      • But isn't the neutrality (or otherwise) of phrases like transgender rights a question subject to evidence, like the usage in The Times and The Guardian, rather than an editor's personal opinion? Asking for a friend. :) Newimpartial (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
        • Well, sources (merely) using the phrase don't determine the neutrality of the phrase of provide an overview of the meanings of the phrase. But that is besides my point in two respects. My point is that it so broad / vague that use in that context has disparaging possibilities when used in that context.North8000 (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
          • That smells like OR, TBH. It seems to me that we've seen enough editors freebasing on this topic, already. Newimpartial (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• A - I was hesitant to give a formal response, due to the WP:NPOV issues I have with the article as currently constituted. However, I am convinced that 'views on' transgender rights is something that can be, at a bare minimum, verified. To use B would be to take Stock's own framing of her views at face value, and reinforce making it the basis for the entire section on the controversy. JackWilfred (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• C first, A second, not B, but this is a strange format for an RfC that I'm not sure is necessary, and looks very much like a rehash of this discussion above that serves only to disregard the consensus established there. — Bilorv (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Edited to support C now that's been suggested. — Bilorv (talk) 10:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
• D C: I most support Newimpartial's She has been accused of transphobia for her views on gender identity formulation from the above discussion. Both A and B are too vague and do not give a full picture of the situation from the sources, in which the exact phrase "accused of transphobia" appear many times and where all corroborate the general picture that the controversy is over accusations of transphobia. However A > B, and I specifically oppose any formulation that doesn't mention that the controversy is about transphobia in some form. (Also: is there supposed to be an option C? I can't see it.) Loki (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC), Edited Loki (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

"Transphobia" is specifically listed at WP:LABEL as a value-laden label that is best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. That does not seem to be the case here. And if it is used, then we are instructed, in which case use in-text attribution. Option C lacks this and is wide open to a "by whom?" tag. Such a writing style does not meet WP:BLPSTYLE (linked from LABEL). Crossroads ^-talk- 04:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• A or B. However, for "A" I would put gender identity first, followed by transgender rights. If you've read her writings, and listened to her interviews, her focus has been on gender. Trans this and trans that followed -- mostly by POV summations, assumptions, and editorializing. (I don't care if this RfC format is not the typical 2x2x2x2 format. All that matters is that the issue be settled and done with.) Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC); edited 14:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter what her focus is. It matters what the focus of reliable sources is. — Bilorv (talk) 10:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Yeah, yeah, yeah. And if the "reliable sources" narrow down to POVs, so what? Right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
      • I don't think The Guardian and The Times share a POV on this one, boss. But they both focus on the same thing. Newimpartial (talk) 12:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
• C (or E, or failing that A.) C is the only one that accurately states what the controversy over her positions actually is. Note that the invocation of WP:LABEL above plainly misapplies the policy. It does not apply to things that are broadly attributed, as this is; see [10][11][12][13][14][15] - many of these sources are sympathetic to her, but nonetheless describe her as being accused of transphobia, which shows that the simple fact that she has been accused of it is widely-cited, uncontroversial, and indeed central to her current notability. Similarly, WP:WEASEL does not apply because the lead can summarize opinions that are discussed in more depth in the body. It is certainly true that these accusations are contentious (and must be described as such), but they are widespread and provide essential context to a dispute that is central to the subject's notability, and therefore must be covered (neutrally, attributed properly somewhere in the article) and summarized in the lead. Omitting them simply because some people find them offensive or incendiary is contrary to the policies people are invoking to try and do so and falls afoul of WP:NOTCENSORED. B is obviously unacceptable, as it engages in vague and euphemistic phrasing; "transgender rights" is clear and reflects more worldwide sources. EDIT: E seems like an acceptable compromise, touching on the core aspects of the controversy over her in a way that makes it clear what the major strands of opinion are... although given that it was added late, it may be necessary to go with D and start over if we're going to consider it. --Aquillion (talk) 12:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
• Not B - "self-identification" is not a neutral term, and including it so early in the lead gives UNDUE prominence to the terminology preferred by the BLP subject, against the terms preferred by other recent RS. It also narrows the scope of the controversy in a way that is likely to mislead readers. Newimpartial (talk) 12:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
• A and B and leave the rest for the body of the article. LondonIP (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• C. All those articles listed above (apart from the Economist) have wording to the effect that Stock is an "alleged transphobe" presumably referring to the Sussex student protestors amongst others. It was the Sussex protest that made her broadly famous, witness the page views on this article. A and B are well-sourced too, but C captures the wording of the central accusation. AndyGordon (talk) 09:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• D - There are a number of structural issues with how this RfC has been conducted. Lets pause, reset, and come back in a week with definite options and do this properly. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• D This entire RfC is a mess. You don't start one without all the options in. The ones added later aren't given proper representation. You should start this over with some actual discussion on the options and better formatting for them. They're quite confusing at the moment. Silverseren^C 18:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• C What is the issue? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• E has several advantages in my view. First, it replaces transgender rights with inclusion which is slightly more specific, makes clear that the controversy is generally framed as 'transphobia vs academic freedom', and also allows us to dispense with all the letter writing stuff. Tewdar (talk) 10:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• A 2001:8003:C821:E801:90F5:6A26:B960:2287 (talk) 10:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Bad RfC. This is structurally flawed from the get-go and can't be trusted to lead to a meaningful consensus. XOR'easter (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

GoodDay, I don't think there can be a formal RfC that doesn't formulate at least one choice among specified alternatives. Can there? My sense is that these things are generally workshopped before the RfC is posted, though in some cases of course the alternatives continue to evolve, or new questions are added. At the moment, this looks like a Seinfeld RfC. Newimpartial (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

It's already in progress, so place your proposal(s) in the "proposals" section. GoodDay (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: none have been proposed yet in the RFC. Don't be shy. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: this is very improper use of an RfC. I'd direct you to WP:RFCQ and the specificity subheading. I'd also like to highlight the WP:RFCBRIEF infobox with good/bad questions, as this reads like a variant of What do other editors think about the discussions on this page? by asking uninvolved editors to propose content based on the prior discussions. An RfC needs to have proposals for uninvolved editors to comment on, it is not for uninvolved editors to fill in the proposals themselves. If an RfC is needed, which I don't think it is at this time, at the very least include the options that have been discussed previously. Honestly though I think this should be closed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Administrators I growing frustrated with the goings on at this article. Multiple reports to WP:AE (all rejected) related to this article, will do that. The RFC is in progress. Recommend participating in it, instead of objecting to it. GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I can verify this. Speaking as an administrator who regularly gives opinions at AE we are getting very tired of the constant meritless filings and polarization. I am personally considering removing editors from this page on both sides. I think this RFC is a positive alternative to that. You should all make your desired outcomes known, discuss it and then try to form a consensus. Then accept the consensus even if it is not what you wanted. If you can work it out among yourselves that is the best possible outcome. Obstructing such efforts is very much unproductive. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@HighInBC: one of the reasons I'm objecting to this is that we already have established a consensus under the subsection Discussion of "views on gender identity and transgender rights" proposed wording, which is why I think this is unnecessary. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: That may be true, but this will not be helping matters at all. It is not incumbent on the editors commenting on the RfC to provide the very content upon which they are commenting on. That is incumbent upon the filer, again see the specificity subsection on WP:RFCQ for how to do this. Note that I have two recommendations here, one that this RfC is entirely unnecessary per the discussion in "Meta discussion", and the other that this RfC should be closed until the filer can file it properly. If the filer files it properly, while I still think unnecessary, I will comment on. But not until then. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I started it & I'm not withdrawing it. It's up to the rest of you here. Either you (plural) will present your proposals as requested in the RFC 'or' refuse & continue forward as you (plural) have been, before I opened this RFC. GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Could you wait one week and refile the RfC? It would give us time to draft and discuss actual proposals, and it would mean that incoming editors would have options to !vote on and discuss. Alternatively, would anyone else prefer WP:DRN? It has the benefit of moderation, word-limits, and an iterative drafting process. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I would be in favour of either of these two options from Firefangledfeathers. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

RFCs can last up to & beyond four weeks. You've plenty of time to get your proposals together. GoodDay (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I added a proposal. Passing editors and locals can "vote" on it and hopefully it won't be too much hassle. It looks like the admin wants us to do the RfC so we should let the RfC do its thing. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

That's the spirit. GoodDay (talk) 05:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I would add as somebody summoned by the bot to comment on this RfC that I have never seen an RfC formatted like this, and I went over previous edits because I mistakenly believed the other options had been deleted by a disruptive editor. There's not much point summoning us to comment when the options are yet to be formulated. JackWilfred (talk) 02:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

In response to Crossroads' suggestion and Newimpartial's response, my understanding is that 'transgender rights' and 'gender self-identification' are ultimately contiguous terms, the latter forming an integral part of the former. It's difficult when we have somebody such as Stock who attempts to make such a clear delineation separating the two, and we're being asked to ultimately render a particularly subtle decision on whether we take Stock's view that she does not oppose 'transgender rights' as honest or not. I would add here that I believe the article as a whole has WP:NPOV issues and a meandering tone, and if it was a bit clearer on Stock's objectionable actions and the resulting criticism beyond a few scattered quotes, I would be okay to lean towards taking Stock at her word in the lead, with the body providing balance. JackWilfred (talk) 13:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Just a comment: neither Option A nor Option B indicates that Stock opposes transgender rights or self-identification; if we are to use a "views on" formulation in the first paragraph, as both of these options do, I think it is important to delineate the terrain where her views are "contentious" as accurately as possible, without hemming and hawing or obfuscation. Newimpartial (talk) 13:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't sure how your reply related to mine, but this article goes to some distance to avoid stating the issue at hand as being 'transgender rights', doesn't it? The only place "transgender rights" appears in this article currently is the one in the leading paragraph, and "trans rights" and variations only appear in quotes refuting that she opposes them. I think Wikipedia is capable of describing controversies with a bit more nuance than "Stock is accused of opposing transgender rights. She says she does not. Therefore, this is not an article/section about transgender rights." The Miller article, while experiencing its own WP:NPOV issues, is a lot more direct. JackWilfred (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the body of the article should be improved; the body text on "trangender rights" is currently skewed in favor of WP:MANDY material. The recent sources listed by Crossroads, above, have certainly foreground "transgender rights" as a framing for the debate; my sense is that the academic source might be the best one to offer context and deepen this framing. Newimpartial (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The MANDY essay is of very dubious validity compared to the WP:BLP policy if you ask me. As for that academic paper in the open access megajournal SAGE Open, it's important to keep in mind that it explicitly takes a side in the controversy, and hence has to be weighted accordingly. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

The paper in question is "taking a side" in the sense in which an academic interlocutor "takes a side", not the sense in which The Telegraph "takes a side". The author actually goes out of her way to be evenhanded with Stock's views, for example by incorporating more of Stock's terminology in the author's voice than would make me comfortable. I would love to have better secondary sources than this, too, but none have yet been offered. Newimpartial (talk) 12:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• I would be extremely cautious about arguments along the lines of it explicitly takes a side in the controversy, and hence has to be weighted accordingly - that amounts to an argument for WP:FALSEBALANCE, ie. you're saying that we need to divide this into two positions and balance things equally. That's not how WP:DUE works; the important thing is to determine support for different positions, especially among the highest-quality sources (eg. academic sources like that one.) If those sources are heavily on what you consider one "side" of an issue, we have an obligation to write an article that reflects that balance (or imbalance) - not one where we put our thumb on the scale to balance things to what editors personally consider best or to give equal weight to any views editors consider equivalent. This is especially true in cases (like climate change, COVID, and, yes, issues related to gender and sexuality) where there is a gap between the balance of prolifically grindy culture-war opinion outlets and higher-quality academic sources, which may give some editors a distorted view of the balance of high-quality coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 05:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Query - GoodDay, is your proposal to strip the lead section down to this one paragraph, and remove the rest? If so, the whole existing lead should be proposed as Option B. If not, I quite at a loss as to what your actual proposal is. Newimpartial (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm content with what's in the first & second paragraphs. By all means, bring forward your proposals. GoodDay (talk) 02:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• Note to closer for evaluating the status quo in case of no consensus closure: the wording in place currently, which matches Option A, was only inserted on Nov. 2nd, 2 days and a few hours before this RfC began. It was being debated under #Sentence in lead summarizing her views during the time between then and the RfC start. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Fair enough with me, on this note being mentioned. GoodDay (talk) 05:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • And as anyone who reads #Sentence in lead summarizing her views can see, the amended (Option A) text was not in fact being debated...during the time between then and the RfC began, at least not apart from Crossroads' filibustering. The issue discussed in that period concerned how to count editors' expressions of opinion, and whether they amounted to a rough consensus, but not the merits of the Option A text (which had been evaluated by nine editors before the text was changed). Newimpartial (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Evaluated by 9, but opposed by 3 of those... don't leave that off. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar: There's no options C or D etc etc, because nobody's put any forward. There's no limit to how many options can be put in the 'proposals' section. GoodDay (talk) 02:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Gotcha. Loki (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, I also don't find this a good way to do things, since proposals can be added continuously, so whoever commented early on in the process would pretty much be forced to go back regularly to reassess what's been happening since. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

It's better then having any editors dragged before administrators or worst, arbitrators. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: both myself and Firefangledfeathers have suggested that we should close it, and refile it with definite options with Firefangledfeathers suggesting a week delay between refiling to sort out those options. Multiple editors who have come via the RfC notification have commented on how this is an inappropriate format for the RfC. I understand that you think this is helping and obviously everyone here would not want this to go back to AE. But the way this is run is not how an RfC is done, and this is categorically not helping.

A Request for Comment requires at least two options to be suggested at the opening, and not for new options to be added after people vote. RfCs are frequently closed for structural or procedural issues, and this is one of those circumstances. Closing it, and refiling in a week with definite options will let the uninvolved editors come at it with a clarity they cannot do at present, because the RfC is not only asking to pick from options A/B/C, but also to add options D+. With the current issues, it is inevitable that someone will challenge this, either through a notice board or another RfC shortly after this one closes. Please listen when both involved and uninvolved editors are saying that this needs to be remade. Closing, and a delay of a week before refiling, to sort out what the question should be and what the proposed alternatives are (with or without sourcing) is the correct and obvious way to fix a fundamentally broken RfC filing, and prevent discussions elsewhere after this one closes. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Please, @GoodDay: help me understand (either here or on my talk page if you think it's too FORUM for here) why it has to be done this way, right here, and right now. Why can't we take that week to figure out the question, the sources, and the options for the survey and do this properly, like every other successful RfC on Wiki? Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I opened this RFC, to avoid editors getting themselves into trouble with administrators and or arbitrators. If anybody wants to pull the plug on this RFC, that's their choice. But, I'd suggest they inform & get agreement from 'all' the editors who've participated in it. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate that first part, wanting to prevent further admin intervention. But that doesn't help me understand why, as the filer, you were/are so adamant against closing to resolve the structural issues and then refiling? A broken process cannot be fixed while the process is in operation. And pausing for a week to fix the parts that are broken will prevent issues post closure that might require admin or arbitration to resolve in any meaningful fashion. I do want this to succeed, regardless of whether the option(s) I prefer get chosen or not, as you are correct, we do need outside/uninvolved comments on it. But I really don't think the current format can work, as multiple editors have tried to point out.

Related to this, I've now resurrected Firefangledfeathers former option D, with a more definite plan. Is it appropriate for me to ping everyone who has voted/commented thus far to request canvassing on this? Note that this problem, of adding options after editors have voted, is precisely one of the structural flaws with the current format for this RfC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider it canvassing, if you contacted all editors who've participated in this RFC. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay, Newimpartial, Crossroads, LokiTheLiar, Tewdar, Firefangledfeathers, North8000, JackWilfred, Bilorv, Pyxis Solitary, Aquillion, LondonIP, AndyGordon, HighInBC, and Drmies: notifying you per the discussion directly above between GoodDay, Drmies, and myself, as you've all either contributed to the discussion or voted, and several have commented on the unusual format of this RfC. Is there consensus to close this RfC early, without making any edit to the lead text, and then re-filing one week post-close with a defined question, set of proposals, sourcing for the proposals, and survey options? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

While I agree that this RfC was done poorly, I don't think that it was done so poorly that it should be scrapped and remade. Loki (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Perfectly decent RfC format in my opinion. Not many suggestions on content, and a lot of the usual bah-boo, but the initiator can hardly be blamed for that. What makes you think that anything will improve "one week post-close"? Is everybody you pinged getting TBANed or something? 😂 Tewdar (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Because when the RfC was submitted, only option A existed. Options C and D weren't even added until after 5 people had put in their choice. Hence why this RfC was incredibly poorly done and should be redone with all the options in from the start. The initiator was absolutely at fault for creating it as such. They should have created it, had other people add options, and then opened it for voting. Silverseren^C 18:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I thought I was clear, but I'll restate. The purpose of the week between an early close and the re-file is to fix the structural issues this from this RfC filing. During that period we would set a more definite question to open with, with a defined set of proposals for editors to be surveyed on, and with those proposals having appropriate sourcing to justify the proposed wording. That way editors can be properly informed upon what they are voting on, and the justifications from sources for each proposed option.

One of the other difficulties with the current format is the inherent unfairness for people adding proposals after other editors have voted. For example, earlier today you added option E. Prior to doing so ten editors had voted on proposals A-C. While some of those editors are regular contributors in this topic area, and will revisit the page regularly or have it in their watch lists, some are explicitly here because of the RfC notification. For that later category of editor, there is no guarantee that they will return to this discussion now that they have voted. It may be that those editors might prefer your newly proposed option E, over the previously proposed A-C, however finding that out relies on them returning to edit their vote post-fact.

That's not how you run a survey. You cannot draw any meaningful conclusions because not everyone will have voted/contributed/seen all of the options that are available at the end of the survey period. An early close will let us address that fundamental unfairness inherent in the current format, that allows any editor to add new survey options while the survey is open. And it prevents a whole host of WP:CANVASS issues for late proposers, that I am acutely aware that I am skirting the edges of right now in raising this issue. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I want everyone to be able to contribute, and I want it to be done in as fair a manner as possible for all contributors. I don't think or want anyone TBANed. I want fairness to all contributors, even if I disagree completely with their proposals. The current format is inherently unfair to any editor making a proposal after other editors have already voted. It's simply not how you conduct any sort of survey. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• I think that C and D, while they were added a week in, are probably getting fair consideration (anyone who supported B before C was added can reasonably be presumed to be unlikely to support C given how divergent they are anyway, and most of the people who commented before C and D were added have been active here since, so we can assume they saw the other options.) But I do think that E deserves more consideration - it addresses the concerns some people have about C by highlighting other views for balance, without omitting anything important or treating anyone's views as correct in the article voice. --Aquillion (talk) 02:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Also, something else that occurred to me - if the RFC reaches a clear consensus it is unlikely that waiting a week would change that. If it doesn't reach a clear consensus, then obviously it makes sense to take a little while to workshop options and then run one or more followup RFCs. We don't need a prior consensus from this RFC to run another one for more clarity if this one fails to reach consensus. One option might be to break it up into smaller RFCs on specifically contentious bits of wording (ie. one yes / no RFC if the lead should mention she has been accused of transphobia; one separate yes-no RFC on whether to talk about her views on "transgender rights" as being controversial, a third yes-no RFC on whether to talk about her views on "gender self-identification" as being controversial - that would show if particular aspects have consensus even if others don't.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I've no preference either way on this question. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

No further RfC is needed, nor would a different one be advantageous to this one. The critical part of the article's current text (Her views on transgender rights and gender identity have become a contentious issue) already has consensus (not the same as unanimous agreement) and this is invalid re-litigation with no new information or substantial reason. The current text wasn't my first choice but it should simply be left as is. Everyone here has much bigger things to focus on. This is not a comment about other changes to the lead, for which more discussion could prove useful (though, again, surely we all have better things to do). — Bilorv (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Though I could unilaterally close the RFC per WP:RFCEND's criteria #1. I'd much rather use WP:RFCEND's criteria #2, which requires consensus for closure among participants. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, criteria #2 states: Anyone can close it down, if they think they have a consensus to do so. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I consent to closure. There are better ways to raise the questions that actually need answering (including, potentially, a better RfC). Newimpartial (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I am pro-closure. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Obviously I am pro-closure, and I think it can be inferred that @Silver seren: is too, per their survey answer above. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am also pro-closure. I think, at minimum, we need a better formatting for the options so it's more clear what the entirety of the lede would look like under each option. The current suggestions are a bit confusing. Silverseren^C 21:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Everyone has been pinged back just now by you, which is after all the options through E were added. They can change their comment if they want. Just let the thing run its course. It makes no sense now to shut it down and try to start it again in a week. And since many people have commented, it isn't fair to them to shut it down and just leave it all be and not have their comments be counted by a closer. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• FWIW despite what I've said above I'm fine with closing this one because just tallying everything it seems extremely likely to be headed to a no-consensus outcome, which could probably be avoided by breaking things down a bit and spending some time thinking of compromises or alternatives. Letting it run for the full length just to fail to reach a consensus before we can try something better doesn't seem like a productive use of time. --Aquillion (talk) 07:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I consent to closure. I struggle to see what a new RfC would achieve, however, as I think most contributors here will simply restate their existing position, even if alternatives are given time to develop. JackWilfred (talk) 12:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Something I mentioned above is that we could split the RfC into multiple sub-questions and handle them individually - that is, it's reasonably clear just from the discussions so far that there's a few specific phrases in dispute in terms of how we summarize the controversy and how Stock's views have been described; we can have an RFC to include / exclude each of those phrases in the lead individually, then see if that leads to a clear version of the disputed text. It is possible there may be consensus on some aspects and not others; hashing that out could help us going forwards. --Aquillion (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Aquillion: - I just set something up below. Tell me if you think it stinks or not. Tewdar (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Disregarding the 'mobile editor', we've 15 who've posted at the survey. I'll close it down, if we get a majority (8) in favour. If the 'survey' number grows in the interim, the majority required also grows. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

7–1 in favour of closure. We need 1 more. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Fine, close it. A valiant effort, @GoodDay:... Tewdar (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

8 out of 15, the majority is carried. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.