Talk:Sarah Jane Brown/Archive 3

• Editors must approach this discussion with a
  neutral point of view
  . This means considering Wikipedia's guidelines and policies alongside the usage of reliable sources, rather than giving a personal opinion on what they might consider to be offensive.
• As described at
  WP:VOTE
  , the decision whether to move the page is based not on the number of votes for each choice but on the quality of the reasons made. This means that users should not give a preference without any kind of substantiation, because it is the reasoning itself that determines the outcome of the move request.
• As well as
  Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) and Sarah Jane Brown
  here: if there might be consensus for a different title, then a subsequent move request can be made afterwards, independent of the result of this one.

131.111.185.66 (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Strong support as nominator. Wikipedia guidelines and policies overwhelmingly support that the suggested move: it changes a title that is entirely non-conforming to one that conforms perfectly well. Whilst I understand the concerns some users have over such a title, it goes against the very principles of Wikipedia to allow a non-neutral point of view to take precedence over reliable sources. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• support very clearly argued case based on policy, namely commonname and WP:criteria. SB is her commonname, and the most frequent way she is described in RS is as 'the wife of Gordon Brown' or as 'the prime Minister's wife' - this is simply because there is no official title like 'first lady' she can use, so 'wife of x' becomes more or less her title (in the same way Denis Thatcher was thusly referred to as 'husband of') Sarah Jane Brown as the lowest-common-denominator result from the last RM is inherently anti-user because this person is never referred to in RS with this middle name. Fwiw I'd also support (Prime Minister's wife) or (wife of UK Prime Minister) as it was really her relationship to the PM that brought her significant notability not just Gordon - in this way it's more like (First lady of the US) or something similar. I don't think there would be a major concern with the fact that she is no longer the PM's wife, the point is, she was. But, (wife of Gordon Brown) is perfectly fine as well. Another option is Sarah Brown (women's advocate), as she is described that way, more recently, for her advocacy work around women's rights, and the chance that someone has heard of her work with women is about a million times more likely than the chance they've heard of her middle name. THe only possible argument for SJB besides JDLI is IAR, but instead of ignoring All titling rules to keep SJB, why not just ignore one rule - primary topic - and move it to Sarah Brown! I'm wondering how long it is before you are accused of sexism or misogyny for your well argued, policy-based case - my guess is it will happen in 3...2...1...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2014
• Oppose or more to the point, no fucking way. Having attempted to nip this b.s. in the bud earlier in the week, and then correctly prognosticating the current request, I feel a refreshing sense of vindication. The recent move requests by IP editors for both this article and for
  WP:NPOV to decline to choose such a backwards title. Start with the woman's name "Sarah Brown" and disambiguate from there as necessary. Surely the 18-35 yr old males that make up the bulk of this site's userbase can think of something, anything more creative than phrasing it as she was a possession of her husband. Tarc (talk
  ) 20:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose sexist, misogynist shit. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

well, that didn't take long. I'm glad to hear tweedledee and tweedledum are so reliably outraged.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Tarc and I disagree on pretty much everything, except on the point that tin-eared chauvinism doesn't belong on this project. If you can summon up the courage to talk to a woman and find one who will talk to you, ask her what she thinks of this move. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose This article is about a person who has a name Sarah Jane Brown. If she's only notable for being someone's wife, this article needs to be deleted and redirected to a section in her husband's article. USchick (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

USchick, did you read the above note about

WP:NOTINHERITED? Mrs Brown is the wife of the former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. In these cases, there is a specific exception meaning that a deletion and redirect it neither necessary nor appropriate (open the box above to see this). 131.111.185.66 (talk

) 20:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a "Who's Who" list and not a "Who's the Wife" list. If she's notable enough to have her own article, she doesn't need her husband's approval. She is a person of legal age and she has her own name. I'm not aware of any exception to that. USchick (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you read the article

WP:NOTINHERITED explains that these people are all entitled to articles, even those who are not especially notable for any other reason. 131.111.185.66 (talk

) 21:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Did you happen to notice that the articles you mention are about the position, not the person? This article is about a person who has a name. USchick (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I did notice that. If you open the articles and click through the names on the articles, you will see that many of the persons listed there are in a similar, if not identical, situations to Mrs Brown. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Per your request, I clicked on their names, and I didn't see their article titles saying "wife of" so it's not the same situation at all. What will happen when she is no longer the "Wife"? Will the article be renamed "Widow of" or "Ex-wife of"? To name the article as anything other than her name is extremely short sighted for an encyclopedia. USchick (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

As I wrote above, that is because they are all

primary topics: it is only with Mrs Brown that we need to disambiguate. I was using them as good examples that we have many articles about people, both male and female, who are only notable for their marriages. 131.111.185.66 (talk

) 21:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure if we all think very hard, we can figure out a different way to disambiguate. USchick (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, but I would support Sarah Brown (philanthropist), as this identifies her by what she does (for which she would be independently notable) rather than by happenstance of marriage. bd2412 T 20:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I would support this. USchick (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• This looks agreeable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• I would also support this. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support Whether we like it or not, this is what she is mainly known for. Attempts to find another disambiguator are artificial. It is not necessarily sexist as we have Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (husband of Claudia Antonia). Please avoid profanity in contributions. PatGallacher (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• oppose she is either en wiki notable or not - and if she is then she should stand up under her own name, if not then add some detail in the main story, her husband and delete her story Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Mosfetfaser, did you read the above note about

WP:NOTINHERITED (see the above box)? It explains that people 'having a relationship to another person [that] inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady' can have their own articles, even if they are not notable in their own right. This is why we cannot simply delete or merge this article. 131.111.185.66 (talk

) 21:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. The choice of disambiguator easily comes across to the reader as more than a mere technicality (even though maybe that's what in an ideal world it ought to be). It carries implications about why a person is notable and what defines them. In terms of Wikipedia policy, to imply that she is notable primarily for just being somebody else's wife casts doubt upon the legitimacy of the article as a whole – as USchick rightly says, if that were really the case, it should be merged. In terms of real-life implications, suggesting to the reader that being somebody else's wife is what primarily defines her comes across as a sexist slight. This must be avoided as a matter of
  WP:BLP. Even if it should be the case that many members of the public do primarily know her because she is somebody's wife, that is not what makes her technically notable in the sense of justifying her article. Like BD2412, I wouldn't mind using some other disambiguator based on her professional role, such as Sarah Brown (philanthropist). Fut.Perf. ☼
  21:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Future Perfect, her article can be justified using

WP:NOTINHERITED as the wife of a British Prime Minister, even if she is not notable in her own right (read the box above). This is why we cannot just merge or delete the article. 131.111.185.66 (talk

) 21:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

what about the thousands of news articles which introduce her in exactly the same way? This charge of sexism has never been demonstrated to hold any water or have any linkage with how reliable sources describe and introduce this woman.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support. She's notable as the wife of Gordon Brown. I think the idea that it is offensive to say this out loud is wrong-headed. It's a fact of life that non-famous people sometimes marry famous people and WP should look on such facts of life disinterestedly. I'm not even sure there's much of a gender issue here in the 21st century. Julia Gillard lives with a hairdresser, you know. Formerip (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. If someone is notable enough to merit an article, they don't need to be lumbered with a label implying otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as one of the dumbest proposals I've ever seen. Using her middle name as disambiguation is less preferable than 'wife of'... Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. The close should have stuck. --Onorem (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, I'm sure the nominator means well, but this is a pretty sexist suggestion. Perhaps we could rename the article on her husband to "Gordon Brown (husband of Sarah Macaulay)"? User:USchick is also correct in that if the only reason that this article exists is that the subject was married to someone else, we should merge the content somewhere else, as notability is not inherited. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: Either she is notable solely for being the wife of Gordon Brown, in which case this article should be turned into a redirect to Gordon Brown, or she's notable in her own right, in which case some other disambiguating term should be used. --Carnildo (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Embarrassingly alludes to a NOTINHERITED violation. Better to disambiguate (all Sarah Browns) by middle name (preferred by WP:Natural), or if parenthetical disambiguation is needed, by occupation and/or year of birth. More effort is needed to find an agreeable title, in the meantime, the current is not a problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Clearly it's difficult to find an article title that will make everyone happy, but the proposal has considerable merit. Lets not deny the reality that most of her notability comes from her role as a British "first lady" figure - there's nothing wrong with the article name reflecting that and its certainly not sexist or remotely hateful. As for people looking to turn things on their head and do the same for a male figure, well I'd be fine with that were they a "first gentleman" figure (rather than in one of the most powerful jobs on the planet). Whatever one's point of view, there's surely no doubt that almost any proposal is better than the current title - next to no sources use her middle name and I expect most readers would have no idea who this "Sarah Jane Brown" person is. I do wonder if "wife of former British Prime Minister" might be an improvement on the current proposal though. --Shakehandsman (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I don't like it, but if we are to follow policy, we must. The sexist/misogyny accusations are hogwash. This is covered in the nom (did anyone read it?).

  I see no policy based objection to this proposal; none.

  Yes, she is notable primarily for being the wife of Gordon Brown, but there is enough material about her to warrant a separate article none-the-less. Her name is Sarah Brown, but that is ambiguous - it must be disambiguated. The current title uses her middle name, but that violates policy as explained in the nom, because her middle name is virtually never used in reliable sources. But she is commonly identified as the wife of Gordon Brown in RS. Thus we have the proposed title. That said, I think Sarah Brown (philanthropist) is also okay, certainly much better than the current title, but not nearly as recognizable as the proposed title. --B2C 01:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose As noted above, I would prefer Sarah Brown (philanthropist) as well. However, any dab that boils down to (XXX's wife) or (XXX's husband) is ridiculous. It becomes even more absurd if a time comes when the person is no longer married to the dab spouse. Are we then going to have change these dabs to (Former wife/husband of XXX)? As others have stated, if someone is only notable for being the spouse of someone else then we need to seriously evaluated whether they need a separate article to begin with. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Laura Bush is primarily notable for being the wife of George W. Bush, and yet she has an article. Yes, this is not indicated in the title, but that's because her name does not require disambiguation. Notability may stem from one particular aspect of someone's life, but that may be enough to make their entire life notable. That is often the case. Anyway, when disambiguation is required, the primary reason for notability is often the disambiguation. Sarah Brown's marriage to Gordon Brown is the primary reason we have an article about her, and so it's natural to use that fact to disambiguate her name from other uses.

    As to what to do if they get divorced, it may require a title change. But, then, a remarriage may as well, depending on how she is referred to in reliable sources. So what? That's not a big deal. --B2C 05:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

    • The point is that people don't get articles for being someones wife or husband or child. They get articles for being notable themselves. Being someones wife or husband or child might help them become notable, but that's not what makes them notable by Wikipedia's standards. (Except people like Paris Hilton, who had an article way too early, but has amazingly since become notable on her own.) --Onorem (talk) 12:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

if you'd take a moment to read the very carefully prepared move request above you will note that your objection has been considered and there is already a clearly written answer in policy that permits an exception in this case (in short, you're wrong). On the question of 'what is she most known for', there can be no doubt. However, if you want to classify her otherwise, 'wife of the UK Prime Minister' would be a bit more role/title based. Based on her advocacy work since they left office I also proposed Sarah Brown (women's advocate) but it didn't gain traction, perhaps we should consider that again?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• • • • The point is that political spouses (and less often other family members) frequently achieve notability and thus coverage in sources precisely because of their marriage and the "first couple" (sic) approach of the media. This is regardless of whether or not there's actually a formal position. But to the best of my knowledge it's been about seven years since this has been even tested in AFD and the last I know about was a minor party leader's wife - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elspeth Campbell - so if you feel there shouldn't be such articles then try taking a new test case to AFD. But I have a suspicion it won't pass unless you can succeed in getting deleted one of the highest examples like Laura Bush or Michelle Obama. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Will someone please shut this fucking nonsense down? Every time I think we couldn't possibly embarrass ourselves more... Joefromrandb (talk) 07:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose or more to the point, no fucking way (per Tarc). Disambiguating by middle name or initial is completely valid, and often done. Meanwhile, defining a woman as a man's something is just a throwback from the 50s... the 1850s. Hell no. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. She's sufficiently notable for her own article and she has a name of her own. There's no valid argument that people looking for "Sarah Brown" won't be able to find her, as there's a clear entry in the
  Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) redirect pops up when you type in the search box. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk
  ) 09:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. It's not sexist or misogynist, it's just a reflection of the reality, i.e. it has a bearing on the WP:COMMONNAME. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• No way I am going to vote on a
  WP:LAME candidate, but this discussion is useful as a guide to indicate which editors have any inkling of what has happened in society in the last fifty years. Johnuniq (talk
  ) 10:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @
    personal attack, especially considering that most editors are younger than 50. As I said in my post immediately preceding yours, this has nothing to do with sexism or misogyny. It is strange to observe how editors can take even a disambiguator as an offense. Mrs Brown – if I'm allowed to use "Mrs"! – is the wife of Gordon Brown, and that is currently the main basis of her notability. That may however change in the future, and if so, the disambiguator will likely change. For instance, if she became a prominent politician, sort of what Hillary Rodham Clinton has done, then it's a whole different story. Please refrain from personal attacks in discussions. HandsomeFella (talk
    ) 14:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Sarah Brown (Anything) over the current title. Her given name is "Sarah" not "Sarah Jane", which is a common forename in its own right, and the current name is completely unrecognisable and not serving readers at all well by giving a misleading impression as to what her name is. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Current disambiguator is natural and concise, the proposed disambiguator is prolix and reminds one of the passe Mrs. Gordon Brown. The proposal also misrepresents the article as being the subject's sole identity, which if that were so, we should merge to Gordon Brown, per BLP1E. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) sounds awkward. Hafspajen (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose both move and Sarah Jane Brown: I'm reminded of a joke within some members of the Liberal Democrats that there are simply too many women called Sarah in the party (and I myself am one of them). The reason why this is relevant is because it makes it hard to disambiguate them in the party, let alone on Wikipedia. If Sarah Brown, parish councillor in Nottingham were to become notable, the way we'd disambiguate her from Sarah Brown, city councillor in Cambridge would be by local party rather than middle name. But at the same time, I'm very wary of disambiguating based on their relation to someone else; can anyone show me an example which isn't a Biblical figure, wife of an ancient emperor, or Middle-Earth dwarf? I also share Timrollpickering's concerns that "Sarah Jane" is a common forename in its own right (See also: Sarah Jane Smith). For these reasons, I would support Sarah Brown (philanthropist). Sceptre ^(talk) 14:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose current proposal, would support Sarah Brown (10 Downing Street) or Sarah Brown (philanthropist).--Pharos (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• No fucking way as we drag WP into the 20th century. 2600:1001:B027:532D:40C:A8D1:197C:58D9 (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

discussion

This discussion was closed by User:Drmies with the comment: "No, this is not going to happen, and if common sense isn't good enough, I'll invoke IAR. We are not going to define a woman by her husband and enshrine such a definition in the article title, and there is no sense in letting this ride for seven days. Back to the drawing board, and the nominator and others will find some suggestions in the comments below by Fut.Perf. and others. Drmies (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)" I have undone his close, as I see it as a supervote. By all means add your usual clarity and wisdom to the discussion, Drmies, but please let this absurdity run its course. You swooping in and whacking this mole will not address the systemic sexism. If this discussion results in a grossly sexist title, the next move is to address the underlying problem with a policy fix. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

In short, Anthonycole, you undid the close because you want this to turn into another giant clusterfuck of a drama-fest? Could you please explain to me how your decision to re-open is meant to be anything but pointy and disruptive? Resolute 22:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a valid ongoing discussion on a genuinely contentious question. I share Drmies's view that we should avoid "wife of" due to IAR, and that was the policy behind my !vote. However, Drmies should have cast his IAR vote like the rest of us, and let the genius of the crowd prevail. (I've since been persuaded that it was wrong of me to revert him. Next time I'll just go whining on his talk page.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Early closes on contentious issues, in my experience, usually end up creating drama rather than preventing it. Anthonyhcole is correct, let us let this go for the full period of time, get closed accordingly and definitively by a neutral admin, and then nobody will have any grounds to kick up more drama by claiming that process wasn't followed and that they were somehow wronged. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC).

I agree that this should have been left closed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I may not have gone as far as reverting the close myself, but Anthony's premise is sound; sometimes, external, public shame is the only way to penetrate the systemic malaise that has coagulated in some corners of this project. I can guarantee that, if by some idiot Hail Mary miracle this article title was moved to the "wife of..." schlock, I'd put the word out to some press/media contacts to come have a look-see. What happened before can certainly happen again. Tarc (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh no, the media army will destroy us all! Arkon (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Why do you and others keep trying to conflate the American novelists thing with this page move? —Xezbeth (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It is part of the same shtick with the same actors showing up to push their agenda. Tarc (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I think
  WP:CRITERIA #1, recognizability. At this rate, you might as well use Sarah Brown (blue eyes), Sarah Brown (blond) or Sarah Brown (sarah brown wikipedia Entry Number Four) as disambiguator. ^walk victor falk ^talk
  08:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • There could be more to your last one than you think. I sometimes think it's a pity that Wikipedia's software is based around being able to type the article title in running text and so only one article at most can get the undisambiguated location. Having all articles located at a string of random characters with a DISPLAYTITLE to show the name would end a lot of RM drama as there would be no disputes over what gets the undisambiguated name above all others or any need for disambiguation tags. But I've no idea how that could work with the basic mark-up. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Query Just to poke my head back in as a question after pondering for a bit - is it possible we have a
  WP:NATURAL). - The Bushranger _{One ping only}
  10:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

see move request previous to this one. I supported that, per IAR (it's demonstrably not primary). But people !voted against it, claiming POLICY!! Now, oddly enough, we have a policy-based and fully policy compliant move, in fact super well argued and the most policy compliant name imaginable, but people JDLI so they vote with their emotions, essentially saying to IAR to keep the current name which is way worse than Sarah Brown.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

(

WP:IAR. My concern is not so much setting precedent for ignoring wp:primarytopic, all exceptions must have a rule, but that it should be reserved for a true conundrum or an inextricable gordian knot, not as a way of side-stepping editors unwilling to dialogue (in contrast to polemicizing). You'll notice there is a veritable flood of dogpiling supports and opposes, but rather fewer trying to engage in constructive discussion, and so far almost no contact established; though hopefully this'll change. ^walk victor falk ^talk

11:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

If someone comes up with a viable "Name (Profession)" title, I'd have no objection to that. It's the "wife of" business that is objectionable, but that will never return anyways, so we're left with either "Sarah Brown", the middle name option, or the profession option. One needs to be chosen and then there should be at least a 2-year moratorium on any move requests, these disruptive IP-hoppers need to be squashed. Tarc (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)