Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:18, 5 June 2013

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics of the United Kingdom This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Buckinghamshire (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buckinghamshire, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BuckinghamshireWikipedia:WikiProject BuckinghamshireTemplate:WikiProject BuckinghamshireBuckinghamshire Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Socialism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women's History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Move logs: Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) Sarah Jane Brown Sarah Brown (businesswoman) Sarah Brown (spouse) Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's wife) Sarah Macaulay Discussions: RM, Sarah Macaulay → Sarah Brown, No consensus, 4 June 2007, RM RM, Sarah Brown (spouse) → Sarah Brown, Not moved, 9 November 2009, RM RM, Sarah Brown (spouse) → Sarah Brown (born 1963) , Moved to Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown), 15 February 2010, RM RM, Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) → Sarah Brown (public relations), No consensus to move, 15 April 2010, RM RM, Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) → Sarah Brown (businesswoman), No consensus to move, 14 April 2013, RM

Name

Shouldn't this page be moved to "Sarah Brown", as the article itself states she changed her name to that after her marriage. The article also repeatedly refers to her as "Macaulay", which I don't think is right,, especially after her marriage. Jamandell (d69) 17:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There's already is an article called Sarah Brown for an American actress and I can't think of a disambiguation in parentheses that doesn't sound sexist, as if her only role in life is being someone's wife. --Philip Stevens 18:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, after July 27 she could be Sarah Brown (Wife of Prime Minster)? Or perhaps the other Sarah Brown can be changed to Sarah Brown (actress) to allow this one to change to plain Sarah Brown. Jamandell (d69) 01:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested move (2007)

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

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

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

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Misplaced Pages's naming conventions.

• Oppose the current proposal. Sarah Brown (actress) is currently more notable and "soon will be the most notable" is not a reason to move the article now. Support a move to Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's wife) or any other acceptable title with disambiguator and creation of Sarah Brown as a disambiguation page. When the relative notability changes, the articles titles can change too (-- the beauty of Misplaced Pages). —  AjaxSmack  22:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support the proposal. Moving the article to Sarah Brown will be much simpler than having Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's wife) and as has been mentioned, is a lot less sexist/derogatory. Sarah Brown (actress) would be good for the current Sarah Brown article in order for this article to become the Sarah Brown article. Jamandell (d69) 20:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose taking over the disambiguation page. I see three possible uses (ignoring the redlinks and nonlinks, and I'll be watchlisting that page for tidying while I'm here), and I think it's very parochial (as well as crystal balling) to state that the spouse of a British Prime Minister is indisputably going to be the most notable SB at some point in the future (and not even for long if he doesn't win the next election). Whether or not it's a damning indictment of western culture's slavish attachment to the glass teat, a multi-Emmy winning cast member on the longest running soap in the USA is going to be notable, especially to our pop-culture biased readership. Support keeping the actress at Sarah Brown (actress), and moving Gordon's bird from current, outdated page name, but I think we still need a parenthetical disambiguator and a plain Sarah Brown dab page. --DeLarge 15:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

"Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's wife)" sounds incredibly sexist to me. It sounds as if the only thing she has ever done in her entire life is get married. What would Germaine Greer say to that? When GB becomes PM, she'll become much more notable that a former General Hospital actress. --Philip Stevens 06:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You said it. Despite the unsavoury politics of it, this Sarah Brown's sole current claim to encyclopedic notability is being the wife of the future PM. Likely she will gain her own notability once the handover occurs and this will be an argument for her being the primary topic in the future. As far as sexism goes, she does not deny being Brown's wife but if "Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's spouse)" would be more pleasing to the ears, that will do (after ca. 27 June 2007). —  AjaxSmack  08:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"Sarah Macaulay Brown (PR professional)" would be it, wouldn't it? 132.205.44.134 22:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Name (again)

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

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

• Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's wife)
• Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's spouse)
• Sarah Brown (neé Macaulay)
• Sarah Macaulay Brown (PR professional)
• Sarah Macaulay Brown (public relations executive)

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

Disambiguators should be something that the person is known for. "Sarah Brown (neé Macaulay)" simply doesn't meet this. (It's also a bit POV in semi-reimposing the maiden name upon a woman who has chosen not to use it and who is not known for it.) Harsh as it may be, she is frankly only well known because she is Gordon Brown's wife and so the first two seem about the only options. But "Sarah Brown" must be the main title. Timrollpickering 13:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• What about Sarah Macaulay Brown? --Philip Stevens 13:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to have any currency - only 7 Ghits and only one of them (in Spanish!) appears to actually use that combination. DWaterson 17:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"Sarah Macaulay Brown" would be a mainly American construction that isn't common in the UK and again isn't a form she actually uses. The name used in the title (rather than in brackets) should be a name the subject themselves uses or are known by, not have middle and maiden names added in simply for disambiguation. I think Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's wife) is the best option. Timrollpickering 17:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Change this article to "Sarah Brown" and change the other Sarah Brown article to "Sarah Brown (actress)". In my opinion it's the only appropriate solution Jamandell (d69) 23:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been bold and moved the page to its current location so as to get her current surname into the title. I appreciate the disambiguation tag may not be the best but ongoing discussion has been keeping the article at a plainly wrong location for a while now. Timrollpickering 13:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The US doesnt get priority over the rest of the world. You write as if we are making a US encyclopedia whereas in fact this is an international encyclopedia, so whether she becomes well known in the US is no more relevant than if she becomes well known in China, SqueakBox 17:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the US gets priority over the rest of the world; in fact, I was saying that the UK doesn't gain priority over the rest of the world by way of its prime minister's wife gaining precedence over a Misplaced Pages subject known many years previously for her own accomplishments. The fact is that this is the English-speaking version of Misplaced Pages, and the US is a prominent example of an English-speaking country, so concerns over who is better known there are actually quite relevant for discussion.--Gloriamarie 22:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That forms comes back to the problem that a) she is hardly known at all by her maiden name (certainly far far less than Cherie Blair/Booth and almost into the same realm of trying to use Johnson and/or Wagstaff for uniquely identifying Norma Major) when any disambiguation tag should be the thing for which she is known; b) it looks like a name form that just isn't used (other than women who keep their maiden name or combine it with their husbands as a double-barrelled name, British women generally completely replace their maiden name with their husband's and only use "neé " as a suffix when they need to identify themselves for whatever reason); and c) it does feel wrong to be adding a maiden name back to a woman who has not choosen to use it in married life. Timrollpickering 00:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

A slight improvement to the current name that occurred to me would be Sarah Brown (wife of Prime Minister) or Sarah Brown (spouse of Prime Minister) which gets rid of the possessive apostrophe that some people may have objections to. Cheers, DWaterson 09:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Any change will need to also be applied to Margaret MacDonald (Prime Minister's wife), although I think that page is very badly named. Margaret MacDonald died in 1911 and her husband didn't become Prime Minister until 1924. Timrollpickering 14:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with that change; it's an improvement-- (wife of Prime Minister).--Gloriamarie 22:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

How about Sarah Brown (spouse)? Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox officeholder

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

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

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

• I've changed it to Template:Infobox Person. --Philip Stevens 10:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Is that any improvement? Timrollpickering 21:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Name yet again

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

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

That page is now at the much more reasonable Margaret MacDonald (social reformer). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

First Lady?

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

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

Name

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

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

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

Contesting: other items on the Sarah Brown page, such as Sarah Brown (actress), are of equal or greater notability than the wife of Gordon Brown. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize I was re-opening a can of worms here. That's what I get for not checking the discussion page. In any case, there has to be something other than "spouse" to use as a qualifier. The other Sarah Browns might be spouses also, so "spouse" really doesn't help. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it's not great. I can't think of a better disambiguation though, as she's best known for being the wife of Brown. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Move? (2009)

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

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

Sarah Brown (spouse) → Sarah Brown —

• Remove unhelpful qualifier of "(spouse)". I already moved the dab page Sarah Brown to Sarah Brown (disambiguation) — Auntof6 (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Contesting: other items on the Sarah Brown page, such as Sarah Brown (actress), are of equal or greater notability than the wife of Gordon Brown. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• The name "Sarah Brown (spouse)" is not clear, if any other Sarah Browns are married. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Sarah Brown (actress)" gets more hits (approx. 500 per day) than "Sarah Brown (spouse)" (approx. 200 per day). --DAJF (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are two Sarah Brown standard links (the actress and a wife of British Prime Minister). ApprenticeFan 03:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose what about the other Sarah Browns? Move to Sarah Macaulay or Sarah Macaulay Brown instead. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I would suggest moving to Sarah Brown (born 1963). Using "spouse" as a disambiguator could be seen as offense, and the use of "spouse" here could violate the rules of WP:BLP. At the same time, she's not important enough to be known as Sarah Brown (no disambiguation), and she should not be located at Sarah Macaulay Brown if she doesn't use her maiden name. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - it is not clear that she is the most common usage of "Sarah Brown". Also oppose 65.94.252.195's suggestion - she is *never* known as Sarah Macaulay nowadays or Sarah Macaulay Brown at all. DWaterson (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Info - Someone (not me) has moved the disambig page back to Sarah Brown. Idea: Move Sarah Brown (spouse) back to Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's wife)? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

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

New requested move (2010 February)

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

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

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

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

"First Lady" perhaps? At least, such is how I would imagine the wife of the First Lord of the Treasury to be called. Birth dates are a poor qualifier, so oppose that title. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Unlike the USA, Britain is a constitutional monarchy and the premiership is not a legally defined office. "First Lady" is never used for the wife of the Prime Minister, while the title "First Lord of the Treasury" is virtually unused, and does not in any case allow for Sarah Brown to be titled "First Lady". 84.92.117.93 (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Get away. 1.72m Ghits is difficult to argue with. If the BBC can do it ... 81.111.114.131 (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

If you actually read those hits, you'll find they are almost all about Sarah Brown meeting with Michelle Obama... apart from the BBC source, which writes it in the headline with ironic quote marks. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you had actually bothered to scan past the first page, you'd easily find plenty of references in the wild specifically to Sarah Brown by that name. As for the quote marks, . 81.111.114.131 (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment that should redirect here, even if it isn't moved to that name. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• Prefer Sarah Macaulay Brown or Sarah Macaulay 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Does she use her maiden name? I thought she only used Sarah Brown. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment No to the double barrelled name, unless it can be shown that she uses it herself. But my real question here is when since did merely being the spouse of the British PM make a person notable? I don't deny that there's sources. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Had a quick check, and this article's been around since early 2007, when Gordon Brown was Chancellor, around the time Blair had announced he was resigning. Certainly, she wasn't that important then. Every for the first year or two of the Brown premiership, she kept a pretty low profile, and you could argue she didn't really deserve a full article. She only became notable as an individual, rather then just as a wife, in the last year or so when the Labour Party identified her as a key political asset. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm tempted to nominate both this article and Spouses of the Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom for deletion. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure. I can see the reasons for deleting both articles, but Sarah Brown has generated quite of media interest and taken part in lots of interviews and so forth. There are lots of similar articles like this on Misplaced Pages. Do we really need an article on the wife of Richard Jackson, the husband of Angela Merkel, or the wife of David Paterson? Worth noting that the spouses of some high profile political figures to which we have reasonable articles, such as John Key and Jan Brewer, don't have their own articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.117.93 (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose suggested new title. The title should use whatever phrase will allow the easiest identification of this article, by someone looking for this Sarah Brown. It seems highly unlikely that such a user would know they're looking for the Sarah Brown born in 1963. From the article, it appears that a user is most likely to be looking for this article because she's the wife of Gordon Brown (and even if they wanted to read about her activities in some other area, they'd still probably know that she was the wife of Gordon Brown). The title Sarah Brown (spouse) is awful, but either Sarah Brown (spouse of Gordon Brown) or Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) would be appropriate. (It doesn't matter, for these purposes, what else she is or what else she does; what matters is what she's known for.) Propaniac (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Using a date qualifier is deprecated, as it is highly unlikely the average reader would have a clue what year she was born in. I don't like Sarah Brown (spouse), but none of the alternatives are any better. She is certainly not referred to as First Lady in the United Kingdom. Does the poor woman not have some existence other than being Gordon's missus? The article suggests Sarah Brown (businesswoman) might be an alternative, but.... Looks like this is going to be another Mary Jones and her Bible! Skinsmoke (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• What about Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's wife)? That's what she's notable for and it's not useless like the current title. (Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) would work too.) — AjaxSmack 02:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Go with Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown). Johnbod (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Ignore the naming convention and put her at Sarah Brown. --Dodo bird (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Another option

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

• Support. Maybe not my first choice but a vast improvement over the current abomination. It uses the name she uses, succinctly shows why she is notable, and is sufficiently clear. — AjaxSmack 02:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support per my comments above. It appears that someone looking for this Sarah Brown is going to most easily identify her as the wife of Gordon Brown. Sarah Brown (businesswoman) would be a bad choice, unless she's most commonly identified as a businesswoman. Propaniac (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support seems to be the most sensible option. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support as before. Johnbod (talk) 04:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support it makes sense to include what make her notable in the disambig brackets and being the wife of Gordon Brown appears to be her only notable characteristic. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support As original nominator, for the reaason laid out by AjaxSmack and others. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Patronising beyond belief

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

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

'Patronizing Beyond Belief' - ok, I guess if you really must view the title from a biased and political standpoint, I can see where you would then have a biased and political view of a factual reference.

• 'wife of Gordon Brown' eliminates confusion, such as I had for years, regarding the O'Briens (CNN), whom I had always believed were married, but were not. I fail to see where citing one's husband for the sake of clarity is 'demeaning, belittling, or insulting.'
• 'It pretends a woman ...' - It pretends nothing. It is a few words added to a title for the sake of clarity.
• 'You men ought to be ...' - Bingo, there we have the crux of the problem. You are a biased, political, bigot. You are proceeding through life with a chip on your shoulder, walking around daring people to bump into you.

A lack of gender bias would have helped you see the title for what it was, a simple factual reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.bestland (talk • contribs) 07:00, 28 December 2012‎

New title

• Given that this is the first thing in the article "Sarah Brown (public relations)" is the best alternative in my view. The rest of you can have a debate about what an alternative title will be. I have no problem with another choice, but half the population of the planet will have a problem with boys on Misplaced Pages naming a lady with ANY reference to her husband. Again, the comments I see above saying things like "that's probably what she is best known for" are totally inappropriate, sexist and rude.

  Again, if someone can find her middle name, that'd be the best thing. Wikidea 09:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• The fact that nobody knows what her middle name is makes it clearly unsuitable for use in a title. I think you have lost sight of what article titles are for. I have alerted the authorities, in the form of User:Anthony Appleyard, about your complete disregard for consensus. Johnbod (talk) 12:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• I have moved the page back. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Complete disregard for equality

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

There is nothing sexist about it - if a political husband had a very common name, I would be fine with an equivalent formula. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to convince you, I'm telling you. There are better alternatives. Wikidea 15:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, Wikidea, would you know who this woman is if she were not the wife of Gordon Brown? If you were looking to read about Gordon Brown's wife, and the wiki asked you "Are you looking for the Sarah Brown associated with public relations?", would you be able to answer yes? Acknowledging that this woman is best known as the wife of the Prime Minister has absolutely nothing to do with her gender, nor does it remotely reflect any kind of judgment on women as a whole. Propaniac (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. Why does that matter? It'd just be a lot better to refer to her as something other than her husband's wife. Wikidea 18:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Twitter popularity

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

Requested move (2010 April)

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

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

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

• Oppose see above. Her career outside the Gordon Brown connection is not notable imo, but that is not the issue anyway. Johnbod (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Isn't it a bit soon to renominate this after alot of previous move requests? 65.94.253.16 (talk) 05:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Our goals in naming articles are clarity and recognizability. She is widely known for being the wife of Gordon Brown, and acknowledging that fact is not offensive. It has not at all been shown that if she were not the wife of Gordon Brown, that she would be notable enough "in her own right" to justify a Misplaced Pages article about her. A title such as Sarah Brown (public relations), which would always need to be followed or piped with "wife of Gordon Brown" in order for anyone to know who the hell you're talking about, is a terrible title. Propaniac (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• I would suggest we use the disambigation "(born 1963)". No, she isn't famous for her birthdate, but it seems a neutral way of disambiguating this Sarah Brown from other people with her name. The "(wife of Gordon Brown)" disambiguation does seem a bit demeaning, but I can't support the proposed move because she simply isn't most famous for her career in public relations. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That's another good suggestion. To those of you opposing who were talking about it before, I don't find your comments very useful. You're just being a bit petty in not admitting that there could be a better compromise. And, again, you're all men and you're being sexist. Wikidea 14:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You're making it more and more difficult to assume good faith with such a blatant failure to do so yourself. Do you really think that this article has attracted some cabal of men who hold such disdain for all of the female gender that they can't resist the opportunity to belittle this random woman (by giving her article a title in accordance with existing conventions and tenets)? You'd think we could band together to denigrate women in some form that would have a little more of an impact. (For the record, I'm female and consider myself a feminist.) I don't see why naming the article for her birthdate would be any better than naming it for her profession. "Compromise" doesn't mean "a third option that is wrong for all the same reasons as the second option." Propaniac (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Look, there's absolutely nothing wrong with being wrong. There's something very wrong with obstinate refusal to change your mind. I think this incident will prove that the only way to move these people is not to work with them, but to tell them what they really are. That's armchair sexists, casual misogynists, and very, very stupid. Wikidea 17:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see you're one of the above. Prove me wrong. Wikidea 17:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

So, just to make sure I understand, if my mind hasn't been changed by hearing you repeat the same unpersuasive arguments, it means that I'm sexist (and misogynist, etc.), and the only way I could prove that I'm not sexist would be to abandon all my reasons for disagreeing with you and start supporting your opinion even though it is wrong. My next question is, if not changing my mind means that I'm sexist, what does it mean that you haven't changed your mind? Propaniac (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm right, that's the difference. And I'm just insulting you. You're insulting half the species, and those of the other half that don't want the first half to be treated like just "the other half" (if you follow me!). My only argument is that you can have a title that's not belittling. That's a very good argument, and if you don't change your mind, you're stubborn. The reason I don't have to change my mind, is then I'd be wrong, and that'd be stupid, like the lot of you. Wikidea 21:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I really can't help but wonder what you're hoping to achieve with these comments. Propaniac (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Stuff "neutrality". This lady is known to us because she is married to Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister of the UK. Let's maintain clarity and recognizability. Flamarande (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

What a bigotted, foolish person you are. Wikidea 22:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

That's one "t" in bigoted. Johnbod (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh my god, you're actually as sad as you are bigoted. Wikidea 13:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

A lawyer should be way more cautious with such childish remarks. Flamarande (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral: I personally don't care what we call the article. But we have to resolve the following issue: It's called Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown). So, what's the very first thing we tell our readers about her? No, not that she's the wife of Gordon Brown, but that she is the founding partner of Hobsbawm Macaulay Communications, a public relations company. Who she's married to - that comes second. That's as glaring a conflict as I've ever seen. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Very good point -- I went ahead and rearranged the intro. Propaniac (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well done, and surely just as her career might be placed over her husband in the article, who she is should get priority over who her husband is in the article title itself. Wikidea 17:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The intro should reflect how the subject's notability is derived (per WP:MOSBEGIN), which is not necessarily the same as how the subject would define himself or herself. A similar example that comes to mind is Levi Johnston; it may be accurate that he is an aspiring model and actor, but his fame comes from his association with the Palin family, so that's how he is first identified. Propaniac (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose—as noted above, her notability derives mostly, if not entirely, from her being Mr. Brown's husband. The bigotry argument is nonsense: if Todd Palin or Joachim Sauer required disambiguation, I would as readily support Todd Palin (husband of Sarah Palin) and Joachim Sauer (husband of Angela Merkel), and I dare say the other opposers here would do the same. Ucucha 21:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I would support such titles if they were necessary. Flamarande (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support, move to "(born 1953)". The present naming seems quite demeaning. --Soman (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps demeaning in some eyes but the present title is clear and recognizable. The title 'Sarah Brown (born 1953)' is very vague. Flamarande (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) But why demeaning? Does anyone seriously believe that, if she had not married the man who later became PM of the UK, the world would ever, ever, have heard of her? Being the founder of a PR company is hardly the stuff of legend. It is a fact that she is mainly, principally, overwhelmingly and virtually only known as the wife of the PM. Ask anyone whose ever heard of her who Sarah Brown is, and they'll say "Gordon Brown's wife". How could that possibly be considered demeaning? If the UK used a term such as the US's First Lady, it would be Sarah Brown (First Lady), and nobody would have the slightest objection to that. All we're dealing with here is the lack of such a title. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree completly with the remark of JackofOz. Flamarande (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Use your head, are you honestly saying you can't understand why it might be considered demeaning? Are you really that thick? Wikidea 22:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Look Wikidea, are going to rebate ANY of the points raised by JackofOZ? Or are you just going to insult every one that doesn't share your opinion about the title of this article? Flamarande (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to change the title? Do you think the stuff you've found below makes the least bit of difference? Wikidea 23:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Uh, that's my input below, not Flamarande's. (And no, I'm sure it won't make any difference to you, but it might be of interest to people interested in actual discussion.) Propaniac (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

@ Wikidea: Those who say it's demeaning need to make some sort of case to explain why they think that, because it certainly isn't obvious to me. There's a big difference between (a) individuals being persons in their own right - and of course everyone who's ever lived was or is a person in their own right as well as whatever they did or who they were associated with - and (b) why someone is notable enough for an encyclopedia like WP. If we need to distinguish between different notable Sarah Browns, we're saying that one is the astrologer, the one over there was the nuclear physicist, and this one here is the wife of the UK PM. Simple. -- (JackodOz =) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment As a point of interest, Misplaced Pages also has articles with the following titles:
  • Messua's husband
  • Elkanah (husband of Hannah)
  • Lucius Cassius Longinus (husband of Drusilla)
  • Thomas Oliver (husband of Bridget Bishop)
  • Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (Claudia Antonia's first husband)

Not sure if these are the best title for the topic in all cases, but they do indicate some precedent for "going both ways" on this issue. Propaniac (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

When two (or more) persons have the same name their Wiki-articles need different titles. If one of those persons is known to the world at large because he/she is married to a very famous individual then the obvious title is 'name of the person plus a (husband/wife of "name of the famous individual")'. Sarah Brown is such a case. There another Sarah Brown (actress) and the subject of this article "here" is de facto known because she is married to Gordon Brown, the Prime minister of the UK. We and the world wouldn't know her otherwise and she wouldn't warrant an article if that were the case. Wikidea's accusations of pettiness, bigotry, and sexism are simply pitiful. Flamarande (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC) PS: The standards of lawyers seem to have fallen. It is a decadent age that we live in.

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

Vandalism - removal of photograph

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

Requested move 5 (March 2013)

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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)
    • No answer. No such policy, then? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
      • There's not much point quoting policy at you Andy, since you never take any notice of them. One should not really need to refer to WP:TITLE in an RM discussion, but here one perhaps does. It says:

"A good Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

• Oppose Not particularly prominent or known for her business career which makes it an unhelpful disambiguator, and per the arguments in past discussions. It does not help these discussions to have implicit accusations of bad faith made against arguments that people do not agree with. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)]
  • I'm sorry that you took my references to sexist arguments as "implicit accusations of bad faith". There was not meant to be anything implicit about them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I suggest that your accusation that those who express differing views from yours are presenting "sexist arguments" may be evidence of those "implicit accusations of bad faith". No one here has said anything like "she's only a woman, so let's focus on her husband." —BarrelProof (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
      • I reiterate: There was not meant to be anything implicit about my remarks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment although supporting the name change from what it currently is (very inappropriate in this day and age), I strongly suggest Sarah Jane Brown as far more neutral and avoiding the problems of the current alternative. The reference for her middle name is here in The Guardian. Voceditenore (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Well spotted! I've edited the article accordingly, and moved to that name. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, the article was immediately reverted to the sexist title. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • While this certainly solves the PC issue, it hoplessly fails WP:COMMONNAME - google search with lots of results, none for the right person as far as I can see. As you will see from the discussions above this section, that is the problem with all other alternatives to "wife of", which is how she is/was actually referred to in the media. Our primary responsibility is to disambiguate in a way that is useful to our readers. The present name achieves that far better than anything else. Otherwise most people searching would probably go off on a goose-chase to Sarah Brown (politician) (a complicating factor, new since the last full discussion). Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I think that argument is an over-application of WP:COMMONNAME and an under-application of WP:COMMONSENSE. The search issues will be taken care of by the re-directs. Withdraw the first RM and start a new one with the proposal to move to Sarah Jane Brown? Voceditenore (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
      • WP:COMMONSENSE suggests we should use a title our readers might recognise. Redirects do not show up in the search box suggestions. Johnbod (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
        • Redirects do show up in search box suggestions. (At least they do on my PC.) Try typing "Obam" into the search box. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
          • No they don't if there is other stuff - try typing in "Sarah Brown" & looking for "Sarah Brown (businesswoman)". Johnbod (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
          • This article identifies her as First "public mother." USchick (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
            • Using her official title Spouse of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom would be more appropriate. USchick (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose she is not a businesswoman now and she is not famous or notable for being a businesswoman - these people that are 'aghast' should face the reality of the situation. This is not feelgoodapedia. 67.103.183.207 (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Is her middle name no longer Jane? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:47, 27 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:

• • Messua's husband
  • Elkanah (husband of Hannah)
  • Lucius Cassius Longinus (husband of Drusilla)
  • Thomas Oliver (husband of Bridget Bishop)
  • Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (Claudia Antonia's first husband)

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...

• Lucius Cassius Longinus (husband of Drusilla) redirects to Lucius Cassius Longinus (consul 30)
• Messua's husband redirects to List of The Jungle Book characters#Mowgli's_adventures "Messua's husband; the richest man of the village; his name is not given"
• Thomas Oliver (husband of Bridget Bishop) says, "Upham's History of the Salem Witchcraft Trials of the Salem Witchcraft Trials makes clear that her marriage to Thomas Oliver is a determining factor in the witchcraft prosecution of Bridget Oliver Bishop." which makes it a significant and persistant reason for the existence of the article.

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 Misplaced Pages, 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)
    • Actually, the First Lady is married to the President, not to the Prime Minister. Her official title is Spouse of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom what's wrong with using that? USchick (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Note that article has absolutely no references that actually use that phrase. If is is ever used "officially", which remains to be demonstrated, it's hardly well known outside those attending diplomatic dinners - try to find eg The Times using it, & of course is no longer correct. But if people want to support it, fine. Johnbod (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
      • As far as I am aware, there is no such "title" as spouse of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, official or unofficial, but I stand to be corrected if someone can supply convincing sources using that appellation. The person in that situation would usually be called "the Prime Minister's wife/husband" (perhaps one day "partner" or "friend"). -- Ferma (talk) 21:13, 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)
  • But no one ever uses that form, or would recognize it, so it falls at the first hurdle of choosing a title. Johnbod (talk) 23:58, 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)
  • " The title is not normally used for the wife of a prime minister or other head of government who is not head of state." -First Lady --B2C 00:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Hence the lower case and parentheses, as used by the BBC (sometimes) and others. Johnbod (talk) 00:14, 29 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 16:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Although what about Mary (mother of Jesus)? Unreal7 (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Would this be a good time to talk about systemic bias? USchick (talk) 19:36, 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

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 , 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

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 19:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of politicians and government-people
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of people
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• Unknown-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• B-Class socialism articles
• Low-importance socialism articles
• WikiProject Socialism articles
• B-Class Women's History articles
• Low-importance Women's History articles
• All WikiProject Women-related pages
• WikiProject Women's History articles