Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red

"Komm rein, mach mit", meaning "Come, join us".

Beauty pageant winners

I seem to remember there was a GNG guideline about beauty pageant winners? There is a whole slew of articles on pageant winners in the Category for Proposed Deletion e.g. Easher Parker but I can't find the relevant guideline to apply to assess notability (or maybe there isn't one?). TIA. MurielMary (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

MurielMary: You'll find some draft guidelines here.--Ipigott (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thankyou! I'll take a look at that and then at the PROD articles. MurielMary (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

MurielMary: In case you haven't noticed, your objections to the Proposed Deletion have been deleted from the pages, with a comment from Dan that you should comment on the deletion talk page. You may want to follow-up. --IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the first two proposed deletions and it seems like there is much more to these women than simply being a pageant winner. Both women seem to be at least minor celebrities in their home country. When I did a search on Véronique De Kock in Google.co.nl, it came up with page after page of results in Dutch, mostly in what look like celebrity pages news. She has 100K+ followers on her social media accounts. However, I don't know whether notability in the Netherlands translates to notable on English Wikipedia. The other one I looked at also had accomplishments of being a TV presenter, and again seems to be someone of some celebrity in her home country, in non-English sources. Can someone give me guidance about how notability in a home country should be weighed? And, in general how celebrity weighs. I don't recall seeing this addressed in the notability guidelines I've seen. (But, there are a lot of them, so I'm sure I may have missed it.) -- IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@IdRatherBeAtTheBeach: Notability is notability. There's no requirement that a person be notable in English language media for them to be listed in en.wikipedia, in a situation in which they're notable in Dutch langage sources. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Tagishsimon. In that case, I'm feeling a bit peevish about these nominations. It seems quite obvious these women are likely at least minor celebrities in their native countries, although their pages are very stubby. But, maybe I haven't had enough coffee yet. I am still not feeling experienced enough to comment on deletion talk pages. --IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@IdRatherBeAtTheBeach:I agree with Tagishsimon, if someone is notable in their home country, or if notability is established in their own language (not English) this is still notable enough for the English-language WP. MurielMary (talk) 09:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

MurielMary That may appear to be the case but unfortunately most of the other language versions of Wikipedia are far more inclusive than the EN version. Many of the biographies in other languages have no references at all, while some just make do with the equivalent of external links. In nearly all the biographies of non English-speaking women I write, I look for my own sources and start again from scratch. This seems to be a reliable approach. As far as I can remember, none of my biographies have been threatened with deletion. I looked at some of the beauty pageant articles too and must say that I doubt whether being placed high in one event back in the early 2000s is sufficient reason for a model's notability. On the other hand, as you have mentioned yourself, some of those listed have achieved notability outside the sphere of modelling or beauty contests.--Ipigott (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, just to clarify, I meant that if a person's notability was established in non-English language reliable sources, that would be sufficient for English-language WP. Agree with you that there are many biographies on non-EL WPs that don't seem to meet GNGs. MurielMary (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Over the years, a number of articles (not just about women) have been (wrongly) deleted for lack of English sources to back up notability. It's one of the things that drives me nuts on the en-wiki. -Yupik (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Souls Grown Deep Foundation

Biographies of the artists whose work is in the collection, and biographies of the quiltmakers of Gee's Bend.

Another interesting resource - the Foundation is dedicated to preserving the work of vernacular artists of the American South, especially black artists. Two-thirds of the artists in the collection are women, and there's biographical information on the website for most, if not all, of them. I think there's a lot of potential here. Also quiltmaking in general, but this would be a good start. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

These are interesting but many of them are personal accounts. I'm not sure how many of them would be considered notable enough for Wikipedia. Maybe some of them would qualify for Wikidata.--Ipigott (talk) 07:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ipigott: The Foundation is in the process of disseminating its collection to museums around the United States, so I think it's safe to say most (likely all) of the listed artists would meet the notability standard. I agree that personal accounts can be problematic as source material, but there's no reason they can't be used as a jumping-off point. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

At least one is also discussed in secondary sources according to the quick google I just did. Could we add a redlist to the index? I’d love to work on some of these. Nonmodernist (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nonmodernist: I've pulled a quick and dirty list of the quilters: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles/Souls Grown Deep Foundation. I'll add in the handful of other women artists from the Foundation shortly. Not alphabetized - I don't have the time right now, I'm afraid. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Thank you! This is quite a list. --Nonmodernist (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao:Yes, nice work as this list is a bit of a goldmine! I checked the first dozen and about 80% have good coverage in News or Google books. Four are already in museum collections.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nonmodernist: Any time. The story of Gee's Bend is quite interesting, as is the story of the Foundation. If we're able to write articles about the quilters as individuals rather than members of the collective so much the better.

@ThatMontrealIP: More than that...I think there are at least eight in the Met alone. More in others, I'm sure - as I say, the Foundation has been working on disseminating its collection quite a bit in recent years. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I just created Annie Bendolph, and will do more when I have time. If you have htoughts on a template to use for these (I am calling them artists rather than quilters in the lede, for example, as they are in a hugely prestigious art museum) let me know. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I've added stubs for several women, though they still need categories and WikiProjects. Would this topic be a good candidate for a purple template box to gather all the relevant pages? (Sorry, I can't think of a better way to describe what I mean--see Laura Hale's excellent Spanish Civil War template below.) --Nonmodernist (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

They're called navboxes, aka Wikipedia:Navigation templates. Can't answer your question, though: exactly what would the theme or organisaing principle of hte navbox be? Souls Grown Deep Foundation collected artists? Quilters? --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Navbox, yes! Thank you, Tagishsimon. "Quilters of Gee's Bend" is what I was thinking, since art museums tend to categorize The Quilts of Gee's Bend and the Freedom Quilting Bee together, and we now have dozens of women whose work should really be understood in relation to one another. --Nonmodernist (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nonmodernist: I can try and knock something together later tonight or, more likely, tomorrow. I agree that they would be good candidates for a navbox. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: I got one started but would appreciate suggestions or edits: {{Quilters of Gee's Bend}}. I'm sure there's more to include that I haven't found yet. --Nonmodernist (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nonmodernist: Looks good - all I added was some italics. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 03:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• FYI, I came across the USPS stamp series for Gee's Bend quilters, and added the respective info to the articles of each artist who appeared on a stamp.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Can't find

I can't find any single link on this page to enter a person who needs to be red-linked. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@BeenAroundAWhile: Such names can be added to any crowd-sourced page listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Redlist index, or else added to wikidata with, for instance, an occupation or affiliation of the sort used to produce wikidata redlists. I grant you're probably right that we lack obviousl links talking about adding new redlinks, beyond the comment made at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red#Lists of red links. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

BeenAroundAWhile: You'll find most of the information about this WikiProject on WikiProject Women in Red but the template at the top of this page also provides links to the most important areas of interest. If you still have not found what you need, please give us more details here and we'll try to help you along. I see you have recently created quite a number of interesting biographies of women. It would be useful to have you as a member of Women in Red. Maybe you'd like to join?--Ipigott (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

More artist links

WIRs who are mining the artist seam might be interested in Anonymous Was A Woman Award, which has a fair number of redlinks; and which has bluelinks that might usefully have info about the award added to them. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Another, a database which I just stumbled upon: Women Artists in the Washington University Collections. Some obvious, a lot less so...at the very least it's a good jumping-off point, even if it doesn't in itself confer notability. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 03:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

María Helena NG

I have User:LauraHale/María Helena NG on my user space. I would like to mainspace but am concerned about notability. She is mentioned in a number of academic articles, where her historical importance is also discussed... but I am not sure she passes WP:GNG. Any feedback would be appreciated if it should be mainspaced or what should be done to make it more main space worthy. --LauraHale (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@LauraHale: I definitely think she is worthy of mainspace. Unless I've totally missed something, academic sources are fine for establishing notability (...right?). I think the lead could be edited to more clearly establish her specific notability, and I have a few suggestions for the article as well. For the lead:

María Helena NG (born 1947[?]) was one of only two known women to be charged with violating the Ley de Vagos y Maleantes, the 1933 law that defined homosexuality as criminal act in Spain. Arrested on 30 March 1968 at Barcelona's La Gran Cava, she was eventually convicted and sentenced to between 127 days and one year in prison, followed by a 2 year mandatory ban from going to Barcelona, and two years of government supervision. María Helena's case indicates that, although past and current conservative narratives challenge the existence of lesbians [or gender-nonconforming women?] [in Spain?] [this would be a great place to wikilink to Lesbians in Francoist Spain ], the state was aware of them.

"Trans man" (two words) is the better way to write that term, and it's what WP uses. Also, the first sentence of the Biography section needs context--who wrote this? María Helena herself, or a scholar? I think that would help readers understand. Finally, the Context section has one sentence that should be taken out: "The other involved a woman named María Helena NG who was prosecuted in 1968." Thank you for pointing out such an interesting piece of history--I hadn't heard of María Helena before and I'm glad now that I have! --Nonmodernist (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nonmodernist:, Thanks. Changes made and main spaced. :) --LauraHale (talk) 09:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Thus now at María Helena NG, to make to easier for readers to access now that the redirect from draft has been deleted. Another fine article, especially the Historical importance section. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Metrics kaput

@Harej: WiR metrics seem to be kaput. For two days, Reports Bot has decreased the count, although there are many new articles - see the history for 21 & 22 April. Would you let us know what's occurring? thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

This is still not working. Perhaps Isarra can help?--Ipigott (talk) 07:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

:( --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I got nothing. Is harej the only bot operator? You probably do need him to look into it, or someone else familiar with bots in general, if that fails, since the source etc should all be available... somewhere. (I just really don't know anything about bots on wikimedia, though.) -— Isarra ༆ 14:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Isarra. I had a quick look at the source listed at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Reports bot & doubt that it covers the currently broken functionality. I'll ping an email in the direction of harej; possible he's away, or busy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm looking into this now. I see that Wikidata is no longer returning results for articles about women as expected, but hopefully it won't be too much work to fix. — Earwig ^talk 01:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@The Earwig: thanks; very much appreciated. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Figured out the issue and deployed a fix. (This Wikidata item is mislabeled and was causing us to not pick up changes to the list of articles.) It's working now. Sorry for the trouble. — Earwig ^talk 02:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

The Earwig: I just noticed it's working again too. Thanks very much for your help. After it had stopping functioning correctly for almost a week, we were becoming rather concerned.--Ipigott (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

The Earwig: Ditto - thank you very much The Earwig; good work! I've asked for the rogue lexeme to be deleted. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I am not the least bit technical as we all know and hesitate to ask a question at the Village Pump because I don't even know the proper terminology to ask, but I have noticed that the bot(?) that used to run nightly and move manually input info from authority control, like what I input on Shulamit Reinharz and Francisca de Haan isn't running. I am sure there are tons more, as I always manually input the data if I can find it and it doesn't automatically show on an article. Can anyone advise how to get it fixed? SusunW (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

That seems to have been User:KasparBot, which has been closed down by its maintainer [1], which is a pity. And User:Citation bot, which used to do useful standardisation tasks on references within articles, has also been shut down for a policy violation. All in all, March turns out to have been a bad month for bots. It'll take until someone else steps up to implement new bot code, before the automatic movement of identifiers from {{Authority control}} to wikidata is restarted. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Tagishsimon! The authority data move was useful. Sorry to know that it is no longer functional. I know how to manually input the data on an article, but have no idea how to edit wikidata short of the gadget. I hated that citation bot personally. Geared to Global North standards which totally failed to take into consideration problems searching for links and journals in the Global South. More than once it deleted an accessible url to replace it with a DOI that was behind a paywall. Trying to discuss it with those who were running it was like banging one's head upon a brick wall. SusunW (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Late April FPC report

Since the last report, we've gotten a bunch of new FPCs with a variety of interesting content:

• Rei Kawakubo's fashion designs
• Aline Duval, whose article, I believe, was a WiR biography? The articl e might benefit from some work on our part.
• Young Bhil girl
• L'enfant et les sortilèges (an opera by Colette and Maurice Ravel)
• Mary Jackson

Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.6% of all FPs} 17:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Student edits translating biographies from Spanish Wikipedia

Hi all, a student and new editor has translated 10 new biographies of women from Spanish Wikipedia to English Wikipedia [2]. There are issues with establishing notability that I've noticed from the first few I've looked at, as well as some weird wikicode syntax. Per previous requests, notifying any interested volunteers about the creation of these biographies. I'll be going through them today and tomorrow, most likely. Thanks, Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Elysia (Wiki Ed):, much appreciated. We'll take a look at them; might take a day or so. I see three which are arguably a little weak - Clara Franco, Aurora Arias and Andreína Álvarez - but all of which probably stand up. The other seven are without doubt notable. All of the articles could do with a little subediting &c. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The articles are:

• Andreína Álvarez
• Luz María Jerez
• Rosario Prieto
• Aurora Arias
• Marisol Santacruz
• Amanda Portales
• Petra Herrera
• Clara Franco
• Esperanza Iris
• Luisa de Morales

Been to some Wikipedia Spanish language edit-a-thons and they say English to Spanish is fine, but Spanish to English is less problematic. :/ If people are doing work on women like this, they should consider getting into contact with Wikiesfera or Wikimujeres to get lists of good articles to translate. I've considered translating some articles from Spanish but the sourcing issues has been so problematic that I've just started from scratch. (And in one case, I translated an article only to find out it had been plagiarized from another site.) Will try to take a look today at the articles. --LauraHale (talk) 07:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Elysia (Wiki Ed):, And uggg. :( Spanish Wikipedia has phrases that were copied in one article I found. In another, it is unclear if Fandango copied Wikipedia or if Wikipedia copied Fandango. :/ --LauraHale (talk) 07:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

this appears to have been lifted straight into Rosario Prieto. -LauraHale (talk) 07:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

LauraHale less than 5% of the courses we support engage in translating content to English Wikipedia, but we do have a training geared for those students. It sounds like we could compile some language-specific resources such as the two you highlighted (Wikiesfera and Wikimujeres) for students translating articles. I'm just clocking in for the day, so I'm diving back in to look at & hopefully clean up these articles. Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

50th Anniversary of Apollo 11. Need DYKs of women in space

I (Coffeeandcrumbs), Kees08, and NMilstein are working on a project to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11. Please join us. The plan is a friendly takeover of the entire Main Page featuring space exploration as an overall theme. You can see what we have so far at this demo page. Of course, as usual, systemic bias is an issue and we are having trouble featuring women in space. Please assist us in creating DYK nominations by creating new pages or from the following articles which need to be brought to GA to qualify:

• The Mercury 13 – any of them and the article itself
• Valentina Tereshkova – where my efforts are currently focused
• Svetlana Savitskaya
• Sally Ride
• Judith Resnik
• Kathryn D. Sullivan
• Mae Jemison
• Basically anyone on the list of female spacefarers

Please help us feature any women in space-related articles at DYK on July 21. (Note to people in the far west: although we may remember Neil Armstrong's walk on the moon was on July 20, in UTC, it was on July 21.) --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I am watching this page but please ping me at any DYK nomination pages created.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: Gene Nora Stumbough is currently a redirect (one of the Mercury 13 women). That'd be a good way to promote women in space - making an article out of an redirect ;) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Definitely! We just need more hands on deck to help. If you can create it, please do and nominate. When creating DYKs add note "Reserve for July 2019".--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I have added the proposal to the calendar for June. Please go there and endorse the idea if you are interested in this focus area. Obviously doesn't prevent anyone from working on articles now, but gives a focus for a push prior to July 21st. SusunW (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cofeeandcrumbs:, this sounds like a great idea! Have you thought about posting at WP:Women in Green as well? In addition to the Women in Green talk page, there is also the GA Task Bulletin Board to ask for help. Knope7 (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thank you! --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: File:Katherine Johnson at NASA, in 1966.jpg hasn't yet run on the main page. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.6% of all FPs} 01:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I have penciled it in for Template:POTD/2019-07-18. I invite everyone to WP:S2019 to make more suggestions and offer help. I don't want to crowd this page which is intend for other uses. I just wanted to recruit more editors to the project. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata profession and occupation item images

Margaret Hamilton, now used to illustrate the wikidata concept of 'software developer'

This is somewhat off-piste for WiR, but we all need a holiday sometimes.

Earlier today, the esteemed jheald found that the wikidata item for software developer used an image of Markus Persson, a person who espouses highly questionable political opinions. On the basis that that was a bad thing, we've replaced the wikidata image such that Margaret Hamilton (scientist) now illustrates the item.

Wikidata images are increasingly used by default on-wiki - e.g. on Commons categories such as Category:Association football players, and, presumably, off-wiki. It seems reasonable to spend some time a) adding women images to illustrate wikidata occupation and profession items where there is no image and b) replacing item images with more appropriate or higher quality images of women.

I've taken the liberty of providing a couple of new redlists at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Redlist index#Related tasks should anyone be inclined to join in this game. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Wasn't actually me that noted it, it was User:TweetsFactsAndQueries. But I fully agree with the sentiments. Jheald (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh you're right; sorry Lucas. I'm somewhere beyond brainfade by now. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I occasionally change images on Wikidata but am not always happy to do so. Those displayed for people are often the ones used for articles in several of the other language versions of Wikipedia. I'm not at all sure whether those of us who mainly edit the English version should have the last word. But the answer here may well be to add more than one image. There are two for Marie Curie so there is no reason why there should not be more than one for others.--Ipigott (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

The question whether there should be more than one P18 image is interesting; in general, only a single image is used with most items, but the wikidata community has not reached a consensus on whether a single image rule should be implemented for P18; nor whether, if there are multiple images, one should have a preferred rank. There are implications for templates that use images - they need additional code to deal with items with multiple images and need to determine an algorithm for choosing one of the plural images. I lean towards single image & prefer that multiple images reside on Commons. YMMV. I've not made a suggestion that en.wiki-ists should have the last word; just that en.wiki-ists might want to interest themselves in this subject. Not least, the majority of occupations and professions have no image; and enough of the images on occs & profs are very poor & questionable. Some are frankly dreadful & from my POV, inappropriate - Prison officer comes to mind. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

May you join this month's editathons from WiR!

May 2019, Volume 5, Issue 5, Numbers 107, 108, 118, 119, 120, 121 Hello and welcome to the May events of Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual events: New topics: "May" women / Mayors / Environmentalists Geofocus: CEE countries Continuing initiatives: Suffrage / #1day1woman Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley C. Ford

Probably of interest: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley C. Ford. XOR'easter (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake. For Phyllis Bolds they wanted fewer local news sources, now for Ashley they want more. —Nonmodernist (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

This sort of variation could possibly arise merely from differences in who responds to the AfD, but it also suggests casting around for excuses to justify a predetermined conclusion (a very common problem in AfDs in general, especially for types of subjects that one thinks should not be notable) rather than disinterestedly judging whether the subject actually meets the standards. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

It looks like the AfD was closed as keep already. XOR'easter (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Women Playwrights of Diversity: A Bio-bibliographical Sourcebook

I feel like I might have mentioned this book before, but it just turned up in my research again. It's on Google Books, here. I did a cursory search through the table of contents, and there are at least two or three writers in there about whom we haven't got articles, yet. If anyone wants to cobble together a list of names it might be useful. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Pioneers & Leaders: Knowledge Center About Arab Women

Another site of some interest, here. A friend sent me the link; it's a project of the George and Lisa Zakhem Kahlil Gibran Chair for Values and Peace at the University of Maryland, College Park. We've got articles on a lot of them, but not all, and it's especially rich in interesting figures from the Arabian Peninsula region. I would note that at least two have been subjects of articles that were later deleted, so we might need to tread carefully on those, but it's not an insurmountable issue. We've done edit-a-thons at UMD before; I wonder if this is something we might pursue with them again? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a wonderful source, Ser Amantio di Nicolao. I'm hopeful someone has time and inclination to make a redlist of the names and organizations. Link to list of "pioneers". Link to list of "leaders". Link to list of "Civil Society Organizations". (cc: @May Hachem93 and Megalibrarygirl:) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: I may tackle the redlist tomorrow night when I have a little time. Assuming I don't nod off in front of the computer again. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Women's suffrage in film redux

Following up on an archived conversation: I just moved Women's suffrage in film to mainspace, but it needs significant expansion in the areas of non-Western film. If anyone has info or titles of films made outside the US/UK/France that deal with women's suffrage, I would really appreciate it! --Nonmodernist (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Human rights activist

Should I write an entry about a Russian human rights activist who still lives in Russia? I don't want to call negative attention to her. But then again, it could be like saying "we have noticed this woman and will notice if she disappears." What do you think? --MopTop (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

If the woman is notable enough for an English Wikipedia article, then she likely has attention. Unless you have sources that say she is hiding, then I wouldn't consider it an issue. Women need agency and part of giving that agency is by writing their stories through Wikipedia articles. I would go for it. --LauraHale (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested moves for Women in Red primers

Here are links to discussions of interest to members of this project: --Rosiestep (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Essays/Primer for creating women's biographies#Requested move 30 April 2019
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Essays/Primer for AfD, AfC and PROD#Requested move 30 April 2019

• FYI - WikiProject Council Guide - Advice pages. WikiProjects are designed for inclusion of project-specific guidelines/essays to help editors of any specific project. — Maile (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Column for # of site links in a Wikidata redlist

I really like when there's a column for # of site links in our Wikidata redlists, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Gender Studies. I wanted to add such a column to our WD redlist for librarians, but it didn't seem to work. Can someone tell me what I should do? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Three things are required; the code which counts the links, which you added - OPTIONAL {?item wikibase:sitelinks ?linkcount .} # count of sitelinks, but also ?linkcount needs to be in the select statement (so SELECT ?item ?linkcount), and then in the columns parameter, you need to add ,?linkcount:site links at the end.

As it is a) I acknowledge you can't get the staff. I've revamped some but not all of the by occupation redlists, and been derelict, so far, on the others; and b) I've revised librarians to make it follow the current SPARQL approach, so tick that one off. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Tagishsimon, as always, thank you for explaining these Wikidata issues with such patience; and thank you for doing the needful on the actual redlists. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Jess Wade

Heads up for WiR - https://twitter.com/jesswade/status/1123494971435290624 - "since this whole thing, every page i’ve made has been tagged for deletion and queries made about people’s notability." You all might want to keep an eye on Jess's recent contributions. Currently just two pink-listed articles in her last 500 edits, one an AfD heading for snowball keep, and the other a deletion review heading for "don't be so stupid". Clarice Phelps seems to have been the immediate trigger, on which question there is a DailyDot article and, if we cannot have an article for the subject (her page has been salted by admins), we are surely at a point where we can have an article on Clarice Phelps Wikipedia controversy. Also smh. Also ❤️ Jess Wade. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

& @Jesswade88: fyi. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Many of these AfDs seem to have been initiated by the same user who requested to move the two WiR primers (see above). --Nonmodernist (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

It looks to me that with over 1,200 page views, Clarice Phelps is actually receiving far more attention than might have been expected if her biography had not been the subject of deletion. (Jesswade88's other recent articles have between 200 and 600 page views.) Unfortunately, the way things are going, it doesn't look as if there is much chance of saving the article. So where do we go from here? (If the article is completely removed from Wikipedia, it will still appear here. But that's hardly a solution.)--Ipigott (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

By coincidence, I had a brief interaction with Larry Sanger on twitter last night. On Clarice, it's the normal normal: we need to assess what sources there are, and whether they provide notability either for a subject article or for a controversy article. If we think we can make the arguement for the first, then we should go to WP:DRV and argue the case. If a controversy article, then we can start it and sit back and wait for the inevitable AfD. Clearly new sources may arise at any point, and so older decisions do not bind our future actions. I've not done any work on surveying sources; right now I'm obsessively cleaning an oven, just so you know a man's work is never done ;) (Sugar soap for the greasy stuff and vineger for the glass btw kids; gleaming. But I digress.)--Tagishsimon (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth working on this any longer. I've read all the discussions and the tweets. But we should, as you suggest, concentrate our attention on Jess Wade's future additions. She's doing a wonderful job, on Wikipedia itself as well as on Twitter and in the press.--Ipigott (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Just an FYI - the behavior in question has been brought up at WP:ANI. (Not inviting comment...merely informing, should anyone be interested.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I am disappointed by the language used by those seeking deletion of the articles on Clarice and Ana Achúcarro and their accusations of the statements against the AfDs. I follow WIR and Jess on Twitter and do my bit with links, etc to help incorporate new articles into WP. I am unwilling myself to weigh into the debates, but please keep up the strong defence of both these articles and the Women in Red project. I hope the situation settles down and we can get on with our work creating new articles.Oronsay (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Worth noting that bogus primary source & other nagware tags are being added to Jess's work; and, in the case of Leslie Kolodziejski, entire sections removed diff. Very depressing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd actually concur with the removal of the patents list (it's more suited to a CV than an actual biography), but the prose paragraphs (During her early career...) look defensible. XOR'easter (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

And now there's this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Tuttle. I was honestly thinking that was more of a "draftify per WP:TOOSOON" situation, but then I started looking for sources, and now I'm wondering if anyone bothered to do that before complaining. XOR'easter (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Since Jess's last few new articles are all "She was elected a member of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in 2019 ...", we can expect a quieter time while these last. There are still plenty of redlinked female scientists of very strong notability, & I wish she would concentrate on these, rather than walking the line of WP:TOOSOON. I was looking at this old list I compiled in 2014 and was surprised that quite a few are still red]] - it's been linked to from various places. Still no Betsy Bang! Johnbod (talk) 11:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

There's also this list, every woman on which has an entry in a biographical dictionary, which I usually find a solid criterion for notability as well. I'm surprised at how many redlinks are left on it as well. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Did you not notice that that's untrue before reposting it here? "since this whole thing, every page i’ve made has been tagged for deletion and queries made about people’s notability" Do you actually believe that? It's very simple to prove it wrong. Click on any one of the 500+ articles that have not been tagged for deletion, and you'll see that this is an invented claim. Natureium (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Natureium: Your attitude to Jess Wade's work goes before you, Natureium. As to your dismissal of Jess's claim, you invite us to look at the 500 article she started BEFORE the issue she refers to as rebuttal of the claim that every article she started AFTER the incident have been tagged. So let's add to our understanding of your view that all of Jess's work needs to be minutely policed the idea that you also think she's a liar.

As I urged elsewhere, please go and take a look at yourself in the mirror.

If you go through Jess's most recent articles, you'll see what looks quite clearly like a campaign by Netoholic, with contributions from you and from WBoG. Whilst I'm sure you are not a club, one - well, I, if perhaps not you - can imagine the distress of an editor having each & every one of her contributions being tagged and the majority taken to AfD as soonas she created them. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Tagishsimon, You know nothing about me, and have been going out of your way from the first time you addressed me to assume bad faith. It is not true that every article she has made has been tagged for deletion. Perhaps you can imagine the distress of all of the people you have ascribed motivations to based on your own judgment. Natureium (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure by your lights you are working in good faith. I'm equally sure that when turning up on an ANI forum dealing with mass tagging & AfDing of Jess's contributions, you pipe up with "no, she needs even more stringent scrutiny"; and coming here repeatedly saying "she's lying", that you show crass poor judgement. I'm not very surprised you don't like the reaction you're getting from me, but what did & do you expect? The three of you may not be a club, but you're certainly acting as a gang. Netologic is taken to ANI. You turn up to cheerlead their behaviour. Later, Netoholic having decalred that they will not be taking any more of Jess's articles to AfD, you take a Jess article to AfD, and Netoholic is the very first supporter you get.

If you apply dessicated forensic analysis to any of our work you will find faults. And if you extrapolate from the faults that sort of analysis has found, to the whole body of a person's work, you arrive at the conclusion that you seem to have struck on: that all of the person's work needs that sort of forensic analysis. That way lies madness. That is the point I was seeking to make in finding faults in one of your articles: it's easy to do, but it's wrong and it's harmful to the individual, to the community, and to wikipedia, which is currently being dragged through the gutter as a hang-out for misogynists based on your actions and those of the other two. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Pointing out that someone isn't completely off the mark in an ANI thread accusing them of things is perfectly acceptable. I didn't insult anyone, as you have repeatedly. I don't mind you pointing out problems with the articles I create. Going through these articles thoroughly and with good faith can only improve them. The good faith is key there. Not only were you incorrect about the problems you identified with the article, you did it to be rude rather than to fix anything (which you easily could have since you were going through it anyway). Natureium (talk) 22:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

You're very quick to dish it out, Natureium - I'm rude, Jess is a liar - but not so keen to receive criticism yourself. You might want to go away and think about that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm concerned there's an elephant in the room here. Jess's contributions are being scrutinised in some cases for sexist and misogynistic reasons, of that I have no doubt, and I'm well aware of the often toxic atmosphere which exists for anything other than white male geeks editing Wikipedia, but Jess really hasn't helped herself by saving articles which have serious sourcing deficiencies. The Clarice Phelps draft when first saved says "She graduated from the University of Tennessee with a PhD in chemistry in 2014." sourced to [3]. This source makes no mention of Phelps having a PhD, she isn't introduced as Dr Clarice Phelps, and on further analysis, it doesn't even confirm Phelps is a University of Tennessee graduate. The hot topic at the moment, Sarah Tuttle has a smaller but similar issue. The first line says "Sarah Tuttle is a Professor of Astrophysics and Science Communicator" but when looking at sources, we only have [4] discussing Tuttle's current title (assistant professor) and we have a second source [5] linking through to Tuttle's page at the University of Washington [6] where their title of assistant professor is confirmed, unfortunately this source wasn't used in the initial revision of the article as saved by Jess.
I know it's frustrating sometimes to have an article running away through your fingers because it's missing a couple of sources to confirm what you know or think you know, but the combination of original research and synthesis we see in some of Jess's articles is a large part of why so much of her work is being heavily scrutinised. - Nick (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, and I'm afraid similar stuff has happened at Rylie Green, which I have tried to untangle. Aside from the Phelps and Tuttle articles, I think it is the only one I've looked at. - Sitush (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nick: I have looked at four creations since this situated erupted but only three in any depth. At the Rylie Green article, there were issue taking the form of fact and mis-statement; in addition, the AfDs noted similar issues at the Clarice Phelps article, and problems are also emerging at Caroline Moore (academic). The other article I looked at was Sarah Tuttle but I didn't follow through on that one because I got a bit lost with the terminology etc. As I said yesterday at Talk:Caroline Moore (academic)#Bigging up, less haste might make for more speed - Jesswade88 doesn't have to create one new biography per day.

While mistakes are inevitable, the rate and scale of them from a random selection is rather alarming and, which is more concerning, they seem to have persisted right through from at least February 2018 (creation of Rylie Green) to the present time (Phelps, Moore). I'm guessing this is everyone's "fault" for lack of scrutiny that might have enabled Jesswade88 to improve her writing over time, and instead lauding her efforts without perhaps much consideration for the detail. It now leaves us with a mammoth task. Worse, such a huge block of scrutiny - didn't someone say there were 600 articles? - is likely to discourage Jesswade88 from participation in future, which would be sad.

Or is it just that I've been incredibly unlucky in landing on a very few poor examples among the 600? - Sitush (talk) 09:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Just quickly checked - it is 603 creations as of now, but probably some of those are redirects etc. - Sitush (talk) 09:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello Sitush, can I clarify that you are suggesting that none of the 603 articles are notable and therefore they should all be deleted? I suggest you read the articles before deciding on notabilty.Duncan.Hull (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Where have I said that? No, I am saying that the number of errors is concerning - there were issue taking the form of fact and mis-statement. - Sitush (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

“The rate and scale of these (mistakes) is alarming?” You say you’ve checked 4 so far? Before criticising my ability to write a wikipedia biography you could try reading some of the other 600 :-). I’d argue that they’re better quality than lots of the biographies / pages on this site. Of course, it would be even more helpful if other people contributed and the articles grew/ stayed up to date. As I recall, your criticism of Rylie Green arises from the fact she got promoted since I made the page last year? Jesswade88 (talk) 05:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

No, the issues at the Green article were more than that. I am very deliberately not going through everything you have done because I will just be accused of misogyny and stalking but you are aware that numerous other of your creations have attracted attention. There's nothing wrong with what you are trying to do; I just question the result and wonder if slowing down might resolve some of the issues. OTOH, if you really want me to go through all of your creations then I certainly can but I have suspicions that you won't like the outcome because you will be overloaded with pings. - Sitush (talk) 06:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

"Historic number of women elected" to National Academy of Sciences

See http://www.nasonline.org/news-and-multimedia/news/2019-nas-election.html. I don't have much time for it today, but it would be a good idea to go through this list and check that articles on the new women members exist and describe their new academy membership. See Bryna Kra for an example that I just handled after an anonymous edit there brought it to my attention. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: thank you for the heads up! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's the list Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Science#2019_NAS Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Drafting Selma Freud article

I'm drafting the requested article for Selma Freud. Cheers. WritingMan (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

how to suggest a redlink

Hey it is nice that Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Architects is very clear that it is generated from wikidata, whatever that is, and that any manually-added suggestions will be automatically deleted. But it would be nice if the introduction here and at similar missing article lists also suggested how a new redlink could be added. :) I did try "Automatically update the list now" but that is something else, does not permit an addition. So I just posted to the Talk page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Architects, about the woman to add perhaps. --Doncram (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

We have separate pages for manually suggested lists of redlinks. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Architecture. Perhaps you missed, on the very first line of the list you found, the link labeled "WiR redlist index"? Following it would have led you to the manual list. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

But equally it is all a bit bewildering. WD redlists don't give any advice on how to add to them, for which I'm at least party responsible. The redlist index is slightly better, at least for CS pages. It points to but does not give any advice on how to add people to wikidata, and we could perhaps, do slightly better than this. The main page is much as the redlist index page.

This is, I think, the second time in the last month (?) that a user has taken the trouble to suggest that we're not making 'how to add' clear, and I'll now take the hint and do something about it. So, thank you, Doncram. And per my other message, I've added the suggested architect to wikidata. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Doncram, and others, are to be excused if they aren't sure what Wikidata is. I've been around a dozen years and only figured out within the last few years what Wikidata is. I noticed that if you create a new article, you may or may not see something on that new article that says it is a Wikidata item. And I finally figured out that all Wikipedians have access to Wikidata, but they have to log in to that account. Easy way to find it is to go to your Preferences/User Profile and scroll down to "View your global account info". Wikidata is somewhere at the bottom of the list that pulls up. Now and then, I've created Wikidata pages. But I do it so seldom, that inbetween times I forget how I did it. I would like to suggest that somewhere/somehow, there is a bulleted how-to list on how to create on Wikidata. — Maile (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

WiR. Now with added "We also have a guide to adding names to redlists". Sooner or later I'll start adding a link to this from redlists. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Let me add: because adding a wikidata record will be very hard for someone completely unfamiliar with wikidata, the guide page includes a section inviting people to list new names on that page, with a promise that one of us will add the name to wikidata. I've added the guide page to my watchlist; others who are familiar with wikidata might like to do the same? I doubt we'll see much traffic. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Like — Maile (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Nigerien music

I need help. :-)

Perusing what I was able to see of the Historical Dictionary of Niger behind the Google Books firewall, I discovered just enough information to create articles about two singers, Haoua Issa and Bouli Kakasi, and the genre they performed, zaley. Zaley (sometimes zalay) seems especially intriguing - it was a genre of praise song performed mostly by female singers that was especially prominent during the 1940s and 1950s. There appears to have been some political connection as well, though it's not clear from the sources I've read.

Can anyone expand these? I've done what I can with the sources as they are, but I'd love to expand them a bit. There were other female singers, too - I see several names crop up here and there (Hama Dabgue, for one - I may be able to squeak out a stub about her) - but creating articles is going to be difficult. Though I'd like very much to try, if possible. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

How to make a 'Women in Red' link blue

Hello, I successfully created a page for Joan Almond but don't know how to remove her name from the 'Women in Red' lists. Her name still appears as red. I found her name on the | Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Artists list. Also how how I link her talk page to the 'Women in Red' project. I see that there are several links, i.e. Wiki Projects Articles for creation, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject California, WikiProject Photography and WikiProject Women. Is it possible to create an manual archive to archive older conversations? Thank you!LorriBrown (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @LorriBrown:. First, in short, I've dealt with the Joan Almond issue; she'll disappear from the redlist shortly. And then, a longer explainer: names disappear from our wikidata-based redlists, such as the artist list you point to, within 24 hours of a link to the wikipedia article being added to the wikidata record for the person. In the case of Joan Almond, the wikidata record which was on the /Atists redlist was not updated with a link to your article; rather, a new Joan Almond wikidata record was created, and that was linked to your article. I've merged the two wikidata Joan Almonds. There's currently a delay of 5 or 6 minutes before the /Artists redlist can be updated to reflect the merge I did because wikidata plumbing is sometimes a bit creaky. I'll hit the button that makes it update soon, and if I forget, the page will get updated by a bot in the next 24 hours and one way or another, the Joan Almond row will disappear.

I'm going to pass on your other questions and hope a colleague will pick them up. thx --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

LorriBrown I cannot advise you on technical stuff like how to archive a page, but to flag an article as part of WiR, you just affix whatever template is appropriate under the project notices on the talk page of the article. For example, this month's editathon "Mays" is {{WIR-118}}. The "catch all" editathon for women who were created but not specifically tied to one of the monthly themes is "1day1woman" for which you would use {{WIR-108}} on the article talk page. SusunW (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I've added the WIR-108 template to the article's talk page. I've also added it to Judith Schwarz. Two interesting biographies. Great to have you as a member of Women in Red. Please let me know if ever you need further assistance. Keep up the good work and happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 13:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

RonBot11 not running?

Hi, just wondering why RonBot11 has not run for the last 3 1/2 weeks? The page was last updated by RonBot11 on 7th of April. I hope it will resume - there are many notable subjects whose draft articles can be improved and resubmitted/moved to mainspace, it would be a great pity to lose access to the rejected drafts. (I posted this on the WikiProject Women in Red/Drafts Talk page, but perhaps that is not viewed often - or perhaps no one knows why RonBot11 isn't running ...) RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Paging @Ronhjones: Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for paging User:Ronhjones, I didn't think of that. I looked at his user pages today, including User:RonBot, and this bot is supposedly still active, and should be running automatically - but isn't, sadly. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Research reveals evidence of discrimination against women scholars

Thanks to Signpost I have read with interest the results of the recent study titled "Female scholars need to achieve more for equal public recognition" by Menno H. Schellekensa, Floris Holstegeb, and Taha Yasser. On the basis of citations on Google Scholar of male and female academics in physics, economics and philosophy, the study clearly showed an overall discrimiation against women on Wikipedia. The percentage of females with articles on Wikipedia was 9.54% as compared to 17.4% for males. There is therefore obviously room for far better coverage of women academics, even if the number of women with adequate supporting citations was only 2,695 as compared to 12,354 for men.--Ipigott (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Sophia Wisniewska

Hello! On behalf of Sophia Wisniewska, I've submitted a draft article about her as part of my work at Beutler Ink. Given my conflict of interest, I do not edit the main space and ask independent editors to review for accuracy, neutrality, and verifiability. Moments after submitting, the draft was rejected, so I was hoping for some feedback about what improvements are necessary at this time. Any feedback would be helpful, thanks, Inkian Jason (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

​The draft was declined at AFC due to its inability to overcome the exclusionary criteria for articles which meet the basic requirements of WP:NBIO. In other words, the sources you provided which were examples of significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that were reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject (The Washington Post and NBC News) were both about one event only — the subject having been fired from her job as chancellor at USFSP. Other editors here may repeat the same searches you've presumably made for additional sources, but beyond that, I'm afraid there's not much more feedback to provide which would WP:OVERCOME the lack of sourcing that is preventing the subject from moving beyond this exclusionary criteria. Regards,  Spintendo  09:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I thought the article was probably not neutral - rather smoothing over the main thing she is notable for, her firing and the (alleged) conduct leading up to it. Johnbod (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, Inkian Jason, and thanks for coming here and sharing your difficulties with us. I'm sorry you are having trouble with Sophia Wisniewska but I must agree that your sources are primarily based on her firing. If you can find other sources in support of her notability, it might be possible to move the article to mainspace again. In this connection, you might find it useful to look through our Ten Simple Rules -- although I see you have already written at least two other interesting biographies of women. You might also like to become a member of Women in Red by registering on the project's main page as you are obviously interested in improving the coverage of women on Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all for the helpful feedback. I've shared a reply at Draft talk:Sophia Wisniewska to keep discussion tied to the proposed content. Inkian Jason (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Top 12 most outstanding Estonian women in the world 2019

Ran across this article about the top 12 most outstanding Estonian women in the world 2019. More than pleasantly surprised to see that 4 of them have articles on the en-wiki, but the following 8 don't, if anyone wants to get cracking:

1. Karoli Hindriks
2. Kristel Kruustük, not on any wiki, not even et-wiki
3. Lili Milani, only on et-wiki
4. Maarja Nuut, only on et-wiki
5. Mari Kalkun, on et-, ja- and uk-wikis
6. Marika Mikelsaar, only on et-wiki
7. Moonika Siimets, not on any wiki, not even et-wiki
8. Riina Kionka, only on et- and de-wikis

-Yupik (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks Yupik for drawing our attention to these. Over the years, I have also had close contacts with Estonia and have been impressed with their progress in information technology and STEM in general. Unfortunately, Estonian (like Finnish) is one of those languages beyond my capabilities. Nevertheless, I have started creating the missing biographies and think I'll be able to cover them all apart perhaps from Lili Milana [7], [8] and possibly Marika Mikelsaar [9], [10] as they might not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Maybe David Eppstein and SlimVirgin could offer an opinion on these two. There's no point in creating articles which are likely to be deleted.--Ipigott (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Early May FP report

Since I tend to update these occasionally at first, a lot of these were mentioned, but since a lot have closed, here we go!

• (Jacinda Ardern after the Christchurch mosque bombings) continues to await OTRS approval.
• (Rei Kawakubo's fashion designs) passed.
• (Aline Duval) failed to reach quorum, and so has not passed.
• (Young Bhil girl) also had quorum issues and failed.
• (L'enfant et les sortilèges) hasn't failed yet, but will probably fail to reach quorum. (ETA: It did fail to reach quorum. It'll be back in a month or so.)
• (Mary Jackson), however, has massive support. (ETA: and passed)

Nothing since then yet. We can hope. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.6% of all FPs} 04:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: Any interest in trying your hand at retouching File:Heart Mountain Relocation Center, Heart Mountain, Wyoming. In his barracks home at Block 7 - 21, Bi . . . - NARA - 539206.jpg, for newly created article Julena Steinheider Duncombe? Among other issues (like the dust spot on the negative on the kid's cheek) it may have been flipped: the caption doesn't match the photo. Or maybe the caption was merely written by someone dyslexic. It is also used on Bill Hosokawa. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Unless they're all left-handed, I find it doubtful it's flipped. The calendar, insofar as I can tell, appears to have the dates arranged correctly. The mother holds the baby in her left hand, keeping her right hand free (typical for right-handed people). The person reaching for the cup does so with his right hand. The man holding the cup right of him has a watch on his left wrist - again, typical of right handed people. It seems more likely the description was done from the negative. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.6% of all FPs}

Thanks for the restoration! The subtle midrange contrast boost is a big improvement — their faces looked just like the wallpaper before. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Canvassing allegations for Sarah Tuttle

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sarah_Tuttle

The AfD has the canvassing template at the top which directly links to Sarah Tuttle's twitter stream, even though the article does not mention twitter. Though Tuttle has posted that the article about them is being deleted, I have seen no post where she has asked for meatpuppets to vote in the AfD. Encouraging others to look at the article and consider adding more to it, is perfectly acceptable. Jesswade88 has openly commented on the twitter stream, there may be other Wikipedians who have reached out.

The use of the canvassing template appears excessive. No evidence has been supplied to support an allegation that Tuttle has been canvassing to game the system or manipulate voting in the AfD. A post by someone else has been mentioned as evidence for an ANI discussion, but that fine distinction is not made in the canvassing template. At the time the twitter stream post was noted, there were no keep votes in the AfD at all, so there could have zero meaningful evidence of canvassing at the time of the allegation.

There is a second allegation that the Women in Red twitter stream is also canvassing this AfD, therefore being used to manipulate votes.

I invite Slatersteven and Sitush to publish all their evidence here, so the evidence can be openly discussed rather than left as hanging toxic conspiracy theories. The current situation where allegations can be made against this project and a non-Wikipedian BLP subject without having to provide verifiable evidence of the allegations, is visibly unfair, hostile, and acts as a blight on AfDs and any related discussion for improvement, whenever these types of allegations of a gender gap conspiracy are allowed to go unchallenged. --Fæ (talk) 10:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Fæ: The template is actually called {{Not a ballot}}, which is what it contains – advice for people unfamiliar with Wikipedia about how the AfD process works. I don't think it should be regarded an allegation. – Joe (talk) 11:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The template is not being used neutrally, because it links to Tuttle's twitter stream with the non-standard choice of words "If you came here because the subject of this article mentioned it, ...". That's an allegation, as is the note that prompted the template to be added, which called the twitter stream a "call to arms" (diff). Could hardly be clearer as an allegation of gaming the system. Evidence of canvassing is what we would benefit from seeing, and having the fair opportunity to verify, not just passively accept that conspiracy theories are the new normal for Wikipedia.

Here earlier this morning, Sitush attributes an increase in keep votes to canvassing by the WiR twitter stream, so, let's see the evidence please, or have the conspiracy theory struck as being toxic to a positive collegial atmosphere. --Fæ (talk) 11:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you like to hear your own voice? ∯WBG^converse 12:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I doubt your comment is particularly constructive. Perhaps you might consider refactoring it in the spirit of collaboration? Richard Nevell (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Nope, in light of his illustrious past. ∯WBG^converse 13:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Illustrious. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

An AfD back the previous !voter was accusing me and others of perpetuating misogyny because he felt that we did not scrutinize male bios in an equal fashion and our time would be better spend by spending our efforts over there, instead. By the way, are these gems regular or occasional? ∯WBG^converse 13:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Strange you should say that; I came to much the same conclusion about you - that you seem to have a bias against women's biogs. Odd, then, when multiple people come to the same conclusion about you. Almost as if there was something to it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be coming to the same conclusion about quite many folks which assures me to not bother much about what you think or say. As you saw in the ANI thread, outliers always exist, ain't they?

Now, make sure to go and improve Patricia K. Donahoe or Kathryn Virginia Anderson or some of my other expansions, in case the anti-woman-bio-bias in me has affected my write-ups. Ta, ∯WBG^converse 13:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Easy to be misled by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nia Imara, which - surprise! - was another policing of Jess Wade's contributions, in which pretty much no-one agreed with your hot take. Do you & Natureium & Netoholic have a clubhouse? --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I decline to disclose the current members but they might be. We are always in search of new members and it does come with perks. Mind applying? (Do it secretly though....) Also, I got a bit sad, that none apart from you agreed to your hot-takes on sanctioning one of our apparent clubhouse members. (Hint:-The club might be bigger than you deem.)

And remember, the club necessitates good writing skills and a track record of creations/expansions of female academic bios (that conclusively pass NACADEMIC, w/o having to accuse other editors as misogynists); I hope that won't be much of a hurdle for you, eh?! ∯WBG^converse 14:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

As you wish, though my advice is that it would be better if you try to focus on the here and now rather than use events from seven years ago to justify your actions. Dropping in just to snipe at Fae runs against the ethos of this community, we should expect better. Richard Nevell (talk) 13:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

As someone, (whom I have appreciated as a sane voice, from our past intersections), do you feel that this is any problematic? ∯WBG^converse 13:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I removed the link to the tweet from the template. – Joe (talk) 13:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I shall now step in to say that I have not replied (despite being asked to) in order to diffuse the drama and for no other reason. That is all I will say about this here, as this forum is not about me.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

What a pity, how disappointing. No evidence to review, despite repeated requests. Just have to conclude this is fakenews drama mongering instead.

It would be smart to call out the usual suspects on precisely the same thing, every time these same old bad faith allegations of gender gap related canvassing are repeated.

Of course, naturally, none of this is an allegation of "misogyny" or "sexism", despite the usual suspects repeatedly using these words and pretending to be mortally offended, when the only people saying these things are themselves playing the victim. Dear Usual Suspects, please keep in mind that addressing Wikipedia's systemic bias, is not a personal attack on you, no matter how much you try to bend the facts to promote that myth. --Fæ (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

As usual, implying that someone's actions are misogynist or sexist (even without using those words and falling afoul of WP:NPA) is somehow seen as more problematic than, you know, doing actions that have misogynist or sexist effect. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

As usual. (sigh)

I've just read the past several days of Sarah Tuttle's Twitter feed (feed? stream? timeline? timestream? whatever the kids call it). Try as I might, I can't see any untoward "canvassing". Her comments about Wikipedia are a mix of dry humor, thoughtful reflection (If you're wondering, my choice is always not to raise my profile, because fundamentally I think we should do as much as we can to shift out of the framework of "Brilliant Hero Scientist Sitting Alone Thinks Brave New Thoughts") and getting mansplained by a guy who manages to fit two mistakes into 140 characters. If I had a Twitter account, I'd put on my best "well, actually" voice and say that (1) notability is a guideline, not a policy and (2) we do in fact consider the notability of science as well as of scientists. XOR'easter (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Someone has helpfully responded to his comment with a link to yours. --JBL (talk) 02:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Wow, I'm famous! XOR'easter (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I have not participated in the AFD, nor do I intend to; I am in no wise qualified to discuss the notability of any scientist without some kind of assist, such as a biographical dictionary. But I've been watching it brew since yesterday, and I feel the need to state this: I think a lot of accusations have been lobbed at a variety of editors on both sides of the issue. Few of them have been fair, and many have been exceptionally unkind. Whatever the result of the AFD I'm extremely disappointed in the tone it has taken on. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I fully share these concerns, particularly the reactions towards Natureium in the AfD discussions. Anyone who looks at his article creation history will see what a fine effort he has been making on improving coverage of women scientists (not to mention a number of male scientists too).--Ipigott (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I've not read the reactions to Natureium in the AfD, but, as I've said elsewhere, I think Natureium showed crass poor judgement in the Netoholic ANI; in ensuing discussisons; and in their decision to take yet another of Jess Wade's articles to AfD. I don't think they are a misogynist. I do think - per the Sarah Tuttle twitter thread - that their actions contribute to the perception that Wikipedia is a misogynists paradise.

In the ANI, at a time that Netoholic was being challenged for their close policing of Jess Wade's work, and for multiple AfDs which yielded keep results - i.e. for what looked to all intent and purpose like a campaign again Jess Wade and her work - Natureium turned up, declared that they had found some things wrong in Jess's work, and on that basis, decided that all of Jess's work now needed forensic examination ... in other words, Jess having been through a Netoholic campaign of tagging and AfDs, was now to be submitted to a Netoholic campaign of exactly the name. Netoholic provided no evidence for their view, beyond the broadest wavey hand explanation.

Later - after taking another of Jess's articles to AfD - Natureium turned up here to declare that Jess's tweet about a campaign against her work was a lie, and that I was credulous for reporting her tweet here. There is, according to Natureium, nothing for Jess to be complaining about, because all her articles predating the Clarice Phelps controvery is still in place. Jess's tweet was about her work after Clarice Phelps and there is abundent evidence that that work is being policed - now not least by Natureium.

Currently, Natureium is trying to get some sort of admin action taken against me for having the temerity to push back at their actions - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement ... as near as I can understand it, Natureium wants an environment in which they can level vague accusations against Jess's work with conclusions that it all needs a thorough examination; can accuse Jess of lying about that fact that she's under a microscope of first Netoholic and later Natureium's design; can accuse me of being credulous for believing Jess (And note: I did go through the edit history of Jess's work to confirm to my satisfaction that there was a campaign against Jess's work before posting her twitter comment here); and can accuse me of being rude in pushing back against the accusations leveled against Jess ... and an environment in which anyone pushing back against Natureium should be blocked. Admins there seem to be hot to trot for some action, having - at least up to last night when I bowed out of the process - accepted entirely Natureium's one-sided framing of the issues.

So forgive me, Ian, if I beg to differ on the Natureium question. And, as perhaps you'll understand, from my perspective, f*** this for a game of soldiers. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• It would be helpful if Women in Red would take part in developing the guideline about off-wiki canvassing. There was a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Canvassing in February, but it went nowhere. There are strong arguments on both sides. On the one hand, if Wikipedia is sexist, we can hardly expect people not to ask for help elsewhere. On the other hand, we don't want decisions about Wikipedia made on Twitter. Given recent events, I would say we do need to develop something pretty soon. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Guidelines for whom to do what? We can't control what subjects of articles say on twitter. And we shouldn't take account of what they say on twitter in determining whether they are notable. So the only thing to do is what we should have been doing all along: consider the strengths of arguments for whether articles meet our policies and guidelines and not the numbers of people on either side. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Well known people will clearly get very mixed results if they try to tweet about their Wikipedia article (or draft article). Anyone with a significant number of followers and attempts to do something like ask their followers to "vote for me", is quite likely to attract more haters to PROD their article, complain about it on-wiki, tag the article with lots of hard to remove notices about conflicts of interest and notability, or vote against them, probably quoting a lot more research than any supporters they attract. Plus, if someone like Stephen Fry tried it, and it was working, it would be pretty darn obvious that single purpose accounts were stacking the vote and the consensus would probably end up excluding all noob votes. In summary, there is not enough tangible evidence to show that either we need new policies to handle off-wiki canvassing, or that any of the proposals would be useful or effective were it to actually happen (in most cases like this one, mentions on Twitter have had close to zero impact on votes or were simply not "canvassing" when examined in the cold light of day). --Fæ (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Its about workload, wadding through 30 "Keelte" votes to try and actually weed out the wheat form the chaff Also this is not just a problem, with AFD's as any one who edits the Mark Dice page can attest, it makes work..Slatersteven (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
    • David, I'm talking about the Women in Red Twitter account. Whoever controls it (perhaps Victuallers?) has tweeted several times about the Sarah Tuttle BLP while it's at AfD, not asking people to comment in the AfD but to add material to the article. In a sense this is perfectly legitimate. But it risks encouraging people with strong views and little experience of our policies to turn up with a comment. I haven't looked to see whether there's evidence of it at that AfD. The point is not this particular article. It's that I assume none of us want BLP deletion decisions to be made via Twitter, so it would make sense to develop guidance: when tweeting about a BLP is not a problem, and when it might be. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
      • The WiR twitter account never canvasses for votes. As the creator and past operator of a User Group twitter account, there is no harm in WiR participants discussing some best practices for the Twitter account that represents the project, especially if it makes the decisions about content for the account operator(s) easier. However it's not really an area that on-wiki policies transfer well for, as we can probably be confident that the wider Wikipedia community does not want to restrict useful free speech, such as potentially whistleblowing about Wikimedia project or WMF issues that could be in conflict with the best interests of the mission of WiR... --Fæ (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
        • That is too strict an interpret of WP:CANVASS. Votestacking can happen simply by publicising an AfD to a sympathetic audience off-wiki. I mentioned this in the Tuttle AfD itself, as you know because you then went on a strawman rant. I also pointed out in the same comment that arguably referring to an AfD on Twitter without specifically saying something like "go there and !vote" might be no different from the deletion sorting notices that happen on-wiki. It's a tricky problem and the various distortions of my position that you have offered in this thread and elsewhere recently are not helpful. Although not an AfD, the Mark Dice article is a recent example of Twitter canvassing, and there have been plenty over the years for Indian caste articles via Orkut, Facebook etc. - Sitush (talk) 08:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
          • Nobody forced you to make allegations against the WiR twitter stream. Rather than wasting everyone's time attacking me yet again, please instead produce the evidence requested. As you are such a well respected contributor on BLPs about women, and allegations of canvassing should be taken very seriously, I am sure that nobody thinks you were making unfounded allegations against the WiR project without having firm evidence at your fingertips and can share that evidence here so everyone can verify it. Thanks so much. --Fæ (talk) 10:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
            • I didn't allege anything - there was no conspiracy claim etc. Please stop bloviating. - Sitush (talk) 10:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
              • Oh my, what a shame, still no evidence that anyone can review. So, when you proposed that the WiR Twitter stream should be added to the massive notice at the top of the AfD because "We should probably add the Womeninred twitter feed to that template - the sudden influx of !voters here is somewhat surprising." you were not in any way claiming that the WiR Twitter feed was canvassing, nor were you implying it. Strange how your actual words say the opposite of what you intended. Perhaps you should lay off the attacks against individual volunteers and the WiR project itself for a while, unless you are able to stick to verifiable evidence or perhaps just try harder to keep these nasty disruptive allegations in your head, rather than using Wikipedia talk pages to publish them. Thanks so much for your help clarifying the truth here Sitush, super super helpful. --Fæ (talk) 10:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
              • Indeed I wasn't alleging anything. Please stop this needless drama - you seem to take offence at everything of late and you are repeatedly drawing the wrong conclusions about various people while ranting away. It isn't a good look. And that's me done here. - Sitush (talk) 10:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
      • I've seen "canvassing" from the outside, on occasions when a colleague notices that a page relevant to one of our research topics is tagged for cleanup or nominated for deletion. Invariably, nobody wants to come close enough to even touch an AfD with a pole. Moreover, I suspect that there is no notice of an AfD that is so flat and anodyne that somebody somewhere wouldn't gin up an objection to it, based on who said it and where it was said. So, I don't see a behavioral guideline for off-wiki canvassing actually being helpful. Its existence would give people who like to wiki-lawyer another excuse to do so, and more likely than not, people not involved with the project will see it as Wikipedia being hostile again, trying to police discussions that aren't even happening here.
        I also think that there's a "hard cases make bad law" aspect to all this. Discussions about new guidelines, or making big revisions to existing guidelines (like WP:PROF), get started when people's emotions are running high and a small number of examples are on everybody's mind, whether or not those examples are remotely representative. Thus, big changes get proposed and debated and dramatized, even if the vast majority of problems are things we already handle routinely. (We semi-protect pages, discard obvious sockpuppets, skip over non-policy-based !votes, etc.) XOR'easter (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Fæ, I agree with the points you make about free speech and whistleblowing. But it would be troubling if decisions about BLPs were to be overly influenced by Twitter, partly because article writing would then become indistinguishable from PR. The other side is that we get requests every day from people very distressed about their BLPs and wanting us to remove something negative, or remove the page entirely. This includes people who were initially delighted to have one. So creating a BLP and deciding whether to keep it are both big decisions for someone's life. Perhaps we could at least add to the guideline that editors should not post on social media about BLPs during deletion discussions. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
          • By the by, and for transparency, there are four admins of the WiR twitter account: in addition to Victuallers (already mentioned), there's also @Megalibrarygirl and SusunW, plus me. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
            • Thanks, Rosie. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

For full disclosure, I have never canvassed on any social media platform for input of any kind to any discussion. I am an admin of the WiR twitter account, though I do not believe I have posted anything over the last 6 months. My posts focus on new articles created or the need of a photograph. I do not have a personal twitter and typically do not engage in exchanges on the platform. Though I did once respond to a request for a link to a guideline and answer a question about when WiR would do an editathon on artists. SusunW (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Like SusunW, I haven't personally posted on the WiR twitter page recently, but I do manage the sister meta project on Twitter for the Gender Diversity Visibility Community User Group (@DivWiki on Twitter). I also follow a lot of wikimedians and sometimes retweet or comment on their issues. I have found out about articles that needed improvement through Twitter, so I would consider that a net positive. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

We cannot tell people what to do on other platforms, we can (and often do, we even have a tag for it) not allow them to carry it over to here.Slatersteven (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I seem to be missing something. This long discussion seems to be about alleged "please vote for"s at AfDs. All the experienced editors know that AfDs are not votes and we have a template to remind others. It seems to be agreed that the Women in Red twitter feed is the best example we can find of a twitter feed that is blatantly NOT encouraging people to vote in the AfD. It seems to be agreed that the WiR Twitter feed is encouraging additions... and that is exactly what we have done. I'm not sure that this is a valuable debate - the most productive ones have been on the Sarah Tuttle article's talk page and on Twitter where we have supported Prof Tuttle and assisted her in contributing pictures. Now there are some very concerned people on Twitter who think that Wikipedia invented systemic bias... and some of the debates I have seen encourage that mistaken view. Prof Tuttle has shown in her article in Nature!!!!! that this is not caused by Wikipedia alone. The idea that AfD's should control what happens on Twitter, Facebook and the New York Times is fanciful. Will it stop debate here if this is proposed for deletion? WiR operates in 22 languages. Can we not come to a conclusion on this Afd? and let most of us get back to improving Wikipedia. Victuallers (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Missing articles from April's #1day1woman page

There are more pagestalkers here, so hoping that someone can take a look at this request from one of our members: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/108#April articles disappeared. Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Everything seems to be fine now.--Ipigott (talk) 05:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

FP stats

22 FPs of or related to women have been promoted since the start of the year, out of 156 FPs. Remembering that many FPs do not involve people (besides the photographer) at all (animals, buildings, etc) this makes for a fairly healthy 14% of all FPs for this year. Using a sample of 100 images, about 61% of FPs have no substantial connection to a human with gender (no painter, no composer they're related to, no humans. So buildings, space objects, animals, fruits, etc, but not things like paintings or posters where they could potentially be attached to a gender). Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.6% of all FPs} 16:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden that is very cool! Did you see the photo I found for Aletta Jacobs by Max Büttinghausen? It is the best photo of her I have ever found and I am so hoping you can work with it to remove the surface imperfections and improve it. SusunW (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, didn't you see I was working on it? I'm kind of busy at the moment, but it should be in the net couple FPCs. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.6% of all FPs} 16:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Dancing a jig! Adam Cuerden, I did not, but the last 6 months have been crazy for me and last week was my birthday week, so I have been off-line more than on. This news makes me soooooooo happy! SusunW (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden, I am so jazzed to hear that 22 out of 156 FPs are about or related to women. Statistically, that's incredible, right?! Wow and congrats! BTW, the application period is open to submit a session proposal for Wikimania Stockholm 2019. Maybe consider submitting one regarding your work? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I won't be there. I'd need a scholarship to afford it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.6% of all FPs} 19:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: You're inspiring me to start looking at some potential FPs as well. What do you think of File:Lolotte and Werther by Eunice Pinney.jpg, for instance? It's an intriguing example of folk art by a rare early American female folk artist. Think it'd pass muster? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: I think that should do quite well. Be sure to clearly state why it's important. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.6% of all FPs} 03:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: Of course. I'll try to have it up before bed. Another I've been waffling on: File:Lady Seated in a Boston Rocker MET ap66.242.14.jpg. I love the piece - Davis is a fascinating artist whom I've recently discovered - but I'm not quite convinced it's originally in black and white. What compounds the issue is, some of her work is in black and white, while other pieces were touched up in color. It's tricky, to say the least. (Now, if the National Gallery would get off its duff and properly digitize its watercolors by Mary Ann Willson - those, I think, would be fascinating FPC candidates.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 03:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: The words "Watercolor and graphite on smooth-surfaced tan wove paper" give me pause here. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.6% of all FPs} 04:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: Oh, damnation. I really like Davis, but that was the only picture I could find that was even remotely of FP quality. Ah, well - thanks for spotting. Another one: what do you think of File:Woman with Roses in Hair.jpg? There are condition issues, but I think those are present in the original. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: I think the damage makes it a poor example of her use of colour: it's blurred the washes, and made it likely non-representative. It would probably pass if there's enough information on the painting itself to make an article on the painting. Otherwise, I'd keep looking. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.6% of all FPs} 04:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, Eunice Pinney is up. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Adam I was hoping you might make it to the Edinburgh Uni Library session on the 29th of the this month. (29th WIR ed editathon on the 29th). I'm sure Ewan would find time for a presentation by you (in leau of Wikimania). Brilliant work, Roger aka Victuallers (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Victuallers: Should be doable! Though if you have Skype or something, we should probably talk a bit about what you'd like to see covered, as I don't know the audience breakdown. Could you also add Nathaniel Gardner to the list of people, though? (Also, I have to leave by 7, as I got tickets to Avenue Q a month ago, and will have a very unhappy fiancé if I cancel them now) Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.6% of all FPs} 01:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Adam Cuerden: Ooops I got the date wrong ... and even then the editathon finishes at 5. The link is here. Do feel free to skype me - you can get my attention on Twitter #wikiwomeninred or send me an email in good time. Roger aka Victuallers (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Data about BLPs

Andrew Gray has been kind enough to compile some data about BLPs, using Wikidata, and has written a fascinating blog post about it: Gender and deletion on Wikipedia. He has uploaded the graphs to Commons.

There have been some questions recently about whether existing BLPs about women (BLPs that have not been deleted) were more likely to have been taken to AfD at some point. Andrew thinks that used to be true, but that things have recently levelled off. He wrote: "Female BLPs created 2009-16 appear noticeably more likely than male BLPs of equivalent age to have been through a deletion discussion at some point in their lives (and, presumably, all have been kept). Since 2016, this has changed and the two groups are about even."

Andrew, thank you for putting all this together. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

This is very interesting, SlimVirgin, and thank you, Andrew Gray, for compiling the information and writing the blogpost. I'm curious if this methodology could be used on non-BLPs to offer a similar perspective? --Rosiestep (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Rosiestep, yes, I'm sure it can. Andrew will be able to say more. I meant to thank RexxS too for responding to the request on Wikidata. Also pinging David Eppstein who was interested in the AfD issue. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the ping. It's interesting to see that according to this data recent articles on women are not much more likely than those on men to be taken to AfD, unlike in the past. That has not been my experience but the ones I see are probably a skewed sample. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

David, bear in mind that this is about BLPs, not all biographies, although I get the sense that BLPs are more likely to be nominated. Another factor (if I've understood this correctly) is that the data is about BLPs that have not been deleted. It would be interesting to see the figures for all BLPs/biographies, the deleted ones too, but I don't know whether Wikidata can do that. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, that would be interesting (including the BLPs which were deleted). Pinging Victuallers as we had wondered about this very point. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Our Wikidata expert, Tagishsimon, might also be able to help with this. I would also like to point out that a couple of years ago there was of huge batch of BLPs on sportswomen which were deleted. That must have had a considerable effect on the stats. (See also my comments here.)--Ipigott (talk) 06:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

This report,[11] published in February 2019, though it measures only sociologists, concludes similar findings about BLPs at AfD. It concludes that deletion likelihood is similar, but also concludes that our PROF guidelines propagate under-representation of women and minorities in that they "transmit existing inequalities into the encyclopedia and magnify them informationally". SusunW (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh thank you!! A discussion worth having! Gathering some solid evidence is exactly what we require. This reads like an informed debate. I have to go to bed now but I do so with an increased confidence in this project. Victuallers (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The post mentions one ambiguity with the data: the fact that, for older existing articles, women are more likely than men to have been nominated for deletion could mean that there was a greater rate of nomination for women than for men, but it could instead mean that the rate of nomination was the same but the women's articles were more likely to survive (and their survival is why we still see more of the nominated ones today). But it doesn't mention a different and important ambiguity. From the data, recent creations have more-similar nomination rates between men and women than older creations. The natural conclusion one would leap to from this is that, whatever was causing the inequality in nomination rates has gone away and everything is more or less equal now. But that doesn't necessarily follow from the data. A different, and equally consistent hypothesis is that we are in a steady state where there are two phases of nomination, one for newly created articles and one acting on a longer-term basis on older articles, that the nominations for newly created articles are egalitarian, and that the nominations for older articles are not. Under this steady state hypothesis, the reason older articles are more unequal is not because the nomination rates have changed, but merely because those articles have had more time to be subjected to the unequal longer-term nominations. If you repeated the same experiment a few years earlier or later you would see the same picture, with the same appearance that things are becoming more equal, shifted over by however many years, with things never actually becoming more equal. I'm not saying that this is more likely, only that we can't rule it out. So it's interesting data but still not conclusive. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: I would certainly agree with your suggestion that there are probably two deletion "processes" - one acting on new articles (and probably very time-sensitive), one longer-term. I think we can even see evidence of the longer-term one - once an article is more than a couple of years old, the likelihood of having an associated AFD does seem to slowly increase with age for both populations, which is what you'd expect with such a background effect. As to which is more likely to be biased, I can easily imagine an argument either way; agree it's hard to rule out such an effect! Andrew Gray (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I think this is an important issue for which I am grateful to have some statistics. I am relatively new to Wikipedia editing, so my view is one of fresh eyes. As a newbie working to add BLP content on women who are also queer and/or women of color, the biggest barrier I have seen to closing the gender gap and making WP better at covering diversity is not bias on the part of editors, but the lack of coverage of diverse people in the conventional RS. This data would tend to support that impression, although I'd need to see an analysis of deleted articles to be completely satisfied. I'd like it if there was a way for WP to give extra weight to coverage in diverse reliable sources like Ebony, Out Magazine, and Curve for example, but I'm far too new to WP to know if that's possible, practical or even desirable. —IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

IdRatherBeAtTheBeach I mostly work on dead people, for whom English is not a first language, who are women of color and often LGBT. Sources are hard for people who have not been part of the "power elite", regardless of whether they are living or dead. I think we just need to reiterate for various demographics, if the most reliable sources for that community have determined that a person is notable, then they are, regardless of if mainstream sourcing recognizes their contributions. You will get pushback that it is not wholly independent, that the source has a COI, and that they are local sources/or limited circulation, etc. But, the precedent IMO is WP:PROF, which unless something majorly changes in the next few days/weeks has clear consensus in the RFC (request for comment) that if the media outlet is deemed reliable, its coverage is acceptable as a source. SusunW (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Dorothy Meigs Eidlitz

I found Dorothy Meigs Eidlitz hiding in a listing of the National Gallery of Canada's permanent collection. Her Times obit calls her an "amateur photographer", but there she is in the National Gallery of Canada's collection, and in the Brooklyn Museum's collection. I thought I would post here as there are some very good editors who lurk this page. There is much more that could be expanded in this article; in particular I was not exactly sure how to characterize her advocacy for women: feminist, advocate, campaigner? She's really fascinating, and must have had a huge art collection as the web is littered with "gift of the Dorothy Meigs Eidlitz foundation" passing mentions, for serious artworks from her collection that are now in museums across North America.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP: I've added a few bits and pieces but you seem to have covered all the essentials yourself. Maybe someone can find images of her photographic work which we can include in the article.--Ipigott (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I added a redirect from Dorothy Eidlitz - always a good idea to add rds from all plausible versions of a name, and here the first source uses this in its title. PamD 18:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

NPA potential RFC for gender identification harassment

FYI Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#Harassment,_mocking_or_otherwise_disrepecting_someone_on_the_basis_of_gender_identification_and_pronoun_preference --Fæ (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move: Chairman

In case anyone is interested, see Talk:Chairman#Requested move 8 May 2019. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I have been following the lengthy discussions on chairman and similar terms. While I have no strong views on the matter, I try to adapt my own usage in articles to the terms preferred by the individuals under discussion. Nevertheless, I think we should be careful not to make Wikipedia prescriptive. Our encyclopaedia, like other similar works, should reflect common usage. Articles should have the titles users are most likely to expect, while common variants should be explained and included as redirects. If, for example, users are looking for "chairman" and find an article headed "chairperson", they will no doubt be surprised. The same arguments apply to "craftsman", "spokesman", "statesman", etc. Perhaps more account should be taken of the pros and cons put forward in the article Gender neutrality in English.--Ipigott (talk) 10:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I just !voted before reading this, and before voting looked up Fireman and Postman. They redirect to Firefighter and Mail carrier, so I see no reason why Chairman should not also redirect to Chairperson (and similarly with the other terms). RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

RebeccaGreen: Interesting... I suppose "mail carrier" is American. I've never seen the term although from my days in Canada I do remember "mailman". It sounds to me like a paper bag or possibly a pigeon. But I suppose we Brits should give in to the American dominance of Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 11:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is American. We certainly don't use it in Australia - unless perhaps for a company carrying mail. We tend to use 'postie' as a gender neutral term, though I expect that there's a more formal term too. At least other terms are given in the first sentence of the article. As for US dominance - there are so many dominances! Film and TV over stage or books, Google results over offline or paywalled sources - and yes, US over other countries, not to mention men over women - so much to do! RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

RebeccaGreen: Well you've made a good start yourself. Four really interesting informative biographies of Australian women. Two of them look as if they are very close to GA standard. Keep up the good work.--Ipigott (talk) 13:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

How to proceed with names that are in the list but have Wikpedia pages in another language?

Hello, In looking through the 'Women in Red' list (occupation/artists) I have noticed a few names that do not not have an English Wikipedia page but do have either French, Spanish or German Wikipedia pages. How are we to proceed with these names? Are we to create an English page and include info from the existing page (adding if we can) - or - are we to notify the 'Women in Red' project that a page exits for the name in another language? One example is Chantal duPont (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chantal_duPont). Thank you!LorriBrown (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I can't comment on best practices, but Chantal duPont took me about fifteen minutes to parse and translate from the French. About 80% of the original material is lost, as I do not have the patience to parse each award from the French wikicode , which uses different names for ref values, to English wikicode. I have done a few from French and it strikes me that it's about 20% better than starting from scratch. It is not as much fun either, as you are basically doing machine-like translation tasks, rather than thinking about something original to write.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

LorriBrown It's been a while since I have translated a page, as usually I find it easier just to start from scratch. But, if you translate from any other language, you need to attribute it using the translated template on the talk page, i.e. {{translated page|(2 digit language code)|(article name in the original language)|version=(of the original language)|insertversion=(version on English WP)}} (If I got it screwed up, someone will come along and correct me, but I think that is the correct format.) The version numbers can be found by going to the view history tag and pressing on the time/date for the article. It will take you to the article and in the address bar (http:www.) will tell you the version. Another thing you need to do is when you have completed the article, on the task bar on the left hand side, scroll to the bottom. Where it says "Languages" press edit links. Type in your digit language code (i.e. es, fr, de) and the name of the article in the original language. It will then link all language versions with your new English one. SusunW (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

It strikes me that some code (to translate the reference fields and other relevant entries) would be a wonderful thing here. The code would take a non-English article, and produce a properly referenced English article, leaving just the English text to be translated manually. I write code sometimes, but am not sure what language would be appropriate for this task. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Such a translation tool does exist example of Spanish to Italian. It has just been disabled on English Wikipedia as an RFC ruled it introduced too much bad content. --LauraHale (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@LorriBrown: For me, it depends. I recently wrote Alicia Miyares Fernández which was available in three other languages. Because these articles were not fully sourced with references, I worried they were vulnerable to lots of tagging and possible deletion nomination. I've also had experiences where lack of citations can mean content was copied (either from Wikipedia to sources, or from other sources to Wikipedia). It felt safer to use existing references and start from scratch. If the article in Spanish was well sources and those sources clearly established notability for English Wikipedia, I would feel much safer straight up translating, which I more or less did for 1970 Law on dangerousness and social rehabilitation. It is more a preference issue for me as to the way to make the least waves when mainspacing to make sure content sticks. --LauraHale (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The relevant guidelines are at Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. I'm a big proponent of translating, as it's faster than de novo article creation and often benefits multiple underrepresented groups at the same time. I tend to cherry-pick articles that already have good sourcing, as this greatly reduces the amount of work required. Even so there are always links to fix and references to update. Nick Number (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP, SusunW, LauraHale, & Nick Number Thank you each for you input on this topic! I likely will create a page from scratch for her, and perhaps the others as well. This info is very helpful to understand how best to proceed. LorriBrown (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

You could just add to this: Chantal duPont! ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

In my case, I usually start by using the other language articles only for their references (as possible sources for an English article), write the article from scratch from the references, double check the other articles in Google translate for relevant claims that I neglected to include, and then if necessary search for proper sources for those claims and add them. So I don't directly translate (even with the assistance of Google translate), mostly because I don't trust the other-language articles to be properly sourced and comprehensive (or worse; in a recent example, Julena Steinheider Duncombe, the foreign-language article appears to be a direct translation from the English obituary, so translating it back would end up being a form of plagiarism). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• I use {{Illm}} a lot for this sort of situation. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• Regarding the translation tool, it only exists for a limited amount of translation, e.g. Spanish to English (I've used that one a lot!), but not, for example, Serbian to English, etc. English Wikipedia doesn't require English language references, so if you are able to review the ones in say, Spanish, you can use them and some of what the translation tool suggests (but it's not perfect).
• Regarding the Wikidata-generated redlists, I think Tagishsimon is working on my request to add a column for "# of sitelinks" to all of them; currently, it is just on some of them. For me, it's very helpful to know that there are multiple language versions of Jane Doe's article, and sometimes, I've used that to influence what article I create next. I might also review the translation of all of her articles as the basis of creating hers. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• LorriBrown: I realize I am coming to this rather late in view of all the constructive comments which have already been made. Nevertheless, as someone who has perhaps created some 500 women's biographies which already had an article in some other language version, I would suggest you begin very carefully by assessing first of all whether an article in English would be considered sufficiently notable on the basis of the criteria used for the English Wikipedia. Many of the other language versions are far more inclusive, some of them accepting articles with few if any declared sources. You can probably ascertain whether the article would be accepted in English by searching for secondary sources, especially those providing substantial coverage of the subject in books, journals and other encyclopaedic sources (not just in English but in other languages).

The Women in Red template provides some guidance here, especially under Resources, especially biographical dictionaries. Like David Eppstein, I don't think I have ever translated a foreign language article word for word although I know we have a number of WiR members who have done so quite effectively. I prefer to examine all the sources I can find and recreate the article from scratch. While I'm pretty fluent in most of the European languages, I do from time to time make use of Google translate and other machine translation systems for languages such as Finnish, Hungarian and Estonian which are unlike most of the other European languages. Even if you are not fluent in other languages, you will frequently find that women covered in other languages often have excellent sources in English too. In addition to searches on the name of the person in question, you will often find clues to other sources under awards, publications, news items, etc. Finally, you will often find it far easier to write articles about people who are no longer living than about living persons. Obituaries in large circulation newspapers are often an excellent source. If you are interested in any particular person, just let me know on my talk page and I may well be able to help you along (or simply advise you that the person in question might not make the grade on the English Wikipedia). I see by the way that you have already created four informative biographies. You can apply your experience to developing articles on women of interest you find on other language Wikipedias.

Good starting points for Chantal Dupont include this and this in English and this in French. Let's see how you get along.--Ipigott (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I usually translate (Japanese>English) articles in the Content Translation tool, then add a ton of English-language references and additional content once I've moved the article to draftspace. Non-English references are allowed, but I try to make it easier for anyone reviewing the article to see the subject's notability by using English sources. This also means that I do a ton of research before actually translating the article to make sure that there are enough viable references in English. By translating the page rather than writing from scratch, I can just hang the references wherever necessary, rather than putting together original sentences.

But as I'm sure you've gathered, everyone has a different process, so you should do what works best for you!Mcampany (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP, Thank you for setting up a page for her! Awesome, will try to add more info to that page! :-) LorriBrown (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you David Eppstein, Andy Dingley, Rosiestep, Ipigott & Mcampany for your input as well. This is all very helpful information on this topic!LorriBrown (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

fellows in the aaas

Hey everybody! Mix 'n match has a list of American Association for the Advancement of Sciences fellows. Every woman with a fellowship here (ie every woman on the list) meets the notability standards for Wikipedia! If you would like to help, the link is here. When these women are in Wikidata, they get automatically pulled for redlists!

If you set the action on "match mode", it's a super quick (and personally, very fun) way to match and create Wikidata items with some women (lots of men too). But, eventually, it would be awesome to see a graph of women who have been elected fellows over time and by field/division (there is a huge gap in engieering, it seems), so if you'd like, when you add somebody, you can put this information:

• add the statement "sex or gender" and enter "female"
• add the statement "occupation" and enter "scientist" or more specific terms (eg. "chemist" or "engineer") if you know it
• add the statement "award received" and enter "Fellow of the AAAS"
• add qualifier "point in time" and enter the year
• add qualifier "field of work" and enter the section's title (eg. chemistry or biological sciences, etc)

This sounds like more than it is, and if anybody knows of faster ways to do it, please let me know! Thank you if you can help. I'm going to put this on WP:Wiki scientists too. Sbbarker19 (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Just added a baker's dozen women scientists of various specialities using above instructions. Yes, it is slow but worthwhile! Also amended above instructions so easier to see what needs to be added in Wikidata. Oronsay (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I am so excited!! Sbbarker19 (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The other better AAAS just elected Clare C. Yu as one of its fellows [12]. I would create an article but I have a COI (I'm not sure we've even met but we work at the same university). Maybe someone else wants to? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Fifth-wave feminism

I have a draft on my user space of an article called fifth-wave feminism to describe a particular wave of feminism that is most prominent in Latin America. It has over 70 sources, most of them in Spanish. The problem is, right now Fifth-wave feminism redirects to How_to_Be_a_Woman#Fifth-wave_feminism. In 2017, before a lot of the material now found in the article I drafted existed, fifth-wave feminism was nominated for deletion and then redirected. I feel that the situation has changed enough that this warrants revisiting but unsure how to do it... and for the most part, I could probably name the article Fifth-wave feminism in Ibero-America without losing much (except for mild references to Poland, small bits on the USA, the UK, Turkey, Sweden and Ukraine which are kind of marginal to begin with.). Does anyone have advice on how I should go forward with main spacing? Or does it seem too marginal altogether that it shouldn't be main spaced? --LauraHale (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@LauraHale: I think it should be mainspaced and it should replace the redirect that currently exists. Giving that article title to a redirect for Moran's book is problematically Global North-centric. I suppose you could add a hatnote that says "not to be confused with" and link to the "How to be a woman" article so as to preserve what was there. --nonmodernist (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@LauraHale: I'm not aware of any evidence that there's such a thing as fifth-wave feminism. The small number of people who've used the term haven't explained clearly what it might mean. Do you have any high-quality English-language sources that we could look at? SarahSV ^(talk) 05:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: I came across this from the Irish Times which draws on The Guilty Feminist. But I've also been looking through Laura's draft which is supported by a wealth of sources mainly in Spanish. It looks to me as if it would be well worth while including it in mainspace, possibly with minor adaptations. The main problem appears to be the title. How about something like the Birth of fifth-wave feminism in Iberia and the Americas? That might allow for developments elsewhere to be included too. Laura has recently produced a wealth of historical accounts of the development of feminism in Spain. It would be great if she can now extend her expertise to covering Latin America.--Ipigott (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the problem with specifying "in Ibero-America" is that the article also has info on the UK, Poland, and Sweden. The sweeping international approach here is a benefit, not something that should be removed. And again, there is no reason that the redirect to Moran (who clearly hasn't done her homework on international feminist movements) should get to occupy that piece of mainspace. LauraHale's article is a good step towards correcting the Global North bias of WP coverage, especially around feminist topics (as are so many of her recent articles)! --nonmodernist (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi @SlimVirgin:. Thanks for the feedback. There are no good sources on fifth-wave feminism in Latin America and Europe in English. There are some sources in English like How is Western-Influenced Contemporary Performance Practice in Dialogue with Fifth Wave Feminism? but this deals with only England and does not mention Poland, Spain, Argentina, Brazil or any other European or Ibero-American or non-European countries. (It does mention the United States, Ireland, Canada, and Australia. It does not mention New Zealand, South Africa, Singapore, India or other English speaking countries.) It is probably the best academic publication in English I have found using open-access content. There are other tangential references in English, but these are often exclusively in a single English speaking national narrative context.

Most of the references use Spanish and Portuguese (with some Polish or Farsi language), some of which have been translated to the other for readers of newspapers and magazines in those languages. They reference fifth-wave feminism as an Ibero-American and Polish movement, not one of English speaking communities. It is also one these feminists self-describe as coming from outside the academy, one which rejects Anglo-Saxon feminist models and as being a wave not about theory but about activism and engaging in this activism (often in response to gender violence) out of love for their fellow women. There is little to no theory actually discussed, beyond the rejection of capitalism and neoliberalist policies. The very nature of this wave, being in opposition to English speaking models, and its anti-capitalist nature based on taking to the streets appears to not make it of interest to English speaking feminists who are invested in their own feminist wave models. (Which can cause huge whiplash. I've mostly been reading about feminism in Spanish because I am writing about Spain. When I try to concept check some things, the Anglo-Saxon models don't match up and it gets more confusing when dealing with the fourth-wave outside of English speaking feminist writings as a lot of them talk about open rejection of queer theory. The cognitive dissonance is overwhelming.)

To which I guess is a long way of saying that, I would like to provide you with English language sources but English language feminist writers do not appear to be interested in writing about the experiences of non-English speaking feminists... which is already part of a broader critique anyway about the failings of these models. Not sure what can be done. My best options feel like label this as Ibero-American fifth-wave feminism since it doesn't fit with the Anglo-Saxon model and since there is a huge paupacity of sources in English. :( --LauraHale (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Ipigott, that source isn't an RS for this. Laura, this is the English-language Wikipedia, so you need to use English-language sources or supply English quotations in footnotes from your sources to show that they support the text. See WP:NOENG:

Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page.

Individuals may be mentioning a fifth wave here and there, but Wikipedia has to wait until there's a greater mass of sources. The danger is that everyone wants to be the new Rebecca Walker ("I am not a post-feminism feminist. I am the Third Wave.")

Writing about feminism in Ibero-America is not a problem, but if that's what you want to do, call the article Feminism in Ibero-America. Italy, Poland and the UK aren't in Ibero-America. You wrote about the UK:

For British feminists, a potential fourth or fifth-wave assumes that most of the inequalities faced by women in domestic and private spheres have disappeared or will shortly disappear; most of the goals of feminists have been accomplished. The new wave for British feminists will instead turn to a critique of feminine behavior in a post-patriarchal world.

What do those sources say to support the text or anything about a fifth wave? Notice the age of the citations: 2003, 2007 and 2014.

Notwithstanding everything you wrote above, would it not be better to use English-language sources when writing about British feminism? SarahSV ^(talk) 19:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the sources to support the UK paragraph, the first is just a book review of Moran's How to be a Woman. Source two is pp. 84–103. Source three is pp. 151–172. Laura, can you supply page numbers? SarahSV ^(talk) 19:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm surprised that the 'fifth wave' is already a thing. I did a little bit of reading on the fourth wave, and there were few resources then. I would recommend reaching out to the editors on WP:Feminism for their opinion. I feel like the article could be more balanced. The one USA source is in Spanish and there is no section for Canada. It's probably a language thing, but your use of the word anglo-saxon feels archaic to me. The critique section of the wave system sounds vague to me. There is already a description on a potential fifth wave in History of Feminism and it'd be great if you exanded the by countries sections there. Happy editing to all! Fred (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Pacific cricket

Hi. Combining two niche areas in one go, women's cricket and individuals from Pacific islands, I've created the following biographies following the conclusion of the 2019 ICC Women's Qualifier EAP tournament:

• Selina Solman
• Regina Lili'i

They are the current captains of the Vanuatuan and Samoan women's cricket teams respectively. Every little helps! Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)