Wikipedia

Talk:Sarah Jane Brown/Archive 3

< Talk:Sarah Jane Brown
Latest comment: 10 years ago by 2600:1001:B027:532D:40C:A8D1:197C:58D9 in topic Requested move 8
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

Requested move 7

Latest comment: 10 years ago35 comments14 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move request opposed. Whilst some users agreed that the current title is problematic, there is a consensus that the suggested title is not the solution. As some users have recommended, a move request to an alternative title will be begun shortly. (non-admin closure) 131.111.185.66 (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


– The current title at Sarah Jane Brown is problematic. To see this, type 'Sarah Jane Brown' into Google. You will see that, ignoring Wikipedia results, the subject of this article barely appears and instead the results are dominated by a not particularly well-known sculptor. This means that the name fails WP:COMMONNAME ('Wikipedia ... prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources'), WP:MIDDLES#Middle_names_and_abbreviated_names ('Adding middle names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person) is not advised') and WP:AT ('Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject') [thank you to User:Obiwankenobi, who collected these quotations many months ago]. Instead, I propose moving the article to Sarah Brown, the common name of the subject. The article was previously hosted at 'Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)', but some users found this offensive and the article was moved to Sarah Jane Brown. At the time, 'Sarah Brown' was the name of another article: the article now placed at 'Sarah Joy Brown'. This means that the page 'Sarah Brown' is currently free as a disambiguation page. If users are concerned that readers looking for Sarah Joy Brown might simply search for Sarah Brown, then we could place a note at the top of the article. 86.137.46.209 (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Support as nominator. Moving the page to Sarah Brown removes the artificially-induced problems caused by the current article name. The only possible concern is the issue of Sarah Joy Brown, but this is easily alleviated with a hatnote. 86.137.46.209 (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per many other requested moves where this option (discussed as an alternative to those proposed options) has been explored many times in the past and found wanting. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Could you suggest here precisely why you think it wanting? Surely it must be better than using a name that nobody else uses. I will not be around after tonight for this discussion, so I apologise in advance if I do not reply. 86.137.46.209 (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose the current title is a concession to objections to Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) as the dab, in the case of an inherited notability spouse of a politician being given a standalone page rather than a paragraph in the main politician article. But the more important issue is that "Sarah Brown is" and "Sarah Brown was" show no Primary topic, therefore we cannot have a primary topic here, period. Find another way to deal with article on Gordon Brown's wife. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
FWIW seems that we have 30 or so articles we disambiguate by (wife of X): Pompeia (wife of Julius Caesar), Naamah (wife of Solomon), Theodora (wife of Justinian I), Theodora (wife of Theophilos), Helena (wife of Julian), Hippodamia (wife of Pirithous). In ictu oculi (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Oppose. The current title has no serious problem. Sarah Jane Brown (born 1963), charity director, wife of former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, is a weakly notable figure, and there should be no surprise that excluding wikipedia generates a nearly wikipedia-notable alternative. There are too many Sarah Browns, even just in England, and so this person is not the PrimaryTopic. If there is a title problem, it is the absence of "Macaulay". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Just because the other relatively notable "Sarah Brown" is at Sarah Joy Brown does not mean this Sarah Brown is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Sarah Brown - she isn't. I agree the current title is problematic for the reasons states, but this is not the solution. --B2C 02:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
True, but don't you see an IAR solution here? (see my proposal below). In the absence of consensus on any other solution, wouldn't you agree Sarah Brown is a better title than this one?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The present setup serves our readers well: Google puts this article at the top of search results for "Sarah Brown", with Sarah Joy Brown runner up. Wikipedia takes the searcher to a clear and straightforward disambiguation page. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This would solve the problems all round. Her given name is "Sarah" not "Sarah Jane" (a common forename in its own right) and the current name is completely unrecognisable and not serving readers at all well. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Tim, but it seems the British Sarah Brown is only Primary in the UK. The American Sarah Brown was only moved to "Talk:Sarah Joy Brown" because of her personal website, but latest series and other sources don't call the American Sarah Brown "Joy" any more than anyone calls the British Sarah Brown "Jane". The real solution to this is to admit (in parenthesis) where the British Sarah Brown's notability comes from... In ictu oculi (talk) 01:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose No clear wp:primarytopic for "Sarah Brown". Neutral as to best disambiguation of politician's wife. walk victor falk talk 08:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • support per WP:IAR. Yes, Sarah Brown is not technically the "primary" topic here, but this title is a million times better than the current one, which uses a middle name which is, literally, never used in reliable sources to refer to this person. In the last move request, I think we found one source - and a rather poor one at that - that used this middle name. The current title is really just bad for users, so the encyclopedia will be BETTER if we rename. Thus, per IAR, move.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Relevant google search which eliminates results cribbed from wikipedia lede: search. I can't find any results here that refer to this Sarah. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
If it is the case, then we have a duty to find a better disambiguator; that editors cannot agree on such among themselves is not a not a good enough reason to mislead our readers into believing that the wife is more of a wp:primarytopic than the politician or the actress, and doing so would be nothing but irresponsible laziness on our side. walk victor falk talk 16:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's as bad as all that. She is clearly more primary than the politician, likely less so than the actress (at least in terms of "hits", but since the actress is already at Sarah Joy Brown, we're not really doing readers a disservice. And again, this is why IAR exists - I think given the choice between SJB and SB, SB is infinitely better for the READER, even if it means one more click to get to the "real" sarah brown they were supposedly looking for - since the reader who is looking for _this_ Sarah Brown knows they're at the right spot, and isn't thrown off by a middle name which NEVER appears in RS mentions of this lady. During the last move I proposed a number of other disambiguators, focused on her work as a charity and women's advocate, but people pooh-pooh'ed those, so we ended up with the lowest-common denominator middle-name dab which is, frankly, crap.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the importance of the subject of the article is likely to continue to decrease over time due to her husband no longer being Prime Minister. The original article title "Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)" seems to be the best solution, if one is needed.. ~Excesses~ (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. It seems apparent that, even though the current title is believed by many to be a poor title, this request will not succeed because of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Some have suggested above that a different form of disambiguation should be used, in particular, specifying the she is the wife of Gordon Brown. I have gone through the Wikipedia guidelines and policies and I believe there is an extremely strong case for such a move. In addition, I believe that the pages previously cited opposing this name are not valid. I have prepared a draft move request that explains these matters. If this move request does not succeed (which seems to be likely), I shall post what I have prepared and, hopefully, we can reach a better title. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Are you suggesting to just revert the 23 June 2013 move, or do something else? —BarrelProof (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Essentially, yes. Some of the commentators above have suggested that such a move will be the best form of disambiguation, which is why I have researched it. The only (very slight) difference is that the previous move request was not a request from Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) to Sarah Jane Brown: it was a move to something undetermined and the closer happened to believe that Sarah Jane Brown was the most commonly suggested alternative. After going through the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I am confident that these complete support Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) and not Sarah Jane Brown. What do you think?131.111.185.66 (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Lol, no. This article will return to the "wife of Gordon Brown" over the dead bodies of many participants here, I have no doubt. It was an awful, patriarchal throwback of a title, not to be repeated again. Tarc (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Here is precisely the problem with the argument against Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown): some users are opposed to it simply because of their personal opinions about social matters. This is a direct violation of WP:NPOV, which states that 'editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.' Using an obscure name for Mrs Brown in preference to how she is usually described by reliable sources goes against WP:NPOV, and is something that can be resolved by changing the article name to Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown). I must emphasise, though, that this discussion is about a move to Sarah Brown. I do not think it is appropriate to be discussing the merits of Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) here. I just thought it might be relevant to inform editors of my research. I suggest, Tarc, that we leave this for a week. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Per Tarc, it's a demeaning, patronising, insulting, 50's boy's club title. Ask a woman what she thinks of the title, Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown). It's an insult. We don't gratuitously insult our subjects. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to the bizarro world of first-world-problems and "men-saving-the-world-from-misogyny", first up our guest Anthonyhcole. To Anthony, "Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)" is a "demeaning, patronising, insulting, 50's boy's club title". Now, this is how Sarah Brown (the real one), begins the preface to her book, Behind the black Door, which describes the period of her life she is arguably most notable for: "In writing this book, I hope to cast a light on the role of the Prime Minister's spouse and all that it entails. As the wife of Gordon Brown, I spent three years living and working at Number 10 Downing Street." So, if you put Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) in 24 point bold font on top of the webpage, it is, well, a very long list of adjectives that usually includes sexist and a few other nasty ones. But if you as the author describe yourself in this way, twice, in the first two sentences of your autobiography, or if someone introduces you in this way, or if a RS news article about you that says "Sarah Brown, wife of the prime minister" or "Sarah Brown, wife of Gordon Brown, today xxx", then it's all fine and dandy. ONLY in the title does it transform into a piece of misogynistic drivel, at least in the minds of some here. Maybe it's the bold font? Go figure...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
The book was about how it is to be the wife of the Prime Minister, about 3 years of her life, and she describes it as such. Naming her biography is something else. It is defining her, to some extent. Sorry you can't see that. Or, if you can see it, sorry you can't see how demeaning it is. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Anthony, I do appreciate your thoughts about this. The problem, though, is that it is not down to editors to decide what is demeaning and what is not demeaning. WP:NPOV clearly states that we must edit using reliable sources without bias. Reliable sources typically disambiguate her as the wife of Gordon Brown, and ignoring this because of how we feel is inconsistent with WP:NPOV. There are many other aspects of Wikipedia that might offend some people, but they are left in place because they are representative of reliable sources.
With good intentions, I cannot see the benefit of discussing this further here, even though I am sure we all have much to say. This is a move request to Sarah Brown, not to Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown). The matter can be discussed soon, but I do not think it is constructive to do so whilst the current move request is taking place.
Since this move request is extremely unlikely to occur, would there be any objections if another user were to close this move request before the recommended seven days? 131.111.185.66 (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
NPOV does not require this project to act like a misogynist asshat, nor does it dictate that the title of an article should ever be in the form of "spouse of X". If a person is truly 100% only notable in the context of whom he or she is married to, then such an article should be deleted on WP:NOTINHERITED grounds. If not, then the article shall be titled after the person's name, and disambiguated accordingly. "Wife of Gordon Brown" was a terrible, ugly choice, and whoever made it at whatever time should be smacked. Righting a bad terminology choice is not a violation of NPOV in the slightest. Stop making inane assertions that are not reflected by reality. Tarc (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a very simple argument against WP:NOTINHERITED, Tarc. As I wrote above, though, absolutely nothing will be gained by discussing it here, even though we all have much to say. We can discuss it properly later. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose While I agree that there are legitimate problems about how we title this article, I suggest that this is an inappropriate solution given that she is not by the normal standards the primary meaning of Sarah Brown. Even in Britain she had a lower profile than the spouses of some other PMs, a post she only held for 3 years. I had not heard of the American actress before, but reading her article she looks fairly important, many Americans might regard her as the primary meaning. PatGallacher (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)#
  • Comment. Since it is almost clear that this move request will be unsuccessful, would it be appropriate for it to be closed so as to avoid unnecessary discussion? I have prepared an alternative request that addresses the concerns here and has a good chance of being more successful. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse procedural close & re-submission Ok by me. It's better than beating around the bush around the true controversy, the w-word as disambiguator for this article. walk victor falk talk 19:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, Victor_falk. How would the request be closed? Could it be done by any user or must a formal request be submitted? I have already prepared a thorough assessment of guidelines and policies with a move request template than can simply be copied onto this talk page. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
There is no formal way. Any non-involved editor could do it (or even an involved one feeling wp:bold); ask an admin or at WP:RM#talk. If you are feeling bold, follow the closing instructions at WP:RMCI and then submit your own proposal. walk victor falk talk 19:39, 24 April 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.

Requested move 8

Latest comment: 10 years ago70 comments38 people in discussion
Enough already. It is abundantly clear that a move does not have consensus, we only just closed the previous request. We have had two or three uninvolved admins and even an arbitrator close this, and yet people are warring to keep up the futile discussion. It is pretty clear that there should be a one month moratorium at least. Note that this is not an "early close", it's merely forestalling the querulous re-opening of a request previously closed after long discussion. Go away and talk among yourselves for a while, when you have decided on a name that you can at least agree you want to ask for it to be moved to, then start another request, but not, please, before the end of May, which also takes us past the elections, a good idea given the subject. Guy (Help!) 14:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sarah Jane Brown → Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) – The current article title violates WP:CRITERIA, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:MIDDLES, WP:NPOV and WP:POVTITLE. The suggested article title satisfies all of these. Explanations are provided below. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies and guidelines

The title Sarah Jane Brown violates WP:CRITERIA, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:MIDDLES, WP:NPOV and WP:POVTITLE. Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) satisfies all of these.

Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) passes all five of WP:CRITERIA; Sarah Jane Brown passes none.
A good Wikipedia article title has the five following characteristics:
  • Recognisability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognise.
Mrs Brown's middle name is rarely used in reliable sources (as shown in the below box for WP:COMMONNAME). Thus Sarah Jane Brown fails recognisability. Sarah Brown is almost always used in reliable sources and she is most often referred to as Gordon Brown's wife. Thus Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) meets recognisability (also shown in WP:COMMONNAME below).
  • Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English.
The most natural title would be Sarah Brown, but this is not available because Mrs Brown is not the primary topic. In other articles where Mrs Brown is mentioned (click ‘What links here’ at the side of the page), she is very often described as Gordon Brown's wife. From my counting, she is linked to in 34 other articles, of which 28 immediately identify her as being Gordon Brown’s wife. This means that Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) is probably the next best alternative in terms of naturalness. On the other hand, since the name Sarah Jane is essentially non-existent, Sarah Jane Brown fails naturalness.
  • Precision – The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) clearly meets precision, because readers understand who she is from this title. Sarah Jane Brown fails precision because it is essentially impossible for readers to identify Mrs Brown using a name by which she is hardly known.
  • Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) meets conciseness because there is no obvious way to shorten the title whilst still disambiguating her (since the page cannot be at Sarah Brown). Sarah Jane Brown cannot even be assessed for conciseness since it is essentially impossible for readers to identify her in the first place.
  • Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) in the box of Topic-specific conventions on article titles.
Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) is consistent in that there are many similar article titles for people who are primarily known for their relationship to another person and must be disambiguated because of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (see the below box). Sarah Jane Brown seemingly fails consistency because there are very few (if any pages) on Wikipedia where we have disambiguated using an obscure name used by virtually no other reliable sources.
Non-exhaustive list of articles that disambiguate using a family relationship (for point five of WP:CRITERIA).
Many other articles exist that describe a subject as a relation of another subject as part of the title. Although many of these are for historical figures (presumably because these are often known by one name, rather than a forename and surname, meaning that disambiguation is more often necessary), there are still a number that are for more recent persons. Note that there is a broad range of figures: not just wives. This list is not exhaustive.
Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) passes WP:COMMONNAME; Sarah Jane Brown does not.
Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural.
The common name for Mrs Brown is unequivocally Sarah Brown. A crude way to see this is to type 'Gordon Brown wife' into Google (using Mr Brown is simply a good way to remove any bias by typing Sarah or Sarah Jane as a search term, and it also removes lots of the hits for other Sarah Browns: please do not take this offensively). Ignoring the Wikipedia results, see how far you must go until Sarah Jane is found in place of Sarah. It is barely existent. Only one reference (from The Guardian) has been provided above for Sarah Jane, which was an article written on her wedding day that still used her maiden name.
To be more precise about these observations, I have manually checked every BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/) article since 1 January 2011 that mentions Mrs Brown by name (rather than just ‘Gordon Brown’s wife’). I am ignoring three problematic pages (such as their profile on Gordon Brown) from which it is difficult to determine usage. From my counts, she appears on 30 different pages. Of these, 28 describe her first as the wife of Gordon Brown whilst 0 use Jane.
Interestingly, there is a discussion in one of the archives of this article where users wrote that they did not even know Mrs Brown’s middle name and should attempt to find it. Considering this discussion took place one month before Gordon Brown left office, it is quite obvious just how obscure Jane is.
Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) passes WP:MIDDLES; Sarah Jane Brown does not.
Adding middle names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person) is not advised.
Since there are other prominent Sarah Browns, disambiguation has been made here by including Jane. However, Jane is not commonly used for Mrs Brown. Therefore Sarah Jane Brown contravenes WP:MIDDLES.
Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) passes WP:NPOV; Sarah Jane Brown does not.
Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
Essentially every source describes Mrs Brown as the wife of Gordon Brown, usually as the primary form of disambiguation (rather than something like businesswoman or activist: see WP:COMMONNAME above). Using Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) therefore satisfies WP:NPOV , because it is fairly representing the usage of reliable sources without bias.
On the other hand, using Sarah Jane Brown, a name that is almost non-existent when describing Mrs Brown, fails WP:NPOV. This is because the name has been chosen since some editors hold the personal belief that describing Mrs Brown as the wife of Gordon Brown in the title is wrong. Ignoring the usage of reliable sources due to a personal opinion on social matters is a breach of WP:NPOV.
Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) passes WP:POVTITLE (which includes WP:POVNAME and WP:NDESC and is an expansion of WP:POVNAMING).
Some users have previously linked to WP:POVTITLE. There are two aspects to this depending on whether the article title is a name derived from reliable sources or a descriptive title created by Wikipedia editors. Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) falls in the latter case. Here (under WP:NDESC), it states that non-neutral but common names ... may be used within a descriptive title. Even supposing that describing Mrs Brown as the wife of Gordon Brown is non-neutral (which is a violation of WP:NPOV in itself), WP:POVTITLE actually states that Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) is acceptable, because common sources disambiguate her as the wife of Gordon Brown.

Notes

Some points have previously been raised in discussions about this page concerning WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS and WP:BLP. These are addressed below, because they are a frequent cause of misunderstanding.

WP:NOTINHERITED
Some users have written that, if Mrs Brown is notable only for being the wife of Gordon Brown, then this page should be merged with Gordon Brown because of WP:NOTINHERITED. The following quotation from the page, however, indicates that this is untrue: this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady or membership of a Royal house. This means, in particular, that it is entirely normal to have a separate article about someone who is best known for his or her marriage.
WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS
Some users have previously linked to WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS. This is only an essay and is not part of Wikipedia’s policies or guidelines. Despite this, there is nowhere within the essay that states that titles should go against reliable sources in order to correct a general perceived systematic bias within society: the essay just states users should document underrepresented cultures and topics more thoroughly.
WP:BLP and Mrs Brown’s preference
Mrs Brown begins her memoir, Behind the Black Door, with the following sentences:
In writing this book, I hope to cast a light on the role of the Prime Minister's spouse and all that it entails. As the wife of Gordon Brown, I spent three years living and working at Number 10 Downing Street.
It is therefore apparent that Mrs Brown is more than happy to identify herself as the wife of Gordon Brown. Some users have previously raised WP:BLP, which states that the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. Considering Mrs Brown’s own description of herself, it seems far-fetched to claim that Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) has the potential to cause harm to Mrs Brown.

General remarks and notices

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

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

Survey

  • Strong support as nominator. Wikipedia guidelines and policies overwhelmingly support that the suggested move: it changes a title that is entirely non-conforming to one that conforms perfectly well. Whilst I understand the concerns some users have over such a title, it goes against the very principles of Wikipedia to allow a non-neutral point of view to take precedence over reliable sources. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • support very clearly argued case based on policy, namely commonname and WP:criteria. SB is her commonname, and the most frequent way she is described in RS is as 'the wife of Gordon Brown' or as 'the prime Minister's wife' - this is simply because there is no official title like 'first lady' she can use, so 'wife of x' becomes more or less her title (in the same way Denis Thatcher was thusly referred to as 'husband of') Sarah Jane Brown as the lowest-common-denominator result from the last RM is inherently anti-user because this person is never referred to in RS with this middle name. Fwiw I'd also support (Prime Minister's wife) or (wife of UK Prime Minister) as it was really her relationship to the PM that brought her significant notability not just Gordon - in this way it's more like (First lady of the US) or something similar. I don't think there would be a major concern with the fact that she is no longer the PM's wife, the point is, she was. But, (wife of Gordon Brown) is perfectly fine as well. Another option is Sarah Brown (women's advocate), as she is described that way, more recently, for her advocacy work around women's rights, and the chance that someone has heard of her work with women is about a million times more likely than the chance they've heard of her middle name. THe only possible argument for SJB besides JDLI is IAR, but instead of ignoring All titling rules to keep SJB, why not just ignore one rule - primary topic - and move it to Sarah Brown! I'm wondering how long it is before you are accused of sexism or misogyny for your well argued, policy-based case - my guess is it will happen in 3...2...1...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2014
  • Oppose or more to the point, no fucking way. Having attempted to nip this b.s. in the bud earlier in the week, and then correctly prognosticating the current request, I feel a refreshing sense of vindication. The recent move requests by IP editors for both this article and for Hillary Rodham Clinton is too strong of a coincidence to ignore; this has been a year+ -long campaign, a systemic, gender-based bias by identity-hiding IP users who are obviously too familiar with Wikipedia processes to be genuinely "new" users. The case here is particularly egregious, as it seeks a return to a title format one might find discussed in an episode of Mad Men. There is absolutely no cause or reason to ever return to a patronizing, sexist terminology such as "spouse of X"; it is not in violation of WP:NPOV to decline to choose such a backwards title. Start with the woman's name "Sarah Brown" and disambiguate from there as necessary. Surely the 18-35 yr old males that make up the bulk of this site's userbase can think of something, anything more creative than phrasing it as she was a possession of her husband. Tarc (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose sexist, misogynist shit. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
well, that didn't take long. I'm glad to hear tweedledee and tweedledum are so reliably outraged.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Tarc and I disagree on pretty much everything, except on the point that tin-eared chauvinism doesn't belong on this project. If you can summon up the courage to talk to a woman and find one who will talk to you, ask her what she thinks of this move. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article is about a person who has a name Sarah Jane Brown. If she's only notable for being someone's wife, this article needs to be deleted and redirected to a section in her husband's article. USchick (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
USchick, did you read the above note about WP:NOTINHERITED? Mrs Brown is the wife of the former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. In these cases, there is a specific exception meaning that a deletion and redirect it neither necessary nor appropriate (open the box above to see this). 131.111.185.66 (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, not a "Who's Who" list and not a "Who's the Wife" list. If she's notable enough to have her own article, she doesn't need her husband's approval. She is a person of legal age and she has her own name. I'm not aware of any exception to that. USchick (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Have you read the article Spouse of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom? Every spouse since the middle of the nineteenth century has an individual article, and many more before that. There are also Spouse of the Prime Minister of Canada, Spouse of the Prime Minister of Australia, Spouses of the heads of state of the Soviet Union, Spouse of the Prime Minister of Malaysia and First Lady of the United States amongst many other similar pages. Mrs Brown is not an exception at all (other than the fact that we require a way to disambiguate her, since she has such a popular name). Yet again, WP:NOTINHERITED explains that these people are all entitled to articles, even those who are not especially notable for any other reason. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Did you happen to notice that the articles you mention are about the position, not the person? This article is about a person who has a name. USchick (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I did notice that. If you open the articles and click through the names on the articles, you will see that many of the persons listed there are in a similar, if not identical, situations to Mrs Brown. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Per your request, I clicked on their names, and I didn't see their article titles saying "wife of" so it's not the same situation at all. What will happen when she is no longer the "Wife"? Will the article be renamed "Widow of" or "Ex-wife of"? To name the article as anything other than her name is extremely short sighted for an encyclopedia. USchick (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
As I wrote above, that is because they are all primary topics: it is only with Mrs Brown that we need to disambiguate. I was using them as good examples that we have many articles about people, both male and female, who are only notable for their marriages. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure if we all think very hard, we can figure out a different way to disambiguate. USchick (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but I would support Sarah Brown (philanthropist), as this identifies her by what she does (for which she would be independently notable) rather than by happenstance of marriage. bd2412 T 20:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I would support this. USchick (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • This looks agreeable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Whether we like it or not, this is what she is mainly known for. Attempts to find another disambiguator are artificial. It is not necessarily sexist as we have Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (husband of Claudia Antonia). Please avoid profanity in contributions. PatGallacher (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • oppose she is either en wiki notable or not - and if she is then she should stand up under her own name, if not then add some detail in the main story, her husband and delete her story Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Mosfetfaser, did you read the above note about WP:NOTINHERITED (see the above box)? It explains that people 'having a relationship to another person [that] inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady' can have their own articles, even if they are not notable in their own right. This is why we cannot simply delete or merge this article. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The choice of disambiguator easily comes across to the reader as more than a mere technicality (even though maybe that's what in an ideal world it ought to be). It carries implications about why a person is notable and what defines them. In terms of Wikipedia policy, to imply that she is notable primarily for just being somebody else's wife casts doubt upon the legitimacy of the article as a whole – as USchick rightly says, if that were really the case, it should be merged. In terms of real-life implications, suggesting to the reader that being somebody else's wife is what primarily defines her comes across as a sexist slight. This must be avoided as a matter of WP:BLP. Even if it should be the case that many members of the public do primarily know her because she is somebody's wife, that is not what makes her technically notable in the sense of justifying her article. Like BD2412, I wouldn't mind using some other disambiguator based on her professional role, such as Sarah Brown (philanthropist). Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Future Perfect, her article can be justified using WP:NOTINHERITED as the wife of a British Prime Minister, even if she is not notable in her own right (read the box above). This is why we cannot just merge or delete the article. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
what about the thousands of news articles which introduce her in exactly the same way? This charge of sexism has never been demonstrated to hold any water or have any linkage with how reliable sources describe and introduce this woman.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. She's notable as the wife of Gordon Brown. I think the idea that it is offensive to say this out loud is wrong-headed. It's a fact of life that non-famous people sometimes marry famous people and WP should look on such facts of life disinterestedly. I'm not even sure there's much of a gender issue here in the 21st century. Julia Gillard lives with a hairdresser, you know. Formerip (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If someone is notable enough to merit an article, they don't need to be lumbered with a label implying otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as one of the dumbest proposals I've ever seen. Using her middle name as disambiguation is less preferable than 'wife of'... Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. The close should have stuck. --Onorem (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I'm sure the nominator means well, but this is a pretty sexist suggestion. Perhaps we could rename the article on her husband to "Gordon Brown (husband of Sarah Macaulay)"? User:USchick is also correct in that if the only reason that this article exists is that the subject was married to someone else, we should merge the content somewhere else, as notability is not inherited. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Either she is notable solely for being the wife of Gordon Brown, in which case this article should be turned into a redirect to Gordon Brown, or she's notable in her own right, in which case some other disambiguating term should be used. --Carnildo (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Embarrassingly alludes to a NOTINHERITED violation. Better to disambiguate (all Sarah Browns) by middle name (preferred by WP:Natural), or if parenthetical disambiguation is needed, by occupation and/or year of birth. More effort is needed to find an agreeable title, in the meantime, the current is not a problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly it's difficult to find an article title that will make everyone happy, but the proposal has considerable merit. Lets not deny the reality that most of her notability comes from her role as a British "first lady" figure - there's nothing wrong with the article name reflecting that and its certainly not sexist or remotely hateful. As for people looking to turn things on their head and do the same for a male figure, well I'd be fine with that were they a "first gentleman" figure (rather than in one of the most powerful jobs on the planet). Whatever one's point of view, there's surely no doubt that almost any proposal is better than the current title - next to no sources use her middle name and I expect most readers would have no idea who this "Sarah Jane Brown" person is. I do wonder if "wife of former British Prime Minister" might be an improvement on the current proposal though. --Shakehandsman (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't like it, but if we are to follow policy, we must. The sexist/misogyny accusations are hogwash. This is covered in the nom (did anyone read it?).

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

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

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

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

      • The point is that people don't get articles for being someones wife or husband or child. They get articles for being notable themselves. Being someones wife or husband or child might help them become notable, but that's not what makes them notable by Wikipedia's standards. (Except people like Paris Hilton, who had an article way too early, but has amazingly since become notable on her own.) --Onorem (talk) 12:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
if you'd take a moment to read the very carefully prepared move request above you will note that your objection has been considered and there is already a clearly written answer in policy that permits an exception in this case (in short, you're wrong). On the question of 'what is she most known for', there can be no doubt. However, if you want to classify her otherwise, 'wife of the UK Prime Minister' would be a bit more role/title based. Based on her advocacy work since they left office I also proposed Sarah Brown (women's advocate) but it didn't gain traction, perhaps we should consider that again?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
        • The point is that political spouses (and less often other family members) frequently achieve notability and thus coverage in sources precisely because of their marriage and the "first couple" (sic) approach of the media. This is regardless of whether or not there's actually a formal position. But to the best of my knowledge it's been about seven years since this has been even tested in AFD and the last I know about was a minor party leader's wife - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elspeth Campbell - so if you feel there shouldn't be such articles then try taking a new test case to AFD. But I have a suspicion it won't pass unless you can succeed in getting deleted one of the highest examples like Laura Bush or Michelle Obama. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Will someone please shut this fucking nonsense down? Every time I think we couldn't possibly embarrass ourselves more... Joefromrandb (talk) 07:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose or more to the point, no fucking way (per Tarc). Disambiguating by middle name or initial is completely valid, and often done. Meanwhile, defining a woman as a man's something is just a throwback from the 50s... the 1850s. Hell no. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. She's sufficiently notable for her own article and she has a name of her own. There's no valid argument that people looking for "Sarah Brown" won't be able to find her, as there's a clear entry in the Sarah Brown disambig page and the Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) redirect pops up when you type in the search box. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. It's not sexist or misogynist, it's just a reflection of the reality, i.e. it has a bearing on the WP:COMMONNAME. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • No way I am going to vote on a WP:LAME candidate, but this discussion is useful as a guide to indicate which editors have any inkling of what has happened in society in the last fifty years. Johnuniq (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
    • @Johnuniq: that is a rediculous and lame personal attack, especially considering that most editors are younger than 50. As I said in my post immediately preceding yours, this has nothing to do with sexism or misogyny. It is strange to observe how editors can take even a disambiguator as an offense. Mrs Brown – if I'm allowed to use "Mrs"! – is the wife of Gordon Brown, and that is currently the main basis of her notability. That may however change in the future, and if so, the disambiguator will likely change. For instance, if she became a prominent politician, sort of what Hillary Rodham Clinton has done, then it's a whole different story. Please refrain from personal attacks in discussions. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Sarah Brown (Anything) over the current title. Her given name is "Sarah" not "Sarah Jane", which is a common forename in its own right, and the current name is completely unrecognisable and not serving readers at all well by giving a misleading impression as to what her name is. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Current disambiguator is natural and concise, the proposed disambiguator is prolix and reminds one of the passe Mrs. Gordon Brown. The proposal also misrepresents the article as being the subject's sole identity, which if that were so, we should merge to Gordon Brown, per BLP1E. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) sounds awkward. Hafspajen (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose both move and Sarah Jane Brown: I'm reminded of a joke within some members of the Liberal Democrats that there are simply too many women called Sarah in the party (and I myself am one of them). The reason why this is relevant is because it makes it hard to disambiguate them in the party, let alone on Wikipedia. If Sarah Brown, parish councillor in Nottingham were to become notable, the way we'd disambiguate her from Sarah Brown, city councillor in Cambridge would be by local party rather than middle name. But at the same time, I'm very wary of disambiguating based on their relation to someone else; can anyone show me an example which isn't a Biblical figure, wife of an ancient emperor, or Middle-Earth dwarf? I also share Timrollpickering's concerns that "Sarah Jane" is a common forename in its own right (See also: Sarah Jane Smith). For these reasons, I would support Sarah Brown (philanthropist). Sceptre (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose current proposal, would support Sarah Brown (10 Downing Street) or Sarah Brown (philanthropist).--Pharos (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • No fucking way as we drag WP into the 20th century. 2600:1001:B027:532D:40C:A8D1:197C:58D9 (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

discussion

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

In short, Anthonycole, you undid the close because you want this to turn into another giant clusterfuck of a drama-fest? Could you please explain to me how your decision to re-open is meant to be anything but pointy and disruptive? Resolute 22:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
It's a valid ongoing discussion on a genuinely contentious question. I share Drmies's view that we should avoid "wife of" due to IAR, and that was the policy behind my !vote. However, Drmies should have cast his IAR vote like the rest of us, and let the genius of the crowd prevail. (I've since been persuaded that it was wrong of me to revert him. Next time I'll just go whining on his talk page.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Early closes on contentious issues, in my experience, usually end up creating drama rather than preventing it. Anthonyhcole is correct, let us let this go for the full period of time, get closed accordingly and definitively by a neutral admin, and then nobody will have any grounds to kick up more drama by claiming that process wasn't followed and that they were somehow wronged. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC).
I agree that this should have been left closed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I may not have gone as far as reverting the close myself, but Anthony's premise is sound; sometimes, external, public shame is the only way to penetrate the systemic malaise that has coagulated in some corners of this project. I can guarantee that, if by some idiot Hail Mary miracle this article title was moved to the "wife of..." schlock, I'd put the word out to some press/media contacts to come have a look-see. What happened before can certainly happen again. Tarc (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh no, the media army will destroy us all! Arkon (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Why do you and others keep trying to conflate the American novelists thing with this page move? —Xezbeth (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
It is part of the same shtick with the same actors showing up to push their agenda. Tarc (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I think Sarah Brown (philantropist), and variants like Sarah Brown (Businesswoman) and Sarah Brown (Women's advocate) proposed in previous discussions, share the exact same flaw as using her middle name "Jane": that it alludes in no way in what might make her pass wp:gng according to sources. There should be a link, however tenuous, in order to fulfil WP:CRITERIA #1, recognizability. At this rate, you might as well use Sarah Brown (blue eyes), Sarah Brown (blond) or Sarah Brown (sarah brown wikipedia Entry Number Four) as disambiguator. walk victor falk talk 08:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
    • There could be more to your last one than you think. I sometimes think it's a pity that Wikipedia's software is based around being able to type the article title in running text and so only one article at most can get the undisambiguated location. Having all articles located at a string of random characters with a DISPLAYTITLE to show the name would end a lot of RM drama as there would be no disputes over what gets the undisambiguated name above all others or any need for disambiguation tags. But I've no idea how that could work with the basic mark-up. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
see move request previous to this one. I supported that, per IAR (it's demonstrably not primary). But people !voted against it, claiming POLICY!! Now, oddly enough, we have a policy-based and fully policy compliant move, in fact super well argued and the most policy compliant name imaginable, but people JDLI so they vote with their emotions, essentially saying to IAR to keep the current name which is way worse than Sarah Brown.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)That was proposed by Obiwankenobi in the previous discussion, per WP:IAR. My concern is not so much setting precedent for ignoring wp:primarytopic, all exceptions must have a rule, but that it should be reserved for a true conundrum or an inextricable gordian knot, not as a way of side-stepping editors unwilling to dialogue (in contrast to polemicizing). You'll notice there is a veritable flood of dogpiling supports and opposes, but rather fewer trying to engage in constructive discussion, and so far almost no contact established; though hopefully this'll change. walk victor falk talk 11:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
If someone comes up with a viable "Name (Profession)" title, I'd have no objection to that. It's the "wife of" business that is objectionable, but that will never return anyways, so we're left with either "Sarah Brown", the middle name option, or the profession option. One needs to be chosen and then there should be at least a 2-year moratorium on any move requests, these disruptive IP-hoppers need to be squashed. Tarc (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
my research last time indicated that Sarah Brown (women's advocate) would be the most recognizeable job title, coming in of course a distant second place to wife-of - but her recent work, board memberships, conference presentations, commission memberships and so on have mostly been in the realm of women's and children's rights and she speaks eloquently on the issue, so there's a much better chance a reader will recognize her as an advocaTe for women's rights vs than as Sarah Jane, which they've never seen in any RS.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
"Advocate" has the specific problem that it's a title for a lawyer in Scotland, where her husband is from and represents, and so it makes her sound like a Scottish version of "The Women's Lawyer". Would "campaigner" be any better? Timrollpickering (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Just a note... since the lede currently is

Sarah Jane Brown... is the founder and president of PiggyBankKids, a children's charity, and a founding partner of Hobsbawm Macaulay Communications, a public relations company. She is the wife of former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown

Then either the lede is wrong and should be changed, or the requested target is wrong and should be changed to something like Sarah Brown (executive) or something. I don't know or care which, but they should match. Quite possibly the lede should be Sarah Jane Brown... is the wife of former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. She is also... and then the requested target would be OK. Which should be changed I'll leave those more familiar with this entity. Herostratus (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Jane_Brown/Archive_3&oldid=1047296980"