Talk:Sarah Jane Brown

Requested move 2 February 2018

Sarah Jane Brown → Sarah Brown (education campaigner) – Sarah Brown already has a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so we need to disambiguate. The current title remains problematic because her middle name is not used in reliable sources to refer to her, and it's misleading for us to use it. It is not WP:NATURALDIS ("an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources"). So, I'm proposing a parenthetic disambiguator, and "education campaigner" in particular because that is what reliable sources like the Evening Standard are using ("Sarah Brown, education campaigner and wife of former PM Gordon Brown")[1]. It's also consistent with how she is introduced in the article. I think this is a good compromise that resolves the unused middle name issue in the current title, reflects usage in reliable sources, and avoids the controversial "wife of" disambiguator proposed in the past. В²C ☎ 19:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support this mediocre option for lack of better ones. Reliable sources don't use her middle name: open this search in an incognito window - https://www.google.com/search?q=sarah+jane+brown - and notice that except for our article, they're all some other Sarah Jane Brown. She doesn't use her middle name: http://gordonandsarahbrown.com/sarah-brown/ is her official page, the word "Jane" is nowhere to be found. It does, however stress that she is "a passionate advocate for global education and health issues and her work brings together the worlds of business, philanthropy, social media and charity campaigning.." which is at least close to the proposed parenthetical. --GRuban (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

  Will also support (campaigner) over the current. A modest proposal to famous people everywhere: if you must change your last name to Smith, Jones, Brown, or Johnson, can you at least simultaneously change your first name to something more distinctive? If the subject were merely Proserpina Brown or Scharlette Brown we wouldn't be having these problems! --GRuban (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

  @GRuban:, where are you on Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) or Sarah Brown (born 1963) or Sarah Brown (spouse of Gordon Brown) vs. the current or formally proposed title? --В²C ☎ 18:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

  Can support (born 1963). Sure, she's not known for being born in 1963, but no one is, and it is a common disambiguator. Am torn on (wife/spouse of) for fear of getting my GGTF card revoked. :-) No, seriously, torn. Yes, this is how she is referred to, it's a rare source that doesn't follow the first mention of her name with "wife of former prime minister". However attaching it to her name like that is offensive; whether or not it is offensive to her, and whether or not we intend it to, it will certainly offend a non-negligible number of readers, who will see it as making her secondary to her spouse in the title of her own article. There's a lot to be said for not offending people unnecessarily. --GRuban (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support The current title is terrible - it isn't how she's referred to at all, it implies her first name is actually the double barrelled "Sarah Jane" and clearly isn't a natural disambiguation. This alternative is better. Timrollpickering 20:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Sarah Brown (born 1963) also works and solves the concerns raised below. Timrollpickering 18:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
• Propose more concise alternative: Sarah Brown (campaigner) per Radio Times and Mirror, etc. @Timrollpickering: @GRuban: no need for "education" to distinguish with any other campaigner (one hit for "Lib Dem trans campaigner" who was on en.wp so has WP:DABMENTION but is not generally known as campaigner it seems) and also Sarah Brown has been out and about campaigning about XYZ most recently "sexist representation of firefighters" together with the London Mayor - that isn't education. In general precision and longer dabs are a good thing per most of WP:CRITERIA but in this case Sarah Brown has a portfolio of campaigns she's been involved in since being the first spouse and if Radio Times and Mirror don't say "education campaigner" not sure why we need to. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Good call. Campaigner is not only more concise and supported by the reliable sources you cite, but she self-identifies as a campaigner in her Twitter profile[2]. --В²C ☎ 21:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

On a point of information: the "first spouse" is the Duke of Edinburgh. Opera hat (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not particularly known for “education campaigning”, and without “education” is ambiguous[3]. Current is not terrible. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Ambiguous with what? Is there another Sarah Brown that is a campaigner? --В²C ☎ 21:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC) strikeout as SmokeyJoe's link shows the other Sarah Brown who is also a campaigner --В²C ☎ 21:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: can I suggest that you (like I did) blank out for a second the feeling of extreme fatigue from seeing a usual suspect riding one of his favourite bicycles. It was me not B2C that noted the Cambridge local councilor, but she lost her local seat in 2014 and hasn't been heard of since wheras Sarah Brown was on the Comic Relief Great British Bake-Off, which in terms of UK notability is something equivalent to simultaneously starring in "Game of Thrones" and "The Walking Dead" in the USA. That now puts Sarah several notches above Gordon in visibility. And "Sarah Jane Brown is" refers not to Sarah Brown (campaigner) but to the Welsh painter, who while not being known much outside Pembrokeshire, is still more known as "Sarah Jane Brown" than Gordon's wife is. So let's just do it. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

It’s regrettable that yet again the process is locked into one persons random idea. There are many possibilities, many with past support. “Campaigner” is underwhelming. Every ambitious failure can be called a “campaigner”. Other descriptors, “business”, “executive”, why are they not in the running. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I was considering doing a poll like that, then I Googled her to start building a list and came upon a source referring to her as an education campaigner. Then I reviewed the intro, found it supported it too, and decided to give it a shot instead of a list of mediocre choices from which editors would have to prioritize choices based on some complex !voting scheme. What could possibly go wrong? The bottom line is that this Sarah Brown is not known as Sarah Jane Brown, is known as an education campaigner, and no other Sarah Brown is. It's a compromise. I'm not excited about it, except to the extent that it allows a reasonable way to stop referring to her in a manner that nobody else does. --В²C ☎ 22:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Not excited, mediocre, and underwhelming we seem to all agree. You’ve decided that all other choices previously promoted in the archives are mediocre, and so we should all focus on one new mediocre option? Multi-choice polling, as I’d suggest like I did here is too complicated? I think scoring everybody’s serious suggestion leads to productive discussion, and all participants, including latecomers, can follow the discussion easily. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm with you, but I don't think the community is. These kinds of polls are not used much at all. Frankly I see the choices in three categories: Best but rejected repeatedly (wife of...), Unacceptable (SJB), and Mediocre (take your pick, including my proposed title). Deciding which of the mediocre titles is best, at the high risk of finding no consensus and retaining the current unacceptable title for another year, is much less palatable to me than this approach, which I think has a good chance of finally replacing the unacceptable with a mediocre. --В²C ☎ 23:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I don’t think she is primarily known as an education campaigner. She’ll be introduced that way when campaigning on education, because ... the newspapers don’t know how to introduce her either. I still like better Sarah_Brown_(née_Macaulay), with a historical formality recalling her previous then notable name, being sufficient to overcome the WP:natural preference for the current. I don’t disagree with Guy’s strong support for a natural title over any old parenthetical disambiguation. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but the problem is that she's not primarily known for anything other than being Gordon Brown's wife, a disambiguator that has been rejected repeatedly by the community. So we have to disambiguate with something that she is not primarily known for, which, by the way, includes her maiden name. In any case, not being primarily known for something is not a reasonable reason to reject a proposal in this case, since she's not primarily known for any of the viable disambiguation options. That's why they're all mediocre. --В²C ☎ 00:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I’m rejecting because it is not good enough to overcome the current, not incorrect, natural, albeit non-COMMONNAME SJB. It might be a tie, but per TITLECHANGES we don’t change without appreciable improvement. Campaigner is just too bland, and “education” doesn’t click, it’s just one of many things she gets involved with. I would be more tempted by other qualifiers, such as “business executive”, reflecting her day job, or even “social issues advocate”. She has a lot of breadth, less depth in any one thing, I still prefer disambiguating by maiden name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 01:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

While the current title is arguably natural, it's not WP:NATURAL, and that's what's relevant. And this isn't wiki lawyering. There is an important difference, and it's for the user. While an inaccurate middle name would undoubtedly be even worse, the fact that she is not known by this name, and apparently never goes by it, is very problematic. When someone searches for her on the web, they are likely to see her WP entry at the top of the list of results. Seeing Sarah Jane Brown is inaccurate. It's not inaccurate with respect to her middle name, it's inaccurate with respect to suggesting this is her recognized name. We are misinforming everyone about this. The proposed title is not misinformative in this respect. Yes, she is not only an education campaigner, but anyone looking her up will know that. But that she nor anyone but WP uses that middle name for her... that, they are unlikely to know or easily discern. Let me put it this way: If reporters started referring to her as an education campaigner, that would not be a problem; they already do that. But if our entry causes them to start referring to her as SJB, that is a problem. That's why we're supposed to reflect the real word, so we don't affect it. It's incumbent that we don't misinform, don't you agree? And, again, we're not currently misinforming about her middle name; we're misinforming that that is her name as she and others refer to her. That's just plain wrong. The proposed title is not plain wrong in any respect. And one more thing, the disambiguator is not intended to be comprehensive. If John Doe is an actor and singer, we can use either actor or singer in the disambiguator, as long is it distinguishes him from other John Does. Likewise, education campaigner adequately disambiguates her from other Sarah Browns. We're good. --В²C ☎ 02:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

No, B2C, we're not good. Swapping one mediocre title for another equally mediocre title is pointless. And as SmokeyJoe notes, it's contrary to WP:TITLECHANGES. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

We agree that "swapping one mediocre title for another equally mediocre title is pointless" (and contrary to WP:TITLECHANGES). We disagree that this is that kind of a swap. The current title is worse than mediocre; it is misleading because it inaccurately implies this subject is commonly known as "Sarah Jane Brown". The proposed title is not misleading; it is merely mediocre. --В²C ☎ 17:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• Rename to Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown), because that's how she is best known. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • That's actually my preference for that exact simple reason but efforts to title this article accordingly in the past have failed, repeatedly, and I have no reason to believe it would succeed now. In the mean time, any reasonable parenthetic disambiguation is an improvement on the current unreasonable unnatural disambiguation, so your support would be appreciated. --В²C ☎ 22:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • A spanner in the works. That suggestion is one of a few strongly rejected in the archives. The nominator should have made more mention of the well trampled options of past RMs. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Well, I did point out that the proposed title "avoids the controversial 'wife of' disambiguator proposed in the past." I was trying to avoid making the proposal too long and unwieldy as well. --В²C ☎ 00:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
      • I oppose Sarah Brown (education campaigner) because it is not how she is publicly known. We may not like the fact that she is best known as Gordon's wife, but that's how it is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
        • There is no requirement for parenthetic disambiguation to reflect how the given topic "is publicly known". But the title should not be misleading, which the current title is. --В²C ☎ 17:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. The proposed qualifier is not incorrect which, taking into account the difficulty of arriving at consensus here, is the best that can be hoped. I would certainly support the long-proposed Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) or almost any other qualifier so that we could finally find an alternative to the non-WP:COMMONNAME Sarah Jane Brown. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 01:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
• oppose. She is not primarily known as an education campaigner: most people coming across that title would think it refers to some other Sarah Brown.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@JohnBlackburne: @BrownHairedGirl: so Radio Times is wrong? Seriously in this situation We have someone who is known as

A most common: Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) per non-PC sources, Sun, Daily Mail, Telegraph

B second most common Sarah Brown (campaigner) per Radio Times, Mirror, Guardian, BBC, London Metro, London Evening Standard..

C never known by anyone as "Sarah Jane Brown" who is a seascape painter in Pembrokeshire in UK sources.

The fact that we cannot have A because of gender sensitivities because Calpurnia (wife of Caesar) is politically unacceptable today is not a reason for having the article under C by which name she is unrecognizable. The only "Sarah Jane Brown" in UK sources is a painter. To have this BLP perennially at the painter's name by which she is never known is what? What is the adjective to describe that? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I only commented on the original proposal as that’s the only way to come to a decision. If everyone makes their own proposal then we end up with no consensus at all and no move.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@JohnBlackburne: right but in this case the nom has already dropped "education" and preferred (campaigner). In ictu oculi (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• ....There's something else here. When this nonsense started it was nonsense frankly, Gordon Brown was Prime Minister and all UK sources were referring to Sarah Brown as (wife of Gordon Brown) (wife of the Prime Minister) and holy Wikipedia editors were being WP:DICKs about it. But Gordon Brown all but vanished from UK media after the election defeat in 2010. By 2017 Sarah Brown is now arguably more visible in popular media than he is. In the new bright holy #MeToo era to object to calling her "wife of" when (campaigner) is available is not as creepy as it was five years ago. Right now it is keeping the title at the painter's name which looks more disruptive. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
• Evidence of usage. I just went through the article collecting news reports post-2010, discarding primary sources and reports which don't name her. What I found in the first 50 refs contradicts the assertions about usage made above by @In ictu oculi:

1. BBC, 2015: A new £1.5m study aimed at improving care for premature babies is being launched by Sarah Brown, wife of former prime minister Gordon Brown.
2. Scotsman, 2015: A £1.5 million study aimed at improving care for premature babies has been launched by Sarah Brown, wife of former prime minister Gordon Brown.
3. Belfast Telegraph, 2015: A £1.5 million study aimed at improving care for premature babies has been launched by Sarah Brown, wife of former prime minister Gordon Brown.
4. Daily Mail, 2015: A £1.5 million study aimed at improving care for premature babies has been launched by Sarah Brown, wife of former prime minister Gordon Brown.
5. Daily Mail, 2015: In his days as Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown roamed the halls of parliament with a stony expression and a sharp tongue. But becoming a husband to Sarah Brown, 51
6. Mirror, 2015: On the same trip is Gordon Brown, former Prime Minister and now the United Nations Special Envoy for Global Education. His wife Sarah

In that sample, she is 100% known as GB's wife. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Yes we know that, that's how the article should be titled in the real world, but that's not acceptable to the anti-wife police on en.wikipedia. So we have to go with something in brackets. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: I am unwilling to disengage from reality. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Here's the rest of the list

1. Independent,2012: 2=. Sarah Brown, Campaigner. The modest queen of tweeting has had to give up the crown she won in the inaugural Twitter 100 last year. But Sarah Brown's pre-eminence remains remarkable: her transformation from Prime Minister's wife to formidable campaigner
2. Forbes, 2011 In a wide-ranging interview with Sarah Brown, international advocate for global maternal and newborn health,
3. Daily Record, 2015 Sarah Brown joins host of stars for The Great British Comic Relief Bake Off to keep her sons sweet. THE mum-of-two is one of 16 famous faces
4. BBC 2015 [www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-31103953 former Prime Minister Gordon Brown's wife Sarah. ]
5. Telegraph, 2015: Sarah Brown. Wife of the former prime minister says her sons “adore the programme”
6. Guardian, 2015: Gordon Brown’s wife, Sarah
7. Fortune.com, 2014: Twitter handle: @SarahBrownUK Followers (as of May 28): 1.21M The socially savvy former first lady—she’s married to Gordon Brown, U.K. prime minister

the remaining 4 refs([4], [5], [6], [7]) are all about her memoir of life in No.10, so inevitably describe her as wife. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Well maybe -Sarah Brown (unmentionable) would be the solution. Interestingly none of the anti-wife police has actually turned up to this RM yet so maybe if B2C quickly pulled it and resubmitted the original title we might get away with following sources? In fact I think b2C should pull this RM anyway. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree this nom should be withdrawn. I have never seen B2C pull a nom before, but I live in hope.

I like the idea of Sarah Brown (unmentionable). It's where this has got to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. Perhaps a review of the past might offer a perspective for the present:
• 10:46, 10 May 2007‎ Philip Stevens (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,200 bytes) (+5,200)‎ . . (←Created page with 'Sarah Macaulay (born October 1963) is the wife of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and possible future [[Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom|Prime Mi...')
• 13:12, 30 June 2007‎ Timrollpickering (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (5,495 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Sarah Macaulay to Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's wife): Subject does not use her maiden name; discussion on talkpage has so far agreed torwards married name but disambiguator is debated; being bold and getting a step towards this.)
• 19:46, 13 January 2008‎ Therequiembellishere (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (6,558 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's wife) to Sarah Brown (spouse): No one has responded and this is certainly a better name.)
• 03:48, 15 February 2010‎ Ucucha (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (10,163 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Sarah Brown (spouse) to Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown): requested move, see talk)
• 09:33, 31 March 2010‎ Wikidea (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (10,348 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) to Sarah Brown (public relations): See talk.)
• 14:30, 31 March 2010‎ Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (10,348 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Sarah Brown (public relations) to Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown).: move back as per concensus in talk page)
• 21:12, 31 March 2010‎ Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (10,348 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown). to Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown): oops)
• 21:53, 26 March 2013‎ Pigsonthewing (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (14,654 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Pigsonthewing moved page Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) to Sarah Brown (businesswoman): better)
• 22:14, 26 March 2013‎ Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (14,654 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Anthony Appleyard moved page Sarah Brown (businesswoman) to Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) over redirect: asked in my suer talk page)
• 14:24, 27 March 2013‎ Pigsonthewing (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (14,947 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Pigsonthewing moved page Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) to Sarah Jane Brown: avoid sexist disambiguation)
• 14:26, 27 March 2013‎ Timrollpickering (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (14,947 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Timrollpickering moved page Sarah Jane Brown to Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) over redirect: Revert unilateral contentious move, leave it to the RM)
• 06:00, 9 April 2013‎ Tom Morris (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (14,724 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Tom Morris moved page Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) to Sarah Jane Brown over redirect)
• 13:27, 9 April 2013‎ Timrollpickering (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (14,724 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Timrollpickering moved page Sarah Jane Brown to Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) over redirect: RM was unclosed, status quo ante)
• 13:56, 22 June 2013‎ Tariqabjotu (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (16,325 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Tariqabjotu moved page Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) to Sarah Jane Brown over redirect: per move request)
• 03:11, 23 June 2013‎ Tariqabjotu (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (16,312 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Tariqabjotu moved page Sarah Jane Brown to Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) over redirect: have much better things to do)
• 05:52, 23 June 2013‎ Tariqabjotu (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (16,292 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Tariqabjotu moved page Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) to Sarah Jane Brown over redirect: per move request)
• 00:55, 20 May 2015‎ Kraxler (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (35,001 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Kraxler moved page Sarah Jane Brown to Sarah Brown (born 1963): neutral article title, see discussion at the bottom of the lalk page before thinking about reverting)
• 00:58, 20 May 2015‎ Tarc (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (35,001 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Tarc moved page Sarah Brown (born 1963) to Sarah Jane Brown over redirect)
• Ultimately, the deciding factor was this lengthy and contentious discussion from June 2013 which resulted in the move to "Sarah Jane Brown", followed by an equally lengthy and contentious move review which failed to overturn the close. There was obviously no consensus, but whether the lack of consensus was sufficient for the main header to remain at "Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)", also fell and still falls under no consensus.
• A long list of suggested qualifiers was offered at Archive 4 and here at Archive 5 and here at Archive 7.
• The one form that is always mentioned but has never been put to a vote is Sarah Brown (born 1963), with the "pro" being "A simple and non-controversially true disambiguator" and the "con" being nothing worse than "Rather dry". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Sarah Brown (born 1963) would also be better than current. But again where are the anti-wife police? they were extremely vocal a couple of years ago, yet they haven't turned up this time. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not an issue with this nomination, but would become one if someone put forth another Sarah Jane Brown → Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) submission. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, among those participating, at least so far, there does appear to be a consensus for "wife of". Perhaps the best solution is to revert back to that title, at least for now, based on this consensus, and thus force yet another RM to engage the anti-wife police to help find a true consensus title. --В²C ☎ 17:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose the proposed move as she is most notable as the wife of a former Prime Minister. If "wife of Gordon Brown" or similar is considered unacceptable, I would support "born 1963". WP:NCPDAB does say "when there is no dominant qualifier (at least no practical one), the descriptor may be omitted in favour of a single use of the date of birth"; though this guideline relates to historical figures I don't see why it couldn't be used for living people. Opera hat (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as avoiding the reality of the situation. Move to Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) or Sarah Brown (born 1963) or Sarah Brown (spouse of Gordon Brown). I personally see nothing wrong with being known primarily as someone's spouse. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: Alternatives Support As proposer, I just want to note that I too approve of Move to Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) or Sarah Brown (spouse of Gordon Brown) over the current title, and even more than the title I proposed. I just didn't think they could gain consensus support based on past discussions. I'm neutral regarding the proposed title or Sarah Brown (born 1963) (she doesn't appear to be known to be born in 1963 any more than she's known to be an education campaigner); but either is better than the current title. --В²C ☎ 17:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support move to Sarah Brown (born 1963), basically all the options here aren't great- I wouldn't say she's particularly well known as a campaigner (although I am open to such a move in the future if she becomes more well known in that role), but the current title isn't how she's known either, and morally I don't think labelling her as "Gordon Brown's wife", however accurate, is appropriate. So that leaves us with Sarah Brown (born 1963). jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Making it clearer looking at the below discussion that I oppose any "wife of" name constructions. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose any “wife/spouse of” construction. She is independentlY notable. i agree that both Sarah Brown (born 1963) and the better Sarah Brown (née Macaulay) are better than the current. As noted in previous RMs and the preceding moratorium discussion, a fair discussion of the multiple alternatives is needed, but B2C has burst in with something both random and unworthy and messed the whole thing. He started a discussion that is highly susceptible to problems of clones and irrelevant alternatives. It needs to be closed, and restarted with, I suggest, an independent scoring of all serious alternatives. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Then I suggest you close it. But note, so far you are the only anti-wife editor. I personally think your "She is independently notable" comment deserves a WP:TROUT, but this would be better closed and a simple vote taken. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I have opined, here and I think in every previous RM, I cannot close it. Only anti-wife? It seemed odd that the anti “wife” positions so strong in the past should be silent, but I thinking t an be attributed to the “wife of” option not being formally listed upfront, and consequently not being a possible valid outcome of this discussion. I think a fair close has to consider the results of every previous RM discussion. TROUT? Can you explain? The other “wife of” articles mentioned, Shakespeare, Caesar, they are spinout articles, not independent notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 12:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

A Trout because you're taking a moral stance against the British press for mentioning the unmentionable dark secret of Sarah Brown (her sshhh.. husband) and a second trout for thinking that those Roman women were somehow a different species from modern political spouses. This article title is f-ed up and f-ed about not because we all don't know that she's best known as wife of a PM, but because it is somehow morally wrong to admit it. Despite the UK newspapers not having bricks thrown through their windows and death threats for doing just that. Wikipedia isn't the place to socially reengineer reality. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Exactly: Wikipedia isn't the place to socially reengineer reality. --В²C ☎ 17:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that’s nonsense. Press commentary style is at the low end of quality sourcing and should be almost ignored. For the historical wives, their source-based notability is clearly derived from their husband. Also nonsense is the argument that the current title is misleading. Wikipedia editors’ affection for COMMONNAME titling decisions does not mean that titles assert that the title is a COMMONNAME. Her middle name is Jane, the current title is correct, and is more correct than B2C’s proposed title. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• NOTE: This is SmokeyJoe's second Oppose !vote in this discussion. --В²C ☎ 17:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Note that it is an “Oppose” to a second independent counter proposal appearing from others mid-discussion. Every independent proposal needs and independent response from each participant. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Propose new refinement: Sarah Brown (charity campaigner). This is broader than "education campaigner", encompassing the variety of all her other charity work, and it is less ambiguous/obscure than just "campaigner". Her official website describes her as engaged in "charity campaigning" in bold letters, and the term seems to have some recent currency in the UK, even being applied (in retrospect) by the BBC to to H. G. Wells.--Pharos (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• No. Yet again, a proposal to move this article to a new one that is not recognizable to anyone. Just call her Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) because that's what she's best known for. I closed the last move on this subject, and I suggested that a new RM should be started for "wife of Gordon Brown" but it still hasn't happened. Well maybe it should. All this taking offence is just OR really, because most reliable sources are perfectly happy to describe her as the wife of Gordon. If we were America, she'd be called the First Lady (which in itself simply means the wife of the president), but we do'nt have any such title so saying she's his wife will do just fine. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)