Wikipedia

Talk:Sarah Jane Brown/Archive 4

< Talk:Sarah Jane Brown
Latest comment: 10 years ago by SmokeyJoe in topic Why the current title is anti-reader
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

Other alternative disambiguations

Latest comment: 10 years ago107 comments18 people in discussion

To try to get some constructive approach to this, here's a list of all the alternative disambiguations that have come up over the years. What do people feel about them and could one of them solve the objections that have been raised about both the current title and the proposed alternative?

Personal characteristics:

Former name:

Professional career and/or campaigner:

Being married to Gordon Brown:

Terms not actually used in the UK:

(I'm ignoring variations in capitalisation.)

Timrollpickering (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Another idea has just struck me: Sarah Brown (10 Downing Street). Wouldn't this take care of her main notability and recognizable context, without subordinating her to her husband at all?--Pharos (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
What about "Sarah Brown (education advocate)" - I know advocate bugs you, but that's what she calls HERSELF, [1], and that's what CNN calls her, for example here: [2] (in the video, they call her "education campaigner"). Another option might be "Charity founder" - she's gone far beyond fundraising and has created/launched several initiatives/charities. Here they also call her an education advocate [3]. "girl's education advocate" or "girl's education campaigner" would be even more accurate in terms of her focus, but she also advocates more broadly for education for children.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of non-marriage disambiguers

  • I won't go through the various spouse/wife alternatives, since they are at the heart of the controversy and I prefer to examine the "alternativer" alternatives and see how the discussion develops meanwhile about the central issue.
  • Personal characteristics: those are really more of sub-disambiguators and too vague in themselves to function adequately on their own; they serve for further disambiguation when needed, for instance to distinguish our Sarah Brown (British Olympic high jumper) from her Canadian arch-rival and namesake, or as Sarah Brown (Olympic high jumper, born 1963), to distinguish her from Britain's next great gold hope next time in Rio, Sarah Brown (Olympic high jumper, born 1996). See William_Davies_(disambiguation)#Sportsmen or John_Spencer#Sportsmen for real life examples.
  • Former name: Now, something that completely baffled me, a couple of days ago, while going through the archives, was that most of the people that proposed or supported this were opponents of "wife"-disambiguation.... Like, can you imagine something more infused with Victoriana, more "alas, I am half tired of shadows, said the Lady of Shalott", more fainting-daintingly-like-a-shriveled-flower, than, yadayada "née" blabla? I mean, really, are those persons (I think there was at least a handful of them) so completely oblivious to the fact that "née" means "born" in French, as to literally imply that a woman has no agency from the day she is born??!?!!eleven! Why I don't even
  • Professional career: I already commented on that above [4].
But I would say that I find the feminist implications of those alternatives even more troubling. It feels rather "Yes, yes, my little girl, go on playing with dolls believing you're an "advocate" or "PR executive", when we all know you're not in the big boys' league, those who pass WP:GNG on their own merits."
Well that was it for now. What bothers me it seems that some editors (fortunately, far from all opponents) are so set about wp:WINNING against their perceived worst alternative that they'd potentially let pass proposals that are far more problematic from a gender equality perspective, straining mosquitoes and swallowing camels, as one would say non-idiomatically. walk victor falk talk 16:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I find it amazing that 100% of the oppose votes above were based on either WP:JDLI or, the sole policy precept, WP:IAR. IAR is fine if you can show how the wiki is better, but no-one made that case. In fact, the wiki is WORSE than it used to be, due to "Sarah Jane", which is unknown to anyone who comes to this article and never used in RS. If we're going to IAR, why not ignore WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and move it to Sarah Brown, that would be much easier, and would only violate one R instead of 10 (as SJB does, and the IP demonstrated above), and SB is ultimately much better for the READER.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Obi, saying that "I don't like it" is my (and others') motivation for opposing "wife of x" is prima facie ridiculous, and a personal attack--it flies in the face of AGF. And the wiki is better for not having a sexist article title, yes. Drmies (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Not this again? Such strong passions about a minor detail as the title of an article! If only this effort could be redirected towards something more productive.

The last two RMs above (#7 and #8) proposed two specific article titles that have been considered before and rejected. Unsurprisingly, they were clearly rejected again. I think the previous RM, #6 in June 2013, used a better format, asking first if the title should be changed and then which of the various alternatives was the best. As the closer of that RM (and the participants at the subsequent MRV) recognised, there was clearly a consensus for a move away from Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown), and most of the support in favour of an alternative was for the current title. But a few other suggestions were made, and what we need now is a discussion of the alternatives before we move to a vote (assuming a vote is required) (or !vote, or whatever we call that thing when people explicitly support or oppose a specific proposal). There are pros and cons with the different suggestions, and we need to think about it a bit before running headlong into a vote.

At the risk of repeating myself, as I said in RM5, RM6, we are looking for an article title that will serve to serve to identify this Sarah Brown to readers and distinguish her from other people called Sarah Brown (a title that is recognizable, natural as a search term, precise enough to unambiguously identify her, concise, and consistent). She is probably best known as Sarah Brown but that by itself is ambiguous, so we need a disambiguator. (Look at John Smith for some of the ways that can be done.)

Sarah Jane Brown is her actual name, although not her "common name", but in the absence of consensus for a parenthetical descriptor, her own middle name provides a natural disambiguator. That said, it is not well recognised or used outside Wikipedia, and the reader could be forgiven for thinking her preferred forename was "Sarah Jane".

Having herself chosen to adopt her husband's surname when she was married, her maiden name also provides a natural disambiguator without having to decide what she is best known for. She was known (in the UK at least, and some may still remember her) under her maiden name (that is, the name she was give by her parents, and which she used until she was married), and for her involvement with Hobsbawm Macaulay, even though that was over 10 years ago now. The word we usually use to denote a maiden name if "née" (occasionally, when men change their surname, we can use "né"). Sarah Brown (née Macaulay) is a good alternative, and on reflection I think that is a probably a better solution here. (If we object to the French, we could say Sarah Brown (born Macaulay) or Sarah Brown (formerly Macaulay). The US-style construction Sarah Macaulay Brown is rarely used in the UK.) -- Ferma (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There are four entries on the Sarah Brown dab page.
There is no primary topic. The actress is far too notable to be ignored in that calculus.

But to distinguish this Sarah Brown from the others, We can't use Sarah Brown (Briton) because the politician is also British. What about Sarah Brown (British philanthropist), per recognizability? Anyone familiar with her might not recognize her from "Sarah Brown (philanthropist)" alone, but British philanthropist makes it pretty obvious. --B2C 17:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

That Sarah Brown (politician) really puts us in a pickle. When faced with the choice between "(politician)", it feels much more probable that that would be a prime minister's wife, like Margaret MacDonald (social reformer), Ramsay's wife, politically powered couple are run of the mill, stading behind the throne of the Labour worker party,think about Bill-Hillary, Barack-Michelle of Franklin-Eleanore to take non-British examples, and not some vague "(philantropist)" or "(advocate)", which sounds more like some socialite à la Paris Hilton or the kind of women that go to the Ashes with haute couture "creations" on their heads. walk victor falk talk 18:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

break

I just reverted the unexplained close of this discussion. It's one thing to close the RM above per SNOW because of the strong resistance to that particular proposed title, but this is just ordinary discussion. It's how consensus is developed on Wikipedia. It disrupts nothing. Only those interested need to participate. Everyone else can do whatever they want. Now, let's continue. This is actually going pretty well, I think. --B2C 18:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

b2c id really love to understand why you (or others) dont see IAR of primary topic as a winning solution here? We're already deep in IAR land with the current title, why not one the reader would recognize, and every once in a while click twice to find the actress instead of once. Whats the problem with that?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I see IAR as a last resort. I see this discussion as the penultimate resort. If we can't agree on disambiguation of Sarah Brown here, then I will support IARring PRIMARYTOPIC for very good reason - after extraordinary attempts were made, no other reasonable title could be agreed upon. Besides, this is effectively a TWODABS situation, and primary topic is not nearly as important in such a case (hat note to the actress, and to the dab page, of course). --B2C 18:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
but the current title IS already so IAR the only rule it follows anywhere is IAR. I mean, if were gonna ignore rules, just ignore one and be done with it, no?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is JzG (talk · contribs) trying to close down this discussion? "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" has turned into "You can talk about this in a month". Where else are we meant to have that "talk among ourselves"?

Look, I supported the previous move proposals in RM5 and RM6 because I thought this title was the best of a bad lot - and there is clearly no primary topic here - but there is a good chance that we could find consensus for a better article title through a rational discussion. There is no need to rush to a decision now, but why wait a month to start the discussion? What are the objections to Sarah Brown (née Macaulay), for example? Would that be less problematic than Sarah Jane Brown? It was a late alternative proposal in RM6, and got a fair level of support in RM6 and the MRV. -- Ferma (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

the admin in question has just proposed blocks for any rebels who dare to collaborate openly in the streets.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
to answer your question, nee is obscure and almost victorian, and most readers wont know her by her maiden name. Thus if we cant even consider wife or spouse due to newly enacted laws by the ministry of thought protection, we should choose whatever it is the reader is most likely to recognize. For me, that is advocate, as that is the context of her work most recently. I disagree that it's patronizing, again people put way too much stock in these dabs which are never intended to sum up their full life but rather to give a rapid visual cue to readers that they have arrived at the article they seek, so naturalness and recognizeability to the man in the street should be our watchwords. But how do we know what the man in the street knows? We dont and should not presume that we do, our best indication of such is reliable sources. So i Suggest we collect 100 articles from the past 2 years and analyze how she is described (but dont mention wife, that will alert the authorities) - and from there put together an analysis of what 'job' or description we believe is most likely to be recognized.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • There is a robust consensus against a move. There is a consensus against even discussing a move for a month., Splitting out this discussion of where you might think about discussing moving it to in a month, at which time there will almost certainly once again be a clear consensus against a move, is pure disruption. And yes, I do advocate administering the WP:TROUT firmly and repeatedly, unless you very rapidly go and find something more important to do than engage in futile discussions on which title the article won't be moved to in a month. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a robust consensus against moving to Sarah Brown and Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown), for sure, but they were bad choices and were always going to be rejected. But there are several alternatives, some of which have been suggested before and some of which may be better than the current title. It does not hurt to discuss them almost a year after RM6 and the DRV. Where is the consensus for closing down the discussion for a month? Who else is advocating that?

On the substantive point, OK, well, I think some people certainly will remember her under her maiden name before she was married (née is obscure and Victorian? really? I must be getting old). Probably more than would recognise "Jane" as her middle name. And it is still in the first line of the article ("Sarah Jane Brown (née Macaulay...)..."). But is she well-known for being an advocate or a philanthropist or a businesswoman or an author? I would say not. If we accept that the commonname (just Sarah Brown) is out, due to the number of other well-known Sarah Browns, we are left choosing the least worst alternative. The current title will serve - it is her full name, after all - but I'm sure we can do better.

Anyway, enough from me. I'll let some other people chime in, or not, as the case may be. -- Ferma (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

thanks Guy, I understand your perspective. Perhaps you'd care to try to understand ours? We have a small group of editors who are making progress brainstorming alternative dabs, something a fair number of oppose voters suggested they would support in theory. In my experience such brainstorming can take a long time, so why not strike while the iron is hot? And while you show great confidence in reading of future consensus against a move, allow me to suggest that you may be right but you may be wrong. In the meantime no harm can come from pleasant discussion without a timeline here, focused at finding ideas for a title which serves the reader better than the breaks-every-policy-in-the-book one we have now.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
@Ferma: as i mentioned above, we should not go by our 'gut' in order to determine if she is well known as this or well known as that. The only guide we have would be a poll, or barring that, frequency of use in reliable sources. Hence my proposition to gather 100 articles from the past 3 years since they left office to see how is she introduced? How is she described? Because the main way the common man knows about SB is based on how the media discusses her. The reason im so opposed to Jane is that not one reliable source has been found that even mentions this name. Its almost entirely unknown and you must dig deep to find it. During the course of our investigation we may find MacCauley to be still mentioned, but somehow i think we will find a job dab that is better.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Jzg (talk · contribs) (Guy) claims, "There is a robust consensus against a move." What is the evidence for this claim? I think we've established that there is no consensus to move this article back to Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown), but also it's clear that there is no consensus to keep it at Sarah Jane Brown (not to mention that there was never consensus to move it to this title). So, what to do? Well, that's what we're doing here... discussing that. It's our best hope for developing consensus about this title. In fact, it's the only way. I wish people would stop disrupting the consensus development process. The irony in labeling those working towards consensus as disruptive, and then disrupting that process by trying to suppress their discussion, is beyond belief. --B2C 20:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
"...there was never consensus to move it to this title" is a demonstrable lie. Tariqabjotu close RM #6 last June as a consensus to move, and despite the best efforts of Obi-wan to bully, harass, and browbeat him into (temporarily, thankfully) reversing his close, it stuck, and was then upheld at Move Review. So yes, while the title "Sarah Jane Brown" may not be perfect, it is nonetheless the product of consensus. Just because you're the man on the outside looking in to that consensus doesn't really matter all that much. Tarc (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
There was no finding of consensus there (as there was none to be found) - that was a supervote. --B2C 23:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
You made that argument back then, and lost. As the kids today say, "lern2letgo". Tarc (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
You're conflating a consensus to move with a consensus to move to that particular title. The former existed, not the latter. This was acknowledged by almost everyone involved. And it should continue to be obvious today. --B2C 00:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I am not conflating any such thing; this is the title that garnered the most support. Stop lying because you didn't get your way. Tarc (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-related to this, options based on my imaginary case of disambiguating Michelle Obama (White House):

Of course, I"m not really sure how awkward this type of thing would sound to British ears.--Pharos (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
You made me lol. Sarah Brown (Number 10) makes me think of a super-secret government program to provide clone wives for the PM, who then use their multiplicity to do typical james-bondish thriller stuff when on official state visits. Sort of an "Orphan Black"/"Scandal" cross. /Cheers walk victor falk talk 21:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • As to "10 downing street" it is ambiguous in the true sense of the word, as in "equivocal", "enigmatic", "indeterminate", "vague". Nevertheless, there is something right about it, and I strongly feel that a disambiguator that associates to the Prime Minister office would be ideal, as it is its importance and power that gives Sarah Brown her notability, not the particular man that holds/held it. walk victor falk talk 11:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of marriage disambiguers

Being married to Gordon Brown:

(part of proposal above by Timrollpickering)

  • Question about "spouse" vs "wife" How do they relate to each other? Is "spouse" in the 9th level of hell together with "wife", or is there an substantial number of editors that find one acceptable and not the other? If so, what makes it acceptable and the other not? walk victor falk talk 20:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • IMO, they are equally unfeasible. Tarc (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Would you care to expand, @Tarc:? It might be illuminating in the search for a better title. walk victor falk talk 11:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

a proposed way forward

I'm starting a new section to discuss a way forward, based on sources. During the Chelsea Manning move we collected sources for about a month to build a case around what the actual commonname was - I think that's the case we need to build here. If we choose a dab without data to back it up, other eds will stonewall it. Thus, I propose we choose 20 news sources - say 5 British, 5 US, 5 Canadian and 5 Australian - and then pull 5-10 articles from each, ideally from the last 3 years, and classify how exactly they identify her - we could also pull in TV/radio spots. I'm willing to start on this but need your help. I think bottom-up data-driven is probably better than a top-down attempt to filter through a long list - my guess is as a result of that we will have a few really robust ideas. What do you think?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

As long as none of the possibilities involve permutations of the wife/spouse terminology, I'm all for it. Tarc (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Would Sarah Brown (partner of the Prime Minister) be all right then? walk victor falk talk 15:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
IMO, no. That is simply more of the same "spouse of..." terminology that has been roundly rejected. Resolute 15:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • But "partner" does not necessarily imply any marital status, it could be business or political. I agree that "wife of Gordon Brown" is suboptimal, as I've said above [5] "I strongly feel that a disambiguator that associates to the Prime Minister office would be ideal, as it is its importance and power that gives Sarah Brown her notability, not [that she is married to] the particular man that holds/held it." If Gordon Brown had a friend "Leslie Smith" to whom he was very close and discussing anything with up to and including matters of state and this was widely known, we'd call the article Leslie Smith (friend of Gordon Brown) or Leslie Smith (Prime Minister's entourage). Surely they would be nothing objectionable from a gender equality point of view to that? walk victor falk talk 18:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Context matters, and in this case, context is unmistakable. Resolute 20:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Such an article would not exist, per WP:NOTINHERITED. Can we stop playing the "what if?" game and deal with to actual matter at hand? Tarc (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Such an article would most certainly exist, if that friendship made a celebrity of that person in the papers. The point of hypothetical examples is a pedagogic tool to discover what is really the problem. I must say I don't entirely grasp the objections. I understand the opposition to "wife of Gordon", because it could imply she's "just" or "nothing but" his wife, but not really why any and all allusion that she is married is verboten. Surely being married is not in and by itself degrading? I would be very thankful if you could try to explain exactly what is the nature of the problem, in your view. walk victor falk talk 20:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • If the only way you can define a person is as a friend/relation of anther famous person, then no, they would not get an article. The point, which you clearly missed, was to highlight the utter ridiculousness of titling an article based on a relationship that person has to someone else. If you aren't creative enough to come up with something other than "wife/spouse/friend/sibling of...", then quite frankly you have no business at all writing encyclopedia articles, and need to find anther hobby. Tarc (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Tarc, you're not being helpful. We have at least 200 articles that are disambiguated based on relationship. To suggest everyone who did so is incompetent or sexist is insulting. Stop the labeling and attacks and focus on clear argumentation based on logic and sources. The goal of this discussion is not a move discussion, it is a brainstorming session to explore alternative titles.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I am explaining to Mr. Victor why a certain form of article title is off the table, permanently. As soon as he accepts that, then this tangent can wind down. Tarc (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
In such a discussion as this, all avenues should be explored, if nothing else to confirm conclusively that some options are indeed unviable. Regardless of whether they are off the table or not, I would appreciate an explanation of why they should be. walk victor falk talk 22:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
That has been addressed ad nauseam by myself and many, many others in this and last year's discussions, where the paternalistic, throwback, sexist nature of such a characterization was explained. 22:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not only asking for myself, but also for all editors that might read this, now or in the future. These talk pages should be a resource for other editors, and easy to comprehend when archived. I understand it must be self-evident to you if you have participated in all those discussions since the beginning for almost a decade, but myself I've only been involved in this for a few days, and I'd like to benefit from your experience. Explain like I'm five years old. walk victor falk talk 22:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
victor falk, even a cursory glance at the other content of this article talk page can provide you with the explanation you seek. You don't even need to go into the talk page archives, just look at the closed discussion at the top of this page. Read people's objections. This is the eighth move discussion that has occurred about this article, and you should check those out if you are seeking answers. And, by the way, no one is saying that it is unimportant that Brown married the former prime minster. This is simply a discussion about what the title of the article should be. Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Going through the discussions, there's a lot of heat but little light. My feelings is that it could do nothing but help the opponents' cause if they could provide an executive summary or an "in a nutshell", it might at least shut down the more self-evidently invalid objections. walk victor falk talk 23:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry to be brusque, but what part of "paternalistic, throwback, sexist" is unclear? I don't feel it can be explained any more than that, nor do I feel my "cause", as it were, needs "help". My position has generally been shared by a majority of others when these all-too-frequent Move Requests crop up, so it's not like I'm fighting an uphill battle to see that the "wife of..." phrasing is kept at bay. Tarc (talk) 00:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Why is it "paternalistic, throwback, sexist"? At this instant you are arguing from authority. You don't need to explain why "(wife of Gordon Brown)" is bad, I agree with that, but what makes any and all possible reference to their marital relationship whatsoever taboo? (if that's really what you think, I'm not sure of that.) walk victor falk talk 01:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Victor, I suggest you dont pursue this line of enquiry any further, at least not with this crowd. I asked many times myself, and the answers given were usually as you say arguments from authority - eg 'it's sexist' or 'it's misogynistic' or 'it's paternalistic' because I say it's so -or the biggest one: she's not DEFINED by being his wife (and yet, in the same breath, those people will agree its the primary reason for her notabilty). Nevermind that dabs are not meant to define Someone anyway, they are only meant to describe someone, but that deflates their argument so they upgrade to the word 'define'- when we see Bill Smith (american hockey player, Born 1976) no-one says 'but Bill wasnt just born!!, and he does a lot more than just play hockey!" We DO have WP:DEFINING for categories, and guess what - we have a whole category devoted to spouses of PMs. The inconsistencies with the 'sexism' argument are legion. No-one has reasonably addressed the fact that newspaper headlines even today refer to her as the wife of the ex pm, in the title and in the first words of the lede, and afaik, no-one outside of wikipedia has ever complained about the old title. Finally, no-one has addressed the fact that so-called sexist wikipedia has tons of dabs for husbands and fathers and sons, so if we are sexist, we are equal opportunity and sexist against both genders. We live in a bubble and this bubble is hypersensitive to things the outside world cares little for, and very insensitive to things the world cares a lot about. For many years consensus was strongly against any change, it finally changed, and may indeed change again. Also I advise specifically against taking Tarc's advice on this - here is what he had to say recently about another BLP and her reasons (or non-reasons) for notability: diff note the classiness and feminist sensibility, how he deftly (but only indirectly!) compares this BLP to a '4th rate attention whore', and calls Elvis' last love and fiancee 'the last woman that Elvis banged' - in other words, Tarc is not a good professor to help one understand sexist language IMHO.) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

No one should need to be told that it is sexist and misogynistic, as any competent editor can tell that just by seeing what the old article title was. Obi-wan can stalk all he likes, can call me a "troll" in various forums and editor talk pages all he likes. He has run out of arguments and seeks to bait me into a WP:NPA-transgressing tirade, but unfortunately I don't fall for those sorts of things anymore. Like born2cycle and a handful of others, we have a generation of people who just do not know how to accept defeat graciously in this day and age. Someday thought, just like dear old Quorty, sooner or later his anti-women agenda will be the subject of mainstream media coverage someday, I have no doubt at all. Anonymity isn't a permanent shield. Tarc (talk) 04:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I understand you and Obiwankenobi seem to have a wp:battleground problem, and both of you should disengage each other. Now, you are saying "is sexist" etc; there is something called E-Prime where one tries to avoid using "to be" as much as possible. Also, you are saying "no one", "any competent editor". We all have our blind spots, and I think it's wrong to assume that everybody is enlightened all the time everywhere except for degenerate troglodytes that fail to grasp basic concepts that are taught at PhD level in gender studies. As said before, I am curious not about the if but about the what. To reiterate my query: "[...], but what makes any and all possible reference to their marital relationship whatsoever taboo? (if that's really what you think, I'm not sure of that.)" walk victor falk talk 06:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I do not object to any reference; the objection is to such a relationship being used to disambiguate an article title. That is all, there are better ways to do it other than make the subject sound like a possession. I'm not the spokesman for the opposition though, it's time to let others speak if they wish on why they do not like it either. Tarc (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

break

It's hard to imagine any progress being made as long as people are given free reign to spew ad hominems and personal attacks. While "Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)" is more-or-less as poor a choice as "Sarah Jane Brown", the idea that anyone supporting the former title is automatically "sexist and misogynistic" is so outrageous that it borders on libel. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I shouldn't need to add this, but as writing the word "libel" is often enough to have someone screaming "NLT!" from the corner, I guess I'd better note that I'm not threatening to sue anyone. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • What Tarc says. Also, Joe, note that I attempted to close this discussion, vehemently so, and (to my knowledge) I haven't accused anyone of anything. I can call the proposed title boneheaded and sexist, and the eighth move request disruptive, but I haven't called anyone anything you could construe as an insult. (For instance, Obi is quite vocal here, but I haven't accused them of being a sexist.) On the other hand, I have been accused of using "I don't like it" as a motivation to oppose, and of exercising some kind of supervote in the closure. No one has free reign to use personal attacks--but if you give me ten minutes (at my usual rate of $200 per hour) I can probably collect a half a dozen edits at least where my good faith is shat on, not to mention that the close was supported by three admins, at least, and an arb. Oh, I'm going to check on my boy, and when I come back I'll block you for NLT, so bear with me a few minutes, how's that? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
That certainly wasn't meant toward you, Doc. Sorry if that wasn't clear. "People are" should have read, "Tarc is"; his conduct on this page is reprehensible–even worse than it was before his short-lived experiment with civility. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I love you, Drmies. (It was a supervote.)
Opinions on the below discussion (#unique titles for BLPs make life easier for readers) would be appreciated. Jimbo observed that using a notability factor as a disambiguator, but not using the standout factor, seemed odd. We're discussing two alternative disambiguators that imply nothing about notability. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

unique titles for BLPs make life easier for readers

Sarah (Macaulay) Brown fulfills both UK and US usages (yes - the UK parenthesises the maiden name). The "Macaulay" name is notable with regard to her personally, and someone might actually try looking up that name. This compromise ought offend no one, and I thus proffer it, expecting that it will generate another hundred comments :(. Collect (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Sounds like a good idea to me. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm OK with this and Sarah Brown (née Macaulay). Per Jimbo, "...names like 'Sarah Brown (philanthropist)' or similar strike me as odd, since she is most famous for being spouse of the Prime Minister." Like 'Sarah Jane Brown', these two are neutral and uncontroversial options "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."Link --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Sarah (Macaulay) Brown looks like the conventional way to express a double-barrelled surname with a suppressed part and would imply "Macaulay" is part of her current name when it isn't. "née" is much clearer. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
UK papers appear to not use "née" quite as often as US papers do. AFAICT, she is a UK resident, thus we ought to default to UK usage there. The parentheses make clear that it is not "part of her current name" AFAICT. Collect (talk) 11:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Also see sites such as [6], [7] for this particular usage. More to the point -- how many readers will search for "nee" as our first goal is to serve readers seeking information? Collect (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you're right, there, regarding us using the British convention - if you're sure it's the case. I'm comfortable with any of these three, though, really. Today's general reader will find the article as easily, whichever we call it. But I do think Jimbo's point is persuasive - a name that makes no implication about the reason for her notability, when we can't employ the standout reason, is preferable. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I think this is a very reasonable discussion. I like discussions like this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
The "(Macaulay)" convention would be fine; "née" is archaic. Tarc (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
@Tarc:, in the section above you state, I do not object to any reference; the objection is to such a relationship being used to disambiguate an article title. That is all, there are better ways to do it other than make the subject sound like a possession. But "(Mackaulay) Brown" is a disambiguation in an article title using such a relationship, as "Mackaulay" is her maiden name, and "Brown" her married name. It's just a more oblique and obfuscating way of doing so. How do you explain such a logical contradiction? I believe that you discernibly and evidently don't object to such a relationship being used to disambiguate an article title, only to certain characterisations of that relation, (such as "wife of Gordon Brown" for example); namely those that sound "possessive", however we define that. walk victor falk talk 15:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
It isn't even remotely a contradiction, as a call-back to one's maiden name is actually more of an assertion of individuality apart from one's married identity, not less as you seem to imply. IMO it is more analogous to how Hillary Rodham Clinton's name is displayed. Tarc (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I think I see your point about a marker of individuality. I'm not implying anything about the value of the marker of marital relationship, merely noting that the marker exists in this case. So we can have marital marker disambiguators that assert individuality and/or equality. In the spirit of this section about unorthodox solutions, I propose the following:

[ moved to Talk:Sarah_Jane_Brown#if_Denis_Thatcher_was_ambiguous... ]

You're still disambiguating primarily on a person's relationship; if they get divorced tomorrow then we'd be right back at square 1. She won't stop being "Sarah Jane" tomorrow, nor an "education advocate" or the myriad other possibilities. Bit clunky, grammar-wise, as well. Tarc (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

See my proposal above, to do a survey of sources. My rough research to date suggests that Macauley is very much unused in recent discourse, and we should prefer more recent sources when titling. Given the choice between a name few might recognize and a job-dab more would recognize I'd prefer to use the job dab. Note that people suggesting dabs are somehow meant to sum up one's life are incorrect, the purpose of a dab is for the reader, to quickly ensure they are at the right place - if dabs were meant to serve some summary-of-life purpose we'd have them on all pages instead of a tiny fraction. As such while Jimbo's points are well taken I don't think anyone would accuse us of misleading them if we say SB (some job), even if we all admit what she is most known for is her marriage to the PM - but since that option is off the table for now, a job seems better. Again, I suggest we go to reliable sources and do a really deep survey of same to figure out how they refer to her. Education campaigner and education advocate are two I've heard a bit but more research is needed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Obi-Wan Kenobi, do you not think it's odd to distinguish our subject in the title by her second-most notable feature? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
no, if we're now not allowed to use her most notable/recognizeable/commonly used description, why not the second? We sometimes dab ppl by their birthdates, which are really barely notable at all. A job some ppl may have heard of is infinitely better than a middle name no-one has ever heard of. This is also the reason i suggested a data-driven approach focusing on recent coverage - the dab is not a bio, the dab is there to help the reader, so we have to study what the reader has been exposed to rather than guessing based on our own feelings. If you want to see an example of how anti-reader this last decision was, google 'Sarah Brown' and pretend you're a reader. You will see halfway down a link to wikipedia's article about a certain 'Sarah Jane Brown', who apparently founded some never-mentioned-anymore childrens charity - the blurb brought over from Drmies new politically correct lede doesnt even mention her marriage to a PM, so joe average user may not even click on that link, since he doesnt know Sarah Jane and the first sentence of lede doesnt help. It's comical. I checked the oage views, and there was a marked drop in page views after the rename last year to Sarah Jane. We have to do better for the reader.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
This is probably going to be a really stupid suggestion for one reason or another, but it just sprung into my mind...looking at the other three "Sarah Brown"s at Sarah Brown, this one appears to be the most notable; at the very least, she has the most substantial article. Given the exceptional circumstances, would it not be possible to have this article at "Sarah Brown" with hatnotes for the other three? Daniel (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
hi Daniel and welcome. That suggestion was move request #7 which didn't gain consensus, but I'm liking it more and more. It seems the actress gets more hits so this SB isn't clearly primary. The current title SJB ignores all rules - why not just move to Sarah Brown and ignore only one rule (primary topic) while making it much easier for the user to know which page they're on. Anyway, I think it's an option worth keeping on the table.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, I expected it had been discussed previously but on the off-chance it hadn't been, thought I'd mention it. Cheers, and best of luck to all in finding a stable resolution, Daniel (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I believe absolutely all options should be on the table in this discussion for the sake of exploration, though I !voted against that particular one. walk victor falk talk 15:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I voted against the Sarah Brown option, too, but I'm warming to it now. As Obi-Wan Kenobi says, since we're ignoring the rules, why not ignore WP:PRIMARY, and get us a concise, unsurprising title? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I've never been really against to "Sarah Brown" either, I just opposed the IP's RM as I felt it was a smokescreen to lead us to another "wife of Gordon Brown" maneuver, which indeed turned out to be the case. Tarc (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
tarc, thats an extremely bad faith accusation, i for one voted for SB, and im sure the ip would have been satisfied with a consensus move. Are you blaming the ip for not knowing in advance this wouldnt pass? We now have several others seriously considering the I-one-R of SB.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
So, who's going to start the RM discussion? :o) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
No, that's a bit premature so soon after two highly contentious RMs, we should allow to cool it some more. And I believe this discussion could bear yet more fruits. walk victor falk talk 01:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Everyone knows that a barney rubble and strife isn't a notable person. Who cares if she helps the husband by raising the lads? Wash up the dishes? Hoover the bloody flat! How is that notable? I would dae the same thingamajig to a man who lazed around the house whilst his barney rubble and strife lead the country. If yeh even want refer to that person a man! Why the bloody hell would we hae the name as Sarah Jane Brown? That's might be her full name, but it's a bastardized for of Americanism! Giving the women's full name isn't British at all! bloody A right! 198.228.228.165 (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

if Denis Thatcher was ambiguous...

If Denis Thatcher was as ambiguous as Sarah Brown, how would we disambiguate this title? Wouldn't it be Denis Thatcher (husband of Margaret Thatcher)?

And if Feroze Gandhi needed disambiguation, wouldn't that title be Feroze Gandhi (husband of Indira Gandhi)? --B2C 07:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a good question actually. We cannot treat Sarah Brown as sui generis, similar cases could, perhaps even are bound to, happen. walk victor falk talk 12:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I found one example last time, which was I think the husband of an Australian PM. He was dabbed as a sociologist, it wasn't clear if he was more known for that or for being husband. I forget his name... Also last time ,and the time before, people opposed to the wife of formulation have gone around moving extant and long-standing 'husband of' formulations to much poorer alternatives presumably as a way of strengthening the argument that Wikipedia only treats women this way - by changing history in real time to show that we do. This is what is called 'creating facts on the ground' At least one of those was moved back to husband by clear consensus, and there wasn't any gnashing of teeth, accusations of sexism, blocks, or appeals to Jimbo to rescue the poor benighted "husband of". Afaik, every time this has come up, supporters of wife-of have openly stated they would support husband of for cases like Dennis Thatcher, so the idea that women are being singled out here has never been demonstrated, in fact the opposite has been shown.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • another couple of ideas Victor may be on to something in terms of finding a back door solution here to the PMs office, since the front and most obvious gate -eg wife - has been closed. I think Tim had proposed at one point Sarah Brown (British 'First lady') which isn't half bad - by putting in quotes we're illustrating that its a colloquialism, and plenty of RS have referred to her, at least informally, as a 'first lady' since she hobnobbed with other First Ladies and was for all intents and purposes considered their equal (i.e. I would find it hard to imagine a first-ladies breakfast that SB wasn't invited to) - she was the de-facto First Lady, or at least many RS felt that to be so, and our readers would forgive us the slight Inaccuracy a dear spot more than they'd be willing to forgive us for titling it with Jane which they've never ever ever seen in a reliable source. Another option to consider more carefully is
Sarah Brown (spouse of the UK Prime Minister) or Sarah Brown (UK Prime Minister's spouse) or even Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's spouse)) - I know this riles certain feathers but the argument could be made that SPM is indeed a role - Sarah Brown herself actually wrote a whole book about this role and detailing what it meant (although she called it "Wife of the Prime Minister or WPM, an acronym which appears 9 times in the book) - her intro says nonetheless "In writing this book, I hope to cast a light on the role of the Prime Minister's spouse and all that it entails". Additionally, reliable sources described this book as being a book ABOUT her role as SPM (or WPM), and heck, we even have an ARTICLE about this Spouse_of_the_Prime_Minister_of_the_United_Kingdom - SPM implies less a marriage to a man and much more being the spouse of someone who is in a particular position for a particular period of time. Thus, SPM is as real a position designation as First Lady, except that it's not an official designation - rather a colloquial one - but why should that hold us back? If 'spouse of the prime minister' is so bloody offensive why isn't 'first lady of the united states' since they both imply the same thing - eg marriage to the leader - and why are we permitted to categorize people by this if it's really that offensive -- we have it as a category, so again we have a situation where a widely accepted category title could be used as a descriptor in the title, and it avoids the detested term 'wife'. Another advantage of the SPM formulation is it suggests a role - which is indeed how Brown's book describes it - being SPM isn't about her relationship with Gordon, it's about her role, official or unofficial, as the spouse of a sitting prime minister - and more importantly, even if she were to divorce Gordon Brown, her role as SPM would remain the same - i.e. she was and will always be the someone who is known for being the spouse of a prime minister, so it could remain a constant DAB no matter what happens in her personal life (though, she may become _more_ well known for something else over time, that remains to be seen).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I didn't actually propose Sarah Brown (British 'First lady') myself but found it when pulling together a list of just about every proposed article title that's come up in all the discussions. The problem with "first lady", whether we imply a formal or informal use, is that the term is resisted in the UK because a) it's seen as an Americanism, b) the number one woman in the United Kingdom is someone else and c), much less mentioned, it's seen as an excessive formality in a country that isn't so big on bothering to formalise what already happens in practice. Indeed it was notable during Gordon Brown's premiership that aides and spokespersons generally tried to avoid the term altogether as part of a conscious rejection of the presidential style of the Blairs. Increasingly I think we might as well just I1R or even make a judgement call that a public figure is the primary topic over an actor. Alternatively campaign for her to get a peerage like Clementine Churchill. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not a title, official or otherwise, and not analogous to First Lady. You keep tying yourself up in knots trying to stymie the many, many editors who oppose the various wife/spouse permutations, for no apparent good or logical reason. Either make her the primary topic ("Sarah Brown"), leave as-is ("Sarah Jane Brown"), use her maiden name "Sarah (Macaulay) Brown") or pick some characteristic that actually exists ("Sarah Brown (education advocate)"). Tarc (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not a title, but it IS a role. Again, I point you to the fact that the person in question wrote an entire book discussing this role. The book isn't about her marriage, it is about the role of WPM/SPM. See also RS like this Sarah Brown In LA: Wife Of Former British Prime Minister On How She Seized 'Wife Of' Role. We don't always classify by job, sometimes we classify by "role", and in this case I think a cogent argument can be made that "spouse of UK PM" is indeed a role - it is such an important role that we here at wikipedia central have an article and a category devoted to it (indeed we have a deep and nested category tree devoted to these people). Reliable sources also discuss this as a role - besides the newspaper links given above, we have things like this [8] which are discussing a Canadian context but that nonetheless describe it SPM a role (and NOT a relationship); I also found some parliamentary debates in Australia that discuss how travel expenses for SPM are to be covered. The reason I'm pursuing this Tarc is that "spouse" of wasn't carefully considered earlier as a role (it was tarred with the same brush "wife" was), nor were sufficient sources brought to bear showing she is frequently described as being in this role, and additionally, "spouse" is gender neutral and could presumably gain consensus where "wife" couldn't. Everyone here agrees that she is indeed most notable, not for marrying Gordon Brown, but actually for being the spouse of a PM - I had previously preferred "wife of GB" as more direct/plain english, but if we're talking about "reasons-for-notability", I now see it is actually a stronger case to say the reason she is notable is not WHO she was married to, but rather that she held the role of "Spouse of Prime Minister", which puts one in the public eye in a major way. Anyway, you've made your views clear enough, I'd love to hear from others.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Sarah Brown (Prime Minister partner) By avoiding the genitive "'s" and the possessive preposition "of", we eliminate markers of subordination. "Partner" is a marker of equality, as an implicitly equal mutual relationship. For a reader knowing about their marriage, it is readily recognisable per wp:criteria #1, recognisability. For a reader not knowing, it is completely neutral about the gender relationship, as it could as easily be a political, commercial as a personal one.moved from upthread walk victor falk talk 18:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
It's an interesting compromise. However, why would we accept "Prime minister partner" but not "Prime Minister's spouse", when reliable sources and our own categories and article overwhelmingly use the latter? Also partner in a way makes it seem like they aren't married, at least in America that's what they call long-term boyfriends/girlfriends in a more formal sense.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not fully compliant with wp:precise as the most precise, but that's the cost of compromise and it is precise enough to function adequately. I'd rather see we bend some rules a bit than ignore others wholesale. Beside that, it fulfils the other wp:criterias (except of course #5 "consistency with other articles", but that's a given a priori for all alternatives in discussions with titles like "unique titles for BLPs make life easier for readers"). walk victor falk talk 20:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
How about Sarah Brown (UK Prime Minister spouse) - I hope future readers will forgive us for leaving out the genitive "'s", but spouse is a might bit better than partner, is neutral, and doesn't imply an inequality. No matter what we decide we will have to bend the rules. I'm going to start that research to see how she is most frequently referred to. Please suggest which publications I should use for this research.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd suggest government sources like diplomatic protocols and such, as to how she is referred in them. As you say, it's a role in Prime ministerial office, and it has some sort of status, even if it's without the official formalities of the "FLOTUS" of the other side of the pond. I think "spouse" works quite well in conjunction with the PM office's nationality, it looks right when used for other possible alternatives like Sarah Brown (New Zealand Prime Minister spouse), or Denis Thatcher (Canada Prime Minister spouse). As for forgiveness for committing crimes against grammar, I am ready to meet my fate. walk victor falk talk 04:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Denis Thatcher (Downing Street). It makes sense, people!--Pharos (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Interesting, but to readers outside the UK I reckon few know what Downing street is - but I like the idea of finding a way to tie her to the PM-ship.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
What nonsense! I'm perfectly aware that Denis Thatcher is that uppity scouse servant in the widely popular Channel 4 series "Downing Street". walk victor falk talk 04:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  +1To anyone familiar with the (UK) subject, Downing street is a recognizable disambiguator. --B2C 01:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - we already have a way of doing this, which we already apply to 30 articles as above. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
@In ictu oculi: sorry don't get your reference can you explain further?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I noted above "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)" I don't really see why this article presents anything exceptional to our normal practice. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
make that 71 by my count [9]. This argument has been mooted, the response is usually 'they're dead Romans it doesnt matter as much, this is a BLP'. I think these days anyone proposing 'wife' will be blocked, banned, outed, or worse.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe. I'd be more impressed if the same !voters were equally enthusiastic for Yusuf Islam to be allowed his own name. Note that The Guardian - which is a centre-left newspaper which does not visibly hate and denigrate women, called and calls Sarah Brown "wife", not "spouse". "Spouse" certainly sounds more official, and perhaps more constipated, but the British quality press and other reliable sources do not have a ban on "wife" for non-dead-Romans, and no matter how many !votes accumulate here against wife, she is a "wife of Gordon Brown" in reliable sources. Your Sarah Brown (UK Prime Minister spouse) has a slight problem in that Gordon is an ex-PM, but yes if that is what it takes, then I'd support that as an end to the WP:TITLESORE we have at the moment. And the sooner the better. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I think the key to understanding those opposed is their fundamental misinterpretation that a disambiguator is supposed to define a person - when in fact a dab is only supposed to describe a person, to help the reader quickly ensure they are at the right place, by giving them a quick hint based on the thing the reader is most likely to know about that person. If dabs were truly meant to "define" a person, we would never allow "murderer" as a dab for people who did many things in life, maybe even wonderful things, and then happened to kill someone - that would be an egregious violation of NPOV. Indeed it is folly to suggest that a two or three word dab was ever intended to "define" the life of a person. Here is what policy says: "The disambiguator is usually a noun indicating what the person is noted for being...Try also to limit the tag to a single, recognizable and highly applicable term." But let's play along, assume they are right, and dabs ARE meant to define - let's apply the "defining" test to poor Tommy Smith (saxophonist) - now this is a guy who plays the horn quite well, but he also founded an orchestra, he's a great composer, he founded his own record company, and he's been deeply involved in music education - so "saxophonist" is terribly poor DEFINITION of his life. Are we going to see a move request away from that dab, with concerned editors pointing out that "It's ridiculous in the 21st century to define a renaissance man like Tommy by one instrument he happens to play"? No. Nonetheless, in order to win this argument, they have to change the meaning of disambiguation and the word "define" is KEY - watch: "It's sexist to describe Sarah as the wife of Gordon" - doesn't really have punch, does it? Plus, as you noted, reliable sources regularly do DESCRIBE her as exactly that! But "It's sexist to define Sarah as the wife of Gordon" - now you're talking! I gathered a few examples to demonstrate how this is used in practice:
quotes from last two move discussions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • "We are not going to define a woman by her husband"
  • "suggesting to the reader that being somebody else's wife is what primarily defines her comes across as a sexist slight"
  • "It's the 21st century for fuck's sake, a woman should not be defined by who she is married to"
  • "WP:WESHOULDNOTDEFINEPEOPLEBYWHOTHEYAREMARRIEDTO"
  • "I am saying that what defines Nancy Reagan and Laura Bush is not just that they are the wives of a politician. They have their own distinct identities."
In any case, while I agree "wife" is used much more than spouse, the clinical detachment and association with "role" vs "relationship" may be a useful middle ground here, and I'm liking it more and more - because in a way, she isn't really most known for being married to Gordon Brown, not technically, because if Gordon Brown never made it to PM we would not know her. Instead, isn't it fair to say she is most known for being the spouse of a PM - a role that reliable sources discuss as a role, not a relationship? If we had to dab Obama's wife, we'd do so as Michelle Obama (First lady), and even once Obama leaves office the dab could stay, as that would remain her most well-known reason for notability. The same would apply to Brown - if we dab as the Spouse of the PM, the fact that he's no longer in office is irrelevant, it remains what she is known for - not the relationship, but the role, and would not change if she happened to divorce.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Reliable source mentions of Sarah Brown - how do they describe her?

I've done a survey by searching several of the highest-circulation papers globally to see how they refer to Sarah Brown, and the results are below. I tried to focus on more recent articles since Gordon has left office. Please feel free to add additional sources, especially ones that mention other jobs/roles/and her current work, and focus on how they refer to Brown in the headline (if they do), and how they refer to Brown when they introduce her in the running text.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

url date described in headline described in text
times1 31-Oct-13 n/a founder, Piggybank kids
times2 16-Oct-13 Sarah Brown photo caption: Gordon Brown with his wife Sarah during their time in Downing Street
times3 5-Mar-11 Sarah Brown prime ministers’ wives
times4 10-Feb-13 n/a the prime minister’s wife
times5 22-Nov-13 Sarah Brown "wife of the former prime minister Gordon Brown", "career in public relations", "patron of charities", "presidnet of Children's charity"
times6 9-Jul-09 Sarah Brown Prime Minister’s wife
times7 8-May-13 Brown "wife of the former prime minister Gordon Brown", photo: "Sarah Brown, with husband, Gordon"
times8 27-Feb-11 Sarah Brown, then later - "wife" "Brown did have one ace up his sleeve — his wife. " "She was a PR professional"
times9 15-Aug-11 Sarah Brown "Sarah Brown", photo caption: "Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown with his wife Sarah"
times10 23-Nov-12 Former Prime Minister’s wife the wife of the former Prime Minister, " former public relations executive", "spends most of her time working for charities."
wsj1 1-Apr-09 n/a wife of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown
wsj2 15-Jul-10 n/a Brown's wife and founder of a public-relations firm
wsj3 28-Feb-14 n/a chair of the Global Business Coalition for Education and co-founder of A World at School
wsj4 27-Aug-10 n/a former U.K. first lady
wsj5 9-Jun-11 n/a wife of the former British prime minister
nytimes1 11-Jul-11 n/a both Brown and his wife, Sarah,
nytimes2 26-Jan-08 n/a Sarah Brown (as in wife of Gordon, Prime Minister of Britain)
nytimes3 23-Sep-11 n/a Sarah Brown, wife of Gordon Brown, the former prime minister of Britain
nytimes4 16 may, 2009 n/a Gordon Brown’s wife, Sarah,
timesofindia1 18-May-08 UK PM's wife wife of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown
timesofindia2 12-Jul-09 Sarah Brown wife of British Prime Minister Gordon Brow, PM's spouse
guardian1 12-May-07 Gordon's women Former PR company owner. She is patron of domestic violence charity Women's Aid and of Maggie's Cancer Caring Centre,
guardian2 n/a Sarah Brown charity campaigner and writer
guardian3 4-Oct-13 Sarah Brown chair of the Global Business Coalition for Education.
guardian4 2-Dec-10 Sarah Brown n/a
guardian5 17-Apr-10 Sarah Brown Sarah Brown is a supporter of Help Save Bees, End of the Line and Fair Trade.
guardian6 17-Apr-10 Sarah Brown, then "prime minister's wife's"
guardian7 26-Feb-11 Sarah Brown her part in the international campaign to reduce the number of mothers who die in pregnancy or childbirth
guardian8 11-Mar-11 Sarah Brown launch a PR firm, Hobsbawm Macaulay, married Gordon Brown, who was prime minister from June 2007 to May 2010. She is president of the charity PiggyBankKids and patron of Wellbeing of Women, Women's Aid and Maggie's Cancer Caring Centres. She is also global patron of the White Ribbon Alliance for Safe Motherhood.
guardian9 20-Feb-11 Sarah Brown, then Wife of former PM
indexoncensorship1 18-Oct-13 Sarah Brown education campaigner for A World at School,
guardian10 27-Feb-11 Sarah Brown, then "Gordon Brown's wife"
guardian11 19-Sep-10 Sarah Brown, then "Wife of former PM" " the wife of the former prime minister"

Commentary on sources

There is one obvious pattern for now, but it also leans me more towards linking her with "Prime Minister" instead of "Gordon Brown", even if it's slightly less precise, because of the frequency of "wife of Former PM" - they tend to emphasize the role of the person she is married to, vs the person himself. One quote which I found apt, from Sarah Brown herself: Q: "What would most improve the lot of a prime minister's spouse?" A: "A proper job description!" - which to me emphasizes that she herself saw the 'spouse of PM' role as a role, or even a JOB. While 'spouse' is used much less than 'wife', I think either will be recognizable by the reader, and spouse of PM is gender neutral so that should tame accusations of sexism. Note that "Sarah Jane" was never once mentioned in the sources above, and I think "MacCauley" was only mentioned in one of the articles.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Why the current title is anti-reader

Latest comment: 10 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

I've just run some statistics to see what happened to page views after this page was moved.

Page views of Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) Jan-June 2013, and Sarah Jane Brown + Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) July-Dec 2013
Month Page views
January
 
 3840
February
 
 3402
March
 
 4141
April
 
 6071
May
 
 4166
June
 
 3895
July
 
 3654
August
 
 2740
September
 
 3076
October
 
 3766
November
 
 2953
December
 
 2854
Sarah Brown page views in 2013

Methodology - using [10] for "Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)" from Jan-June 2013, and "Sarah Jane Brown" + Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) from July-December 2013.

My analysis indicates that this represents roughly a 50% 14% reduction in page views. A number of explanations are possible here, but the most likely one is, the new title is less likely to be searched by readers (indeed, likely never searched by readers), and Google has downranked "Sarah Jane Brown" as a result for "Sarah Brown" (at least in the US) so the wikipedia article on her doesn't show up on the first page anymore. It is also likely that there is a downward trend in interest since her husband has left office, but that doesn't explain the dramatic shift immediately after June 2013 when the article title was moved. The page was moved definitively on June 23, 2013 [11]. I think any change to an article title that results in a 50% 14% drop in page views raises serious questions - for whom are we titling articles anyway? So we feel good? Or for readers?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Stats.grok.se gives you the stats for the specific title you searched. It does not include redirects. So for the December stat, for instance, you're at 1851 for Sarah Jane Brown and 1003 for the Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) redirect, for a combined total of 2854. December 2012 was 3205, December 2011 was 3010. The difference, minimal as it is, you appear to have explained. Resolute 22:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I updated the graphs to include the hits to the redirect. There is still a difference - overall a 14% decline between the first six months and the second. I think that's still significant.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Certainly, but I think you fall victim to the problem of correlation does not equal causation. I would feel very confident in stating that the number of people who actually typed "Sara Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)" into a search engine approaches zero. Everyone who gets to this article does so either via internal link - and either title directs to the same spot - or via the disambig page for Sara Brown. Now, a Google search for "Sarah Brown" currently focuses on "Sarah Joy Brown", and I have no idea what Google's algorithms would have returned at the time, but I do feel confident in saying that nearly everyone who wanted to read this article continued to find it with little trouble. Resolute 23:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I remember what the Google searches used to return - at least in the US - Sarah Brown would give both Sarah Joy Brown and Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) on the 1st page. Now, she doesn't appear. And, I'm not sure how long this lasted, but I recently googled and got a small result UNDER the Sarah Joy Brown box for a certain "Sarah Jane Brown" who apparently founded a charity (the wife part was left off, I think since people had tweaked the leded). In that case, it's likely that you could lose a potential viewer who is looking for this Sarah, because she doesn't know who Sarah Jane Brown is and she has no idea that she founded a charity. I agree there could be other forces at work here, but 14% average over 6 months is still worth considering. If we were bold, we would move it back, and alternate it every month, to see if we could discern a pattern. I would bet that if we moved it to a better title, we would see an uptick in hits - especially if the title was of the form Sarah Brown (xx)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Most of the time these stats are counted year over year. So the decline from July-December 2012 to July-December 2013 actually comes out to just over 7% (less than ten page views per day). Ironically, if we went to a title that ultimately made this Sarah Brown the definitive primary topic in Google, we'd probably see a greater loss of readers, as it has been generally noted that the sidebar infobox on Google searches has caused a reduction in views here. Resolute 13:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Reso,you're double counting here:

So for the December stat, for instance, you're at 1851 for Sarah Jane Brown and 1003 for the Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) redirect, for a combined total of 2854.
If someone goes through the redirect Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) to get to Sarah Jane Brown, perhaps because that's where searching for Sarah Brown on Google took them, the view counts for both get incremented.

So, Obi, we should be looking at only view counts of the title of the article, not adding redirect view counts on top of that. --B2C 23:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but I checked the archives and FAQ and I think Reso is right. If you go to a redirect like Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown), only that URL is counted, not Sarah Jane Brown, so you have to sum up across all redirects - because the redirect doesn't register a new request to the server, it's a soft redirect.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Yup. I've had this discussion before.  ;) Grok only counts the URL as it is hit, and redirects do not change the URL. So if you want a true page view count for an article, you need to add up all of its redirects. Resolute 13:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Erik Moeller mentioned in either the March or April WMF metrics update that there had been an across-the-board drop in page views in 2013. Also, Sarah Brown will be receiving fewer and fewer views as time goes by, simply due to reduced profile. Before taking any of the above seriously, I would need to see at least three years of figures to establish a meaningful trend, and an expert in Wikipedia's metrics sign off on its sense and accuracy.
Also, regarding Obi's claim, "Google has downranked "Sarah Jane Brown" as a result for "Sarah Brown" (at least in the US) so the Wikipedia article on her doesn't show up on the first page anymore": I'm in Australia and Sarah Jane Brown is the top result for a Google search for "Sarah Brown" through google.com.au. I haven't checked the google.co.uk result but when I search through google.com/ncr - which allows users in other regions to search with the main site - "Sarah Brown" returns Sarah Jane Brown as the second result (behind Sarah Joy Brown). Obi, can you (or someone else in the US) please re-check the US search results? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
search of US google doesn't return "Sarah Jane Brown" wikipedia page on the first page of results; I paged forward 7 pages and didn't find it linked (occasionally, the wikipedia page is linked under the Sarah Joy Brown box on the RHS, but not today). Previous to the move, the Sarah Brown (wife of GB) wikipedia link was on the first page, either #1 or #2 hit by my recollection.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Mmmm. That's peculiar. When you're searching Google, do you search from google.com or google.com/something or google.com.something? Because, via google.com/ncr I'm supposed to be getting the same results as anyone else using google.com [12] --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Nonsense. This sections title asserts nonsense. Someone's full proper name is very naturally expectable to be found in a list of biographies. The "Jane" could not be astonishing to any reasonable person. As for page hits decrease following the loss of "wife of Gordon Brown", that probably reflects the loss of its reader-hook characteristic. This would mean that the difference represents idle browsers who did not come looking for information on this subject. That is not a problem. Wikipedia is not a tabloid enticing readership. I wish to express confidence in the suitability of the current title. Another title may be marginally better, but it is so marginal that the change does more harm than good. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Jane_Brown/Archive_4&oldid=1047296991"