Talk:Kathleen Stock

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kathleen Stock article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 30 days

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Feminism Mid‑importance

	Feminism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy Low‑importance

	Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

the lesbian project

At the moment the section seems very very overstated for a section which has 3 sources all published within a week of eachother (over a year ago) with only 1 or 2 rs. Looking for more recent sources I couldn't find anything post march 2023 actually about the project.

Given the above I would think it best to either delete the entire section or move it to a subsection (titled the lesbian project) under views on gender self-identification and trim it down to remove the promotion feel it currently has.

I'll give the 2nd suggestion a go over the next couple of days but I'm starting the conversation here. LunaHasArrived (talk) 11:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just realised the article is ECP so I won't be able to edit LunaHasArrived (talk) 11:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LunaHasArrived: The section on the Lesbian Project does not look overblown or promotional to me. And the Project is active – see the report in Scottish Legal News [1], though this does not mention Kathleen Stock, so it is not relevant for this article. What exact changes do you have in mind? Sweet6970 (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the project is for cisgender lesbians only it very much seems like it should be under the section for "views on gender identity" instead of its own section. Especially as similar events (Stock becoming a trustee of LGB Alliance) are included there.

Coming to size it seems to be the largest paragraph in the entire article which given the lack of RS about it seems like we're giving it undue weight (comparing to the first paragraph in the views on gender identity section, 6rs compared to 2? For the lesbian project). Comparing it to the honours section below (a truly seperate topic with 5 rs) makes it really obvious how much weight we give to a non-notable group.

We describe the purpose of the project 3 seperate times (the group intends to..., it describes its purpose as..., the purpose of the project according to stock is...) we should probably be cutting 2 of these. In my opinion the one to keep us probably "it describes it's purpose as ..." As then we don't make any claims in wikivoice.

Honestly speaking those 2 changes probably help a lot to make sure a reader doesn't believe this is one of the most notable things Stock has ever done. LunaHasArrived (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) Regarding making the section on the Lesbian Project a subsection of the ‘Views on gender identity’ : I don’t think this would work. There is no comment by Stock saying that it is only for cisgender lesbians – we only have the word of PinkNews for this, so we do not have grounds for saying that this arises from Stock’s views. A possible alternative would be to make the subsections of ‘Views on gender identity’ into main sections – then the section on the Project would not appear disproportionate.

2) Sorry, I don’t understand your objection to the length of the Project paragraph – it’s still not a very long paragraph.

3) Regarding the repetition – since this article is about Stock, and not about the Project itself, I suggest deleting ‘It describes its purpose as to "highlight and champion the experiences, insights and sensibilities of lesbians in all their diversity".’ This shortens the para a little, and leaves Stock’s comments intact.

4) We could also shorten the para by deleting ‘and reported that the launch materials unintentionally used pictures of trans and non-binary people’ which is not relevant to this article and just looks petty and spiteful. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the only secondary rs on the topic is pink news we should be mostly following their reporting.

1) The lesbian Project's website currently lists the first of their 3 principles as being only for cisgender lesbians. Given that Stock is a co-founder and listed as currently a co-director it seems fair enough to put it in the same section as her being a trustee for LGB Alliance.

2) As a principle Wikipedia should follow the prominence of a subject in reliable sources, the paragraph length and own section makes it seem like to a reader that the lesbian project is of roughly equal importance to the controversy over her being awarded an OBE (both given their own 1 paragraph section). The reliable sources do not agree and there is far more written by rs's on the OBE topic than the lesbian project.

3) The first sentence to go should be"The group intends to give a non-partisan political voice to UK women who are same-sex attracted". This statement isn't even fully backed up by the source (non partison never appears in the telegraph) and we would be better off using quotes from the Lesbian project, not wikivoice to state this stuff. Honestly we probably don't need to say more than : The purpose of the Lesbian Project, according to Stock, is "to put lesbian needs and interests back into focus, to stop lesbians disappearing into the rainbow soup".

Any more would be unduly self serving.

4) Given the amount of space currently given to The lesbian project it is probably due. However if we make the entire mention a short 2 sentence paragraph (something along the lines of, first sentence same as current, 2nd one being the sentence I just gave above) I'd be happy for the mention to be cut.

All in all I'd say a short 2 sentence paragraph is probably all that is due on this topic (considering the serious lack of RS talking about it). I don't think we need loads of quotes from Stock given she founded it (and her viewpoint is what one would expect) but quoting her on what she thinks the purpose is could be good. Maybe a mention that it is for lesbians that aren't trans or non-binary could be helpful as well. LunaHasArrived (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the following shorter wording:

On 9 March 2023, Stock, alongside tennis player Martina Navratilova and writer Julie Bindel, launched The Lesbian Project.[78][79][80] The purpose of the Lesbian Project, according to Stock, is "to put lesbian needs and interests back into focus, to stop lesbians disappearing into the rainbow soup and to give them a non-partisan political voice."[79] Explaining her motivation, Stock said: "Lesbians will always exist but we're in a crisis in which young lesbians don't want to be associated with the word. Some of them want to describe themselves as queer and some of them prefer not to see themselves as women but as non-binary."[78] PinkNews said the Lesbian Project is a "group created exclusively for cisgender lesbians – in reaction to trans inclusion in LGBTQ+ spaces".[80]

Do you agree? Sweet6970 (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is much better than it was before, however I'm still unconvinced we need to spend so much space dedicated to repeating Stock's words from primary sources (her peice in the observer and her interview in the lifestyle section of the telegraph) that weren't repeated in secondary sources.

On a different note is it ok if I post this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies just to get a couple more sets of eyes on this? (Feel free to suggest other places, I just thought given the name they seemed appropriate) LunaHasArrived (talk) 10:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You do not need my consent in order to notify a noticeboard. But anyone who is interested in this article would already be watching the page. There are currently 84 page watchers, including me, and presumably you. That’s 82 people who do not think this discussion is significant enough to comment. And I do not see that this is relevant to an LGBTQ issue – it is, surely, a matter of emphasis in the wording. More relevant noticeboards would be NPOV and BLP. But usually matters are only referred to these noticeboards when there is a serious dispute between several editors. I have tried to come to an agreement with you. Surely it should be possible to come to an agreement without outside intervention. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a response to the first half of my comment? LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Kathleen Stock. I do not think it is excessive to give this amount of space to her views on an organisation which she co-founded. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is excessive to write more about what she thinks about a project than the project itself. Secondary rs don't give her comments that much space. Comparing to the articles on Maya Forstater with Sex matters and KJK with her Party of women neither article has any quotes from them.

Honestly speaking I can't see how anything more than :

"On 9 March 2023, Stock, alongside tennis player Martina Navratilova and writer Julie Bindel, launched The Lesbian Project"

Is due and should probably be at the bottom of the opening subsection of views on gender -self identification rather than having it's own section. LunaHasArrived (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t all of these quotes come from secondary RSes? And without any explanation, “Stock launched the Lesbian Project” means nothing. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The observer peice is Stocks own writing. The telegraph peice is a primary interview with Stock. Neither are secondary. LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information for our readers. I agree with Zanahary – LHA’s proposed version tells our readers nothing. We need the comments from Stock which are included in my proposed version in order to tell our readers something about the organisation which Stock has co-founded. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a fair and balanced compromise to me. Void if removed (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article about the Lesbian Project in the Independent – a secondary source which refers to the Project as describing itself as “an organisation dedicated to representing the rights and interests of lesbians in the UK”. [2] Sweet6970 (talk) 12:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have now made this change. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

website link

The website link leads to suspicious Amazon imitation site, which I do not believe is her actual site. I'd change it myself but I haven't the permissions. Nestifer (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the link. Thanks for pointing this out. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having a look again the first link ("Official website") still links to the wrong place and the link to her Google scholars page (linked as "kathleen stock") is also broken. LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have deleted the second incorrect link, and the broken link for the Google scholars page. Sorry, I don’t know how to correct the link to the scholars page. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]