Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 116

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 110 ← Archive 114 Archive 115 Archive 116 Archive 117 Archive 118 → Archive 120

Image help?

I started an English-language article on Estonian writer Marta Lepp (1883-1940), and there are a bunch of decent portraits of her here, but I'm not feeling able to figure out the license situation with Estonian images. Anyone want to take a look? Penny Richards (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Estonia seems to be life+70, or publication date +70 ("after the work is lawfully made available to the public" date) for anonymous works [1]. There's insufficient info on the source website about the publication dates and photographers of these photos, so whilst some may be public domain, we lack evidence. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for checking! Penny Richards (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Looking around further, found one of the young images of her in a 1936 publication--which meets the +70 date. Penny Richards (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
She died in 1940, ie 72 years ago, any image of her is now in the public domain. @Moonriddengirl: is always the right person to confirm but I'm sure you're good to use the higher quality images with attribution. Hopefully you can get that confirmed. I would suggest you contact Moonriddengirl for advice. WCMemail 16:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
C'mon, it doesn't work that way at all. Whether the subject is alive or dead doesn't affect copyright in the slightest, it's the holder of the rights, usually initially the photographer. Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Her death has nothing to do with it, except in the case of fair use. Copyright lies with and depends on when the photographer died. The problem with the 1936 image Penny Richards is that it went out of copyright in 2006, thus after the URAA date in the US, which means that free status in the US won't occur for 95 years from publication, i.e. in 2031. You can load any of the images as fair use on en.wp only, but not to commons, as it must be freely distributable in the country of origin and the US. SusunW (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware of that and I can see how you read my comment to mean that. That wasn't the intention, thanks for the admonishment, made my day. As I said ask Moonriddengirl for expert advice. WCMemail 16:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
There is no element at all of your post which suggests anything other than incorrect unfounded advice. "She died in 1940, ie 72 years ago, any image of her is now in the public domain". "I'm sure you're good to use the higher quality images with attribution".
"I can see how you read my comment to mean that". Indeed. There is no other way to read it. When in a hole, &c. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I should clarify the timeline: Best I can tell, the image I used was taken in about 1901 (when Lepp was 18), published in 1905 in a newspaper (when she was an active revolutionary and arrested), and republished in 1936 in a book that's now on IA. So the +70 would apply to the 1905 publication date. (If there's a challenge, I can still upload it to enwiki as fair use.) Penny Richards (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

RinRin Doll, fashion model and blogger

Is anyone here fluent in Japanese? I created a draft for RinRin Doll a while ago and can’t seem to find too many good sources about her. Thriley (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Notability of red listed women

Background information: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesca Wilfredy (2nd nomination)

Deeper background information: WP:COIN#Autopatrolled abuse by Fritzmann2002

Background analysis: someone created an article from a Women in Red redlist, someone identified the subject as not meeting notability criteria and accused the editor of having a conflict of interest.

I can imagine the chain of events. Even today I am making a list of women and it would be extra ordinarily time consuming to verify them all for notability. So I think the situation is not everyone on the red lists is notable, but newer editors might not know that.

So maybe there is guidance somewhere telling editors they must ascertain notability themselves. Maybe that is assumed. Or maybe the project should make that clearer. I don't know, but I wanted to flag it here, as I was asked to do at the AfD. CT55555 (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@CT55555, every WIR red link list has a header notice at the top advising: “This list of red links is intended to serve as a basis for creating new articles on the English Wikipedia. All new articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria; red links on this list may or may not qualify”, with notability policy linked. Unfortunately this goes overlooked from time to time. If you have ideas for how to make the template more impactful, improvements certainly are welcome! Innisfree987 (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I feel like the project's diligence on this is good. The "assume good faith" note on the talk pages can help. But when it's moved inside a banner shell, it's missed. My only suggestion (out of the box idea, pardon the pun) is if there is a way to have the WiR project tag occur outside banner shells? I dunno. I don't think we need to find a solution in response to every small road-bump, but throwing it out there anyway. CT55555 (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I hope it is not out of order that I added another link (deeper background) at the top of this thread. Feel free to revert if it is inappropriate. Cheers, SVTCobra 20:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

It's helpful context. I support the edit. CT55555 (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@CT55555 I'm sorry this happened to the article creator. Unfortunately we can't always determine notability before an article is written. Many times I've been gratified to see WiR editors create articles about redlinks that I failed to find adequate sources for. That is one reason I don't feel like we can have one editor determine that a redlink is not notable and remove it from a list, because another editor might come to a very different conclusion, and back it up with sources. Gamaliel (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I do agree. CT55555 (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Physics expert needed

I am very much in need of help from someone who is an expert in physics. I tried Mike Peel, who suggested I contact Femke, but both are currently engaged in other things. Anybody available who can review the physics part of an article for me? SusunW (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe User:XOR'easter would be interested? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you David Eppstein. I am seriously in need of help. Not at all in my wheelhouse. SusunW (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
My in-house physicist is at work right now, but if you still need help when he's here, he'd probably be glad to have a look. (He's not a Wikipedia editor, but I run science by him all the time for Wikipedia purposes.) Penny Richards (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I could take a look Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks to you all. I truly appreciate the offers of help. XOR'easter has agreed to look at the article, but I may ask one of y'all to help in a peer review after it goes through the GA process. SusunW (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Which article are you referring to? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC).

Category BBC 100 Women has been nominated for deletion

Some of you may be interested in this post on my talkpage, User talk:Rosiestep#Category:BBC 100 Women has been nominated for deletion as, for years, WiR members have worked on creating biographies for the awardees. -- Rosiestep (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Colony of Jamaica flag icon

I just added Emily Rose Bleby to the outcomes section of #234. I included the Jamaican flag icon, but it should be the Colony of Jamaica flag icon, which I didn't know how to add. In the grand scheme of things, this is trivial, but if someone is interested in fixing this and knows how to do so... thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Fun with Flags. That'd be me. Each country has a Template:Country data Jamaica type thing, listing its flags. Flag variants can be specified with an additional piped parameter: {{flagicon|Jamaica|1875}}. I've done this on /234. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Tagishsimon! --Rosiestep (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I need help in sourcing bio of award winning bibliographer and journal founding editor Nelly Sfeir Gonzalez

Would anyone volunteer to assist with this project? It would be especially gratifying for anyone with an interest in Latin American literature… Xavier Serif (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Margaret Mitchell, CEO of YWCA USA

Help requested to grow a new article. Remarkably, Draft:Margaret Mitchell (chief executive) the CEO of YWCA USA had no entry. - Fuzheado | Talk 20:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Article now exists in main space - Margaret Mitchell (chief executive). - Fuzheado | Talk 01:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Gendered citation bias and the 'Wednesday Index'

The Twitter user OpenSexism maintains a 'Wednesday Index', with weekly updates reporting the gender of cited authors on 26 prominent en-wikipedia pages. (This Index uses the tool to list a page's links by gender by PAC2.) The statistics are miserable: on 10 November 2021, of 2957 bluelinked humans (for many topics mostly cited authors), 2814 (95.2%) were male, 138 (4.7%) were female, and 5 (0.2%) were non-binary. Looking at the pages on this Index, I've done some linking, generated some redlinks and started some more general reflection on the problems I encountered. I'd love to hear thoughts here or at User:Dsp13/Gendered citation bias :) Dsp13 (talk) 09:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC) [later edited for clarity]

Sorry, I couldn't figure out how you were using this tool to count cited authors. https://observablehq.com/@pac02/explore-gender-diversity-in-a-single-wikipedia-article seems to count gender of blue links mentioned in an article? --GRuban (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes - the blue links will be a mix of humans mentioned in the article text itself, and authors linked in citations / reading lists. I believe (though haven't independently checked the calculations) the 'Wednesday Index' uses this tool, aggregating its query results over 26 WP pages. (Building that aggregation into the query itself causes a timeout, so I expect it has a script to run 26 queries.) To find authors mentioned but not linked - potential 'women in red' - I didn't use the tool at all, but manually checked authors mentioned in citations for each page. Dsp13 (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I like the list of redlinked authors to turn blue, that's very useful. The numerical comparison, however, is lacking without a numerical goal. Yes, 4.7% female seems low. But what should it be, even approximately? We're trying to use "the best sources", which, for big, ancient topics like these, "Science", "Philosophy", "Life", etc. are often going to be ancients: Socrates, Confucius, Galileo, Newton... and those ancients are going to be overwhelmingly male. So what are we shooting for here? How will we know we've gotten there? Sure, we probably aren't there ... but are we 10% of the way there (should it be 50%) or halfway there (should it be 10%)? There's a great deal to be said for measurable goals. --GRuban (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
If you go on topics "from 'Reality' to 'Universe', 'Science' to 'Justice'", that's hardly surprising you get numbers like that. Encyclopedic articles will take the long/historical overview approach, and the vast majority of the pioneering related to these topics was done back when women were rather held back from contributing to those areas. Science, Law, Physics, etc... were all extremely male dominated prior to 1950 and it's only very recently that some level of parity was achieved, and those aren't aren't reflected in that selection of articles. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Instead of an random/arbitrary selections of articles, it could be interesting to look at the patterns that emerge at WP:VITAL level 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 vs a large set of truly random articles. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Both of you are absolutely right about the importance of conditioning by date. For some reason I hadn't registered the relevance of that in this context. Subcategorizing by whether or not the person has a death date in Wikidata shows a huge difference: of live humans linked, 20.8% are women; while of dead humans linked, 3.5% are women (and that includes Ayn Rand repeatedly popping up, to my mind an exception suggesting that early WP material has survived a surprisingly long time). Nice idea about measuring this data systematically for WP:VITAL pages at different levels: I might have a go at coding that. I also agree it's hard to know the 'correct' value. But some pages seem to be missing discussion of gendered aspects of the topic which I expected (e.g. Peace, Theatre, Adult, Human body, Justice), while others seem to have a lack of balance in sources (e.g. Political history of the world, where one book is repeatedly relied on.) Dsp13 (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Whatever the goal, it's good to see that the number of women has risen from around 138 on 10 November 2021 to 186 today. It will be interesting to see whether this continues. At least the exercise is pointing to the lack of interest in women until quite recently. It might well have a useful impact on what we are trying to achieve through Women in Red.--Ipigott (talk) 13:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
To be clear, that increase isn't a gradual secular rise - but basically a burst of activity by me this last week on those particular pages, adding 44 links for women who were mentioned as authors but not linked. (Where there were multiple authors in the same reference as a woman I was linking, I linked them whether male or female. But I didn't look to see if male authors in other references had WP pages and should be linked. That is, I was completing linking for female authors but fairly much leaving linking for male authors in whatever state of incompletion it was already in. So someone who wanted to put in that effort could, by adding links, drive the percentages down again.) Dsp13 (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Dsp13 for your initiative. It's great to try to improve gender representation in general Wikipedia articles. PAC2 (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Headbomb: you're right. It would be interesting to do the same query but adding a filter on birth date. I'll try to develop a new tool with this feature. PAC2 (talk) 06:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Also by geography. There's lots of angle to this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Here is a new tool https://observablehq.com/@pac02/gender-diversity-inspector?collection=@pac02/wikipedia-tools. You can now filter on birthdate and select people born after a given year.

If you want to look at geography, have a look at this one https://observablehq.com/@pac02/articles-wikilinks-inspector?collection=@pac02/wikipedia-tools or this one https://observablehq.com/@pac02/citizenship-diversity-in-a-wikipedia-article?collection=@pac02/wikipedia-tools. PAC2 (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Help needed with a Wikidata redlist

In August, we are focusing on comedians and related performers. While the Wikidata category "comedian (Q245068)" is a subcategory of "actor", it seems to me it would be useful to have an additional redlist specifically on "comdedians" as we certainly need to improve our coverage. Maybe Tagishsimon, Gamaliel or Maddy from Celeste could help with this?--Ipigott (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Internal linking concerns

Off topic for WiR - copied to Tevincameroncarter's talk page
A user @Tevincameroncarter lately seem to have updated article Female promiscuity there after went on to add internal links to words as follows
  • ".. [[Feminism|Feminists]] usually defend an individual's right of self determination over their bodies for [[Female promiscuity|sexual]], marriage and [[Reproductive rights|reproductive choices]] as rights. .."in the article My body, my choice. dif 1
  • ".. She says that one feminist stream criticizes the sexual constraints and difficulties faced by [[Female promiscuity|sexually active women]] .."(e.g., access to abortion), while another stream views sexual liberalization as an extension "male privilege".<ref name="Rubin_1984" /> in the article Sex-positive feminism. dif 2
  • Such changes may be inadvertent on part of concerned users, still IMHO deserve a collective discussion so community can keep better track, hence I wish to open up the issue @ this forum.
  • a) Article Promiscuity says ".. The term can carry a moral judgment if the social ideal for sexual activity is monogamous relationships .."
  • b) WP has article on Female sexuality, I suppose over all female promiscuity is part of Female sexuality but it is not that in every scenario female sexuality demand right to promiscuity beyond long term relationships. When a married woman refers to My body, my choice she may be just talking against domestic violence and avoidance of marital rape and not necessarily for promiscuity.
  • c) Then usage of WP:VOICE without referring to WP:RS too is a concern.

I suppose other users can help in putting up the issue more succinctly.

Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Thank you, Bookku, for bringing this to our attention. I share your concerns in regard to the links but I also note that Tevincameroncarter, a completely new editor, has increased the text of Female promiscuity by at least 25%. At first glance, some of the changes and additions appear reasonable while others may not be justified. It would be useful if editors familiar with the subject take a closer look at the changes. I also note that at the very least some copy editing is required.--Ipigott (talk) 06:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Tevincameroncarter: "A user @Tevincameroncarter lately seem to have updated article Female promiscuity there after went on to add internal links to words as follows

Feminists usually defend an individual's right of self determination over their bodies for sexual, marriage and reproductive choices as rights. in the article My body, my choice. dif 1 She says that one feminist stream criticizes the sexual constraints and difficulties faced by sexually active women (e.g., access to abortion), while another stream views sexual liberalization as an extension "male privilege".[1] in the article Sex-positive feminism. dif 2 Such changes may be inadvertent on part of concerned users, still IMHO deserve a collective discussion so community can keep better track, hence I wish to open up the issue @ this forum. a) Article says Promiscuity ".. The term can carry a moral judgment if the social ideal for sexual activity is monogamous relationships .." b) WP has article on Female sexuality, I suppose over all female promiscuity is part of Female sexuality but it is not that in every scenario female sexuality demand right to promiscuity beyond long term relationships. When a married woman refers to My body, my choice she may be just talking against domestic violence and avoidance of marital rape and not necessarily for promiscuity. c) Then usage of WP:VOICE without referring to WP:RS too is a concern. I suppose other users can help in putting up the issue more succinctly. Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I am new to using this platform so the lack of a U.I. troubles me. I made these edits as needed to further proliferate wikipedia with the concepts around female sexuality and henceforth promiscuity as a natural topic of interest to males when discussing female sexuality. The first star refers to the topic that is relative to feminism, sexism, women, marriage, reproductive rights, self determination, reproductive choices and My body, my choice with obvious relevance. The second star is correct and the two contrasting views in feminist thought with respect to my article will be updated on July 26 2022. The third star references the concept of female sexuality and after acknowledging contrasting views in my edits to female promiscuity I will edit the respective links of which I edited in the articles I linked into 'female sexual promiscuity' to neutral language to adhere to your concerns. With respect to a) I will note monogamy and indifference to promiscuity, b) it is true female sexuality is related to female promiscuity with respect to the woman but patriarchy sadly infers female asexuality so emphasis on female promiscuity with respect to modern women and the traditional narrative will be noted. The last letter of interest is c), I do note that opinions of particular ideologies or progressive cultures should be parallel with the opposing opinion though this infers the use of statistics and academic journals which I will supplement by edits with and update my respective sources. I know other users should be more adept at explaining the exactness of this claims though note my edits come in earnest altruism to contribute to wikipedia and not out of spite." - I will re-edit as follows and I invite any and all editing to assist in conveying my message. I shall now boil tea and get to it lads.

Thank you for addressing this Bookku. First and foremost "promiscuity as a natural topic of interest to males when discussing female sexuality" is an incredibly objectifying statement and absolutely reeks of POV, having no place in an encyclopedia. Linking women's sexuality to promiscuity, i.e. [[Female promiscuity|sexual]] implies that identity, behavior and all other aspects of women's sexuality equal promiscuity. I am 99% sure there are no sources that make this claim and if such a thing exists, it should be spelled out identifying exactly whose opinion it is and refuted with opposing arguments. Equating sexually active women to promiscuous women is questionable and one would need very strong RS to make that claim. Promiscuity carries with it body and behavioral shaming elements,[2],[3],[4] which have nothing to do normal sexual activity. Each of these edits should be reverted and fully discussed at the talk page Tevincameroncarter, as an encyclopedia especially in the case of highly charged topics should give neutral and informative data on the topic. (For the record, I have no interest in editing the article, only interest that it retains neutrality.) SusunW (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Rubin_1984 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Amy Domini

I discovered this fascinating mutual fund manager while reading a recent NYT article (not very usable as it's mostly an interview) on environmental, social, and corporate governance investing. The article has been in a sorry state for over a decade. Anyone care to take a look? I did some fixing up but my covid vaccine is hitting me and my brain is too foggy to add much content or remove the promo-y content that's still there. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I’ll pop my head in! Feel better @AleatoryPonderings! Innisfree987 (talk) 01:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Tour de France Femmes

Hi all, if anyone fancies writing some stub cyclist biographies this fine Wednesday - List of teams and cyclists in the 2022 Tour de France Femmes has a fair few red links. There's a standard Wikipedia:WikiProject Cycling/Standard cyclist biography to use.

In other news, a couple of us editors are working hard to ensure that the 2022 Tour de France Femmes will be ready for Wikipedia:In the news inclusion when the race finishes this Sunday - just like the men's race has been. Turini2 (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Advice on Spanish surnames

I'm looking for some help on making pages of Spanish people: I'm unsure whether to use both the maternal and paternal names for a page, some Spaniards use both their mother and father's surnames and sometimes they don't. When I do research on Spanish people, their names change from their first and last name and others would be their first name and maternal and paternal surnames. I hope this makes sense to anyone reading this! Thanks. SarahTHunter (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Spanish names, but WP:MAIDEN stresses that we use " the name by which the person is best known", so follow the sources. But above all, make redirects (or dab page entrie or hatnotes) from any other version which is in any sources or is a reasonable variation on the name, such that a reader or another editor might look for it there. PamD 19:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
SarahTHunter I write lots of articles on women from Latin America and live in Mexico. It is typical to name the article using both surnames, as that is typically how they are found in Spanish-language sources (And trust me, having a single surname is a problem here). Unless the person is really well known in English speaking countries, writers are often unlikely to understand Spanish naming customs, and index them incorrectly using the final surname, rather than the middle one. see our essay. Thus, I'd recommend following the most common listing in Spanish-language sources. In the body, you can refer to people with either only their father's surname or both surnames. SusunW (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I wondered about a few occasions where I didn't know whether to include both surnames or one of them, I rarely make articles on Latin American Paralympic athletes, usually Mexicans and Colombians, as I know a little bit of Spanish as I did the language at high school (many years ago haha!). SarahTHunter (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red in August 2022

Women in Red August 2022, Vol 8, Issue 8, Nos 214, 217, 236, 237, 238, 239


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Doreen Adengo

I’m not sure if this is the right place but may I suggest Doreen Adengo, a leading Ugandan architect who died recently, for an article? Some sources [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Registration is open July 25 - August 14 for virtual Wikimania

Wikimania is virtual again in 2022 and is happening Thursday, August 11 through Sunday, August 14. Hope to see you there!

Main page | Registration (free; required) | Program | In-person events | Hackathon. -- Rosiestep (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Is anyone aware of any events which are specifically aimed at improving coverage of women? Are any members of Women in Red taking part and if so when and where? (I have looked at the Hackathon link but it is empty.)--Ipigott (talk) 06:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
    I think @Victuallers was looking into it, and had reached out to me, but I'm on holiday so won't be available. Lajmmoore (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Rosie and discussed it and I asked Lucy. However I'm not involved with this years Wikimania. Victuallers (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • The Smithsonian has invited me to be part of a panel, "Writing Women into Wiki History: Experiences and Best Practices". It's unclear to me if date, time, duration, etc. are confirmed. I'll provide an update here when I know more. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Sounds good. The Smithsonian have been putting a lot of effort into better coverage.--Ipigott (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Help with Photos

Hi everyone. This probably isn't exactly the right place but I've been working on a series of articles about women connected with NOW in Pittsburgh (currently including

– not all of which have yet been fully drafted) but I have been struggling to find images that can be added to Wikipedia from that era. I thought it might be worth checking to see if anyone has any suggestions of places to check. Sammielh (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

WomenArtistUpdates Thank you for adding those! I did see that Molly Yard has an article with a fair use image, I just get a bit worried about adding those myself so I appreciate your help! Sammielh (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Pinterest, Insta and Twitter

A mention for our social media - I was spurred on this morning as England's team has won the Euros Woohoo!! This is very BIG in the UK and not just with footballers and feminists, but lorry drivers, plumbers and florists can see that change is happening. The BBC can say "The first major football championship won since 1966 by an English team" without even needing to mention gender. Our Pinterest page continues to be a great advert and record for our achievenments. Even before the victory was announced we had this tweet from Bianca. This stuff counts. Well done us. Victuallers (talk) 08:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC) Oh and this tweet caught my eye. Victuallers (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Victuallers: Yes, this was a great victory and the social media are indeed contributing to interest in women's football and to some extent also in Wikipedia. I'm happy to see from our August invitation that we are highlighting the interest of Interwiki Women Collaboration in UEFA Women's Euro 2022. Let's hope this will provide an incentive to cover some of the redlinks still associated with the various national teams. Thanks, Roger, for all your own efforts with CARE and on Twitter. I hope we'll now be able to devote some of our editing time to Comedians although we really need more than just five seasoned participants. I can't remember any previous new WiR focus attracting so little interest and can't understand why. Any chance of encouraging more interest from those associated with CARE and WMUK? I'll try to help things along by alerting related WikiProjects.--Ipigott (talk) 06:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I've alerted WikiProjects Film, Theatre and Television. Let's see if there's any interest.--Ipigott (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm planning to get to the comedy focus next, after I work through more of my list of Indigenous to-dos. Penny Richards (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK Princess Indira Devi

Hello all, There's a discussion about the images used in this DYK nomination that could perhaps benefit from more pairs of eyes, particularly from friends who are more familiar coyright/image use than me. It would be good to keep discussion on the DYK nomination, rather than gathering responses here. Cheers Lajmmoore (talk) 07:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Men in our metrics

Looking through the first batch of additions to our August metrics, I see that two of the nine new articles are about men: Donald Broadnax and John Njamah. While Broadnax was probably selected because he was entered as female on Wikidata (now corrected), I cannot see any reason for including Njamah. Is there anything we can do about this? Over 20% males is pretty high!--Ipigott (talk) 08:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Ipigott, Njamah was also entered as female on Wikidata (also now corrected). TSventon (talk) 09:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, TSventon. I see that both these errors were made by Pi bot operated by Mike Peel. It may be that by some strange coincidence there were items in the two articles that triggered "female" on Wikidata (e.g. Category:Violence against women on Broadnax) but it seems to me additional attention should be given to the bot's gender assignments or that gender assignments should simply be left to human coders in case of any doubt.--Ipigott (talk) 09:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
This seems to be an ongoing problem, I have also corrected John Agrue from July and there are more men named John in the lists for other months in 2022. TSventon (talk) 10:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I've deleted a few more Johns and have discovered that Category:Violence against women in the United States seems to have been behind at least one more male being tagged female by Pi bot: see George Lamar Jones (Q112894975). There are no doubt quite a few more.--Ipigott (talk) 12:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I've corrected a few more Johns and one George which seems to have been triggered by Category:Violence_against_women_in_the_United_States. On the basis of the As and Bs listed under that category, I've also corrected a dozen or so more on Wikidata. We now need someone like Tagishsimon or Mike Peel himself to go through the rest of this category and make sure all males entered in Wikidata as females are corrected. If not, I suppose I can cover a couple more letters each day although Wikidata is not my thing.--Ipigott (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi all. Nice spot! After some checks, it is indeed the inclusion in Category:Violence against women in the United States that is causing the problem. The bot checks for female first, and finds 'women' in the category name. I've added a line that removes 'against women' from the categories before doing the check, which should avoid this in the future (although that's not ideal - I'm open for suggestions of better ways to do it, and/or other phrases in categories that the bot should avoid). I'll run through the category contents to check for misgendering next, will report back. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I've put a list of category contents and Wikidata gender at User:Mike Peel/WiR check - there are a number that are wrong. I can re-run this, and run it for other categories, as needed. I'll try to help work through these when I get a bit more time. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks Mike Peel I am happy to help work through these, but I can't figure out which field to fix. I am looking at John Arthur Ackroyd who appears on the list at wikidata he is identified as male. I see any really recent changes on either page. If you tell me what I should be looking for and changing I'll help. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I am working through Category:Violence against women in the United States from Z to A. It's just the sort of job that I'm happy to do at the moment.--Oronsay (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
WomenArtistUpdates, I think that the issue is names which are labeled as female in the table and Wikidata, but shouldn't be, like Rodney Bixler. TSventon (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks TSventon. I remain confused. I think maybe I am behind others who are editing wikidata from the worklist. I will step away. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
@WomenArtistUpdates I think I've changed all these now, so the men should now be male in Wikidata. @Mike Peel It would be good if you could re-run the table for a final check. Oronsay (talk) 23:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Mike Peel, for confirming my suspicions and correcting the code for the bot. In general, I must say Pi bot does a wonderful job and makes it easy for us to compile metrics based on biographies of women. Thanks also to Oronsay for handling the rest of those misgendered by the cat. It's good to see problems like this can be sorted out so quickly.--Ipigott (talk) 10:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
@Oronsay: Nice work! I've re-run the table, it's looking good now. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
V. happy to help. This job was right up my alley. Any more similar, please send them my way. Oronsay (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Heavily cited women without wikipedia pages

I've been going through WP:VITAL level 1 articles to find linked / cited women who don't yet have wikipedia pages. So far, the following journalists stand out as particularly heavily cited and deserving of their own pages. Biographical information seems a bit scanty, but – given the extent to which wikipedia has made use of their work – I hope there will be enough information (awards etc.) to make the notability case.

For others, see User:Dsp13/Gendered_link_bias. Dsp13 (talk) 10:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this list. I started a stub of Elizabeth Pennisi. She has a high H-index (possibly meets WP:ACADEMIC) and won a science communication award in 1996. TJMSmith (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! She now also has 164 article pages linking to her... I under-estimated :) Dsp13 (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for pulling this together! Very cool especially as WP:WPWW will celebrate its 8 year anniversary on August 30th. To tie in with that, WiR's "annual event" every September focuses on "Women Writers". While historically, our "Women Writers" event has never focused on a particular writing occupation, perhaps we could have an emphasis on journalists this year. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I've now got a page up on Jennifer Speake, started adding the inlinks :) Dsp13 (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I've also been keeping track of highly-cited (in scholarly works) women coauthors of academics at AfD (part of the Scopus assessment I do for NPROF cases). It would be interesting to see how much each of them is cited on Wikipedia, too. JoelleJay (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm adding inlinks for the pages that are blue there, and vaguely resenting the Vancouver referencing system. Disambiguation is hard enough for common names without having to work with initials (especially where it's a single "A"!) Dsp13 (talk) 09:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

For the Alphabet Run, where do we put Dutch surnames?

For example, if someone's last name is van Camp or Van Der Laan (spellings differ with Van names, of course) are would they only be in the Vs? Or would they be in the letters where the prefix ends? Trillfendi (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Trillfendi, I created a page for Onze Kunst van Heden. I set it up alphabetically with the part after "van" or "van der" as the letter. I think that is the way the Dutch do it, and I haven't gotten any complaints, yet. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
See Dutch names - actually I think they don't do it that way, or is that the different Flemish approach? Johnbod (talk) 04:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Or better yet tussenvoegsel: "In the Netherlands, these tussenvoegsels are not included when sorting alphabetically.[2] For example, in the Dutch telephone directory, "De Vries" is listed under "V", instead of "D"." But Onze Kunst van Heden is not a person, but a exhibition title meaning "Our Art of Today", so no, you shouldn't sort it under "of"! (sorry, misunderstood what you were saying) Johnbod (talk) 04:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:MCSTJR has some guidance. Cliffnotes, it's a mess! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

For purposes of the Alphabet Run, I would forget about the van or Van, even though the Flemish Belgians frequently consider the capitalized Van as part of the surname and therefore sort them under V. There is great confusion on both the English and Dutch Wikipedias about this, as for example in Category:20th-century Belgian painters. Hardly a problem to be solved by Women in Red.--Ipigott (talk) 09:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Agree that we won't solve/resolve it here :) Also the Alphabet run is a FUN run. Enjoy, bring your dog and stroller. Not too much judgement on the run about how you choose to alphabetize von Bismark :). WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Personally, and I only speak for myself here, I prefer to sort under V. If someone says von Bismarck, I know they're very likely talking about Otto von Bismarck. If someone says Bismarck, I haven't got a clue but would guess the famous ship.
Same for van de Graaf, van Buren, von Neumann, etc... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
That's your personal choice but not necessarily the Wikipedia approach. I agree that difficulties arise when people with von or van in their name emigrate to English-speaking countries where they are likely to be listed under V. In Europe, Otto von Bismark is widely known as Bismark.--Ipigott (talk) 11:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
My understanding is that it depends to some extent on nationality. "Van Der Laan" would be under "L" if Dutch but under "V" if Belgian. Confusing. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Very true, and if they are actually American or British, anything could happen. Never under "D" though. I think if it's "Van" with a cap, it's best to sort on that. But that doesn't work so well for "de" and "von", which in the original countries are never sorted on or capitalized I think. Johnbod (talk) 13:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Surname on disambiguation pages

Though I haven't noticed it being done, I wonder if it's appropriate to add a woman's biography to the dab page of her maiden name if her maiden name isn't included in the article's title. For example, I added Sara Jane Crafts to the Crafts (surname) page but I did not add it to Timanus. If it were added to Timanus, should the name be piped to include Timanus, or add Timanus in parentheses, or something else? -- Rosiestep (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

It wouldn't typically be added unless the person was widely known by that name, but if it were, under MOS:DABREDIR, it would be best to create a redirect for Sara Jane Timanus, then link to that on the dab. Nick Number (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
That makes sense. Thanks, Nick Number. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
I quite often discover that a women's maiden name produces interesting information about her parents and family, frequently as a result of pertinent Wikipedia surname lists. I don't know if it is common practice but when this occurs, I add the maiden name (née) to the biography in bold as well as a redirect and an entry on the surname list. I believe this will help others identify family background, especially if the name is not very common. At first sight, many women do not appear to be remembered by their maiden name but it is surprising how often searches under the maiden name produce interesting results as I have recently discovered while covering Scandinavian opera singers. It's mainly thanks to PamD that I started doing this. Maybe something could be included under "Creating the article" in our Primer for creating women's biographies--Ipigott (talk) 08:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
(I'm trying to have a wikibreak but ...) I'm not sure I consistently add people to the surname page for all their surnames, but I do think it's important to create redirects from all likely names, so have made Sara Jane Timanus and also Sara Crafts. The problem of "Mrs Wilbur F. Crafts" is real one, as so many women only published, or were announced as speakers etc, in that format (my mother (born 1917), in the 1980s sent me a letter addressed to "Mrs [Husband's forename] [Surname]" while I was in hospital: it confused the staff but reached me eventually). I'm not sure how we've solved it for Wikipedia purposes; fortunately in this case we have her own forenames known! I've found we do have some entries, or redirects, like Mrs Henry Wood, so I've now created redirects from Mrs. Wilbur F. Crafts and Mrs Wilbur F. Crafts. (Should we have versions without "F.", or with "Fisk"? Possibly!)
Logging off again now. Real Life priorities. PamD 14:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Women in Design

Can anyone suggest what would be a good place to share information with the WiR community about an editathon event? The National Institute of Design in India is organizing an event focusing on Women in Design from 5 to 12 Aug 2022 with support from Art+Feminism. More details here. Let me know about it, thanks. DesiBoy101 (talk) 06:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, DesiBoy101, for letting us know about this interesting event. If you can produce something along the lines of this meetup page, we'll be able to monitor participation and the articles created. Please let me know if there's anything to do to help you along. I'll include your event under Announcements on our main WiR page.--Ipigott (talk) 06:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I've also posted on WikiProject Women Design but I don't think it's very active. Now also on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. We would be particularly interested in supporting any new recruits.--Ipigott (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @Ipigott for the suggestions and updates. The event organizers are going to have an outreach dashboard on the WMFlabs courses. So would there be a need to create a separate meetup page then? Also, do you mean by supporting the new recruits in terms of the Wikipedia editing? DesiBoy101 (talk) 06:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
DesiBoy101: Personally, I certainly think it helps to have Wikipedia Meetup page with appropriate categories as it can be viewed widely on Wikipedia itself. For those who are already aware of the event, the dashboard should help but please provide a link for us. As for supporting new recruits, I systematically welcome all those who become members of Women in Red and try to help them along, reviewing and editing their first article creations. I'm always happy to assist any new contributors to Wikipedia who are interested in writing about women. Just make sure I'm kept informed.--Ipigott (talk) 11:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
DesiBoy101: There is apparently no A+F dashboard for this.--Ipigott (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
@Ipigott - Here is the dashboard. Regarding the meetup page, I'm not the organizer of the event so I can't have a say on that. You can discuss this as well as about helping the new editors with the organizer here, where I'd mentioned you a while ago. Hope that's helpful. DesiBoy101 (talk) 10:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, DesiBoy101, the dashboard needs to be linked from your announcement otherwise no one can find it.--Ipigott (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes Ipigott, I'll request the organizers to update the same. Thanks again for your help and insights. DesiBoy101 (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Happy International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples 2022!

If anyone would like to participate in the UN online event today (9 am EDT), there is more information on this page.

In case anyone wants to wish someone Happy International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples, here’s that phrase in three Sámi languages :)

  • Skolt Sámi: Šiõǥǥ meeraikõskksaž maaiʹlm alggmeerai peeiʹv!
  • Inari Sámi: Pyeri aalmugijkoskâsâš maailm algâaalmugij peivi!
  • Northern Sámi: Buori riikkaidgaskasaš máilmmi eamiálbmogiid beaivve!

- Yupik (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Planning a major WiR contest for November and December

In recent months, the proportion of women's biographies has not been increasing as much as in the past. Following discussions on the talk pages of Rosiestep and WomenArtistUpdates, we are planning to organize a WiR contest for November and December as an incentive to increase the creation of new articles. An item on the proposed contest has been included on our Ideas page under Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Ideas#Nov_2022 where reactions are welcome. Any other suggestions on how we can improve interest in Women in Red and attract more contributors would be welcome here.--Ipigott (talk) 09:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Women scientists

For WiG's editathon this month, after much vacillation because the science was out of my league, I decided to work on Eunice Newton Foote, who has now been nominated for GA with the help of @XOR'easter and Ipigott:, who made sure I didn't bungle the science parts. In (re)writing her, I discovered that the first detailed biography and retrieval of Foote's work as the first person to theorize that warming gases might cause climate change, was written by Elizabeth Wagner Reed, (also now nominated for GA). Wagner Reed wrote a book, American Women in Science before the Civil War (1992), which might be notable if we can find reviews. Link to it is here. It recovered 22 women scientists' contributions, which PamD has helped with identifying: Elizabeth Cary Agassiz, Catharine Esther Beecher, Jane Colden, Eunice Powers Cutter, Dorothea Lynde Dix, Foote, Lydia Folger Fowler, Sophie Bledsoe Harrick, Mary Putnam Jacobi, Laura H. Johnson, Frances Green McDougall, Maria Mitchell, Margaretta Hare Morris, Hannah Bouvier Peterson, Almira Lincoln Phelps, Mary Amelia Swift,more Charlotte de Bernier Taylor, Jane Taylor (science writer), Mary Townsend (entomologist), Ellen Smith Tupper, Jane Kilby Welsh,more and Emma Hart Willard. Not sure if anyone is interested in working on any of these, but I thought I would post them and see. I very much appreciate Women in Red and all of the people who work together to help us improve women's visibility and recover their stories. SusunW (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

SusunW What a great idea, nice work. I added a couple of wikidata items for those who didn't have them (with the exception of Jane Taylor as there doesn't appear to be any information about her at all), so they will appear in our regular wikidata lists once they are updated. Gamaliel (talk) 23:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks Gamaliel! I'm working on Cutter. Hopefully the others will get worked up. I may try to tackle Taylor, but we'll see. SusunW (talk) 02:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Taylor is a mess. Mainly because Hathitrust and other databases have linked her to Jane Taylor (poet), who was 1) not American and 2) died in 1824, which is ridiculous given that the Jane Taylor in question was prolific from 1839 to 1860. (And that is confirmed here.) Reed was unable to identify J. Orville Taylor/John Orville Taylor, but he was an early American proponent for public education.[13][14] It is apparent he was influential,[15][16] lectured frequently,[17] and was credited with establishing public/common schools in New York State.[18][19] He sold and published books for both the American Common School Society and American Common School Union,[20],[21],[22], which could explain why he obtained the copyright for Jane's books…OR she could have been his wife…because this clipping identifies the author of Physiology for Children as Mrs. John Taylor,[23] but every other source says the author was Jane.[24],[25],[26],[27],[28] Lots and lots of clippings about her books, so very clear they were widely used and influential. I wonder if the Jane who published The Girl's Schoolbook with J. Orville[29] was also the same woman, as if so, looks like she was from Albany, New York.[30]. Checking census records for J. Orville Taylor I find that indeed, his wife was named Jane. (according to this, she was Jane (née Agnew) In 1870, J. Orville was living in New York City — last line of image 875 he is living with Jane age 45 born in New Jersey with a 19 year old male Edward A. (first 2 lines of image 876)[31] and in 1880 the household of John O. Taylor (in New Brunswick, NJ where he died) shows John, his wife Jane W. (age 60 born in NJ), son Edward A., a daughter in law, a grandchild, a boarder and a servant.[32]. Don't think there is enough there to definitively say, but I think there is probably sufficient info to write an article on her books. Anyone else able to weigh in? SusunW (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to say that if I do ever get around to committing serious crimes, please can you not be the detective assigned to the case, SusunW, b/c your powers are scary & you'd probably tell me what I had for breakfast on the morning of the alleged incident. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
LOL Tagishsimon! I promise I won't. She was John's wife! [33]. So, I'm going to write it. SusunW (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Normal Wikipedian: hey look, I found a new fact on InternetArchive!
SusunW: yeah, but did you miss the press clipping stickytaped into the back of this other InternetArchive book, eh? -> https://archive.org/details/genealogyofjudge00detr/page/n92/mode/1up --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
That was what tipped me over into writing it as it confirms that J. Orville's wife was indeed the creator of the notable books. (weird to cite the page. I've opted for appears after 86, but it also appears before 86 because there are two pages 86s). I wish it had a date or paper name, but it doesn't. I've hit newspapers.com, newspaperarchives.com, Old Fulton, Google news archives and can't come up with the actual date or paper anywhere. But, I'm going with (1817-1820 — 1904-1907) which I can back up with the sources I found. Maybe since she can finally definitively be separated from Jane Taylor (1783-1824) some academic can actually work on her. (Now, how does one get World Cat and Hathitrust to fix their records?) SusunW (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
This was amazing to read. Bravo on the detective work. Gamaliel (talk) 02:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, when I typed that list and linked them there were 3 red links. I've resolved 2 by making redirects to Martine Bertereau (the version with "de" was in the first line of the lead), and Delvalle Lowry (the text said she published 2 books under her married name, and it was in the infobox, but no redirect till now), and verified that the other redirects are going to the right people ("Ellen Richards" seemed likely to be ambiguous but seems not to be). But if anyone wants to have a go at Éléonore de Raab, she's mentioned in a couple of articles, doesn't have a Fr.wiki article, and might be worth a try. Please remember to make redirects from likely variations of your subjects, especially those which are mentioned in the text or in your sources! (Do I sound like a broken record? Sorry.)
I couldn't resist Eleonore, and now it looks as if she probably needs to get a mention in Ignaz von Born's article, with redirect, rather than being notable enough for a whole article (though feel free to give it a shot!); I've already give Ignaz a mention and link in William Babington (physician). PamD 15:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I found another source (behind a paywall) and reckon Éléonore de Raab passes muster. Pity about all the Real Life things I was planning to do today - I fell down this rabbit-hole. PamD 19:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Great work PamD! I totally get that real world stuff, though I did actually take my husband to the doctor to check his ear infection, everything else had to wait. Jane Taylor (science writer) is done. Pretty decent considering when I started no sources seemed to be able to identify her. With 4 now saying specifically the author was J. Orville's wife, I'm confident her correct identity is now known. I wrote to both Hathitrust and Worldcat. We'll see if they correct their records. SusunW (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Ditto, PamD. All the work you have been doing on these early scientists is invaluable.--Ipigott (talk) 06:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
The other bit of social structure stuff I noticed in a skim of her book, was that she was very not keen on corsets & tight clothing - "tight-lacing"; and this at a point, afaik, when to corset or not to corset was a thing. [34] [35] --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
What a great day! Haven't gotten much done on WP or in real life, but I have spent the entire day discussing Jane (Agnew) Taylor with a historian in New Brunswick, New Jersey. She is keen on finding more information out about her and has given a bunch of potential leads. Woo hoo! Going to start on Mary Amelia Swift, as I think I have also unraveled her genealogical confusion, as well. SusunW (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
SusunW: From Jane Taylor (science writer), it looks as if you have already made a good start but as you now intend to add further details, please let me know when you think you have finished. And how about your work on the other women scientists? How many of them do you intend to submit for GA? I must say, for someone who in the past has been rather critical of all the attention given to women scientists, you've been doing a great job contributing so significantly to rewriting their history.--Ipigott (talk) 06:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Ipigott I will clarify, if I have an issue with scientists and it has nothing to do with women, it is that the focus is on hard sciences. I have no issues with attention being given to any women in any field. Specifically, with women scientists, however, we should show equal focus on social sciences, because without the work of the social scientists, no one would even now be working on women. (Case in point, it wasn't Reed's genetic work that uncovered these women, it was her interest in studying bias in history.) As for this group, I'm not sure how many of them I will do. I am interested most in the ones with research puzzles. I literally was still messaging with the historian in New Brunswick at midnight. She has added a librarian and an archivist to the conversation, so we'll see how it goes and I'll keep you updated. Spent the night and this morning looking at Swift and I think the puzzle about which Zephaniah was her father is solved. But, I haven't even begun to write it, so we're quite a ways off. SusunW (talk) 13:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for this useful clarification and forgive me if I was misrepresenting your views. I fully agree with you that it is important to cover women in the social sciences as it certainly appears so many of them have been overlooked. By contrast, those in what you call the hard sciences have for some reason received more attention. In any case, I have found your recent contributions really interesting. You somehow seem to have opened the door on an important group of women we may never have known about. Let's hope interest in them will continue.--Ipigott (talk) 14:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
OK, I'm still working on Eleonore von Raab (note correct name, not the Frenchified "de" and accents!) and through WP:RX have got hold of a paper I needed to find, about her collection. And found her silhouette to illustrate it. If anyone wants to follow up on women in mineralogy, there's a paper in The Mineralogical Record 2014 "An historical look at women in mineral collecting" which sounds promising: see the journal contents list here. But I must get on with other stuff. PamD 13:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I finished Swift and thought I'd try Johnson, but even I admit defeat. What I know is she is the sister-in-law of Amos Eaton. Eaton's 4th wife Alice Johnson was born [36] 24 November 1788 in Middletown, Middlesex, Connecticut. None of the usual sources I use can come up with Laura, as Benjaim Johnson and his wife Alice (Smith) have incredibly common names. The only possible clue I found to identify them is that Ancestry.com shows that Benjamin died in 1815, in Whitestown, Oneida, New York. [Snippet of this book shows, "Administration of the estate of Benjamin Johnson ( U.S. Army ) of Whitestown, Onieda Co., NY granted to Reuben Wilcox 6 November 1815", but if there is more information, I have no clue. Likewise this snippet shows "Benjamin Johnson * late of Whitestown, a soldier in the Army of the United States. Reuben Wilcox of Whitestown appointed . 6 Nov. 1815 . P. 182" Perhaps a military connection or the family connection can help someone identify Laura and her parents, but I can't find anything from here that is accessible. So, I'm going to work on Townsend, who has some sources. SusunW (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
SusunW: Don't worry too much about Laura. You've been doing a great job with the others and we now look forward to Townsend.--Ipigott (talk) 06:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Okay, done with Townsend. PamD I so rarely make a disamb page, I am not 100% sure I did it right. Will you check, Mary Townsend (disambiguation) to see if I screwed it up? SusunW (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
@SusunW: I logged off yesterday and promised myself to stop editing for August, but since you asked (and since my phone continues to alert me to notifications), I've logged back on again just for this and tweaked the dab page a bit for the "there is a primary topic" shape of dab page - see MOS:DAB. Don't pipe links in dab pages, show the article title every time (using piping only to italicise book titles etc). I've also added them to Townsend (name) which only included one of the four. Now logging off again: have a good month, all. (I've contributed to all four August WiR editathons before logging off yesterday!) PamD 20:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
OMG! I am jumping for joy. I actually got a response from a researcher at World cat. She explained a bunch of database stuff that went right over my head, but the bottom line is that she fixed the record for Jane Taylor, differentiating her from the English poet. Jane now has her own LCCN and VIAF numbers! Woo hoo! SusunW (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Next, we take Berlin. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
LOL. SusunW (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
SusunW, that is great news! Please keep track of her contact info as it seems like every 3-4 months, I come across the same situation: two women mangled into 1 LCCN and 1 VIAF number who need to be split apart. I have absolutely no idea how to contact someone in this regard. Glad you were able to sort it out. -- Rosiestep (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Rosiestep and/or anyone else. I sent it to one department who told me to send it to another, which I did, and this is the reply I got "Unfortunately your request still got routed to the wrong department and that contributed to a delay in response, but hopefully you will find I have resolved everything for you. Since this was really a request to update the associated name in a bibliographic record, it really should have been routed to bibchange@oclc.org, and that is the address you can use should you need to make similar reports in the future. SusunW (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
SusunW, thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Tagishsimon, any chance you're heading to Wikimedia Summit in Berlin next month?! -- Rosiestep (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Rosiestep No, sorry. Just humming Leonard Cohen.--Tagishsimon (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Happy 7th Anniversary, Women in Red!

Happy 7th Anniversary, Women in Red, and thank you, editors, one and all. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

👍 Like ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Happy birthday to us. I am so thankful that this platform was created. SusunW (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Very nice! Happy birthday to the group. :-) WiR provided me with a stable, welcoming space when I joined Wikipedia back in 2017 -- it's one of the reasons I'm still editing now. Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
  • party popper* Just echoing the above comments, is so lovely to work collectively for a common goal! I absolutely wouldn't be editing if it weren't for the community here! Lajmmoore (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Happy Birthday to us! WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Great initiative which I'm happy to have supported from the start. Let's all ensure a successful future with more new articles and more new members.--Ipigott (talk) 06:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

request for help with death date

I am looking for the correct date of birth and death for Cherokee author Jeannette Henry‏ / Jeannette Henry Costo. Birth - one source says 1908 another says 1909. Death - One source says 2001, another says 1998. Hoping someone knows where to look for definitive dates. Thanks. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not considered a reliable source on its own, but her gravestone says June 27, 1908-January 31, 2001, and references a 2001 newspaper obit. Penny Richards (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not having much luck either. This says 31 Jan 2001, in San Francisco and an obit was carried in the Press Leader, but I haven't found it. For the birth record, I figured since sources say she was Eastern Cherokee, she'd be on the Baker Rolls but I don't find any record of her. SusunW (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I found the obit on NewsBank and the Jan 31 date is correct. I'll be glad to email it to anyone. Gamaliel (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you all! I realize that using Find a Grave as a reference is frowned upon, but there are exceptions. I think a photo of the gravestone is where I will start and add the familysearch link. Gamaliel is there a link for the NewsBank death date? If you could send it or paste it I can use it, even if it is behind a paywall. So, then there would be 3 sources for death date and the one sub-optimal one for birth. Hope to start the article tonight. Thanks again! Best,WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
As Penny mentioned Find a Grave reproduces the Press-Enterprise obit, so I'll be looking for that online too. Thanks again.WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
This might work? Gamaliel (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, I wound up with a stubby article for Jeannette Henry Costo. I never could find that Press-Enterprise obit online. Couldn't get those extra citations for death dates either. It's a start and I posted a comment about Find a Grave on the talk page. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Sara Hauman

Sara Hauman is currently nominated for deletion:

Discussion participation welcome. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Out of interest, why is this mentioned here, out of all the of articles about women that might be up for deletion (there are 84 at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women)? Was it because it was specifically created for WIR? If so, how do we keep track of that? (I don't think I have indicated thus in any of the articles I have created.) StAnselm (talk) 02:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Glenda Jackson

The BFI Southbank in London recently held a retrospective season of Glenda Jackson's films. I went to some of the screenings, and an in-person event with Jackson, and it all got me onto her Wikipedia article, which I've made a number of substantial edits to recently. I also added to List of awards and nominations received by Glenda Jackson. The Chris Bryant biography of Jackson, the more recent of the two published, has an extensive list of her acting credits, however, many of which are missing from her Wikipedia article. I feel that, rather than making the credits too long for the article, Jackson needs an article devoted solely to her list of credits, like other notable actresses have - see Category:Actress filmographies. Jackson has won the Triple Crown of Acting, so I think she more than merits such an article. How about List of Glenda Jackson performances? Jackson's work encompasses stage, radio, screen and record, so I feel that title covers it. I would be grateful if someone could help by starting this article, as I've never created anything like that before. I'd then be happy to add to it using the list of credits in the Bryant biography.[a 1] Some sources: [37] and [38] TrottieTrue (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  1. ^ Bryant, Christopher (1999). Glenda Jackson : the biography. Hammersmith, London: HarperCollinsPublishers. ISBN 0-00-255911-0. OCLC 42790640.
@TrottieTrue: There's a framework at Draft:List of Glenda Jackson performances ... perhaps start with that. Can be moved to mainspace once it starts to get some content. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm attempting to redraft it using the credits from her article. TrottieTrue (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Your progress is good; I'm watching the draft. There's https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/search/0/20?order=first&q=glenda+jackson btw, whch might pick up some more TV & radio stuff. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I thought it was easier to just take the relevant content from the Jackson article. Good tip about Genome - I'll keep that in mind. The biography should be comprehensive for the first part of her acting career. It's the post-2015 period which will need pulling together from different sources. Tables tend to confuse me, so hopefully it'll be okay... TrottieTrue (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Flick Rea

Would Flick Rea meet GNG? I added her to WIR and Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biographies/Political figures. Rea is a former councillor for the Liberal Democrats on Camden London Borough Council, who represented Fortune Green for over 35 years. She was awarded an MBE, became an honorary alderman, and served on the Local Government Association. Sources: [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] TrottieTrue (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

IMO she meets GNG; 35 years of coverage, not to say the multiple stories arising from her retirement. 'Empress of West Hampstead'. Q113495921, btw. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Glad you agree. I don't have time to do the article myself, but I'll happily work on it if someone else has a go. TrottieTrue (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Start made at Flick Rea. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Great! Thank you. I'm sure @Denham331 will also be interested in contributing to this. TrottieTrue (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Lillian Anderson Turner Alexander

Hello! I made a sandbox page for User:JaneClawsten/Lillian Anderson Turner I am not sure how to address her name in the page. TLDR: Lillian married Turner, they divorced, and she remarried. She used her second husband's surname for the rest of her life, but there are no references that connect Lillian Turner to Lillian Alexander. They seem to almost be separate women, except their shared history (born in Ohio, moved to St. Paul, attended University of Minnesota, involved in NAACP, etc.).

There is even more confusion, because Roy Wilkins described "Sally Alexander" in his autobiography, but I am pretty sure he means Lillian.

Please let me know how to clarify this in the article, as I know this is kind of confusing. Thank you! JaneClawsten (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I wonder whether "likely" in the para about Wilkins is a bit too much WP:OR: "possible" might be better? And the date of that dinner party would be useful if it's in the source.
And (of course - my usual plea) don't forget to make incoming redirects from all the various versions of her name (or dab page entries or hatnotes, as appropriate), when you move her to mainspace. That way everyone will be able to find her. PamD 07:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! This is very helpful. I added the date and changed to "possible." I will do my best for the redirects and I'll find the style guide page.
JaneClawsten (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
The "Further reading" section look more like "See also" - see MOS:FURTHER for what goes in FR, and MOS:SEEALSO. PamD 07:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Andrea Hickey

There is a discussion on whether Andrea Hickey violates WP:GNG, which states that articles must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Guidelines also state that the number of sources is irrelevant, as long as there are at least two, and that a subject's popularity is secondary. I've provided examples of why I think the article meets these requirements. Does anyone want to offer their view on whether the article should be deleted or kept? -- James26 (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Notices of deletion discussions must be purely neutral, not expressing an opinion on the discussion; see WP:CANVASS. In addition, it is probably not a good idea for all deletion discussions of women to be posted here; there are too many. Instead, they can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women or Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Article alerts. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Interesting article from South Africa

Various sites are displaying "Bridging Wikipedia Gender Gaps Key In Enhancing Women Empowerment" covering South Africa's Women's Month, pertinent Wikimania activities and the need to improve women's coverage on Wikipedia. Looks like the work of Bobby Shabangu.--Ipigott (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Rosiestep: In connection with the above, is there a video version of Writing_Women_into_Wiki_History:_Experiences_and_Best_Practices?--Ipigott (talk) 10:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Ipigott, due to technical difficulties on the part of the Tech Team hosting the platform, our session (and some others) did not occur live as planned. Subsequently, we recorded our session on Streamyard and that version will be added to the Wikimania program at some point. I'll add a link here to that recording as soon as its available. --Rosiestep (talk) 10:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Looks like it's up on YouTube [phttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgQ3mmCGfCg here] - I found your material wonderfully expert & inclusive as a summary, Rosiestep! Dsp13 (talk) 10:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Yay! Thanks for finding and posting the link, Dsp13, and thanks for the kind words! --Rosiestep (talk) 10:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
As always, excellent presentation, Rosiestep. Let's just hope that more editors will indeed join us to help us along.--Ipigott (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Ipigott. Hoping our session inspires others to join in the work. Thanks also go to Fuzheado for saving the day with the Streamyard recording. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Encouraging to see there has been a special award for Art+Feminism, also Andrew Lih.--Ipigott (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)p
Wikimedian of the Year: Congratulations to the architect Olga Paredes, another dynamic woman supporting our cause. See [44]--Ipigott (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Free data on 100s of women?

I saw this tweet about free data about women footballers. Is this as good as it sounds? Victuallers (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Sounds brilliant, but I'll be one of many sitting back and waiting for the secondary research to be published (i.e. analysis of all the raw stats by independent, reliable sources) before doing anything... Cielquiparle (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_116"