Wikipedia

Talk:Sarah Jane Brown/Archive 1

< Talk:Sarah Jane Brown
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Pigsonthewing in topic Name yet again
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Name

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Shouldn't this page be moved to "Sarah Brown", as the article itself states she changed her name to that after her marriage. The article also repeatedly refers to her as "Macaulay", which I don't think is right,, especially after her marriage. Jamandell (d69) 17:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
There's already is an article called Sarah Brown for an American actress and I can't think of a disambiguation in parentheses that doesn't sound sexist, as if her only role in life is being someone's wife. --Philip Stevens 18:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, after July 27 she could be Sarah Brown (Wife of Prime Minster)? Or perhaps the other Sarah Brown can be changed to Sarah Brown (actress) to allow this one to change to plain Sarah Brown. Jamandell (d69) 01:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested move (2007)

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 17:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


Sarah Macaulay → Sarah Brown — Soon she will be the most notable Sarah Brown, as stated above, Macaulay is her maiden name and not what she's known as now. —Philip Stevens 19:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support the proposal. Moving the article to Sarah Brown will be much simpler than having Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's wife) and as has been mentioned, is a lot less sexist/derogatory. Sarah Brown (actress) would be good for the current Sarah Brown article in order for this article to become the Sarah Brown article. Jamandell (d69) 20:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose taking over the disambiguation page. I see three possible uses (ignoring the redlinks and nonlinks, and I'll be watchlisting that page for tidying while I'm here), and I think it's very parochial (as well as crystal balling) to state that the spouse of a British Prime Minister is indisputably going to be the most notable SB at some point in the future (and not even for long if he doesn't win the next election). Whether or not it's a damning indictment of western culture's slavish attachment to the glass teat, a multi-Emmy winning cast member on the longest running soap in the USA is going to be notable, especially to our pop-culture biased readership. Support keeping the actress at Sarah Brown (actress), and moving Gordon's bird from current, outdated page name, but I think we still need a parenthetical disambiguator and a plain Sarah Brown dab page. --DeLarge 15:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
"Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's wife)" sounds incredibly sexist to me. It sounds as if the only thing she has ever done in her entire life is get married. What would Germaine Greer say to that? When GB becomes PM, she'll become much more notable that a former General Hospital actress. --Philip Stevens 06:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
You said it. Despite the unsavoury politics of it, this Sarah Brown's sole current claim to encyclopedic notability is being the wife of the future PM. Likely she will gain her own notability once the handover occurs and this will be an argument for her being the primary topic in the future. As far as sexism goes, she does not deny being Brown's wife but if "Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's spouse)" would be more pleasing to the ears, that will do (after ca. 27 June 2007). —  AjaxSmack  08:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
"Sarah Macaulay Brown (PR professional)" would be it, wouldn't it? 132.205.44.134 22:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name (again)

Latest comment: 17 years ago15 comments7 people in discussion

We urgently need to move this page to Sarah Brown (something), as this article clearly states, "Sarah is always Sarah Brown - she dropped Macauley the day she got married to the then chancellor." So the current page title is contrary to naming conventions.

However, per the above discussion, perhaps we should come to a consensus on what the appropriate disambiguation should be. I can see as possiblities:

Or a combination thereof. Any suggestions? I quite like Sarah Brown (neé Macaulay) myself. Cheers, DWaterson 11:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguators should be something that the person is known for. "Sarah Brown (neé Macaulay)" simply doesn't meet this. (It's also a bit POV in semi-reimposing the maiden name upon a woman who has chosen not to use it and who is not known for it.) Harsh as it may be, she is frankly only well known because she is Gordon Brown's wife and so the first two seem about the only options. But "Sarah Brown" must be the main title. Timrollpickering 13:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to have any currency - only 7 Ghits and only one of them (in Spanish!) appears to actually use that combination. DWaterson 17:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
"Sarah Macaulay Brown" would be a mainly American construction that isn't common in the UK and again isn't a form she actually uses. The name used in the title (rather than in brackets) should be a name the subject themselves uses or are known by, not have middle and maiden names added in simply for disambiguation. I think Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's wife) is the best option. Timrollpickering 17:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Change this article to "Sarah Brown" and change the other Sarah Brown article to "Sarah Brown (actress)". In my opinion it's the only appropriate solution Jamandell (d69) 23:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I've been bold and moved the page to its current location so as to get her current surname into the title. I appreciate the disambiguation tag may not be the best but ongoing discussion has been keeping the article at a plainly wrong location for a while now. Timrollpickering 13:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What about Sarah (Macaulay) Brown? That would indicate that she does not use that form of the name. I don't believe that her article should ever go to Sarah Brown with no disambiguation, because "Sarah Brown (actress)" is famous in America, has been for years, and it is quite likely Gordon Brown's wife will never reach that level of fame in the US. Cherie Blair still isn't that famous in the US after her husband's 10 years in office. While "Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's wife)" does seem a bit odd, it is better than the use of Sarah Brown with no disambiguation. There is no reason Sarah Brown (PM's wife) should take precedence over that distinction when the actress has had an article on her own achievements for years, and this SB didn't have an article until her husband took office. (For those Brits who may not know, an Emmy is the highest honour a television actress can achieve in America, and she has won three of them.)--Gloriamarie 17:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The US doesnt get priority over the rest of the world. You write as if we are making a US encyclopedia whereas in fact this is an international encyclopedia, so whether she becomes well known in the US is no more relevant than if she becomes well known in China, SqueakBox 17:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying that the US gets priority over the rest of the world; in fact, I was saying that the UK doesn't gain priority over the rest of the world by way of its prime minister's wife gaining precedence over a Wikipedia subject known many years previously for her own accomplishments. The fact is that this is the English-speaking version of Wikipedia, and the US is a prominent example of an English-speaking country, so concerns over who is better known there are actually quite relevant for discussion.--Gloriamarie 22:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
That forms comes back to the problem that a) she is hardly known at all by her maiden name (certainly far far less than Cherie Blair/Booth and almost into the same realm of trying to use Johnson and/or Wagstaff for uniquely identifying Norma Major) when any disambiguation tag should be the thing for which she is known; b) it looks like a name form that just isn't used (other than women who keep their maiden name or combine it with their husbands as a double-barrelled name, British women generally completely replace their maiden name with their husband's and only use "neé [maiden name]" as a suffix when they need to identify themselves for whatever reason); and c) it does feel wrong to be adding a maiden name back to a woman who has not choosen to use it in married life. Timrollpickering 00:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
A slight improvement to the current name that occurred to me would be Sarah Brown (wife of Prime Minister) or Sarah Brown (spouse of Prime Minister) which gets rid of the possessive apostrophe that some people may have objections to. Cheers, DWaterson 09:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Any change will need to also be applied to Margaret MacDonald (Prime Minister's wife), although I think that page is very badly named. Margaret MacDonald died in 1911 and her husband didn't become Prime Minister until 1924. Timrollpickering 14:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I would agree with that change; it's an improvement-- (wife of Prime Minister).--Gloriamarie 22:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
How about Sarah Brown (spouse)? Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox officeholder

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Can someone find a more appropriate infobox - or at least change the titling shown? 'Spouse of the PM' is not an office. If anything it's a coincidence resulting from one's spouse happening to go into politics. So it's wrong to describe someone as being 'incumbent' or 'assuming office'. I can tolerate 'incumbent' as I cannot think of a better term, but since there is no office to assume, I cannot see how Sarah (or Cherie, or Norma, or Dennis, etc) can have assumed office.

I do think that having an infobox is useful for the quick summary of data that it gives - but leaving the box as is gives a very confusing message to wikipedians who aren't eentirely up on the British constitution.

Many thanks Grblundell 09:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

- much better. Many thanks Grblundell 12:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The current infobox still implies that "Spouse of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" is some sort of official state title, which (as that article makes clear) it isn't. 217.155.20.163 21:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Is that any improvement? Timrollpickering 21:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Name yet again

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The main page still seems to be "Sarah Brown (spouse)". What ever happened to all the negotiations above? --Andy Fugard (talk) 09:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone presumably moved it on their own initiative. (I note Margaret MacDonald (Prime Minister's wife) has been moved to Margaret MacDonald (spouse) as well.) This name strikes me as pretty insulting - effectively reducing this woman from a person to an accessory to her husband. Having said that, I recognise the problem - Sarah Brown is a disambiguation page, and being the spouse of the Prime Minister is what she's known for. I also can't immediately think of an appropriate title myself... Perhaps we should disambiguate by nationality, and have Sarah Brown (Briton) and Sarah Brown (American)? That's not usual Wikipedia style, but it might be a better solution than the current one. Robofish (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
That page is now at the much more reasonable Margaret MacDonald (social reformer). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

First Lady?

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This may be an Americanism.... but on ABC news just now they described the meeting between Michelle Obama and Sarah Brown as the "meeting of the First Ladies". Is the wife of the UK PM called the First Lady? Wouldn't this conflict with the role of the Queen regnant or Queen Consort as the "First lady"12.160.89.130 (talk) 07:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The term is generally not used in the UK and is regarded as an Americanism. There was an attempt in the early Blair years to use it for Cherie Blair but it just added to reasons to dislike her. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Name

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Has the time come to name this article simply Sarah Brown  Francium12  19:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to that. She's probably the most notable and searched for of all those on the disam page. Sky83 (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Sarah Brown should be directed to here, and that a page can be made for the actress. However, I checked the page view statistics and they seem about the same, with Sarah Brown (spouse) slightly ahead. I asume that the Prime Minister's wife has more importance though. Patyo1994 (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Contesting: other items on the Sarah Brown page, such as Sarah Brown (actress), are of equal or greater notability than the wife of Gordon Brown. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I didn't realize I was re-opening a can of worms here. That's what I get for not checking the discussion page. In any case, there has to be something other than "spouse" to use as a qualifier. The other Sarah Browns might be spouses also, so "spouse" really doesn't help. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree, it's not great. I can't think of a better disambiguation though, as she's best known for being the wife of Brown. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Move? (2009)

Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Brown (spouse) → Sarah Brown —

  • Oppose - it is not clear that she is the most common usage of "Sarah Brown". Also oppose 65.94.252.195's suggestion - she is *never* known as Sarah Macaulay nowadays or Sarah Macaulay Brown at all. DWaterson (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

New requested move (2010 February)

Latest comment: 14 years ago27 comments11 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown). Ucucha 03:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Brown (spouse) → Sarah Brown (born 1963) — Relisted. There is consensus that the current title is not appropriate, but no consensus on what to rename it to. Could people indicate how they feel about each of the proposed titles: Sarah Brown (born 1963), Sarah Brown (First Lady), Sarah Macaulay Brown, Sarah Macaulay, Sarah Brown (spouse of Gordon Brown), Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown). The first four have already gotten some opposition. Ucucha 19:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels slightly uncomfortable with "spouse" being used as a qualifier. Yes, she is probably only notable in the first place because of her marriage to Gordon Brown, but she had built up a seperate public profile of her own. She isn't famous for being born in 1963, but it sems as fair and scientific as possible as a qualifier. —84.92.117.93 (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

"First Lady" perhaps? At least, such is how I would imagine the wife of the First Lord of the Treasury to be called. Birth dates are a poor qualifier, so oppose that title. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
You are incorrect. Unlike the USA, Britain is a constitutional monarchy and the premiership is not a legally defined office. "First Lady" is never used for the wife of the Prime Minister, while the title "First Lord of the Treasury" is virtually unused, and does not in any case allow for Sarah Brown to be titled "First Lady". 84.92.117.93 (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Get away. 1.72m Ghits is difficult to argue with. If the BBC can do it ... 81.111.114.131 (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
If you actually read those hits, you'll find they are almost all about Sarah Brown meeting with Michelle Obama... apart from the BBC source, which writes it in the headline with ironic quote marks. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, if you had actually bothered to scan past the first page, you'd easily find plenty of references in the wild specifically to Sarah Brown by that name. As for the quote marks, [citation needed]. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Does she use her maiden name? I thought she only used Sarah Brown. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment No to the double barrelled name, unless it can be shown that she uses it herself. But my real question here is when since did merely being the spouse of the British PM make a person notable? I don't deny that there's sources. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Had a quick check, and this article's been around since early 2007, when Gordon Brown was Chancellor, around the time Blair had announced he was resigning. Certainly, she wasn't that important then. Every for the first year or two of the Brown premiership, she kept a pretty low profile, and you could argue she didn't really deserve a full article. She only became notable as an individual, rather then just as a wife, in the last year or so when the Labour Party identified her as a key political asset. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm tempted to nominate both this article and Spouses of the Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom for deletion. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure. I can see the reasons for deleting both articles, but Sarah Brown has generated quite of media interest and taken part in lots of interviews and so forth. There are lots of similar articles like this on Wikipedia. Do we really need an article on the wife of Richard Jackson, the husband of Angela Merkel, or the wife of David Paterson? Worth noting that the spouses of some high profile political figures to which we have reasonable articles, such as John Key and Jan Brewer, don't have their own articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.117.93 (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose suggested new title. The title should use whatever phrase will allow the easiest identification of this article, by someone looking for this Sarah Brown. It seems highly unlikely that such a user would know they're looking for the Sarah Brown born in 1963. From the article, it appears that a user is most likely to be looking for this article because she's the wife of Gordon Brown (and even if they wanted to read about her activities in some other area, they'd still probably know that she was the wife of Gordon Brown). The title Sarah Brown (spouse) is awful, but either Sarah Brown (spouse of Gordon Brown) or Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) would be appropriate. (It doesn't matter, for these purposes, what else she is or what else she does; what matters is what she's known for.) Propaniac (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Using a date qualifier is deprecated, as it is highly unlikely the average reader would have a clue what year she was born in. I don't like Sarah Brown (spouse), but none of the alternatives are any better. She is certainly not referred to as First Lady in the United Kingdom. Does the poor woman not have some existence other than being Gordon's missus? The article suggests Sarah Brown (businesswoman) might be an alternative, but.... Looks like this is going to be another Mary Jones and her Bible! Skinsmoke (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Another option

The option of Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) was mentioned several times above. Please weigh in below with your opinions on this specific choice. — AjaxSmack 02:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Patronising beyond belief

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You simply cannot have Sarah Brown's article under the name of (wife of Gordon Brown). This is incredibly demeaning, belittling, insulting. It pretends a woman is nothing without her husband. It is degrading, and stupid, and I'm astonished that any of the above discussions could have supported it. You men ought to be thoroughly ashamed with yourselves.

Who knows what her middle name is? That's one option. Otherwise, you should go with (nee MaCauley). But you cannot have this stupid, stupid, misogynist title that exists now. Wikidea 09:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

'Patronizing Beyond Belief' - ok, I guess if you really must view the title from a biased and political standpoint, I can see where you would then have a biased and political view of a factual reference.
  • 'wife of Gordon Brown' eliminates confusion, such as I had for years, regarding the O'Briens (CNN), whom I had always believed were married, but were not. I fail to see where citing one's husband for the sake of clarity is 'demeaning, belittling, or insulting.'
  • 'It pretends a woman ...' - It pretends nothing. It is a few words added to a title for the sake of clarity.
  • 'You men ought to be ...' - Bingo, there we have the crux of the problem. You are a biased, political, bigot. You are proceeding through life with a chip on your shoulder, walking around daring people to bump into you.
A lack of gender bias would have helped you see the title for what it was, a simple factual reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.bestland (talk • contribs) 07:00, 28 December 2012‎

New title

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
  • Given that this is the first thing in the article "Sarah Brown (public relations)" is the best alternative in my view. The rest of you can have a debate about what an alternative title will be. I have no problem with another choice, but half the population of the planet will have a problem with boys on Wikipedia naming a lady with ANY reference to her husband. Again, the comments I see above saying things like "that's probably what she is best known for" are totally inappropriate, sexist and rude.
    Again, if someone can find her middle name, that'd be the best thing. Wikidea 09:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The fact that nobody knows what her middle name is makes it clearly unsuitable for use in a title. I think you have lost sight of what article titles are for. I have alerted the authorities, in the form of User:Anthony Appleyard, about your complete disregard for consensus. Johnbod (talk) 12:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I have moved the page back. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Complete disregard for equality

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

You need to have another think about the sexist nature of this title, and come up with something new. There is no consensus. I disagree for one, and out of the many discussions above, only the last group of people came up with this. Wikidea 15:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing sexist about it - if a political husband had a very common name, I would be fine with an equivalent formula. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not trying to convince you, I'm telling you. There are better alternatives. Wikidea 15:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Just out of curiousity, Wikidea, would you know who this woman is if she were not the wife of Gordon Brown? If you were looking to read about Gordon Brown's wife, and the wiki asked you "Are you looking for the Sarah Brown associated with public relations?", would you be able to answer yes? Acknowledging that this woman is best known as the wife of the Prime Minister has absolutely nothing to do with her gender, nor does it remotely reflect any kind of judgment on women as a whole. Propaniac (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Probably not. Why does that matter? It'd just be a lot better to refer to her as something other than her husband's wife. Wikidea 18:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Pathetic. Despite other articles in which the roles are reversed (Males Name (Husband of Prominent Female), you're claiming this basic use of an identifier (especially in relation to an actress already being called Sarah Brown and having her own article) of the wife of a PROMINENT PERSON is sexist? Pathetic and ignorant on your part, deliberately ignorant. She is barely notable according to Wikipedian standards but she maintains her own article, almost solely on the basis of her husbands notoriety. She is known as the wife of Gordon Brown SPECIFICALLY because she is known by that. This article would probably be up for deletion if she wasn't the wife of a prominent person.

If she was a highly notable person and her husband was not, who also had the problem of having the same name as an actor, her would be Gordon Brown (husband of Sarah Brown).The same occurs for children of well known people and parents of well known people. Don't be so deliberately ignorant. It's in NO way sexist and that you automatically cry such because of an accurate portrayal of her notoriety shows that you're the only sexist one her, assuming that being less famous than her husband somehow means the world or an Internet encyclopaedia is sexist. 124.169.35.195 (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Twitter popularity

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think the comment about Sarah Brown being the most popular UK twitter user is out of date - Stephen Fry has over 1.4million followers. Not sure how this can be referenced though? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.5.223 (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (2010 April)

Latest comment: 14 years ago35 comments11 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) → Sarah Brown (public relations) — Referring to someone by reference to their spouse is belittling, and unfair. She is notable in her own right, and at the very least a number of better alternatives exist. Wikidea 18:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose see above. Her career outside the Gordon Brown connection is not notable imo, but that is not the issue anyway. Johnbod (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Isn't it a bit soon to renominate this after alot of previous move requests? 65.94.253.16 (talk) 05:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Our goals in naming articles are clarity and recognizability. She is widely known for being the wife of Gordon Brown, and acknowledging that fact is not offensive. It has not at all been shown that if she were not the wife of Gordon Brown, that she would be notable enough "in her own right" to justify a Wikipedia article about her. A title such as Sarah Brown (public relations), which would always need to be followed or piped with "wife of Gordon Brown" in order for anyone to know who the hell you're talking about, is a terrible title. Propaniac (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I would suggest we use the disambigation "(born 1963)". No, she isn't famous for her birthdate, but it seems a neutral way of disambiguating this Sarah Brown from other people with her name. The "(wife of Gordon Brown)" disambiguation does seem a bit demeaning, but I can't support the proposed move because she simply isn't most famous for her career in public relations. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
That's another good suggestion. To those of you opposing who were talking about it before, I don't find your comments very useful. You're just being a bit petty in not admitting that there could be a better compromise. And, again, you're all men and you're being sexist. Wikidea 14:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
You're making it more and more difficult to assume good faith with such a blatant failure to do so yourself. Do you really think that this article has attracted some cabal of men who hold such disdain for all of the female gender that they can't resist the opportunity to belittle this random woman (by giving her article a title in accordance with existing conventions and tenets)? You'd think we could band together to denigrate women in some form that would have a little more of an impact. (For the record, I'm female and consider myself a feminist.) I don't see why naming the article for her birthdate would be any better than naming it for her profession. "Compromise" doesn't mean "a third option that is wrong for all the same reasons as the second option." Propaniac (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Look, there's absolutely nothing wrong with being wrong. There's something very wrong with obstinate refusal to change your mind. I think this incident will prove that the only way to move these people is not to work with them, but to tell them what they really are. That's armchair sexists, casual misogynists, and very, very stupid. Wikidea 17:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see you're one of the above. Prove me wrong. Wikidea 17:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
So, just to make sure I understand, if my mind hasn't been changed by hearing you repeat the same unpersuasive arguments, it means that I'm sexist (and misogynist, etc.), and the only way I could prove that I'm not sexist would be to abandon all my reasons for disagreeing with you and start supporting your opinion even though it is wrong. My next question is, if not changing my mind means that I'm sexist, what does it mean that you haven't changed your mind? Propaniac (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm right, that's the difference. And I'm just insulting you. You're insulting half the species, and those of the other half that don't want the first half to be treated like just "the other half" (if you follow me!). My only argument is that you can have a title that's not belittling. That's a very good argument, and if you don't change your mind, you're stubborn. The reason I don't have to change my mind, is then I'd be wrong, and that'd be stupid, like the lot of you. Wikidea 21:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I really can't help but wonder what you're hoping to achieve with these comments. Propaniac (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Stuff "neutrality". This lady is known to us because she is married to Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister of the UK. Let's maintain clarity and recognizability. Flamarande (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
What a bigotted, foolish person you are. Wikidea 22:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
That's one "t" in bigoted. Johnbod (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh my god, you're actually as sad as you are bigoted. Wikidea 13:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
A lawyer should be way more cautious with such childish remarks. Flamarande (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Neutral: I personally don't care what we call the article. But we have to resolve the following issue: It's called Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown). So, what's the very first thing we tell our readers about her? No, not that she's the wife of Gordon Brown, but that she is the founding partner of Hobsbawm Macaulay Communications, a public relations company. Who she's married to - that comes second. That's as glaring a conflict as I've ever seen. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Very good point -- I went ahead and rearranged the intro. Propaniac (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Well done, and surely just as her career might be placed over her husband in the article, who she is should get priority over who her husband is in the article title itself. Wikidea 17:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
The intro should reflect how the subject's notability is derived (per WP:MOSBEGIN), which is not necessarily the same as how the subject would define himself or herself. A similar example that comes to mind is Levi Johnston; it may be accurate that he is an aspiring model and actor, but his fame comes from his association with the Palin family, so that's how he is first identified. Propaniac (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I would support such titles if they were necessary. Flamarande (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps demeaning in some eyes but the present title is clear and recognizable. The title 'Sarah Brown (born 1953)' is very vague. Flamarande (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
(ec) But why demeaning? Does anyone seriously believe that, if she had not married the man who later became PM of the UK, the world would ever, ever, have heard of her? Being the founder of a PR company is hardly the stuff of legend. It is a fact that she is mainly, principally, overwhelmingly and virtually only known as the wife of the PM. Ask anyone whose ever heard of her who Sarah Brown is, and they'll say "Gordon Brown's wife". How could that possibly be considered demeaning? If the UK used a term such as the US's First Lady, it would be Sarah Brown (First Lady), and nobody would have the slightest objection to that. All we're dealing with here is the lack of such a title. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree completly with the remark of JackofOz. Flamarande (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Use your head, are you honestly saying you can't understand why it might be considered demeaning? Are you really that thick? Wikidea 22:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Look Wikidea, are going to rebate ANY of the points raised by JackofOZ? Or are you just going to insult every one that doesn't share your opinion about the title of this article? Flamarande (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Are you going to change the title? Do you think the stuff you've found below makes the least bit of difference? Wikidea 23:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Uh, that's my input below, not Flamarande's. (And no, I'm sure it won't make any difference to you, but it might be of interest to people interested in actual discussion.) Propaniac (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
@ Wikidea: Those who say it's demeaning need to make some sort of case to explain why they think that, because it certainly isn't obvious to me. There's a big difference between (a) individuals being persons in their own right - and of course everyone who's ever lived was or is a person in their own right as well as whatever they did or who they were associated with - and (b) why someone is notable enough for an encyclopedia like WP. If we need to distinguish between different notable Sarah Browns, we're saying that one is the astrologer, the one over there was the nuclear physicist, and this one here is the wife of the UK PM. Simple. -- (JackodOz =) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if these are the best title for the topic in all cases, but they do indicate some precedent for "going both ways" on this issue. Propaniac (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
When two (or more) persons have the same name their Wiki-articles need different titles. If one of those persons is known to the world at large because he/she is married to a very famous individual then the obvious title is 'name of the person plus a (husband/wife of "name of the famous individual")'. Sarah Brown is such a case. There another Sarah Brown (actress) and the subject of this article "here" is de facto known because she is married to Gordon Brown, the Prime minister of the UK. We and the world wouldn't know her otherwise and she wouldn't warrant an article if that were the case. Wikidea's accusations of pettiness, bigotry, and sexism are simply pitiful. Flamarande (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC) PS: The standards of lawyers seem to have fallen. It is a decadent age that we live in.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Vandalism - removal of photograph

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia editors do not have the luxury of an unlimited library of photos with the correct copyright. Until and unless a better photograph becomes available the current one will be used. --Mais oui! (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Jane_Brown/Archive_1&oldid=1137173474"