Talk:Sarah Brown

Mission?
Sarah's fine and good value, but why's she here? I'm reading this, looking at the mission and going "yes, but so what?" - David Gerard (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and the next-of-kin right abroad seems to be looking for hairs in the soup by constructing hypothetical scenarios. Not to mention how a British law can guarantee such next-of-kin rights in foreign countries, anyway.
 * A similarly nonsensical sentence is this one: "she notes that those who are anti-LGBT rarely make the distinction between homosexuality and transsexualism." So, those who are against homosexuals and transsexuals don't distinguish(?) between them... Duh, that's effectively pointing out that those who are against homosexuals and transsexuals are against homosexuals and transsexuals - it's a tautology. Sure the LGBT community is a stronger political force if united, but this is an inane way of arguing for it.
 * And then there's a sentence such as the one about "psychiatrist Russell Reid's defence at the General Medical Council" which assumes we all know who Russell Reid is and why Brown presence at his defence was important.
 * This article reads like fan fiction from someone who just likes Sarah Brown. Sure, promoting LGBT rights is a worthy cause, but I was put in mind of the (now deleted) article on Anne Rice which had a similar "Hey I like this person and she's got some great opinions"-style to it. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, should we only have articles about the bad people? (If so, what's e.g. Rebecca Watson, Stephen Jay Gould and Bertrand Russel doing here?) She's a politician opposing institional discrimination and authoritarian measures inspired by religion and culturally entrenched prudishness. She's also criticized the treatment of gender variance in the media and some strains of feminism. That all sounds pretty missional to me. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously not, but is there anything particularly interesting here? Is she particularly famous for her anti-discrimination campaign or been involved in some high profile brouhaha? For instance Gould and Russell are famous thinkers and academics and I don't see anything like that here. Watson, by contrast, may not be particularly interesting on her own, but Elevatorgate and all the controversy surrounding it surely merits her presence on RW. It's simply that I had the same "Meh, so what?"-impression on reading this article as DG seems to express, quite aside from some of the rather pedestrian arguments made. ScepticWombat (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Apart from that, Watson creates good skeptical resources and so forth.
 * To Brown's credit, her existence and public prominence drives TERFs into a frothing fury, which is a pretty good indication of doing something deeply right - David Gerard (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

This is useless article
She just isn't important, influential or insane enough for an article.
 * 1. She is "the 27th most influential LGBT person in the UK" Do we even have articles about the 26 people before her?
 * 2. There are millions of activist like her around the world
 * 3. There is no point in making articles of all those LGBT activists, it would clog this wiki with pointless info
 * 4. Those quotes of her are just incoherent rambling

-Filtered Walrus (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)