This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Per literally dozens of discussions at WP:BLPN and WP:RSN we cannot use the likes of the Daily Mail as a source here. I also don't think we can use a Twitter feed as evidence of the notability of a Twitter feed. See the problem?. --John (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My recollection of the various debates I've seen is that the Mail is accepted with caution as a source - it seems perfectly ok for a factoid like this. Twitter are of course the only source for their own account follower numbers; I don't know what "notability" has to do with it. It is fairly stupid to remove all refs to her 1.2 million followers, which these days is the most notable thing about her other than her marriage. Johnbod (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I was right - see the most recent discussion of the Daily Mail at [the RSN], and please check your statements more carefully in future. Johnbod (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter feeds are not notable, but having Twitter followers is notable since Twitter is a measurement tool used by the media. USchick (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: due to the excessive number of page moves and debate about the page title, I have requested permanent protection from page moves, meaning all page moves (IMHO) going forward should be performed via the RM process.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed to a week-long moratorium on a page move while debate continues. See WP:RFPP. Bearian (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bearian (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this on RfPP. The title is horribly sexist. Almost anything would be better: Sarah Brown, Prime Minister's spouse (which at least ties her to a role and not to a person), Sarah J. Brown, Sarah Jane Brown (currently a redirect to this article), Sarah Macaulay Brown, Sarah Brown (born 1963). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a list of all of the previous moves to the top of the page. You can read through the arguments, and then ponder if we need another RM, when the last one just closed a few months ago. And yes, that particular argument has already been made. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the previous RM, it seems there was a consensus to move, but it was closed no consensus because people couldn't agree on a title, so we currently have one that, it seems, almost no one wants. Another RM asking two questions might help: (1) do we need a new title, and (2) if so, should it be x or y. This strikes me as similar to listing women novelists separately from novelists, and something that should be fixed asap. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Up to you. My main point, which I hope you'll agree with, is this page should *not* be moved without an RM, given the past huge debates. If you'd be willing to indef-move-protect it that would be swell. For now the it's only protected for a week, which won't help much. Thanks! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SlimVirgin that it needs another RM as the last one closed with the opposite of what consensus wanted. I also don't see the point of protecting it from a move, the way things are set up it is easy for status quo to hold fast even when it's not in favor, which is arguably a bad system. This page is going to move some day, in my opinion the sooner the better. heather walls (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The protection from move doesn't prevent the page being moved, it just prevents the page from being moved by a non-admin. Given that this page has been moved I would guess at least 15 times since it was created, and gone through 5 different RM discussions, I don't think regular users should be arbitrarily moving this page to a new location just for kicks. If they want to move it, they should do an RM. This is also spelled out clearly in the RM instructions - controversial moves should not be done without a discussion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) → ? – see below SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding this as an RfC, as well as an RM, to attract a wider response. For the bot, the question is: Should the article be moved to another title? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created in 2007 as Sarah Macaulay, known primarily as the wife of then-Chancellor of the Exchequer (later Prime Minister) Gordon Brown, and also as a founding partner of Hobsbawm Macaulay Communications, a public-relations firm. She apparently stopped using the name Macaulay after her marriage in 2000. Sarah Brown is a common name, and she may not be independently notable, so the article ended up at Sarah Brown (spouse), then Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) (there is no "first lady" position in the UK).

There have been five RM discussions. The last one, in March, seemed to gain consensus for a move, but there was no consensus regarding the new title, so the proposal failed. Therefore, this proposal asks two questions:

1. Should the page be moved?
2. If so, what is your preferred title?

(a) Sarah Brown (born 1963)

(b) Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's spouse) (currently a redirect)

(c) Sarah Brown (public relations) (currently a redirect)

(d) Sarah J. Brown (her middle name is Jane)

(e) Sarah Jane Brown (currently a redirect)

(f) Sarah Macaulay Brown

(g) Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's wife) (currently a redirect) (added by OWK)

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Users from the past 2 RMs were informed neutrally of this discussion by SV and OWK. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Background material (added by Obiwankenobi)

Survey (June 2013)

• Yes, move. First choice: Sarah Jane Brown. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's worth noting that there doesn't appear to be another "wife of " or "spouse of" title in Category:Spouses of national leaders (including in Category:Spouses of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom). It's understood that the reason for this is that she has a common name. Still, it seems an inappropriate way to single her out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As noted elsewhere, if Denis Thatcher required disambiguation, I would vote for use of the term "husband of Margaret Thatcher" in the title. It's just life that she's singled out, there are plenty (~80) other wives in the same situation, and if another wife or husband comes along, we should treat them the same way vs bending over backwards to use ridiculous names like Sarah Jane Brown, for which ZERO sources have been found to date, thus violating WP:COMMONNAME.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No, no need to move. But if it has to move, then Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's wife) would be my first choice, because her notability derives from her marriage to the PM, and per Google hits above, that is by far the most common way she is described. Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's spouse) would be second choice, which matches Category:Spouses_of_Prime_Ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom. Sarah Jane Brown is an artist, this Sarah almost never is referred to in that way. I note there are at least ~80 or so articles with wife of as a disambiguator. The others (middle name, public relations, etc are not common and not how she is known, so won't work).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably not none of the proposed alternatives really work. Her middle name is almost completely unknown and the article title shouldn't imply that's how she's normally referred to. "Sarah J. Brown" & "Sarah Macaulay Brown" are even worse and sound like an attempt to use American style names. The problem is either we use a recognisable article title that doesn't please everyone or we use a title that few will recogise. Yes it sucks that she is almost only known because of her marriage but Wikipedia has to reflect the sources not try to bend the situation to suit personal preferences. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: this has nothing to do with American-style names. I'm not even sure what that would mean, as opposed to any other style. It's about finding the best (or least bad) option that avoids the jolt that some people feel when they first see the current title. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • People having a jolt should not determine article titles. The two options I identified are name formats common in America but not in Britain and never used to identify her. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, notable beyond her marriage. --Soman (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. To any of the above titles, that do not refer to her marital status. Then we should rename most other articles with spousal designations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes Any of the title choices, if I had to choose, (e) is good. Whatever helps make consensus on a name so that the few against this move don't use it as another flimsy excuse to close this discussion leaving things as they are. heather walls (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's spouse) per Category:Spouses_of_Prime_Ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom. Other options all fail WP:CRITERIA. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as an inept move request. I am well aware that this title may not be devoid of problems, but there is a tenable case that this is the least bad option. Consensus can of course change, but you need to say what your alternative is. PatGallacher (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Pat, there are several alternatives listed. Another editor moved the RM template and this caused the RM bot to leave out "see below" and my sig, which is why the request look malformed. I've fixed it now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. Yes, bit too patronising or husband-submissive, or whatever the word is.
  Support 2 a, d, e, f. without particular strength.
  If no consensus to move, or no happy target to move to, Support returning to Sarah Macaulay, which is acceptable, as the default, first non-stub version, on which hindsight sees there has never been a consensus to move from. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's spouse), as a gender-neutral title that will allow readers seeking this topic to easily identify that this is the article they want. Strong oppose to Sarah Brown (public relations), as this title is most likely to create confusion ("I'm not looking for some public relations person, I'm looking for the Prime Minister's wife"). If she weren't the Prime Minister's spouse, she wouldn't have a Wikipedia article, so I don't know how it can be considered offensive for the title to acknowledge the reason the reader's heard of her. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes - I believe option, e, "Sarah Jane Brown" would probably work best. Honestly, this is something that should fall under "just do it", and damn to hell the wiki-arcana of disambigs, wp:commonname, etc...and whatever is holding this up. It's the 21st century for fuck's sake, a woman should not be defined by who she is married to. I'd say I was shocked to see such misogyny in this project, but on the heels of the Amanda Filipacchi debacle the senses are becoming dulled. Tarc (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find me 5 reliable sources that use the term "Sarah Jane Brown" to refer to her? I can't. Out of hundreds of articles, I can't find even 5 that use this. IAR is fine, but you have to give a REASON for IAR, not just WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't give a fuck. Move her to plain "Sarah Brown" with a hatnote at the top to point to the disambig, just anything is preferable than the sexist "wife/spouse of". Tarc (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a problem with the fact that the only reason she is notable and famous is because she is married to Gordon Brown? That is the elephant in the room. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As wikipedia-notability can't be inherited, you are arguing for a merge and redirect to Gordon_Brown#Personal_life. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED includes this explicit section:

Note, however, that 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^{[clarification needed]} or membership of a Royal house.

We don't directly create articles for the relatives of notable people. However there certainly are people who achieve notability outside of Wikipedia because of their family and the attention that flows from that and Prime Ministerial spouses certainly come under that. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then your "the only reason she is notable" comment a few lines up was rather dumb, honestly. If you feel that Sarah Brown only has an article because of a famous relative, then by all means initiate a deletion discussion. Being the spouse of a world leader is IMO inherently notable thing, though. Tarc (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't tell the difference between real world and Wiki notability then you should't go calling other's contributions dumb, honestly. The core point is that being the wife of Gordon Brown is the ultimate reason she is notable and receives coverage hence the article and hence the disambiguation is what it is. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the article will describe how her marriage to Brown brought her into the public eye, but this fact does not need to be in parentheses in the title of her biography. Binksternet (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That kinda highlights your ignorance, that you place any sort of value or emphasis on "Wiki notability", whatever the fuck that is. Yes, her stature is elevated by who she married, but that's not the point. I'll tell you what the "core point" is; You don't classify women by who they're married to in this manner, it looks parochial and 19th-century to the outside world, as it is the first thing they see at the time of the page, the article title. There is nothing wrong with "Sarah Jane Brown" or just "Sarah Brown" with a hatnote to the others, it simply cannot remain as-is. I note that you and several others have been trawling this talk page and been rolled up in this naming argument for well over 5 years now. It is time to step aside and let fresh eyes look in on this for once. Tarc (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well well well, I guess Tarc woke up on the wrong side of the cave this morning. Let's test your mettle. When you say we should not classify people by who they're married to, does this mean we should delete Category:Spouses_of_Prime_Ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom and the rest of that tree? Please nominate it at CFD and see where consensus lies. Those categories, by definition, classify someone by who they're married to. Sarah Jane Brown doesn't work b/c it fails WP:COMMONNAME, there are no sources which call her this, so it's absurd to use that as a title just to get over imagined sexism (yes, imagined, if not imagined, then provide evidence below, that she is being discriminated against based on her sex). Sarah Brown with hatnote could work, but I'm not sure if you can establish that she is the "primary" topic for "Sarah Brown".--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no patience for your trolling, Obi-wan. Your misogyny was readily apparent in the novelist category fiasco, and it just keeps chugging along here. I've already said that the wiki-alphabet soup of style guidelines and whatnot are wholly irrelevant here, so whatever WP:* page you choose I will ignore, as they are hindering the improvement of a Wikipedia article, which is precisely what WP:IAR was designed to address. Begone. Tarc (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No move is best. If moved Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's wife) but this is clearly less helpful than the present title. Her middle name is never used so no use. Johnbod (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, definitely to Sarah Jane Brown. Obviously the best: and not sexist. Wikidea 20:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you meet the five reliable souces test? Timrollpickering (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one is going to submit to this ridiculous criteria, so it'd be best all-around if you simply knock it off and stop badgering people. Tarc (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's crazy to think that of the hundreds of articles written about her, we should be able to find 5 (or even 2, or 1!) that use her full name in order to title her article. Crazy talk! Perhaps you should review the guidance around titles Tarc.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, move to Sarah Brown (public relations) as my first choice. Second choice is any formulation that does not subordinate her to her husband. Binksternet (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. Tony Blair's wife's article is Cherie Blair. Her article paints her as being a tad more professional than Brown, and with more controversies, but overall I don't really see sufficient difference to label Brown as a wife or even a spouse and not doing so with Blair (unless at some point some other Sarah Jane Brown becomes as or more famous). CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No need to move it. The current title is the name she uses followed by a disambiguator that succinctly shows why she is notable, and is sufficiently clear. To those who say that "wife" is sexist or inappropriate, Brown herself freely admits being Gordon's wife, their relationship is public knowledge, and she is widely described in all media as being his wife. If it must be moved though, use Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's wife) but this is less helpful than the current title. —  AjaxSmack  00:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• No, but if it had to move, Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's wife) per User:Obiwankenobi Chris Troutman (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Move the Sarah Jane Brown; that's her name, simple as. I've read through all the arguments against and they are simply waving policy around for the sake of it, to no real purpose. Using her full name does not cause any trouble for our users. This contrived name is silly. --Errant ^(chat!) 00:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (June 2013)

• The format of this proposal is a total mess with the proposed numbering the reverse to the norm; plus there's no need for two questions. If an alternate name has consensus then it should be moved, if not then it should stay. Arguments not votes. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure what you mean about the proposed numbering, Tim. Maximum points for first choice, minimum for last choice. Also, people don't have to award points if they prefer not to; they can simply name their first choice. I asked two questions so that we don't end up with a situation, as in March, where people wanted it to be moved, but there was no clear consensus on a single proposal. This way, the closing editor will at least see whether there is consensus to move it to something, and can evaluate the options accordingly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Normally one numbers the first choice the lowest but it's very rare to do such formal votes on Wikipedia. And it's clear from past discussions that it is not a simple case of people wanting it moved - some have stated they would prefer the current title to the option others are pushing. This should be a discussion considering all options evenly not an artificial vote to try and force a move by separating out consensus. Reject the discussion format of split questions and numeric weighting. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't about listing the choices in order. It's about awarding points, which is almost but not quite the same thing; for example, someone might award some options zero if they feel strongly against them. The points will help the closing editor weigh the options, and given that this issue keeps being raised, it's worth a try. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to agree with Tim on this one. If people want it moved, they should state which names they want it moved to. Assigning points/etc smacks of voting, which we're not doing here, and it shouldn't matter how many points someone assigns - it's the strength of their argument that counts.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Many claims in past RMs have stated that this title is "sexist", so I want to study that claim. Sexism is discrimination based on sex. Thus, if such a title (and as noted, we have ~80 of them) were sexist, then we would expect that a man in the same position would be treated differently. However, we have examples, such as Elkanah_(husband_of_Hannah) and Philip_(first_husband_of_Berenice_I_of_Egypt), mainly because their notability stems mostly from association with a more famous woman (nb: there were other 'husband' articles in the past, but one of the commentators above MOVED them during the last RM discussion, which I find a bit pointy and seems intended to disarm this particular argument). Others have agreed that if there were a need to disambiguate someone like Denis Thatcher as a husband of Maggie, they would happily do so, as would I. You can also search on "son of" or "daughter of" and you find several examples, such as Mentuherkhepeshef_(son_of_Ramesses_IX), Amyntas (son of Andromenes), Polydorus (son of Priam), Julia_(daughter_of_Julius_Caesar), Theodora_Angelina_(daughter_of_Isaac_Komnenos), thus disambiguating someone on the basis of their relationship to someone else is accepted and practiced widely already. As such, having read through the previous RMs, I would appreciate if in this particular RM, we went easy on the accusations of sexism, which in my mind are misguided and don't hold up (it's not really sexism if both sexes are treated equally). What we should focus on, instead, is what is the proper disambiguator, and what is best for the reader? It's too bad she has a common name - we don't have this issue with Cherie Blair, but because of namespace collisions, we have to find a disambiguator, and the most natural disambiguator in my mind is to describe her "role", which is most famously as spouse of the PM - so that would be my preference.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Husband of" doesn't have the same connotation as "wife of" (though perhaps best avoided too). Wives until very recently were regarded as, in many ways, the property of their husbands; see Coverture. A woman was not even allowed to be the legal guardian of her own children when her husband died. So the title "wife of" (where the spouse is a man) can come across as very offensive, as if harking back to that era. If you want the title to focus on her role, then Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's spouse) has the merit of doing that, and avoids tying her to one person. That's also a title that wouldn't be exclusive to women. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SV, are you saying that the term "wife" is what is sexist? Like, if I say, "Hi Bob, I want you to meet MY wife", I am somehow harkening back to the bad-old-days of wife-as-property? Seriously? If you read the article, you may notice something - in the lede - actually the VERY FIRST SENTENCE: it says "Sarah Jane Brown (née Macaulay; born 31 October 1963) is the wife of Gordon Brown..." --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually know a lot of people who do not use the terms wife and husband for lots of reasons, they use the term partner. It is not everyone, but some people do find general use to be objectionable. heather walls (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

well, I know lots of newspapers, who are our source for information and WP:commonname, and none of them have started using 'partner'. Have any of those friends of yours bothered to write articles to ny times decrying use of the term, or have any of them published analysis of sexism of the term wife when applied in a newspaper article to someone's wife? (Or husband)? If you all really cared about sexism you'd stop quibbling over the title and improve the article and talk more about what she's done (and find a better image, I tried but failed). Or, work on increasing coverage and bios of women here, or work in getting more women to edit - but having now 6 RMs over the title is excessive in the extreme. I find it amazing that the most favored vote is "Sarah Jane Brown", and I can't find a single source - trust me I've dug deep - that calls her this. Nada. Zilch. Zero. But to avoid some perceived sexism people are willing to IAR and launch accusations of misogyny - all over a title! If you have evidence that newspapers regularly use the word 'wife' for women but use some other better less sexist description for men in the same position, please bring them forward. Otherwise these claims have no basis, and thus cannot be used as a reason to IAR.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not tell me what I would do if I "really cared about sexism". If this is quibbling, I invite you to stop. heather walls (talk) 02:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you'll note that the category is indeed named "spouses of prime ministers", but this is a bit contrived so as to make the category gender-neutral - but it's not natural english and not ideal for a title - it would be bizarre for the lede to say "Sarah Jane Brown (née Macaulay; born 31 October 1963) is the spouse of the ex-Prime Minister, Gordon Brown..." If she's his wife, let's call her that, and let's not drag up stories about what "wife of" used to mean - it's perfectly neutral formulation in 2013, IMHO.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pigsonthewing states above that we should rename other articles with spousal designations, which by my count is at least 80 wives, 4 or 5 husbands, and then probably 100 sons and daughters. Do you really want to do this, and can you explain why - even if those people are mostly known through their association with their spouse, or if it is the best natural disambiguator? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A subject's sons and daughters are not their spouses. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Capt. Obvious. Can you actually respond to the question? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you didn't read the question I asked - it's right above, take a look.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happens, the redlinks should become redirects. Sarah Brown (born 1963), Sarah J. Brown, Sarah J Brown, Sarah Macaulay Brown, Sarah Jane Macaulay Brown, Sarah Jane Macaulay, Sarah J. Macaulay, Sarah J Macaulay -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather bad idea.... First off, because Sarah Joy Brown is an actress, not a politician's wife. And I don't think she's ever called any of those other names. Born 1963 seems reasonable, but the others? Nyet. It's not like anyone is linking to them, so we don't need to create redirects for every possible combination of initial + maiden name + last name. Do you really want a debate about who gets to be Sarah J. Brown? ugh.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're already having it, it's option (d) ; Redirects are WP:CHEAP, so we would be more comprehensive with the redirects. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added some Google search strings above, open it up to see the methodology (rather than using the initial estimated hits, I clicked through to get both the actual hits + the hits with duplicates). My reading of this data, as well as based on searches of websites like NYTimes.com, Economist.com, and so on, is that "Prime Minister's spouse" or "Gordon Brown's spouse" is rarely if ever used - since they're usually talking about a woman, and not the "spouses" in general, they call her a wife. This is plain, simple english, and per WP:COMMONNAME, we should not eschew the use of the word wife here because some people feel it is sexist (and if it's "sexist" to be disambiguated by one's marriage to another, wife and spouse are equal on that count). I also added another option that had been left out above (and was an extant redirect), as Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's wife), which I think is the best option of all and supported by sources. I would be most pleased if someone, anyone, could provide a reliable source which refers to her as Sarah Jane Brown - I think there may be one or two in existence - she is simply never referred to in that way.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please leave these extras in the discussion section and sign them, so that they don't appear to be part of the RfC. Using Google hits is not a helpful way to decide this. Or you can add them to your comment in the survey section f you want them to be more prominent. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moved back. SV, I'm afraid you forgot to (a) get consensus to hold an RFC and (b) Frame the RFC in a neutral fashion, so you should not be surprised if people add useful things to it. In this case, GHits tables are common in contentious RM discussions (see Ivory coast RM for example), and useful if used correctly, as an indication of frequency of use of a term. For example, using Google hits, we can ascertain that "Sarah Jane Brown" is almost never used to refer to this lady. If you want to modify the table, or add things, etc, fine, but don't move it just because you don't like it or because you have some notion that this is *your* RFC - it's not.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Almost every solution here involves either a problematic title (spouse disambiguation) or some kind of complex IAR-to-get-a-decent-compromise (using middle name or "born X"). If we're going to be stuck with invoking IAR, why not just do it in the simplest way and move this to Sarah Brown? Yes, it breaches the letter of the disambiguation policy... but so does almost anything else we come up with. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sexism/misogyny: I really would love it if those who think this title is sexist can lay out their claims. Do you think that the Economist, BBC, NY Times, and so on are *also* sexist when they refer to her in this way? Sexism means being treated differently because of your sex. Please provide evidence and arguments, rather than wild accusations. I'm really interested to hear *why* people think this is sexist, other than some emotive reaction. What exactly is sexist about it, especially given WP has articles on "Husband of", and whole categories devoted to "spouse of", etc.? If we're going to IAR and rename something because it's sexist - e.g. that a man in the same situation would be treated differently, please provide some evidence thereof.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For example, when Denis Thatcher died, what did his obit say? [2] "Denis Thatcher, 88; Prime Minister's Husband. Sir Denis Thatcher, the well-regarded but often-lampooned husband of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, died Thursday" Is that sexist? Does this headline to an obituary (which is sort of your chance to sum-up a man's life) mean the LA Times is some sort of misandrist rag, beating up on poor husbands who didn't achieve the notoriety of their wives? Strong claims require strong evidence, so claims of sexism and misogyny or misandry require evidence, and NONE has been provided to date - if you can't provide such, then please stop using these divisive terms. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very clear difference between referring to the reason for someone's notability early in the written information and offering it as part of their name. If it said, "Husband of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Denis Thatcher, died Thursday", yes I would find that problematic. But again, I don't think it's terrible relevant. That's the old apples to oranges comparison. The Wikipedia title defines her name, currently connects it 100% to her position of being a wife. I can't comprehend why you have so much energy to oppose this change, does it affect you in some way? It seems that a few people find it actually offensive, why do you want to inflict that when a change is so easy to do? heather walls (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

um, this is apples to apples. They are both spouses of UK PMs. If they're treated equally in newspaper reports, it's quite hard to say the sources are being sexist. An accusation of sexism or misogyny is a serious thing and should be treated seriously, but sexism is not the same thing as "this bugs me" or "this makes me feel bad" or even "this offends me". Bogus accusations of sexism trivialize real sexism, and real sexism and misogyny does exist and on this wiki. I added the 'old moves' template not in the hope that a new RM would be proposed, a few months after a failed one, but in the hopes that people would review past arguments and let it drop as these discussions distract from important work. If, as I happen to believe, there is no sexism here, just unfounded accusations, then we're wasting lots of people's time - especially if this shall be a month-long weighty RfC on the matter. We have policies and guidance in place and we should just follow it, and following it means we disambiguate based on her job/source of notability first.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You did not respond to my point, which is, saying that someone is the wife or husband of x is not the same thing as it being the title of that individual's Wikipedia article. And I disagree, you don't "just follow policy" at the point when something is wrong, that is when you amend the policy. heather walls (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• First Lady? Too bad Canada does not use the term "First Lady" for the wife of the Prime Minister. Otherwise this article could be moved to Sarah Brown (First Lady) and thrive there. Right now, the First Lady of Canada title is redirected to List of Canadian monarchs#List of royal consorts of Canada, if you can believe it, instead of Spouse of the Prime Minister of Canada. Binksternet (talk) 01:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]