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. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 | 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:
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. |
subsequent career edit
didn’t she join the staff at an extremely controversial university after leaving Sussex? This is crucial information. 2A01:CB05:54:C200:6944:BD1:F947:D65D (talk) 06:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think it’s probably the University of Austin which you’re thinking of. This is mentioned at the end of the Academic career section. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- 'extremely controversial' - and hysterical UK 'academics' launching a witch hunt against her is, of course, not controversial at all ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.154.17 (talk) 09:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Crucial information to whom? Are you convincing a jury against Kathleen stock? This is outrageous reading Wikipedia is part of the promotion of anti-female rhetoric. Anyone not making way is hateful. I wonder what the AGP wiki states, most likely “debunked theory”. 2600:1006:B185:6EF9:2025:7F9C:79D6:E408 (talk) 02:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 September 2023 edit
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Edit should be re-applied:
04:44, 10 June 2023 Snokalok talk contribs 58,022 bytes −7 →Views on gender self-identification: Removed word “theory”, seemed pov
Undo was insufficient: "The expression ‘gender identity theory’ is used 4 times in the text of the ES source, as well as in the headline." It does not matter what the link states as it doesn't address the reason for the change, further the link is a book BY Stock, to say it's biased on the topic is an understatement. 24.206.115.25 (talk) 09:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
