Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 41

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 35 ← Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 → Archive 45

Notification of Rapid Grant proposal for Wikidata QuickSheets - useful in BLP and *gap work

Hello all, I wanted to let you all know that I have submitted a Rapid Grant proposal to further develop software that will semi-automate the process of moving BLP data from Wikipedia to Wikidata. As you will see, it is particularly useful for BLP and *gap work, as it will allow you to quickly source claims. For example, with the proposal to remove all unsourced Ethnic Group (P172) claims. The tool is designed to be accessible to those without programming experience by using simple article lists to generate spreadsheets for human evaluation. This builds on work done as part the Art+Feminism campaign, which is detailed at our workplan where you can see in detail more about how the tool works. I welcome your feedback on the proposal. --Theredproject (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Theredproject: This sounds like an interesting development. While the spreadsheet approach presents advantages for reviewing sizeable series of entries, tt would be useful if data on individual names could be interfaced with Wikipedia articles when they are displayed, along the user-friendly lines of the existing "gadget". This would be useful in particular for new articles about people who have not yet had an article in any language version of Wikipedia. It would allow article creators to check the validity of the draft data before "saving" them in Wikidata. It could also be made accessible during any article expansion on Wikipedia or in cases where a Wikipedia article is created in an additional language version. One important criterion in this connection is that users should not have to leave the Wikipedia document they are editing in order to review the automatically created Wikidata. I would be happy to assist with any testing of prototypes as they are developed.--Ipigott (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Ipigott I am glad you see the value in the bulk spreadsheet approach. That is the core of our focus right now. We could probably tweak our approach as part of the grant proposal to refactor the code so that the categoryToQID() and getReferences() functions could be integrated into other tools. Doing that here is a bit of scope creep, but maybe in the future.--Theredproject (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Theredproject: I understand you cannot take on too much at a time but I think your project could benefit greatly by at least taking a look at the user-friendly gadget which several WiR editors now use frequently. One of the reasons so few Wikipedians are ready to become more involved in Wikidata is that the existing user interface is extremely difficult to master. I thought it might be useful to comment on these issues here before looking at your grant application. In case you need more information on the gadget, you can find it here.--Ipigott (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Paulette Ramsay

Hi all. I would be interested in creating an article about Paulette Ramsay, listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Academics#Jamaica, but I just wanted some input on the question of notability. According to this, her work is highly cited, but Google Scholar doesn't seem to bear that out. The source isn't independent, so I wouldn't necessarily trust it, but I wonder if there is something that Scholar is missing here? She seems to have published in mainstream journals by well-known publishers, at least. She has also been awarded the Ordre national du Mérite. What are your thoughts on this? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Cordless Larry she lives in the Caribbean and is a woman. That in itself is a double strike. Add to that that her field of study is Afro-Latino studies and she is pretty much insured to be ignored by scholar or world cat, or most compilations of publications, which are systemically biased towards English language. The plus here is that she is from Jamaica and the Gleaner has a lot of articles about her. If you do not have access to newspaperarchive.com, advise and I will gladly help with sources. SusunW (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
And as for notability, yes, she is very notable. The fact that she has had works translated into other languages bears that out. Our PROF guidelines are severely flawed and need a rewrite to address systemic biases, remove all the puffery and Global North-centricity. Far better to shoot for GNG. SusunW (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
She appears to write in English, in journals published by Routledge, etc., so I'm not sure how that would be "ignored" by Google Scholar. Perhaps she has published and been cited more in other languages, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Cordless Larry as someone who works on Caribbean biographies a lot, I can tell you that most of the scholars (okay, in truth notable Caribbean writers in general) in the region are rarely noted in Google scholar or even world cat. In addition, there is some indication, though I have not researched it, that she has used multiple names—which for women, typically effects their citation rates. Highly cited is one criteria of the PROF guideline and is heavily weighted toward hard sciences rather than theoretical or social sciences. She is a social historian, i.e. works in a field which is more likely to require book publishing than journal publishing, which is outside the scope of most lists of highly cited compilations. If one analyzes the publishing rates of most scientists, number of citations is far less of an indicator of import than consistency.[1] Furthermore, clearly receiving a designation as knight in the Order of Merit, which requires at a minimum 10 years of public service, is both a selective honor and notable.[2] SusunW (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I appreciate the issues with citations in the humanities and social sciences. Her work is on Google Scholar (see the link I gave), but it doesn't demonstrate that it has been highly cited. Anyway, I think I'm convinced by the other factors that she is notable, so I will try to have a go at starting the article when I get some time. Thanks for your input. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I saw the link that you posted, that isn't the point I am making. If she is cited by other Caribbean/Latin American scholars it is unlikely that their works are noted in complied authorities. I wrote a biography yesterday of a noted Mexican archaeologist, she has zero citations in Google Scholar, 1 in Scopus, 37 in world cat, but literally hundreds of publications noted in her tribute paid by the National Institute of Anthropology and History. If her works aren't included in the databases of scholars, how many citations of others who have cited her works (or of whom she has cited) are included in those same authorities? Logically, very few. The methodology is skewed. That being said, I do hope you write the biography and my offer to provide sources if needed still stands. SusunW (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, I see what you mean. My own experience of Google Scholar has been that it includes lots of sources that I wouldn't expect it to, but yours is clearly different, and I can see that applying here. Thanks again. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Cordless Larry I'm circling back to this, as it is a critical point, if we are ever going to get changes made to PROF, that the magnitude of the problem is understood. Yet another Global South researcher with virtually no history in compiled databases of publishing. 0, 2, 6 (Interestingly, if you go about worldcat in another way, it's even worse...says she has 3 published works, isn't even close to what I found with a simple web search. (And she publishes in English and Spanish) SusunW (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I think the fact that she doesn't have a Google Scholar profile is just because she hasn't created one, SusunW. If you do a regular search for her name, there are lots of results. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Or author:harumi-fujita to narrow it down to only her papers. Nevertheless, Google Scholar will only index scholarly publications that can be found on the internet (or, sometimes, that are cited by other things that can be found on the internet). Because of this, for the scholarly literature of non-1st-world countries, many publications could easily not be found. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Exactly, David Eppstein little access to internet or even libraries, which are still predominantly archival, rather than lending facilities and certainly not digitized, means there are few publications on line in the Global South. (The systemic bias in citation methodology effects pre-internet scholars as well.) Cordless Larry thanks for that. I am not technically minded, and often technology defeats me. I am, on the other hand, good at research, so it's a trade off ;). The regular search, is only partially useful, as there are at least 3 other scientists and a sound designer with the same name. One can pick through the results for her publications, but it still points to the flaw in using citations as the primary means to determine import or impact. SusunW (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Shusmita Anis

Can somebody with a knowledge of Bengali music take a look at this article? I declined a CSD A7 / G11 on it, but it does need a lot of work and I really don't know where to begin as I don't have a good understanding of the subject matter. (Do we have any regular female Indian Wikipedians; I know several who are one or 't other, but not both). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Help rescue an article?

Hi! I was wondering if anyone would be willing to help a student (Marissajd1212) and I with an article, specifically Gillian Jerome. It's currently up for deletion. I'm not asking anyone to vote to keep it - what I want is extra help cleaning up any promotional tones in the article. We've added additional sourcing such as reviews and coverage of Jerome and her work. We've also tried editing the article to help reduce promotional language, but I figure that it could be helpful to ask for some extra sets of eyes to look at the work and help see what may have been missed. I've set the student to improve the section on CWILA, but any help would be great. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I did a lot of work on your previous article and the new one contains the same over detailing and wordy description of routine ideas. I suggest you take a 1-2,000 words out of it. You are a skilled writer and I think you could write more balanced and less padded articles. Decide what is important and decide not to mention everything. Why not start with a 1500 word article? The section on "GEIST magazine" takes a simple fact that she has written for a magazine of debatable notability, lists it as important in this articles lede and turns this fact into column inches with its own subheading. Victuallers (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
While mis-spelling the magazine title more often than not! PamD 09:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "Personal life" section culled, and some refs fixed:) Coolabahapple (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
also, suggest that lead is too detailed, can lose 50%, and has way too many references (leads don't need refs unless info is/could be controversial?). Coolabahapple (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
It certainly needs work but should not be deleted as the ReLit award establishes notability.--Ipigott (talk) 08:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
agree, but i am concerned that the lead has 12 cites and 7 of these are unique, isn't the lead meant to be a summation of the body, and not have info that appears nowhere else? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Apparently the instructor set a 2,000 word target for this class: how to encourage bloated writing stretching relevance and reference sources beyond the reasonable. Grrrr. The article has some horrors in it, such as asserting that a magazine article (a) was poetry and (b) was shortlisted for the Booker Prize (caused by sloppy misuse of a chunk of text from Margaret Atwood). I think this poet is probably just about notable, but the article needs a lot of work. Some student projects are just not good news for the encyclopedia, even if they're aiming to redress the gender balance. PamD 09:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
2,000 words? Crikey, I'm probably going to send an article to GA in the next few days (just need to check a few sources first) which will be shorter than that! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • hooray!, nominator has withdrawn:)Coolabahapple (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • It's good that the article in question is safe now. For future reference, ReaderofthePack might note that there's another project which specialises in rescuing deserving cases – please see WP:RESCUE. Andrew D. (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Crikey, is that still going? I wonder what became of it after Milowent went mildly loopy over the infamous AfD turned GA that is Pizza cheese Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Article alert mystery

How is Jeannette Ng appearing in Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Article alerts when she doesn't have the project banner? In fact she didn't have a talk page at all until I created it a few minutes ago. I'm puzzled. Ideas? PamD 12:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't know, except to say that AAlertBot put it there. Maybe bot creators Hellknowz and Headbomb know. — Maile (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
See this thread from about a month ago. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

FL success

Although she is not (yet) a member of WiR, BrownHairedGirl is to be congratulated on an FL listing for her List of women cabinet ministers of the Republic of Ireland.--Ipigott (talk) 08:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Congrats, BrownHairedGirl! Well done! --Rosiestep (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, @Ipigott and Rosiestep. The Featured list candidate process was prolonged and at times frustrating, but I am glad that I persevered. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
PS I have just joined WiR. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl: Good to have you as a dynamic member of our team.--Ipigott (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
What a well-done list. You did good. Welcome aboard WIR. — Maile (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft article for Melissa Bell (journalist)

Hello again! Not too long ago, I received help from Ipigott, Rosiestep, and Victuallers above to expand the article about Anne Finucane with a new draft I'd written (see this section). I'm back to see if these editors, or other WikiProject Women in Red members, would consider taking a look at a new draft I've put together, Draft:Melissa Bell (journalist), which I'm submitting for community review on behalf of her employer, Vox Media.

Ms. Bell held several roles at The Washington Post, co-founded the website Vox, and currently serves as publisher of Vox Media. As yet, there's no Wikipedia article about her, though I believe she is notable. I've worked to draft a neutral overview of her education, career, and recognition received, using Wikipedia-appropriate sourcing. Vox Media and Ms. Bell have reviewed the draft to confirm accuracy.

I am looking for feedback, and ultimately hoping to have the draft moved into the main space. I've added a conflict of interest template to the draft's talk page, and some relevant WikiProject banners as well. Happy to address questions, concerns or feedback here or on the draft's talk page. Thanks in advance for any help. Inkian Jason (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Thank you for reviewing the draft and moving into the main space. I appreciate your time and edits. One small thing I noticed in your copy edits, there was one edit that led to a sentence being grammatically incorrect: "She worked on audience and new product development, and established best practices for all of Vox Media's (Curbed, Eater, Polygon, Racked, Recode, SB Nation, The Verge, and Vox)" [sic] The word "brands" was cut from after "Vox Media's", did you have another word in mind to use there (websites, perhaps)?
I'm also wondering if the article should be added to "Leaders" section at Template:Vox Media, since she serves as publisher? If you this is appropriate, would you mind updating the template since I don't edit the main space directly?
Thanks again. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I thought "brands" was a bit promotional. I've substituted "sites". I don't really think she yet qualifies as one of Vox Media's leaders but I must say I do not usually edit articles about contemporaries from the media world. Indeed, after looking at a number of other American media sites, I think she would need to achieve much more before being included as a "leader". There are a number of others, e.g. Ezra Klein, Dylan Matthews, Elizabeth Plank, who appear to be equally prominent.--Ipigott (talk) 06:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
@Ipigott: Thank you for adding "sites" to the article. Inkian Jason (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Lanre da Silva

This article is up for deletion on the grounds that all the reports about her in the press, etc., are trivial. Several of them seem perfectly adequate to me. Perhaps Anthere who is something of an expert on Africa, could have a look. At WiR, we've been trying to improve coverage of both African women and fashion designers.--Ipigott (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I had a look, but the principal sources I got had already been added to the article anyway, so I simply justified them at the AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
If one is featured in Vogue (magazine), Elle (magazine) and Naomi Campbell opens a show wearing your design, I think you have probably made it in the fashion world... SusunW (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I know nothing about fashion, but I sort of agree with SusunW... Anthere (talk)
I know less about fashion than probably a slug, but I honestly cannot imagine that unless one lives in cave on Pluto, one doesn't get the iconic media and people involved in the field. SusunW (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Astrid Medina Pereira

Can anybody help with this? It seems to be a significant Colombian coffee farmer. A few weeks back, I declined a speedy on it and dumped a load of sources on the talk page, hoping that somebody with a good knowledge of Spanish could do something with it, and taking into account Colombian sources are probably less in abundance than British and American ones.

Today, I went to look for the article to see if I could do a bit more on it, only to find it was deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astrid Medina Pereira. The only decent argument seems to come from power~enwiki, who suggested it could be salvaged by citing Spanish sources. This is my view too - she appears to be notable nationally but not internationally and doesn't turn up on any English-speaking sources.

The creator, Anamaolarte (who appears to be a native Spanish speaker) has been tossed around, firstly being told that somebody will look at it, then being hammered with deletion notices despite trying to fix up the article.

I still think there's an article to be made out of this - can any good Spanish speakers help? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie333: As far as I can see, there is no trace of this article. If there is real interest in reviving it, then we need an administrator to make a draft version accessible.--Ipigott (talk) 05:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
The latest deleted version was kind of useless (short, unsourced, and entirely in Spanish) but here are the relevant comments with sources from the (also deleted) talk page:
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... She won the cup of excellence in Colombia in 2015, the best coffee in Colombia source: https://www.federaciondecafeteros.org/clientes/es/nuestra_propuesta_de_valor/portafolio_de_productos/taza_de_la_excelencia_/) --Anamaolarte (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
@Anamaolarte: Hi, I can see a few other sources : http://www.eltiempo.com/colombia/otras-ciudades/cultivadores-de-cafe-del-tolima-exportan-su-grano-a-nivel-mundial-139594 http://www.dw.com/es/colombia-marquetalia-52-a%C3%B1os-despu%C3%A9s/a-35937253 http://www.elnuevodia.com.co/nuevodia/actualidad/economica/257562-cafe-juan-valdez-de-origen-tolima https://www.elespectador.com/opinion/opinion/planadas-es-cafe-columna-636920 - what we need is somebody with a better grasp of Spanish than myself and who likes rescuing article about women - Megalibrarygirl, can you deal? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Also File:Astrid Medina.jpg was listed in the deleted article as being of her although its description doesn't say so. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
So it's a matter of recreating the article from scratch without reference to the work of the previous editor?--Ipigott (talk) 06:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok, fine. The long first version of the article has what look like BLP violations in it (unsourced criminal allegations against others and names of minors) but here is the entire text of the shortened version (both by the same editor, Anamaolarte):
Nació en 1977 en Planadas, Tolima, donde nació igualmente las FARC. Luego del asesinato de su padre, un líder comunitario del sur del Tolima. Astrid tomó las riendas del cultivo de café. Hoy cultiva y produce café especial tipo exportación.
En julio de 2015 obtuvo el premio a La Mejor Taza de Café de Colombia o Taza de la Excelencia. Su café es de variedad Colombia, Caturro y Castillo, secado al sol a 1.816 msnm. Su acidez es media alta, brillante, tiene cuerpo medio y cremoso con notas dulces y afrutadas con un puntaje de 90.2 según SCAA.
[image caption] Astrid Medina, caficultora colombiana ganadora de la Taza de la Excelencia 2015
Make of that what you will. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
@David Eppstein: The article as I left it was a 1-2 sentence stub (in English) with a source. This was deleted at AfD and recreated by Anamaolarte (in Spanish) before being deleted per G4, which is the version you looked at. I've restored the history and the talk page discussion so everyone can have a look - sorry, I should have at least posted the TP threads so non-admins could read them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
And https://hub.cropster.com/store/listings/1589 too - profile of her brand. PamD 08:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Looks like the article is taking shape. Thanks, everyone! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
PamD: Thanks for your suggestions. I've changed the URL on the Bloomberg article to a more widely accessible version which you should be able to read in full. As far as I'm concerned, the article has now been sufficiently expanded but there are many more sources which could be used if anyone is interested.--Ipigott (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I disagree, Ipigott. There were all of three participants in the AFD, not a substantial number of contributors. Since we do not know what the original article said, we can only assume from the nomination that as it was deleted for a BLP1E that the only sources in the article were from her original 2015 win of the coffee award. There are now sources on the file that confirm she has not been noted only surrounding the 2015 win but that there have been articles about her continuing from that time. There are clearly sufficient sources to confirm it was not a fleeting event and enough information to create a biographical article. As the 2017 El Tiempo piece indicates, her largest clients are in Japan and the high commission for peace reported she was invited to Japan to exhibit in the National Coffee Growers exhibition in 2016.[3] I also find articles in both Japanese and Korean about her, so clearly her notability is international. SusunW (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
SusunW: Thanks for your supportive comments. I too certainly think she deserves an article. It's the procedural approach that's the problem here. If an article has recently been deleted, it is usually necessary to communicate with those responsible for the deletion before creating a new article. If the article was deleted on the insignificance of the coffee award, then the article should probably not have been recreated without opening a discussion on its significance. It would have been far better if we had been able to intervene before the article was deleted but we must all have been asleep that day. I was simply enticed into looking into it as I seem to be one of the few active participants with a fluent knowledge of Spanish. Next time I'll be more careful.--Ipigott (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
SusunW "Since we do not know what the original article said...." - We do, because I'm a nice admin :-) I restored the history of all versions, so everyone will be able to see every iteration of the article. The previous versions immediately before deletion are here and here. I don't believe there is a specific policy against recreating an article deleted at AfD, it can be tagged at {{db-g4}} if it is substantially identical to the version deleted (which I don't think it is), or another AfD can be filed against it, but there's no speedy criteria for simply re-creating something. Over 10+ years ago, Ed Sheeran was speedy deleted twice - when he actually achieved chart success, the article was just created again. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Gracias Ritchie333 which goes to my point that it only focused on material concerning the 2015 event. It has now been substantially expanded giving a fairly complete biographical profile and evidence to confirm that her notability extends beyond the one event. I have often recreated articles that were previously deleted (or at least I get warning messages that I am doing it), but I pretty much ignore them, as I always search to verify there are sufficient sources before I write anything. :) SusunW (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Ritchie333: Your explanations are reassuring. I was afraid I had not followed the correct procedures. I'm pleased to see that those behind the earlier deletions have not tagged the current version.--Ipigott (talk) 07:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Yet another famous women list...

I was reviewing my old user subpages today, and found this: User:The Anome/Find-A-Grave famous people filtered by gender (update: see below).

This is a list of famous people from Wikipedia:Find-A-Grave famous people, filtered by gender to select only articles about women. The algorithm used looks only at the first name (which it uses to guess gender based on U.S. Census name/sex statistics) and keywords in the description, so there will be a fair number of false positives and false negatives where neither cue could be used to detect gender correctly. In spite of this, I hope it might be useful to the Women in Red project.

I'm not sure to what point this duplicates other resources here (or indeed whether it's been used by this project already), but just in case it helps, I thought I'd mention it here. -- The Anome (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Looking over the redlinks you provided, I am truly touched that somebody cared enough to create Samantha the Snake at Find a Grave. Barring any future gems at Find a Grave, this has to be my all-time favorite entry. — Maile (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
That's fantastic. I've just removed Samantha from the list. On a more serious note, a bit of spot-checking suggests that this list hasn't yet been subsumed into any other red-linked women list, so it may well be useful here. Can anyone suggest where it might be most useful to merge these entries to? -- The Anome (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks The Anome for filtering off the women's names. The problem here is that most of the women on the list are almost certainly not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. While Find A Grave sometimes helps by providing details which can then be checked from more reliable sources, looking into all these red links would require considerable time and effort. I really wonder whether it would be worthwhile. Megalibrarygirl might have some suggestions.--Ipigott (talk) 08:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
@Ipigott: I've done a bit of sorting and merging. Try this: User:The Anome/Women in Red/Find-a-Grave famous women redlinks -- The Anome (talk) 09:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Just to be safe, do we need to put a disclaimer on the list, saying that Find a Grave is not a reliable source and that unless adequate RS confirm notability an article should not be created? SusunW (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
That seems reasonable! -- The Anome (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Wow! That's a cool list! I suspect that some of the founders might be notable. I'll bet a lot of sources for the older graves would be found in Newspapers.com, if they've been covered. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! I've moved it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Find-a-Grave famous women redlinks now, as I think it's no longer a personal page, and is ready to be integrated into the larger wikiproject now. -- The Anome (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
The Anome: Thanks for all the useful work on categorizations, etc. It looks to me as if we could link into some of these subsections from our other crowd-sourced lists. I've included it in our Redlist index under "Other women". It would be interesting to have feedback on how many of the names lead to new articles (or I suppose we can simply monitor which red links turn blue). I believe the list principally covers English-speakers. There are similar lists for other countries/languages. I frequently use the Danish Kendtes Gravsted which usually provides considerably more detail than Find-A-Grave. Maybe someday I'll try to process it along similar lines, picking out red links we can work on.--Ipigott (talk) 08:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
@Ipigott: Thank you again for finding a long-term home for the list: I hope it will render some help to this project, and by extension, to the encyclopedia project at large. -- The Anome (talk) 10:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Margot Hatto

Someone who is better at chasing down print sources than I am might be able to contribute to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margot Hatto. XOR'easter (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I find nothing in archive.org, nothing in Hathitrust and nothing in newspapers, sorry. SusunW (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
So it goes. Thanks for checking! XOR'easter (talk) 00:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
It's strange there is so much detailed information in the Royal Opera biography. This must certainly be based on sources we can no longer find on the internet but which probably exist in print. Those she photographed at Sadlers Wells must also be aware of her work but only one image seems to be accessible on line. Perhaps Victuallers or his friends in London could look into it. It would also be interesting to try to obtain further details of the photographs in the collection together with the names of those they cover. If XOR'easter really wants to explore this further, he could contact Hatto's daughter, Jane, who is probably still living with her husband Peter J. Lutman in St. Albans. (It looks very much as if it's the Peter Lutman who works at Rothamstead Research (+ 44 (0) 1582 763 133 comms@rothamsted.ac.uk).--Ipigott (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Recent obituaries

See User:Mike Peel/Guardian obits for a daily-updated list of obituaries published by The Guardian. Earlier entries can, of course, be seen via the page's history. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

An interesting approach. If Mike Peel feels up to it, perhaps one these days he could train his bot to process the obits from the New York Times which often contain a wealth of detail.--Ipigott (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
@Ipigott: How does this look? User:Mike Peel/NYT obits Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Mike Peel: I see it took you half an hour to put together. Great stuff! Thanks very much. Now we may be able to pick up some of those overlooked women.--Ipigott (talk) 06:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, @Pigsonthewing and Mike Peel:, and pinging Gamaliel who is also maintaining an obits list. Wondering if anyone wants to combine these into some sort of Women in Red redlist? Unsure if this would be possible, I'm also pinging our LiR, Megalibrarygirl, who might have some ideas. --Rosiestep (talk) 08:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Interesting AfD

Editors may be interested in contributing or observing the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jennifer_Windsor. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Gender gap statistics

denelezh, lest any of you have not seen it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Tagishsimon: Thanks for these. The data are reflected in WHGI. The display shows quite clearly that the enwiki is not among those with the best proportional coverage of women. The gender gap by occupation stats are interesting.--Ipigott (talk) 06:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
The Denelezh stats are also interesting as for the Global Gender Gap, they give the percentage of females as 17.8% (which is higher than that for the enwiki at 17.5%). Surprisingly, on Country of Citizenship, Ireland has only 13.8% females and the United Kingdom has 14.6%, while Australia has 21.4% and the United States 18.7%. Food for thought...--Ipigott (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Anthere is to be congratulated on providing an excellent overall view of the gender gap on Wikipedia. It shows that progress has been made since the first version about a year ago. The graphics provide a vivid picture of the difference in coverage of men and women in various categories while detailed numerical stats are given throughout.--Ipigott (talk) 09:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Correction: While Anthere apparently inspired this work, it looks as if the person behind it is Seb35 who is active on MediaWiki and the French version of Wikipedia. It's a pity the results have not been more widely publicized. Perhaps Eddie891 could mention it in the next issue of Signpost. Rosiestep and Victuallers might also have suggestions on how it could be publicized more widely. Apart from it being mentioned in Wikidata weekly summary #307, I have not seen it anywhere else.--Ipigott (talk) 09:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I have now learnt from Seb35 that the person behind these statistics is Envlh.--Ipigott (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
A friendly FYI: it has been widely-mentioned on FB. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Also on Twitter .... but always good to mention again which I did here Victuallers (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Envlh informs me that he intends to update the statistics frequently on the basis of the weekly Wikidata dumps. Details of recent developments are now available.--Ipigott (talk) 08:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I'll get a Signpost mention–whenever the next issue is. Thoughts on wording? Eddie891 Talk Work 23:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Tammie Jo Shults, pilot of SWA 1380

I started Draft:Tammie Jo Shults. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Of course, notability has been challenged even while it is still in draft. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@Bri: I thought this was a good topic too and, not knowing about the draft, created an article in mainspace. But that has been quickly nominated for deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 12:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I placed a notice at WT:MILHIST inviting editors to participant in the draft. Let's see - a woman single-handedly and safely lands a damaged passenger plane, and is hailed publicly as a hero. She one of the Navy's first women fighter pilots. Her story should be told. — Maile (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Bri: Perhaps you could try to incorporate some of the details you had in your own draft. I believe you included something about Shults being the first female fighter pilot in the United States. This is obviously important.--Ipigott (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
AFD closed as WP:SNOW keep. — Maile (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

My Rant about the Gender Gap

I've really been trying to work, especially last month during women's history month and this month the women in art month. Tried to get down to nyc for a wiki event. Blocked from funding (or so i speculate) because people read websites rather than pamphlets from the 1980s. So frustrating and i am sorry but a lot of these editors don't sound like women to me. Rejected as an Afc reviewer, yet authored things in real life. I'm sure a lot of you can empathise... Ipigott... we need to get more like-minded editors on Arbcom or in Sysops--Fred (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what it is you're trying to say here, but I doubt having like minded editors at Arbcom or in the admin corps would change anything at AFC. If you have specific articles that were declined at AFC, you can always bring them up here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Frederika Eilers: As you mention my name, I should point out that I am not a woman either but for many years I have tried to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia as I am fully aware that the vast majority of editors are more interested in covering the achievements of men rather than women. You will find there are many other male editors who have made major contributions to WiR, including Victuallers whose initiatives led to the founding of the project in the first place. In my opinion, the best way to prevent the deletion of women's biographies is to make sure from the start that they are based on solid secondary sources which provide evidence of notability. If this is the case, then I think we have a pretty good record of steering any subsequent discussions at AfC towards keep. It might be useful to have more gender balance at Arbcom but at the same time it is only reasonable for Arbcom to reflect the overwhelming proportion of male editors on the EN wiki, last estimated at about 90%. I believe we should be doing more at WiR to encourage new women editors but this is not easy to achieve. Any specific suggestions you may have for improvement are of course welcome.--Ipigott (talk) 08:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
@Frederika Eilers: I'm not a woman but I like them so much I moved in with one ;-) On a more serious note, I'm not particularly good at writing BLPs, but I'm happy to rescue and beef up any articles relevant to the scope of this project as and when I can, as it's the sort of thing my other half would have done if she hadn't got fed up with Wikipedia and gone elsewhere. "Rejected as an Afc reviewer....." I had a quick spin through your contributions, and I can't see where this happened. Let me give @Primefac: a yell. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
@Frederika Eilers: As far as I can tell, you were rejected as an AfC reviewer in May 2015 as too inexperienced. The experience bar for AfC is 500 undeleted edits to articles, and while you're not there yet I think you'd have to be pretty close from a quick look at your edit history. Once you're over that, you seem like the sort of editor that AfC could definitely use. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Gosh, thanks for the outpouring of support! I'm probably using the wrong words to express how i feel. I appreciate the fact that some women are misogynists or "handmaidens" and some men are feminists. I think a lot about transgender issues and such so i'm always muddled. Do you know if there is a implicit-bias template for the top of pages? Like Race, Class, Gender? I've read several Wikipedia biographies. I was on the IRC yesterday with Huon, he has explained to me in the past why i couldn't get on the AFC, i think. Is it the fact that I write the articles before i upload them? Does anyone know a pharos in nyc what his handle is on wikipedia? I think i know a librarian whose an wikieditor.... Fred (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
For the funding I was gripping about. It's concerning McLoughlin Brothers and the editor [user:Jac5353]. I know i shouldn't touch it, might be a COI for me. I really think Nan at the museum would say something to me if i had the date wrong. The rejection letter was really quite sweet, but maybe it was just the form letter. I guess we need the Inc date, but the company and printing plates shifted hand several times. I used the dates from this source: Michael Patrick Hearn, McLoughlin Brothers, Publishers, 1828-1978 (Los Angeles: Dawson’s Book Shop, 1980). Michael Hearn is a respected historian, no? I know it's a some-what rare book and it's not paginated. Anyway, I heard what happened to SarahStierch. Fred (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

AfD: Jo Pike

Discussion here. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Misogyny in horror films

There's a page move discussion here for those who may be interested. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Recent Death articles

I wrote Agnès-Marie Valois, a WW2 nurse dead 19 April, and nominated it for the front page as Recent Death. I would be happy if someone here could look into it for copyediting (since English is not my first language) and of course expansion/other improvements if your want to. Iselilja (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Iselilja: Thanks for this interesting article. Your English is very good. Not much was needed in the way of copy editing.--Ipigott (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Ipigott. It has now been posted. The article has got almost 6,000 page views over 2 days just by being linked from the Deaths in 2018 article, so that can be a good place to look for "women in red" if people want some readers for their articles. Iselilja (talk) 11:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Iselilja: That looks like a good idea. I also see quite a number of women are red linked on the Deaths in 2018 page for April. Maybe someone would like to see whether they deserve biographies.--Ipigott (talk) 07:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Harriet Hague death

I'm trying to find out the cause of death for Harriet Hague (1793-1816), but I have had no luck. SL93 (talk) 07:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you saw these refs, though they don't give the cause of death:
The Apollonicon: [4]
Wikisource entry for Charles Hague from A Dictionary of Music and Musicians: [5] Yoninah (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I found a death notice and added date and place of death, but alas no cause.(apologies, omitted my signature) Oronsay (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Women's Liberation Movement

Since the article was nominated earlier this year for deletion, I have been thinking that we need to work on improving the Women's Liberation Movement. While I get that the major purpose of the project is to write new articles, we often have to work on improving existing pages. Since next month one of our topics is on villains, and "women's libbers" were clearly demonized, I thought it was appropriate to work on it. In truth, in reviewing the links and how the article ties in to the encyclopedia, it is evident that almost all of our articles on feminism need work. Most have a decidedly US/European-centric position and don't take into consideration the world events that shaped the movements. I have started by creating a background section to put it into historic perspective. If anyone is interested in helping I'd welcome the collaboration. SusunW (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry @SusunW:. This is just shocking to me it'd even be up for deletion! You might want to bring this to the attention of the editors in WP:Feminism. Honestly, some editors were confusing suffragist with suffragette.--Fred (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
SusunW: I certainly share your feelings about Wikipedia's overall coverage of the history of the liberation movement and agree that many participants in WiR are well placed to contribute. It also seems to me that WiR has attracted interest from related wikiprojects to the extent that we should perhaps be thinking seriously about extending our mandate to improve existing articles rather than just create new ones. In any case, I would be happy to assist wherever help is needed. Just let me know how.--Ipigott (talk) 06:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Ipigott I am specifically looking for Women's Liberation, as there was a distinct difference between the early unorganized period and the later structured period, in which feminists tried to distance themselves from Women's libbers. So, say 1960-1975. (I think evidence will show that the distancing started around the time of the International Women's Year (1975), as I find no more press coverage using that term after that date in the US. But, it well may be that there is overlap between second wave feminism and women's liberation, as is usually the case in social movements). I have gotten the political background written, but still need to work on the economic (prosperity, return to women in the workforce) and social background (the pill, abortion), etc. Jump in anywhere you like but since your interests lie in Scandinavia and you have the language skills for it, maybe you could add info on Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway? SusunW (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
OK. I'll get around to it one of these days. There could also be substantial improvements to the articles directly related to the Scandinavian countries. There's already quite a bit in Women in Denmark, Feminism in Denmark, Women in Sweden, Feminism in Sweden and Feminism in Norway as well as in the equivalent articles in the national languages.--Ipigott (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
In my early days of editing Wikipedia particularly feminist academics it was suggested to me (by well meaning editors) that I visit WP:WikiProject Feminism. What I found, at least back then, was sex-positive feminism put on a pedestal whilst any feminism opposing that view was bad/mad. I recently proposed a merger of term gender feminism (old diff) and victim feminism into Social construction of gender - you can see how that discussion went here, and the subsequent discussion here. I still don't think that either the term gender feminism or victim feminism should have their own articles. They should both re-direct to either Who Stole Feminism? as pejorative terms that Christina Hoff Sommers created or to Social construction of gender as pejorative terms to describe academics who advocate study in that area. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
The Vintage Feminist I tend to think that every generation believes that they invented the wheel ;) and that Wikipedia as a vehicle tends to focus on right now. Thus, things like gender feminism and victim feminism, which appear to have only one source, may or may not hold up through the course of time. (I would support redirecting them to the book Who Stole Feminism?, but it is unlikely that I will know if such a discussion takes place, as I do not regularly monitor AfD or that page.) I also agree with you that theorists can often sidetrack (or even hijack) what members of a movement thought were the important issues and thus, it is important to evaluate what the members, as well as the academics said of their involvement. There is plenty of evidence that the term "Women's Liberation Movement" and its various translations was in wide use and led to a general acceptance that women should be free to make their own choices. Its track record, historically, is proven and thus deserving of better treatment in the article (and I totally agree that many of the articles on feminism are poor). You are welcome to participate should you like. SusunW (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
SusunW The discussion moved to here, I had a hand in re-writing the article particularly the history section, what Sommers says gender feminism is and I added that, Retrospectively Jaggar stated that prior to the publication of Who Stole Feminism?, "Sommers was establishing her reputation as a defender of so-called traditional family values against those whom she called radical "gender feminists," a term she invented [in her book] to refer to any feminist who had moved beyond the ideas of nineteenth-century philosopher, John Stuart Mill."
  • Jaggar, Alison M. (2006). "Whose politics? Who's correct". In Burns, Lynda (ed.). Feminist alliances. Amsterdam New York: Rodopi. p. 20. ISBN 9789042017283.
I finished off by asking the question "Okay, what if there is such a thing as gender feminism, a movement" What are the movement's aims? - not according to Sommers / McElroy / Pinker / Kuhle / other conspiracy theorists etc. What are the movement's aims according to those inside the movement? Wanting to teach subjects which historically have been taught from an androcentric perspective (remember we're talking about academics who came through in 1970s and 1980s) is not a political movement. The academic curriculum changes all the time. No-one answered me. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I think it'd be well worth redirecting those terms to Hoff Sommers or her book: they're not in any real usage outside of that. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I see that Women's lib is currently redirected to Feminist movement and that the "Feminist movement" article provides its own interpretation of "Women's liberation movement". Would it not be preferable to redirect "Women's lib" to the evolving Women's liberation movement and also to ensure there is some consistency in its coverage in both articles. SusunW who has already made considerable improvements may like to work on this too. I also see that Women's Liberation Movement is frequently capitalized and abbreviated as WLM as in this interesting article on its development in the UK.--Ipigott (talk) 07:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Great article, Ipigott and yes, the link should be changed. I have already found two other links that redirected versions of the title to Feminism/second-wave feminism rather than WLM. I think that because of the perception that liberationists were man-haters, lots of the earlier analysis of the movement tried to "whitewash" the radicals and just write them off as nutjobs, so to speak. I am spending a lot of time reading early texts that liberationists produced themselves as well as journal/newspaper articles from the time to try to weed through what their intention and perception was historically versus what revisionists wrote about them. Since ultimately the reformists, who wanted to change existing social structures, incorporated anti-sexism as part of their message and became the dominant group the history became one of the reformists. But, there was a lot of cross-over between liberationists and reformists, even at the time, so it is complex. Fortunately, there is a lot of new scholarship that has begun to reevaluate the movement without trying to erase the accomplishment of bringing to light sexual discrimination. I have already had to contend with edits to make it seem as if it was only a US/British phenomenon, which is clearly not the case, but I think once we are able to develop the breadth of the movement, we can correct the lede again. SusunW (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
(Waves arm around furiously) I need help with technical stuff. While trying to figure out why I was having so much difficulty finding articles on other WP, I realized that there are multiple pages for Women's Liberation Movement, i.e. [6], [7] and [8]. There may be others. Can someone merge these into one entry with all the links, so that we have a truer reference? SusunW (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I can't tell if Q8031205, Q3326594 and Q1116849 are about women's liberation movement in general vs. women's liberation movement in a particular country. It would be best if someone who speaks the various languages can confirm before any merging or re-naming occurs. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Rosiestep Yes, therein lies part of the problem with the article itself as it was previously written—conflating the radical movement which focused on sexism as THE issue, with feminism in general which evaluated a variety of issues. Looking at the French article, fr:Mouvement de libération des femmes and the Swiss article, de:Frauenbefreiungsbewegung it is clear that they are about the challenge to patriarchy, thus WLM, as it happened in France and Switzerland respectively. (It appears that the Catalonian and Spanish articles are about the movement in France). The Arabic article ar:حركة تحرير المرأة is a translation of what used to be the English article, conflating the two. The Japanese aricle ja:ウーマンリブ運動 is about WLM in Japan and focuses on sexism. The Farsi article fa:جنبش آزادی‌بخش زنان, while a stub is about sexism and a general article. So I think it is safe to say that these three are all about WLM though some a general article and some country specific. Whether there are others conflated with feminism, I have no idea. SusunW (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Objectification of women

HI, We have a discussion of Wikimedia Commons about Objectification of women. It is really a problem as people do not even realize the issue even after explaining it to them. You may want to add your opinions and suggestions. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you! I'm not sure how to convince them tho. They probably have not read John Berger's Ways of Seeing or many other art books. I'm not sure if i can think of "easy to digest" sources for the issues you are trying to get at, but I'll think about it. In fact some of the caption editing for women biographies piss me off too. XYZ dressed as a man. No it's her, she's wearing clothes. I'd rather have a description or where or what the individual was doing. Fred (talk) 04:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
It would be much better if I were not the only one to argue that there is a problem. Oxyman refuses to understand that there is an issue, and tries to attack me instead. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
The problem for me is that I have very little involvement with Commons and have no idea what their policies might be. However, on EN.WP, there is pretty much a tenet that articles cannot be placed in a category that is not defining, in other words, hair is non-defining for women as it exists on other humans and species. Thus to my mind, placing a bunch of random pictures of women in a category labeled hair, is quite definitely objectifying the women. Maybe BrownHairedGirl who works a lot with categories has more experience with common's take on them? SusunW (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I also agree, besides it is not only a question of categorizing in a non defining category as to the perception it could make on the people actually looking ito that category: making them believe it defines women, and also as a woman looking into that category, not feeling welcomed as a woman, because being defined by a physical element that is not relevant.--Nattes à chat (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
(ec) @SusunW and Yann: I wish I could help, but my categorisation work is solely on en.wp. Aside from a hazy understanding of free use/public domain/fair use, I have no experience of Commons's rules, processes, or culture.
I took a quick peek at that linked discussion (c:Commons:Village pump#Objectification of women), and I note two things:
  1. per WP:CAT, en.wp categories are based on the principle of "defining characteristics". If that principle applies on Commons, it is an important one here. Hair is arguably a defining characteristic of a model or a performer, but not of a writer, politician, engineer, librarian, sports player, businessperson etc. But that is my en.wp logic; I dunno whether or how Commons applies that principle.
  2. the age-old claim that anyone challenging sexism has an "agenda". This is of course the contemporary terminology for an age-old phenomenon: that upholders of the status quo claim to uphold the natural order of things, and everyone else is making mischief. My experience of 12 years of various such 2debates is that this is best overcome not by direct challenge to people whose worldviews seem fixed, but by persistent, calm, evidence-based reasoning with those who are less entrenched. Even so, it usually takes several rounds of debate.
First principles reasoning, as used in this case, is rarely an effective opening on en.wp, because a significant proportion of those you are talking to do not share those principles. So the evidence thing is v important, as is the source of the evidence. In this sort of discussion, most weight is attached to sources which cannot be labelled as gender studies, because some editors regard all such work as inherently partisan. Shameful, but that is where some editors start from. So the most useful evidence is that from generalised authoritative sources, even tho in my eyes they are usually less rigorous than scholarly works. So I eventually learnt the hard way that in cases like this it is best to start out with a set of links to and quotes from the relevant guidelines as published by the likes of the BBC, CNN, Library of Congress, NYT, academic libraries, commercial photo libraries etc.
Hope this is of some help. But do prepare for a long haul. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks BrownHairedGirl, you explained it far clearer than I did. SusunW (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome, @SusunW. Wish I had more time to help, and sorry I can't be more optimistic. But keep the faith, and don't let any luck of instant success discourage you. Over the years, I have seen a lot of apparently immovable things change when the right way is found of making the case, usually after a few failures because I didn't pay enough attention to where others were at. This too will pass. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Speaking of immovable things...BrownHairedGirl you were one of the people who motivated drafting this. I'd be interested in your input. SusunW (talk) 03:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I got no real dogs in this fight, but I'd argue that on commons, having pictures categorized by hairstyle might have some value. For instance, the pompadour style is quite striking visually, both in men and women, and having pictures of people sporting such a hairstyle does not strike me as something completely devoid of value. Likewise for say the 'Aryan haircut' (not sure if there's a better name for this style) or beehives. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you all for your input. Sure, categories about hair style may be useful when there are relevant. We should also use the principle of "defining characteristics", as explained above by BrownHairedGirl. (BTW thanks for your advice about dealing with this situation.) And "hair style" is different than "Human hair", which should only be used for close up images. But here, we have images of women in the US military, where the hair is hardly visible, in "human hair". The category is totally irrelevant, even by the most stretched interpretation of "defining characteristics". The issue is that no reference is used on Commons, for any kind of categorization. References might be used for image description, when needed. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh, the thing was just about regular pictures of people being put in human hair category? That just seems silly/completely not useful. In my experience, it's just some person, most often a newbie, who decided 'Hey, I can do this, so let's do this', and they've got an interest in whatever topic, so they decide to apply some faulty logic across a topic because they think it'd be useful, when in reality, it's not.
The only gendered component I can see to this would be that such compulsions/fixations to categorize all "X" in whatever subcategory they can think of is that since the majority of editors are men, it can result in some unusual interest in women-related topics. I've seen the same compulsions on a wide range of topics, from US Roads, abbreviations, redirects, books, coins, stamps, etc... so it's not just a women thing. I agree with the BGH approach of sticking to the facts / core categorization principles (i.e. that categories have to be useful), without the drama of a metadebate about whether or not such additions were objectifying or not. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Help w/ a women's health editathon

Hi all,

Potentially of interest to many people here: I am running an editathon as part of a conference/hackathon about breastfeeding, family leave and maternal health: Wikipedia:Meetup/Breast pump hackathon. I'd love your help sourcing articles that need work about these topics or relevant missing bios, etc. for participants to work on. Please feel free to edit the meetup page above. Thank you!!! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 21:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Good luck with this Phoebe Victuallers (talk) 10:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
@Phoebe: I'm happy to help with any references or sourcing. I have access to several good databases and I enjoy finding references. Ping me or email me with any article that needs help. I'll get to it as soon as I can. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
@Phoebe: Found this source when I was poking around for something a couple of months back. Strikes me as something that would be quite useful for the edit-a-thon; hope it is. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Maria Bochkareva

This article could use some copy editing and sources. She was featured in one of the "forgotten" obits on the front page of the New York Times today.104.163.159.237 (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Pinterest and non-free images

Over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/71, on the list of new or upgraded articles, editors are encouraged to post to social media about the new articles, including Pinterest. I am concerned that posting non-free images used in articles on Pinterest may be a violation of some aspects of Wikipedia:Non-free content. Has there been a discussion of this somewhere? Or does it not matter because it’s offsite?

Thanks. NotARabbit (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@NotARabbit: Could you please give an example? If you mean our works being used on Pinterest then would have to be dealt with there. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
@Emir of Wikipedia: No, I mean that editors are posting images from new articles on Pinterest. I don’t have any problem with that in general, but I wonder if it’s okay to do with non-free images. (I’m new to image policy, so I may be way off the mark, but I’m trying to learn.) For instance, I saw that the non-free image File:Elisabetta Keller self portrait.jpeg was posted to Pinterest (though I cannot find exactly where right now). — NotARabbit (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
It would not really be okay, but this would be more in the jurisdiction of Pinterest than Wikipedia. I could suggest that perhaps on that meetup page you clarify about non-free images though. Regarding image policy in general you may wish read WP:IMAGE if you have not done so already. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Emir of Wikipedia, it's an issue for Pinterest and its policies to deal with. Not our job to police other media sites. SusunW (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
That makes sense, except that if there is a problem, it is through the auspices of this project that Wikipedia editors are posting there. I wonder if there should be a caution or best-practice guideline for editors on the project pages along with the links to social media?
I would guess from your replies here that this hasn’t come up before. I’ve been searching through various archives, and I haven’t found this subject anywhere on en.Wikipedia yet. I should probably ask over at WP:Media copyright questions. — NotARabbit (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure many if not most of the images on Pinterest and the other social media would not meet the requirements for Commons and probably not for non-free images on Wikipedia either. As other editors have suggested, I don't think we should become involved in Pinterest matters here.--Ipigott (talk) 07:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Exactly Ipigott I think that overall, it isn't the function of WiR to police people or restrict what they do. Our goal, quite the opposite, is to create WP articles and to provide assistance and encouragement to others who want to create quality WP articles. If some members use other social media outlets (I do not) that is their choice and not something that involves WiR as a group. SusunW (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts. NotARabbit (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm the one who sets up and pins to the WiR boards. I'm happy to follow the guidance of the community on this topic. I can absolutely just pin free images; if I do that, the pinboards won't look so colorful or so diverse, and we won't be driving traffic to as many biographies of living or recent women, but we'll still have plenty of images I'm sure. I'll just have to remember how to tell which images are free and which aren't from the article page itself (it's probably just a hoverable thing). Just say the word and I'll move to that plan. Penny Richards (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps this needs a bit more conversation before we change what we're currently doing as we're posting those same images on Twitter and Facebook, and no one has noted that to be problematic. Victuallers, do you have thoughts on this? --Rosiestep (talk) 07:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Copyright law is a mess (I have a paper on this subject). The whole world is posting copyright images on commercial sites like Facebook and there has been very very few (none?) prosecutions. OK it could be fair use .... but all of them? Wikimedia commons is dishwasher-squeaky clean beyond the point of pedantry and that is the world we have created and that even Wikipedia cannot cope with.... we store "fair use" images outside it. Posting fair-use pictures to Pinterest and Twitter is situation normal - the whole world is doing it. Wikimedia commons is a stunning example of abiding by the law, but we do not impose rules on our editors outside the project. Its illegal to use Wikipedia in Turkey - but we still make it available (obviously), some UK museums believe we are breaking the "sweat of the brow" copyright clause - but WMF choose to take no notice. We have to do what is right in the real world whilst we hold up "commons" as an example of what we hope to achieve. Victuallers (talk) 08:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Victuallers: “We have to do what is right in the real world whilst we hold up "commons" as an example of what we hope to achieve.” Bravo! Very well put. It seems as if copyright law is getting messier and left unenforced every day, no doubt because of the ease and reach of posting digital content. @Penny Richards:, it depends on your preference settings and your browser, but you can see whether an image is free or non-free by clicking on the image and going to the file page. But Victuallers is right: posting any and all images on Pinterest is normal anymore. I’ve not signed in to Pinterest in a long time — is each image still linked to its original site, like they used to do? (Of course, that’s moot if the “original site” is Twitter or Facebook or Tumblr!) NotARabbit (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

That's right; the "pins" on the WiR Pinterest board all link to Wikipedia articles (except our Inspirations board, which is generally going to link to news stories about people who might need wikipedia articles). Penny Richards (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl podcast

Kudos! Our very own Librarian in Residence, Megalibrarygirl shares some thoughts in "CIRCULATING IDEAS, the librarian interview podcast"! --Rosiestep (talk) 09:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: a fun drinking game with the recording is to take a shot every time I say "um" or "uh." On second thought, don't do that. I don't want to encourage alcohol poisoning! :D Thanks for the shout out and the host of the podcast is awesome! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Wow! So awesome Sue. Congrats! SusunW (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
What's this I hear about a Wikipedia-centric drinking game? I guess it was only a matter of time.
Congratulations - I look forward to giving it a listen. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Nice story! Thanks for doing the interview and thanks for posting! It's always interesting to hear about others working on the same projects. Jane (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Wonderful interview. V well done,, @Megalibrarygirl. Your sheer positivity is so much what I need right now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Well ... to borrow a phrase from Megalibrarygirl, " ... that was awesome". One of the most informative talks I've heard about how Wikipedia works together with red/blue links, citations, etc. I nominate Megalibrarygirl for the honorary position of "WIR Ambassador at Large". — Maile (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
@SusunW, BrownHairedGirl, Jane023, Ser Amantio di Nicolao, and Maile66: thank you so much for the kind words. I really appreciate what BrownHairedGirl said. Thank you so much! Also, thank you, Maile66! Do I get to wear a sash if I accept? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, no sash. It might clash with the halo <grin> --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

May 2018 at Women in Red

Welcome to Women in Red's May 2018 worldwide online editathons.
File:Soraya Aghaee4.jpg



New: "Women of the Sea"

New: "Villains"

New: "Women in Sports"

New: "Central and Eastern European women"


Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Anyone know why the country list of the CEE meetup omits Bosnia, Ukraine, and Russia? (and for that matter, why it's "Central Eastern" rather than "Central and Eastern") —David Eppstein (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I cannot answer that question David Eppstein but I do know that in June Russia/Soviet Union are on the board as the geofocus. SusunW (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
David Eppstein, this article, Central and Eastern Europe, lists the countries which I think should be covered by the editathon. If some of them are missing from the editathon page, it's inadvertent, so please add. SusunW is right about Russia/Soviet Union in June. So Ukraine, should be included as a CEE country, even though it's not on the Central and Eastern Europe page. Thanks for noticing and thanks for helping out! --Rosiestep (talk) 01:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @David Eppstein and Rosiestep: I don't think we should adhere too strictly to the "official" definitions of the Central and Eastern European countries. I've added the following to the Wikidata red lists on the editathon page: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ukraine, Lithuania, Moldova, Czech Republic, Macedonia, and Montenegro.--Ipigott (talk) 09:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The Scope of this WikiProject

Hi wir members, I honestly need some clarity on the scope of this WP. Please men who have contributed to the development of a female course, are they legitimately within the scope of WiR? For example male football managers that have only coached female football teams. Thsnks.HandsomeBoy (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

If you look at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, HandsomeBoy, you'll see that it explains that the scope is women's biographies and works by women, so no, I don't think a male football manager would be within scope (which doesn't mean it isn't worth creating such an article, of course). Cordless Larry (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
HandsomeBoy IMO Yes. One of the first feminists I wrote about was Salvador Alvarado. There pretty much wouldn't have been a feminist movement started in Mexico in his era without his progressive ideas. The world doesn't exist in a bubble. Some things cross over. SusunW (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
It depends, HandsomeBoy. I wrote about a doctor who had developed one of the first IUD's for women's birth control and I included the article under Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's health, but not under Women in Red. I think, though, that SusunW is right in that WiR is very inclusive and intersectional. If you feel that that article is about someone who helps further women's issues and causes, I'd add it to WiR. Male allies are important. Otherwise, if you think, like in my article about the IUD doctor, you may want to just add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's sport. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Megalibrarygirl, exactly. SusunW (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. These has truly broadened my knowledge in the placement of my next set of articles and project on Wikipedia. HandsomeBoy (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Countries with relatively few women

Would the 'Bottom 10' countries at http://whgi.wmflabs.org/gender-by-country.html#bokeh-alltime-plot be worth a systematic WiR push at some point? The inclusion of Netherlands there is weird - some measurement artefact? - but the rest look plausible: Qatar, Oman, Yemen, Laos, Tonga, Solomon Islands, Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, UAE. It would be nice to see those percentages go up! Dsp13 (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I love this idea, Dsp13! I'm going to BE BOLD and add it to our calendar here Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
The inclusion of Netherlands in the list could be due to us having few editors fluent in Dutch, but whatever the cause, it would be a mistake to pre-emptively dismiss it as a "measurement artifact". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Jane023 may be able to assist with some Wikidata lists of Dutch women and/or Dutch women painters. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
The Netherlands is surprising, I agree. I wonder what's going on. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes those numbers may seem surprising. Unfortunately the Netherlands has been split into a kingdom and a Dutch Republic and at least one other one, and because of the confusion the citizenship property is still blank for many human items. It will all get fixed eventually, but these stats make the numbers seem lower than they are. By and large the women items seem to come in without birthdates, which only makes the citizenship problem worse. Without a birthdate the proper citizenship is hard to assign. We need helping hands to work on the cleanup of items coming in. I do hope that article writers will soon be able to complete their article's Wikidata metadata as easily as they can upload illustrations to Commons. Jane (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Template for easy participant list signup

Hi all,

I've made a quick template that allows people to add their names to a participant list with a minimum of markup knowledge (e.g. for new users at editathons/GLAM events).

{{join list}} produces sign up here

Hope its useful. Suggestions and direct edits welcomed. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 12:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Women in Military History Editathon

Just a big thanks to everyone who participated in the Military History editathon last month. I have read some fantastic articles that have been created for it and hopefully we have made a difference in Wikipedia's coverage of this traditionally male environment. I have been keeping tabs on the WiR Military redlist and it is great to see that more than 100 new articles have been created from it in the month (more than the seventy-odd listed on the editathon page) - Dumelow (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dumelow, Great news, and thanks for all your work. Timing was good as it coincided with Anzac Day. I added three WWI nurses to the WiR Military redlist and contributed entries on two of them. They were awarded the Military Medal and/or Florence Nightingale Medal, and obviously notable. Hope to research and write up the third in coming months.--Oronsay (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Don't forget about WP:MILHIST. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Dumelow: This seems to have been of mutual benefit to our two wikiprojects. Our WiR participants appears to have created 72 new articles, several of which were not on any red lists. I hope we can collaborate again in the future.--Ipigott (talk) 08:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I was really pleased with the involvement from both projects. I am hoping to continue to work on some sea-related military women for the current editathon and have pulled together a list of possible candidates for new articles - Dumelow (talk) 09:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_41"