Talk:Donna Strickland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


She spoke today that she was an intern during suaid studies.Lihaas (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

AFC draft[edit]

There's no longer AfC draft for this subject. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why wasn't the declined AFC draft moved to create this article? --2600:1700:FB00:9C00:D4FE:243:70E7:A0ED (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

It can be history-merged to give credit to the original author. --Hegvald (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
History merge is for cases where content of another page was copied. It appears Donna Strickland was written from scratch or using a little of Gérard Mourou but not Draft:Donna Strickland. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
User talk:TonyBallioni had redirected the rejected draft at and that loses the history on the incident which should be preserved, so I think a merge is warranted. Emceeaich (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
No, no, and once more no. As PrimeHunter has said, HISTMERGE is only for pages where the attribution got messed up. This is just a case of two pages being created in different spaces. There was no copy/paste page moving, and thus there should be no histmerge. Primefac (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Hist merging would be a nightmare here and completely screw up the page history. This is a parallel versions issue. If there is any usable content from that draft, it can be merged by hand with Edit summary attribution. Also, for the record: the history has not been lost. Anyone can view it through the Permalink in the history if they want to write about it off-wiki. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I think Emceeaich is right. The page history might be a little messy as a result, but the history of this page is messy (even gathering a little bit of press attention), and that should be preserved in the history of the page. Moreover, there may be some prose that may get lost by leaving it over in the Draft namespace. Hist merging isn't that tough; I can do it if no one else is up to the job. -- RobLa (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Not only are there paralell histories, there is ZERO content shared between them from a "copy/paste page move" perspective. Please please please do not attempt to do a histmerge, because if it's confusing now, it will only get more confusing. For example, how the hell would you figure out the sequence of edit 1, 2, and 3 when viewed through a "diff" view? Those three edits would be sequential if a histmerge were to be performed. Just don't do it. Please. Primefac (talk) 01:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
That doesn't sound like a compelling problem. What does seem like a compelling problem is that the draft could get garbage-collected away after a few months, and the robots.txt for Wikipedia means that the linked version might not be preserved by (though I made a point of requesting an archive manually, which seems to have worked). Still, I'm still inclined to do the merge; that will capture the history of this page in a truer sense, even if the history around Special:PermaLink/862211036, Special:PermaLink/862211426 and Special:PermaLink/862212846 is a little messy. In fact, it probably just makes sense to leave all Draft:Donna_Strickland revisions after the first edit in the current Donna_Strickland article out of the merge (e.g. -426), which would mean the diff between -036 and -846 would continue to make sense. -- RobLa (talk) 02:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with being difficult: I could do it very easily if it would be beneficial. It has to do with mangling page histories which would be the last thing you want for a high profile article that is getting media attention. Additionally, keeping it in the current form in draft space is the easiest way to make sure the history stays together and can be seen by the public or anyone who wants to write about it: we don’t delete redirect drafts and the actual history of this event is much more clearly laid out there than it could ever be here after a hist merge. Finally; you can merge the content by hand and then do edit summary attribution if you’re afraid of the text being lost, which is how we handle this in ever other situation and one of the main reasons we don’t delete draft redirects. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm....are you sure redirect drafts don't get deleted out of public view? I agree that the status quo (if preserved) would be slightly less confusing for someone trying to piece things together. But I have a hard time believing that there is as much diligence applied to preserving draft revisions as there is to preserving main namespace revisions. As I propose in my response to Primefac, making the merged history make sense doesn't seem too difficult. -- RobLa (talk) 02:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
RobLa: Yes. We do not delete redirects in draft space. They are not eligible for G13. Part of the reason we don’t delete them is to preserve the history because many have been merged into main space and we keep them to comply with our license attribution requirements. Also, your reply to Primefac would make a huge mess of this and would confuse the article histories for absolutely no reason: it would also be extraordinarily difficult to unmerge if you did this, which isn’t ideal since you have two other admins here who are telling you that this is not a reason under policy to use the tools. I’m pinging JJMC89 here to also comment since he’s somewhat of an expert on histmerges (even if he can’t do it himself.) TonyBallioni (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
TonyBallioni, thanks for the clarification. I'm still a little bit skeptical that the draft history will be safe without moving into the main namespace, but I'm not inclined to mess around with the article in the near term. I'll drop a note on this page and/or the Draft page if I change my mind. -- RobLa (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
(Repeating what others have already said.) The point of history merges is to maintain license-required attribution. This is a clear instance of parallel and unrelated (no shared copyrightable content) histories. Given that, the histories should remain separate. The history of the draft isn't needed for anything currently and could be deleted (not that it should). If someone wants to copy something from the draft, Campbpt0 must be attributed. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) — JJMC89(T·C) 03:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deleted 2014 version[edit]

Why is there a version from 2014 that was undeleted and then entirely revdel'd? What's the purpose of this? Natureium (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC) For reference, direct permalink to the draft content. --Nemo 08:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is rather bizarre. @Scott: ? – Joe (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
It is a blatant copyright violation of this OSA page - literally a copy paste of that page. As such it falls withing criteria 1 of the Wikipedia:Revision deletion policy - Dumelow (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
@Dumelow:. That much is obvious, but the page, and therefore the revisions, had already deleted. I don't understand why Steve restored those revisions only to revdel their content [1]. I don't think it's the normal practice and it obscures the history of the article if you're not used to navigating deletion logs. (And since the history of this article has been subject to considerable media coverage, that's a concern.) – Joe (talk) 09:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi Joe. It looks to me that he mistakenly undeleted them, thinking they had been speedied for notability as his comment says "Notability established, restoring original version" before redeleting them two minutes later. Only the text of the revisions was deleted, the summary and usernames were left visible. If I log out I can still see the first five revisions of the article from 2014 in the page history - Dumelow (talk) 09:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly what happened. I revdel'ed the content because it reveals that someone did try to create the article years ago, even if they did completely the wrong thing. That's how you paint an accurate picture for project historians and researchers. Except now someone has removed the revisions entirely in a way that I can't see. Good old transparent project.  — Scott talk 22:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Coverage of Wikipedia's anti-woman bias[edit]

Please let's join the meta discussions at Wikipedia talk:Women in Red and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation. . –Ammarpad (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A lot of the coverage around her Nobel prize has centered around Wikipedia's anti-woman bias. May be worth a mention in the article itself.

For example:

"Wikipedia rejected an entry on today’s Nobel Prize winner in May because she wasn’t famous enough"

“It took a Nobel prize for Donna Strickland to be noticed enough to have a (short) Wikipedia page written about her. Another example of how womens’ contributions to science go unnoticed and uncelebrated" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

This part: "Only 17% of the current biographical entries on Wikipedia as of October 2, 2018 are about women, and the site is particularly thin on women in science" is not anyhow related to her research or her notability. I think it should be removed. Teemu (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps this warrants a separate section in the article? Axeman89 (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps an article about the phenomenon itself, rather than a section on Strickland's article would be more appropriate? Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that belongs in an article such as Criticism of Wikipedia, not here (where it's self-referential trivia). Robofish (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Whether it's "trivia" or a telling symptom of a larger problem is debatable. But ultimately it's not about the subject of the article, and shows signs of being just a single-news-cycle phenomenon. A brief mention at Criticism of Wikipedia or Gender bias on Wikipedia is certainly appropriate. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, with a link from this article. The deletion of the original article was the sort of action that will damage the entire reputation of Wikipedia. It’s a good opportunity for soul searching, and while I don’t want to call out the deleter (who has made huge positive contributions) is would be great to see him (and I’m guessing the gender here) help out with suggestions of ways to move forward. Bennetto (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
The deletion was entirely proper and within wikipedia policy. Please review policies before casting aspersions. Natureium (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Whether or not it was proper within the policies of Wikipedia is orthogonal to whether it will damage Wikipedia's reputation. Those policies could be argued as accumulating existing media bias, for example. It will damage Wikipedia's reputation and fund raising. Chaleur (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
For the record, one of the male 2018 chemistry prize winners George P. Smith (chemist) didn't have an article either. It was created two hours ago. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
OK, but was an article about him previously proposed and then rejected by the community? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:41E5:EC00:5560:9C2D:9DD5:358B (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: Continuing for the record, since Wikipedia's Jan. 2001 launch:
  • of 212 Nobel laureates, 69 (33%) had no Wikipedia bio when prize was announced;
  • of 48 laureates in physics, 17 (35%) had no WP page when award was announced—all except Donna Strickland being male, including one each in 2014 & 2015. KalHolmann (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Not knowing the editor who chose to reject this article, it's hard to see this as one of the archetypical cases of Wikipedia bias re: notability. I don't read enough science bios, so just from reading what was originally submitted for Strickland, I wouldn't know how she compared against other non-notable entries (I've certainly seen more egregiously non-notable bios). But it didn't look like there was a debate. The editor stated his case and no one appears to have made an objection, and there's not much reason to think that her bio, with a few changes, would've been approved. Wikipedia's ignorance here of Strickland is more a symptom of Wikipedia's reliance on real-world metrics for fame and achievement than intended anti-woman bias. Maybe the argument could be made that Wikipedia could be more proactive than the real world in recognizing success. But Wikipedia's overlooking of Strickland seems nearly irrelevant compared to how so many of Strickland's peers and colleagues seemed fine with seeing her as just an associate professor. (talk) 12:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
The draft [2] wasn't declined because she was claimed to be non-notable but because the submitted page had no independent sources. The decline box clearly stated the reason and made a resubmit button. The three sources were a paper by the subject, a biography at a society she had been president of, and a profile at the university she works for. If the author or somebody else had added independent sources and resubmitted, it would probably have been accepted. The decline also linked to relevant Wikipedia guidelines. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
This is an opportunity to get people to understand how to create good biographical drafts that meet notability and sourcing criteria by engaging in deliberate conversation (and possibly getting media coverage of the discussion). I knew about the Women Scientists project and as a historian came across someone who seemed to merit inclusion but it was only after 5-10 hours of hard research that I was able to assemble an article that really got across her noteworthiness. She passed in the 1980s and the sourcing is primarily field-specific (and relied in large part on obituaries) but that was a function of the time period and the relative paucity of coverage back then in general (although a condition that will exist for many scientists that are excellent but don't embrace the media machine -- wonder about the relationship between those two traits!). People are creating fairly useless stubs because they don't understand the importance of (1) really hitting the audience with why the person should have an article and (2) doing the drudge work to dig up source material to start the article. ... Of course, realistically, that is not the conversation we are going to have about this (and I've witnessed sexism play out so it is not a negligible factor in many editorial decisions and does not deserve to be ignored either). JBVaughan (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
To add to this, when the draft was rejected it had a total of three sources, none of which were reliable sources independent of the subject. If anything, this goes to show that Wikipedia does not accept biographies of living people without proper sourcing. The draft had claims of notability, which is why it was kept for further improvement and not speedily deleted, but it could not be accepted as an article without better sourcing. Media claims about gender bias or failure to recognize academic achievements miss the point.
To anyone reading this and wondering what went wrong: Articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Bradv 13:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Just as a note: it had a source independent of the subject confirming she met PROF 3 at the time of the decline. The biography on the society where she was a fellow. It is a publisher with editorial control over posting: it is enough to confirm she meets the notability requirements of PROF which trump the GNG according to both PROF and WP:N. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
She's on the board. That's not independent. Bradv 17:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
PROF does not require as strict independence like the GNG does, neither do V or BLP. It was independent in that the society itself had to decide whether or not to publish it: it wasn’t just her making stuff up and posting it on her personal website. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • If anything, coverage should probably go on Gender bias on Wikipedia, and not here. And the rejection of the draft was perfectly warranted given how poor the sourcing was at the time. The sourcing has been improve, and so now there is an article. That's how the systems is supposed to work. The only problem here is that the media don't understand the difference between accepting a draft and deleting an article. GMGtalk 15:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    I think, considering the Guardian is definitely a RS, a mention easily meets WP:DUE however putting that mention on Gender bias on Wikipedia would probably be reasonable positioning in order to keep her article, as it is currently, about her noteworthy accomplishments. Simonm223 (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

This is NOT proof of "anti-woman bias". Quit over-hyping an imaginary claim. • SbmeirowTalk • 19:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment: Without question wiki's rejection of her article is notable and meets WP:DUE (it's been covered in many RSs). But it's not obvious where it should go. On the one hand it makes sense to have it here, since arguably it's become an important-enough incident in her life, and also because, well, it just makes sense - it's an important fact about this article and about wikipedia in general, and WP:IAR. On the other hand I see Simonm223's point. So... I'm torn, but I lean towards including it here. Waleswatcher (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Indeed, Wikipedia's rejection is notable, as multiple RS are incorrectly reporting on what actually happened. I read the proposed article and honestly, I'd have rejected it as it stood as well. There were precisely zero citations and a simple list of five or so papers she authored/coauthored (even that tidbit was missing). If it's citationless and without any reason that the subject is notable within the article, the article should be declined until what is being suggested has a good start. How many stub class and start class articles are we going to have to accept?! As for anti-woman bias, many fields of endeavor are perceived that way, just because women tended to avoid such fields - far too frequently, due to the behavior of the men in said fields driving them away. What is actually needed is for the Foundation get a representative in contact with the RS's that are reporting on this fiction and correct incorrect perceptions with factual information.Wzrd1 (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
This is trivia about Wikipedia which doesn't belong in her BLP, the most that should be said is that a draft Wikipedia entry produced in March 2018 by a new editor using WikiProject Articles for creation was declined in May on grounds of inadequate sources, the editor did not return to the topic.[Draft:Donna Strickland] After she won the Nobel Prize, this decision was represented by news media as showing gender bias. . . dave souza, talk 03:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Did the original rejection state why to the author? That is, was the article said to be rejected because the subject wss "not notable enough" or because the author "had not shown the subject was notable enough" (by not having enough references)? Merry (talk) 06:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The article wasn't rejected, as Draft:Donna Strickland shows, a draft was declined as it didn't yet have enough independent sourcing, and at the same time the author was invited on their talk page to make improvements so that the draft could go into main space as an article. . . dave souza, talk 07:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. I looked at the draft and it was pretty poor; using primary/self-published/COI bio sources, and with the text failing to make a good case for notability. Now, if this was at AFD, and I was participating, I'd have done a Google Scholar search for publications, and possibly voted weak keep given her citation track record ([3]). Plus other sources might have been found and presented. But yes, in May, this was a crappy stub with borderline notability, and anyone saying it was rejected because of anti-female bias is full of four letters. It was rejected because Wikipedia is assaulted by spam, the few volunteers reviewing bios/etc. are overworked, and borderline poor drafts like this are, well, borderline, and get borderline 'toss a coin' verdicts. Anyone who has an issue with this is welcome to join Wikipedia as a volunteer, to review, create and expand articles about notable academics (male of female, whatever). In fact we have plenty of initiatives to do so (WikiProject Women in Red, etc.). This is a non-issue, outside of a few journalists who clearly haven't bothered to research Wikipedia figuring that they have found their daily 'let's bash something and get some views/hits' quota. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
"We have plenty of initivatives to do so" is the "My girlfriend is black, so I'm not racist" argument. If you don't grasp that "borderline toss a coin verdicts" perpetuate bias, you have a problem. And stating "anyone who has an issue with this is welcome to join Wikipedia" is downright insulting when talking about a textbook case where a first-time editor (and possibly a female scientist herself) was slapped in the face with a Speedy Delete Request after their first contribution and left again rightaway. If you want to do something against the bias, that means not giving articles like this one a "toss a coin verdict" but the benefit of the doubt and work with the author. And your smearing of the press is pure projection of your own lust for bashing things - given that the issue has been reported internationally, it's a tiny bit more than "a few journalists". It's hilarious when people so stunningly out of touch with reality frantically to construct excuses while accusing others of fabrication. --21:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

This shouldn't be included in the biography article for the reasons listed above. As said above, George P. Smith (chemist) happens to be a male and his article was not made until he became a Nobel Laureate; this just happens to be a problem with Wikipedia's user base who would rather make articles on TV episodes or fourth-division soccer players. It's also objectifying to Strickland to devote so much space to this non-story when she is a human being and a scientist who has many other years worth of achievements. There is a problem with the sources which compeletely misread the situation - I'll assume good faith - and don't understand how many new Wikipedia users make articles on non-notable or non-verifiable people; Bradv saw a draft by a new user that only used primary sources and for these news sources to accuse him of marginalizing women in science is atrocious. While I assume good faith and misunderstanding by the news sources, headlines like "Female Nobel prize winner deemed not important enough for Wikipedia entry" are clickbait; Strickland was not a Nobel prize "winner" at the time and the draft was not approved because of its lack of third party citations. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Most newspapers are turning into clickbait rags these days, and that includes the Guardian. It seems that journalists only get their sources from Twitter, where hyperbole is the norm and detailed explanations impossible. Sad times.T8612 16:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Now, a major, highly-respected magazine, The Atlantic has scolded wikipedia about the lack of a page about Strickland until she won the Nobel prize. But I agree: that discussion does not belong in this article, but in the one about Criticism of Wikipedia.

but just fyi:

   Unlike her fellow winners, Strickland did not have a Wikipedia page at the time of the announcement. A Wikipedia user tried to set up a page in May, but it was denied by a moderator with the message: “This submission’s references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article.” Strickland, it was determined, had not received enough dedicated coverage elsewhere on the internet to warrant a page.
   On Tuesday, a newly created page flooded with edits: “Added in her title.” “Add Nobel-winning paper.” “Added names of other women Nobelists [sic] in physics.”
   The construction of the Wikipedia page feels like a metaphor for a historic award process that has long been criticized for neglecting women in its selection, and for the shortage of women’s stories in the sciences at large. To scroll through the “history” tab of Strickland’s page, where all edits are recorded and tracked, is to witness in real time the recognition of a scientist whose story likely deserved attention long before the Nobel Prize committee called.

Peter K Burian (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Also see this article by the organization which publishes Wikipedia: Why didn't Wikipedia have article on Donna Strickland, winner of a Nobel Prize? Donna Strickland is an optical physicist at the University of Waterloo. She is also a Nobel laureate (having been announced as the winner of a ...

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Offer of help[edit]

Hi, I work for the Optical Society and noticed that there is some editing work happening to round out this profile. I noticed it was missing images and some content. I'm currently assisting with updating the bio on our website as Dr. Strickland has been actively involved with the society including as our 2013 President and we've seen a lot of interest for obvious reasons today. I don't want to make any edits myself due to COI but I wanted to extend the offer of assistance in acquiring media or information/references if desired. - Tinynull (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. You may wish to upload a profile photograph to WikiMedia Commons. No COI issues would arise doing that but you would need to agree to licence the image under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 license. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 23:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I just want to second what Blue-Haired Lawyer said. It would be great to get an image for this article and I don't think there are usually COI concerns regarding the upload of images. Orser67 (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I've uploaded the following for use: File:Donna_Strickland,_OSA_Holiday_Party_2012.jpg and File:Donna_Strickland_speaking_at_OSA%27s_Leadership_meeting_in_2013.jpg. We've released both of these images as CC BY SA 4.0 on our website to validate they are now free to use. Copyright for both of these images was fully held by The Optical Society, they were taken by a contract photographer and I did verify our contract assigns ownership of the work to us. - Tinynull (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I've fixed the links in the immediately preceding msg. -- Roger Hui (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Now neatly packed in c:Category:Donna Strickland. GMGtalk 16:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, we've also received a request on youtube to make our interview with Dr. Strickland CC BY, which has spurred some discussion internally. I haven't personally seen video used on wikipedia, especially for people, so I wasn't sure how valid this request might be. Internally there is some concern about the videos being made available for potential commercial use and that likely doesn't work with the wording of our video release and using it for further the mission of the society (disseminating science) or educational and historical purposes. Just curious if anyone has any insight into this, I have done some reading but its not apparent if videos of interviews with people are desired or if its possible to provide videos with a more limited CC license such as non-commercial use. - Tinynull (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Hey Tinynull. Quality freely licensed videos are certainly educationally useful for Wikipedia and it's sister projects. Of course you're under no obligation to apply a license that include commercial reuse, but unfortunately, licenses that do not are not compatible with the type of license Wikipedia is published under, and we would not be able to use it here. Having said that, those who reuse this type of content, even commercially, are still required by the license to provide attribution, and failure to do so would invalidate the use, and potentially leave them vulnerable to legal action by your organization. GMGtalk 17:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi! Sorry for the slightly glacial pace of this, we're final able to offer one of the videos we have of Dr. Strickland with CC BY, I've updated the license on youtube: Donna Strickland on how she got into optics. Starting during the society centennial we began doing video interviews with members, of all types, on their work, their history, their opinions and views and thoughts. This is a very short portion of a longer interview, I'm working to see if we can make any other parts of it available. - Tinynull (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 Working GMGtalk 15:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 Done And now added to the article. That's great. Thank you again Tinynull for helping to coordinate the Society with our efforts here on Wikipedia! GMGtalk 16:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Does anybody have experience with adding captions to these types of video formats? GMGtalk 17:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I got it! I actually have a fair amount of experience with timed text and the SRT format so I was able to export it in the right format from our caption vendor and post. Tested to verify it is working properly. - Tinynull (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Awesome! Next question: Who speaks languages other than English? So we can make this useful for as many people as possible. GMGtalk 17:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


We're done here. Please let us move meta discussion about "notability" concept should to the most appropriate place Wikipedia talk:Notability. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In this edit, Sandstein says that the draft was rejected for lack of notability. In this edit to the lede, VanEman makes a similar claim. I'd like to point out that neither of the two cited articles use the word "notability", and that, in fact, the draft was declined for lack of reliable sources. While both the Quartz and Vox sources use this to describe a perceived gender bias on Wikipedia, their understanding of the article creation process is lacking. These edits to the article further that misunderstanding. Bradv 17:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The template links to WP:N when explaining why it was rejected. While there is diversity of opinion on whether the decline was good or not (she passed PROF, which is independent of the GNG, so I would have accepted, but that’s neither here nor there), the decline was a notability decline. (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
TonyBallioni, not really the point. The sources don't mention notability, so this is WP:OR. And as the one who declined the draft, I should know why I declined it. (Hint: it had no reliable sources.) Bradv 17:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
she wasn’t famous enough is in the Quartz headline and the Vox article mentions the exact phrase that links to WP:N. They were clearly referencing WP:N, even if they didn’t know the term. It was a bad decline, and I get why you might not want it in the article, but let’s not white wash this by wikilawyering over the OR policy when RS are pretty clear on their understanding here. Also, verification of employment status by institutional websites is used as an RS for academics all the time and there is no way this would have been deleted if sent to AfD, which I think is part of the anger in the media over this: she was held to a higher standard than virtually any other academic article we have. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
The decline [4] used {{AFC submission|d|bio}} which starts: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article". It was clearly declined because the submitted version did not include references showing notability. The decline made no judgment of whether she was notable, and it said: "Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added". That clearly leaves open the possibility that the subject is notable and a better article might be accepted. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Except the references clearly showed notability by meeting PROF3 and that was referenced in the article by the institution where she received the fellow status. I know AfC hates that PROF exists, but the community relatively recently had a chance to discuss this very issue, and sided quite definitively against the GNG trumps PROF argument. The decline was bad according to our own policies and guidelines, and RS are picking up on it. The wagon circling should stop and we should report this accurately. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
TonyBallioni, I have no problem with PROF, and I would have accepted the draft if it had even one reference to a reliable source. WP:BLP and WP:V are both policy too, and it's never okay to accept a draft about a living person without proper sourcing. If you want to argue that PROF should trump BLP or V, you can make that proposal at an appropriate venue. Bradv 17:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
It did. That is more than enough to meet PROF, V, and BLP on the most basic level. We go with better sourcing if possible, but if this had been created in main space there would have been zero chances of deletion. Declining was inappropriate, which is fine, we all make mistakes. We shouldn’t be trying to hide it when RS comment on them by waving them off as not understanding our processes (which is also OR, btw), when, by our own processes, this should have been accepted. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
TonyBallioni, she's on the board. OSA is not an independent RS. Bradv 17:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Bradv, I replied above, but will reply here going forward: V and BLP do not require independence, they require reliability, which a professional bio published on the site of a professional organization is. It is independent enough to verify that she wasn’t making up the claims, which is the purpose of independence in these cases (i.e. they’re not going to publish her biography claiming she was a fellow if she wasn’t. It wasn’t a personal website.) PROF does not require as strict independence as other guidelines in that it is a merit based standard for people where intellectually independent coverage is difficult. This met the basic requirements for promotion to mainspace. It wasn’t the best article, but that’s not the purpose of AfC: the purpose of AfC is to determine if an article has a more likely than not chance of surviving AfD, which this clearly did as there was proof of notability under PROF in the references. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
TonyBallioni, WP:PROF does require independence, though:

Subjects of biographical articles on Wikipedia are required to be notable; that is significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice, as evidenced by being the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources.

It is not on AfC reviewers to find sources themselves, or to do a BEFORE search - we can only judge what has been written. In this case, the submitted draft did not meet the requirements, so it was declined with suggestions for improvement, and the appropriate message left on the author's talk page. If you want to change the application of various guidelines at AfC, there are more appropriate places for that conversation. But by every standard and guideline we currently have, including the AfC flowchart, this decline was correct. Bradv 18:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Note I said as strict. We’ve interpreted news stories from universities and societies announcing appointments to be independent enough to meet PROF before in that someone else had to decide to publish them independently of the subject. Obviously the more independent is better, but this qualified at the time of the decline. You messed up. Reliable sources are covering the decline. We should cover it as they understand it. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The claim of gender bias would be moot if they did a modicum of investigation before writing the news article, but that's neither here nor there. Natureium (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
TonyBallioni, Bradv Being an elected fellow of OSA should warrant notability according to PROF 3. Being on various boards of the OSA would, in itself, also warrant notability, so I think the discussion on whether the source in independent/reliable or not is a little bit moot. Now what is also true is that the sentence mentioning her being a fellow had no reference in the original article. The link to the OSA website is provided in the previous sentence, but not repeated here. So I personally think that it wasn't a bad judgement, and it would have been so easy for the original contributor to fix this had they followed up. Honestly, initially I thought that maybe the red box that shows up for declined articles could have put them off, but the text there is actually unusually helpful. So, yes, maybe the rejection was a tiny, little bit hasty. But, TonyBallioni, I think you're making it a bigger issue than it oughts to be. Ah, and while I am quite convinced that there is rampant sexism in Wikipedia, I couldn't convince myself that this is such a case. Egaudrain (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I agree it’s not that big of a deal going forward, but I don’t think we should be trying to obscure the fact that we made a mistake here. I have nothing against Bradv, I just think we should report on this accurately if we do report on it, and not try to obscure it. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
      I didn't reject the draft because she was not notable. I rejected it because it was a poorly sourced BLP. That's not a mistake, that's an application of policy that you happen to disagree with. I hope that we can find common ground on this point, and move on. Bradv 02:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The draft was not rejected because the individual was not notable. In order to determine that, a reviewer would be required to do their own BEFORE, which they are under no obligation to do. Rather, the draft was rejected because the submission's references [did] not show that she was notable. The burden of proof at AfC is on the creator, not on the reviewer. The reviewer is required to review what is submitted by the creator. GMGtalk 17:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I think I've made my point re the accept at WT:AFC; anyhow, this doesn't belong in the article per WP:SUBJECT(Criticism_of_Wikipedia maybe). Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

In my view, these issues can be refined down to lack of references (author creating new wikipedia article) and ignorance of Wikipedia guidelines (claims in articles about wikipedia). • SbmeirowTalk • 19:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Just so. The original editor User:Campbpt0 only ever made two edits: one starting the draft of this article, and a second edit refining it, both in March. Bradv took on the thankless task of reviewing such drafts, and made the reasonable call that the draft article needed more sources if it was to be accepted. Campbpt0 was requested on his or her talk page to do more work to make the draft viable, but failed to reply to the request on Campbpt0's talk page, and failed to do anything to improve the article. It's questionable if the OSA biography was independent enough, but its state at the time didn't give much to go on. Wikipedia isn't in a position to write biographies of people who've not had public attention but might some day, or to write articles for every editor who shows a passing interest. . . dave souza, talk 22:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The claim of gender bias is that her colleague Gérard Mourou has had an article since 2005, but Strickland only got a rejected draft. I don't know if there are reasons that Mourou is more notable. There are plenty of significant researchers that lack Wikipedia articles, and it seems to me that the Wikipedia rules don't encourage creating articles for them. It's easier for sportspeople and politicians, where the right kind of sources are more likely to exist. ghouston (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
There are probably plenty of researchers whose only third party biographical sources are a brief bio in societies where they hold a position, but don't have Wikipedia articles and are unlikely to if that's all the published attention they've received. If User:Campbpt0 had been more experienced or more persistent they could probably have put together a viable article, but they didn't persist and no-one else produced the biography until this month. . . . dave souza, talk 22:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
The notability of a researcher comes from their peer-reviewed publications. It would be difficult to summarize their work: even if you can understand it, it would probably be taken as "original research". It can only be included once it has been summarized by a third party, which may not happen until someone writes their obituary or they win a Nobel prize. The things that are easier to cover Wikipedia, like biographical details, and awards won, make for dull articles. ghouston (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Whatever the reasons, the earlier rejection of the article is clearly a mistake in hindsight. If 'policies were followed', this is why 'technically correct' is not always 'the best kind of correct'. The Guardian article etc shows how this is a black-eye to Wikimedia. We should be thinking how to do better going forward. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Clearly in going forward we should be thinking of requiring all volunteers to use hindsight in advance of any information on which to base that hindsight, or in advance of future publicity which inspires such hindsight. WP:BLP rightly sets high standards for sources of articles, a new editor made an attempt at a draft but didn't do any work to improve that draft when the submission was declined as the references did not show significant coverage of the biography's subject, despite an invitation to do that work. With hindsight, we could change the rules to require volunteers to rewrite such drafts, but that would mean a lot more volunteers or a lot more time before drafts were even looked at. . . dave souza, talk 22:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
The Guardian article is grossly misrepresenting what happened and doesn't even try to pretend to be knowledgable on Wikipedia procedures... so, TBH, it feels more like they are sabotaging their own reputation than anything else... Egaudrain (talk) 00:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I would like to know how many articles the Guardian wrote on Donna Strickland before her Nobel.T8612 11:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Well put! This whole fiasco just illustrates how bogged down Wikiland is in its own moronic and artificial fabrication. The world does not work like a lot of delusional (self assigned) wiki editors imagine. (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC) baden k.
It is too random how notability is considered in wikipedia. Some pages that have been there for more than 10 years have suddenly been deleted by a small handful off wikipedia editors due to sudden claim of lack of notability. This means either there is loads of pages on wikipedia that should have been deleted years ago, but that still is there, or it means the Notability policy is so much up to a few wikipedia editors to interpret that the whole process often is more or less random. This latest not acceptance of a Nobel prize winner in physics due to wikipedia editors claims of lack of Notability is just likely the tip of the iceberg, and such a big case it will get lots of press. It is sad to see how many wikipedia editors operate with little respect and I suspect often totally lack of insight in the scientific field they edit. EntropyFormula (talk) 11:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
The draft was not rejected because of a lack of notability, read the first post of the section. T8612 11:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
yes likely that was a big part of the reason. Come on, if editors even had understood how important the work of Strickland is considered, they would have improved on the page instead of rejecting/deleting it. But yes I am sure we will hear a series of good cover up stories of why the rejection made initial sense? It is sad to see how a few editors are allowed to reject, delete and edit in wild ways to reduce the quality of a great platform of knowledge. If lack of references, then the wikipedia editors could have used something known as Google, and looked up a few references and improved the article. EntropyFormula (talk) 11:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Splendid! Dear, you're clearly the very person to volunteer to put in the work of reviewing and improving drafts submitted by new editors. Of course, you'll need an account to do that. . . . dave souza, talk 22:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I read the original article and concurred with the decision. There were no citations at all in the original article and a list of five papers she authored/coauthored, again with no citations being present. It was even below stub or start class and should not have proceeded forward if no one was going to begin to add citations and flesh out the article. Off topic, but currently notable, there is a great deal of incomprehension on editorial policies of Wikipedia, where in the blogosphere, one commenter to a blog posting complained how he was not allowed to edit an article about a project he lead, another complained about an article about themself. I explained that no individual is permitted to edit such articles, due to it being a conflict of interest, but suggested edits would be welcome on the talk page for other editors to review. For that would be as bad as peer reviewing one's own work!Wzrd1 (talk) 01:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Overall, I don't think it helps that as I type this, this page is listed as being in category "Unknown-importance Women scientists articles". Women scientists who win Nobels are surely automatically important aren't they? When I look at the project page for that, I see one of the tasks you can do to help is rate articles, but I don't see a link to guidelines for such. I'm a long time, but infrequent, wikipedia editor. I cannot keep up with all of the changes in policy. New editors will be much worse off. --Elijah (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
"Unknown-importance" = "the importance has not yet been assessed by a human". Do you want to do that assessment? DS (talk) 05:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Take a look at the Childhood Chronic Pain talk page, you'll get an idea on where to go to have a page evaluated.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

As another long time but now infrequent editor, I'd not heard of WikiProject Articles for creation which gives a route for newbies to draft articles and wait for someone to evaluate their draft and indicate what improvements are needed: the template on the draft [currently] says "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take more than two months, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 4034 pending submissions waiting for review." The newbie on this article drafted it in March and didn't return: the draft was declined in May. Clearly, with hindsight, this whole fuss could have been avoided by not having this project, and as previously requiring newbies to build up a few edits before getting to start a new article. . . dave souza, talk 03:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
@Dave souza: what do you mean "as previously"? AfC has been around since 2007, long before edit count restrictions on new article creation were introduced. – Joe (talk) 06:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Apologies, my error – I've struck "as previously", didn't have these procedures when I started editing and evidently I'd forgotten the sequence. . . dave souza, talk 07:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • FWIW: article in Le Monde about the whole did-not-have-a-page thing, explicitly referencing notability: [l'article] ne satisfaisait pas aux règles de notoriété de l’encyclopédie en ligne, qui prévoient que le sujet d’un article doit avoir eu une « couverture significative et durable », provenant de « sources fiables et indépendantes de ce sujet » (...) Mme Strickland était, avant l’obtention du prix Nobel, inconnue du grand public, et n’avait pas fait l’objet d’articles de presse. Translation: The article did not satisfy the online encyclopedia's notability criteria, that state that article subject must have had "significant and durable coverage" from "reliable and independent sources" (...) Mrs Strickland was, before her Nobel prize, unknown from the general public and had not been covered in the press. The article's title translates to "Nobel prize: why Donna Strickland was not on Wikipedia before winning that of physics".
(I have no idea whether if anywhere that should be described, but it is fairly rare that en-wp trivia makes it into French press. Le Monde is a big name of the French press.) TigraanClick here to contact me 08:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Interesting to have a reliable source for the point that prior to this month she was "unknown from the general public and had not been covered in the press". Wikipedia is based on reliable published sources and isn't the place to push unknown people into the limelight. It might be nice to have an article for everyone with a society's webpage bio, but that could leave more unwatched pages open to vandalism. . dave souza, talk 08:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Except that's a misrepresentation of the quote, which, together with your misrepresentation of the bio on the society page suggests you're the one pushing something here. To suggest bios on academic society webpages are there for public entertainment purposes and the chairperson to be an unknown, which you implicitly do, is just as much a misrepresentation of the facts. Your logic of "known to the general public" would require 99% of Nobel laureates to be eliminated, too. But that's not how notability works. -- (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Before nominating [for deletion]: checks and alternatives[edit]

Perhaps we wouldn't be having to have this conversation if AfC had something equivalent to WP:BEFORE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

True! Notice also that the backlog at AfC is huge. More requirements will make the backlog's a real challenge, and a huge responsibility that is often handled by relative newbies.Jacona (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How is WP:BEFORE relevant? Despite the misleading publicity, as far as I can see from Draft:Donna Strickland: Revision history the draft was never deleted. It was created by a new editor, in their sole two edits, on 28 March 2018‎. On 23 May 2018 the request for it to go into article space was declined as an interim measure until the sort of sourcing described in WP:BEFORE was provided. On 2 October an IP edited the draft, adding mention of the Nobel Prize and the template for [re]submission – at this point the "draft has been resubmitted and is currently awaiting re-review." Currently "There are 3936 pending submissions waiting for review", and by then the main space article was in the throes of creation. If you're proposing that editors reviewing drafts do more work on them, why? It would only extend the waiting time for review. . . . dave souza, talk 13:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Why? Because that's how you get rid of a bias of content in article space, by putting in more of an effort to see that female scientists are represented. Not by waiting for a divine light to shine down from the heavens and making everything right. These deflection efforts are part of the problem - it's always someone else's fault, not part of a structural problem in WP... As you write yourself, the draft was created by a new editor. And instead of supporting their work, they were hit with a request for speedy deletion and brushed off, never to return. Thereby possibly contributing BOTH to extending the bias in article space AND among users. -- (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

student-teacher pair[edit]

The "student-teacher pair" is rather odd language for describing a graduate student and advisor/PI. Propose: in collaboration with her advisor... or she collaborated with her graduate advisor to... — Preceding unsigned comment added by SnarkyProfessor (talkcontribs) 22:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, there are a significant number of readers who would not comprehend such positions though, so if possible, a wikilink to articles describing the PI or graduate advisor would turn a good edit into an excellent addition. I'd love to help, but know far too little about the graduate advisor titles at each level to make any useful contribution.Wzrd1 (talk) 01:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Material on AfC rejection[edit]

I've removed the material on the AfC rejection as it does not belong here per WP:SUBJECT. No indication of any impact in relation to the topic of the article, which is her, not her article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree. It could be useful in criticisms of Wikipedia, gender bias on Wikipedia or notability in the English Wikipedia, but it is an utterly insignificant part of this Nobel laureate's biography and including it here would be undue navel-gazing. – Joe (talk) 06:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with moving elsewhere. Although the news outlets are understandably mixing up things, the "news" is about an alleged failure of Wikipedia:Article for creation, not about notability per se (which would be tested by a deletion). Various sources have explored the problems with AfC, so a section could be created in an appropriate article if there's not one yet. --Nemo 07:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Izolt please discuss here Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is in the leading news section of the Guardian. Izolt (talk) 07:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC) Any reader of that story who wants to know more will visit Strickland's Wiki page not other categories of pages. This is a high profile story about her, and needs to be covered on her own page.Izolt (talk) 08:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there's much we can say, really. "Her article was not accepted on Wikipedia in May 2018" is problematic, as it doesn't explain why. Yes, we can cite the explanation of Wikipedia's anti-female bias, but it is bull's four letters - I think we all here understand the article was rejected because it was a crappy stub not clearly showing notablity, using poor, primary, self-published sources, and Draftspace is even more backlogged than AfD, and borderline cases get a toss-of-a-coin decision (does WP:BEFORE even apply to drafts? Shrugh). And since none of those articles understand why, and a proper explanation like mine above is technically OR, we have to wait for better sources to discuss this, if they ever appear. Maybe someone could write a Signpost article, and maybe that would be an ok source... . For now I don't think this issue should be mentioned here, not until better sources appear. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
It's gone from the Grauniad's online leading section as seen from the UK, Female Nobel prize winner deemed not important enough for Wikipedia entry | Science | The Guardian seems to be tucked away under Americas, so that may vary in your locality. The article's got errors which misrepresent what happened, and annoyingly it lacks a comments section making it harder to put them right. Perhaps we can get a mythical Wikipedia "Site moderator" to resolve the issue? If the story has merit, better sources should appear, but it's still about Wikipedia rather than about Donna Strickland. Rather an insult to her if this trivial press spat about WP is made a significant part of her bio. . . dave souza, talk 08:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I have also reverted User:Lihaas's inserton of similar material. They do not seem to feel the need to discuss it here, but the sources arise a question: are and RS? I ask out of curiosity only, as I don't know. My reversion was based on WP:BRD rather than questioning the sources issue. ——SerialNumber54129 11:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Lihaas, yes WP:TRIVIA is pretty clear, in being completely inapplicable here: This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies. Please discuss the inclusion of the material on the afc draft here per WP:ONUS:While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment After some thought, I've come around strongly to the point of view that the material on the AFC rejection should be included here (accurately described, of course). If there are rules in the way of that, WP:IAR. It's very notable, it's (at least somewhat) relevant to her life, and it's certainly relevant to this article. Keeping it off this page smacks of wikipedia trying to hide it. Waleswatcher (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Has Donna Strickland commented on the incident, or has it impacted her work in some way? If not, then I don't see why it's relevant, per WP:SUBJECT and WP:TOPIC. FallingGravity 20:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
It is highly relevant, but not to this article. It belongs in Criticism of Wikipedia. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 October 2018[edit]

In Donna Strickland#Early life and education, change "Strickland was born on 27 May 1959 in Guelph, Ontario, Canada to Edith J. (née Ranney) and Lloyd Strickland.[ref] She has a sister Anne and a brother Rob." to "Strickland was born on 27 May 1959 in Guelph, Ontario, Canada.[ref]" as the names are unsourced per WP:BLPNAME. Capitalise the last word in the subheading "Donna Strickland#Nobel Prize in physics" as that's the title of the award. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 13:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. I just removed "in physics" from the heading, since it's rather redundant. – Joe (talk) 13:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
That was fast! Thanks Joe Roe, and I agree about the heading. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 13:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request 2[edit]

In the "Early life and education" section, "Mourou and Strickland co-invented ..." should be changed to "Mourou and Strickland invented ...", no "co", as there were no other co-inventors. -- Roger Hui (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done. – Joe (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Strickland's Education page and alma mater insert could be more specific[edit]

Strickland and Moreau were grad students and research faculty at the Laboratory for Laser Energetics (see the affiliation section on their CPA paper), which is affiliated with the University of Rochester but is semi-autonomous. It could be worthwhile to spell this out explicitly in her early education section, and under her alma mater. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melkor was right (talkcontribs) 13:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Melkor was right: Do you have a reference for that? I'm not doubting you, but the two citations currently attached to that statement only say Rochester, so we'd need another. – Joe (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
@Joe Roe: Which part would you like a reference for? If it's that she did her work at the Laboratory for Laser Energetics, the (original paper has the institution name on it. --Melkor was right (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
See Laboratory for Laser Energetics
The LLE was founded on the University of Rochester's campus in 1970 ... In 1985, Donna Stricklandref"Dr. Donna Strickland: Packing a laser punch" The University of Waterloo, Personal Profiles, accessed 1-11-2014, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2014-01-11. Retrieved 2014-08-24.ref and Gérard Mourou invented a method to amplify laser pulses by "chirping" for which they would share the 2018 Nobel Prize in Physics.
Peter K Burian (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
This seems to confirm that she had involvement with LLE while a student Rochester breakthrough in laser science earns Nobel Prize October 2, 2018
A University of Rochester graduate and a former faculty member shared the Nobel Prize in Physics today for work they undertook at the University’s Laboratory for Laser Energetics (LLE).
Donna Strickland, who received her doctorate in optics from Rochester in 1989 and is now a professor at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, and Gérard Mourou, a former engineering professor and scientist at LLE and currently a professor at the École Polytechnique in France, were recognized for their work to develop lasers as a high-powered tool that ultimately opened the door to new medical, scientific, and commercial applications. Known as “chirped-pulse amplification,” or CPA, the work was the basis of Strickland’s PhD dissertation at Rochester.
Mike Campbell, director of the LLE, said Strickland and Mourou have helped shape the direction of research in high-powered lasers of the kind housed at the Laser Lab. “The development of chirped-pulse amplification by Gérard and Donna has created numerous new applications in science and industry and has catalyzed research around the world in high peak-power lasers,” he said. “The research that led to the Nobel was conducted at the Laboratory for Laser Energetics and highlights the quality and innovation that has long characterized the University’s contributions to optics and laser science. All of us extend our sincere congratulations to Gérard and Donna for their pioneering and impactful research.”
Peter K Burian (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
@Melkor was right and Peter K Burian: Thanks for the references. I've added it to the article. – Joe (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Protected Edit Requests - Publications[edit]

Can the citation for article DOI 10.1364 be updated so that the journal name links to its related wiki page Journal of the Optical Society B? - Tinynull (talk) 15:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done – Joe (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Is this page locked? I cannot edit it[edit]

Even extended confirmed users cannot do so. There has been a lot of new information published about Strickland today, which is definitely relevant. I have asked for help from An Admin to see if the level of protection could be reduced.Peter K Burian (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan I see a lot of debate in other sections of Talk but what is the bottom line here? I suppose there are other articles that are Fully Protected, but this is the first time in years that I have encountered one where extended confirmed editors can do no edits whatsoever. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Would it not be more appropriate to block Users who are creating the problems, rather than Fully Protect the page so that serious editors also cannot improve the content? Check the content that I had added: there was nothing controversial at all in any of my edits. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Question for administrator[edit]

I am a long-time (extended confirmed) editor and have updated this article in the last few days. Today, I noticed that the Edit feature has disappeared from this page. How is that even possible?

Hope this gets resolved soon, Peter K Burian (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

This article has been temporarily locked due to disruptive editing by administrator SarekOfVulcan. From your request below I am guessing you may have figured this out already. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I had to read the first sentence a few times and check the history to understand that SarekOfVulcan did the locking and not the disruptive editing. 😊 -- Roger Hui (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I would like to

article Peter K Burian (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I would like to add content to Early Life not about the fact that this wikipedia article was rejected because she was not adequately famous.
Although, today, I am seeing numerous articles in the news media about that. (And I agree that does NOT belong in this article). Peter K Burian (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
And I would like to add more specifics about her time at U of Rochester. I made this edit in her co-winner's, Gérard Mourou, semi-protected article. This is more specific than just the name of the university:
  produced their Nobel prize-winning work in the Laboratory for Laser Energetics at the university.[2] "Rochester breakthrough in laser science earns Nobel Prize". University of Rochester. October 2, 2018. Retrieved October 4, 2018. 

Peter K Burian (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Peter K Burian, the article's protection has now been downgraded. GMGtalk 17:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Peter K Burian (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

A selected timeline of the edit history of this article[edit]

I will urge all editors to please move meta discussions on notability, women and AFC project to such appropriate venues WT:AFC, WT:WIR and WT:N.–Ammarpad (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • The article was first created on March 7, 2018 by User A who added +3,249 characters beginning with, “Donna Strickland is a past president of the Optical Society. She has worked on several committees within the OSA. She has been on the editorial board of OSA…”
  • Six minutes later User B called for a speedy deletion because the content was an "Unambiguous copyright infringement." (It was probably unintentional on the part of A. Complete phrases appeared to have been cut and pasted from the references without quotes).
  • On May 23, 2018 User C communicated with A asking for RS and inviting A to communicate via C’s talk page or the TeaHouse. C: “Please improve the submission's referencing so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia." When C was accused of gender bias, they explained that, the article "didn't have a single reference to a reliable source (RS) that was independent of the topic."
  • A did not respond.
  • The article stub was moved to Draft space where it could have been improved by contributors, then resubmitted.
  • On October 2, 2018, when Strickland was covered extensively in the main stream and social media, as the first woman in 55 years to receive the Nobel Prize in Physics, 97 editors worked feverishly over 24 hours, added 270 edits including a photo. There were an astounding 106,526 page views on that day.
  • The story of C's rejection of the original Wikipedia article was picked up by the main stream and social media. Concerns were raised that C's decision may have been tainted by gender bias, which in turn reflected gender bias in Wikipedia specifically, and in the media in general.
  • This was discussed on C's talk page. Editor D, who had expressed concern that B had rejected the article, because of a gender bias, reread the article and agreed with C, that “the article was not very well written, and most importantly poorly sourced. I'm very glad to hear that this wasn't about gender bias.”

IMHO The editors who review new articles and drafts are seriously backlogged with 4000 drafts under review. Although C summarized the reason for declining the article, as it “is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines (AFCH 0.9)”, by May 23, there were three other problematic issues. There were four separate reasons for moving the article to the draft space for further revisions before publishing in the main space: a question of notability, the lack of secondary RS, the concern that the May 23 iteration was poorly written, and potential copyright infringement.

Each issue on its own could have been dealt with using maintenance templates but given the backlog under which User C was working, it is easy to understand why the article was moved out of the main space an into Draft for improvements.

As an inclusionist, I think the May 23 draft was moved too hastily. I would have added maintenance templates. But the call can be subjective and C is a knowledgeable veteran editor who knows Wikipedia policies.

Four potential reasons for removal of May 23 stub to draft[edit]

Poorly written[edit]

Again this is subjective, I disagree that for a stub article, that this was so poorly written that it merited a rapid deletion.

Lack of reliable secondary resources[edit]

I also disagree that even the May 23 that stage, the lack of secondary references proved that Strickland's lacked notability. I don't agree that an article should be rejected for having no secondary sources in the early months of its existence. The citation needed template requests RS. When you examine the histories of many Wikipedia articles, they begin with one-sentence or two in the stub stage that have no references at all. If there was ever a bot that could delete these instantly, thousands of valuable articles would have disappeared at inception.

(I know this is apples and oranges): The Wikipedia article chirped pulse amplification for lasers, invented by Strickland & Mourou in 1985, and for which they received the 2018 Nobel Prize for Physics, was created in 2005 with zero references. It remained reference free for years. By 2009, the article was substantial and it only had one reference. It was a primary, not a secondary resource.

You cannot compare how Wikipedia worked 13 years with today. Sources were not considered important back then, and most articles were created without them.T8612 (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Alleged gender bias[edit]

After reading through page histories and talk pages, it really seems as if there was no gender bias on the part of C. At this point I do not know if C is male or female, nor do I want to or need to know. It was not C's role to dig deep and find the RS themselves. I think the focus on this article should remain on Strickland's role and contributions in this breakthrough scientific accomplishment, and play down any mass media and social media attempts to use this to criticize Wikipedia volunteers. It doesn't matter if the Twitterverse is alight with the story.

Wikipedia already has its own article Gender bias on Wikipedia. The problem has been acknowledged and there is much work being done to find solutions. Focusing on one decision of one editor is not productive and could potentially discourage people from contributing.

Notability criteria[edit]

I don't think the question of notability was urgent in this case. There are literally hundreds of articles about administrators of organizations, sports figures, video game figures, etc. consisting of a few sentences and one or two references.

Copyright infringement[edit]

Copyright infringement is a serious concern for Wikipedia, and not always completely understood by novice editors, and even those who are not so novice. In the May 23 iteration of this article, there are complete sentences that were copied without quotation marks from Donna Strickland's profile page on The Optical Society's website. Duplication Detector gave incomplete results in comparing them, but they are there, which is perhaps why B had called for a speedy deletion, 20 minutes after the article first appeared on March 7. The edit history will point to the editor who added these. I don't think this is useful as it was probably either accidental or unintentional.

Congratulations to the October 2 editors!!! Huge accomplishment.Oceanflynn (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Career Section Addition[edit]

I spent some time today verifying this, we apparently had an issue on our site causing this committee to not show properly! Donna is currently still involved, and is the active chair of our Presidential Advisory Committee which is responsible for as OSA Honorary Members among other advisory responsibilities. This may be an appropriate addition to her career section. - Tinynull (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Append to the end of the last paragraph: She is the current chair of the OSA Presidential Advisory Committee. (add citation to Advisory Committee)

 Done And thanks for all your assistance Tinynull. You have set a singular example of how organizations can work with Wikipedia to help improve our content. GMGtalk 21:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm glad I can help, I've had the opportunity to meet Dr. Strickland in person and she's amazing and I really enjoyed the little bit of time I had to work with her. I was over joyed when I heard that she won, and I was happy in hindsight that we had a biography up about her, even if it wasn't the best source, so that there was at least a starting point. - Tinynull (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Incidentally Tinynull, we have an entire project at WP:GLAM (galleries, libraries, archives, and museums), and if folks at the Society are interested, we can certainly try to put you in touch with someone who can look at ways you can partner with Wikipedia to help increase our coverage of your area of specialty. GMGtalk 22:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


  • “If somebody else thinks something that you don’t believe in, just think they’re wrong and you’re right and keep going,” Strickland told a young scientist at the press conference following the announcement of her win. ”That’s pretty much the way I always think.”

In little over 24 hours, en.wikipedia scrambled to *create* a 15,790 bytes article on Donna Strickland who, all at once & at the speed of a laser beam, became Wikipediaworth... At long last, Donna Strickland has reached the fame of this then not yet 24-year old Wikipediaworthy[5], whose article was created in May 2005, with a single sentence describing what was making her a Wikipediaworthy: whose daughter she was.

  • 1903 - Marie Skłodowska-Curie
  • 1963 - Maria Goeppert-Mayer
  • 2018 - Donna Strickland

Long overdue congratulations to Donna Strickland. Please "keep going"! :)

FW/--2A01:CB00:885:F600:464:A6A2:E16B:8CBA (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

You link to the biographical stub of a 24-year old; it was created by an IP at 04:11, 9 May 2005, when anonymous editors could still just start an article. At 08:24, 13 May 2005, another IP added the biographical detail "shes a crack ho", and the next day it got worse until it was reverted. Do you see now why we require properly sourced draft articles from newbies before putting them into article space? Imagine the furore now if that had been Donna Strickland's first article on Wikipedia, and it had been left unchecked as a little-watched stub! . . . dave souza, talk 12:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Dear Dave Souza, I totally agree with what you are saying; however, do maintain that a woman has more of a chance to quickly be the subject of an over 100.000 bytes Wikipedia article if she is a rich, face-lifted & body-reconstructed, previously brunette blond bombshell[6] (144,330 bytes), with or without a brain, than if she is a world-renown brainy politician[7] (65,964 bytes), or a scientist-mathematician-physicist[8] (9,072 bytes).
No more to say. Please, enjoy your day. Au revoir!
FW/--2A01:CB00:885:F600:E87A:66B0:31AE:F4D2 (talk) 09:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a tertiary source. It means that we can only write about things or people with articles/books/etc. published on them. Since there are countless articles on Paris Hilton, it's much easier to write about her than Yvonne Choquet-Bruhat. Blame the media, not Wikipedia.T8612 (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Dear T8612, please allow me to... chuckle...
Wiki articles on personalities such as the one on Paris Hilton, today down to 135,982 bytes, lead me to believe that most Wikipedians consider Wikipedia to be another gossip magazine, because, from your quote, Wikipedia being a tertiary source, meaning "that we can only write about things or people with articles/books/etc. published on them", why the content of articles, the subjects of which have tons of publications on them, is so scanty? To name a few: Leonardo da Vinci, a mere (104,753 bytes), Louis Pasteur (90,664 bytes), Russian Revolution (88,331 bytes), Beethoven (74,643 bytes), Madeleine Albright (65,964 bytes), Mozart (68,456 bytes), Michelangelo (66,231 bytes), Shirley Temple (55,442 bytes), The Pentagon (41,193 bytes), Arthur Rubinstein (30,465 bytes).
Mickey Mouse manages 89,651 bytes, right below Pasteur, and Garfield 54,495 bytes, way above Arthur Rubinstein...
Why put the blame on the media?
Best regards, FW/--2A01:CB00:885:F600:AC49:5C89:6D18:3F0E (talk) 08:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
We are all volunteer editors here and we tend to concentrate our editing on subjects that interest us, this may be why the contemporary personalities get undue attention, my interests lie in the arts so my contributions reflect this. If you are concerned at the length of Leonardo da Vinci's article the answer is simple...add some content! Theroadislong (talk) 09:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
The quality of an article is not measured by its number of bytes. T8612 (talk) 10:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Cher T8612, I agree. However, in the Paris Hilton's case, the number of bytes does (possibly) show the interest of readers pointing in the direction of gossip magazines.
To Theroadislong: I do not consider myself to be good enough at writing to contribute to Wikipedia, but I still can give my opinion.
Best regards to both of you, FW/--2A01:CB00:885:F600:AC49:5C89:6D18:3F0E (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Why Wikipedia's name has been questioned just simply because not having an article about this Nobel Laureate[edit]

Wikipedia is edited by several millions of editors but the latest remarks over Wikipedia regarding the ignorance of Donna Strickland as a notable person doesn't mean that every wikipedians are responsible for the black mark on this encyclopedia. May be the press have mentioned that a draft submission was rejected at the Afc in May this year due to the notability issues but how these websites know these little things including the draft refusal. It's quite strange that I even thought this encyclopedia generally doesn't have a recognition. Can you explain all these things and who is actually responsible for the shame on Wikipedia. Is it to reveal that gender bias is still continuing in Wikipedia. (talk) 09:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Read the rest of the discussion. The draft was rejected because it was an unsourced copy/pasting from the web, not because the author was not famous enough. George Smith, the last winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, did not have a page before his award as well, but strangely the press did not care; it does not make a good clickbait article -- much easier to cry about "gender-bias" on Wikipedia.T8612 (talk) 10:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
The previous article was deleted in 2014 because it was a copy pasted copyright violation. The draft was rejected because of a lack of independent sourcing, which is a judgement about the state of the draft, and not about the subject of the article. Media are picking up on it partly because they don't understand what happened. Forbes said the draft was deleted for example, and linked to the draft, while not realizing the obvious, that if it was deleted, they couldn't link to it.
This is as much an exercise in how little the media understands the inner workings of Wikipedia as it is an examination of gender bias. Quarts at least starts to get to the heart of the issue as far as the broad problem of bias. Namely, we can only write about topics that have sources. At some level, you have to look at the sources and say "Why don't you write more about women so we can too?" And to their credit, Forbes did give a hat tip to the problem as it exists from our side, specifically "anyone can write an entry in the gigantic online encyclopedia." So if you are concerned about bias, and the effect of a disproportionately male editing population "What are you waiting for, get busy." In fact, we have an entire project specifically to help you do just that. GMGtalk 11:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia's name has been questioned because lazy or poorly informed journalists found clickbait by misrepresenting what happened. One of the better articles, in The Atlantic, links to an inaccurate tweet which refers to the draft article by saying "She had a page before that, but it was declined 23 May 2018", and The Atlantic somehow changes that to "A Wikipedia user tried to set up a page in May, but it was denied by a moderator". So now the myth goes around that a so-called "moderator" quickly denied or deleted an article, discouraging the proposer. As noted above, the draft was created by a new username in March as their first ever edit, two minutes late this new user added the appropriate template which brought up the message "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take more than two months". The user never edited again (so far!) and when the draft was assessed almost two months later, they didn't respond to encouragement to find better sources and try again. It should be emphasised that, though declined, the draft wasn't deleted and remained there ready for further edits. This message should be put to the media to dispel spurious myths. The Atlantic invites letters to the editor so that's one possibility, I'll try to find time to work on it but the more people who try the better. . . dave souza, talk 12:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • On a related note, looks like Fortune has written me back and they've corrected their article. So if you see glaring errors in the coverage, please do send them an email and point out the problems. If they're responsible journalists, they'll fix it. GMGtalk 18:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Controversy Section[edit]

There doesn't seem to be a clear discussion section regarding the criticism the handling her Wikipedia page received only a bunch of discussion attempting to explain the reason which is great but doesn't help us improve the article. Now the fact that controversy around the handling of her Wikipedia article exists and is present in numerous is undisputable making it notable. It obviously deserves to be placed on the article, the criticism given by the journalists may be unfair but all criticism of the RS take must themselves be sourced from RS, so any Wikipedia user wishing to add one should contact a reliable source to either write an op-ed or a comment for a planned article so that that criticism may be backed up.

In the mean-time, a small section regarding the criticism her Wikipedia article received should be added without ratinalizations until those are added to reliable sources.Zubin12 (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Trouble is, as noted above, these stories are spreading inaccurate myths which effectively defame Wikipedia editors, but as we're bound by WP:NOR we really need a reliable and accurate published source for the needed clarification. Also, as this is a BLP we need a very good source to show this storm in a Wiki-cup has actually had significant impact on Donna Strickland – the article's about her, not about lazy journalists, or about hurt feelings at Wikipedia. So, try to get corrections published in the media, but don't try to force this into Strickland's biography. . . dave souza, talk 12:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
The article is about her and incident related to her which the Wikipedia page controversy cleary is even if it didn't impact her, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zubin12 (talkcontribs)
This should not be included, per WP:SUBJECT. She is not her wikipedia article Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

All the editors quoting wiki policies as reasons not to include this should remember the most important rule of all - WP:IAR. Waleswatcher (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Here's an idea; Instead of debating this issue, we need someone to go to Criticisms of Wikipedia and add a section about the criticism this page is getting. Whether the criticism is fair or not, it needs to be covered in that article. See the discussion in the Talk page at Criticisms of Wikipedia ... nothing has yet been added to that article about the Strickland situation. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
There certainly should be something on this there - but most people looking for this probably wouldn't find it there. That's one reason why I think it ought to be here, in this article (although it would be fine to just link to that discussion, if it existed...).Waleswatcher (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikimedia operates Wikipedia and it published a long article about the controversy. Why didn’t Wikipedia have an article on Donna Strickland, winner of a Nobel Prize? There is a section: What’s up with bias on Wikipedia?

  The Wikimedia Foundation does not control editorial content on Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia projects. That is up to a global movement of volunteers who seek to make the sum of all knowledge freely available to every single person.

Peter K Burian (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Is there some good reason why my edit concerning this affair which was reverted should not be permitted (apart from embarrassment, of course)? --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Dr. Josephson, it is an honor to converse with you. (I assume you really are who your user page says you are.) I daresay this is probably the first time the Wikipedia page of a Nobel laureate was edited by another. Your edit:
Despite her achievements, in March 2018 Strickland was deemed by Wikipedia moderators not important enough for a Wikipedia entry.[16]
where [16] is a link to an article in The Guardian
I did not revert your change, but I will attempt to answer your question. The reasons are detailed all over this very same talk page. It's a lot to go through. As I understand it: (a) In March 2018 a draft article was submitted for review for creation. (b) In May 2018 it was reviewed (there is backlog of over 4000 articles for review). The draft was not accepted for creation because it was poorly sourced. (c) At any time between May 2018 and October 2018 the original submitter could have edited the draft and resubmitted it, but did not. (d) At any time between March 2018 and October 2018 the original submitter could simply have gone ahead and created that page. (e) The Guardian article is incorrect. In particular, its headline "Female Nobel prize winner deemed not important enough for Wikipedia entry" is both incorrect and misleading.
Mainstream media has been "piling on" Wikipedia on this matter. But one might ask, how many articles on Strickland had appeared in MSM before October 2018? On a related issue, it was asked (as in a news conference at the University of Waterloo) why Strickland was an associate professor instead of a full professor. Her answer was that she never applied. Even now, post Nobel Prize, she still would have to apply (but her application can be one sentence, according to the president of the university). So the University of Waterloo has procedures for things, just like Wikipedia.
Finally, your parenthetical comment "(apart from embarrassment, of course)". I can not know the motivation of the editor who did the revert, but I very much doubt that embarrassment is the reason. I doubt that the editor is personally embarrassed by any of this, and I doubt that the editor feels embarrassed on behalf of Wikipedia as a collective. The editor did suggest that you participate in this very talk page. And here we are. -- Roger Hui (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
@Zubin12: On the contrary, there are already two discussions about this above, and a clear consensus not to include it. The reason is simple: this is an article about Donna Strickland, not an article about this article. – Joe (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
That is a very artificial excuse if I may say so (in that by this criterion wikipedia is uniquely immune from having critical comment on its actions included in an article), and fully confirms my belief that the reversion was really because any criticism is unacceptable. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Professor Josephson, with due deference to your beliefs, could you please provide a citation demonstrating this alleged uniqueness, or at least an example of another publication required to show inaccurate and misleading critical comment on its actions, and include this information in the article where these actions supposedly were part of the editorial process? Given the lack of response so far from at least one of the publications making these allegations, it unfortunately seems to be common for online publications to go uncorrected, let alone expanded with summaries of such criticisms. . . . dave souza, talk 01:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia:Verifiability apply in this case? "Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." If there are numerous sources that say Wikipedia didn't think Strickland was notable, presumably because she is a woman, and no sources saying the opposite, then isn't Wikipedia stuck with that by its own policy? ghouston (talk) 02:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Have you read the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, particularly the section headed Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion which clearly applies here? Guidance states we don't give undue weight to This article was criticised by ... coverage, but it could be included in an article where such criticism is the topic such as Wikipedia:Criticisms or Gender bias on Wikipedia. Take care, though, there aren't that many sources in proportion to the huge coverage of Strickland's achievement, they're directly contrary to primary sources on the topic, and tend to involve news aggregators or journalists passing on tweets or informing their readers about other articles rather than providing independent coverage. . . dave souza, talk 08:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
@Brian Josephson: We're not saying criticism of Wikipedia can't be included. We have whole articles devoted to it (e.g. criticisms of Wikipedia, gender bias on Wikipedia, notability in the English Wikipedia). The question is where it should be included. This article is a purely a biography of Strickland. Giving space to the storm-in-a-teacup about her Wikipedia article would imply that not-having-a-Wikipedia-article is a significant element of her life and career, which is undue and frankly insulting. – Joe (talk) 08:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
What Joe said; I reverted the edit per the guideline WP:SUBJECT, not because criticism is unacceptable; indeed I have previously been quite critical of WP:AFCs rejection of drafts on notable professors and have been critical here too Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Re these stories are spreading inaccurate myths which effectively defame Wikipedia editors above, I can't see this as a defamation of an editor. One can see on the relevant page that an editor did decline the article on definitively spurious grounds, since ref. 2 showed more than just the 'passing mention' referred to, but that she was President of the Society (that page has been updated to refer to her Nobel Prize, but presumably must have referred to her Presidency in May). It would be wrong to blame w'pedia as such for this, but blaming the editor responsible is perfectly legitimate. But although it is (to my mind) newsworthy it is, in the last analysis, pretty ephemeral as news so I have no problem with my insert being reverted. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for offering your expertise on the adequacy of sources provided with the draft, clearly you're to some extent to blame for not helping with the AfC queue in the [nearly] two months the draft was waiting for review. As we all are. Trouts all round. Agree that the story is ephemeral, and likely to vanish unless learned historians publish a treatise on it, but I'm sure all involved are trying to learn from it and improve things going forward. Regards, . dave souza, talk 17:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Big joke, Dave (re your AfC queue comment). Hahaha! --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Brian, in your edit discussed above you cited a Guardian article. As their mobile version highlights (less obvious, but same link in online version) "More on this topic Wikipedia biases" – that's the topic for this press coverage, not this bio. More usefully, the Guardian's initial coverage quoted Dr Seirian Sumner – a woman scientist in red! Quick, write an article about her before she gets a Nobel Prize or equivalent!! Seriously, she's had quite a lot of coverage in the press, so is likely to pass notability requirements. . . dave souza, talk 13:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Since I know nothing about her but you've obviously been doing relevant investigation, it's clear that you're the person for the job! And I'm not sure that mere 'coverage in the press' is enough to qualify, given w'pedia's obvious high standards, and its apparent wish not to overload the site with women. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I have just spent a few minutes googling Seirian Sumner and she does look fascinating! (And notable.) If/when I have a spare day or month I will create a Wikipedia page for her, and I will just create it without bothering with the AfC process. -- Roger Hui (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

from an experienced reviewer...[edit]

Although general comments should go elsewhere, as one of WP's most frequent reviewer of articles on scientists for the last 12 years, I want to try to analyze why both the first version and the draft were so incorrectly rejected.

  1. The usual assumption at WP is that an associate professor would not be notable. This is true the great majority of the time under our current standards--It is, however not true 100% of the time--as this instance shows, but as has been the case also for probably about a few hundred articles. It is not that the status is what we use to decide in a direct way, but that the WP:PROF standards are written and interpreted at a level that in general only full professors will meet them. It is probable that as a result the article was read only cursorily. (The question of why she was only an Associate Professor is of great interest for the sociology of science, and I am sure will be the subject of significant discussion, both now, and for many years to come. I expect that some of the material will go here, but some in more general articles.) ( I have argued for many years that we should adjust our standards to extend notability under WP:PROF to people with the status of Associate Professors at the highest level major research universities. My reason for this is that these people have been reviewed by true experts in the field as being quite certain to be suficient authorities to not only do excellent work , but to do such excellent work that it will attract graduate students and postdoctoral fellow and promising new faculty to the university.)
  2. She is not only a fellow of the major society of her field (and fellowships of societies such as this one are high honors) but the president of the society. These are each specific quick pass criteria in the WP:PROF guideline. I cannot tell specifically if the reviewsw did not notice these because of the apparently cursory examination, or whether it was not realized that this is the major society, or whether there wasn't awareness that these positions by themselves are sufficient for notability. (When I review in any field, I automatically scan for major awards or positions as a first step in evaluating)
  3. The article did not list her major papers, or refer to the degree to which they were cited. Since the extent of citation of articles is the usual criterion by which we show someone to have influence in their field, it wasn't obvious. (When I review I try to notice the absence of any of the usual material and then check further)
  4. the very large number of non-notable bios submitted at AfC has led to over-hasty work. About 90% of the AfC submission turn out to be unacceptable, and it is understandable that this creates a bias toward rejection of the drafts. (The only way to guard against this is to go slowly and carefully. Trying to clear backlogs by going too rapidly and for too long a time is a recurrent problem at WP., and is parto f our overall working pattern of preferring speed over quality)
  5. We have recently in our drive to expand coverage of notable women academics had a noticeable number of submissions of articles for people who are only borderline notable at best. The good faith but sometimes inadequately considered efforts to insert these has led to a degree of suspicion about articles on apparently dubious or non-standard careers of women scientists. I doubt this was consciously considered here, but there's an unconscious effect also that needs to be consciously guarded against. (The proper response to this over-enthusiasm is to check carefully every single one to guard against following a pattern) .
  6. We have no standard way to check on reviews. This means that in practice the work is done at a variable level of accuracy. (I try to check once in a while, but in practice I'm limited by time to checking of other reviews by those people whom I happen to spot making errors. I don't think there's more than 1 or 2 other people doing such checks , at least on a regular basis) DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
DGG, you make good points about the reviewing process, but the first (2014) version was apparently deleted as a copyvio, so that looks correct. The draft submitted in March was, when reviewed almost two months later, declined with user talk page encouragement to improve the article, not "rejected". A nuance, but missing it feeds the false narrative the poor author promptly felt felt rejected, or "Wikipedia user tried to set up a page in May, but it was denied by a moderator", per The Atlantic. It seems more likely that a newbie was put off by the template notice suggesting more than two months wait and lost interest. Since it was a borderline decline, it would be better for the reviewer to have an optional template for "needs improvement" rather than the current "submission declined" template. . . dave souza, talk 06:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
And, the answer is! increased scrutiny for articles about women scientists to make sure not a single one slips in when it shouldn't. I'm sure the press will rally behind Wikipedia adopting that as a solution. --2600:1700:FB00:9C00:1EC:D710:D4BF:2F7F (talk) 05:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Another whine from a one-edit wonder (or a sock?). The answer is, of course, for more editors to contribute via one of the projects listed at the top of this page, or more specifically the nicely titled WP:Women in Red. . . dave souza, talk 09:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
On the contrary, it was a great comment, IMHO. Roll the drums, and sorry if I offend! --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

How many of the media outlets that are so freely casting aspertions at us had published an article about Strickland, or even just mentioned her even once, before she got the Nobel? The answer is zero! If there is to be any blame, the mainstream media are the guilty party. They care more about the Kardashians than scientists. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, we can only write articles after other secondary publications have already covered the subject.

BTW The review templates do make it pretty clear that "declined" is not "rejected" and provide instructions on how to fix the issue that led to the decline. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:07, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm not convinced. Unfortunately the original page in March has been censored, but I can see from the history (the oldest item) that she was 'past president of the Optical Society'. I fed that into Google and this immediately led me to, which shows that she held this position in 2013. Someone holding this position can hardly have held it without being noteworthy for some reason. It was very easy to find this information, and one is really led to assume strong bias on the part of the moderator concerned, and those who presumably supported the deletion(?). So it is quite in order for wikipedia's processes to be attacked for this, in my opinion. (I see some aspects of this have been mentioned above, though that writer seems not to have noticed that the presidency was explicitly referred to by the person who created the page.) --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
@Brian Josephson: Wikipedia doesn't have moderators. The 2014 version of this article was deleted, quite rightly, because it was wholly copied from another source violating copyright. That version had nothing to do with the draft that was submitted this March. The fact that that draft wasn't accepted was the mistake of a single editor and I think at this point he has been made well aware of it. – Joe (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I had just noticed that it was not this year's version that I had been referring to. Is there a way to see the version that was blocked, as it seems not to be in the history? I am of course aware that it was an editor, not a moderator as referred to in the press (it is the infamous that uses moderators to block articles it does not like), who did the deletion. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi Brian, the version that was deleted in March 2014 was an exact word for word copy of the two paragraphs of the OSA biography (as archived 2015-08-28) with the order of the paragraphs swapped, and a new opening sentence stating "Donna Strickland is a past president of the Optical Society." You can ask any Wikipedia administrator to check that for you, or give the Wikimedia Foundation good reasons for you to get a direct copy. You could also become an administrator (janitor) and see it, but that's hard work these days! . . . dave souza, talk 10:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I think we've discussed this adequately in the previous section. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
There certainly seems to be some confusion over terminology, here and in the press coverage. To clarify, there have been three versions of this article:
  1. Donna Strickland, created March 2014. This was deleted by an administrator because of the copyright violation. As such, it can't be viewed anymore, but it was just a verbatim of a page from the OSA website.
  2. Draft:Donna Strickland, created March 2018. Because new editors cannot create articles directly, the creator of this draft had to request that another editor move it out draft status for them. This request was declined (erroneously) by an ordinary editor, not an administrator, and the creator never returned to try again. This version was never deleted and its history remains fully accessible here.
  3. Donna Strickland, created October 2018, is the current version of the article.
I hope that clears things up a bit. – Joe (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to the Mar. 2018 draft version and clarifying the procedure. It all seems distinctly problematic. Of course, my views on w'pedia are strongly coloured by my experiences of biased editors who gang up, using dubious interpretations of the rules, to stop anything contradicting their opinions from appearing (yes, that does happen). --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Brian, sorry you've had a tough time with past contributions, you're very much to be praised for making the effort to share your knowledge and make constructive edits to improve Wikipedia. It can be frustrating at times, especially if you're used to publishing original research which is the right thing in academia but not in Wikipedia. In discussions, editors are expected to have their own views (or biases), but the outcome has to comply with policies, including WP:WEIGHT. So, thanks for contributing, hope you have a better time in future, . . dave souza, talk 10:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
There is another key issue. The reviewer who rejected the draft article was aware of the OSA fellowship, but his objection was that the only reference for that was the OSA webpage. Thus, a lack of reliable sources for notability, and the rejection. (They write more about this in this essay: User:Bradv/Strickland_incident.) I think the consequence should be that WP:PROF should explicitly include the statement that when it comes to prizes, professorships, fellowships etc. a statement by the awarding institution should be taken as a reliable source. I've proposed this here: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academics)#Proposal_for_addition_to_specific_WP:PROF_notability_criteria – please feel free to comment and indicate opposition/support. Markus Pössel (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
This idea that OSA wouldn't be a reliable source in this case boggles my mind. What is the logic exactly? Strickland was a president of the OSA, so she'd have the power to update the website to falsely claim that she was its president?? Do such things happen often enough that we need to care about the possibility? ghouston (talk) 02:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Donna Strickland told me to my face that she wants her adult children's names to be added to her Wikipedia Page[edit]

Fellow Wikipedians,

I bumped into 2018 Physics Nobel Laureate, Donna Strickland, at an NSERC event 2 days ago, Thursday 5 October in Toronto, Canada.

During our conversation, Donna told me that she and her family wish to see their names added to her wikipedia page. Her husband has a science doctorate, and her daughter is doing a science doctorate at the university of Toronto (

I offered to add in these edits on behalf of Donna Strickland and her family and my change was immediately reversed citing incorrect sourcing. I have left a message on that editor's talkpage asking for clarification.

While I agree that getting her children's names and their university and college info and directly from a Nobel prize winner isn't 3rd party verification, the listing of Hannah Dykaar on Dunlap institute's website at the university of Toronto, is reliable. Previously, Hannah's husband was listed on her wikipedia page but that appears to have been removed, too.

I am quite happy to request that the University of Waterloo publish a press release listing the names of Donna's family -- who, will, in any case, all be accompanying her to the Nobel Awards celebrations and that will be reported by the Canadian press -- so, do we wait until then, or do this now?

cheers, Carries MumCarries mum (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

  • @Carries Mum: You seem to have understood that "I know it firsthand" is not acceptable sourcing for a Wikipedia article (since, among other things, you could be lying). The Toronto website is not sufficient either because it doesn't say HD is the daughter of DS.
More importantly, I doubt that information should be included, even if correctly sourced. We do not include any sourceable information we can find. (Also, we do not really care what DS wishes to see in the article about her.) Family member names are usually mentioned only when the other family member has a Wikipedia article as well. (If it was up to me, we would not even have any "personal life" sections unless directly relevant to the article, but I am in the minority here; there is at least an unwritten consensus that number of children, general area where the person lives, etc. is acceptable info in biographies). TigraanClick here to contact me 11:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Silly me did not see that was already discussed below. Sorry. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
That information is not entirely correct, as w'pedia culled the full name of my wife and the date of our marriage from Who's Who, to whom I had presumably provided that information myself at some time in the past. --Brian Josephson (talk) 12:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Donna Strickland's children[edit]

User:Carries mum added personal details about Strickland's children, which were incorrectly sourced, i.e. this one [9] doesn't mention her being her daughter. Her edit summary was…"I met Donna at an NSERC event at York University on Thursday 5 October and while we were chatting about her Nobel Prize win, she told me that she wanted details about her adult children added to her Wikipedia page. This is especially relevant given that she is a woman in STEM and her daughter is following in her Physics footsteps. I have done as she requested." I am not adverse to her children being mentioned but please can we have better sources? Theroadislong (talk) 12:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Source: Grimes2 (talk) 12:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Theroadislong, I apologize -- I'm not very good at this wikipedia chat thing. I hope I'm doing this right. Thanks for explaining -- I will ask Bryan Gaensler and Donna Strickland if and how they want to handle this. cheers, User:Carries mum —Preceding undated comment added 12:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

You are doing better than me at the chat thing, sorry I didn't see your post above!. We don't usually involve the subject of an article unless there is contentious material. Theroadislong (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't appear that this is currently being reported by any sources other than TG&M. GMGtalk 13:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Dear Theroadislong, I have found an independent source for Hannah Dykaar -- it is a Globe and Mail article ( Aparently, Hannah's FB post/page is also open.

This is from the Globe and Mail article: "Certainly, Dr. Strickland does not have to go far to serve as a role model to young female researchers. She and her husband, Doug Dykaar, also a physicist, have two children, including a daughter, Hannah, who is a graduate student in astrophysics at the University of Toronto.

Ms. Dykaar said that at first she thought her mother’s phone had been hacked when she got a text from her telling her about the Nobel prize." Carries mum (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you but I already added this reference earlier. Facebook is NEVER a reliable source for anything though. Theroadislong (talk) 13:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
We do not normally name non-notable relatives per WP:BLPNAME. I'm not seeing a sufficient reason to make an exception here. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Also keep in mind that, other than correcting demonstrable errors, the subject's desires and opinions about article content are largely irrelevant. She does not WP:OWN the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
One more thing, Carries mum the fact that you know Strickland and are discussing the article with her puts you in a conflict of interest which you are required to declare, and you should not be editing the article directly. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I previously removed the names of Strickland's children and I don't think they should be restored. We can respect the subject's wishes to an extent, but in this case we have no way of verifying that these are her wishes (or more importantly, her children's). Moreover, there is a WP:BLPPRIVACY issue. Strickland's children are not public figures, so unless and until their names are widely reported in the press, we should assume they don't wish them to be published and respect their right to privacy. – Joe (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I normally remove the names of living children from an article about a notable person unless there are good sources and:
1/the person is famous
2/the person is a public figure where information about the family is normal and expected, such a politician or a really major prize-winner
3/the person is in a field where personal information including family is routinely published, like some entertainers
4/the information is relevant to the significance, such as following the same profession, or inheriting a company.
5/the family member is themselves notable.
numbers 2 and 5 4 apply here, and possibly 1 also. There is an excellent source from a major newspaper. DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I think you may have meant that 2 and 4 applied? It was me that added the content but I'm really not bothered if others decide to remove, it's not important or essential content. Theroadislong (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
right. thanks for the correction. I agree it is not essential, but I suspect it may become important if it is discussed further as an expression of her views.. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Maybe I'm being too sensitive about privacy, but I would prefer to see at least one more good source print her children's names before including them. – Joe (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
here's a second good source...[10] Theroadislong (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Erm... is it? – Joe (talk) 06:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Here's another [11] Theroadislong (talk) 08:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The only living female recipient[edit]

Dear fellow Wikipedia editors, please comment on the following issue between myself and (so far) GMGtalk. It concerns the sentence

Strickland is the first female Nobel Physics laureate in 55 years and the third woman in history to win the Nobel Prize in Physics, after Marie Curie in 1903 and Maria Goeppert-Mayer in 1963, making her the only living female recipient.[5][20]

which I changed to:

Strickland is the first female Nobel Physics laureate in 55 years and the third woman in history to win the Nobel Prize in Physics, after Marie Curie in 1903 and Maria Goeppert-Mayer in 1963. She is the only living female recipient.[5][20]

My change was reverted by GMGtalk. Our discussion is in his talk page. The gist is as follows:

We know (or can easily find out from Wikipedia itself) that Curie and Goeppert-Mayer are not alive, but that is not the point. The point is that Strickland winning the Nobel, that alone, does not make her the only living female recipient. One does not logically imply the other; her winning does imply that she is a living female recipient but not the only living female recipient. Neither of the sources [5] and [20] say that Strickland is the only living female recipient. The facts are not at issue here. The simpler declarative sentence, "She is the only living recipient", is logically and stylistically better.

Thank you in advance for your forbearance and indulgence in this minor matter. -- Roger Hui (talk) 20:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

How about
Strickland is the first female Nobel Physics laureate in 55 years and the third woman in history to win the Nobel Prize in Physics, after Marie Curie in 1903 and Maria Goeppert-Mayer in 1963.[5][20] She is the only living female recipient.
This avoids the snake sentence and does not imply the refs support "only living female recipient". That bit doesn't need a ref as it is not likely to be challenged (WP:BURDEN). Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 00:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. The two references should have been placed after the first sentence in my original proposed change. I also wonder about the "in history". The two words are redundant, and their inclusion causes me to scratch my head in puzzlement. -- Roger Hui (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete as peacockery. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 00:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Does the statement really need to be there? What if somebody prints out the article on paper: if she dies, or another woman wins, it will just be wrong. If it's going to be included, it should be "At the time of the award, she was the only living female recipient." ghouston (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I suppose this may be overly pedantic, since Wikipedia is full of statements that will eventually be outdated. But if another woman wins the prize, it will look silly if nobody remembers to update this article. OK, I'm a programmer and I care about race conditions. Ignore if desired. ghouston (talk) 00:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
There is a template for everything: {{as of}}. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Link to essay by editor who rejected the May 2018 version[edit]

Given that the notability issues are still being discussed here, consider this essay by the editor who made the decision to reject the draft Strickland article in May 2018 as additional input and food for thought (I do not agree with all of it, but consider it of potential interest to those discussing the issue here): User_talk:Bradv/Strickland_incident Markus Pössel (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The link you've shown is to the talk page of Bradv's essay, which is at User:Bradv/Strickland incident. As mentioned on the talk page, there's another good summary at –
Ed Erhart (4 October 2018). "Why didn't Wikipedia have an article on Donna Strickland, winner of a Nobel Prize?". Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved 8 October 2018. . . . dave souza, talk 20:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
My bad. Thanks for the correct link! Markus Pössel (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


There is quite a bit of overlap and repetition of information between the "Early life and education" and the "Nobel Prize" sections. I think the current second paragraph under "Nobel Prize" should be merged into the part about her Ph.D. research currently under "Early life and education". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Washington Post article calling you out[edit]

You should feel proud of yourselves — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Please read the extensive and nuanced discussion about the issue on this talk page (above). Esowteric+Talk 16:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
None of which link to this Wapo article, I might add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree that mistakes were clearly made in the past, and hopefully something has been learnt through that difficult experience, but the people you're addressing here are all volunteers, and most of them have spent the last two weeks diligently compiling, editing and refining this article. Esowteric+Talk 17:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
"but the people you're addressing here are all volunteers, and most of them have spent the last two weeks diligently compiling, editing and refining this article".
Nope, I'm addressing the Wikipedia culture that allows this sort of thing to happen in the first place. This is not an isolated incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 17:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC) and please learn to sign your posts.
You're on the wrong page, per WP:SUBJECT, and if you really think the issue should be covered in Wikipedia you're welcome to add coverage to Criticisms of Wikipedia. . regards, dave souza, talk 18:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
LOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Note section contains an error:[edit]


Strickland attempted to add Steve Williamson as an author of the paper, but Mourou removed the name as "he hadn't done enough".[6][20]

In the referenced article, as well as reality, the statement is actually that Steve Williamson removed himself from the paper for the stated reason ("he hadn't done enough"), NOT Mourou. As you might imagine, this is quite different than the current version, and should really be corrected. I know because, (a) I was there, (b) the article actually does say that, and (c) Donna told me so when I asked.

- Doug Dykaar, Husband  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dykaar (talkcontribs) 18:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC) 
 Done Thanks Dykaar. GMGtalk 18:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)