Talk:Sarah Jane Brown/Archive 5

...is the wife of former prime minister...
Obi just added "...is the wife of former prime minister..." as the first defining factor in the lede. I support that 100%. It's the most well-known thing about her, and so has to be prominent in the article and appear in the Google snippet. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Anthonyhcole, firstly I do not recognise the name but am sorry to say that you were visibly the worst of those who resorted to (or began with) personal attacks on other editors in the above discussion. I have seen from your block log that you have a past history of blocks for personal attacks, but if you make any further attacks, or use attack-words, or label other editors, individually or generally, or refer to faeces, etc. on this page again, then I hope other users will be taking the matter to an appropriate venue. We don't need this in a collaborative editing effort either here nor in any other article.
 * Secondly, with that out of the way, would you please indicate the en.wp policy or guideline that would support your apparent view that "wife of" is acceptable in lead but not in title? If that is what above comment is meant to indicate. Best regards. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks IIO, but Anthony and I have been crossing swords for a while, he calls me a misogynist, I go sulk in a corner and cry. Its all water under the bridge anyway. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't oppose moving "wife of" (or "married to") to later in the lede - possibly the second sentence - if I were confident it would still appear in the Google snippet. It needs to be plain in search-engine results that this is that Sarah Brown, and that means mentioning her husband - by far the strongest notability factor - early in the lede. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Obiwankenobi, WP:NPA includes also blanket-attacks and insults at undefined groups. It's good that you have broad shoulders, but an editor who habitually makes personal attacks isn't needed/wanted by the project.
 * Anthonyhcole, would you mind answering the question after "Secondly..." please. I'd like to understand your reasoning. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Once the reader finds the article, I'd like them to see at a glance that Sarah Jane Brown or Sarah (Macaulay) Brown or Sarah Brown (née Macaulay) or whatever we end up at is Gordon's wife. Mentioning that in our lede description/definition of her is not a problem for me, and would help the reader. My problem is using it as the sole descriptor in the title - or lede for that matter. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Why? If something is morally wrong in title, it is wrong period. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My problem with the title, Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) is that that is all it says about her. To me, and others, that title defines her as a man's wife, and so is offensive. The lede at present describes her as Gordon's spouse, founder of a charity and founder of a company. It paints her as a fuller person, not just some bloke's wife. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But that's a problem with 1000s of article titles. A basic principle of WP:TITLE is we reflect the most notable aspect. We don't paint footballers with a sideline as actors as John Smith (fuller person). And in any case all the evidence repeated here is that Sarah Jane Brown, like many PM/head-of-state-spouses is notable for being a spouse, not for anything else. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Anthony, as I pointed out above, it doesn't DEFINE her as a wife, it DESCRIBES her as a wife, the same way oodles of reliables ources do in their headlines. No-one has mooted a cogent argument to demonstrate why the word "define" must be used here, only for this article, where the word "define" does not apply to any other disambiguator in a title. In any case, describing her as the spouse of the PM is even better, IMHO, as that's what she's most known for, vs being wife of some guy named Gordon.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sarah Brown (UK Prime Minister spouse) would also give more leeway to de-emphasis that she is the wife of Gordon Brown in the lede. walk victor falktalk 13:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would object to that title for the same reasons as presented above. Splitting hairs and playing at semantics does not sidestep the above raised problems, imo.  And one of the arguments Tarc has alluded to is one I agree completely with: If you can't describe a person in terms of their own accomplishments, but only on the nature of their relationship with someone else, then they simply are not notable enough for an article.  If Sarah Brown is only really notable for being the spouse of someone, then this article should be deeply pruned, merged and redirected to Gordon Brown. Resolute 14:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Resolute, I really wish you would read the highly detailed move request above, which addressed this exact and specific objection in detail, and notes that there is an exception in the WP:NOTINHERITED clause for exactly this reason. Similarly, your comment doesn't address the hundreds of other articles that are dabbed based on relationships. Sarah Brown passes GNG by a million miles, so your comment is missing the point. This is not splitting hairs nor playing with semantics, we are engaged in a good faith effort to find a disambiguator which is easily recognizable to the reader. NO ONE disputes the fact that she was wife of a PM is the main reason for her notability, but no claim is being made anywhere that she is ONLY notable for being the spouse, but we are making the claim that this is what she is MOST notable for. Please take a look at the huge list of sources I provided above, and how they describe her in the title and in the lede, and tell me if you notice a pattern. You would not see such a similar set of descriptions for Margaret Thatcher (wife of Dennis), but you would see a similar set of descriptions for Dennis Thatcher (husband of Margaret). Being a head of government carries with it exposure to your spouse, and that brings about notability (I note, also, that we have articles on Children of heads of state, and a whole category tree for same, e.g. Category:Children_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've read your list, thanks. And my objection stands. Also, the fact that a couple hundred other articles are at a bad title does not justify moving to one here. Resolute 14:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Those other articles are at GOOD titles Resolute. You'd be hard pressed to find better ones. someone tried, last time, and almost all of those moves were reverted.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, only really notable for is a red herring. I already discussed this at length above, and no-one has refuted it. Since when did Name (Y) imply "Name is only really notable for Y"? It doesn't, it never does, it has never been meant to, and it's only been used in one place on the wiki, which is this article title, as a way to discredit or disallow any mention of spouse or wife. But in tens of thousands of other article titles we used disambiguating phrases without worrying that such a phrase implies this person is only notable for Y.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

You can't eat your cake and still have it. Either the title has to refer she has a connection with the former United Kingdom PM, in which case that she's Gordon Brown's wife may be de-emphasised in the lede, or the title obfuscates that, in which case it must be very prominently mentioned there. walk victor falktalk 17:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Imho WP:NOTINHERITED really needs to be deleted. Apart from being evident nonsense, a piece of nonsense in an essay shouldn't be given weight in discussions over agreed policy. Notability is often inherited, fact. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And it's an especially silly argument to use here. We can ignore NOTINHERITED entirely, and ask, does Sarah Brown pass GNG? Well, look above, I've given 35 sources. There are a great deal more, interviews with her, articles ABOUT her, etc. I think she has done a great deal of interesting work in the charitable sector, but for now, since we go based on reliable sources, there isn't one clear and short description that would be as recognizeable as "Spouse of the UK PM" or "UK PM Spouse" - not by a longshot.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * How can we even discuss this? Submitting this article for AfD would result in a wp:snow close keep and a wp:trout for a wp:pointy nomination. walk victor falktalk 17:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * agreed. No-one who proposed merging would have the guts to actually nominate this for AFD, it's laughable.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, you if you're going to deny cake having & eating to others, thne you are going to go without as well, I'm afraid. If Sarah Brown's sole reason for getting reliable source coverage is via her relation to her husband, then the article should be deleted or redirected per WP:NOTINHERITED.  If Sarah Brown is notable for things other than her relation to Gordon Brown, then there's no logical argument to be had that the article title must disambiguate on her marital/relationship status, as there are better-suited ways to go about it (middle name, "educator", etc...). Tarc (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As above Tarc, "then the article should be deleted or redirected per WP:NOTINHERITED", but in the opinion of at least 1 editor WP:NOTINHERITED is nonsense, part of a tendentious essay, and should itself be deleted. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The concept of "notability is not inherited" has been the basis of many, many sucessful deletion discussions, so your opinion of its worth is irrelevant. I do not believe this article should be deleted either, as Brown's notability stands independently and is not just inherited from the PM, but you're not going to get it both ways; if Sarah Brown is notable apart from Gordon Brown, then the notion that we need to disambiguate on a term/phrase or some denotation of that relationship is without merit. Tarc (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The solution on the table now is to dab based on her role, which was linked to her relationship but is different than same - we even have a category for such people in such roles, e.g. . I dare you, no I triple dog dare you, to bring this article to AFD, and watch the snow fall. also, you're like the 20th person to quote NOTINHERITED even though it's obvious you haven't read it. Try reading it, then come back here. The logical argument is not about ONLY, it's about "what is she MOST" known for, or how is she MOST frequently described in reliable sources. That's a policy-based argument that focuses on providing something of utility to the reader. You can see the RS list above (please add to it), and see how she is most frequently described. There's not even a contest.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That there exists some vaguely patriarchal and quite unofficial "Spouse of the PM" appellation in the UK is not something I find to be a terribly relevant or a possible source for an article title. If jobs/roles don't cut it for varying reasons, then either "Sarah Brown", "Sarah Jane Brown", or "Sarah (Macaulay) Brown" will be fine, we can just disambig (or not, if she becomes the primary) on the name itself. Tarc (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

A new IAR solution
Don't throw rocks at me yet, just hear me out. Anthony says that the lede describes her as MORE than just some blokes wife. What if we took that seriously, and created an ignore-most-rules-about-titling, since-we're-ignoring-them-anyway, to have a title like this: Sarah Brown (UK Prime Minister's spouse, charity founder) It's a bit wordy and FAR from concise, but maybe we could get consensus for it since it's no longer describing her as only one thing?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No. There'd be no point. I'm tired of this. We have a fine title now. "Sarah Brown" is fine, too. As are "née Macaulay" and "Sarah (Macaulay) Brown." --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As an aside, it really puzzles me that vehemently anti-wife people let the Victorian reactionary "née" pass without a whisper. As a woman, I would be greatly offended by the presumption that I was born only to be married and breed. Is it ignorance of French (where it is the feminine form of "born"), so that it's for them just a nonsense shiboleth word for "previous name", or of the historical and cultural connotations associated with it? Not coincidentally, there is another Gallicism that is often used in the same circumstances as "née", "débutante", which means "beginner" (also feminine). Beginning what? The process of being married. So, for women only, being "born" to this life is to "begin" being married, and then only death. walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 18:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, as a member of the Labour Party, it's rather insulting to bestow her with a pseudo-aristocratic moniker, that could easily be interpreted as some kind of ironic sleight. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 18:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record, I do not favor the "née" suggestion either. Tarc (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * No. Tarc (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ... Resolute 18:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - The arguments for the existing titling are coming from a head on collision with WP:TITLE policy (accompanied by personal attacks, bad language and quoting a disputed point in a "deletionist" (not my description) AfD essay against consensus Title policy). "No. There'd be no point. I'm tired of this. We have a fine title now. "Sarah Brown" is fine, too" from User:Anthonyhcole, simply demonstrates Users are not willing to follow policy. Such !votes should be excluded. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't waste your breath voting; this isn't a move request, just a discussion. A particularly absurd tangent at that, as it is a god-awfully clunky and obtuse idea. Tarc (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Tarc, it is a prelude to a RM, and I am expressing Support for a proposal which brings this article nearer to WP:TITLE policy. In general we try hard to avoid duo dabs, they are generally a bad solution. However in this case where (it appears) a small number of editors are disrupting an article's title for reason(s) contrary to en.wp TITLE policy then a duo dab may be a step in the right direction. It is nearer the natural WP:RS title supported by The Guardian etc., and therefore I commend User:Obiwankenobi for suggesting. Ultimately a return to a stable title in full accord with TITLE policy will be the better solution. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't even remotely in line with policy, it is just an awkward kluge. Is there another "Sarah Brown (UK Prime Minister's spouse)" that we need to append "charity founder" to to differentiate?  No.  Is there another "Sarah Brown (charity worker)" that we need to add "K Prime Minister's spouse" to differentiate?  No.  It is an ill-informed means of appeasement that doesn't really appeal to anyone involved here. Tarc (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

@Victor falk - I'm not sure what you are getting at as I have made no comment about how the lead should be formulated. My focus is on the article title. Resolute 03:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it was who brought the possibility of pushing mentioning she's [insert circumlocution about you know what] further down the lede. Perhaps it's best to see my comment not directed at anyone in particular, just pointing out that there is no possibility of avoiding mentioning it, in either the title or as soon as possible in the lede, if search engines and google snippets are to pick up the article. <sup style="color:green;">walk  <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 08:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You have yet to demonstrate that there is anything wrong at all with the current title other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As numerous people have pointed out, the current title is accurate, unambiguous, WP:BLP compliant and avoids a large number of potential problems. In the absence of a compelling reason to change, discussing what it might be changed to is an exercise in wasting server resources. Guy (Help!) 08:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Guy the fact that you suggest no-one has demonstrated anything wrong except JDLI with the current title demonstrates that you have not read the highly detailed moved request, and it this casts doubt on your credibility in closing it. A policy based argument was made that lists about 6 different ways that 'Sarah Jane' does not comply with tilting policies. The JDLI argument has been used by those opposed to wife, not those opposed to Sarah Jane.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The move request was closed on the basis that it followed hours after the previous one was closed as no consensus. Also, stating that you believe the title is a problem, is not the same thing as identifying an actual problem with the title that is a policy problem on a par with WP:BLP. Policy issues such as NPOV occur with things like Giovanni di Stefano which was moved form (businessman) to (fraudster) when it became clear that any business activities pale into insignificance beside his fraud convictions. There is nothing about the current title that violates NPOV, the problem is purely stylistic. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Guy, there is nothing that prevents a new move request being lodged if the current move request isn't going to gain consensus. The ip volunteered to close early and submit a new one, no-one objected, so that's what happened. Wherefore would you ever get the idea that this is disallowed, rather than frequent practice? Again, you are demonstrating a startling lack of admin accountability by showing once again you didn't even read the move request before arbitrarily closing it early. This current title violates every single precept of WP:AT which is a POLICY, in fact the only thing this title doesn't violate is WP:IAR. For the many reasons why this title violates WP:AT, I point you to the carefully worded move request above, I'm not going to both copy/pasting here, a move request I note for which you decided to block the editor thereof. A very bad call, especially since you obviously didn't even read the move request!!!--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So you say. The discussion on the admin board concluded otherwise. And that's an end of it, as far as I'm concerned. Guy (Help!) 21:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ridiculous Guy. There were 7 votes I counted to close early and six to keep open. Clearly no consensus to close early but you edit warred and steamrolled it anyway. Note that for the record you are now clearly WP:INVOLVED so you should take no further admin action here accordingly, including issuance of ominous threats. Thanks in advance.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary to date according to Guy
Summarising the above discussion to date, we have this:

The following have been discussed and no substantive objections raised other than personal stylistic preferences:
 * Titles agreed to be compliant with WP:BLP and other applicable policies:
 * Sarah Jane Brown
 * Sarah Brown (would require WP:IAR as another Sarah Brown has similar levels of page views)

The following have been discussed and concrete objections raised based on Wikipedia policies or the fact that they are gratuitously confusing (e.g. identifying the subject as Sarah Brown (foo) when the subject is not really known for foo):
 * Titles which are unacceptable due to WP:BLP and other applicable policies:
 * Patronymic titles rejected per WP:BLP as anachronistic and misogynistic
 * Sarah Brown (née Macaulay)
 * Sarah (Macaulay) Brown
 * Sarah Brown (born Macaulay)
 * Sarah Brown (formerly Macaulay)
 * Occupational titles rejected per "WTF?" as the subject is not primarily or widely identified by this occupation (Jimbo's argument)
 * Sarah Brown (author)
 * Sarah Brown (businesswoman)
 * Sarah Brown (charity fund-raiser)
 * Sarah Brown (philanthropist)
 * Sarah Brown (PR professional)
 * Sarah Brown (public relations)
 * Sarah Brown (public relations executive)
 * Sarah Brown (women's advocate)
 * Titles rejected as neologisms not currently in widespread or common use in the UK
 * Sarah Brown (British "first lady")
 * Sarah Brown (First Lady)
 * Titles rejected per WP:BLP as patronising, belittling the subject or implicitly denying her independent notability (WP:NOTINHERITED)
 * Sarah Brown (Gordon Brown)
 * Sarah Brown (Partner of Prime Minister)
 * Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's spouse)
 * Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's wife)
 * Sarah Brown (Spouse)
 * Sarah Brown (spouse of Prime Minister)
 * Sarah Brown (Spouse of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom)
 * Sarah Brown (wife of Prime Minister)
 * Sarah Brown (10 Downing Street)
 * Sarah Brown (Downing Street)
 * Sarah Brown (Number 10)


 * Titles not yet (at least in this debate) discussed:
 * Sarah J. Brown (which would be standard practice to disambiguate in the US, not so much in the UK), raised in June 2013.

Please let's not rehash rejected ones any more. Guy (Help!) 09:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Also, we do not need to agree why a particular title is unsuitable, so please would no one raise bureaucratic objections to the above. For example, do not say something like "title X is not patronising" unless you are proposing that title X be used for the article. Johnuniq (talk) 10:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Disagree strongly with summary above sorry Guy disagree and that has not yet been demonstrated to be a BLP issue, especially not the spouse of PM formulations. If you're not interested in this discussion feel free to unwatch but plz don't prevent productive brainstorming. Thanks.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * also the various job formulations still need more evidence from RS usage to determine if one of them is viable.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I must concur that I don't understand the BLP issue. We can't have Barrack Obama (nigger), because "nigger" is a racist insult, and that's naturally against the guidelines. A marital relationship is not an insult. So what's the issue really? I have asked before in the thread, but I only got vague handwaving as answer. If we could really analyse how, why and what makes it unacceptable, the issue might resolve itself. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 11:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is unacceptable because by and large women say it is unacceptable for a woman to be referred to as if she were a 19th century pre-suffrage possession. That's really all there is to it.  This is a reflection of a 21st-century, progressive world-view; if that runs contrary to some outmoded WP: alphabet soup, then I think it's pretty clear which side I fall on, in terms of determining which one is going to blink first. Tarc (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The key word here is "outmoded". An Encyclopedia reflects the sum of knowledge and weltanschauung of its contemporary world. It is not meant to be an avant-garde against patriarchal oppression, and a pioneer of more enlightened practices. It is to follow as closely as possible the progress of the times, but does not try to anticipate them. That why we have WP:OR; wikipedia is not the place to publish breakthrough reserch, and it is not the place to introduce new social conventions. If the world at large describes Sarah Brown as Gordon's wife, then our article should reflect that, even we can and must do our outmost to counter that by pointing out that the office of the premiership and not her personal relationship to a person that makes her merit an article. But we can not engage in ignoring reality, or worse, falsifying it. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 13:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * By that logic, the lead of Barack Obama should read "...is the 44th and current President of the United States, and the first Negro to hold the office'. "African-American" is just a fancy, non-patronizing term, after all. Tarc (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If we were writing wikipedia in the 1940s or 1950s and he had been elected then, yes it would be reasonable. Then, in the sixties, we'd change to Barack Obama (black president). <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 14:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We're talking about now. It is offensive now to classify a woman in this manner, and it has been so for ~30-40 years.  The "bro" culture around here needs to catch up. Tarc (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Tarc you really need to read up on reliable sources. NONE of them agree with you.NONE. Additionally, we do classify her as a spouse - it's a category tree widely populated and I doubt you'd be able to delete it. If 9 out of 10 reliable sources called Barack a negro and if in the intro to his autobiography he said 'I'd like to shed light on my experience as the first negro in the White House' then that would suggest we live in a world where 'negro' was a widely accepted term and of course we'd stick it in the lede - but otherwise it's a ridiculous comparison. We do live in a world now where describing -not Defining - but describing someone like Sarah Brown or Denis Thatcher as the spouse of the UK PM is widely practiced and never criticized, so your outrage is misplaced and has zero basis in real world discourse or how language is used in 2014. You continue to make assertions but not surprisingly fail to produce any sources or policy which backs up your POV.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Describing is fine, defining is not; like it or not a title is seen as defining by many here. As for policy, I really don't care.  There's WP:COMMONSENSE first and foremost, then the potent-if-invoked-correctly-WP:IAR.  If wiki-rules are preventing us from improving the project by ridding us of patriarchal anachronisms, then the rules will be ignored. Tarc (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * There are several editors attached to this discussion who also don't understand the BLP issue. I've done my best to explain it from my point of view, at least in earlier discussions. I'll be bowing out of further explaining why "wife of", as the sole descriptor in the title or lede, is sexist, demeaning and inappropriate - and so a BLP violation (respect the dignity of our subjects). I suspect this is something we'll never successfully convey to all commenters on this issue, but I get a sense that the vast majority get it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The key word here is "sole". I agree that characterising Sarah Brown as "nothing but" the wife of Gordon Brown would be demeaning. That's why I would prefer something else than "(wife of GB)", the natural candidate, since it may (not unconditionally does) imply "nothing but". Inclusion of a relation to the Prime Minister office handles that. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 13:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, if you're saying it would somehow be less insulting to describe her as "wife of the prime minister of the United Kingdom" or similar, I disagree. As others have said above, though, it is necessary for those who favour a move to demonstrate a tangible improvement to the reader experience. Compliance with Wikipedia policy is not, of itself, an improvement in the user experience. And if the proposed move involves sexist characterisation of our subject, then that improvement in reader experience needs to be significant enough to justify the insult to our subject. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you believe, if we asked her, that she would answer "yes, I'm insulted by being called the wife of Gordon by wikipedia."?
 * I don't know. Though it should be taken into account if known, the subject's preference would, for me, normally be subordinate to the principle that defining a woman as a man's wife is inappropriate. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Victor you'll notice the imperative use of 'defining' here. They can't possibly win the argument if they use the word describing - the disambiguating term must be accepted as a 'definition' or to 'define' the person otherwise their argument lies in tatters. And yet, no-one has engaged with this, as they know they cannot demonstrate through policy nor practice that disambiguations are ever meant anywhere on the wiki to 'define' a person and not simply 'describe' them.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's titles define their subjects. Whether we say that in our written policy is pretty irrelevant, IMO. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Anthony, this is your personal, and clearly, strongly held perception. Show me evidence - anywhere - that this is practiced more broadly. Show me some OTHER decision elsewhere where thing X was decided inappropriate as a disambiguator because it would be unfair to DEFINE person X as Y. Good luck.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Is this what this is all about? Descriptivists vs prescritivists (note the last sentence in the lede Linguistic prescriptivism includes judgments on what usages are socially proper and politically correct.)? <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 16:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Clarification
When I say "rejected per WP:BLP" I mean that any proposal to move to this title will not achieve consensus because a significant number of editors have stated that in their view it violates WP:BLP for the reason stated. The validity of this point does not rely on those who do not see it as a BLP issue, accepting that it is, nor is it an invitation for either side to try, yet again, to convince the other of their POV on this. It is clear by now that some people see it as a BLP issue, some do not, and that consensus to move will fail based on that well established division. What that means in practice is that anybody proposing a move to one of these titles, is inviting sanction for disruption, as clearly indicated by previous discussions at the admin boards. Guy (Help!) 16:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Guy, your summary is partisan, one-sided, and full of flaws. The whole thing should be renamed "One editors view of the situation" rather than pretending to be anything other than that. Also, please stop with the issuance of threats against editors working in good faith to brainstorm better titles for this article. That is disruptive, and you have been told several times that it is disruptive.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The fact remains that none of your title suggestions will actually carry the day. You mustered, what, a 4-to-1 numerical majority in the Hillary Rodham move request a month ago, yet the majority's arguments were so weak it still wound up as no consensus.  You have similarly weak arguments here, and the last legitimate RM here (#6) you were on the short end of a 2-to-1 stick.  No version of wife/spouse/partner will ever gain consensus here, you have to realize that by now. Tarc (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We'll see, Tarc, we'll see. I'm still confused by what you believe in - majority rules, or best policy-based arguments? In the early-closed-by-aggression move request above, the "support" side had ample policy on their side, while the oppose were just saying "I just don't like it" - I can't find a single citation of policy that is valid. I think your philosophy is more "Whatever title Tarc likes, Tarc finds policy justifications for. If no such justifications can be found, then IAR". IAR is only useful when the encyclopedia is improved, and the encyclopedia is WORSE for the reader with this title, demonstrably so. Thus while IAR may be a good reason to move to Sarah Brown, it's a terrible reason to retain Sarah Jane Brown.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My allegedly "weak" arguments tend to be on the side that finds the greatest success around here, though; ask Anthony about our head-butting at the Muhammad images imbroglio. I guess we'll just have to see how the chips fall at the next RM filing. :) Tarc (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Obi Wan Kenobi, the fact that you disagree appears based on the fact that you reject the inevitable consequences of the factual statement, not on any issues with the factual statement itself. I do have an opinion but I have not stated it.
 * We have no policy on WP:CLUNKYANDAWKWARD, we do have one on WP:BLP, and numerous editors have expressed a strong belief that most of the suggested alternatives violate this, therefore it will not achieve consensus. Even if they are flat wrong.
 * This discussion is notionally about the title that might achieve consensus, there being a one month moratorium on actual move requests, so that's what I am looking at. There is no point at all looking to rename this article to the titles listed as rejected above, so further discussion of those titles is futile and should stop. Guy (Help!) 00:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to figure out who died and made you god king of this discussion. Your conduct here in proclaiming what titles can and can't be discussed is completely improper and overstepping your role as admin. You are free to share your views but attempts to circumscribe productive discussion of alternatives is the very definition of disruptive. The title with 'wife of' had consensus that was maintained over 4 years of move requests until it was finally overturned, and in the move request you brutishly shut down early - had garnered 6 votes in a number of hours. Wikipedia does not go by majority rule, so the fact that a few - a very small few- 'protectors' of this Title show up and make noise means nothing, and unfortunately your over-aggressive close prevented the community from properly considering this manner - the next move request will be a 30 day RFC to get much broader input. who knows what the future may hold?? I for one believe wikipedians in their masses will follow policy not passion - we saw that very clearly in the Bradley manning case where the community widely chose to follow sources, twice, in spite of shrill screams of BLP violations, and no broad consensus was formed that anything violated BLP. No one including has established any cogent logical argument to demonstrate why any title with the word spouse in it would violate BLP and indeed such suggestions are laughable - to suggest the title can't say what the first line says is patently ridiculous. here it is being used to suppress productive brainstorming. I suggest you cease your attempt improperly control the parameters of discussion here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would have to say I second Obiwan's questioning of "rejected per WP:BLP" as a rationale. "per policy X" would normally be taken to mean "per something actually in policy X" rather than editors simply making claims that there is something. If it were an issue of a true conflict between WP:BLP and WP:TITLE I personally would certainly take the view that the former policy (WP:BLP) is far more important than the second (WP:TITLE). But the problem here is that none of those claiming WP:BLP supports the view that "wife" "spouse" are not to be used for BLP titles has demonstrated that from WP:BLP, wheras WP:RECOGNIZABLE is 100% demonstrable from WP:TITLE. In that situation comparing a disputed claim for one policy vs an admitted content of another policy the conclusion... leave it and discuss it... might be fine (is fine for the time being), but "per policy X" isn't a usual way of describing something which isn't it policy X.
 * However, I do wonder if there may be other avenues here. Perhaps an RfC to establish (a) whether BLP does contain anything to forbid the use of "wife" "spouse", or (b) some other parameter of this discussion? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The argument goes that titles along the lines of Person (who is notable only because their spouse did something important) are in obvious conflict with the claim that the subject is independently notable: if they are "just" the spouse or partner of someone famous, then we shouldn't have an article, which is in fact the case for the spouses of the vast majority of politicians on whom we have articles.
 * Feel free to start a more general discussion if you think it will help, but I doubt we'd see any different arguments and in any case you'd still have to overcome the fact that Jimbo has opined that this kind of title is not appropriate, and that the current title is not a problem. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

In ictu and Obiwan, I have explained already what I mean. The fact that a proposal has been rejected per BLP does not mean that it is or is not objectively or explicitly forbidden, it means that any attempt to move to such a title will result in another long argument with no consensus, because regardless of whether you accept it or not, a significant number of editors are strongly of the view that such titles are inappropriate per BL:P. Jimbo appears also to be of this view. That such titles violate BLP is at the very least a defensible interpretation, and arguments to the contrary are not only likely to fail, they have already failed, several times. Wikipedia is not very good at putting up with the "keep asking until you get the answer you want" approach to disputes, hence the view that such a request is very likely to be considered disruptive.

It is certainly true that a few articles have been renamed to titles that appear to express a POV, on the basis of relentless activism by proponents. Genesis creation narrative (vs. myth) is one, Catholic church (vs. Roman Catholic) is another. In most cases it does not happen, and I've never seen it happen where Jimbo has weighed in on the other side of the debate: he supported definitely one and I think both of those moves. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Another IAR solution

 * Sarah Brown (Labour) and move "Sarah Brown (politician)" to Sarah Brown (Liberal Democrat politician) (and let "SB (pol)" continue to point to SB(LDpol), or delete it). I've been thinking about that one for a while. I think her association with politics as a wife of a Labour prime minister is sufficiently strong to be recognisable just with party affiliation; they met at a political event. The non-standard disambiguation is a signal (for editors) she is not a standard politician, of the form "NN (politician)" or "NN (Party politician)". <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 19:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support the new and revolutionary IAR Solution 2.0!! Now 100% wife-free!! <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 19:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The name "labour" is tactless and crass given that the subject suffered a widely discussed miscarriage. Shame on you. Guy (Help!) 00:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't know about that. Nevertheless, checking now I see it was more than thirteen years ago, so that should be quite beyond any "too soon" period. But you're right, "Labour" is a bit ambiguous not only regarding childbirth but to other political parties as well.


 * I therefore ammend my proposal to Sarah Brown (UK Labour). "UK" increases the possibility of readers associating the title with the British PM office. Checking intitle:(UK Labour), it seems we don't have any articles with that disambiguator. This would make it even clearer it's an IAR solution for a special situation. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 02:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Folks, let's stop feeding this. In the above, Victor explains how wrong Anthonyhcole is—that's fine, but the overwhelming majority of those who have commented on the issue have exactly the same mistaken view as Anthonyhcole. There is no policy that everyone has to be convinced, and there is no ethical requirement for us to explain 21st-century norms to every editor. I see two editors who will never get it, and they should be allowed the last word, and the word after that. All we have to do is stop responding to the misguided suggestions so the matter will eventually fizzle out. There is nothing wrong with the current title, and no need to argue about it further. Johnuniq (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment "There is nothing wrong with the current title, and no need to argue about it further" is a misrepresentation of the situation. The title is contrary to WP:COMMONNAME WP:RECOGNIZABLE akawhich is a part of WP:TITLE policy, which is policy, and therefore there is something wrong. The discussion is part of an attempt to find a title which agrees with both en.wp WP:TITLE policy and the !vote pattern of those editors who for non en.wp policy reasons are opposed to prime-ministerial spouses being described as spouses in titles. Until it is evident that absolutely no compromise solution is available then the search for a compromise should continue. When it concludes a new RM should take place to bring the title back in line with WP:TITLE. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The compromise is: do nothing. The idea that a new title must be found is a false dilemma: in fact, staying where it is is a perfectly valid option, and is the default option unless and until a genuine consensus arises that some other title is preferable.
 * Without consensus to move, no move takes place. Period. People have asserted that their interpretation of various guidelines is that the title should be different, but this interpretation is not, as far as I can tell, shared by more than a small number of vociferous individuals and no compelling reason has been advanced as to why it must be different. Jimbo says:
 * ":It is clear that were there no disambiguation issue, we would choose "Sarah Brown". Given that there are other notable people with that title such that we need a disambiguation page, the question becomes: how best to do that. There will be minor problems with all approaches. 'Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)' is viewed by some (most?) as sexist, particularly since she's clearly notable in her own right for her own work. But names like 'Sarah Brown (philanthropist)' or similar strike me as odd, since she is most famous for being spouse of the Prime Minister. So 'Sarah Jane Brown' is a neutral and uncontroversial option to deal with the disambiguation problem without implying anything about the reasons for her notability, which is best left to the full text of the article to explain."


 * Jimbo Wales
 * So Jimbo does not see the current title as a problem per policy. You can repudiate that view until you are blue in the face, if Jimbo says this title is compliant with policy then claiming it is not compliant with policy is an exercise in futility. That is not an argumentum ad Jimbonum as such, it is pointing out that if you are going to assert that something violates foundational policies, and Jimbo says it doesn't, then you have one hell of a hill to climb to get a consensus that it does. Which, I repeat, is the necessary first step. Any move request based on "this title violates NPOV" is virtually certain not to achieve consensus because there is no widespread acceptance that it does, and an explicit rejection of that by the man who set the foundational policies (and indeed mandated BLP).
 * I have noted why certainties will never be acceptable to some parties. Sarah Jane Brown is not in the list of unacceptable titles because (a) it is the current title and (b) the arguments raised against it are stylistic and not rooted in foundational policy (otherwise it would already have been moved to a more appropriate title per WP:BLP). I'm not here to persuade anyone of my preferred title, which I have not, as far as I can tell, even stated. My position is that the article will not move until (a) someone comes up with a reason for moving it that is sufficiently compelling to sway all comers and (b) an alternative title is presented which gains consensus. The discussion here is about (b), but (a) is a fundamentally necessary step and no progress has been made on this at all.
 * To reiterate: asserting stylistic guidelines to support a move to a title which is known to be rejected by a significant number of editors on the basis of policy, is disruptive and pointless. Asserting that $title violates policy is an opinion, not a statement of fact, for every value of $title, and asserting that the current title violates policy is contradicted by Jimbo, who conceived the relevant policies in the first place, so is definitely an opinion not a fact.
 * This is Wikipedia. There are two ways of pursuing a dispute: one is to continually re-state the same arguments until the heat death of the universe, the other is to bring better arguments. The latter works much better and much more quickly than the former. Right now, I venture to suggest that the consensus view of the title of this article is: "meh" verging on "get over it already". As an admin, if you want it moved, you're going to have to persuade someone like me. I have stated why that is very unlikely to work right now. Guy (Help!) 10:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Speaking for myself, I can only say the following: having only been involved since RM #7, I don't feel the battle-weariness that some obviously show here. I have also come more and more to suspect that heart of the debate is not political, as it is superficially framed, but linguistic. Fully aware that I might be naive, I just want to leave as much as possible every option explored. My feelings is that there is a vocal minority, while a majority find the current title bizarre, confusing and sticking out like a sore thumb as non-compliant with WP:AT, but then shrug their shoulders and go "meh" as you say at this storm in a tea cup and go on to more productive business; and as they say "who is silent gives his consent". I would too, if this was a unique case. But this will crop up again the next time we have an eponymous Dennis Thatcher or Tim Mathieson, or anybody notable for being a husband/wife being the namesake of somebody more of a wp:primarytopic. It is to hopefully fend off the repetition of such discussions in each and single case in the future that I want to know now if compromise is possible and could prevent future wasting of time. Now, people have kept reiterating how "anything but wife" is acceptable, and my proposal doesn't allude to that word in any way. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 11:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree about the vocal minority, but disagree as to which side that is. The argument that it is problematic to title an article in a way that implies inherited and dependent notability, is reasonable and not extreme. Note where Jimbo says that the current title is "neutral and uncontroversial", i.e. if an outside source found this was the title of our article they would not find it strange or insulting. You'd need a compelling reason to move form that to one which, as with the numerous suggestions discussed to date, is considered not just controversial but downright insulting by significant numbers of editors in obvious good faith. If a truly compelling reason had been advance then we probably would not even be having this discussion. So: first demonstrate, to the satisfaction of more than the existing partisans, that there is a problem requiring fixing, then agree what the fix should be. Guy (Help!) 11:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the name of the topic is not really "Sarah Jane Brown". Since it can't be "Sarah Brown" per wp:primarytopic, a parenthetical disambiguator is needed. Variants have been found either just as confusing or insulting. I'm not suggesting to move it to any of those variants, I'm suggesting to move it to Sarah Brown (UK Labour), which is clearer and not insulting. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 12:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Is the subject well-known as an active Labour Party politician? Somehow I doubt that, so that makes it no better a choice than the non-patronizing choices offered earlier, e.g. "education advocate", "philanthropist", and so on. Her full name is in reality "Sarah Jane Brown", so there's no harm in just using that; whether her middle name is widely used in public is irrelevant.  Do you really think every single one of the persons listed with a middle name at John Smith was actually widely known by their respective middle names?  No, the middle names were dug up to avoid the quagmire that this article title is in atm. Tarc (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * She's is more well known for her political activities, in particular with the former Labour PM, than for anything else. She's an amateur politician (I use the word in the original etymological sense, without judgement on competence); that's why I didn't propose "Sarah Brown (Labour politician)", which would imply as you say "an active Labour Party politician". <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 13:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Your logical fallacy is: begging the question. You are assuming that a parenthetical disambiguation is required, hence you believe there must be a debate about what goes in the parentheses, but actually that is not the case: only a disambiguation is required. You prefer a parenthetical one, but there is no reason why it has to be parenthetical. Sarah J. Brown is unambiguous, for example, and would be the norm if she was American (and, arguably, male). And the current title is, as Jimbo says, "neutral and uncontroversial". Guy (Help!) 14:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I'd also would like to point that "(UK Labour)" associates with some of the occupational disambiguators, like "women's advocate", "PR professional", etc since she exercised those activities as a "Labour women's advocate", a "Labour PR professional", or a "Labour columnist". <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 05:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Reject Guy's summary as a massively overstated non neutral summary. The use of the word "rejected", past tense, no conditionality, renders it logically false. Most of the options have not been seriously proposed, let alone discussed, let alone decided. Further, multiple isolated points are highly arguable. (Note: the problem with the status quo is overstated, and not well discussed). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't know what my preferred title is, I think. Your objection appears based on not liking the sound of the word "no". I cannot help you with that. Guy (Help!) 10:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have guessed that you support the current title, although you may have another preference. I think the current title is fine. My problem is with the hyperbole, not infrequently gross hyperbole. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't like the current title much, though it may be the best we can manage. I do think it is, as Jimbo says, uncontroversial and neutral. Other neutral and uncontroversial titles may exist, but none of the parenthetical candidates in the summary above qualifies as being both neutral and uncontroversial. Unfortunately a small number of partisans seem to think that merely stating that any of these titles is virtually certain to be rejected, or already has been, and therefore should not be proposed, as such a proposal will result only in yet another acrimonious debate with no consensus, is, in and of itself, taking sides. I'm not taking sides, any more than Jimbo did, I'm just saying that these titles are not going to fly, so suggesting them is futile and likely to be seen as disruptive.
 * Also: any claim to seek "compromise" using these titles is mendacious. That's like saying any result where I win is a compromise. People need to read Fattypuffs and Thinifers. Unfortunately that solution doesn't really exist for this article. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I may have misread your reference to hyperbole as your own hyperbole. Much on this page is hard to read.  I don't dislike this title, and the worst I've seen said about it that no source explicitly introduces a "Sarah Jane Brown".  However, the second reference introduces a "Sarah Jane Macaulay", and she changed Macaulay to Brown, I really don't see a problem worth fuzzing about.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * How about "spouse" instead of "wife"? There's an article Spouse of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom that uses that term.  70.36.142.114 (talk) 06:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Eh, ok, I see "spouse" was already mentioned further up. Leaving it at Sarah Jane Brown is probably best.  70.36.142.114 (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Spouse
I tried changing wife to spouse in the article and thought that was a good edit (making better use of the existing wikilink and using a more egalitarian term), but someone reverted it with rollback, so I'm leaving it here for possible discussion. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Meta discussion on the use of middle names in article titles
For those interested in the broader picture: WT:NCP --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion by DHeyward
I thought I would copy the following to this page since it might be of interest. The original edit was made here by DHeyward. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Just an observation that reference to spouse of the Prime Minister is sometimes referred to as "Prime Ministerial Consort." It's gender neutral though it would be looked at more negatively in the U.S., it would be as appropriate for Margaret Thatcher's husband as is for Gordon Brown's wife and if that is the hook for notability it seems it's necessary for disambiguation. DHeyward (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC) (copied to this page)


 * There's no reason to consider any of these increasingly arcane choices when a middle name will suffice. Tarc (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I do not wish to get involved with this after the attacks made against me above and the all-round lack of good faith: I shall not be taking the time to discuss the merits or non-merits of any suggested titles. I just thought I would take a minute to copy this well-intended contribution to the relevant page. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Noted, that is indeed an idea, to use the word "consort", though probably that won't fly. Yep, at this point everyone is testy and battle-weary.  There could well be comments above that amount to be fully-intended personal attacks upon you, I.P. editor, or are reasonable for you to interpret as that.  And I sometimes would be inclined to try to help address someone seemingly victimized by apparently unfair attacks.  But as you and I are discussing elsewhere, i have little sympathy for a non-logged in editor who shows no substantial contributions to mainspace articles and who risks no reputation, who is not subject to the deeper incivility that is easily applied in wikipedia in the form of real attacks on reputation, etc.  And, the simple explanation that everyone is ticked off here, suffices, so don't expect appreciation for anything.  Sorry that Wikipedia is what it has become. -- do  ncr  am  21:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * AGF is not a suicide pact. Obsessing over changing the name of a biography when Jimbo says the current title is "neutral and uncontroversial" is not what good faith editors do. Guy (Help!) 07:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I really wish you would stop misrepresenting history. Editors worked for 5 years in a various series of move requests to get (wife) *out* of the title, finally succeeding last year - indeed the winning move came a few months after another no-consensus close. So those who don't like the current title aren't the only ones 'obsessing', indeed other editors have been obsessing for many more years. Please read the previous move requests before making bogus statements again.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 08:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If one can be said to be "obsessing" about correcting misogyny, sure. Looking at the old attempts to right this wrong, I see a lot of comments along the lines of "stuff neutrality", "her career outside the Gordon Brown connection is not notable", and so on. Tarc (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Were those other titles judged to be "neutral and uncontroversial" by Jimbo? Thought not. Guy (Help!) 18:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Why are you so obsessed with what Jimbo thinks about this title? Jimbo has been on the losing side of consensus multiple times. The name SJB is neutral and perhaps uncontroversial, but massively anti-reader since no reliable sources ever use this middle name, so the user has never seen it, and thus won't ever search for it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And...what? Do you think readers will type "Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)" into the search bar?  No, they'll most likely just do "Sarah Brown", land on the disambig, and then go to the one they want. Tarc (talk) 01:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "The name SJB is neutral and perhaps uncontroversial" Agreed, and this is a good argument for the status quo until there is agreement for something else.
 * "but massively anti-reader". Nonsense.  Including the middle name inhibits no reader from finding it, given that "Sarah Brown" is not available, and on arriving, finding a middle name is unsurprising for a biography, and certainly not astonishing.
 * "no reliable sources ever use this middle name" This is a valid point against the status quo, but requires citation of sources using another title that is available to complete the argument.
 * "thus won't ever search for it" No decent search engine requires an exact match to the title, and given that this subject is not particularly high profile, and has a non-unique name, sending ambiguous search queries to a DAB page is good. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I really don't think it is anti-reader. Having read over some of the previous discussions, I am just sad that the name change wasn't made earlier --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Once again, your entire case is built on begging the question. There is no ambiguity, there is no problem finding the article. And the whole point here is that the alternatives you propose, have generally already been discussed and rejected. It is a simple fact that any proposal to move to a title based on the subject's marriage, will be rejected, for the same reason it was rejected last time and the time before that, so even to propose it is inherently disruptive. Guy (Help!) 12:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested moves (No. 9)
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed 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: still no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 21:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

– Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. 86.131.213.32 (talk) 02:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sarah Jane Brown → Sarah Brown
 * Sarah Brown → Sarah Brown (disambiguation)

Consensus can change. Since this move was first suggested, editors who originally opposed it, even very strongly, have changed their minds: from Anthonyhcole and  from User:Tarc, to give examples from two editors who were at first entirely against the move. Let me summarise the arguments in a table.

The violation of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is because of Sarah Joy Brown, but the violation is not a major one at all:
 * This article: ~100 hits per day
 * Sarah Joy Brown: ~100 hits per day
 * Sarah Brown (politician): ~20 hits per day
 * Sarah Brown (artists' model): ~3 hits per day

As previous discussion has shown, no title works perfectly. What we have here is an opportunity to allow flexibility with one rule in order to create an improved experience for our readers. This is what we, as Wikipedia contributors, should strive for. 86.131.213.32 (talk) 02:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support as nominator. 86.131.213.32 (talk) 02:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with either the status quo, or a move to Sarah Brown with a hatnote saying "for the American actress see Sarah Joy Brown; for other Sarah Browns see Sarah Brown (disambiguation)". In terms of service to the reader, I think the second is the better option because it takes them straight to one of the two articles they're most likely looking for, with one click to the other (or two clicks to the less-likely targets). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with the choice of hatnote: it will help the reader and avoid any potential problems. It means there can be no complaints that readers looking for the other Sarah Browns are put at a disservice. 86.131.213.32 (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - This IP editor's assertion that I have "changed my mind" is a bit disingenuous. WHat I have opposed and continue to oppose is any move back to the misogynist "wife of...", "spouse of...", "...Prime Minister's spouse", and the like.  While I do not oppose a move to a straight-up "Sarah Brown" per se, what I fear is that this will be a proverbial can of worms for the usual suspects to show up and start throwing out alternate, narrow-minded possibilities into the mix. Tarc (talk) 04:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If we can agree a single move to 'Sarah Brown', we should obtain a stable title that satisfies the majority of editors and readers. Any further suggestions to the 'misogynist' titles you describe can be closed straight away: they have been ruled out before and there is no evidence that this consensus might change. If anything, changing to a stable and accepted title should dissuade editors from feeling the need to suggest anything else that might be taken as controversial. 86.131.213.32 (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Moving this topic to the name Sarah Brown, but Oppose not using parenthetical disambiguation. It is fairly absurd, when the overwhelming majority of sources show what is unquestionably the subject's WP:Common name, for us to instead use a name that is rarely if ever used. However, I do not think it is clear that this subject is the intended target for the overwhelming majority of readers using the search term "Sarah Brown", and that this would therefore be the primary topic. Unfortunately, while we normally prefer to use as a disambiguation the role the subject is best known for, in this case that would be Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown), which I believe we all agree raises numerous issues. Perhaps some of the terms used to describe herself on her official site would be alternatives (advocate, businesswoman, etc)? This would certainly raise the issue of presenting her as most notable for a field she does not derive most of her significance from, but I would say that is less harmful than implying that a never used version of her name is the correct one. Or perhaps, since we are all willing to acknowledge that yes, her most significant role is as the Prime Minister's spouse, that title is less offensive than some may claim.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, screw it. I'm retracting my half oppose. There is clearly no perfect solution to this. But a small violation of our primary topic guideline is far less harmful than portraying misleading information in the title, either about her best known name or best known role. Fortunately, the only real rival for her position as primary topic is Sarah Joy Brown, who while very commonly called simply Sarah Brown at least has a slightly different most common name. It's an imperfect solution, but I guess the proposed on is the best.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose usage stats indicate no primary topic. How about Sarah Macaulay Brown instead then? Or Sarah Macaulay or Sarah Brown (born 1963) ? What can we consider her primary career? "public relations"? -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Sarah Maculay Brown" isn't her name at all - British women generally don't combine their maiden and married names like that. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I wish Sarah Brown (actress) were more popular than some Spouse of the former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. Anyway, I don't know, but many non-British people are fully unaware of this Spouse. Is there no other way to concisely disambiguate her in parenthesis? Not even "Sarah Brown (Gordon Brown's wife)"? Ah well, there must be more notable Spouses besides Denis Thatcher, whose first name I nearly forgot. --George Ho (talk) 07:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Not primary topic. Most non-British people have no idea who this is; calling her the primary topic is a localized form of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS of the "Rule Britannia" sort.  Not everyone follows British tabloids.  A better title might be Sarah Brown (British celebrity) or something otherwise generic.  I mean, does this person really have nothing notable about them other than being married to someone famous? If not, WP:N is not heritable and does not rub off, so why do we have an article on someone who isn't famous for anything to do with her own self?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you feel it shouldn't exist, try taking it to AFD and see how far it gets. To avoid systematic bias, make sure you nominate some American First Ladies at the same time. Prime Ministerial spouses a lot of coverage in their own right but we British aren't big on formalising everything when it's already being done in practice (it took well over a century for the position of "Prime Minister" to have any formal recognition!) so there isn't a formal title. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose that all future RMs for this page be located on Talk:Sarah Jane Brown/Article title discussions (or using whatever the current article title is if not "Sarah Jane Brown"), and that new nominations are not allowed unless they summarise the previous RM discussions and state why the new nomination is worth a new discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose this proposal. She is not a PrimaryTopic for this name.  Both Sarah Macaulay Brown and Sarah Jane Brown would be acceptable.  Sarah Macaulay Brown has the advantage of carrying Sarah Macaulay, her name for a long time.  Timrollpickering, Sarah Macaulay Brown is not her name by what definition of name?  It is probably the name most readily identifying her.  Oppose parenthetical disambiguation that depends on inherited notability from her husband.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not her name because it is not a combination of words used in any way to identify her. It's a combination of her maiden and married names in a US style not used in this country. If you want to include "Macaulay" then it should be "Sarah Brown (née Macaulay)". Timrollpickering (talk) 09:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "It's not her name" versus "it's a name that identifies her" is a contrived distinction. What is a name? And must a bio title be that name?  That's more contrived than evading the fact that no one in the real world names her with a parenthetical disambiguator. It is quite normal in the real world to list a former surname just before the current surname. If the née terminology is used, it is normal used in comma format, not parenthetically, and even dropping the comma. Sarah Brown, née Macauley. Parenthetical disambiguation for people is usually reserved for occupation, and birth & death years.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. There's no point in pretending there's an easy solution on this one but the current article title is an utterly unrecognisable and obscue name and gives the misleading impression her given name actually is "Sarah Jane". Whatever title we have will not satisy every user and policy but this would at least be using the actual given name. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose with preference for move to something like Sarah Brown (Charity campaigner). I find some of the other Sarah Brown's to be more interesting ... especially the British Sarah Brown (politician).  "Rule Britannia" :) Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  16:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom, and per Perfect is the enemy of good. The lack of a perfect solution is hindering people's ability to find the best solution.  The best solution is going to have flaws, it just has LESS flaws than any other possible solution.  The OPs rationale makes that clear: the solution proposed appears to be the best possible solution.  That doesn't mean it doesn't have flaws, it just means it has less flaws than any other solution proposed so far, including the status quo.  -- Jayron  32  16:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Sarah Jane Brown" is fine.  Having such a comparatively unimportant person occupy "Sarah Brown" is a large violation of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, not a small one. SnowFire (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose If she's not the primary topic, the article can't be moved to that name. If she's known as "Sarah Brown", then a suitable disambiguator must be found.  Schwede 66  20:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Rename I doubt there is a bigger proponent/defender of Primary Topic than I, but there is simply no acceptable disambiguator for this title.  But the current title is not acceptable.  So Sarah Brown is fine in this case, even if she does not strictly meet the PT criteria.   I would also support Sarah Brown (British celebrity) or Sarah Brown (Gordon Brown's wife) over the current title.   --В²C ☎
 * That something doesn't have the correct disambiguator does not make it the primary topic, so we should pick a better disambiguator instead of making this a precedent for moving articles with bad disambiguators to being base name primary choice. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 04:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "(Gordon Brown's wife)" will never be on the table again. N-E-V-E-R. Tarc (talk) 05:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Every source calls her by the proposed title. Why call her anything else? WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says that a topic is primary if it is "more likely than all the other topics combined." But you can't assume the reverse. That is to say, there is no requirement that a primary topic get any particular percentage of relevant traffic. After the move, we can put a note on top of this article that says, For the actress, see Sarah Joy Brown.. The actress won't be any harder to find than she is now. Update The purpose of a title, first and formost, it the tell the reader the subject's name, what she is called in the real world. We should be trying to put as many bios as possible at the subject's actual name. Perhaps the name "primary topic" has misled editors into thinking that the idea is to rank articles according to thier worthyness. Claimsworth (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If it isn't the primary topic it cannot occupy the primary location. So whatever this article is called, it cannot be just "Sarah Brown", it must be a different article name. "Sarah Brown (Jane)" or "Sarah Brown (Macaulay)" or "Sarah Brown (not the actress, but otherwise most prominent Sarah Brown who is not an actress)" or whatever, but not "Sarah Brown" -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What guideline says that? This way of looking at the issue misses the point of titles, which is to tell the reader the name of the subject. If we move this article to Sarah Brown, then it is primary. Claimsworth (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:DISAMBIGUATION. show that it is the primary topic, or it shouldn't use the primary location. Why should something that isn't the primary topic have the primary location? -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 05:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "There are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists," according to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This RM will determine consensus on the issue. The guideline suggests making a topic primary if it is "more likely [as a desired destination] than all the other topics combined." In this case, Sarah Joy Brown is easily the most likely desired destination, yet the lemma Sarah Brown leads to a DAB. Claimsworth (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If Sarah Joy Brown is the most desirable article, then Sarah Macaulay should definitely not take the primary position, as Sarah Brown (actress) is primary topic according to your statement. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No indication that this Sarah Brown is the primary topic, ergo it would not be appropriate to move this article to the primary title. Current name is fine. Resolute 18:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose – displacing the disambig page would require agreement on primarytopic status. I don't see that.  Dicklyon (talk) 04:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unfortunately this seems to be one of those cases where there's simply no perfect option, just various flawed alternatives, each of which has something going for it but none of which has the unanimous support of the community.  That being the case, it's good to remember that Wikipedia discourages us from replacing one controversial title with another.  The 2013 "Sarah Jane Brown" compromise was achieved after lengthy and thorough discussion among many interested parties and even withstood a subsequent MR, so I see that as a fairly robust result, and the one that's most likely to stably continue.  (I also share the concerns that others have raised here about this proposal's significant violation of WP's primary topic guideline.)  Retaining the current title is the best option under the circumstances, and preferable to flip-flopping it once more to a controversial alternative.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  13:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Certainly not the primary topic (and I'm British!). I don't really like the title, as she isn't known as "Sarah Jane Brown", but given the only real alternative is to use Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown), the only thing she's really known for, I suppose we have to go with it. Certainly not Sarah Macaulay Brown, as this suggestion comes from an assumption that everyone does things the way the Americans do. We don't. I suppose we could go with Sarah Brown (charity campaigner) or something similar, but as I doubt whether anyone knows what she does when she's not being Gordon Brown's wife that's probably not very useful. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. Hardly a "small" violation of PRIMARYTOPIC. If "Sarah Jane Brown" isn't a good way to disambiguate, then the article should be moved to "Sarah Brown (something)", not "Sarah Brown".  The proposer agrees that she isn't really the primary topic.  Looking at move requests 6 and 7 where this came up earlier, it's clear from what the proposers then wrote that the proposal wasn't made because the proposer actually thought this Sarah Brown was the primary, but because some editors strongly opposed "(wife of Gordon Brown)" and no one could agree on any other parenthetical because no one could agree what besides that she was actually notable for.  The idea that someone's article should be moved to a title that states they are the most notable person known by a name because it isn't possible to actually explain in what way they're notable at all is paradoxical, to say the least.  If it's possible to come up with a parenthetical disambiguation label that doesn't rely on her marriage to Gordon Brown, a proposal should be made to move to that.  If it isn't, maybe it's worth taking a good hard look at the idea that just being married to a major nation's head of government (but not its head of state) automatically makes one notable enough to get an article.  But whatever else we do, this is one thing we should not do, as it doesn't make any sense. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , I suggest you might be ascribing a little too much importance to an article being at the base name of a given ambiguous title. There is a view that when there are only two topics that share a common name, that either title can be at the base name, and it doesn't even matter which one.  Let us not forget why we disambiguate - to avoid conflicts.  As long as one of two ambiguous titles is disambiguated - that problem is solved.  Insisting on disambiguating the titles of both uses just because neither one technically qualifies as the Wikipedia-contrived concept of "primary topic" is actually quite silly, especially when we've failed to find a way to disambiguate one of those titles that is supported by consensus. What purpose does such insistence serve, and who benefits from it?  Besides the technical violation, why not place it at the base name in question?  --В²C ☎ 23:06, 10 October 2014 (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.