I am sure PamD and I have the same disease... I've been working on women involved in the anti-war movement in Asia and kept running into our poor excuse for an article on the Women's International Democratic Federation. Very little of it was about the organization itself and most of it was about the whole "ooh scary communist front" nonsense or dispelling it. I stopped in the middle of my woman's article because I just couldn't deal with it. After days of reworking the WIDF article, I think it is now more about the organization than not.
But, I need help. Before all the stereotyping, the organization listed members. I came up with two pretty lengthy lists but since I wanted to work on the article, I just put them in as a note. Not sure if they should stay in the article or need to be put on a redlist and in categories. I asked Ser Amantio di Nicolao for help making and populating a category "Women's International Democratic Federation people" like we have for WILPF people, but he seems busy in real life. I haven't looked up the names yet (I am positive some of the spellings are not the "common name"s we would use now because I asked Kusma to help with some of the Chinese ones.) Anyone able to help with adding these women to our activist redlist or checking the spellings?
I have questions about the affiliates and the photos. I listed affiliates I could verify. Some are listed in the infobox, but I think those should either be deleted or that the infobox should only contain active affiliates. Don't actually know what any of those might be since the organization's website is no longer functional. Anyone have suggestions or thoughts? On the photos, I get that the lede photo someone drew and uploaded, but does it pose a problem with trademark? The 1951 photo needs a US tag, but it says on the license that to be in the PD in the US would have had to have been in the PD in 1996. 50 years (copyright term) + 1951 = 2001, so I don't see how we can use it? The stamp also needs a US tag and probably someone who speaks Russian (GRuban?) to confirm the stamp was created by a government agency. Probably asking a lot, but wouldn't it be lovely if we had photographs of the presidents. Anyone willing to help with this please just jump in, edit, etc. Thanks! SusunW (talk) 22:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
SusunW thank you so much for locating and transcribing these lists in the notes! I've started going through your Note 1 and adding the category to those I can link. (Minor query: you have 'Gega Liri' for Liri Gega, is that a typo or how it appears in your source?) Stopping editing now, but if no-one else has a go I'll continue next time I'm editing. Dsp13 (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Dsp13 I typed the lists exactly as they appeared in the source, but also I could have made typos. Probably I wouldn't have changed the name order, but I might have if we had an article in another order. Some names in the list are in eastern name order, others aren't. We should go with the common name per our guidelines, IMO. You should be able to access the source through the WP library (Alexander Street Press collection) if you want to check them. Thank you for the category. There's tons of names that can be added, lots of relinks to be written. Thanks also to @Tagishsimon, Penny Richards, and Mathglot: for your help. I genuinely appreciate everyone who is stepping in to improve the article. SusunW (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
I've added some more links and added those people I linked to the category. Nina Popova is a name on the list, but is she the ballet dancer? SusunW, we could hardly let you go unsupported when putting together a mammoth article like this. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
SunsunW, I lost half of my edit after a double-(edit conflict); here's what's left of it:
One thing you might think about, is if and how we want to alter any names in the list in order to comply with our Manual of style, WP:AT, and other guidelines. Generally, we don't alter quoted text, *except* when it conflicts with the MOS, and we also fix typos; on the other hand, a list of names is not a "quotation", so I think we're free to alter it as long as we represent the individuals involved. An interesting issue came up with name of a woman on page 404 that reads, "Mrs. Frederick March", giving neither her first name, nor her last name as we know her at Wikipedia from her article, Florence Eldridge. One editor took the approach of changing only the first name, ending up with [[Florence Eldridge|Florence March]], but that choice matches neither the source, nor the way our article on her is entitled, so I dropped the pipe, leaving it as [[Florence Eldridge]], to match our article title. If the people who wrote our article on her did their homework and chose the WP:COMMONNAME, then that gives us some confidence about what to call her here. Because our text "Florence Eldridge" looks nothing like the "Mrs. Frederick March" listed in the source, I added a hidden note to explain it. If an explanatory note could have an embedded explanatory note, I might've done it that way. Similar questions might come up with other names, so we should figure out a consistent approach that everyone is happy with. Mathglot (talk) 02:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Agree we should decide what we want. (Where it's transcription variants, I've left them as they are and added redirects in a couple of cases.) Dsp13 (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think we want to see both names in the list - Florence Eldridge (named as Mrs. Frederick March) - for the reason that a reader who has come across the name Mrs. Frederick March in connection with the Women's International Democratic Federation is ill-served by omitting the name (i.e. the user will find nothing when searching for it) and, equally, it is reasonable to use the commonname. We have space to use both names. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
I keep thinking I'm going to bed, but I keep being drawn back in. I know for sure Florence Eldridge is Mrs. Frederick March because on the list it gives the organization she was affiliated with and we have an article on that organization confirming both she and her husband's involvement. I didn't put the organizations, thinking that would make the notes way too long, but it is helpful information for those trying to figure out who these women are. And yes, I think it is helpful to know how they were shown on the list, but I do think we try to comply with our guidelines. You'll see that on 2 of the Chinese women I added actual notes. Not sure how to do a note to a note so I like "Florence Eldridge (named as Mrs. Frederick March)". On the names of the affiliates, they were all given in English, but I tried to back into what they would have been using google searches in the original languages. I was able to find some red links doing that. In some cases I couldn't figure it out so I just listed them as they were in English. Again, I truly appreciate the feedback and help. It was a big challenge to write it an the names were such a bonus to find. SusunW (talk) 04:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
I've been following all this with interest. While it is certainly useful to have a category associated with the organization, I have been wondering whether it would not also be useful to create a List of Women's International Democratic Federation people. This could accommodate some of the name variants and notes discussed above and could also include red links (with sources) for those who are not covered by the category. And like many of our other lists, it could present DOB/DOD and nationality info as well as short descriptions of those listed. Perhaps listing by country would also be useful. But before we embark on a list, it's probably better to wait until SusunW, Tagishsimon and Dsp13 are happy with the article itself.--Ipigott (talk) 10:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Ipigott A list might solve a lot of the issues. It could have the affiliated organization which might help in identifying people. I think in the article it should probably be the common name but admittedly it's hard, because we want people to be able to verify the list. The issues are that one document is French and the other is English. Both used different translation/transliteration/Romanization schemes and those have changed over time. See this discussion] as an example for Chinese, but the same holds true for other languages. So for example on the French list we have Anecka Hodinova but on the English one Anezka Hodinova, same person just different systems to spell her name. I don't think in the article we want to use multiple variations. Also when it's more finalized, I'd love you to do a copyedit Ian, but I think it's not ready yet. Maybe you have ideas on the Belgians Mme Lesaint and Mme Pieterbourg or what the actual name of the "Union of Luxemburg Women" might have been? SusunW (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
SusunW: I certainly recognize the problem of transcription of Cyrillic and Asian names into French vs English. It's actually a fascinating subject. French names from non-Romanized languages are often simply based on the way the name would sound in French, although there is an increasing tendency to avoid unnecessary variations with English, for example for modern authors. But just look at all the variations given in this listing for Russian names and this one for Chinese. I would suggest that if we make a list, we should include the spellings found in the French list too but that when necessary, we should provide a more usual transcription in English. As for the Luxembourgers, it's simply Union des femmes luxembourgoises. I've already looked carefully through the article and would be happy to copyedit when it's "ready". As there are not yet too many names to be covered, I think it might be useful to start a list sooner rather than later. It might allow us to solve some problems and include people not yet covered in the article. It might also help to avoid overloading the article with the names of participants who were not particularly active.--Ipigott (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Ipigott I think I agree that the names might be better on a list. That way we can add sources as we search the names, like for example this which clearly shows Mme Pieterbourg was Bertha and who "En 1945, elle assiste au premier congrès de la FDIF dont elle est élue membre du Conseil". Frustratingly, Maryvonne Hamon who was a scientist has very few sources and I don't know Arabic, so figuring out if Fatma/Fathma/Fatima Merani has an article or more sources will need someone with more skill than me. Is there an easy way to convert the note to a list? SusunW (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
SusunW: Ok, I'll try to start putting a list together, starting with those in the category. I don't think there's any easy way of listing those in your link but they can of course be included. As for Maryvonne Hamon, can't find much either but there's a snippet in Jean Painlevé and it's also possible to access at least one of her papers: here. Maybe there's also something in the newspapers of the day.--Ipigott (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Yay! Very cool Penny Richards. I am fascinated by Elizabeth Acland Allen but I have to finish this article and go back to my Indonesian woman. Hoping someone in the UK will write her ;) SusunW (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
My brain is exhausted from trying to figure out who they all are. Anyone who wants to start again, feel free. Need to take a break. SusunW (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
The stamp says "60 kopeks, Mail of the USSR" (and "IVth Congress, Women's International Democratic Federation, 1958") in Russian . https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Stamps#Soviet_Union says that Soviet stamps should be public domain. So that part looks good. The 1951 photo seems to say it's in East Germany, so not sure why it's under Chinese copyright law. I guess it's possible there was a Chinese journalist there with a camera, I guess... Eh. I'm not going to nominate it for deletion, but neither am I going to be able to fight hard for keeping either. And you didn't ask, but at least from those two pictures, there does seem to be something to the theory that it was at least a somewhat Communist-supported organization. --GRuban (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
The 1951 image was published in China Pictorial aka People's Pictorial, so I think there's little doubt that it's now PD. Can confirm there were communist countries prior to the whole dissolution of the Soviet Union & that communist China still exists. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Heh. Yes. However, as Susun observes, if the 1951 photo is going by Chinese copyright, it may not actually be good. For example, see both the images on the China Pictorial article; click on them and you'll see they are each tagged with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. The rule that the image may still be in copyright in the US, even though it may not be in copyright in China, is a very silly rule, but it is a rule, and that image (as well as those images) may well get deleted when someone brings it up to the Commons powers that be. --GRuban (talk) 01:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Ah. There's always a stupid copyright legislation twist. In the UK it's the 2039 Rule, caused by Schedule 1, 12(3) of the 1988 copyright act ... works with no identifiable author (e.g. medieval manuscripts) are in copyright until 2039 b/c legislators are muppets. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Fortunately US law applies here (Wikimedia), so that is not relevant to us - indeed no one takes any notice of it in the UK for medieval stuff, a good deal of which does in fact have identifiable authors eg (most texts). Johnbod (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks GRuban. So the stamp is good and the Chinese one should go away. Do we have a trademark issue on the lede image? (In truth, I didn't even know that was an issue until WomenArtistUpdates asked me that question with regard to tribal flags.) I'll try to bring in what I can find by searching the presidents. What about this one George? I think this one is probably the best photo of Cotton, but needs to be cropped. What about this one? Finnish tag says before 1991 the law was 25 years and the 1991 law was not retroactive, so published in 1958 + 25 means it went into PD in 1983 and US tag would be before URAA? I'm also guessing that this one is okay because of "CC-BY-SA 3.0"?
On another note, my computer is sick and needs to go to the hospital. I think I will have it today, but the technician may take it tonight, meaning Ipigott I think the text part is ready, we're mostly still working on names of affiliates and people. SusunW (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
The original page is under a copyright investigation. I'm trying to rewrite it on a temp page, based on the translated Portuguese page, but I want to be sure it's not infringing copyright; could anyone help me, please? Thank you. DanGFSouza (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello all - I have created a new article on Erin Swenson, a trans woman Presbyterian Minister from the United States. If anyone has any more information or improvements to the article, please let me know. Thank you. GnocchiFan (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
There shouldn't be any duplicates with what you already have in the article. I was checking for that. And the list above should be in chronological order, if that helps. Sorry for not formatting them as references, I just wanted to get them to you quicker. Let me know if you want me to check other databases for more. SilverserenC01:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you so much, I really appreciate the help here! I've tried to expand the article with these sources as much as I can; I would appreciate any other editors giving my contributions the once-over to make sure it's all accurate and reads well. And please don't worry about giving me a lot of work to do – I look forward to it, as well as any other suggestions for improvement! – GnocchiFan (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
If this is the list you mean, it’s auto-populated from Wikidata, which has different inclusion criteria so unfortunately there’s no easy way to address this. If you remove it, it will just be restored when the list auto-refreshes. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
She has articles in 3 other Wikipedias (linked from her Wikidata entry, which itself is linked from that list of redlinks), and Amazon.co.uk lists 6 books by her and has a (presumably self-written) substantial biography. Are there no reviews of her books, etc, to make for notability? I can't identify whether the sources in the other wikipedias are RS and/or useful. PamD16:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Safaryan, Alexander (November 4, 2011). "Irrefutable Evidence". akunq.net. Center for the Study of Western Armenia and Western Armenian Issues. Retrieved November 10, 2023.
There may be more sources in Armenian language news, however. I am only good at finding English language sources in most cases. SilverserenC21:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
If this was at Afd citing these sources then I would recommend deletion. I didn't find any book reviews either. (t · c) buidhe23:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
So, all of these images go out of copyright in the US on 1 January. I can't upload anything until then, but if anyone wants anyone from the 33 people listed there, I can always pre-prepare the files for upload. I think there might also be other, related groups of images from the same conference. Might be a fun little January editathon? I dunno. Just something I've been sitting on for like five years while I waited. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.6% of all FPs.10:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Good find. It might be worthwhile creating a list of the women. On that basis, we will be able to see those who still need articles.--Ipigott (talk) 07:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Commons requires it to be out of copyright in the US too, which happens next year. Statuatory date rises to January 1, 1929 at the start of next year; these are from 1928 Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.6% of all FPs.02:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
30 Jane Misme[24] - Current is uploaded per WP:NFCC as a small copy. I like the one currently used better, but it appears to have disappeared completely from the internet.
So I had a look at the "most redlinked" lists for I and J, having not noticed them earlier in the alphabet. Hmm. The top of the Js, by far, is Joyce Rockenbach Bell, but her vast output of papers on beetles are all co-authored with her husband Ross Bell, and I really couldn't find enough about her, even in the biographical preface to their joint Festschrift, to justify an article, so I redirected her to him with categories on the full name redirect and a load of other redirects from all the versions of her name which seemed reasonable. Someone else might like to try to extract enough info for a standalone on Joyce, but at least she is now more visible, added to the Bell (surname) page, etc.
Then I looked at the "I" list. I hadn't noticed that "Indira Joshi" was actually the poster girl for the I-J editathon! It turned out that "her" 16 red links were for two quite different people, so I've spent a merry afternoon disambiguating links between Indira Joshi (singer) (who had a long-standing article CSD G-11'd quite recently as promotional, but has articles in several Asian-language wikipedias, and of course also ticks the box for "Indian Subcontinent") from Indira Joshi (actor), who has an article PRODded a while ago and seems to have been systematically unlinked from various articles (including in one case by a now-blocked sockpuppet editor ... possibly some story there?). I've now created the disambiguation page at Indira Joshi and stubs for the pair of them. It's quite appropriate that they are both "I" and "J", a double double hit for the editathon.
We moved house in August and have still got cardboard boxes all over the place, I wonder why! Ah well, it's a healthier addiction than many. Now time for my daily fix of Redactle. PamD18:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I too looked at Joyce Rockenbach Bell and did not feel confident to begin a bio in her own right. I did, however, start articles on two of those listed, Australians Jane Melville and Jessica Worthington Wilmer, with 31 and 17 links respectively.
Thank you for your work on disambiguating Indira Joshi and the two new bios. Perhaps you'll have more time for unpacking as winter draws in and keeps you inside... Oh, no, silly me! Oronsay (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
The Indira Joshi saga was ... well, quite a saga. Article on actor started in 2005, over-written (incorrectly, of course) by an article on the singer in 2013, reverted and PRODded by a now-blocked editor, deleted. Recreated for the singer, AfD'd by a now-blocked editor who promptly withdrew the nomination. CSD G-11 for an article which had been around for 10 years, included links to her being a judge in a couple of reality shows, etc ... possibly inappropriate for "Speedy deletion". At my request the deleting editor has reinstated the history temporarily, so I can see the earlier versions of both women's articles. Quite a messy history! PamD10:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
PamD & Oronsay, Thanks for posting about your voyages. I totally get it. Trying to explain the combination of frustration and final satisfaction is unexplainable to a non-wikipedian. And of course, much more fun than unpacking! --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
An update on the domestic front: emptied and moved a few boxes today just ahead of my book group meeting here (the idea, when I invited them last month, was that the imminent visitors would encourage tidying the house... it didn't have much effect till the last minute, in between baking a cake and unearthing the cups and saucers from the rather random storage in our new cupboards). Also threw out a load of 2017 etc committee minutes etc the other day from my time as WI President, so making some progress on the decluttering! PamD23:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Gender statistics for the list of created articles
I've developed a small tools which computes gender statistics based on your list of created articles.
I added categories. The image in Commons: Ada Aline Urban.jpg will likely be deleted if proper sourcing isn't determined. TJMSmith (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
iirc it had no sourcing info on it, so it was not possible to evaluate whether it was in or out of copyright. I vaguely remember tagging it for deletion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Notable enough? The questioning of women’s biographies on Wikipedia
I think this is the most relevant conclusion: However, decisions to keep an article after it was nominated for deletion were significantly more often made for women than for men: 43.02% vs. 35.15%. Speedy deletions were significantly more often made on men’s biographies in 2020, while deletion nominations on women’s biographies were significantly more often withdrawn or removed (“speedy keep,” Table 1). Therefore, following Tripodi (2023), women are more likely to be questioned and “miscategorized” in the Germanlanguage Wikipedia, too (RQ1). I'm not sure the logic is entirely sound, as it is drawn from Lemieux/Tripodi, but it seems the researcher is saying that because articles on women are more often kept than articles on men, articles on women are thus more often incorrectly assessed as non-notable. Curbon7 (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
I suppose that is one way to view AfDs that are kept, inappropriately filed claims of non-notability. What would be more interesting to compare is the state of the articles prior to the AfD filing in men's vs women's articles and whether the quality was better in one or the other. Which might show either that women's articles are not as well worked on and presented with references as men's or it could show the opposite, that women's articles are often better presented than men's, yet still get AfD'ed more often. Either finding would be interesting and relevant. SilverserenC23:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
This is about the German Wp, & has similar conclusions to at least one paper (some years ago) on the English WP. I suspect analysis of what sorts of people are getting noms at Afd might give some clarity - advertising lawyers and doctors are probably a good deal more mail, also perhaps sports people. As usual, no mention that I could see of dedicated sort lists & social media alerts for women at Afd, with no equivalents for males. Johnbod (talk) 04:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't think anyone would argue against the contention that articles on women are more often incorrectly assessed as non-notable, at least not anyone who has created any number of bios for both men and women... The scrutiny that new bios for women receive is significantly more negative than for men. We've all seen it happen to our new articles. I can point for example to Libby Locke and Tom Clare (lawyer) from my own rather limited article creations. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
And what did Clare look like when Locke got prodded? I can give you a hint, its almost the exact same (slightly less even)[34]... And unlike Locke I didn't keep improving it, don't have to in order to avoid getting it prodded because the subject is a man (can I assume from your answer here that you do not have significant experience creating articles for women? And no, pictures of women by men don't count) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
No, very little indeed, though I have done some, none of which ever got prodded. What is it I'm doing right? Notable subjects with lots of refs perhaps. I don't start many "pictures" either (two in 2023, which is above average). In general, I've said in various places that WP has too many biographies of all sorts, and excessive concentration on bios by our dwindling band of editors has been WP's main problem for years, closely followed by editors wanting to start new articles of all sorts, rather than improving old ones. Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Some? Which ones? Is it statistically significant amount? Locke is notable and there were sufficient refs, are you right now right here questioning the notability of Locke? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
In general a little less mansplaining of things you don't have significant experience with, such as creating wikipedia articles for women, to those who do might result in less work for you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back Interesting comparison. It might be chance that the PRODder came across her article but not his. Or not. I wonder whether the "career" section starting "... is married to ..." prejudiced the reader of her article (but not his) into thinking "here's another article claiming notability for being a celebrity's wife", even if unconsciously? I'll tweak that wording in both. PamD05:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back Libby Locke was prodded by a new page reviewer, so the PROD may have been part of the Wikipedia:New pages patrol process. More generally it would be useful if research could split out AfD nominations of new articles and older articles, as the proportion of female biographies is higher in new articles. TSventon (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Libby Locke is not the only one. A minority of the bios I've made have been for women, the vast majority of ones people try to delete are. I have no explanation for that other than garden variety sexism. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
@Johnbod{{Under construction}} would have been useful to show that the editor would be continuing (up to a week), and should deter PRODders, but {{in use}} is for an active editing session (the documentation says to remove it if taking a break for 2 hours), and this was PRODded after a gap of 3 hours. PamD05:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't see the need to use either tag. A competent good faith editor won't prod a page that shouldn't be prodded. Something has to go wrong in one of those categories for the tag to be applied in either case. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
I never use those tags. Instead I tend to draft my articles offline to the point where I think they're in a state that is ready to go up and stay up without more edits. I have encountered too many reviewers of good faith but dubious competence to trust in them not to get in the way while I work on partial drafts here. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Thats what I've learned to do as well, but I've also learned that articles about women need to be further along before I take them into main space. Its a fact of editing I'm happy to edit around, but its real. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Being happy to edit around it and acknowledging that it exists aren't contradictory. What I was unhappy about was the denial of its existence. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
It's not very clear to me whether the 2024 event is to address some specific aspect or whether it is open-ended on art and feminism as in earlier years. I see, for example, that when we supported the event in 2016, we covered "artists, works of art by women, social reformers, activists, and feminists". We could no doubt do the same in 2024, while supporting their efforts for wider participation.--Ipigott (talk) 10:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
I was just reviewing this draft, and I'm having problems finding sources that are about her as opposed to news pieces that are written by her (or directly refer to pieces written by her). Can any of you WIR superstars find appropriate sources and improve the article to mainspace standard? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)20:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
"Gender and country biases in Wikipedia citations to scholarly publications"
Another peer-reviewed article that might interest some of you:
Thanks! A tough statistical read, all about the English WP. No obvious problems in the texts, except the now usual heavy reliance in text introduction & discussion on sources now over 10 years old - many must be based on 15+ yo data. Time many of these papers were redone - it would be interesting to see what has changed. I was mildly surprised the country biases weren't larger. Johnbod (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
This looks really interesting. Thank you for the list. The book is really expensive though. Is there any way of reading the entries for the women that you have helpfully singled out on your red list without buying the book? I am not very experienced at researching. Balance person (talk) 10:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes £887.50 for a book does seem a bit much!? One might think there'd be access via Oxford Academic in the Wikipedia Library but so far I wasn't able to find it Mujinga (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
OK I have done Leonie Coicou-M and will see who I can try next. I see she is still red in the list but her page is done and on main space Balance person (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
@Mujinga and Balance person: et al. It is definitely not in Oxford Academic and definitely is in Oxford Reference. I've used it for years and have posted about it for WiR in the past. It's something about the way it is listed in the search that causes a problem, but if you go to the WP Library site, choose Oxford reference and search "9780199935796" it will pull up entries. On the very first biography entry if you click on the book name link, you will get a page that lets you choose names from an alpha list. Hope that helps. SusunW (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
@Balance person don't worry about the red link not changing immediately, the list should get updated by a bot eventually, but in case it was the lack of hyphen I've redirected Léonie Coicou-Madiou to Léonie Coico Madiou Mujinga (talk) 11:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Glad to help. Wish there was some way to more easily find it. But it's the only way I know to do it without coming up with thousands of references to wade through. SusunW (talk) 14:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi SusunW. I now have wiki library entry and have tried to search and find the book. But I just get reviews. Is there a page where I can read about how to actually use the library? I don't seem to know what I am doing! I expect there are lots of help pages somewhere? Thanks if you can! Balance person (talk) 10:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Balance person The library isn't really intuitive to use and in truth, one has to know about the publisher to figure it out. There's also the issue that if you aren't in the US, it signs you out constantly, (or maybe it's just if you are in Mexico. ) In the case of the Dictionary of Caribbean and Afro-Latin American Biography you need to sign in to the library. There will be a page that comes up and at the top has a search bar and below that says Favorites, My Collections, Available collections at the top and then a bunch of publishers below that. Scroll down until you see Oxford Reference and press access collection. It will open a new window. At the top right is a search bar. Paste "9780199935796" there and it will pull up entries from the dictionary. Rather than scrolling through all of them, if you click on the link for the name of the dictionary (third line in the first entry), which says Abdulah, Clive Orminston (1927– ), Erica Campbell, Dictionary of Caribbean and Afro–Latin American Biography (click this one) it will take you to an alpha search.
As for general use of the library, the top search bar I think only searches the aggregate ESBSCO, so I search it if I don't know the exact publisher or if say the article is by a publisher that I've searched and it says your institution does not have access to this collection. For example, "Indonesian Women, the Women's International Democratic Federation and the Struggle for 'Women's Rights', 1946–1965" is published by Taylor & Francis, but it isn't on the list of articles in that tab. Searching it in the top bar, I found it at EBSCOhost75525181. It's sometimes hard to know who the publisher might be, so for example, when looking for "The Palgrave Handbook of Communist Women Activists around the World" it helps to know that Palgrave is a subsidiary of Springer and you can access the book at the tab called SpringerLink. In other words, poke around, or just message me and I'm glad to try to help.
When citing a source from the wikilibrary, don't use the proxy url link. (If you do, someone or some bot will come along and zap it). I am NOT the technical expert, so there may be better/other ways to do this, but how I do it is to use the doi or the templates for say {{Gale}} and {{Ebsco}} with the accession number. Following the citation I put a notation like {{subscription required|via=[http://www.oxfordreference.com/ Oxford Reference]}}. It helps me (and other researchers) know how to get back to the article. Some of the collections, like newspapers.com or newspaperarchives.com require you to have your own sign in to clip articles. In that case, sign up for a free account. Search in the WP library and make your clipping, but post the url from "my clippings" in your own account. As I said it's complicated. Feel free to ask me for help. SusunW (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
{{cite journal |last1=McGregor |first1=Katharine |title=Indonesian Women, the Women's International Democratic Federation and the Struggle for 'Women's Rights', 1946–1965 |journal=Indonesia & the Malay World |date=July 2012 |volume=40 |issue=117 |pages=193–208 |doi=10.1080/13639811.2012.683680 |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13639811.2012.683680 |access-date=29 October 2023 |publisher=[[Routledge]] |location=Honolulu, Hawaii |issn=1363-9811 |oclc=795819152 |id={{EBSCO|75525181}}}}{{subscription required}} This is an example of an EBSCO citation.
{{cite book |last1=McGregor |first1=Katharine |last2=Rahayu |first2=Ruth Indiah |editor1-last=de Haan |editor1-first=Francisca |editor-link=Francisca de Haan |title=The Palgrave Handbook of Communist Women Activists around the World |doi=10.1007/978-3-031-13127-1 |date=2023 |publisher=[[Palgrave Macmillan]] |location=Cham, Switzerland |chapter=[[DOI:10.1007/978-3-031-13127-1_15|15. Umi Sardjono (1923–2011) and the Quest to Build a New Society for Indonesian Women]] |pages=377–397 |isbn=978-3-031-13126-4}}{{subscription required |via=[[SpringerLink]]}} This is an example to show from which collection it is housed at the WP library.
Two other quirks I've learned and should mention. 1) The EBSCO links die (not linkrot, the screen just goes to a sign in page) after a while and whatever time is allotted for you to read and cite the info for me is never long enough. The host is in the US and I always get some weird message that says, looks like you are trying to sign in outside of North America, use the international site (because you know, Mexico is not in North America?) If you just hit the back arrow you'll get back to the article without having to search for it again. 2) If you search in EBSCO or other collections and it just gives you an error message that it cannot perform the search at this time, go to your cache settings and clear out the "oclc" cookies. No idea why that works, but it does. (I didn't figure that out, Sam Walton told me to do it.) SusunW (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Very cool Dsp13. No idea what that is or how you use it. Curious if it could be used on other reference works like Prominent Personalities in the USSR? (Since working on the WIDF article, I am fascinated by the idea that communist/socialist women's rights activists were not considered to be women's rights activists but propagandists.) I am also thinking that we might need to write an essay, as Balance person suggested, about how to use the Wikilibrary, but it'd need screen shots and such, I think, which are beyond my skills. SusunW (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
SusunW: This seems to be excellent if very complex advice. I too have had problems with Oxford Reference. In several cases I have found useful sources through normal searches but I am told I have to log in. When I then go to Wikipedia Library, log in there and search for the article, it does not appear! I don't know if there's any way of using the Wikipedia Library login normal searches. It seems to me major improvements are needed to make access via Wikipedia Library more manageable. Your method is far too complex for the average contributor.--Ipigott (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Ipigott I know you have had issues too as I am sure many of us have. I wish it were easier, but I am happy that the resource exists, even if it isn't. Just know that if you know the publisher, search the tab for that publisher rather than the top search bar. OUP is "special" and this particular resource has always been difficult to find. Something about how the - (or is it – or —?) is read by the search engine, is my guess. Rather than trying to figure it out, I learned that searching for the isbn works, so I do that. With OUP, some things are in Oxford Academic, others in Oxford Reference, still others in Oxford Research Encyclopedias, hard to know where to look. I am stubborn, so I just keep poking around until I find what I am looking for or give up and ask the lovely people at the Resource Exchange (RX). They are always helpful. SusunW (talk) 13:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Basically Mix'n'Match is a process to help with expanding Wikidata by manually linking lists (like the list of entries in reference works) to Wikidata. Another editor had uploaded the list of DCALAB entries to Mix'n'Match. All I did was step through that list and make sure all the women were in Wikidata, together with their gender, so that they appear in the relevant Women In Red redlink list. Now I've finished doing that, there are 150 redlinks to work on. Dsp13 (talk) 12:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Very cool. Not something I could do other than manually. I appreciate your skill in doing that so that our coverage of Caribbean women can improve. SusunW (talk) 13:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Dutch Athletes of the Year
I've recently nominated Dutch Athlete of the Year as featured list candidate. The list still contains seven women in red which may be of interest to this project:
Great, there are now articles for five of the seven women! One turned out to already exist with a different spelling, sorry I hadn't caught that earlier. – Editør (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
The list of names beginning with 'I' has an entry for India West. It is a California-based Indian journal. It is redlinked multiple times from Arijit Singh's, an Indian singer, song articles.
The rubric for the page talks of begin with a feminine given name and resemble a full name, so maybe we just have to put up with it. The lists are produced by a SQL query working on the Quarry database interface. I guess it would be possible to add exclusions to reports, but it's probably as easy to a) ignore or b) write an article to get rid of it. None of WiRs redlists are flawless. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying. I just scrolled through the 'J' list - it is worse. Sooo many entries for men.
And while I get that we can ignore them or write articles about them, isn't misrepresentation/under-representation in these redlists a concern then? UMStellify (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Well not really. The lists you're pointing to are new and presumably somewhat experimental. It is useful to characterise the issues found on them, with a view to their improvement, or abandonment if they're absolutely useless. They don't misrepresent anything, they're just someone trying to do their best. They don't under-represent anything; WiR redlists have never made the promise that they list everyone, or everyone in wikdata, and they have never listed everyone - many of the lists are truncated because of techical limitations. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, makes sense. I was looking into these right now. I guess as long as the project moves closer to its target, it's all good. UMStellify (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
I think we should just let them run without bothering too much about inappropriate entries. They've been proving extremely useful for those who regularly participate in our alphabet runs. And thanks, Tagishsimon, for all your efforts in this connection.--Ipigott (talk) 09:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
I think of WiR redlists in terms of a Venn diagram or more simply, a fishing net. Each one captures a lot of notable women. They don't capture all of them. And they capture some items (person, place, thing) that doesn't belong in the set. But as the redlists don't purport to be perfect, they serve their purpose quite well. While I haven't made a study of it, my gut tells me that the smaller the list, the closer it is to perfect, while the larger the list, the opposite is the case. There are a lot of "I"s and "J"s, ergo... --Rosiestep (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Of course. This was the first time I had browsed through the alphabetized redlists (correct term?). It was just a little frustrating to Google each name only to find out it doesn't belong in the list.
So, while what y'all are saying makes sense, I'm concerned that some new contributors to this project might be put off by the difficulty it presents in finding a notable topic within the scope of this project on which to write.
But at the same time, I also understand the purpose these lists serve. Hopefully, someone will be kind (and skilled) enough to improve the way these lists function (search and index) in the near future. UMStellify (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Two of these began as WiR articles. My head is spinning as I try to watch a WP:SPA editor (former student of Clanchy, and has done a PhD covering the area - see her talk page) working busily on all four articles, expanding the sections about a controversy. I'm not sure to what extent individual Tweets should be being cited and quoted, and whether the current articles are WP:NPOV or not. More eyes would be welcome. PamD09:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
PamD: I see you have been involved in the discussion on User talk:NoorStores. It looks to me as if we are dealing with a keen new editor who is still in the process of coming to grips with Wikipedia editing. Glad to see you are keeping a check on things.--Ipigott (talk) 07:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm struggling to keep up with all their work, and getting confused about whether they're aiming for a real WP:NPOV or biasing everything towards Clancy and against her critics. I don't know whether individual tweets ought to be being quoted in the way they are, or whether most of the controversy section should just be deleted as excessive. I hope other editors will have a look and help. PamD08:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Policy at WP:TWITTER explicitly rules out using Twitter as a source for claims about third parties, which seems to be most of what's happening here. There's also been some dubious sourcing such as a WP:BREITBART mirror at [35].
Yes, thank you Yupik – and thank you to ForsythiaJo and Thilsebatti who have added several to enwp already. I've created Wikidata items for the ones which were missing, and added the fact of their naming in the list to all the enwp bios which were missing it.Dsp13 (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Wow, wow, wow! You are all so wonderful! Thank you for creating the wd items so quickly and filling out the main article here on enwp (and for fixing the table on meta). I love the way we all come together to work on these types of things, so thank you for that too :) Ipigott: I'm not having much luck finding enough info on her that it wouldn't just be speedied right off of enwp. I can find all sorts of information about the projects she's worked on, just not her. :/ Mujinga, thanks for that, now I've been reading about ice stupas too :D -Yupik (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for filling this in! I see Lala Pasquinelli already has an article over the Spanish Wiki- I think I'll start translating that tomorrow, if nobody beats me to it.
On a related note- one of the woman listed, Alicia Cahuiya is in red, but there's a suspiciously similar article Alicia Cawiya already written. The sounds 'wi' and 'hui' seem virtually identical, and both names refer to an Indigenous Ecuadorean activist, from the Yasuni region, and both leaders of NAWE. This seems to be a case of transliterations being transliterations, but I can't find any direct confirmation that she's used both names. I was hoping a more experienced editor might weigh in. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
@GreenLipstickLesbian I think this image, using "Cahuiya" on the website of the Ecuadorian Indigenous People's Federation website, is good enough. I'll make a redirect. Well spotted!
I've added the alternative transliteration into the lead, to clarify, and added an image to the article. PamD09:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
I've expanded User:Libreravi/Urvashi Bahuguna a little, adding a couple of references and some categories. (One of the references you had was to Bahuguna's own website, so I removed that as a reference and provided the link to her website in External Links.) Hope that's helpful. Dsp13 (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
You mention several awards she has, as mentioned in the introduction to her interview in MQR, but they aren't linked, there's no indication what they are for those of us who haven't heard of them. A little research finds, for example:
She won the TOTO award for creative writing in English in 2018 (see here, which not only verifies her as a winner but explains what the awards are)
The Charles Wallace India Trust ... is described here, and she is listed here as received a Visiting Fellowship.
If a fellowship, award, etc is worth mentioning, then it's usually worth a link or a reference to show what it is.
Well, that's my feeling, anyway! Other editors may differ.
I've added an "alumni" category, and standardised the section heading "Selected publications" and the template {{official website}}.
I've added a couple of reviews of her 2nd book, as these help in asserting notability. There should probably be a prose section on her writing, describing the books, rather than just the publications list, and the reviews would be better included in that section, perhaps with a quote from each to illustrate the reception of the book.
User:MartinPoulter/Nazia_Mintz_Habib This person is doing important work in the fields of sustainable development and climate change, and works in academia, international diplomacy, and social entrepreneurship. There is a great deal about her on the web, but a lot of it is in the form of op-eds, institutional profiles, or brief mentions. I'd like an outside perspective on whether this biography is sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. Any feedback welcome, MartinPoulter (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Peridotito, there are probably a few hundred thousand non-English biographies on other wikipedias which could usefully be translated. Most of WiRs redlists have a column indicating the existence of articles on other wikipedias. It is not greatly helpful to bring lists of those you happen to be interested in, to this forum or to the other forums you've added translation lists to. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Peridotito, just a friendly FYI that each year in March, Women in Red coordinates an Art+Feminism related event, which includes "cartoonists and comic creators". These are just some of the redlists we'll be working from:
@BeanieFan11 A good approach is to look at other language wikipedias which cover her (she has 5 articles) and see what you can find there, especially looking at their sources for coverage beyond pure database listings. I've expanded the article a bit with two more sources. PamD17:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I've looked on Google and there seem to be quite a few non-English articles about her. I've added some to the article with the help of Google Translate, but the article could definitely be expanded further. ForsythiaJo (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
While procedurally fixing up a misfiled AfD, I noticed that Brave Space Alliance might be a suitable topic for an article (see news stories, e.g., [36][37][38][39][40]). I don't have much experience writing about non-profit organizations, however, so I thought I'd raise the possibility among those who might know their way around better. XOR'easter (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
SusunW (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC).jpg)
.png)
) In the case of the Dictionary of Caribbean and Afro-Latin American Biography you need to sign in to the library. There will be a page that comes up and at the top has a search bar and below that says Favorites, My Collections, Available collections at the top and then a bunch of publishers below that. Scroll down until you see Oxford Reference and press access collection. It will open a new window. At the top right is a search bar. Paste "9780199935796" there and it will pull up entries from the dictionary. Rather than scrolling through all of them, if you click on the link for the name of the dictionary (third line in the first entry), which says Abdulah, Clive Orminston (1927– ), Erica Campbell, Dictionary of Caribbean and Afro–Latin American Biography (click this one) it will take you to an alpha search.
