![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
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)
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)
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. -- B2 C 17:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
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. -- B2 C 18:44, 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)
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)
Semi-related to this, options based on my imaginary case of disambiguating Michelle Obama (White House):
Being married to Gordon Brown:
(part of proposal above by Timrollpickering)
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)
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)
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)
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)
[ moved to Talk:Sarah_Jane_Brown#if_Denis_Thatcher_was_ambiguous... ]
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)
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 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)? -- B2 C 07:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
quotes from last two move discussions |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
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" |
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)
I've just run some statistics to see what happened to page views after this page was moved.
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)
Reso,you're double counting here:
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. -- B2 C 23:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
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)
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)
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. -- B2 C 17:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
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. -- B2 C 18:44, 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)
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)
Semi-related to this, options based on my imaginary case of disambiguating Michelle Obama (White House):
Being married to Gordon Brown:
(part of proposal above by Timrollpickering)
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)
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)
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)
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)
[ moved to Talk:Sarah_Jane_Brown#if_Denis_Thatcher_was_ambiguous... ]
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)
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 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)? -- B2 C 07:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
quotes from last two move discussions |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
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" |
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)
I've just run some statistics to see what happened to page views after this page was moved.
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)
Reso,you're double counting here:
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. -- B2 C 23:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)