Talk:Inter-Allied Women's Conference

Pre-FAC copy edit queries

• "The fact that the women were allowed to participate validated that women could take part in international policy making and globalised the discussion of human rights." 1. Is that "women were allowed to participate" in the Paris Peace Conference, or in the League of Nations organisation (the subject of the preceding sentence). I assume the former, but wanted to check before tidying it up. 2. "validated that" is poor grammar. How would you feel about 'validated women's right to take part'? Or can you come up with something? 3. How did their participation "globalise[] the discussion of human rights"?; it seems unconnected to me. (I realise that this is sourced in the main article, but that is not the same as being clear to a reader as to what the mechanism was.)

1) in the peace conference  Done SusunW (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

2) Oh, I'm not sure they thought it was a right for them to participate, more like "validated women's ability to take part"  Done SusunW (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

3) Not sure I understand this. From the paragraph above it already says "...resolution to the League of Nations Commission. It covered the trafficking and sale of women, their political and suffrage status, and their inclusion in international education with a focus on the humanitarian rights of all persons of each nation." Repeating that their resolution introduced these things seems overly redundant to me. SusunW (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• "As world leaders prepared to gather for negotiations to draft peace terms after the armistices" This would be the peace conference, explained in the previous paragraph. Is there a reason why this is explained out of chronological order?

I don't think it is out of order. The official conference convened on 18 January 1919. That same day she wrote the letter. Maybe it works better to say "As world leaders gathered" ... SusunW (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• "participate in the peace process" A tricky point, but what is meant by "peace process"? Maybe replace with 'negotiation of the peace treaty'?

I don't think that women had any belief that they would be allowed to negotiate a treaty, heck, they only had the right to vote in a handful of countries and weren't citizens in their own right (I'm fairly sure not anywhere until 1933). More like they wanted to take part in the discussions that would inform the negotiations.  Done SusunW (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• "French suffragists alerted Wilson again" "alerted"? Maybe 'wrote to'?  Done SusunW (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
• "they would support a democratically-formed League of Nations, including women's participation in the Paris Peace Conference" "including"? Either needs explaining or replacing with 'and'.  Done SusunW (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
• "They posted invitations to organisations in all Allied Nations involved in the suffrage movement" Just to be clear, there were some Allied nations which did not receive invitations? Yes?

No. "First, they sent out invitations to suffrage organizations in all the Allied nations, asking them to send delegates Paris" (Siegel) Modified to "organisations involved in the suffrage movement in all Allied Nations".  Done SusunW (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not happy with "Inter-Allied Women" being used to mean 'delegates to or participants in the Inter-Allied Women's Conference'. It may be simpler to go with 'women delegates', or 'Conference delegates'. In other cases, perhaps use the full title, eg "many of the labour standards and workers' rights guarantees that the Inter-Allied Women had proposed" → 'many of the labour standards and workers' rights guarantees that the Inter-Allied Women's Conference had proposed'.

It makes for much longer sentences to distinguish the women's conference delegates from the peace conference delegates, but I think I got them all.  Done SusunW (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• "agreed to allow the women an audience with ... and the League of Nations" What am I missing? I thought that the League of Nations wasn't formed, and didn't meet, until 1920. (Later you refer to "a presentation to the League of Nations Commission".)

Commission  Done SusunW (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• Sometimes a serial comma is used and sometimes it isn't. It should be consistent.  Done (or maybe not, always hard to spot them all, but I tried.) SusunW (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
• "international education" Umm? Does this mean 'education in each country'? (Or 'education in each country on international affairs'?

Neither to my mind. They wanted the League of Nations to transform education and internationalize it so that young people were taught about general culture, history, and the moral and societal development of each nation to instill "in each individual conscience the sense of human solidarity, and the respect due to the liberties and rights of each nation". (Oldfield, p 106) Not sure how to concisely say that. SusunW (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I have had a go at this. See what you think.

Fine by me :) SusunW (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• "They argued that if people were allowed to have self-determination, women should share in the right to choose their own path" I doubt that this will be clear to most readers. (Even now I have linked self-determination.) Could you work in a little explanation of the parallel intended?

Modified text to "women should have equal opportunity and the legal right to make their own life choices"  Done SusunW (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• "were deemed far too radical" In this context, "far" is probably a word-to-watch. I suggest deleting it.

I put it in quotes as Pietilä says exactly that. I think it is incredibly important to stress how forward thinking these women were 100 years ago. Stuff that in the present, we take for granted — citizenship, equal protection under the law, fair pay, safe working environments, illegality of trafficking, world news, etc. — are not new concepts. (Maybe had anyone in power listened, world history would have played out differently?)  Done SusunW (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• "The final Covenant of the League of Nations" I assume that you mean 'the final draft of the', or 'the final version of the'?

I'm confused, but I inserted version (and linked to the Covenant)  Done SusunW (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

That's me being unclear. There was only (ever) a single Covenant, so there couldn't be a "final" Covenant. Perhaps go back to the original version, but delete "final"? (If that matches what you mean.)  Done SusunW (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• "It was determined by the heirs of the feminists" "which "feminists"? The delegates to the Inter-Allied Women's Conference?

There were more papers stolen than just those involved in the conference. Women in Nazi Germany were expected to be incubators of new German citizens and have no focus other than that of being the best wife or mother that they could be.[1] Feminists were considered radicals and like communists and other anti-social groups, were in danger of being either sterilized or murdered.[2] From everything I have read on the looting of the French and Dutch records, the Nazis took all of the records they could find associated with feminist organizations — libraries, correspondence, business records, etc. It sounds clunky to me to say the heirs of the feminists whose papers were stolen. Any ideas? SusunW (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. Hows about something like 'It was determined by the heirs of the feminists involved in the various historical organisations that ... '?

Still sounds like a lot of words. I just added "whose works were stolen"  Done SusunW (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

That's good. (I wish I'd thought of it.)

Gog the Mild I answered all of them, though some are still unresolved. Please let me know where we go from here. Did you read the explanation on my talk about the table? SusunW (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Really good work on my queries. Thanks. I hope that it went/goes without saying that if you disagree with any of my comments or queries you should say so. I think that it reads more smoothly now. Time is a little limited right now, so I have flagged up the (last?) three issues either you or I would like to discuss below and will try to get back to them tomorrow. If not, Tuesday. Feel free to add to it. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm fairly flexible, but have people coming in on the 3rd. SusunW (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Things to come back to

• Table.

What you are talking about I think, is a "list", the other common mainspace feature, alongside the "article". Eg List of cyclists with a cycling-related death; just the first I stumbled across. It is currently undergoing review to become a FL, something entirely different from a FA. If you were to do what you propose, I virtually guarantee that someone would insist that you split out the list and the article, and replace the list in the article with a Wikilink. They would have a good point, and you may wish at some stage to write a separate list. However, presenting the two run together for your first FAC is something I would recommend you avoid.

Fine with me, I just find going back and forth between the list and the photos somewhat cumbersome. SusunW (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• "globalise[] the discussion of human rights"

I don't know just what this means in practical terms. And I suspect that your average reader wouldn't. Can you break it down into a concrete action or actions? As you changed "participate in the peace process" to the more specific 'participate in the discussions that would inform the treaty negotiations'. Is my concern any clearer now?

Nope, sorry, I'm still not getting what you mean. Women realized very early on that because they weren't citizens they had issues in common with any/all marginalized group(s) and that these were not confined by national borders but were international issues. If a medieval king married a princess, he did not come to her territory, she went to his. Anything that was familiar to her, became a private matter (and if she wanted to keep language, customs, network, she had had to bring books, traditions and people with her to retain her cultural identity), because publicly she was expected to adopt the customs of his territory. Later, all classes of women realized they shared these same types of problems. (Not a citizen in UK, you still weren't one in the US, or Japan, or Cameroon, or anywhere else; not able to obtain an education, you still weren't likely to get one anywhere else; not protected by the laws of your country ...) People in power tended to look at what they wanted in a bubble, without regard to how their actions would impact the broader world. (I want to invade, I will invade; oh, oops, I introduced deadly viruses, not my problem as I don't live there; in any case, now that they are dropping like flies, it will be easier to control this new territory of mine.) Feminists wanted human rights to be dealt with as a global issue, not left up to each individual country to address when they got around to it, or decided it was relevant. They argued that human rights were inalienable and impacted every single person anywhere, as there were real consequences to real people, whether the powerful just ignored human rights abuses, or pretended that rights only applied to certain segments of society. SusunW (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I do understand what you're getting at. I am concerned that you will be picked up at FAC for using a vague, hand-waving phrase. But I may well be wrong. And if you are, well that's what FAC is for. And it's your article, so if you're happy with it, then fine.

• Sources.

Have you added or substantially changed any sources since I did the source review at ACR?

Nope.  Done SusunW (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

OK. Looking good to go. I see no reason why you shouldn't smash a bottle of champagne over it and nominate it. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

TFAR

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Inter-Allied Women's Conference --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed table of participants, and other corrections needed

See

• Talk:Inter-Allied Women's Conference/Proposal for an article rewrite that moves lists of participants to table format.
• Diff view of proposed changes here, to view what would be removed from text and moved to table in this proposal.

At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Inter-Allied Women's Conference/archive1, SchroCat correctly mentioned that the gallery included here did not conform with WP:GALLERY guidelines and doesn't really aid the reader. In addition to that, I have other concerns:

• The actual accomplishments of the Conference are overshadowed in the Feb, Mar and Apr sections, where the readers encounters long, prosified lists of participants--lists that overshadow the accomplishments and make for tedious reading in the middle of the article, while obscuring the relevance and diversity of the participants.
• Also, by listing the participants in-text, we lose the sense of how many different countries, backgrounds and talents were represented, which can be displayed more effectively in table format, which has the advantage of solving the gallery problem and being sortable to view things like different countries.

I believe that by listing the participants in table format, and removing that detailed lists from the body, we get an expanded and better view of the participants, a more readable version of the accomplishments of the Conference, a more readable article overall with less sea of blue, and compliance with Gallery guidelines.

I spent all day working this up because I think it important enough to have spent time on, and while I understand no one is obligated to accept this idea, I do hope people will take it under serious consideration and not reject it out of hand ... there is still a month to think about this before mainpage day.

Separately, I found a number of issues that escaped scrutiny at FAC that could be addressed. Proper nouns are not italicized in foreign languages, there are a lot of missing WP:NBSPs, and there is considerable WP:OVERLINKing. There is also inconsistency in how foreign terms are handled. I'd be glad to help work on these items, but this minor work would be better done after my proposed table of participants is rejected or accepted and incorporated. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia Throughout the process of creating the article, going through a GA review, class A review, and FA review, multiple people reviewed the work, reached consensus and helped me shape the article, as I had never done either a class A or FA before. I think that the reviewers would confirm that I was never reluctant to make changes to the article to improve it. I proposed a table before it was prepared for FA and consensus was that it was not acceptable for a FA, and such a table could only be done as an accompanying but separate article. As you made many changes to things for which consensus had already been reached before you posted anything to the talk page, I am a bit confused. I am willing to accept whatever the consensus is reached to best improve the article, but I do not think that overriding consensus, changing things, and then asking to discuss other changes is the usual way we collegiality work on article improvement. Perhaps Gog the Mild, who mentored me in the various stages of improving the article, can weigh in here, since I have no idea if this is typical for a FA? SusunW (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Changing Washington, D.C. to Washington, D.C. is not an improvement; no decent typographer would allow "D.C." to start a new line in such prose. I don't see any over-linking. I agree that a table - rather than a gallery - might be a better representation of the attendee list, but not at the expense of removing facts such as "X was replaced by Y", which cannot be gleaned from one, nor replacing precision such as "by the end of February" with a tick in a "February" column. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

This one went through GAN, ACR and FAC and so has had a lot of eyes on it. As you (SusunW) say, it was originally written with the participants listed in a table, and this was changed after considerable discussion and, from memory, a unanimous decision. Personally, I have always understood that "when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first" from WP:FAOWN applied to proposed changes to FAs, but SandyGeorgia is far more experienced in this area than me, and no doubt has a far better grip on the protocol. I would, personally, except from this any MoS tweaks which strive to make an article as near-perfect, in terms of MoS compliance, as can be; so if any of those have taken place, I think that we just need to live with them. I don't, personally, think that a FA talk page is the forum to discuss the hardy perennial of overlinking. It exasperates me, and I suspect that Sandy and my views on it are broadly similar, but the article has been through FA, everyone has had a chance to have their say, the issue is settled. (However unhappy Sandy or I may be about how it is settled.) Not sure if any of this rambling helps. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, one should always discuss major changes to an FA on talk, which is why I have put forward a Proposal for discussion. I am unclear why SusunW has stated you made many changes to things for which consensus had already been reached as I have made no significant changes whatsoever; minor MOS corrections will be done by scores of editors once the article hits the mainpage, where things missed at PR, GAN and FAC will be picked up by readers. We could also do them now. No article comes out of PR, GAN or FAC perfect, and consensus can change.

Back on topic, the proposal is to deal with the gallery that doesn't meet guideline in a way that also helps minimize the prosified lists taking over the text, bring more attention to who the women were, and highlight better the accomplishments of February, March and April sections. SusunW could you provide a link to the edit where you were told that a table could not be included, and the policy-based reason that was given? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, I found a statement from Gog above, where SusunW queried using a table, and Gog the Mild responded with If you were to do what you propose, I virtually guarantee that someone would insist that you split out the list and the article, and replace the list in the article with a Wikilink. SusunW replied, Fine with me, I just find going back and forth between the list and the photos somewhat cumbersome. Once the article hits the mainpage, readers are likely to query the purpose of the gallery, and express the same sentiment expressed by SusunW. Perhaps Gog can provide the policy-based reasoning behind this opinion? If we could not have tables in articles, we would have no discography or filmography sections on hundreds of FAs for performing artists, as but one example, and no career stats on athlete bios.

Also, SusunW, could you discuss the proposal; I am particularly interested in whether you see any flow or prose problems resulting from moving a small amount of text (the prosified lists of who attended each session) to the table, or if you can suggest improvements to the table (eg the problem with "end of February" v March raised by PigsontheWing. The table format can be changed; the idea is for the reader to more easily see in the prose what the women accomplished, and more easily see in the table who they were. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) SandyGeorgia as you are coming in at the end, I don't expect you to know the history or myriad of discussions that took place on multiple pages, but the links you removed were added at class A review, and the FA reviewers chose not to override that consensus. The policy Gog cited was "WP:WHENTABLE, especially "Inappropriate use" just below". I have no experience in FA, thus am in no position to weigh in on your proposal. SusunW (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

SusunW, there is no such thing as "coming in at the end" on Wikipedia: Wikipedia is never finished and consensus can change. FA reviews have not been particularly rigorous recently, and mainpage readers will notice and correct MOS issues. One Class A reviewer asked you to add links, SchroCat (correctly) suggested you remove them. There was neglible MOS review on the FAC. Please don't get stuck on wikilinks; if they trouble you so, feel free to revert, because they are not the main issue here, but realize that on mainpage day, MOS corrections will be made by scores of editors. Have a look at the specific mention of countries in WP:OVERLINK.

Back on topic: you mentioned the problems with the gallery yourself. Do you have any feedback on the prose that results in the Proposal? WP:WHENTABLE gives good reasoning for why a Table is better for incorporating all of the elements here, including the out-of-compliance gallery. It is also more effective.

Separately, no one seems to have mentioned the inconsistencies or problems in translations of proper nouns, which we should correct. See WP:BADITALICS, and the article should be consistent in whether it lists first the translation or the original. These things will come up on mainpage day, and the fact that no one noticed them at FAC isn't a good thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Passing comment, as I was pinged. If there had been the suggested table when this article was introduced at FAC I would have opposed its promotion, and I suspect many others would have done too. It's terrible (and that's even if the names were the right way round, instead of nonsense like "Aberdeen and Temair, Ishbel Maria, Marchioness of", which are no help to man nor beast).

Regarding the gallery, I appreciate there is a consensus for its inclusion, so I would not think about removing it. It could be more helpful tho. Perhaps by adding the dates of attendance at the conference: "Margherita Ancona, attended in February" or whatever. - SchroCat (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For the record, I am neither stuck nor troubled, simply find it odd that changes were made to consensus discussions without any attempt to discuss things first. I have already said that I am unqualified to judge whether a table belongs in a FA, and will abide by consensus. I must admit, I am quite intimidated by your tone and walls of text. It seems to me that you have reached a conclusion and my opinion is not necessary. (By the way, the citation for Jane Brigode is at Oldfield, p 69). SusunW (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

SusunW, this is the second time you have stated that changes were made, when I have put forward a proposal. No significant changes have been made. FAs are not set in stone, and on mainpage day, more changes will be made, as the article is exposed to a broader readership. This is the nature of Wikipedia; others always improve even our best efforts. If the table can be improved, the proposal is on a page anyone can edit (I wasn't sure which citation applied there, so left the cn so you could clarify). My intent is not to "intimidate" you; it was to offer an alternative that highlights better the accomplishments. I regret that you see and feel intimidated; it is not my intent. Again, you have almost a month to contemplate the proposal, so please don't feel intimidated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I am truly not going to argue with you SandyGeorgia. The history of changes on the article speaks for itself. Those were made before you launched the proposal. Ipigott could you please look at the "inconsistencies or problems in translations of proper nouns" in foreign terms that SandyGeorgia is concerned about? Thank you. SusunW (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

As you wish. Here are all of my changes; I removed the NBSP on Washington D.C. per POTW.[3] I am sorry that these minor changes seem to have upset you, but hope you will contemplate the proposal as time permits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Oops, it appears that I misunderstood POTW, as they have reinstated my earlier NBSP edit.[4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I repeat, I am not upset and am willing to make any changes to the article that improve it. I am bothered by your tone and dismissal of other people's work ("neglible MOS review", "reviews have not been particularly rigorous recently"). Perhaps it is simply a misunderstanding, as text cannot convey the intricacies and nuances of face to face conversations. SusunW (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Then I will rephrase: I'm sorry you are bothered. No review process is perfect on Wikipedia; no tone is intended. Some things get reviewed, and some don't, depending on who shows up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

As I was pinged on a change asking for a citation for Marie Parent's affiliation, please note that the citation is correctly identified in the text per the Chicago Tribune 12 February 1919, p. 2. SusunW (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks; converting prose to table was quite a bit of work, and I failed to sort that one as I was working because of the way I separated the sentences about each person when moving to table format. (That and Brigode were the only instances missed, I hope.) I have added that source to the table now. Whether it is also needed here is a judgment call, since it is covered by the next citation. Please revert if you feel it is overcitation; I didn't feel this one instance would be problematic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Italics for names of foreign institutions

Thanks SandyGeorgia for drawing our attention to this problem. I have checked a number of reliable style guides, both American and European, and discover that while foreign phrases, etc., should be italicized, proper names and names of institutions should be left without italics. As I have been incorrectly italicizing them for years, I'll need to go back over about a hundred articles, especially those with italicized titles. I'll look at the ordering inconsistencies you mention later.--Ipigott (talk) 07:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Ipigott likewise-- I only learned this recently myself, because of another WP:TFA, and I write in Spanish-language articles all the time!

Here is the other non-English issue that needs to be cleaned up for consistency. There is no consistency in what language is used for describing institutions. Examples:

• French Confederation of Christian Workers is given in English only, no French translation, but
• Consiglio Nazionale delle Donne Italiane is given in Italian only, no English translation, but
• Féminisme chrétien de Belgique (Christian Feminism of Belgium) Association uses both, but should more correctly give the English first with the non-English in parens.

Those are some samples only: there is more. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Foreign words provides the starting place, and MOS:FOREIGNITALIC provides more detail, followed by WP:BADITALICS. I believe the best way to standardize is to provide the name first in English, with the non-English translation in parentheses, as provided in the language templates. No hurry on this since mainpage day is still weeks away. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia: Thanks. That makes things much easier for me. I think the origin of the inconsistencies here lies in the fact that for some institutions there are Wikipedia articles titled in English whereas for others the articles use the foreign title. Then there is the problem of translating the name of the organization into English which can be quite a problem. I usually try to find English-language material which refers to the organization but in some cases there are either two or more different translations or none at all. Even the organizations themselves and their leading representatives sometimes translate their names into English in more than one way, especially the Scandinavians. But I'll look more carefully at the examples you give and try to sort them out.--Ipigott (talk) 10:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Done, I think, if everyone is happy with this.--Ipigott (talk) 11:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much Ipigott. I truly appreciate your help. SusunW (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Much improved already, Ipigott and thanks for taking this on (I suppose the good news is that an article of this nature-- using so many foreign terms-- helps shake out the mess overall on Wikipedia, and hopefully FAC reviewers will also be more aware moving forward).

There are still some inconsistencies, though ... on some instances, when there is an English-language article, we use just the English name, with no translation (for example, "and president of the auxiliary organisation, the French Union for Women's Suffrage"). Other instances give the translations (for example, "a seamstress and member of the French Confederation of Christian Workers (Confédération française des travailleurs chrétiens).") I am not sure if there is a MOS guideline governing best practice here, but consistency is always paramount. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

PS, I first learned of non-italics on non-English proper nouns from User:Reidgreg, who I hope would be willing to look in here and offer guidance. (Reidgreg has stayed abreast of MOS, while I on the other hand, had at least a four-year absence from FAC, and haven't followed MOS as closely as I once did.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

This was not clear from your remarks above. In any case, I think there is something to be said for mentioning the name of organizations in their own language.--Ipigott (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

One reason I am uncertain about best practice in this case is that, if we have to add English name of each organization to non-English name of each organization in parens, then my concern about the denseness of the text we are asking the reader to get through in the prosified lists becomes even more intense. Which would raise my concern that this information would be better in table format. I am hoping Reidgreg is more abreast of guideline for a case like this. If every organization also has to be translated, then we are presenting some very dense text to our readers in the Feb, Mar and Apr sections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

In addition to the guidelines noted above, I often take guidance from WP:COMMONNAME (part of the article title policy) on how to present names. For example, Médecins Sans Frontières is the common name for that organization (although it is commonly called Doctors Without Borders in the United States, most of the English-speaking world knows it by its French name). It can be a bit of a judgement call, and common names may change over time. Skimming through the article, I feel that you've done a good job with this, and with the interlanguage links. I did find some of the inline lists to be a bit 'dense' but manageable (thank goodness for semicolons). – Reidgreg (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Brilliant, Reidgreg, because policy trumps guideline! If I am understanding correctly, even better is that this offers the opportunity for the writers of this FA (who know best the sources and common names) to potentially remove some translations, which could help somewhat in addressing the density issue in the prosified lists. Thanks for helping out here, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, don't get me wrong. It's policy for article titles, not for every mention of a proper name in article text. I think you've done well here to consider the context of the article, which is a broad international subject. I also agree that giving the native language name is valuable, especially when there's no article to link. The native name could aid in searches, and avoid the ambiguity inherent in translations (which could be problematic if there were several similarly-named organizations over the decades). That said, use common sense with common names, when there's a clear functional translation... like the French Minister of State instead of Ministre d'État. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)