Talk:Sarah Jane Brown/Archive 8

Survey
Another failed move request. I count five attempts to move the article from the current name that have not succeeded, in less than a year, and none seems likely to succeed any time soon. So like the last one at /Archive 7 I propose a moratorium on further move requests for another six months, to pre-emptively save the time of editors.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 20:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * support as proposer.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 20:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support but would prefer 1 year, possibly 2. Tarc (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. That or topic ban the people who keep advocating the move. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose instead the problem should be, and can be, instantly solved. What is wrong with Sarah Brown (born 1963) which has been supported by several voters in the above discussion? Fact is, she doesn't use Jane, and apparently abhors it. So why should Wikipedia step on her toes when it is easy and cost-free to just move the article to any odd name which is not bulky or sexist? It absolutely beats me that people could spend years on a discussion like this. For comparison: we have John Williams (born 1736). I'm seriously thinking about being bold here, or is it move-protected? Kraxler (talk) 23:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You would be reverted in a heartbeat. Tarc (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So what about office action, then. Common sense seems to have been abandoned in this matter, and is being blocked from being re-introduced by a bunch of ... (Note that I didn't vote at any of the previous RfCs, I've been looking on for some time, though, being appalled that something like this is possible at Wikipedia.) And as a side note (like Newyorkbrad, who makes a forecast on the outcome of the above request, instead of arguing the issue) I'll predict that if this proposal passes, another proposal will be made post-haste to overturn it. Well, there's another time-sink. And I think I'll risk being reverted. As Alan Parsons said: Try Anything Once. Kraxler (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just another question: Whatever has become of WP:DROPTHESTICK? I suggest you all do. Right now. Just forget that this article exists. And move on. Good night. Kraxler (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would suggest you take your own advice re: "move on"; this article's title history is far too contentious for any one editor to just move unilaterally. Tarc (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd agree. Please seek consensus before any attempts to move this article. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  01:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * There is nothing particularly "wrong" with any of:
 * Sarah Brown (born 1963)
 * Sarah Brown (born Macaulay)
 * Sarah Brown (née Macaulay)
 * Sarah (Macaulay) Brown
 * or even Sarah Jane Brown per evidence in past closed discussions.
 * The problem as I see it is ill-considered half-baked unilateral random proposals, most evident in RM#9. RMs that follow previous extensive RMs should be required to all of the following:
 * A serious proposal
 * A summary of all previous proposals, and a statement as to why this new one is different
 * A seconder
 * --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * support at least 1 year, better 2 per Tarc. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, would prefer at least one year. --Carnildo (talk) 02:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, would prefer at least one year. Johnuniq (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I came here to support another moratorium on move discussions, as repeated RMs on the same article are a timesink. However, my attention was caught by the statement that the article subject "apparently abhors" the designation "Sarah Jane Brown." Unlike the case with Hillary (Rodham) Clinton, there is no campaign organization through whom the subject's preference can be ascertained, but if Ms. Brown has asserted a strong dislike of the current title, that does strike me as relevant information. Is there a source in support of this claim? Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. I saw those sentiments long ago, but have been unable to find a source.  It may be falsely attributed, the subject does not seem particularly prone to abhorations.  I think that any indication of subject preference here should tip the balance, but that in the lack of verifiable subject preference, it is difficult.  Personally, I still support a parenthetical disambiguation including "Macaulay", because she was once notable as Sarah Macaulay.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support at least 1 year. For RMs like this to repeat much more frequently than that is wasteful.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  09:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support w/ proviso that if a credible source can be produced that indicates the subject's distaste for "Sarah Jane Brown", then the moratorium is lifted. SnowFire (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support w/ proviso as per SnowFire. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on principle as explained in my FAQ (bottom). But more importantly this title clearly has no consensus support. What we have not had is a bonafide multiple choice RM since the one that produced this current title (under dubious reasoning). I think that approach needs another shot. Something like everybody can indicate their favorite and least favorite, to help find the most acceptable/least unacceptable.  --В²C ☎ 19:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – This nonsense needs to stop. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support 2 year moratorium. I said this a week or two ago, a couple of sections above, but since we're voting/polling, I'll say it again in this section. Repeated rehashing of something that everyone has a different opinion about, but which doesn't really matter, is disruptive. Please don't make this the new talk:yogurt. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Kraxler and Born2Cycle. Clearly the current name is not commonly used by reliable sources, and so most people who are even reasonably familiar with Mrs. Brown have no idea what her middle name is. That should be our main concern. --GRuban (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, our main concern should be accuracy and neutrality. Many of the alternatives proposed sacrificed neutrality for "a foolish consistency". Guy (Help!) 09:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's two. Amongst our main concerns are accuracy, neutrality, usage by reliable sources ... and nice red uniforms. I'll come in again.. --GRuban (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to flush WP:RECOGNIZABILITY down the loo here. We can have a title that is accurate, neutral and recognizable, if people would stop spending energy on stopping discussion and instead focused on coming up with a title that has consensus and policy support. --В²C ☎ 01:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Prefer 1 or 2 years. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose the current title is unencyclopedic. She is not known as Sarah Jane Brown.  Please look for references.  There are several options that potentially work and a choice should be made between one of them.  GregKaye 18:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, but agree with SnowFire's exception. The amount of editor time two users have managed to waste on just this latest round is enough evidence that the stick needs to be forced out of their hands.  Maybe next year they will come up with a well thought out proposal for once, instead of a hamfisted mess or the tedious shrill of "change it because I don't accept it". Resolute 19:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, over a year ago I proposed Sarah Brown (charity director) with a decent argumentation here. Every time I think about it and come to this page there's an active moratorium, a RM has just happened, or one is going on for a page name less likely to succeed. I still think the disambiguator-derived-from-the-disambiguation-page-without-anyone-having-proposed-it-here is a solution likely to satisfy more editors (with increased guidance conformity as a plus) than the current middle name solution. So I'd like to propose to initiate a WP:RM to that effect ASAP, before any other less likely choices are presented via RM. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment
I am surprised so many people appear to think Sarah Jane Brown is the best possible title for this article - indeed, to such an extent that no discussion should be entertained for another year.

"five attempts to move the article from the current name that have not succeeded, in less than a year" is not quite right. Perhaps I have missed a couple, but I can only see five move requests since the article was moved to its current title in June 2013, and only three of those were within the last year, since May 2014. (We are in May 2015, right?)

Just to recap the history: after the successful move request RM6 (and subsequent review) in June/July 2013, there have been: It is a shame so many of these move requests have proposed titles that have so little chance of success: after one of the possible titles was picked in RM6 in June 2013 (in a discussion where there was a clear consensus for a move but less clarity of the best destination), there has been little further consideration of the other alternatives that were suggested and supported in that discussion. Two of the five subsequent move requests suggested that Sarah Jane Brown should be moved to Sarah Brown as the primary topic, a proposal that was rejected both times (rightly so, in my view); two others were closed within a day; and the more recent move request was bound to fail because the suggested title was just plain daft. The opportunity for a proper discussion last October was lost due to the previous moratorium.
 * about 9 months later, two successive and rapidly closed move requests in April 2014;
 * another 6 months after that, two further move requests in early October 2014;
 * then another six month gap before the most recent move request, RM11, just closed.

In my view, the current title is far from ideal. Her first name is not "Sarah Jane", and she hardly ever uses her own middle name. That said, I have not seen any evidence that she abhors her middle name: it is apparently a family name, and her first (and very sadly short-lived) child was named "Jennifer Jane". Her own date of birth and her own family name before her marriage are just as clearly distinguishing characteristics of her as a person as is her middle name. She also shares her full name, Sarah Jane Brown, with at least one person, a Welsh artist born in 1970, who appears frequently in the Google searches and could cross the threshold of notability one day, but probably not yet.

Throughout, a number of people have suggested at least two alternatives that have some level of support, namely: What I would like to see is a full move request for either or preferably both of these options, with participants indicating which of the three possibilities (the status quo, or one of these two alternatives) they think is best (or least worst). Once we have done that, with a clear answer either way, I would gladly support having a further moratorium of at least a year, so everyone can move on and do something less boring instead. Ferma (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sarah Brown (née Macaulay) - or a variant, such as Sarah Brown (formerly Macaulay) or Sarah Brown (born Macaulay)
 * Sarah Brown (born 1963)
 * IIRC reference to Macaulay was firmly rejected in the past discussions as paternalistic and inappropriate. The issue is not that this title is the best possible, but that relentless attempts to rename the article have failed to result in consensus. By now it looks very much like a case of keep on asking until you get the answer you want, and a moratorium is justified because otherwise not everybody wants to devote a substantial proportion of their wiki time to arguing about this, in perpetuity, or at least until those who cannot tolerate the current name either get their way or leave. Guy (Help!) 15:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A reference to Macaulay was "firmly rejected"? Who by, and when?  I see that a few people don't like it, in just the same way that a few people don't like the current title, but Sarah Brown has herself chosen to stop using her birth name and adopt a new family name.  Looking back, I see quite a lot of support for "Macaulay", particularly in the most recent discussion and in June 2013, when "Macaulay" was supported by SmokeyJoe, Sionk, Jaytwist, GRuban, Jayen466, and me, with little explicit opposition; there was less support then for "born 1963", but some clearly prefer it and it is unarguably neutral.


 * The most recent move request was doomed to fail, but it would be unfortunate if that misfire prevented us having a proper discussion on the two realistic alternatives that have some measure of support. None of the move requests since June/July 2013 has properly considered them.  If can get through a move request now, focussing on these realistic alternatives, I think we can reach an amicable consensus decision and close down this point of contention for some considerable time.


 * On relection, I think we can have a two-stage process - a run-off to ask which of the two alternatives is best (that is, "née/born/formerly Macaulay" and "born 1963") and then we can simply ask editors to pick which of the two options they prefer - "Jane", or the other one. And then we can stick with the result for at least a year (unless there is some unforeseen event that produces clear consensus for change before then). Ferma (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it was doomed to fail. Sure it was a poorly chosen name but from the discussion there was little support for any move, to that or to any other name. If there was a good, better alternative then it could have been proposed and if supported by enough people the move would have been to that. But with all the previous move discussions it's hard to imagine there is any name an editor could propose that hasn't been discussed already.


 * As for a 'two-stage process', such is generally a bad way to establish consensus. Why is "née/born/formerly Macaulay" one alternative not three? Why those two (or four) alternatives, there are many more other than the current name? Should there be a further vote to decide which two (or four or however many)? And so on. Given how contentious this matter can be answering all of those questions could easily waste far more editor time than the above RM. Better to stick to the approaches we now use, of discussion to arrive at consensus.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 18:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * John Blackburne, you are using fallacious arguments and you are speculating about what might happen when, instead of actively trying to solve a problem. That's not good policy. The previous approach did not work, so we should use a different approach henceforth. That's dictated by common sense.
 * As to moratoriums: We all remember the Berlin Wall. It was built to hold on to an untenable state of things. It was hotly debated and criticized during the time it existed, and many people crossed it nevertheless. One thing it did not achieve: That things would quiet down and people would accept the status quo. I think people should learn from history... Kraxler (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That you should equate the title of an article, which is entirely accurate but not to some people's liking, with decades of brutal oppression of the population of East Berlin, is very telling. You are right that a moratorium will not stop a few people obsessing over the title of this article (that would require them to acquire a sense of proportion, after all), but that't not what it's for. The purpose of a moratorium is to stop their obsession from perennially wasting other people's time. Guy (Help!) 14:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Come on, Guy, I don't equate the article title to decades of oppression. By the way, I lived in East Germany, and felt the oppression which other people are just talking about. I mentioned the Berlin Wall as a historical example of a moratorium which did not prevent the problem from being solved eventually. It took 28 years, but it came down, and everybody is happy now. To quote examples from history must be allowed in intelligent debate. And I trust you know what a metaphor or other tools of language are intended to be used for. Kraxler (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In these controversial title cases there are usually essentially two groups: those who stubbornly support retaining the current title which does not have consensus support, and those who support efforts to develop consensus support for a title. The former group constantly tries to derail the efforts of the latter group, including by accusing the latter group of wasting time and by supporting moratoriums. At Yoghurt/Yogurt the status quo stonewallers caused eight years of time wasting obstinate opposition before they were overwhelmed by logic and reason so that article could finally have a title with consensus support. How many years are the stonewallers going to delay in this case? --В²C ☎ 16:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And looking at it from the other side, these debates are always beset by a small, dedicated group of zealots who completely reject any compromise and will incessantly argue for their position until they either drive all opposition away in frustration, or end up banned by ArbCom or the community. Resolute 16:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The only title compromises I know of that ever worked out was US cities on the AP list being the only ones not requiring ", state", and Hellmann's and Best Foods. Both are very unique situations. This title is not that. Even what used to be the quintessential example of compromise title, Fixed-wing aircraft, with redirects from Airplane and Aeroplane, was eventually worked out. So was Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis. Consensus support for all but just a tiny few of our titles can and are worked out without compromise. It can be so for this title too. --В²C ☎ 18:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You spent a great many words to prove my point with your very last sentence - a declaration that you are not willing to compromise. Resolute 22:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What your continuous yammering about yogurt/yoghurt proves is, simply, that consensus can change. For 8 years you held a point-of-view that did not attract the support of the Wikipedia community, until they day that it did.  Just like once upon a time the porn peddlers held WP:PORNBIO to a low, low bar of inclusion so that almost every two-bit tartlet who got a nomination for a 4-way facial qualified for an article.  Over time, editors were able to build consensus for the position that pornbio needed to be tightened, thus what we have now has seen dozens upon dozens of articles deleted when judged via the new criteria.  What's sad is that the only conclusion you will likely draw from the porn example is "If I keep at it, I'll get my way"; what I hope you'll take from it is that "my opinion on a matter does not me right and my opponents wrong; we just disagree". Tarc (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's my point. Consensus can change, or, rather, it can be discovered, and it is almost always discovered with discussion - with discussion about what the title should be and why. Not with discussion about building consensus for a title being a waste of time. Not with discussion about there needing to be moratoriums.  Not with no discussion.  If you look at the Yoghurt/Yogurt archives, most of the discussion is filled with nonsense like this section - the stonewallers avoiding discussion about the title in favor of discussion about not having discussion, and people like me replying why that's not the case, as I'm doing here.  That's why it takes so long to develop consensus... because people keep coming up with excuses to avoid the process of discovering and developing consensus through discussion. Just like people in this section are trying to do.  --В²C ☎ 18:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As I feared, you did not fail to disappoint. Tarc (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * B2C: Discussion of a topic is productive and healthy. Incessant discussion of a topic is less so.  That's a distinction you unfortunately don't seem to recognize – certainly not to judge from your unending invocation of one of the lamest edit wars in Wikipedia history as an exemplar of the value of persistence. Fortunately, Wikipedia does recognize the distinction.  It's why we have WP:PERENNIAL (with its attendant controls on how such debates can continue).  It's why we have WP:DEADHORSE.  Beyond a certain extreme, more isn't better.  Has debate on this topic reached that point?  Perhaps; that's for the community to decide.  If a temporary moratorium is imposed, please remember that that's not an end to discussion – it's simply an end to overly-frequent discussion.  The topic can continue to be debated, but at more regulated intervals.  You may call that stonewalling; personally I call it good sense.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  20:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It was one of the lamest in history, but what made it lame was the incessant stonewalling. As soon as the incessant stonewalling stopped, the issue was resolved. What it took to get the incessant stonewallers to finally back down was a ton of work: a detailed pro/con comparison table and a detailed accounting of the absurd history of the discussion. We shouldn't have to go through anything like that here. We could instead just start talking about how to formulate the next RM discussion to make a consensus-supported resolution most likely, instead of talking about the opposite: a moratorium. --В²C ☎ 20:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but no – per WP:LAME, "the fact that an edit war occurred means that neither side was 'in the right all along'"... and I'd say that's especially true about an eight-year war over the letter H. That you seem not to recognize that is troubling, as is your characterization of all those who disagree as mere "stonewallers".
 * Not all repetitious debates are fated to overturn the status quo or settle cleanly; some simply lead to an entry on the perennial proposals page, or in other ways become so tiresome and wasteful that the community decides it can no longer stomach it. That may be the point we're approaching here.  We could start doing other things to improve Wikipedia, instead of talking about the opposite: more RMs.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  12:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not like change was being fueled by a small group. The problem was inherent and obvious, just like "Jane" is in this title. That meant and means NEW people would naturally, understandably repeatedly show up and suggest a change. That's the case here too.  See the Jane section just below.  --В²C ☎ 21:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Guy, having recently read the archives in full, it is not correct to say that reference to Macauley was firmly rejected. Not at all.  It was repeatedly supported, and spoken against only once or twice.  There was slightly more objection to the "née".  Paternalistic?  That is an issue present at the time of her birth, and was and is extremely widespread.  Before adopting the surname "Brown", the subject was well known by the name Macaulay, without a hint that it was unacceptable to the subject due to the paternalistic Western culture of naming children with their father's surname.  The only thing I see as firmly rejected is "wife of" or "spouse of", largely due to these implying inherited notability, if not subjugation to a husband.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe you haven't checked all the debates. It would not surprise me: there have been a preposterous number. Guy (Help!) 14:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Jane?

 * There are currently 75 sources in the article, none of which refers to the subject as "Jane". In the discussion which ended with the move to "Sarah Jane Brown" (the current title), this name was proposed (as being a redirect at the time) but was never explained. Is there any source which mentions "Jane"? If yes, can it be shown here? (It should then be appended somewhere in the article.) Or is it WP:OR, and then could be peremptorily challenged and removed? Kraxler (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "Prudence never did pose a threat to Sarah Jane Macaulay and today this smart, successful woman will prove just that." and "Sarah Jane Macaulay was born in Beaconsfield in October 1963, the eldest of three children." - The Guardian. Tarc (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. (Looks like the CTRL+F function is broken on my computer, or doesn't work on the Guardian website.) Just for the record, I'm also vehemently opposed to wasting the community's time and effort. I'm just of the opinion that this is a problem that could be solved in five minutes, if... As that is seemingly not going to happen, I'll say farewell now to this issue. I suppose I'll have another look at it two years hence. Kraxler (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)