Talk:Britt Baker

Professional wrestling style and persona section

Should this new section be included in the article? KyleJoan^talk 10:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes. The section is focused on explain her character and the creation (based on her real life work as dentist, like Paul Bearer work as mortician). Her finisher, a notable part of pro wrestling narrative, it's also relationed with her character. The section is sourced, maybe not well written but sourced. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The three sources cited only outline her real life work as a dentist and nothing about a character based on that. Regarding the finisher, the article contains a quote from Excalibur (i.e., "Eres dentista y eso lo hace mas realista", which roughly translates to "You are a dentist, and that makes it more realistic"); nothing in there says anything about a character either. That said, an argument could be made that the move alone could go in the article if the correct comparison is drawn, but MOS:OVERSECTION states: Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading. KyleJoan^talk 11:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I also included this source [1] where it's explaine her character " referring to her as doctor" and "AEW’s obsession with reminding the audience of her dentistry credentials." By God, her ringname it's Dr. Britt Baker DMD (Doctor of Medicine in Dentistry), it's pretty clear her character it's a dentist. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Her ringname it's Dr Britt Baker DMD. AEW kept mentioning she was a dentist to the point that it became a parody. id you know Dr. Britt Baker DMD is a dentist? she is a wrestling dentist, She said she knows he’s aware she’s a dentist, because that’s all he can talk about. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, now we have one source (i.e., the first out of the four new ones presented) that specifies that there's a fictional aspect at play. That said, I still believe the proposed section is unnecessary at this time. In regards to her ring name, I understand that it is her real name with her real doctorate. I get it; she's a dentist. KyleJoan^talk 11:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

So you agree that it is source and can be added. Sure it's a short section right now, but spending time with you engaging in an edit war over it also prevents anyone from actually working on it. Since it is sourced it should stay and hopefully give people a chance to actually add to it. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, all verifiable information need not be included in an article per WP:ONUS. Aside from that, there's not even consistency in the proposed content and its relation to the sources. The proposed content says that Baker has created her wrestling persona around her real-life work as dentist, while the one source that verifies any of kind of characterization deems such a parody; a persona and a parody are two different concepts. Moreover, I'm not convinced that mentioning the supposed persona/parody in Wikipedia's voice based on one analysis adheres to WP:DUE. KyleJoan^talk 14:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Neither of those opinions are enough to revert them and claim a legitimate policy reason to reverting content. Considering that section is included in several Good or Featured articles means that at this point you would have to leave the status quo and seek a new consensus before you'd be justified in reverting it per BRD. So could you please stop removing the section so we can actually do some constructive, positive work? MPJ-DK (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I thought we were doing constructive, positive work by participating in this discussion. You do realize that the status quo is the version without the proposed content in it? Rather than citing how other stuff exists, I'd love to hear why you believe the content should be included, MPJ-DK. KyleJoan^talk 15:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

"Other stuff exists" - pulled by those who have no arguments left. So okay 1) You agree that the sourcing issue has been resolved - so you have no reason to revert on that basis. 2) "ONUS" to prove it belongs can be found in the PW Manual of Style that actually refers to this section - so you are the one in violation of the MOS by reverting it - no reason to revert any more since ONUS is met 3) "Not in the WIkipedia Voice" is a "I don't like it" argument, by me poining out that this section is in GAs and FAs mean that this is 'your opinion and others disagree - not a reason to mindlessly revert. So anything else left to discuss or can we actually make that progress that you seem to mock? You have no guidelines to support you, and at this point it becomes a WP:IDHT issue on your part for whatever reason. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

"ONUS" to prove it belongs can be found in the PW Manual of Style . . . The style guide outlines how commentary must adhere to a neutral point of view, which brings me back to DUE. It also does not state that every professional wrestling biography must contain a persona section.

"Not in the WIkipedia Voice" is a "I don't like it" argument . . . Per WP:YESPOV: Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Stating that the supposed dentist character is a parody based on the PWTorch source alone would violate this, don't you think?

. . . this section is in GAs and FAs . . . It's not that I'm opposed to a persona section in any article; I'm opposed to such a section in this article at this time for reasons above. I hope that's clear.

. . . at this point it becomes a WP:IDHT issue on your part . . . Per IDHT: In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Perhaps I missed the part where we established a consensus.

All of that said, I'd still love to hear why you believe the content should be included, MPJ-DK. KyleJoan^talk 16:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• KyleJoan - 'm opposed to such a section in this article at this time for reasons above. I hope that's clear. - so "Due" because The article said "Parody"? Which coincidentally the last time you reverted it, the article did not say parody? And you say "undue" but also "it's too short"?? I am confused here. How is it not "due" that an article about a wrestler has a section on their gimmick? It's as "Due" as a "Championships and Accomplishment" section or a "Lucha de Apuestas" section for those that have it. Oh and the "consensus" was established in the MOS - we do not need to have a discussion on each article on if MOS applies to this article or not. MPJ-DK (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I was merely trying to help the argument to include by conceding that the PWTorch analysis does refer to the dentist characterization as a parody; I still maintain that even stating as much in Wikipedia's voice would be inappropriate per DUE and YESPOV. If we're purely analyzing the proposed content as written, then we're even worse off because none of the sources makes any reference to any persona.

And you say "undue" but also "it's too short"?? Precisely. How is it not "due" that an article about a wrestler has a section on their gimmick? Because there are not enough reliable sources to support the inclusion of such a section, let alone in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Regarding not having a discussion on each article on if MOS applies to this article or not, I agree, which is why I believe that a persona section must adhere to a neutral point of view per the style guide. I understand that you hold a different opinion, and now that the two of us have extensively conversed, let's wait to hear from other users. Cheers! KyleJoan^talk 19:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Never argued against "Neutral point of view" - not sure what's not neutral that she's using a dentist gimmick? Unless we load it up with all the negative stereotypes there are about dentists - but it's simply stating a fact. Stating that she's using a "Dentist Gimmick" is no more "undue" than stating that Isaac Yankeem DDS is a dentist gimmick IMO. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

At least, can we agree Baker is using a dentist character? I don't know if you, Kyle, have some problem with the word persona. Persona =character, she is using a dentist character. According to sources, she is presented as Dr DMD, she is doing videos in her dental clinic. Also, as MPJ said, the section is included in several GA, supported by MOS and the project Style Guide and it's sourced. It's the sucesor of the previous In Wrestling, so every wrestler should have a section like that and several sources talk about her character. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not agree with stating outright that she is using a dentist character. As I said before, the only source to note of any characterization deems such a parody, which is different from a standard character. As far as we know, the D.M.D. and the dental clinic are real, which diminishes a supposed character aspect even more. NPOV is achieved when content proportionately represent all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic, and there's no way to do that with one source. And again, a persona section being present in other articles and supported by the style guide does not mean that every professional wrestling biography must contain one if we can't sufficiently source it. I understand it's your preference that every wrestler should have a section like that, but such a section is not mandated by any style guide. Why not wait until there are more sources? There is no deadline, you know? KyleJoan^talk 02:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@KyleJoan, MPJ-DK, and HHH Pedrigree: - see below. starship.paint (talk) 10:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• PWTorch The announcers talk up Baker as being a dentist
• PWTorch A video feature aired on Britt Baker being a pro wrestler and a dentist.
• Pro Wrestling Dot Net Of all the people who need more character exposure, Britt Baker is at the top of the list. I know she is a wrestling dentist, but why not explore more of who she is?
• PWTorch Did you know Dr. Britt Baker DMD is a dentist? Baker received a nice video package building up her homecoming, but I would like to hear more about her wrestling aspirations and goals more than how she spent 6 years to become a dentist.
• Pro Wrestling Dot Net All Elite Wrestling released the seveth installment of “The Road to Double or Nothing” ... Dr. Britt Baker is showcased and discusses her career as a dentist
• PWInsider They pushed the dentist angle for Baker.
• PWTorch Fans were beginning to reject her in part because they were tired of hearing about her being a dentist.
• F4WOnline The most promising thing about AEW (besides it being extremely non-WWE) is its willingness to make changes if something isn’t working ... happy dentist Britt Baker don’t exist anymore.
• Asbury Park Press Now Baker is tasked with portraying an antagonist (or heel, in wrestling terms)
• Pro Wrestling Sheet how the inspiration came from you, from Chris Jericho for the ‘Role Model’ gimmick.
• PWTorch Her vignette from the dentist’s office again showed her delusional side
• PWTorch They’re really leaning into her being a little too proud of being a dentist, and it’s working.

I would say it is obvious, given the above, that her character is a dentist, just like she is in real life. starship.paint (talk) 10:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I would argue that it is unclear whether most of those sources were referring to a character or Baker as a person (e.g., wrestling dentist and a pro wrestler and a dentist, as she is legitimately both a wrestler and a dentist), but I agree that some do mention some form of characterization. I also concede that PWInsider mentioning there being an angle leans in that direction as well. All of that in mind, I'm now more open to including a persona section in light of these new sources. Now that we have a PWInsider analysis confirming an angle, three PWTorch analyses observing a parody of her real-life profession as a dentist as well as a delusional/too proud of being a dentist attitude, a Wrestling Observer Newsletter analysis of her previously portraying a happy dentist, and a Pro Wrestling Sheet interview mentioning a "role model" gimmick, I'm curious how we would be able to synthesize a section based on these sources. I'll try and write something up and present it later. KyleJoan^talk 11:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@KyleJoan: the majority of these sources are reporting on television episodes, which feature fictional events. If these shows keep stressing that Baker is a dentist, then it is part of her character. Her being a dentist has even been mentioned in the promotional video packages. Every single one of these sources can be used in some way. I'm not sure why you are so apprehensive. It's even acknowledged in her ring name. D.M.D. is a dental degree. She's both a dentist in-universe and a dentist in real life. starship.paint (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@KyleJoan: If it refers to anything on an AEW show - it's part of her ring character. And you are seriously still denying it? please drop the ownership feelings you have and let's move on from this poinless discussion where you just say "no". MPJ-DK (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Guess you both missed when I said that I'm now more open to including a persona section in light of these new sources. Sorry I didn't want a section that reads, "Baker portrays a dentist in addition to being one in real life. Her ring name says as much." Regarding sources, we can dissect every one of them and see how each one is usable, but I thought it would be more productive to write a proposal for a persona section with sources I personally deem usable and see what others feel could be added. Said proposed section is below. Have a read if you'd like. KyleJoan^talk 12:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@KyleJoan: - Sorry I didn't want a section that reads, "Baker portrays a dentist in addition to being one in real life. Her ring name says as much." - straw man argument and passive-aggressive much? starship.paint (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Ouch. I see I'm not allowed to reference the initial bold edit that led to this discussion. My bad. KyleJoan^talk 13:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Now, I didn't see that earlier. After seeing it, I'm thinking that you mocked it. You could have used the original text, but for some reason, chose not to. I also continue to feel that you're being passive-aggressive instead of sincere. starship.paint (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I was overstating how the section was originally underdeveloped and how a lot of arguments in this discussion to include it have involved her ring name containing her actual D.M.D. If you're sensing any passive-aggression, that is and has never been my intention. That said, why don't we continue to be more than cordial in our discussion of actual content below? KyleJoan^talk 13:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@KyleJoan: - perhaps, less overstating next time. Cheers. starship.paint (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed persona section

Baker's legitimate profession as a dentist was often referenced as part of her character in AEW, so much so that Pro Wrestling Torch observed that "it became a parody".[2] The character was originally described as "happy",[3] but following Baker's heel turn, it has been described as "too proud" and "delusional".[4][5] She also began referring to herself as a "role model".[6] In relation, Baker uses a fusion of a scissored armbar and the mandible claw, which attacks the opponent's mouth, as a finisher, named Lockjaw.[7]

How does this look? KyleJoan^talk 12:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• I can't agree with the first sentence. Source says: AEW kept mentioning she was a dentist to the point that it became a parody. You wrote: Baker portrays a parody of herself as a legitimate dentist. What I think the source means is that AEW's constant references were the parody. Plus in the last sentence, we can mention the finishing move attacks the opponent's mouth, because the source says so as well. starship.paint (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

How does this sound? Baker's legitimate profession as a dentist is often referenced as part of her character in AEW, so much so that Pro Wrestling Torch observed that "it became a parody". I also modified the sentence about the finisher above. KyleJoan^talk 13:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@KyleJoan: - yes it sounds okay, just use the past tense: Baker's legitimate profession as a dentist was often .... Thank you. starship.paint (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Starship.paint:  Done. Anything else? If not, we'll wait to hear what MPJ-DK and HHH Pedrigree think. KyleJoan^talk 13:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Nothing else, thanks. starship.paint (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thumbs up* MPJ-DK (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism of info about matches is uncalled for

Week-is-week is not even being applied. In fact it is more like "month-by-month."InsulinRS (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@InsulinRS: Ah, got it. Just because there's not a match result for every week, then it's not proseline ("week-by-week" format) per WP:PW/BIO. How silly of me. I couldn't help but notice there's not a match from October 2019 in the article. Wouldn't it be every other month-by-every other month, then? KyleJoan^talk 20:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Look at the period between the matches. It clearly doesn't match your "week-by-week" excuse.InsulinRS (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@InsulinRS: Yes, I, author of over 60% of the article, as well as other users, have made sure that the article adheres to guidelines since its creation. Thank you for recognizing our work! Cheers! KyleJoan^talk 20:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Then why make a false "week-by-week" excuse? The last included match is from September, which is most certainly not "week-by-week."InsulinRS (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@InsulinRS: Remember proseline ("week-by-week" format)? The format does not depend on how much time has passed since the last match was included. That makes no sense. Your logic seems to signify that if weeks A, B, and D are documented, but week C is not, then the format is not at use, which concerns me. KyleJoan^talk 20:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Your logic is only based on your own opinion. There is no "A, B and D" and "no C" even included in that article. It concerns me that you make up nonsense excuses and seem obsessed with blocking people from updating this article. I want consensus before I put in last night's match though.InsulinRS (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The Winter is Coming thing isn't necesary. It was a Dynamite show and the match isn't notable. No Storyline or twist, just a random match. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Ring name

I see that "Britt Baker" has been added as her ring name in the lead, but her full ring name is "Dr. Britt Baker, D.M.D.", which is what should be listed as her ring name in the lead. She even explains why she uses both "Dr." and "D.M.D." in the sources that KyleJoan provided in the "Professional wrestling style and persona" section. She is also listed as such in the AEW Women's World Championship official title history as well as in other sources. JDC808 ♫ 09:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Please present these other sources, and I'll be happy to present more sources that simply refer to her as "Britt Baker". KyleJoan^talk 09:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I can find more sources later today when I have more time, but I don't understand this adamance against listing her full ring name (which is what we're supposed to do as per the WP:PW style guide that Czello brought up in an edit summary). You seem to be a bit protective of this for some reason, almost getting into WP:OWN territory ("present more sources and I'll present even more to prove my point", like, okay?). JDC808 ♫ 08:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:OWN territory? Check my edit history. I'm pretty straightforward about my edits on all articles. If you find that and my general conduct inappropriate, WP:ANI is available for you. This page is for content discussions. And you say like, okay? but want to still contend that the number of sources that support your point is higher than those that support mine? Perhaps it is I who should be saying like, okay? KyleJoan^talk 09:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Your edit history shows an insistence to not even include her ring name in the lead until you finally conceded to at least include "Britt Baker" after a few back and forth reverts with Czello (and before that with myself and even an IP). Yes, I said "like, okay?" because it doesn't make sense why you're so against the inclusion of this content. I also never said that the number of sources that say one name is higher than the other, you made that challenge. She works for AEW. Her ring name listed by AEW supercedes whatever third party sources you or I can find (because we're listing her ring name that she currently performs under in AEW). But speaking on sources, you added a source that had an interview with her where she explained why she uses both "Dr." and "D.M.D.", yet you're still against the inclusion? JDC808 ♫ 00:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

If you agree with Czello about including "Britt Baker", then why is there still an issue? If not, why keep referencing their points? AEW lists her ring name on their roster page as "Britt Baker D.M.D. I don't think that helps your case. It seems this discussion has become a collection of attempts to discredit opinions rather than merited points about what would be useful to readers, so I'll simply let what I've said here (and in edit summaries) stand. Cheers! KyleJoan^talk 01:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Please don't try to twist my words. I agree with Czello on including the ring name (as per the WP:PW style guide), but I never once said I agree that it should only be listed as "Britt Baker". It's still an issue because that is not her full ring name. That's literally the whole point of this discussion. On AEW's roster page, it actually says "Doctor" above her name (when looking at wrestlers listed under Women's Division, not the listing under Champions). The AEW Women's World Championship title history lists her as "Dr. Britt Baker D.M.D." The results here from their last pay-per-view has her listed as "Dr. Britt Baker, D.M.D." (there are many other examples on their website). Her own Twitter is "Dr. Britt Baker, D.M.D." A simple Google search pulls up many results using that name. JDC808 ♫ 03:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with JDC. She works as Dr. Britt Baker D.M.D. and should be reflected in the lead. Of course, it's common to see sources with variations (Dr. Baker, Britt Baker DMD, Dr. Britt Baker), but her ringname is Dr. Britt Baker D.M.D. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The facts:

(1) AEW television graphics and introductions refer to her as "Dr. Britt Baker, D.M.D."

(2) The AEW website lists her as both "Britt Baker D.M.D." and "Dr. Britt Baker D.M.D."

(3) Her Twitter says "Dr. Britt Baker, D.M.D"

(4) Her Instagram says "Britt Baker".

(5) Reliable sources overwhelmingly use the name "Britt Baker" when describing her work in AEW (and everywhere else).

It is clear "Dr. Britt Baker, D.M.D." is an in-universe ring name, with "Britt Baker" being the ring name almost every reliable source uses. The former, an undue material, is not worthy of inclusion at all, and it's certainly not more worthy than the latter. It does not seem useful to argue "we should include 'Dr. Britt Baker D.M.D.' because we see and hear it on TV despite what most reliable sources say". At some point, we must examine whether biographies (and lead sections) we should prioritize undue in-universe elements rather than maintain NPOV. KyleJoan^talk 10:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

That's why the name of the article is Britt Baker, beause it's the common name. But her ring name is also Dr. Britt Baker D.M.D. and it should be noted she works for AEW under that ringname. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Acted in Short Film

Britt Baker acted in the credits of this short film, "The Eliminadora". Look here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4kiJvff3Nc at 18:40. 2600:4041:484:7D00:65D7:2AA7:8254:6153 (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)