It's been going in for ten years. It has yet again erupted, with a multiple choice poll of no less than twenty different alternatives. All the Wikipedians seem sure of, by way of general majority agreement, is they hate the current title (it is a Wikipedia derived internal kludge, she doesn't go by this name), and they will not accept her being moved to plain "Sarah Brown (T-H-L)" because she's not the most famous Sarah Brown, which seems obvious.
But where to move it to? The previous formulations, which emphasised what is inarguably the main reason she is known to the wider world - her status as spouse/wife of a Prime Minister - were finally ousted in 2013, as part of a feminist awakening on Wikipedia. Hard to argue with the logic, even less so five years later. It has remained at the new and current kludge of a title ever since, despite multiple attempts to move it to better titles, or return it to wife/spouse.
All the other options on the table are predictably disputed if not outright hated, although there appears a small level of net support for "Sarah Brown (born 1963)", although I would have thought it would be just as offensive to have your age be used as your defining quality, as your status as a wife/spouse.
As an intuitive signpost to readers looking for the right Sarah Brown, her age (once you've done the maths) is seemingly pretty useless, its level of support only really understandable in the context of it being marginally less useless than a middle name she never uses. It is only 12 years away from another Sarah Brown, and not all the Sarah Browns Wikipedia knows of, have actually documented years of birth.
Wikipedia guidance seems to agree it is of limited use, only recommending using the year in scenarios like this.....
* David Baker (poker player, born 1972)
* David Baker (poker player, born 1986).
What seems to be really giving the Wikipedians a hard time, is the lack of a really obvious choice of a term to use to describe what Sarah does, so she can be titled in the more familiar format of "Sarah Brown (activity)". Hence the poll offers this ridiculous smörgåsbord....
* Sarah Brown (advocate)
* Sarah Brown (campaigner)
* Sarah Brown (charity campaigner)
* Sarah Brown (charity director)
* Sarah Brown (education campaigner)
* Sarah Brown (health and education advocate)
* Sarah Brown (health and education campaigner)
* Sarah Brown (businesswoman)
* Sarah Brown (public relations)
* Sarah Brown (activist)
Imagine the horror if she were simply a stay at home mom?
The way forward seems clear. Pick the option which best describes what she does, as reflected in the combination of how she refers to herself, and how reliable sources describe her. This is a perfectly valid approach under Wikipedia's policies surrounding respect for living persons and neutrality. The article introduction as it stands right now - "Sarah Brown, is a British campaigner" - suggests (campaigner) is the right option. The formulation of that wording must have been the product of much dispute, so why isn't it seen as compelling for the purposes of choosing a recognisable title?
The only possible source of confusion through using 'campaigner', is the fact that Sarah Brown (politician) (T-H-L) is also a campaigner. But this Sarah Brown is not, and likely never will be, a politician, so the potential confusion is already only one way. The fact this is only likely to confuse those coming from Google looking for the other campaigner, not those coming from Wikipedia's page listing all the Sarah Browns, seems a small enough price to pay (handled with two-way hatnotes) for letting more people intuitively find the right Sarah Brown, the only one the wider general public probably know as a campaigner, better than either "Sarah Jane Brown" or "Sarah Brown (born 1963)" will ever do.
Alas, as with most things, doing the obvious thing is always a struggle for the Wikipedians. Undoubtedly the vestigial presence of an over-representative number of anti-activists, troglodytes and other less capable thinkers in their editor ranks, is what is holding them back here.
Ominously, the Wikipedians have been thinking "outside the box".....
I'm loving the bit in bold (my emphasis). A very artful troll by one of the trogs, if meant that way. With this lot, you can never be sure.I think it may be time to think “outside the box”... has anyone thought to contact the subject, explain our dilemma and ask HER opinion? I know we don’t usually give much weight to what the subject wants (or rather we give more weight to other factors)... but in this case, I think it a viable “tie breaker”. Blueboar (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I wrote to Sarah, care of Gordon Brown, in June 2013. I received no response. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Nice to know I am not the only one to think of this. Might be worth another try ... just saying. Blueboar (talk) 12:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
If there is anyone out there who reads this forum looking for ideas as to how they can make a difference, this poll represents one of the very very few times you can do that. Go to the poll, vote for "Sarah Brown (campaigner)" on grounds it is the most intuitive title that doesn't shackle her to her husband, and register an oppose for all other options - the other occupation ones on grounds campaigner is the best fit, as a survey of sources would likely prove and the article introduction already suggests, and the other options for suitably tailored reasons, as given above. Don't be dumb and just vote without explaining your reasoning, since by policy you can and quite rightly should be ignored.
Yes, Wikipedians, this is canvassing. I don't care. Someone's got to be your brains and social conscience. And don't you dare bother this woman with your stupid shit again!