Wikipedia

Talk:Sarah Jane Brown/Archive 2

< Talk:Sarah Jane Brown
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Sionk in topic Move Review
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Requested move 5 (March 2013)

Latest comment: 11 years ago69 comments22 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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus - while it seams clear that the majority believes that the current title is problematic, there appears to be no consensus on what the article should be renamed to. Current proposals face various problems with existing guides, policy or precedent. Since this has been inactive for more than 4 days, and there appears to be no clear direction to resolving this very contested Requested Move, I am closing this for now. Tiggerjay (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) → Sarah Brown (businesswoman) – My in-policy move to this name has been reverted. I'm unimpressed by the sexist arguments to name the article after her husband. It is extremely unlikely that anyone will enter the current title in our search box, and if they do, a redirect will ensure they find the article at the new title. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Support - Absolutely. Perhaps we can rename Gordon Brown --> Gordon Brown (husband of Sarah Brown) ;) SarahStierch (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support While we're at it, let's rename Bill Clinton (husband of Hillary Rodham Clinton) and follow up with every other leader. Why is this discussion even happening? See Wikipedia:Systemic bias USchick (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I was aghast to see this title. This is a completely inappropriate disambiguator. --BDD (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support (Struck to add support to a move to Sarah Jane Brown) the move. I agree with being aghast. heather walls (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support the move. There might be a logical argument in favor of the "spouse of" disambiguation if Sarah Brown was not notable for any other reason. However, Sarah Brown has many accomplishments and distinctions which are more closely related to the subject of the article (herself), and make more logical candidates for a disambiguation string. While there is precedent for disambiguating article titles using a personal relationship with a more famous relative, it doesn't seem to be the first choice, especially when the subject can be easily distinguished through well-documented features of their own. Catavar (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Indeed. And per WP:NOTINHERITED, if she were only notable as Gordon Brown's spouse, she probably wouldn't even have an article. --BDD (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Don't be silly. WP:NOTINHERITED is just an essay, & doesn't say this. Like most US First Ladies, except of course Hillary C, she is unquestionably notable, but only because of her spousal position. Johnbod (talk)
      • Comment: Perhaps the title should use "charity fund-raiser" or "author" rather than "businesswoman"? The PR company she founded is not the subject of a Wikipedia article, and neither is the other person she founded the company with. There are two sources cited in the section of the article that discuss her career: one has the title "Gordon Brown is dragged into spat" and opens with the phrase "Sarah Brown, the wife of the prime minister ..." and the other has the title "Lady in Waiting" and opens with the phrase "The Chancellor's wife ...". That doesn't seem like very strong evidence of notability as a businessperson. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
        • Also, she apparently stopped being a businesswoman more than a decade ago. The article says "In 2001, she left Hobsbawm Macaulay after finding out she was pregnant...", and the two references in the career section both refer to her as a "former" PR person and one says she "had not personally worked for the British Council since ... 2002." On the other hand, she is referred to as "a tireless crusader for charities". —BarrelProof (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Shorter is better. Kaldari (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the last 5 times this was proposed. All the arguments are above. And by the way she would not be notable otherwise, though successful in PR - how many such people are notable? She was certainly not notable at the point she ceased being a businesswoman and if she is to be renamed it must be to something else, which is where the difficulties start. Johnbod (talk) 03:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment If she is not notable alone then AfD the article or merge it. Even if arguments have been lost before it doesn't mean that people can't come to their senses. Calling someone out by their relationship to a spouse is just plain derogatory and has no great purpose. Just because no one has agreed on something better is no reason to throw up our hands as if nothing could be done. heather walls (talk) 06:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm not aware of any policy requiring us to disambiguate articles with a term related to the subject's notability. Perhaps, if I've overlooked one, John can enlighten us? And the arguments are indeed above: referring to her as we currently do is described, in previous discussions, as "demeaning", "offensive", "patronising ", "belittling", "unfair", and "insulting" - not just to her, but to many. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

"A good Wikipedia article title has the five following characteristics:

      • Recognizability – Titles are names or descriptions of the topic that are recognizable to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic.
      • Naturalness – Titles are those that readers are likely to look for or search with as well as those that editors naturally use to link from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English.
      • Precision – Titles usually use names and terms that are precise enough to unambiguously identify the topical scope of the article, but not overly precise.
      • Conciseness – Titles are concise, and not overly long.
      • Consistency – Titles follow the same pattern as those of similar articles. Many of these patterns are documented in the naming guidelines listed in the Specific-topic naming conventions box above, and ideally indicate titles that are in accordance with the principles above." Note the order they are given in. Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Reply to characteristics It was probably assumed that there was no need to indicate that a title should not be sexist, racist or demeaning, but perhaps it turns out that was an oversight. heather walls (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
We do have Wikipedia:POVTITLE (a subsection of WP:TITLE) and WP:POVNAMING. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for at last confirming that there is no policy requiring us to disambiguate articles with a term related to the subject's notability. I find it disappointing that you felt the need to include a dishonest ad hominem when you did so, though. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I also note that WP:TITLE includes WP:NATURAL, which puts natural disambiguation ("Sarah Jane Brown") before parenthetical disambiguation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Indeed: "Natural disambiguation: If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names." My bolds. Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Reply The reality of many situations is that they are deplorable (this one being minor in comparison, but no reason to ignore it). One would argue that those of us who want to change the title of the article are exactly facing it, facing it and saying it is wrong and we should do something about it. The issue is not one of "feeling good" it is one of not upholding the vestiges of treating humans as property (yes, even the smaller ones matter). heather walls (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
If you think wives are property that's entirely your problem. I would have no issue with a "husband of" title in equivalent circumstances. As pointed out above we already have:

No one seems to think there's a problem there. Johnbod (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course, Mabbett has now pointlily moved all these. Wonderful. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
That's a lie, Jon. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Who's "Jon"? It wasn't WP:POINT you claim? Let others be the judges. I think you left one, or maybe haven't got round to it, & I've moved one back. Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC).
Apologies, John, for accidentally omitting one letter from your first name; unlike the four you omitted from mine. Your lie was not about the words you now attempt to put into my mouth. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Reply I don't think wives are property, (and please don't start with the ridiculous personal accusations/jokes/whatever that stuff is) I know that women (and other humans) have been property or some subset of that idea. Citing the reverse argument for a population that hasn't been subjugated does not work. And truly I do not care as much to defend made up characters and people who are no longer alive and are not likely to be harmed. Most of all, we are not talking about any of those other articles, but if we were...
heather walls (talk) 00:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
'Mowgli's adventures' link DABd Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, very strongly. Ironholds (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, obviously. This is not Saudi Arabian Wikipedia, thank goodness. --John (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Question. Is there any sort of title for wives/spouses of Prime Ministers? In the US, they are called First Lady. Kaldari (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
    • No (of course not, or we wouldn't have been arguing over this for 5 years). "wife of Gordon Brown" is how the media normally refers to her when disambiguation is needed. Obviously our first lady is the Queen. Johnbod (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • We are looking for an article title that will serve to serve to identify this Sarah Brown to readers and distinguish her from other people called Sarah Brown (a title that is recognizable, natural as a search term, precise enough to unambiguously identify her, concise, and consistent). She is not an actress or an elected politician, but is she currently a "businesswoman"? Is she known as a businesswoman? She left Hobsbawm Macaulay in 2001: what "business" has she been involved in during the last 12 years? Is that the best way to describe her now, not "author" or "charity patron", perhaps? I doubt she would be notable in her own right, if she were not married to Gordon Brown - obviously she is mentioned in the press a lot, but it would be worth trying an AfD to test whether being married to a prominent position is sufficient to establish notability - but I would support a move to Sarah Jane Brown (thank you, Voceditenore) as that is her actual name, and a natural (one might say endogenous) way to distinguish her from other Sarah Browns is by using her middle name . The actress is also Sarah Joy Brown. I wonder if the local politician has a middle name? -- Ferma (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Sarah Jane Brown, It's a better solution and please let's not start over. heather walls (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Please look at the Sarah Brown dab page. There are two others; one an actress, the other a politician. What makes this one notable? It's because she is the wife of Gordon Brown, otherwise there would be no article about her. It's what make her notable. It's what distinguishes her from the other uses of this name. Listing her there disambiguated as businesswoman would be much less helpful. There is nothing sexist about this. If Denis Thatcher was ambiguous, I would expect the title of that article to be Denis Thatcher (husband of Margaret Thatcher). --B2C 23:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • How about Sarah Brown (British "first lady") - in that lower-case and distanced form it can be referenced, and is clear, recognisable and shortish? Johnbod (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin Notification of this discussion has been posted on on WikiProject but not on others. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support for "Sarah Jane Brown." The current name sucks, but "businesswoman" is even worse, as she's clearly not notable for her time as a businesswoman and would not qualify for a Wikipedia article based on that. Nobody calls her by her middle name, so Sarah Jane Brown isn't great either, but it's probably a cleaner disambiguator than the ugly "wife of X." I'm seriously not impressed by the accusations of sexism in this discussion, though, and would mildly prefer "wife of X" over the unhelpful and misleading "businesswoman" (but both of those are bad so ugh). SnowFire (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • '"Wife of Gordon Brown" is problematic because it's not a permanent state of being. What happens if they get divorced? Do we need to rename the article? Is this an encyclopedia or a tabloid? If she's only notable for being married to someone, she must not be that notable and perhaps doesn't need an article. USchick (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
    • The spouses of British political leaders, particularly of Prime Ministers and Leaders of the Opposition, tend to get a lot coverage in reliable sources in their own right precisely because of who they're married to and the work they do (or don't) because of the role they're in regardless of whether they have a formal position or not. The only test case AFD in this area I can think of was for the-then wife of the minor party Liberal Democrats - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elspeth Campbell which ended in Keep but that's from 2007. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
    • We could I suppose just move it to "ex-wife of". Let's cross that bridge when we come to it. This is a move discussion, not a deletion discussion, so let's keep notability out of it. Johnbod (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The current title is the name she uses followed by a disambiguator that succinctly shows why she is notable, and is sufficiently clear. To those who say that "wife" is patronising, sexist or inappropriate, Brown herself freely admits being Gordon's wife and their relationship is public knowledge. "Businesswoman", on the other hand, is misleading because she is not notable (or even known, I hazard) for her business activities. As can be seen from a number of the rationales for support given above, this nomination is little more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —  AjaxSmack  21:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support or move to Sarah Jane Brown. Defining women in terms of the men in their lives is outdated sexist claptrap and violates WP:POVNAMING and WP:POVTITLE. Gobōnobō + c 16:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Although what about Mary (mother of Jesus)? Unreal7 (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Unclosing Upon further reflection, I've undone my close. I'm happy for another admin to take a shot at closing this. I apologise for the inconvenience. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:03, 9 April 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tabloids and twitter

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Per literally dozens of discussions at WP:BLPN and WP:RSN we cannot use the likes of the Daily Mail as a source here. I also don't think we can use a Twitter feed as evidence of the notability of a Twitter feed. See the problem?. --John (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

My recollection of the various debates I've seen is that the Mail is accepted with caution as a source - it seems perfectly ok for a factoid like this. Twitter are of course the only source for their own account follower numbers; I don't know what "notability" has to do with it. It is fairly stupid to remove all refs to her 1.2 million followers, which these days is the most notable thing about her other than her marriage. Johnbod (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I was right - see the most recent discussion of the Daily Mail at [the RSN], and please check your statements more carefully in future. Johnbod (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Twitter feeds are not notable, but having Twitter followers is notable since Twitter is a measurement tool used by the media. USchick (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Page moves

Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Note: due to the excessive number of page moves and debate about the page title, I have requested permanent protection from page moves, meaning all page moves (IMHO) going forward should be performed via the RM process.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed to a week-long moratorium on a page move while debate continues. See WP:RFPP. Bearian (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  Move protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bearian (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed this on RfPP. The title is horribly sexist. Almost anything would be better: Sarah Brown, Prime Minister's spouse (which at least ties her to a role and not to a person), Sarah J. Brown, Sarah Jane Brown (currently a redirect to this article), Sarah Macaulay Brown, Sarah Brown (born 1963). SlimVirgin (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I've added a list of all of the previous moves to the top of the page. You can read through the arguments, and then ponder if we need another RM, when the last one just closed a few months ago. And yes, that particular argument has already been made. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the previous RM, it seems there was a consensus to move, but it was closed no consensus because people couldn't agree on a title, so we currently have one that, it seems, almost no one wants. Another RM asking two questions might help: (1) do we need a new title, and (2) if so, should it be x or y. This strikes me as similar to listing women novelists separately from novelists, and something that should be fixed asap. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Up to you. My main point, which I hope you'll agree with, is this page should *not* be moved without an RM, given the past huge debates. If you'd be willing to indef-move-protect it that would be swell. For now the it's only protected for a week, which won't help much. Thanks! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree with SlimVirgin that it needs another RM as the last one closed with the opposite of what consensus wanted. I also don't see the point of protecting it from a move, the way things are set up it is easy for status quo to hold fast even when it's not in favor, which is arguably a bad system. This page is going to move some day, in my opinion the sooner the better. heather walls (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
The protection from move doesn't prevent the page being moved, it just prevents the page from being moved by a non-admin. Given that this page has been moved I would guess at least 15 times since it was created, and gone through 5 different RM discussions, I don't think regular users should be arbitrarily moving this page to a new location just for kicks. If they want to move it, they should do an RM. This is also spelled out clearly in the RM instructions - controversial moves should not be done without a discussion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 6 (June 2013)

Latest comment: 11 years ago171 comments46 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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move to Sarah Jane Brown. Our policies are insufficient for dealing with a situation like this. Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) is probably close to the name that our policies would recommend (the most common name + a description as to what the person is known for), but there is obvious consensus that this name is just bad. Maybe it might technically be allowed according to WP:COMMONNAME or some other policy, but it seems clear that this name is not acceptable, and if it's not changed now, this issue will be re-raised and re-discussed later. So, given a set of several names that aren't all that great, I'm simply going to go with the most popular option here. And that is Sarah Jane Brown. I don't care about WP:MIDDLE or the variety of guidelines that may or may not discourage this name or others -- you can find that for any potential name. That's the name, and I'm sticking to it.

Now... if you have a problem with my decision, do not come to my talk page. I will not change my mind. I will not explain this further. I will not entertain any other options. I don't want to hear any additional information or any pleading. I don't care; I'm not interested. Any remark on that so much as appears to sound like complaining about my decision will be reverted on sight. If you have an issue with my decision, take it to WP:MR, where I will make precisely zero comments about my decision. Do not even inform me that you've started a move review. I will not care about it. Bye. -- tariqabjotu 05:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) → ? – see below SlimVirgin (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

{{rfc|bio|pol}} I'm adding this as an RfC, as well as an RM, to attract a wider response. For the bot, the question is: Should the article be moved to another title? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The article was created in 2007 as Sarah Macaulay, known primarily as the wife of then-Chancellor of the Exchequer (later Prime Minister) Gordon Brown, and also as a founding partner of Hobsbawm Macaulay Communications, a public-relations firm. She apparently stopped using the name Macaulay after her marriage in 2000. Sarah Brown is a common name, and she may not be independently notable, so the article ended up at Sarah Brown (spouse), then Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) (there is no "first lady" position in the UK).

There have been five RM discussions. The last one, in March, seemed to gain consensus for a move, but there was no consensus regarding the new title, so the proposal failed. Therefore, this proposal asks two questions:

  1. Should the page be moved?
  2. If so, what is your preferred title?
(a) Sarah Brown (born 1963)
(b) Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's spouse) (currently a redirect) (Note: "Prime Minister's spouse" is the terminology she uses to describe her role at Downing Street. See Sarah Brown, memoir, preface. Added by Betty Logan (talk) 05:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC))
(c) Sarah Brown (public relations) (currently a redirect)
(d) Sarah J. Brown (her middle name is Jane)
(e) Sarah Jane Brown (currently a redirect)
(f) Sarah Macaulay Brown

SlimVirgin (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Title options added after RFC started

(g) Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's wife) (currently a redirect) added by OWK
(h) Sarah Brown (women's advocate) added by OWK
(i) Sarah Brown (née Macaulay) added by OWK

Note: Users from the past 2 RMs were informed neutrally of this discussion by SV and OWK. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Note: Several different project pages were neutrally notified by SV and OWK to join this discussion. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Background material (added by Obiwankenobi)

Google searches
Query string GHits (full, w/o dupes) GHits w/dupes
Sarah Brown "Gordon Brown's wife" -wikipedia 244 >570; (57 pages +)
Sarah Brown "Gordon Brown's spouse" -wikipedia 10 43
Sarah Brown British "Prime Minister's wife" -Wikipedia 209 >580;(58 pages +)
Sarah Brown British "Prime Minister's spouse" -Wikipedia 65 124
Sarah Jane Brown -wikipedia 165 (no hits for SB on first 4 pages) >560;(56 pages +)
"Prime Minister" -"She was also a" "Sarah Jane Brown" -wikipedia 15 (only 1 page refers to her) 21

Note: To get the full GHits, you must click through to the end until no more results are displayed. The first number displayed is an estimate, which is often wildly wrong. If you click through, you get the actual number of GHits. Google will try to eliminate duplicate stories, in which case, you have to click on repeat the search with the omitted results included.. In the cases above, for wife, there were still more results to come but Google stopped returning them. For spouse on the other hand, no more results were forthcoming. We could add additional searches that focus on specific news sites (e.g. economist.com), in order to see how reliable sources most commonly refer to her. Feel free to add others as desired.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Past move discussions
  • Sarah Macaulay → Sarah Brown, No consensus, 4 June 2007
  • Sarah Brown (spouse) → Sarah Brown, Not moved, 9 November 2009
  • Sarah Brown (spouse) → Sarah Brown (born 1963) , Moved to Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown), 15 February 2010
  • Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) → Sarah Brown (public relations), No consensus, 15 April 2010
  • Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) → Sarah Brown (businesswoman), No consensus, 14 April 2013

Survey (June 2013)

As noted elsewhere, if Denis Thatcher required disambiguation, I would vote for use of the term "husband of Margaret Thatcher" in the title. It's just life that she's singled out, there are plenty (~80) other wives in the same situation, and if another wife or husband comes along, we should treat them the same way vs bending over backwards to use ridiculous names like Sarah Jane Brown, for which ZERO sources have been found to date, thus violating WP:COMMONNAME.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • No, no need to move. But if it has to move, then
    1. Sarah Brown (women's advocate), as her continued notability is now due to her work in advocacy for women's health, being involved in several high-level initiatives towards same. Her husband left office 3 years ago, but she is still in the limelight, but it is not for public relations or because of her middle name, it is because of her advocacy work.
    2. Second choice is Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's wife), because her earlier notability derives from her marriage to the PM, and per Google hits above, that is by far the most common way she is described.
    3. Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's spouse) would be third choice, which matches Category:Spouses of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom.
    4. Sarah Jane Brown is an artist, this Sarah almost never is referred to in that way - so this target is a very bad one, as no-one has been able to find *any* reliable sources that use her middle name to describe her, so it must be rejected as fundamentally unfriendly to users.
  • Hi Pat, there are several alternatives listed. Another editor moved the RM template and this caused the RM bot to leave out "see below" and my sig, which is why the request look malformed. I've fixed it now. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • 1. Yes, bit too patronising or husband-submissive, or whatever the word is.
    Support 2 a, d, e, f. without particular strength.
    If no consensus to move, or no happy target to move to, Support returning to Sarah Macaulay, which is acceptable, as the default, first non-stub version, on which hindsight sees there has never been a consensus to move from. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose move, but of the other proposed titles, strong support for Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's spouse), as a gender-neutral title that will allow readers seeking this topic to easily identify that this is the article they want. Strong oppose to Sarah Brown (public relations), as this title is most likely to create confusion ("I'm not looking for some public relations person, I'm looking for the Prime Minister's wife"). If she weren't the Prime Minister's spouse, she wouldn't have a Wikipedia article, so I don't know how it can be considered offensive for the title to acknowledge the reason the reader's heard of her. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Why gender neutral? She's female. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I've just revised my !vote to make my first choice no move, to clarify my solidarity with the "identify her the way the rest of the world identifies her" bloc. But I do kinda like the idea of uniformity between male and female article subjects of this type, and I don't really see a reason to differentiate by gender. I see the argument that she's known as a "wife", not as a "spouse", but she'd be just as easy to identify as a "spouse" (as opposed to how much harder she would be to identify as a public relations person or a charity advocate or by a middle name or birth year). Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Are you unaware of the fact that Gordon Brown is no longer the Prime Minister? I think Samantha Cameron will be a bit disconcerted to learn there's another women currently being referred to as "the Prime Minister's spouse" by one of the top 10 most-trafficked websites in the world. A "spouse of..." moniker is just as problematic as "wife of..." honestly, it has the same parochial problems. And as noted, it is also technically incorrect, so your vote change is IMO an even worse suggestion. Tarc (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes - I believe option, e, "Sarah Jane Brown" would probably work best. Honestly, this is something that should fall under "just do it", and damn to hell the wiki-arcana of disambigs, wp:commonname, etc...and whatever is holding this up. It's the 21st century for fuck's sake, a woman should not be defined by who she is married to. I'd say I was shocked to see such misogyny in this project, but on the heels of the Amanda Filipacchi debacle the senses are becoming dulled. Tarc (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
In retrospect, this whole section is in the wrong place. Hatting for now as it has descended into incivility.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Can you find me 5 reliable sources that use the term "Sarah Jane Brown" to refer to her? I can't. Out of hundreds of articles, I can't find even 5 that use this. IAR is fine, but you have to give a REASON for IAR, not just WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't give a fuck. Move her to plain "Sarah Brown" with a hatnote at the top to point to the disambig, just anything is preferable than the sexist "wife/spouse of". Tarc (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Do you have a problem with the fact that the only reason she is notable and famous is because she is married to Gordon Brown? That is the elephant in the room. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
As wikipedia-notability can't be inherited, you are arguing for a merge and redirect to Gordon_Brown#Personal_life. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
WP:NOTINHERITED includes this explicit section:
Note, however, that this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady[clarification needed] or membership of a Royal house.
We don't directly create articles for the relatives of notable people. However there certainly are people who achieve notability outside of Wikipedia because of their family and the attention that flows from that and Prime Ministerial spouses certainly come under that. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Then your "the only reason she is notable" comment a few lines up was rather dumb, honestly. If you feel that Sarah Brown only has an article because of a famous relative, then by all means initiate a deletion discussion. Being the spouse of a world leader is IMO inherently notable thing, though. Tarc (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
If you can't tell the difference between real world and Wiki notability then you should't go calling other's contributions dumb, honestly. The core point is that being the wife of Gordon Brown is the ultimate reason she is notable and receives coverage hence the article and hence the disambiguation is what it is. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Of course the article will describe how her marriage to Brown brought her into the public eye, but this fact does not need to be in parentheses in the title of her biography. Binksternet (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
That kinda highlights your ignorance, that you place any sort of value or emphasis on "Wiki notability", whatever the fuck that is. Yes, her stature is elevated by who she married, but that's not the point. I'll tell you what the "core point" is; You don't classify women by who they're married to in this manner, it looks parochial and 19th-century to the outside world, as it is the first thing they see at the time of the page, the article title. There is nothing wrong with "Sarah Jane Brown" or just "Sarah Brown" with a hatnote to the others, it simply cannot remain as-is. I note that you and several others have been trawling this talk page and been rolled up in this naming argument for well over 5 years now. It is time to step aside and let fresh eyes look in on this for once. Tarc (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Well well well, I guess Tarc woke up on the wrong side of the cave this morning. Let's test your mettle. When you say we should not classify people by who they're married to, does this mean we should delete Category:Spouses_of_Prime_Ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom and the rest of that tree? Please nominate it at CFD and see where consensus lies. Those categories, by definition, classify someone by who they're married to. Sarah Jane Brown doesn't work b/c it fails WP:COMMONNAME, there are no sources which call her this, so it's absurd to use that as a title just to get over imagined sexism (yes, imagined, if not imagined, then provide evidence below, that she is being discriminated against based on her sex). Sarah Brown with hatnote could work, but I'm not sure if you can establish that she is the "primary" topic for "Sarah Brown".--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I have no patience for your trolling, Obi-wan. Your misogyny was readily apparent in the novelist category fiasco, and it just keeps chugging along here. I've already said that the wiki-alphabet soup of style guidelines and whatnot are wholly irrelevant here, so whatever WP:* page you choose I will ignore, as they are hindering the improvement of a Wikipedia article, which is precisely what WP:IAR was designed to address. Begone. Tarc (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I have no patience for people who are uncivil, like you are being here. Please strike that comment calling me misogynist, it's unfair and uncalled for here. I wasn't trolling, I was serious - if you believe categorization based on spousal relationships is bad, then nominate the cats for deletion. If not, why not?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, it's crazy to think that of the hundreds of articles written about her, we should be able to find 5 (or even 2, or 1!) that use her full name in order to title her article. Crazy talk! Perhaps you should review the guidance around titles Tarc.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes. Tony Blair's wife's article is Cherie Blair. Her article paints her as being a tad more professional than Brown, and with more controversies, but overall I don't really see sufficient difference to label Brown as a wife or even a spouse and not doing so with Blair (unless at some point some other Sarah Jane Brown becomes as or more famous). CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
    • The reason is that we don't need to label Cherie Blair's article as anything, because there are no other people named Cherie Blair on Wikipedia, while we need to label Sarah Brown's article with something to distinguish her. Your argument that "Cherie Blair isn't labeled at all, so therefore we should use label X instead of label Y for Sarah Brown" doesn't make much sense to me. Theoldsparkle (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • No need to move it. The current title is the name she uses followed by a disambiguator that succinctly shows why she is notable, and is sufficiently clear. To those who say that "wife" is sexist or inappropriate, Brown herself freely admits being Gordon's wife, their relationship is public knowledge, and she is widely described in all media as being his wife. If it must be moved though, use Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's wife) but this is less helpful than the current title. —  AjaxSmack  00:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • No, but if it had to move, Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's wife) per User:Obiwankenobi Chris Troutman (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Move the Sarah Jane Brown; that's her name, simple as. I've read through all the arguments against and they are simply waving policy around for the sake of it, to no real purpose. Using her full name does not cause any trouble for our users. This contrived name is silly. --Errant (chat!) 00:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, any of a-e would be fine to disambiguate her name. My preference would be for e or b. – SJ + 04:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Move to Sarah Brown (charity fundraiser) - I've no intention of reading all of the discussion above, but it seems to be a general one about possible better article titles. I have instead read the coverage about Sarah Brown. I tend to agree that the current title - Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) - is inappropriate, even though her relationship to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is what brought her into the public eye. The marriage seems to be an equal partnership, as would befit the Browns' left-of-centre politics and it is fairly clear Gordon Brown married Sarah Macaulay to quash rumour/drop the "confirmed bachelor" image/further his political ambitions. It is unlikely, in my view, that she would have warranted an article as co-founder of Hobsbawm Macaulay Communications and, anyway, she deliberately severed all links with her PR past when she married. Sarah Brown is the figurehead of several major charities (Womens Aid and Maggie's, and active supporter of Gingerbread which is clearly where she has used her public profile for almost 10 years. She is not known as Sarah Jane Brown and I'd strongly oppose a move to her birth name. Sionk (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes "Wife of" is inappropriate. Sarah Jane Brown is her name. Never mind WP:COMMONNAME. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, to Sarah Jane Brown. Options C or A would also work if necessary. But my god is the current title ridiculous. Resolute 17:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh no, not this again? I'll quote from what I said about 10 weeks ago (see above, emphasis added): "We are looking for an article title that will serve to serve to identify this Sarah Brown to readers and distinguish her from other people called Sarah Brown (a title that is recognizable, natural as a search term, precise enough to unambiguously identify her, concise, and consistent) ... I would support a move to Sarah Jane Brown ... as that is her actual name, and a natural (one might say endogenous) way to distinguish her from other Sarah Browns is by using her middle name" - Let me just add that her "common name" is clearly "Sarah Brown", but she shares that name with several other people, so we need a way to uniquely identify this Sarah Brown. In the absence of an obvious parenthetical descriptor - look at the problem we are having trying to identify one! - her own middle name is a natural disambiguator. There are other articles on people under titles disambiguated by their middle names, even when they are better known in the sources under their forename and surname. Look at John Smith! -- Ferma (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, move to Sarah Jane Brown per WP:WESHOULDNOTDEFINEPEOPLEBYWHOTHEYAREMARRIEDTO. If that's a redlink, it shouldn't be. Moreover, what happens if they get a divorce? Would we have to rename the article Sarah Brown (ex-wife of Gordon Brown)? And as for "Prime Minister's wife", she's not married to the current prime minister, which makes that title wholly misleading. Sarah Brown (ex-Prime Minister's wife)? Silliness. It's a good rule of thumb that if a person's article title would have to be changed if some part of their personal life changed, the selected title is a failure. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Strange isn't it, in that case, that the article quite clearly begins "Sarah Jane Brown is the wife of Gordon Brown". If we shouldn't define people by who they are/were married to, the article certainly gets off on the wrong footing! As do almost all articles about Prime Ministers' spouses/Presidents' First Ladies etc. Sionk (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
      • And if she and Gordon Brown divorce, it's easy enough to rewrite the lede to say "...is the former wife..." Do you think we should have a page name that requires us to move the page to a different name if some personal characteristic of the person changes? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Well, it's fairly clear to most people that (wife of Gordon Brown) is problematic, but she will always have been a (Prime Minister's spouse). We don't normally add "former" to article names when someone changes profession/status, or dies. Sionk (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Move to Sarah Jane Brown. If another Sarah Jane Brown turns up, then a qualifier can be added. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • My vote is either Sarah Jane Brown or Sarah Macaulay Brown. She is not sufficiently notable as a public relations expert or a women's advocate, while calling her a "spouse" or "wife", while accurate, does not embrace either neutrality or conciseness. Note that Nancy Reagan and Laura Bush for example are not listed as Nancy Reagan (President's wife) or Laura Bush (President's wife). Jaytwist (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current title, Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown), meets WP:CRITERIA and WP:D objectives better than any of the proposed options. The current title clearly conveys the WP:COMMONNAME of the topic, Sarah Brown, and more clearly disambiguates this use of this name from all the other uses of it. While of course she is more than the "wife of Gordon Brown", that is the main characteristic that makes her notable and distinguishes her from other uses. --B2C 22:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Move, to Sarah Brown (née Macaulay). We're not strictly bound by WP:COMMONNAME is says "When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." So while "naming" her as "wife" is the most common, that has problems related with perceptions of sexism. Yeah, yeah, it's debatable. But who was it that "must be above suspicion"? Right. So must we. "Sarah Macaulay Brown" would be best in my uneducated view, but I read here that that format isn't used in the UK. So, "Sarah Brown (née Macaulay)" - that is, for example, what the National Portrait Gallery calls her.[2] --GRuban (talk) 02:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Move to Sarah Brown (née Macaulay). Sarah Brown is certainly her common name, but we need a disambiguator. This one gives a nod to the fact that she had an existence before marriage, and is a form that is often used in legal (and some other documents). I'm not sure that there is a single policy-correct disambiguator, but this one just feels to me like the best one so far. Dingo1729 (talk) 04:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Move to Sarah Jane Brown. Using a middle name for disambiguation is okay, even if it's rarely used. I'm also good with Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's spouse) or Sarah Brown (née Macaulay).Andreas JN466 16:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Move to "Sarah J. Brown" ("Sarah Jane Brown" is OK, too.) "If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title," per WP:NATURAL. If the consensus is to keep the current title, I may suggest moving Dennis Thatcher to Dennis Thatcher (husband of Margaret Thatcher). Kauffner (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Just a comment but in the UK the use of a middle initial is far less common than in the US. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
We've yet to find *any* sources that call her Sarah Jane Brown OR Sarah J. Brown. It's simply not how she is referred to in any sources. If Dennis Thatcher needed disambiguation, we should do so, but he doesn't.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Interestingly we do have at least one reference for Sarah Jane Macaulay: here in The Guardian. This was mentioned in one of the previous move discussions. How about Sarah Brown (aka Sarah Jane Macaulay). I'm not sure whether I'm searching for a solution or just muddying the waters. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Move to Sarah Jane Brown or Sarah J. Brown. Create Sarah Brown (née Macaulay) as a redirect. Victoria (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Move to Sarah Jane Brown. It would seem a good general principle in the case of name conflicts to resolve them, where possible, by the addition of any additional names. If that fails then former names could be used. Only after that would I suggest descriptions as these are often problematic. If course there will always be exceptions. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Move to Sarah Jane Brown or any other title that doesn't use 'wife of' or 'spouse of'. The current title violates WP:POVNAMING and WP:NDESC and can be easily fixed. Parenthetical disambiguators have the effect of suggesting the most important role a person has played in their lives. The problem with primarily defining women in terms of their husbands is that it perpetuates historical practices that have diminished the role and importance of women in society. Others have pointed out that the first sentence of the article already indicates that she is the wife of Gordon Brown, so additionally defining her as such in the title is unnecessary. Gobōnobō + c 20:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sarah Brown (born 1963), Sarah Brown (public relations), Sarah J. Brown, Sarah Jane Brown, Sarah Macaulay Brown, Sarah Brown (women's advocate), Sarah Brown (née Macaulay). Support Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown), Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's spouse), Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's wife). Let's not lose sight of the fact that the topic should be identifiable from the title. Inserting a middle name (that is little known) or some wishy-washy disambiguator like "women's advocate" is frankly, just obtuse and generally unhelpful to readers. If any of (wife of Gordon Brown), (Prime Minister's spouse) or (Prime Minister's wife) are chosen she is instantly identifiable to anyone who is searching for her article by typing her name into the search box. I don't see how "wife of Gordon Brown" or "Prime Minister's wife" would be offensive to Sarah Brown herself (which is what we should be considering rather than the various competing sensibilities of various Wikipedia editors) since she actively took his name and chose to share his identity, and also participated in a public life in a manner releated to the office her husband held. However, if we want to avoid the miniscule chance that she might be, then Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's spouse) seems the title best suited to covering all bases: it avoids any possible anti-woman connotations and the subject of the article is still instantly identifiable to anyone who is mostly likely looking for the article. It's amazing this has to be discussed so extensively. Usually when Wikipedia editors discuss something to this extent it means they are losing site of the goal, and often results in something really dumb. The topic has to be identifiable from the title (that is the point of them!) and there is at least one that would appear to be perfectly acceptable. Betty Logan (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Given that there are only two other Sarah Brown's with Wikipedia articles, I think best solution would be to move this one to the undisambiguated title of "Sarah Brown," especially when the other two are easier to disambiguate. Calidum Sistere 23:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support move to Sarah Brown (born 1963). I am usually in favour of using the person's middle name in these cases (see a discussion here (from 2008). The argument that middle names are not used in Britain is not true see for example J.P.R. Williams -- they are when needed. The trouble here is that the reliable sources used "Sarah Brown" in context so it appears the middle name is not used in reliable sources. If someone comes up with even one reliable source that does use "Sarah Jane Brown" I would support it under a combination of "Natural disambiguation: If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English" (and WP:IAR if the usage did not make it common enough). I am amazed that any one would consider "Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's wife)" as an option as she is not! BTW why the caps on Prime Minister (it is a job description not a title)? The reason why I think Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)" is not satisfactory is because of the "who's he?" factor (and every day that goes by he is less and less notable). BTW if Denis Thatcher needed a dab then while he was a husband of the prime minister then Denis Thatcher (prime minister's husband) would have done now Sir Denis Thatcher, 1st Baronet is the obvious choice. It is a pity from the Wikipedia ease of naming POV that GB has not taken his seat in the Lords or gone for baronet option. -- PBS (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose From what I can gather, she is known primarily for being the wife of Gordon. If this is the case (I don't know that it is), there's no need to move. I don't know what the perceived problem with the current title would, then, be. If someone thinks it's sexist, then they're, in my opinion, mistaken—calling someone a "women's rights activist" instead of a "rights activist" isn't considered sexist. It's just an unambiguous fact that she is Gordon Brown's wife, and that's who she is and apparently who the people know her as.  — TORTOISEWRATH 04:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion (June 2013)

  • The format of this proposal is a total mess with the proposed numbering the reverse to the norm; plus there's no need for two questions. If an alternate name has consensus then it should be moved, if not then it should stay. Arguments not votes. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Not sure what you mean about the proposed numbering, Tim. Maximum points for first choice, minimum for last choice. Also, people don't have to award points if they prefer not to; they can simply name their first choice. I asked two questions so that we don't end up with a situation, as in March, where people wanted it to be moved, but there was no clear consensus on a single proposal. This way, the closing editor will at least see whether there is consensus to move it to something, and can evaluate the options accordingly. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Normally one numbers the first choice the lowest but it's very rare to do such formal votes on Wikipedia. And it's clear from past discussions that it is not a simple case of people wanting it moved - some have stated they would prefer the current title to the option others are pushing. This should be a discussion considering all options evenly not an artificial vote to try and force a move by separating out consensus. Reject the discussion format of split questions and numeric weighting. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  • This isn't about listing the choices in order. It's about awarding points, which is almost but not quite the same thing; for example, someone might award some options zero if they feel strongly against them. The points will help the closing editor weigh the options, and given that this issue keeps being raised, it's worth a try. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I happen to agree with Tim on this one. If people want it moved, they should state which names they want it moved to. Assigning points/etc smacks of voting, which we're not doing here, and it shouldn't matter how many points someone assigns - it's the strength of their argument that counts.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Many claims in past RMs have stated that this title is "sexist", so I want to study that claim. Sexism is discrimination based on sex. Thus, if such a title (and as noted, we have ~80 of them) were sexist, then we would expect that a man in the same position would be treated differently. However, we have examples, such as Elkanah_(husband_of_Hannah) and Philip_(first_husband_of_Berenice_I_of_Egypt), mainly because their notability stems mostly from association with a more famous woman (nb: there were other 'husband' articles in the past, but one of the commentators above MOVED them during the last RM discussion, which I find a bit pointy and seems intended to disarm this particular argument). Others have agreed that if there were a need to disambiguate someone like Denis Thatcher as a husband of Maggie, they would happily do so, as would I. You can also search on "son of" or "daughter of" and you find several examples, such as Mentuherkhepeshef_(son_of_Ramesses_IX), Amyntas (son of Andromenes), Polydorus (son of Priam), Julia_(daughter_of_Julius_Caesar), Theodora_Angelina_(daughter_of_Isaac_Komnenos), thus disambiguating someone on the basis of their relationship to someone else is accepted and practiced widely already. As such, having read through the previous RMs, I would appreciate if in this particular RM, we went easy on the accusations of sexism, which in my mind are misguided and don't hold up (it's not really sexism if both sexes are treated equally). What we should focus on, instead, is what is the proper disambiguator, and what is best for the reader? It's too bad she has a common name - we don't have this issue with Cherie Blair, but because of namespace collisions, we have to find a disambiguator, and the most natural disambiguator in my mind is to describe her "role", which is most famously as spouse of the PM - so that would be my preference.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  • "Husband of" doesn't have the same connotation as "wife of" (though perhaps best avoided too). Wives until very recently were regarded as, in many ways, the property of their husbands; see Coverture. A woman was not even allowed to be the legal guardian of her own children when her husband died. So the title "wife of" (where the spouse is a man) can come across as very offensive, as if harking back to that era. If you want the title to focus on her role, then Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's spouse) has the merit of doing that, and avoids tying her to one person. That's also a title that wouldn't be exclusive to women. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
SV, are you saying that the term "wife" is what is sexist? Like, if I say, "Hi Bob, I want you to meet MY wife", I am somehow harkening back to the bad-old-days of wife-as-property? Seriously? If you read the article, you may notice something - in the lede - actually the VERY FIRST SENTENCE: it says "Sarah Jane Brown (née Macaulay; born 31 October 1963) is the wife of Gordon Brown..." --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I actually know a lot of people who do not use the terms wife and husband for lots of reasons, they use the term partner. It is not everyone, but some people do find general use to be objectionable. heather walls (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
well, I know lots of newspapers, who are our source for information and WP:commonname, and none of them have started using 'partner'. Have any of those friends of yours bothered to write articles to ny times decrying use of the term, or have any of them published analysis of sexism of the term wife when applied in a newspaper article to someone's wife? (Or husband)? If you all really cared about sexism you'd stop quibbling over the title and improve the article and talk more about what she's done (and find a better image, I tried but failed). Or, work on increasing coverage and bios of women here, or work in getting more women to edit - but having now 6 RMs over the title is excessive in the extreme. I find it amazing that the most favored vote is "Sarah Jane Brown", and I can't find a single source - trust me I've dug deep - that calls her this. Nada. Zilch. Zero. But to avoid some perceived sexism people are willing to IAR and launch accusations of misogyny - all over a title! If you have evidence that newspapers regularly use the word 'wife' for women but use some other better less sexist description for men in the same position, please bring them forward. Otherwise these claims have no basis, and thus cannot be used as a reason to IAR.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Do not tell me what I would do if I "really cared about sexism". If this is quibbling, I invite you to stop. heather walls (talk) 02:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, you'll note that the category is indeed named "spouses of prime ministers", but this is a bit contrived so as to make the category gender-neutral - but it's not natural english and not ideal for a title - it would be bizarre for the lede to say "Sarah Jane Brown (née Macaulay; born 31 October 1963) is the spouse of the ex-Prime Minister, Gordon Brown..." If she's his wife, let's call her that, and let's not drag up stories about what "wife of" used to mean - it's perfectly neutral formulation in 2013, IMHO.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  • @Pigsonthewing states above that we should rename other articles with spousal designations, which by my count is at least 80 wives, 4 or 5 husbands, and then probably 100 sons and daughters. Do you really want to do this, and can you explain why - even if those people are mostly known through their association with their spouse, or if it is the best natural disambiguator? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Capt. Obvious. Can you actually respond to the question? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I did. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you didn't read the question I asked - it's right above, take a look.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Whatever happens, the redlinks should become redirects. Sarah Brown (born 1963), Sarah J. Brown, Sarah J Brown, Sarah Macaulay Brown, Sarah Jane Macaulay Brown, Sarah Jane Macaulay, Sarah J. Macaulay, Sarah J Macaulay -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a rather bad idea.... First off, because Sarah Joy Brown is an actress, not a politician's wife. And I don't think she's ever called any of those other names. Born 1963 seems reasonable, but the others? Nyet. It's not like anyone is linking to them, so we don't need to create redirects for every possible combination of initial + maiden name + last name. Do you really want a debate about who gets to be Sarah J. Brown? ugh.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
We're already having it, it's option (d) ; Redirects are WP:CHEAP, so we would be more comprehensive with the redirects. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


I added some Google search strings above, open it up to see the methodology (rather than using the initial estimated hits, I clicked through to get both the actual hits + the hits with duplicates). My reading of this data, as well as based on searches of websites like NYTimes.com, Economist.com, and so on, is that "Prime Minister's spouse" or "Gordon Brown's spouse" is rarely if ever used - since they're usually talking about a woman, and not the "spouses" in general, they call her a wife. This is plain, simple english, and per WP:COMMONNAME, we should not eschew the use of the word wife here because some people feel it is sexist (and if it's "sexist" to be disambiguated by one's marriage to another, wife and spouse are equal on that count). I also added another option that had been left out above (and was an extant redirect), as Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's wife), which I think is the best option of all and supported by sources. I would be most pleased if someone, anyone, could provide a reliable source which refers to her as Sarah Jane Brown - I think there may be one or two in existence - she is simply never referred to in that way.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


Hi, please leave these extras in the discussion section and sign them, so that they don't appear to be part of the RfC. Using Google hits is not a helpful way to decide this. Or you can add them to your comment in the survey section f you want them to be more prominent. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Moved back. SV, I'm afraid you forgot to (a) get consensus to hold an RFC and (b) Frame the RFC in a neutral fashion, so you should not be surprised if people add useful things to it. In this case, GHits tables are common in contentious RM discussions (see Ivory coast RM for example), and useful if used correctly, as an indication of frequency of use of a term. For example, using Google hits, we can ascertain that "Sarah Jane Brown" is almost never used to refer to this lady. If you want to modify the table, or add things, etc, fine, but don't move it just because you don't like it or because you have some notion that this is *your* RFC - it's not.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Almost every solution here involves either a problematic title (spouse disambiguation) or some kind of complex IAR-to-get-a-decent-compromise (using middle name or "born X"). If we're going to be stuck with invoking IAR, why not just do it in the simplest way and move this to Sarah Brown? Yes, it breaches the letter of the disambiguation policy... but so does almost anything else we come up with. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Sexism/misogyny: I really would love it if those who think this title is sexist can lay out their claims. Do you think that the Economist, BBC, NY Times, and so on are *also* sexist when they refer to her in this way? Sexism means being treated differently because of your sex. Please provide evidence and arguments, rather than wild accusations. I'm really interested to hear *why* people think this is sexist, other than some emotive reaction. What exactly is sexist about it, especially given WP has articles on "Husband of", and whole categories devoted to "spouse of", etc.? If we're going to IAR and rename something because it's sexist - e.g. that a man in the same situation would be treated differently, please provide some evidence thereof.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
For example, when Denis Thatcher died, what did his obit say? [3] "Denis Thatcher, 88; Prime Minister's Husband. Sir Denis Thatcher, the well-regarded but often-lampooned husband of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, died Thursday" Is that sexist? Does this headline to an obituary (which is sort of your chance to sum-up a man's life) mean the LA Times is some sort of misandrist rag, beating up on poor husbands who didn't achieve the notoriety of their wives? Strong claims require strong evidence, so claims of sexism and misogyny or misandry require evidence, and NONE has been provided to date - if you can't provide such, then please stop using these divisive terms. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
There is a very clear difference between referring to the reason for someone's notability early in the written information and offering it as part of their name. If it said, "Husband of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Denis Thatcher, died Thursday", yes I would find that problematic. But again, I don't think it's terrible relevant. That's the old apples to oranges comparison. The Wikipedia title defines her name, currently connects it 100% to her position of being a wife. I can't comprehend why you have so much energy to oppose this change, does it affect you in some way? It seems that a few people find it actually offensive, why do you want to inflict that when a change is so easy to do? heather walls (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
um, this is apples to apples. They are both spouses of UK PMs. If they're treated equally in newspaper reports, it's quite hard to say the sources are being sexist. An accusation of sexism or misogyny is a serious thing and should be treated seriously, but sexism is not the same thing as "this bugs me" or "this makes me feel bad" or even "this offends me". Bogus accusations of sexism trivialize real sexism, and real sexism and misogyny does exist and on this wiki. I added the 'old moves' template not in the hope that a new RM would be proposed, a few months after a failed one, but in the hopes that people would review past arguments and let it drop as these discussions distract from important work. If, as I happen to believe, there is no sexism here, just unfounded accusations, then we're wasting lots of people's time - especially if this shall be a month-long weighty RfC on the matter. We have policies and guidance in place and we should just follow it, and following it means we disambiguate based on her job/source of notability first.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
You did not respond to my point, which is, saying that someone is the wife or husband of x is not the same thing as it being the title of that individual's Wikipedia article. And I disagree, you don't "just follow policy" at the point when something is wrong, that is when you amend the policy. heather walls (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Go for it. Host a new RFC, and try to change WP:COMMONNAME to make an exception for relationships, to say something like "if someone is primarily notable for their relationship with someone notable, ignore all other rules re: article naming and avoid at all costs titling the article based on said relationship (e.g. no more husband of, wife of, son of, daughter of)". And your other point is a rather niggly point, and not aligned with past practice (which represents consensus), so IMHO can be discarded - if the first three words in every article about her say "wife of X", putting that in the title is no different. If you want to try to change guidance on this, go for it, but until then we shouldn't make an exception here because someone is offended by the word "wife". No-one has demonstrated sexism yet - which is discrimination BASED on sex. Show me that via our sources or this title and you may have something.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Her common name is Sarah Brown, so this should be the title together with a disambiguator. Many people (including me) clearly don't like the wife or spouse suggestions. How about Sarah Brown (nee Macaulay). This gives a nod to the fact that she had an existence before marriage. It is also used in Reliable Sources such as the National Portrait Gallery. Apologies if this has been suggested and rejected before. Dingo1729 (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

That is certainly the best of the options avoiding "spouse" or "wife", imo. Johnbod (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
"Sarah Brown (nee Macaulay)" would definitely be a workable solution to me. After all, she married late and did have a successful career under her maiden name. Sionk (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
It's a little archaic, a term one rarely sees outside of say an obituary these days, but it is certainly leagues better than the current wording. Tarc (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Agree. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I found Mary_Livingstone_(née_Moffat), the only other example, similar situation. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Another option- Sarah Brown (women's advocate)

I think User:Sionk may be on to something here with the charity work idea. However, for me, charity worker doesn't work, it invokes a feeling of someone actually going out and doing charity work directly, like Joan_Evans_(charity_worker). I've realized in reading her article, and in reading about her most recent work off-wiki, that the WP article itself is rather woefully out of date, and that Sarah Brown is now taking a stronger role on the international stage as an advocate for women's health and education. So another option might be something like Sarah Brown (women's advocate) or Sarah Brown (global health advocate). That way, we're at least capturing how she is described today. One slight problem is her official bio starts "Sarah Brown is a passionate advocate for women's health and global education issues around the world.", so this is how she is described by contemporary sources when she's speaking or being interviewed, so they're parroting her own self-description. However, I think it's still accurate, given the extent of her charitable work, her tweets, founding and patronage of various women's and children's charities, and many public speaking engagements, that the "advocate" disambiguator could work. It definitely fits a million times better than public relations or businesswoman. If you just look at recent coverage, since Gordon Brown left office, bit by bit the "wife of X" seems to be shifting to the background, and the "advocate for" seems to be moving to the foreground, when she's profiled, introduced, etc. Thus, there could be an argument here to use an "advocate" disambiguator based on her advocacy work - let me know your thoughts.

I also considered whether Sarah Brown could be the primary topic herself - however, the web traffic seems to suggest otherwise, with the Sarah Brown (actress) receiving twice as much traffic, and both articles have roughly the same number of incoming links, so per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC it would be hard to make a case for this article as the primary topic, and as far as long-term significance, that's harder to ascertain too at this point, as both women seem to have notable careers. Wouldn't it be great if wikipedia had some other way to get around these namespace collisions? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Good points, but I'd be very hesitant to base the article name on how the subject describes themself on their own website! I've qualified my comments above. Sionk (talk) 08:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Agree; however in this case, I think other sources are starting to use the term "advocate". Your suggestion above of "charity fundraiser" isn't bad, but I'm not sure if that's what she's really doing - she seems to be giving her own money away (as patron), but her speeches and so on seem more targeted to raise awareness than as purely fundraising. I found the following: Mary_Gordon_(child_advocate), Herbert_Sutcliffe_(health_advocate), Chris_Messina_(open_source_advocate), Tim_Costello_(labor_advocate), Richard_Doyle_(rights_advocate), John_Simpson_(journalist/consumer_advocate), Ron_Link_(patient_advocate), so there is past precedent for using "advocate" as a disambiguator in certain cases, and as noted, several sources have taken to calling her this, e.g. [4], [5], [6],[7], [8], [9], and here in the Telegraph , where the author states: "For the new, improved Brown, he is quick to credit his wife. 'All the charity work is led by Sarah. I owe a great deal to her leadership.' (Before her marriage, Sarah Brown worked in public relations. Though she maintains a low public profile, declining all media interviews, she has become a strong advocate for mothers and children.')". Here is an article that talks about her advocacy, but also how she embraced the wife-of-PM role--> [10], more here [11]. In sum, I think advocate is a pretty good short descriptor for what she is doing now, and while I agree she came into the spotlight as wife of PM, he's no longer the PM and she's still in the spotlight for this reason - it seems she escewed coverage early on, but is now more comfortable being in the limelight. I spent some time looking at how other spouses of leaders were treated - in several cases we don't even have articles for them, and few of them have reached the global advocacy stage that Sarah is playing on now.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Global? Hardly - I haven't seen her described anywhere as globally significant. Personally I hate the pompous term "advocate" - it's rather like the American term "educator", used to describe anyone that's done a bit of teaching. Patrons and fundraisers for charities promote their causes of necessity. Maybe "charity campaigner" would fit? Sionk (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
In the circles she travels in, yes, she's on the global stage. All of the organizations she's involved with now, and the conferences she is speaking at, etc, are at the highest level of convening for issues around maternal and child health (you can argue how influential they are beyond that, but Global health is what it is, and she's now mixed up in it in a significant way). I agree advocate can sometimes be over-used, but it actually seems to be her full-time job now. Again, I'm just trying to deblock this, as you are - Sarah Jane Brown is a non-starter because not a single source in the known universe calls her that, so to have WP title her article that way is ridiculous. The others (businesswoman, public relations) are also non-starters, as she doesn't *do* that stuff anymore, and isn't described that way. The only (recent) description I have seen used for her is advocate, so if we're going by sources and the term "wife" is banned here for some reason, then "advocate" is the best thing we have from the sources.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Current title is not perfect - but still better than any alternative

There is a lot of understandable discontent with the current title, but there is even more objection to every alternative so far presented. The current title seems to be "the least worst of the awful bunch".

The simple fact is that one way or another her name has to be disambiguated, and each one of those ways is problematic in at least one sense. The problem with each of the alternatives proposed...

(a) Sarah Brown (born 1963)
(b) Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's spouse) (currently a redirect)
(c) Sarah Brown (public relations) (currently a redirect)
(d) Sarah J. Brown (her middle name is Jane)
(e) Sarah Jane Brown (currently a redirect)
(f) Sarah Macaulay Brown
(g) Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's wife) (currently a redirect) added by OWK
(h) Sarah Brown (women's advocate) added by OWK
(i) Sarah Brown (née Macaulay) added by OWK
... is if we move to that title, there will always be a good reason to move it from that title.

In the end, we can't escape one simple fact: what makes this person notable is that she is the wife of Gordon Brown, so it makes perfect sense to disambiguate the title with that fact. --B2C 23:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

That completely ignores the concerns that the current title is misogynist and really out-of-touch with the present day reality. There's nothing wrong with using her full name to differentiate from the other "Sarah Browns" in the world. Jesus, this isn't rocket science. Tarc (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Against Your statement B2C is not the case at all and you don't represent what I see in what people are saying about the name. As far as I and many people seem to be concerned, the current name Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown), is not an option, period. I honestly don't care if it is any of the ones that aren't based on marriage, but the current is not tolerable and this is just muddying the waters, again. heather walls (talk) 01:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I pretty much agree that the statement here is B2C's unsupported opinion rather than a fair summary of the discussion. There is not "even more objection to every alternative". Several of the options have had almost no objections. None have attracted more objections than the current title. Dingo1729 (talk) 02:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm downgrading the heading level of this section then, if it is causing this much confusion. "Born2cycle" offered an opinion on the matter, it should never be construed as anything authoritative or summative of the RfC. Tarc (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
"the concerns that the current title is misogynist and really out-of-touch with the present day reality" Tarc, your personal feelings that this title constitutes misogyny mean basically nothing, and no-one has established that you're right, either, through any objective means - e.g. someone in the real world saying "identifying her as Gordon Brown's wife is misogynist", or somehow establishing that this title demonstrates hatred of women. Maybe you should get a dictionary and look up what it means, as you throw that word around with abandon but I really think you trivialize it by tossing it around for silly reasons at people who disagree with you, rather than using it when it's really valuable - in doing so, you trivialize the situation of women more generally. For example, those who vandalized Anita_Sarkeesian's page and the comments they made there - that would be an example of misogyny. But this one? Nyet. We have hundreds of articles from NY times, BBC, Economist, Guardian, etc, all of which call her "Sarah Brown, wife of Gordon Brown" or "Sarah Brown, the British PM's wife", etc., and you don't see the misogyny word thrown at the NY times for that, so WP doesn't deserve it either. Here we have an article from the Huffington post, not normally known as a bastion of misogyny, where Sarah Brown talks about "seizing" the "wife of" role: [12]. Is an op-ed to HuffPost next on your list of things to do, Tarc? I didn't think so.
Your opinions (especially when you express them in the way you do) about how this title makes you *feel* don't count for much at all; you, like every other editor, are supposed to follow the guidance and policy, not spout spurious accusations and sour the atmosphere. I realize some people don't like the title, but IMHO, that doesn't matter - what matters is, what is the best title for the reader? Have any readers complained? Have any bloggers or columnists blogged about this, and the 80-odd-other wife-titles we have in the database? What title is most likely to get readers directly to the right article?
For some reason, many people have been !voting for Sarah Jane Brown, but as noted earlier, NO SINGLE RELIABLE SOURCE ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD HAS EVER CALLER HER THIS, so we are violating WP:COMMONNAME by a mile and doing a major disservice to the reader if we go down that path. I don't think B2C was trying to make a "fair" summary, I think they were presenting their view. No-one has yet presented a single valid reason, based on policy or guidance, to move this page besides, WP:IDONTLIKEIT - e.g. "this title bugs me". I've proposed a second option, which people haven't taken up unfortunately, which is to use her current work as an advocate to disambiguate to Sarah Brown (women's advocate), as she *is* known for this now and I've provided multiple sources for same, especially in the past 4 years or so. Anyway, I hope the closing admin will take account of policy and guidance based arguments, and not just "I don't like this title" arguments.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Speaking about a woman in a news article as "the wife of..." in an article is not even in the ballpark of what we're talking about here, which is the title of an encyclopedia article. Neither are categories, or the variety of other strawman you've deployed to derail this discussion. It doesn't matter if a goddamn reliable source doesn't use "Sarah Jane Brown", do you know why? Because a goddamn source is in all likelihood ONLY TALKING ABOUT ONE GODDAMN SARAH BROWN AT A GODDAMN TIME. It doesn't need an artificial construct to let the reader know that over here is a Sarah Brown actress, over there is a Sarah Brown politician. A source doesn't need special headers to tell actress from politician when the written word will suffice. An encyclopedia project here needs artificial constructs however, to tell A from B from C from D. All this RfC is about is pointing out that "hey, the way article C looks is rather pigheaded and sexist to the reader, can we use something else?" And all you're doing is tsk-tsk'ing everyone about rules and guidelines. Let me break something to you; the world won't end if we use her "Jane" middle name, even if sources out there have never needed to refer to her as that. The Earth won't split asunder, dogs and cats won't live together. This has never been about adhereing to WP:COMMONNAME, it is about the crazy notion that it's ok to bend it if enough people believe it is to the betterment of the project. It'll be ok, if we can just get past the stubborn editors who have camped by too many of the same names for too many years. Tarc (talk) 03:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
And you, and everyone else opining above, has yet to demonstrate the subtle but apparently very important difference between "Sarah Brown, wife of Gordon Brown, today spoke at a conference", a category titled Category:Spouses of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, and an article titled "Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)". It is claimed there is a major difference. That two can be perfectly ok, while the third is a steaming pile of misogynistic drivel of the worst sort, makes no sense and has no logical backing - and that's what you need to make an IAR argument.
Please be precise, and use sources, from the outside world. Did you read the sources I provided? About how she "embraced" the role of "wife of PM"? There's even a shorthand for it - WPM. So you have all made claims that this title is misogynistic (i.e. demonstrates hatred of women), or sexist (i.e. meaning this article is titled in a discriminatory fashion *because* she's a woman), but no-one has provided any evidence of same, and Sarah Brown herself has called herself WPM. I think we could make an argument such titles are spousist, e.g. they define person X in terms of being married to person Y when Y is more famous, or more broadly relationship-ist (for sons and daughters and fathers and mothers, all of which we have in spades), but not sexist, as we haven't shown that we discriminate against women specially when setting up such titles.
As to your other point, I don't think Sarah Jane Brown or Sarah J. Brown or Sarah Macauley Brown are good ideas precisely because they do not better the project - an intrepid user coming across that might think "well, let me learn more about her" and then google "Sarah Jane Brown" and start reading about a British artist who is a lovely woman I'm sure and might someday merit a bio here, but which isn't the same Sarah Jane Brown - in fact I paged through I think 20 pages of results and never found our Sarah. That's why those won't work. WP:COMMONNAME has evolved over the years as a result of many such arguments and discussions, and we have to have GOOD reasons for ignoring it, not just spurious "I'm Tarc, and I declare my solution betters the wiki". Whether you believe it or not, my point is not to tsk-tsk editors (and that's rather droll coming from you, who instead browbeats them and calls them misogynists if they disagree!), but to find the best title for the readers. We could be bland and do Sarah Brown (born 1963), but this has little chance of helping - we usually add birthdates only once we have two soccer players with the same name for example - which is why I made the argument for advocate (check the google results - all her, high quality sources - Huff Post, WHO, Forbes, etc, then compare against Sarah Jane Brown - she's nowhere, except the special wiki-link-box) if wife/spouse is just universally hated for whatever reason, but alas, people still vote for the middle name, which I think is WORSE for the reader than the current solution.
Finally, as to your last point, that the earth won't sunder, and dogs and cats won't live together, well, that would be the case with any of the options presented above, so I'm not sure it means anything at all.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I completely agree too, in the strongest possible terms, that the article title "Sarah Jane Brown" would be obstructive and POINTY. It would be virtually impossible for the casual searcher to find the correct article on Wikipedia, because she isn't known as Sarah Jane Brown. Sarah Jane is a frequently occurring double-barrelled forename in its own right. People are happy to use some of the other options as redirects, so why not use one of these other options as the article's title?! Sionk (talk) 07:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
For the record, I just picked that form as an example of a possible alternative above, I'm fine with whatever non-"wife/spouse of" people settle on. I think any honest reading of the RfC so far shows this trending towards the rename, with the opposition resting on "we've always done it this way" and rule-lawyering. Now we just need to focus on what it will be. Tarc (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

For a completely different renaming discussion

Check out another wife-of-a-president (amongst many other accomplishments) - Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Requested_move_6_.28June_2013.29. Luckily, there is no name-space collision, so the argument is just whether to include her middle name or not. What I want you to compare, if you have the time, is the tenor and substance of that conversation vs this one - no accusations of sexism or misogyny, no claims that "title X is absolutely unacceptable!", instead it's all about policy, guidance, usage in reliable sources, google searches, ngrams, papers, websites, and so on - all in search of what is best for the reader, what best complies with our (extant, not discarded) guidance. Why aren't we having that same discussion here? Even if you don't like wife or spouse, why aren't people trying to find a title that still follows our guidance, that somehow reflects reliable sources, instead of just giving up and going for a middle name? Hilary can keep hers, as any google search will show, but that's not at all the case with Sarah - it's not like it's rare to call her Sarah Jane Brown, it's actually NEVER DONE, as in ZERO sources found to date.
It's almost as if people see the word "wife" and just jump on the most expedient, least-supposedly-offensive-but-irrelevant-to-the-user, solution. This Sarah Brown discussion was framed as a wiki-wide RFC, notified to around 10 project boards Countering systemic bias,Countering systemic bias/gender,Women's history,Politics of the UK,biography/Politics,Biography,Feminism,History mostly by SV, including several boards which weren't previously attached to this bio (I did a few, that were), as well as about 20 people, including everyone who voted in the last two RMs (SV notified the last RM (no consensus), I notified the second-to-last-RM (moved to current title)), and then a notification to the GenderGap mailing list by Tarc. Why such broad notification?
In any case, I would love to have a discussion like at Hilary's page, with ngrams and citations of policy and OFFICIALNAME and trawling sources and so on, but this is such a different discussion, and there's also a sort of URGENCY about it, like "we've gotta rename this, STAT", and it's a rather sad result for that. Even our pet bulldog, Tarc, invokes shades of COMMONNAME in his argument to keep Hilary's middle name, but here, he throws COMMONNAME out the window and calls those who disagree with him sexist and misogynist. Why the vitriol?? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

"Why aren't we having that same discussion here?" Let's see. You are either being obtuse or just can not imagine why the current title could offend some people. We aren't having the same discussion here because it is not the same discussion. Do you somehow equate them because they both happen to be about women? I am sorry that you have so much trouble comprehending the sense of wrongness that the current title causes to some people (the same sense that engenders use of terms like sexism), I myself cannot comprehend your desire to fight it. To find any Sarah Brown one will type "Sarah Brown" into the search box, be sent to a page with a list of Sarah Browns and a short sentence about which specific one is being referred to in that case. There is nothing difficult here. heather walls (talk) 08:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Hilary Clinton is a bad comparison anyway, considering Clinton is by far one of the most powerful and successful women in recent world history. Clinton gets her name but not her notability from her marriage. Sarah Brown is different, not least because she's British and neither has she held high office in government. Clearly "(wife of Gordon Brown)" is wrong, not least because many readers might then ask "Who is Gordon Brown?" ;) And Obi Wan isn't disagreeing with this, from what I can see, so to suggest they are is another red herring which only polarises the argument. As for the solution, the point of disambiguation is to make it as quick and easy as possible for the reader to find the correct subject. Using a middle name that Sarah Brown doesn't use herself is a poor solution and there are several other, more intuitive, solutions available. Sionk (talk) 10:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
sorry I should have been more clear - I wasn't comparing the cases, I was comparing the tenor of the discussion, which is completely different. I think it's possible to have a mature, reasoned discussion without spurious accusations and attacks on other editors, but that's not what we have here. And I'm not fighting Heather, I'm trying to present reasoned arguments why the current leaning is a bad one for the user, and have proposed a better job-based DAB (advocate) but people are now focused on maiden-name and middle-name dabs, so I'm just as incredulous as you are... Also your search description is wrongwrongwrong - if that's the only way people found articles then commonname would be different. Using her middle name here would likely bump the real Sarah Jane brown in the google rankings - eg in the REAL world have a negative impact on someone - and Wikipedia would be the only source in the known universe using this moniker.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, this is part of what our POLICY says at WP:TITLECHANGES
  • "In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense."
  • "While titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names."
So, those arguing for Sarah Jane Brown are basically violating two precepts of policy. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure that most people are arguing heavily for Sarah Jane Brown. In my case I would just choose what seems a majority so that some agreement, any agreement, that includes actually changing the title of this article, will happen. Policies are not always right and occasionally become a questionable framework that people use to prop-up outdated ideas. heather walls (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
The title that has the most support is Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown). --B2C 19:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
But you can't just say "policies are not always right", you have to say, what is your proposed name, why is it better, and what is the name that policy states we should have, and thus in what way is the policy wrong? Are you admitting that policy says we should call her "wife of X" since that's what most reliable sources use? Do you have a specific suggestion on how to change the policy, or which parts of it you want to ignore, or is this more a general "I don't like the result, so I will blame the policy" hand-wave? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
"The title that has the most support..." is either having a last word, or hoping that whoever closes this only reads the last arguments, or just plain old trolling. You know, Sarah Brown (Gordon Brown) is not half bad, though it's still not her most notable association anymore. heather walls (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I think it probably still is her most notable association: she has even published her memoirs detailing her Downing Street years. Most serious published work will detail her role in British politics; that period will define her life. She effectively fulfilled the function of "first lady" regardless of whether she formally held the title or not, and most of the roles she fills now directly follow from her prominence in political public life. If she had formally held the title "first lady" then there simply wouldn't be a discussion: "Prime Minister's wife/spouse" is probably the best we can do given the absence of a formal title. This is the terminology she herself uses to describe her role: "In writing this book,I hope to cast a light on the role of the Prime Minister's spouse and all that it entails." (see preface of her memoir) Betty Logan (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
OMG. the political correctness here is soooo overdone. What's next - Mary (Jesus) because we don't want to lock her into the role or mention that she was Jesus' mother? Or we could do Sarah Brown (Prime Minister) and let the reader sort it out. I can't believe anyone would think that removing the word 'wife' and keeping Sarah Brown (Gordon Brown) would be better for the reader - I think it would leave them scratching their heads (was she previously named Gordon? Is she a character played by Gordon? ) given the fact that she wrote a book about her role per Betty, that gives even stronger support to disambiguating based on that. I think one issue is people get caught up with thinking the disambiguator in the title is meant as a summary and encapsulation of this persons's life, in 1-3 words - but it's not - the sole purpose is to quickly help the reader get to the article they are seeking. For example, If Hemingway required disambiguation, we would write Hemingway (novelist), even though he did a lot more than write novels in his life. So by listing her as 'wife' or 'spouse' no claim is being made here or elsewhere that this fully defines her, or that she hasn't done anything beyond that - it is simply and indisputably that which she is *most* well known for. We have (murderer) as dabs, and others, but no one asks for a rename there saying 'but smith only killed 1 person, and that doesn't define who they are!" But of course not! That's not the point of these dabs. Now I made an argument above, which hasn't gotten much traction, but allow me to moot it one more time - if we want to avoid spouse/etc we should choose a job, not a middle name that no-one knows - and the job she's best known for today is as an advocate for women's health and education. More importantly, I can point to many reliable sources who agree with me, and who introduce her now with 'advocate' vs 'wife' as the first thing in her bio.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Only the privileged say that political correctness, currently defined at that link as, "a pejorative term that refers to language, ideas, policies, and behavior aimed at minimizing alienation of and discrimination against politically, socially or economically disadvantaged groups. The term usually implies that these social considerations are excessive or of a purely "political" nature. These groups most prominently include those defined by gender, race, sexual orientation and disability" is overdone. I am also fine with your occupation disambig, but it is interesting that yours is the only choice you see and that consensus of the majority of people who showed up here is not. Picking and choosing your policies is certainly a method. TL;DR, Sarah Brown (advocate or whatever) is fine with me. heather walls (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Are you then saying you'd be okay with "Prime Minister's spouse", which doesn't make reference to gender? To be honest, I don't see any consensus for anything at the moment! Sionk (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Another option: Move to Sarah Brown

Yes, I know that Sarah Brown (actress) gets somewhat more page views than Gordon's wife. But difficult cases call for imaginative solutions. The actress can be moved to Sarah Joy Brown. This is a moniker she certainly uses, see "the official Sarah Joy Brown website". If this article is moved to Sarah Brown, both articles would go home with what I would consider better titles, i.e. titles closer to their subject's common names. The title should give the common English-language name of the subject with a minimum of disambiguation. In general, you cannot sum up the reason a subject is notable in a three-or-four-word disambiguator, so we should not encourage editors to think that this is something that they should try to do. Kauffner (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

  • If it can be shown she's the primary topic then it would make the problem go away. Has anyone looked into this since before her husband became PM? Timrollpickering (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I looked at this briefly - as noted the actress has twice the number of hits, and about the same number of incoming links. Google also seems to suggest similar notability, as there are lots of hits for and articles about the actress. It is true that the actress is also known by her middle name (unlike this lady), but I guess the question still remains whether this Sarah Brown is the long-term most notable Sarah Brown, or whether Sarah Brown should always lead to a DAB per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
      • There is no guideline that says anything like that. We can use "natural disambiguation" to distinguish articles per WP:NATURAL without making any determination as to which subject is more notable. An article title should not be determined by the existence of a DAB. Gordon's wife got 14,230 views in the last 90 days, the actress got 22,708. Kauffner (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
which is 50%% more, not twice the number of hits. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Dig deeper. When I looked earlier, I looked across a whole year, to smooth out seasonal variations. If you look at the data over a year, it's pretty clear the actress is viewed twice as often.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
2012 Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) Sarah Brown (actress)
Jan 3378 11852
Feb 3027 1145
Mar 3444 9347
Apr 2706 7861
May 3679 7764
Jun 4941 9341
Jul 3075 9426
Aug 2661 9774
Sep 3418 7087
Oct 4034 6952
Nov 4234 7537
Dec 3205 6132
Total 41802 92674
Average 3493 8425
the primary topic guideline says exactly that - it helps decide if Sarah Brown should be a dab, or go directly to her page. Since there are 3 Sarah Browns, you have to consider if any of them is primary, and hits suggest neither can claim primacy in terms of 'when looking for Sarah Brown, would the reader expect to get the actress, the politician, or the advocate?" May I ask why you don't like 'advocate'? Reliable sources use that, which can't be said for most other options...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
"Advocate" seems to be a term used more frequently in the States, rather than the UK, hence by Forbes and the Huffington Post but only mentioned once (in the Telegraph) out of all the UK news sources. Sionk (talk) 00:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Probably because an advocate is a lawyer in part of the UK, more specifically Scotland where Gordon Brown is from and where his constituency is. A "women's advocate" sounds like a Scottish version of The Women's Lawyer. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
yes, I know - but it's the term SB herself uses in her official bio, often prefixed by 'passionate'), and it's used by several RS, moreso than any other descriptor except 'wife' that i've found - If you have another way to describe what she does I'm all ears, or another formulation that uses advocate but that makes it clear she's not a lawyer.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
An advocate for something is not the same as an advocate (job description), if you get my drift. In my opinion, it's a WP:PUFF phrase, especially when she's using it herself, or it is used by any of the organisations she's 'advocating'.Sionk (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
yes I know, but Sarah Brown (advocate for maternal and child health) is just a bit long... Also fwiw, I wouldn't call what she's doing 'advocacy' for a particular organization - rather if you listen to her speeches she is advocating for global maternal health, using the pulpit she's been provided and that she is now refining. While I appreciate that it can sometimes be puffery, I honestly don't believe that's the case here - this is really what she's doing, really what she believes, and she's quite a good speaker on this regard - I saw her with another celebrity 'advocate' on TV and SB was infinitely more articulate and clear on the issues, challenges, solutions, etc than her counterpart. That's why her profile has remained high in this space, she's not just a name and frankly it's not really much about GB anymore, which is why we might consider going forward that her source of notability will derive specifically from this advocacy work for women- it's certainly the main reason she's been in the paper the past 2-3 years. So puff isn't really fair IMHO. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
do you really want to explain Primarytopic and disambiguation and commonname and so on? In any case you don't need to ask her, just check her official website: http://gordonandsarahbrown.com/sarah-brown/ - and read the first line of her bio, which says she's a passionate advocate for women's health and education.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Would be amusing if, after all of this, she preferred "Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)" ;) Sionk (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, here are the first two lines of her book: "In writing this book, I hope to cast a light on the role of the Prime Minister's spouse and all that it entails. As the wife of Gordon Brown, I spent three years living and working at Number 10 Downing Street." So, it's not like she avoids describing herself in this way - in fact, the first two sentences of her book, she describes herself twice in that way. The whole *book* is about her role as "Spouse of the prime minister". I think people are really getting worked up over nothing, or at least not something that seems to bother the subject - and if it doesn't bother the subject, why are *we* so bothered by it? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. I can't disagree with you. Sarah Brown is an almost unique example on Wikipedia, rarely to be repeated. Obviously though, the book was written very shortly after the Browns left Downing Street. As time passes, Sarah Brown will become better known for other things ...it is probably still too soon after the events for a majority of us to agree a better description. Sionk (talk) 12:28, 18 June 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Jobs to track down

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Per recent speech, these are things we should track down/add if not already there:

  • founding chair of global business coalition for education
  • CEO of Sarah and Gordon Brown office
  • President of PiggyBank Kids
  • Co-founder of maternal mortality campaign and global patron of white ribbon alliance for safe motherhood
  • vision and impact award from global business coalition for health
  • patron of various charities
  • non-executive director of the harrod's group
  • Award from Komen (leadership award)?
  • recent Forbes interview.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
If the consensus is that Sarah Brown should not be known as the wife of a former Prime Minister, then I agree, these jobs definitely need a higher profile in the article. Currently over half of the 15,000 character article addresses her relationship to Gordon Brown! I'd suggest the lede paragraph is reworded to highlight her business and charitable achievements, which should be put ahead of her marital relationship. Sionk (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
The lead and main focus should reflect the subject's notability rather than their career achievements - see for instance Levi Johnston who is notable for connections to and feuding with Sarah Palin's family rather than his modelling career and the article reflects that. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Of course. Well, I suppose I was just making a point ;) While most people above are utterly terrified to call Sarah Brown the "Prime Minister's spouse" or "wife", the lede paragraph and two thirds of the article describes her primary notability as exactly that. All that being said, her other important roles and achievements (of which there are several) need to be given more prominence, three years after the Browns left office. Sionk (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Lede paragraph

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Following on in many ways from the lengthy discussions above, the lede paragraph needs improving to concentrate on Sarah Brown's own achievements, rather than dwelling too much on her betrothal to GB. In my own opinion, Anthonyhcole's recent edit was a sensible improvement along those lines. It may be good to iron out any disagreements rather than having an 'edit war'.

However, I've removed for now the claim that she's known as a women's advocate, partly because this comes mainly from Brown's own website (rather than reliable secondary sources) and partly because she also raises money for children too. The description of her as an 'advocate' has been already discussed above, without gaining too much agreement.

She's clearly an author of sorts (though not a great one) so I'm not entirely sure why there is an objection to describing her as such.

I'm not sure who added her middle name in the lede. She's not known as Sarah Jane Brown so I've taken the liberty of removing her middle name from the first sentence. Her full birth name is described later in the 'Early life' section. Sionk (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

It's confusing now as written. Was she really only married to Gordon Brown from 2007 to 2010? Also, the middle name and a page move occurred here in March, and I'd suggest leaving it as is until the RfC finishes and is properly closed. Victoria (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
The full name should be in the lead even if they're not well known by it - some nearby examples are Gordon Brown, Samantha Cameron, Norma Major and Lady Dorothy Macmillan, all of whom have their full names in the lead despite none of those additional names being familiar even to historians.
I'm also sceptical about "author" when what seems to be her only book is a memoir of her time in the public eye - whether written by the subject themselves or a ghost, producing a memoirs is usually a consequence of other actions rather than a notable thing in its own right.
And it's inaccurate to say that Sarah Brown only "came to wider notice in 2000" - for some years before then her and Gordon's relationship had been the subject of public scrutiny and she featured in a number of publicity photocalls (there was a rather bizarre one where they attended an aide's toddler's birthday party just before a Budget just so Gordon looked family-friendly) plus the media had various jokes about whether they would marry (St Albion Parish News and the TV adaptation would often feature their banns for an incedibly high number). The whole phrasing feels awkward anyway - with the exception of mainly royal babies practically everybody on Wikipedia only comes to "wider notice" at some point later in their life. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Move Review

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There's a Move review currently in progress. --B2C 00:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I removed my comment because the Move Review is already announced at the top of the discussion. The new section I was responding to was removed by the editor (oh, erm, that's YOU). Sionk (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Jane_Brown/Archive_2&oldid=1144426422"