Jump to content

Talk:Sarah Jane Baker

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sweet6970 (talk | contribs) at 20:34, 12 November 2023 (→TERF: providing the wording). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 17:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Sarah Jane Baker in 2020
Sarah Jane Baker in 2020

Moved to mainspace by GRuban (talk). Self-nominated at 14:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Sarah Jane Baker; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

This is a well written and meticulously cited article that accurately reflects the RS. The author has clearly taken care to write as balanced of an article as possible on a controversial figure. The hook is jarring, but is verified to the cited Reuters article. Given that the hook fact is something widely reported that has brought Baker to the attention of the broader public (and essentially given her a platform to speak as a transgender activist), I see no reason not to use the hook as written. Hook length and hook fact verified. Article is new enough and long enough and within compliance of wiki policies.4meter4 (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have pulled this nomination from prep after disagreement at WT:DYK. Please discuss issues there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so the issues at WT:DYK were twofold: User:BeanieFan considered the hook disgusting and confusing, and User:VaticidalProphet considered the hook both shocking and not particularly central, which seem somewhat similar, while User:Lightburst had a whole slew of objections all of which only had in common their point that since Baker was a bad person, she should not be on DYK. I don't think we can help the second by definition, but we can address the hook (which was among Lightburst's slew of objections) so hopefully that will suffice. Give me a bit to come up with multiple alternative hooks, will remove the Doing... template when done. There are certainly plenty of remarkable facts about her we can use. --GRuban (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT1: "... that Sarah Jane Baker (pictured) who says she learned to read and write in prison, published two books about life there?" Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-lgbt-prisoners-trfn-idUSKBN20Y3H0 I'm slightly uncomfortable with the "says" - if true, it would certainly be a remarkable fact, and it has been reported in more than just Reuters (for example, https://www.swlondoner.co.uk/news/12042021-uks-longest-serving-transgender-prisoner-to-run-for-richmond-park-mp states it without the "says" caveat) but there is some chance the subject could be an unreliable narrator.
  • ALT2: "... that when Sarah Jane Baker (pictured) was denied gender affirming care in prison, she attempted it herself with a razor blade?" Massaging the hook that was disliked at DYKT, to be less jarring, confusing, and shocking (by um ... removing the ... ahem ... so to speak ...)
  • ALT3: "... that when Sarah Jane Baker (pictured) was released after 30 years, she was the UK's longest serving transgender prisoner?" Again Reuters source. Less controversial in every way, but also less "hooky", almost boring.
  • ALT4: "... that Sarah Jane Baker (pictured) is an author, an artist, a political candidate, and formerly a violent felon, and the UK's longest serving transgender prisoner?" The kitchen sink hook! WP:DYKHOOKBLP says we're not supposed to unduly emphasize negative things in the hook, but I've been accused of glazing over the subject's significant crimes, so possibly listing it among her other interesting points may not be undue.
  • ALT5: "... that Sarah Jane Baker (pictured) is an author, an artist, a political candidate, and formerly the UK's longest serving transgender prisoner?" removes the most negative bit from the above.
  • ALT6: "... that Sarah Jane Baker (pictured) is an activist, an author, an artist, a political candidate, and formerly a violent felon, and the UK's longest serving transgender prisoner?" An even more kitchen-sinky hook than 4/5, in response to RoySmith's belief, below, that a DYK hook should completely describe the subject.
@Bruxton, Ritchie333, Lightburst, AirshipJungleman29, Vaticidalprophet, Theleekycauldron, BeanieFan11, and RoySmith: That should do it. I think I prefer ALT4, then ALT2, but will accept any that y'all agree on. Look well, o wolves! --GRuban (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do think ALT2 is better and more encyclopedic than any of the other hooks here, but I think I find myself on the minority on this, so I'll refrain from using any ticks or other bugs. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ya got b..., er ... great moral fortitude, Leeky. --GRuban (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think we should be promoting this person at all on the main page. If there is consensus to promote I prefer ALT4 or ALT1. Lightburst (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst has again not specified what promotion the article contains. I prefer AL2 or ALT4. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: I must not be clear when I say I do not think we should be promoting this person. Putting this person on the front page of the English Wikipedia is promoting the person. The person is selling books and a cause, and may run for office again. We are promoting them when we put their cause and image on the main page. I hope that was clearer. Lightburst (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did some searching in news outlets for "Sarah Jane Baker". I ignored explicitly LGBT or feminist outlets. I equally ignored explicitly Christian outlets. I also ignored outlets which WP:RSN rated as unreliable, and outlets that just plain looked dodgy. That didn't leave much. But of what it did leave (BBC, Evening Standard, GB News, Fox News, and The Independent) all introduce Baker as a "transgender activist" in the first sentence or headline. The European Conservative and the Guardian just call her (with slightly different wording) "a speaker at the Trans Pride event". Yahoo! News calls her (sigh) "A topless trans woman", with a video. The Southwark News uses "trans woman". iNews says, "longest-serving transgender prisoner". Given that's how she's described in WP:RS, it seems like we would be deliberately filtering (whitewashing?) things to call her "an author, an artist, a political candidate". RoySmith (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: Thanks for the research. Good points. Lightburst (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what those good points are as a DYK hook is not supposed to give a balanced description of the subject, rather just give a reason to read the article about it, in fact often an unusual one. It's not in any way supposed to be "the way most sources refer to the subject". For example, a hook running just today says "... that indirect evidence suggests that cataract surgery could have been performed as early as in ancient Egypt?" and I guarantee, without even looking at any sources, that 99.9% of sources about "cataract surgery" will not even mention ancient Egypt. But, I guess, the "kitchen sink" hook, which you seem to be unhappy about, and seems to already say transgender, can also say activist. ALT6 added as an option if you prefer; I don't object to it, just don't think it's an improvement over ALT4/5. I would object to a hook that says both "transgender activist" and "longest serving transgender prisoner", that's just redundant. --GRuban (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding in response to RoySmith's belief, below, that a DYK hook should completely describe the subject, no that's not what I believe. You don't have to completely describe the subject, but if the majority of WP:RS describe the subject primarially as a "transgender activist", then IMHO, that's what we should lead with as well. RoySmith (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Please spell out your preferred hook, ALT7. --GRuban (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a preferred hook, I just wanted to make the point I made above. RoySmith (talk) 02:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree that ALT3 is boring, at least descriptively rather than prescriptively -- hooks about subjects whose notability is in part or whole from legal escapades, that are about those escapades, do markedly better than most alternatives. I also think we quite direly bury the lead to focus on things like "the subject is an author" that are both of disinterest to most RSes and fairly misrepresentative of 99% of the article's content. Yes, many subjects should have hooks that misrepresent them (the cataract surgery example). This is less true for BLPs. It is markedly less true for extremely complex BLPs. Vaticidalprophet 06:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To confirm - do you prefer ALT3? Or are you suggesting a different hook that doesn't "bury the lead"? What do you consider the lead to be? --GRuban (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approving Alt3 for promotion. While I personally think all of the alternative hooks except for Alt1 are promotable, the concerns raised here and on the DYK talk page over the presentation of the subject indicate a consensus to not emphasize the subject's role as an author or activist over their criminal and incarceration history, or to use a hook which some might find overly violent/graphic. Alt3 fulfills those requirements. I also think the hook is interesting. For that reason, I am being WP:BOLD and approving ALT3 as the hook with the greatest support.
As for Lightburst's moral objection over featuring the subject on the main page, I can not see a valid policy rationale for acquiescing to that position. As pointed out on the DYK talk page, there have been many recent DYK hooks that featured articles that were equally (or more so depending on one's POV) objectionable. I would imagine that if we were to cull through the In the News, FA, and DYK histories of past main pages we could come up with a lengthy list of objectionable subjects that have been featured in the past. As noted elsewhere, articles on mass shootings, murders, and other violent events have all been featured on the main page in the past. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, including its main page, and I see no reason why we should start censoring now for this topic. Additionally, transphobic comments made on the DYK talk page make the attempt to censor here concerning.4meter4 (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
@4meter4: Your comment above is a PA and I request that you strike it. The definition of Transphobic is having or showing a dislike of or strong prejudice against transgender people. I said women do not have testicles and for thousands of years that was accepted biology. The person was a fully in tact male when they raped another male. It was a confusing hook which was objected to by several other editors. I do not accept that you can insult another volunteer with a label like transphobe for mentioning basic biology. Lightburst (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst Your comment at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Sarah Jane Baker and Nomination at Prep 2 was problematic as explained to you by theleekycauldron. I won't rehash that here, or get into a discussion with you about it because its off topic. All I will say is I agree with that other editor in their assessment of your statement. I only raised the issue here because of your request to censor the article from DYK, which should be viewed in context to your other comments at that discussion.4meter4 (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC
It is inaccurate, and it is a personal attack. Wikipedia:AVOIDYOU is policy. Lightburst (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure exactly what you want me to say. Whether you agree or not or intended to or not, the remark you made demonstrated a certain degree of prejudice against pre-op trans women which has an impact here on how your request for censorship is evaluated. It’s not a personal attack. It’s a statement of fact. Purposeful refusal of using gender pronouns of the expressed gender identity of the subject is listed as a transphobic behavior by the government of California via the Canada Human Rights Trust (https://www.gov.nl.ca/education/files/k12_safeandcaring_pdf_transphobic_cisnormative_bullying_harassment.pdf) This group includes pre-op trans women and also applies to how we speak and write about the lives of trans women before their transition. (see policy at MOS:GENDERID) Put simply a trans woman is always referred to as she and never he, and as a woman and not a man even when writing about or referring to a point of time in their lives while they were male presenting. Doing otherwise is a transphobic behavior. 4meter4 (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I objected to this rapist, kidnapper, torturer, who should still be in prison, getting on the front page in the image slot. I also objected to the provocative, gratuitous and confusing hook. You resorted to name calling and you now refer me to the government of California which apparently now mandates speech? There was no need for your personal attack and pontificating. I discussed the nomination and you discussed me and claim to know my thoughts. I will consider you persona non grata. I agree with @Vaticidalprophet: who selected the ALT3. Shame on you and TLC for personal attacks. Lightburst (talk) 03:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I referred you to the guidelines used for defining transphobic behavior used by California as by their employees including educators. I have not made comments about your thoughts at all. I only made a comment about your behavior and actual speech at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 195#Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Sarah Jane Baker and Nomination at Prep 2 which clearly demonstrated the refusal of the use of female pronouns towards Sarah Jane Baker before her transition. And the claim that “women can’t have genitals” (an attack on pre-op trans women). If you read about transphobia in the pdf above you can see how those comments are transphobic behavior as defined by that document. Addressing issues of bias from someone trying to censor Wikipedia from their bias is hardly a violation of our guidelines on personal attacks. If need be we can take this to WP:ANI but I would hope that you would recognize that I am being sincere and calm. I am attempting to be kind in patiently explaining to you why what you said is transphobic and is not ok. There is a learning curve here if this is a topic you are not familiar with. I wish you well. Best.4meter4 (talk) 04:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jump in the lake. I do not wish you well. Lightburst (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC) Struck my frustrated response. Lightburst (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst: One from the late great Tommy Cooper, on that note!  :) Serial 09:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[1] ( Page will play audio when loaded)


Violation of Wikipedia's Manual of Style: Gender Identity

Please refer to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity. The article as written commits multiple violations of the manual of style regarding gender identity. From the style manual:

Avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent)

My suggested re-write is:

She escaped for three months, during which she had a son.

The style manual also notes regarding deadnaming:

If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name

Sarah Baker is only notable as the UK's longest serving transgender prisoner and as a transgender rights activist. Her article was created in 2023, a decade after her transition in 2013. As such, there is no need to use her deadname outside of the reference list. As written, the article uses her dead name in three places, in clear violation of Wikipedia's style guide.

Sarah Baker is also implicitly misgendered by being referred to twice "as assigned male at birth" rather than as a trans woman. She is also referred to as a "transgender female" rather than as a trans woman which is non-standard terminology.

The article as written also references Sarah Baker's gender identity unnecessarily often. Such references should be minimized, as per the style guide:

Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent. Where a person's gender may come as a surprise, explain it on first occurrence, without overemphasis.

Due to these issues, I strongly recommend revision to all or most of my suggested changes to the article. Suphlatus (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(i) I would support the rewording that she had a son.
(ii) SJB is notable under her previous name, so this should be included.
(iii) Saying that someone was ‘assigned male/female at birth’ is not misgendering them. This complaint is completely misconceived.
Sweet6970 (talk) 11:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly agree with Sweet6970, except had a son could be misinterpreted as gave birth to a son; I think the current wording is better. BilledMammal (talk) 11:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(i) The current wording of "fathered" is in direct violation of the Wikipedia's Manual of Style on Gender Identity. This isn't ambiguous. The Manual of Style directly states not to use "fathered" to refer to a trans woman, as I quote above. Please read the Gender Identity section of the Manual of Style over if you are uncertain.
(ii) On what grounds is Sarah Baker notable under her previous name? The article states she is notable as a transgender rights activist and the UK's longest serving transgender prisoner. It logically follows from this that she was not notable before she transitioned.
(iii) "Assigned male at birth" states the gender Sarah Baker isn't (male) without specifying the gender she is (female). That is a form of misgendering. The Manual of Style makes it clear that trans people are to be referred to by the gender they identify with. As such, Sarah Baker should be referred to as a trans woman rather assigned male at birth. Suphlatus (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I believe it is a clearer to use "fathered", to avoid ambiguity. Baker is notable because she received WP:SIGCOV prior to transitioning, but even if she wasn't the situation is also likely similar to Isla Bryson case, where there was a consensus to use her former name due to her criminal activities, a key part of her notability, being committed under that name.
"Assigned male at birth" states the gender Sarah Baker isn't (male) without specifying the gender she is (female). That is a form of misgendering. That seems like a stretch to me. BilledMammal (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What you believe with respect to the use of the word "fathered" is directly contradicted by the manual of style. This is not about what you personally believe, but about what contradicts Wikipedia's style guides. This article is in violation of Wikipedia's style policies, as written.
The exception for notability in the style guide for gender identity makes it clear that this exception is intended strictly for the case where people are very likely to have heard about the individual under their dead name. That isn't the case here, where her notability is because she is trans and a trans activist and for no other reason. If she was notable merely for her criminal record, this article would have been created a long time ago when she was arrested, but it was only created earlier this year, 10 years after her transition and after her release from prison.
"That seems like a stretch to me" To say a trans woman is assigned male at birth specified the gender they don't identify with and not the gender they do identify with. This is a clear case of misgendering. You're disagreeing without providing a justification. Suphlatus (talk) 13:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The manual of style is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.
She is notable under her former name as well, due to the book she published. An individual can be notable without receiving an article. As for "assigned male at birth"; we aren't gendering her by saying that, we are merely saying the gender she was assigned at birth - relevant and encyclopedic information. BilledMammal (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to the COI question on my talk page already.
I have explained my judgements with reference to the Wikipedia style guide. You have justified yours with reference to "common sense", which I am not violating with my suggested edits, I am doing my best to improve the quality of the article.
I'm not sure we are going to come to a compromise on the issues in this article regarding the manual of style's advice on gender identity. I believe we should kick this up the chain. I'm going to flag the article for administrative review. Suphlatus (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "fathered" sticks out unfavorably. We want to make it clear that she did not bear the child, but also honor her identity. There must be a better phrasing available that will do so in a respectful manner. I just don't know what it is. --Neopeius (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that she did not get pregnant is implied by the fact she's trans, so I'm not sure we need to specify explicitly that she did not get pregnant. But the article previously used "engendered". We could revert to engendered to use a more neutral term without loss of specificity. Suphlatus (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The style guide suggests "Jane Doe became a parent" which may be the most natural solution to this problem. Suphlatus (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that SJB didn't become a parent while an escapee from prison, nor have the son then. SJB's child was conceived then, but became a parent when the baby was born, at which time SJB was in prison again, having been returned there months earlier.
SJB's notability began before transitioning. SJB's website sells a book under birth name Alan Baker, written & released when a cis male inmate of a male prison. This proves that SJB isn't trying to keep secret the previous, male name. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 01:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim 2 Michael:My wording regarding the son was She escaped for three months, during which time she met a woman by whom she had a son. This does not say that the son was born during the 3 months – it says she met the woman during the 3 months. And only female bodies conceive i.e. become pregnant. Baker was never pregnant. The correct verb for the male is ‘beget’ (past tense begat or begot) but nowadays this word is rare outside the King James bible. So please self-revert: your change is unnecessary, and the wording you have chosen is not correct. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your wording will likely be seen as implying the son was born during the escape because it says she met a woman by whom she had a son during the three months. The wording in the lead in my latest edit is that the unnamed woman conceived a son by Baker, which is true & doesn't go against any policies. Only male bodies impregnate, but the article is about a person described as a woman who impregnated a woman, so the wording can't be accurate without being awkward. I agree that we shouldn't use begat because it's an outdated word; another correct wording would be to say that Baker impregnated her. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the wording will always be awkward in these circumstances, but I think it would be better to say that Baker impregnated the woman, as you have suggested, because that is clearer than the current version. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“Sired” Snokalok (talk) 11:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of Wikipedia's Fundamental Principle of Neutral Point of View

The article as written commits multiple violations of NPOV in service of an anti-transgender agenda.

At the 8 July 2023 London Trans+ Pride Parade, Baker called for attendees to punch any TERF (a derogatory term for transgender critical feminists) they see in the face; her statement was videotaped and widely distributed.

Here the parenthetical statement should be removed as it is a gender critical feminist framing of the use of the acronym. The claim that TERF is a derogatory term for gender critical feminists, often stated succinctly as "TERF is a slur", is itself a strategic, gender critical talking point used to weaponize website moderation to shut down any critique of the views of gender critical feminists. TERF was in fact coined as a "deliberately technically neutral description". The term TERF is discussed in TERF (acronym) and Gender-critical feminism and so there is no need for this debate to be recapitulated in this article. A link to TERF (acronym) or Gender-critical feminism would suffice.

Asked for reaction, London Trans+ Pride organizers said that while they condemned violence, they supported her expression of what they referred to as her "righteous anger".

Here "what they referred to as" is an unnecessary hedge. The use of quotes by itself make it clear that it is London Trans+ Pride that is referring to her actions as "righteous anger". The addition of "what they referred to as" does not serve to clarify, rather it serves to imply doubt on the part of Wikipedia that the action constituted righteous anger, violating the NPOV principle.

She led a protest at the inaugural event of transgender critical feminist philosopher's Kathleen Stock's The Lesbian Project, where her violent history contributed to Stock's nerves.

Once again, this sentence violates NPOV. Here with the use of the phrase "where her violent history contributed to Stock's nerves" we are adopting a framing of Sarah Baker as the aggressor/perpetrator of violence and Kathleen Stock as a victim. This is, if anything, a reversal of the objective framing, as Stock is a leading figure in a hate movement dedicated to the elimination of human rights protections for transgender people such as Sarah Baker. The framing in the article privileges imagined, hypothetical violence against Stock over the actual violence of Stock's political movement against a marginalized population. A simple fix would be to shorten this sentence to "She led a protest at the inaugural event of gender critical feminist philosopher's Kathleen Stock's The Lesbian Project." and thereby avoid adopting the anti-transgender perspective on the protest.

Due to these issues, I strongly recommend revision to all or most of my suggested changes to the article. Suphlatus (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(i) ‘TERF’ is a slur, and is obviously intended as such in the context of ‘Punch a TERF’.
(ii) Regarding ‘what they referred to as her righteous anger’: it is not clear that this is the view of London Trans Pride unless this is specifically stated. We should not have this in wikivoice – that would be a very serious breach of NPOV.
(iii) Your comments about Kathleen Stock are potentially defamatory, and I suggest you strike them.
(iv) Regarding ‘where her violent history contributed to Stock's nerves’: this should, perhaps, be attributed to Kathleen Stock. I don’t have access to the source – do you have a suggestion for an attributed wording?
Sweet6970 (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(i) The claim TERF is a slur is not NPOV, but is instead a gender critical talking point, and is contentious. See TERF_(acronym)#Slur_debate for discussion.
(ii) The use of "said that" in the following sentence,

Asked for reaction, London Trans+ Pride organizers said that while they condemned violence, they supported her expression of what they referred to as her "righteous anger".

establishes that London Trans+ Pride organizers said that it was righteous anger, and makes it clear that it is not Wikipedia voice.
Perhaps this could be-written as, for clarity:

Asked for reaction, London Trans+ Pride organizers said that "We do not condone violence...We do condone righteous anger and the right to the free speech".

(iii) The statements I made of Stock are straightforwardly factual, it is not controversial that Stock is a notable figure in the British gender critical feminist movement, which is a movement dedicated to the removal of human rights for transgender people, and has been identified by the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention as a genocidal political movement. These statements are also much less incendiary than other statements made on this very talk page.
(iv) The article should not include Stock's perspective on the protest without also including trans perspectives from the same protest for balance in order to maintain NPOV. After searching coverage of the counter-protest, I haven't found an authoritative source for Sarah Baker leading the counter-protest as claimed in this Wikipedia article. The counter-protest to Stock's event was organized under the name the Dyke Project and has anonymous leadership. If Baker was merely attending the protest, Baker attending a protest is not in itself an event of sufficient notability to merit inclusion in the article, even if it made Stock "concerned". If so, all mention of this protest should be removed for lack of notability and relevance.Suphlatus (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(i) The article on TERF (acronym) says: the term is now typically considered derogatory or disparaging and the SJB article reflects this by saying that the term is derogatory.
(ii) I would accept the rewording to include the actual quote.
(iii) The statements you have made about Kathleen Stock are defamatory. She does not lead a ‘hate movement’, nor does she advocate for ‘the elimination of human rights protections for transgender people’. I don’t think that the The Lemkin Institute source says this, and in any event, it is not an authoritative source.
(iv) I would like to see the source before commenting on this.
Sweet6970 (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(i) There is a complex debate on the TERF acronym page, which also notes that the acronym was coined as a deliberately neutral term. There is no need for the Sarah Baker page to take a stance on the TERF acronym when it can simply link to the extensive discussion on the TERF acronym page.
(ii) Thanks.
(iii) Stock is a leading figure in the gender-critical movement. The Lemkin Institute does not discuss Stock specifically, but identifies the gender-critical movement as a genocidal movement. If you have a more authoritative source to suggest for discussing genocide, I am all ears. Wikipedia also has an article on transgender genocide that discusses the topic in the context of the current political climate. The Canadian Anti-Hate Network and the Southern Poverty Law Center, both organizations dedicated to monitoring hate movements in Canada and the USA respectively identify gender critical and trans-exclusionary feminists as anti-trans hate groups.
(iv) I have managed to get ahold of the source. Here's the relevant passage quoted from the Times:

Stock produces a baseball cap and sunglasses. “It’s my Kendall Roy look.” Because at 6ft tall, androgynous, with cropped grey hair, she is a striking woman. In her home town she’s left alone. But The Lesbian Project, which she recently co-founded to “stop women getting erased from the LGBT rainbow”, receives vicious threats and a protest at its inaugural event was led by Sarah Jane Baker, a trans activist who served 30 years for torture, kidnap and attempted murder.

Is she nervous? “Yes!” she cries, then tells Rob and me not to be too nice “or I’m likely to cry”. She says Oxford has never been a happy place for her: it was where she delivered her first ever philosophy paper to “terrifying Oxford postgrad students who were cerebral and robotic. I was nearly sick.” Stock is an odd mix of steely and vulnerable. She’s no bombastic, come-at-me blowhard like Jordan Peterson, who courts controversy, surfs opprobrium. When, as a philosophy professor at Sussex University, she published her first gender-critical blog, causing students and colleagues to denounce her, Stock fell into depression, wept and drank too much gin. Yet — as she told me two years ago — she wouldn’t, couldn’t recant. In fact, she kept writing: “I had to keep meeting every blow.”

So the Times article does in fact claim Sarah Baker was leading the protest. The article does not, however, claim that Sarah Baker made Stock nervous. The interviewer asks if Stock is nervous, she says yes, but she doesn't say Baker is making her nervous. So the claim that Baker made Stock nervous is original to this Wikipedia article and should be removed.
The claim that Sarah Baker lead the protest is in the Times article, but is dubious. All other articles I've read on the counter-protest attribute leadership of the counter-protest to the Dyke Project. The only individual organizer who has taken credit for the counter-protest by name is Jess Elliot, not Sarah Baker. The Times article is the only coverage of the protest that mentions Sarah Baker and the Times' claim that Sarah Baker lead the protest is contradicted by these other sources. In attempting to source The Times' claim that Baker lead the protest, I inevitably found myself on anti-trans hate website, where the claim that Baker lead the protest seems to originate. This claim is from video taken of the protestors without permission or adequate protection of the privacy of the filmed individuals. The individual that the hate website claimed as Baker leading the protect was an individual acting as a protest marshal, as near as I could discern, and that does not demonstrate that she lead/organized this protect. In sum: we don't know that Baker lead the protest, we don't know that Baker made Stock nervous, and this article is not intended to be a comprehensive list of all of the protests Baker attended, and thus this protest is of insufficient notability to be included in this page. Stock's page can mention this protest, as it may be important to detailing her page, but it's not an important moment in Baker's history. Suphlatus (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will go ahead and make change (ii), rewording to use the actual quote from London Pride+. Suphlatus (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(i) There is nothing wrong with the current wording saying that TERF is derogatory – this should remain unaltered.
(ii) Thanks for making the amendment.
(iii) Your arguments in no way justify your comments about Kathleen Stock. See WP:BLP.
(iv) Thank you for providing the extract from the Times source. Basing my comments on the extract you have provided, I would say that we should delete where her violent history contributed to Stock's nerves, as this is not justified by the source. As the Times says SJB led the protest, and this is not contradicted by the other sources you have provided, this should stay.
(v) A comment regarding minor edits. Edits should only be marked m when it is improbable that they would ever be disputed. So this means just obvious typos and bad grammar. The edits you have marked m can, and have, been disputed. See WP:MINOR.
Sweet6970 (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Malapropism: Transgender Critical Feminist

In multiple places, the article incorrectly uses the term "transgender critical feminist". The correct term is gender-critical feminist. The phrase "transgender critical feminist" in fact implies a feminist who is transgender and engages in critical feminism. Suphlatus (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you're right on this point. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will go ahead and make this correction and only this correction in the article. Suphlatus (talk) 13:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious Labels

As discussed in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Contentious_labels:

Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies. Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy and that the term is not used to grant a fringe viewpoint undue weight

As such, I recommend re-writing the following sentence:

After her release in 2019, Baker became an outspoken and controversial political and transgender rights activist.

My suggested re-write is as follows:

After her release in 2019, Baker became an outspoken transgender rights activist.

This change removes "controversial" (which is a vague and subjective term) as the article already does enough to establish why Baker might be controversial given her history of legal trouble.

Additionally, the word "political" in this sentence is redundant, as transgender rights activism is inherently political. I also suggest making transgender rights activist a hyperlink to the relevant Wikipedia article.

Furthermore, the article opens with the lead sentence:

Sarah Jane Baker (born in 1969 or 1970) is a British transgender rights activist, former violent felon and long term prison inmate, author, and artist.

As noticed in Words to Watch,

Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.

As such, I recommend removing "former violent felon". While technically correct, it is a value-laden label that does not explain why Sarah Baker is notable, as a lead sentence ought to. Violent felon is entailed by the details of Baker's criminal history, and so does not need to be stated here. To better explain Sarah Baker's notability in the opening sentence and avoid value-laden terminology, I suggest the following re-write:

Sarah Jane Baker (born in 1969 or 1970) is a British transgender rights activist, author, artist, the UK's longest serving transgender prisoner.

This re-write makes the lead sentence consistent with the infobox's "Known for: UK's longest serving transgender prisoner" section. Suphlatus (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the removal of the word ‘controversial’. The expression ‘former violent felon’ is not a ‘value laden label’ – it is simply factual, and should stay. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Suphlatus (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to remove controversial, changing the sentence to:
After her release in 2019, Baker became an outspoken transgender rights activist.
My next edit will consist of only this change. Suphlatus (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I want to restore political; she's a political candidate, and not limited to trans issues. GRuban (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ah, i was confused as to what political meant. Would something like this work:
After her release in 2019, Baker became an outspoken transgender rights activist and political candidate. 134.117.247.225 (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not object to referring to her as a ‘political’ activist in the lead, but her non-trans political activity seems to be minor compared to her activity on transgender matters, so I don’t think this should be in the first sentence. The lead does actually say, at the end, that she is a ‘political candidate', but I don’t think this is accurate – she has announced her intention to run as an independent candidate. Since she has no party to represent, I don’t think she would count as a candidate until an election has been called and she has filed nomination papers. So I think this should be amended to ‘has announced her intention to stand for Parliament as an independent candidate in the Richmond Park constituency.' Sweet6970 (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with that, personally. Suphlatus (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A bit long as a summary IMHO, how about this? GRuban (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good to me at least. Suphlatus (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query

I would really appreciate any information you could give me regarding sexual offenders treatment.. I am part of a research team from teeside university, if possible we would really appreciate to hear from the inside rather than trusting the gov data.. many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.92.66 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Wikipedia page about Sarah Jane Baker, not a way to contact her. It should give her personal website prominently in the infobox, which website does have her email contact information. That said, I attempted to use that email contact information weeks ago without response; but it's the best I have. Best of luck. --GRuban (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged "FAQ"

There was a "FAQ" presented at the top of this talk page as if it is the result of consensus. It wasn't - it was written by one editor a few days ago and transcluded. This gives a false impression of talk page consensus, when it's a single editor positing an opinion. As such, I've unlinked it. If the editor wants to posit opinions on the page, they should do so with their signature as one editor's opinion, rather than falsely creating the impression of a broad consensus - let alone citing it in an edit message as if it was anything other than their personal views - David Gerard (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TERF

The text 'Baker called for attendees to punch any TERF ("trans-exclusionary radical feminist", typically considered derogatory) they see in the face' is hard to read because of the multi-claused parenthetical statement splitting up the sentence. I think we could make three improvements.

Firstly would be to report exactly what Baker said. This isn't straightforward as many news media blank out the expletive to varying degrees (e.g. BBC and Telegraph, Independent and Pink News). Some simply report she asked the crowed to "Punch a Terf" as though that's actually the words she said. Rowan Moore, writing in The Guardian, doesn't shy from writing out the words, but it's an opinion piece. Anyone got a reliable source that spells it out? Would it be reasonable for us to assume what "f******" or "f**king" is? If so, I think the best text would be for us to say 'Baker asked the crowd "if you see a TERF, punch them in the fucking face"'. The coarse language is very much part of the statement and Wikipedia is not censored.

Secondly, I think the TERF word linking needs fixed, as I did just above. When editors originally wrote this, it linked to the [[TERF]] article, which explained the meaning of the label and the controversies surrounding it. But its content was recently moved entirely to TERF (acronym). TERF currently redirects to Gender-critical feminism, which is an article on this controversial branch of feminism. Baker here is clearly using it in the more general sense that the OED has of anyone perceived as hostile to transgender people, rather than asking the crowd to locate some radical feminists and enquire as to how trans-exclusionary their definition of feminism is.

Lastly, I don't think we need the parenthetical at all. Anyone who has got this far in the article clearly is interested in the topic and knows what a TERF is. Frankly you'd have to have been living in a cave to not know in 2023. Explaining the nuance of "Well, in 2008 it originally meant someone who was a radical feminist and excluded trans women from the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, but today it means, well, anyone who is or is perceived to be in any way trans hostile." is not really the purpose of this article, and certainly doesn't fit in a parenthetical remark in the middle of a sentence. -- Colin°Talk 15:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with changing the ‘TERF’ link to the acronym article.
I disagree that anyone who has got that far into the article knows what a TERF is. My impression is that most members of the general public don’t follow this controversy that closely. We should not assume such knowledge in our readers. So I would keep the explanation.
As for what she actually said: it’s quite clear from this video,[2] even though it is bleeped. It is reasonable to assume that ‘f**king’ is ‘fucking’, and I think it is reasonable to have the word in full in our article. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet6970 (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we do wikilink words on Wikipedia for a reason. We don't, for example, explain what NATO is, every time we mention it, but we do link to the article. Readers don't actually need to know exactly what NATO is, and may only have a vague idea, in order to understand text that refers to it. We aren't talking about most members of the general public here, but people who have waded through the sorry biography of someone who has spent most of their life in prison and is notable, if that's the right word, for various criminal acts, for their transition while in prison, and this inflammatory remark. I can't really imagine anyone doing that and going "Oh heck, I have no idea whatsoever what a TERF is". Even if they have a vague feeling that it is "someone who hates trans people" that's quite in keeping with Baker's usage. If you think we need to explain the term here, and it can't be done with the better link, then what do you propose? A footnote is one option but I don't think that's any improvement on linking to TERF (acronym). -- Colin°Talk 16:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can imagine it. I agree that the current wording is awkward, but unfortunately I can’t think of a better one, so I am in favour of keeping it. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited to include the full quote and moved a parenthetical, sourced to OED, on the TERF word to a subsequent sentence. Colin°Talk 12:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine by me. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephen: Re your revert of my revert of your edit: this was discussed on this Talk page. I am not aware of any policy reason why the information should be excluded. Please explain your precise objection to including this information in the article. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has been no response to my comment, presumably there is no objection to me reinstating the deleted text. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wrt Stephen's edit summary on his second attempt to remove the text ("no, we don't do inline dictionary definitions"), well sometimes we do. Although we are a hyperlinked encyclopaedia, we still expect the general reader to follow the text without having to click all the time. This, though, is context dependent on the complexity of the article subject and whether it is the lead or at the end of the body text, and how essential it is to understand the term. A medical article might well explain, in text, what some jargon term for a device or procedure or symptom means, rather than rely on a link. Here, as I noted already, I'd be very very surprised if a reader got this far without having some idea of what a TERF is or at least why some people are called TERFs. But I don't think the revised text is the awful parenthetical definition-sandwich we had before, so am not fussed if it stays or goes. Stephen, don't edit war. Sweet6970, it might have been helpful to direct Stephen to this discussion rather than argue with him in an edit summary. -- Colin°Talk 17:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can y'all remind specifically what the current and proposed text is, please? I've not been following things as closely as I'd like and I've lost track of the discussion. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 20:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The wording which was deleted is (The word "TERF" is an acronym for 'trans-exclusionary radical feminist', but more generally is a derogatory term for someone who is or is considered to be hostile to transgender people.), which was immediately after: At the 8th of July 2023 London Trans+ Pride Parade, Baker gave a speech to the crowd where she said "if you see a TERF, punch them in the fucking face", a statement that was videotaped and widely distributed. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on stepuncle

The article gives no indication of the motive for the attack for which Baker & three others were imprisoned. They aimed to find Baker's stepmother, so why was that very quickly replaced with kidnapping & torturing the stepmother's brother? When they arrived at the stepmother's residence, how could they have thought something like We're here to find her, so it's disappointing she's not here. Oh, forget about her - I have a much better idea: we'll kidnap & torture her brother instead.? Jim 2 Michael (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Jane_Baker&oldid=1184817035"