Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 40
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 35 | ← | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | → | Archive 45 |
NYTimes doing a WiR-like project on missing obituaries
Obviously timed for International Women's Day today, the New York Times has announced a project called Overlooked in which they will be publishing obituaries for women who were previously overlooked by the paper. They published a handful of them today, but this is an ongoing project and they are also soliciting suggestions from the public via a form here.
I'm thinking that suggestion form could help us over here, too. We've all written articles where the sourcing is a bit thin, and had to fight off an AfD. Wouldn't you love in that case to be able to add a newly minted NYTimes obit?
So, if you have some historic women whose bios could use additional sources, suggest them to the Times as Overlooked obit subjects. It couldn't hurt. --Krelnik (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Overlooked
Yesterday, for International Women's Day, The New York Times announced a new series, "Overlooked", focused on the obituaries it overlooked in writing about notable women (it's own "Women in Red"). A big thank you to Gamaliel for creating this page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Overlooked, to track them. Together with Wikimedia DC, WiR will work on developing a project around this. I'm not sure where it might go, but I'm excited at the opportunity for WiR to join forces with WMDC and the NY Times. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- It might be outside the scope of WiR but it would be interesting to see if anyone is interested in collaborating on bringing some of these up to GA. The only ones already at GA are Sylvia Pleth and Henrietta Lacks. It might be worthwhile working on Ada Lovelace (now B) and Charlotte Brontë (now C). And while I'm at it, how about de-stubbing Belkis Ayón and Lillias Campbell Davidson. Unfortunately, as far as I can see, we cannot access the NYT obits without subscribing.--Ipigott (talk) 14:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, that is an issue, Ipigott. Would love it if they gave WiR members access. SusunW (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- If you open an incognito window on your browser (Ctrl+Shift+N for Chrome), the NYTimes will think you are a new visitor and give you a few new pageviews. Try your local library, you might already have electronic access to the NYTimes and not even know. Or your resident librarian Megalibrarygirl might be able to find the articles you need. Gamaliel (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- Gamaliel no public libraries here. Can't access it with a private browser (apparently it doesn't like my IP from Mexico). But, if I repeatedly clear my cache I can access *some* articles. It'd still be wonderful if they would cooperate with access. SusunW (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- SusunW, I'd be happy to send you articles you need. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm a bit bemused by this - I cannot see any discussion on new projects about it. I have been giggling about overlooked on twitter and find out it is part of this project. Did this really happen in a day? Why could we not discuss? If I missed that discussion then its my fault but I do have reservations. Where was the discussion? Victuallers (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry! We decided to be bold and go for it while we still had a chance to get possible traffic from the NYTimes story. There was much less potential for traffic if we'd waited a few days. Gamaliel (talk) 05:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- Like Susun, I cannot access any of the NYT articles from Luxembourg either. I agree with Victuallers that it is rather strange to hear of a tie up between the New York Times and Wikipedia, only to find it is our own invention. Can Gamaliel give us more details of the support given by Wikimedia DC as mentioned on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Overlooked or is this also an invention? When we hear of such initiatives, we spend quite some time looking into things. I also see that over 300 people have looked at the Overlooked page, probably also searching for details.--Ipigott (talk) 09:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks Megalibrarygirl, but that would be all of them and too much of a commitment of your time. Not to worry. :) Gamaliel, even though I cannot access them, I am thrilled that you are doing this. I sent them 3 names and will be interested to see if they do obits for any of them. I don't really think you need to apologize for moving ahead, as WMDC certainly doesn't need WiR's permission to create an initiative. I'm happy that you invited us to join, even if it was after the fact. Knowing how tough finding sources on women can be, and having a major media outlet recognize that, may actually be good for us in the long run. SusunW (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- Ipigott If there's anything you feel WIR needs in terms of further support from WMDC please let me or Rosiestep know. Gamaliel (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- Rosiestep, Gamaliel: If WMDC has begun collaborating with the New York Times, a useful first step would be to arrange for all those forgotten obits to be made accessible to Wikipedians without the need for a subscription. Alternatively, they could be posted somewhere where we can see them. Otherwise those of us who are not members of a public library in the United States will not be able to access them. It would also be interesting to hear how you are progressing on the new project. For a start, I would have been interested in seeing those corresponding to the two stubs in the group: Belkis Ayón and Lillias Campbell Davidson.--Ipigott (talk) 08:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, it's really only one stub; Belkis Ayón hasn't been a stub since last July, but nobody updated the rating. I changed it to C-class, since it's decently well-developed and referenced now. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 13:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Rosiestep, Gamaliel: If WMDC has begun collaborating with the New York Times, a useful first step would be to arrange for all those forgotten obits to be made accessible to Wikipedians without the need for a subscription. Alternatively, they could be posted somewhere where we can see them. Otherwise those of us who are not members of a public library in the United States will not be able to access them. It would also be interesting to hear how you are progressing on the new project. For a start, I would have been interested in seeing those corresponding to the two stubs in the group: Belkis Ayón and Lillias Campbell Davidson.--Ipigott (talk) 08:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Like Susun, I cannot access any of the NYT articles from Luxembourg either. I agree with Victuallers that it is rather strange to hear of a tie up between the New York Times and Wikipedia, only to find it is our own invention. Can Gamaliel give us more details of the support given by Wikimedia DC as mentioned on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Overlooked or is this also an invention? When we hear of such initiatives, we spend quite some time looking into things. I also see that over 300 people have looked at the Overlooked page, probably also searching for details.--Ipigott (talk) 09:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry! We decided to be bold and go for it while we still had a chance to get possible traffic from the NYTimes story. There was much less potential for traffic if we'd waited a few days. Gamaliel (talk) 05:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm a bit bemused by this - I cannot see any discussion on new projects about it. I have been giggling about overlooked on twitter and find out it is part of this project. Did this really happen in a day? Why could we not discuss? If I missed that discussion then its my fault but I do have reservations. Where was the discussion? Victuallers (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- SusunW, I'd be happy to send you articles you need. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- Gamaliel no public libraries here. Can't access it with a private browser (apparently it doesn't like my IP from Mexico). But, if I repeatedly clear my cache I can access *some* articles. It'd still be wonderful if they would cooperate with access. SusunW (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- If you open an incognito window on your browser (Ctrl+Shift+N for Chrome), the NYTimes will think you are a new visitor and give you a few new pageviews. Try your local library, you might already have electronic access to the NYTimes and not even know. Or your resident librarian Megalibrarygirl might be able to find the articles you need. Gamaliel (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, that is an issue, Ipigott. Would love it if they gave WiR members access. SusunW (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
"Evelyn Fox" and "Mary Dingman"
SusunW, I found these sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Elisa.rolle (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Additional Info, Mary Dingman is buried at [9] Brick Church Cemetery, Spring Valley, Rockland County, New York, USA (Interred: 22 March 1961, Undertaker: Not Listed, Plot Owner: Nettie C Dingman, Plot Location: Section A, Division 3, Lot 23, Grave South of Stone). And guess what? "Miss Evelyn Fox, daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Bernard Fox of 1 East Hickory Street, Spring Valley" [10]... I'm pretty sure that, even if she is not listed on Find a grave, Evelyn Fox is buried at Brick Church Cemetery as well... --Elisa.rolle (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Beautiful Elisa.rolle!—they really were "life-long" companions, as Dingman grew up in Spring Valley. I'll circle back around. Working on Dingman's sister right now :) SusunW (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Additional Info, Mary Dingman is buried at [9] Brick Church Cemetery, Spring Valley, Rockland County, New York, USA (Interred: 22 March 1961, Undertaker: Not Listed, Plot Owner: Nettie C Dingman, Plot Location: Section A, Division 3, Lot 23, Grave South of Stone). And guess what? "Miss Evelyn Fox, daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Bernard Fox of 1 East Hickory Street, Spring Valley" [10]... I'm pretty sure that, even if she is not listed on Find a grave, Evelyn Fox is buried at Brick Church Cemetery as well... --Elisa.rolle (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
"La réduction du fossé des genres sur Wikipédia : rencontre avec Natacha Rault, la fondatrice des Sans PagEs"
A lovely article, in French, which mentions Women in Red! --Rosiestep (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed, an enthusiastic article calling for assistance. I'm not too sure how we can help but they certainly need support as despite their efforts, with only 16.7% of their biographies devoted to women, they are not only behind the EN Wikipedia (17.5%), but also well behind other major Latin languages: Spanish 19.2%, Romanian 17.9%, Portuguese 17.5%. (They are however ahead of the Italians who also need support with only 15%.) Perhaps we could collaborate on Africa with the help of Anthere. As a number of them come from Switzerland, those of us who speak German could also work jointly with them on biographies from the German Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Lovely article indeed !
- French speaking people are not sweet with their ladies... I think this is a general issue around here. Whilst gender equality is an important theme in Switzerland (where les Sans PagEs born), this is much much less an issue in France. I currently live in the 2nd (or 3rd according to sources :)) city in France... I spent quite a bit of time the last few months to try to set up something about the gender gap. Usually... I get interested and happy smiles and then, a list of reasons why my contact could not really help me. Or sometimes, I am asked "why on earth would they be interested in that topic ?". Yes, indeed, why...
- At some point, it becomes quite of a joke... but unfortunately, the very sexist nature of mediterranean people living in Marseille seem to be really an issue when it comes to set up events. Let me provide you with an example... of course, I contacted the service in charge of gender equality for the local university. Asked them in particular some help for 1) space (such as... a room in one of the univ location) and 2) communication support (such as... relaying an event on the univ mailing lists). I raised interest, been told I could be lent a room and supported with com, BUT, my event (edit-a-thon ?) *had to* include and feature a local researcher involved in gender issues. The program can not be just an edit-a-thon, it must include a lecture by a public scholar. It is naturally up to me to find this person and convince her or him to collaborate on this event. Ultimately... what should be simple... is becoming... complicated. Gender equality in representation is not really considered an issue around here.
- Anyway... Wikiindaba is just this week in Tunisia. Gender gap will be discussed. It will be interesting to know more about what's going on the topic in Africa. I'll be back here... Anthere (talk)
Article about feminism that may interest WiR
This article by Rebecca Solnit in the Guardian: Feminists have slowly shifted power. There’s no going back is fast read. While she thinks that things are slowing down a little after the #MeToo movement, I think we need to try to keep the ball rolling. Glad we do that everyday here on WiR. :D Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- It's obviously going to take a long, long time. The Spaniards are more impatient. Perhaps North American can adopt some of their proactivism. See here for inspiration.--Ipigott (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl in the news
Read about our very own Librarian-in-Residence, Megalibrarygirl, in this interview in today's Library Journal! You are amazing! --Rosiestep (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- In the immortal words of Kermit the Frog: "YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!" Congratulations. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Awesome! SusunW (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed. Well done. — Maile (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- The article could also have mentioned how willing Sue has always been to collaborate on anything we mention as needing assistance. She has done an amazing job with literally hundreds of articles requiring additional references and more comprehensive coverage. I have had the privilege of working with national libraries, research libraries and public libraries over the years but have never come across an individual librarian so ready to help so widely and effectively as Sue Barnum. Having worked closely with the world public libraries community since 1993, I say this advisedly. I remember reporting on Cordis in March 1994 that the first widely accessible link to a public library had been established by the St. Joseph Library in South Bend, Indiana, although the Helsinki public library always claimed (rather questionably) that they had been the first. One of these days we should write an objective account (timeline?) of public library services on the internet as very little of the history remains accessible. (But I'm sure Sue could find it all for us again if we happened to mention it!)--Ipigott (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- @SusunW, Maile66, Rosiestep, Ser Amantio di Nicolao, and Ipigott: thank you so much! You have no idea how much this award means to me and I'm really proud to be recognized. Ever since I became a library employee and saw the "Movers and Shakers" on the LJ cover, I wanted to be there, too, someday. I'm floored, flattered, proud, so many emotions. :)
- Ipigott, that sounds like an interesting project to add to my list of things to work on. I love doing library history because women are so much a part of it. I really appreciate your words and the truth is, I usually feel like I'm not helping enough... which I know sounds cheesy, but it's true. I'm definitely here for all of you and wow. I'm just floored by this. *big blushes* Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- You are absolutely right about the influence of women in the public libraries sector. I could give you the names of lots of key women players in Europe in the 1990s and 2000s who were instrumental in improving coordinated public library services as well as collaborating with museums, archives and, in some cases, even schools. Unfortunately, as a result of budgetary pressures in several European countries and diminished interest in reading books, many public library services are now being cut back. Many local authorities seem to believe internet access is sufficient.--Ipigott (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Susan Barnum on standby ;-) From a personal point of view, it would have been nice to mention that she got one of the highest mandates to be an administrator of all time, though I suspect that won't mean much to the casual reader. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Ritchie333 Most people stare blankly at me when I say I edit Wikipedia. Saying I'm an admin will confuse the issue even more. :P Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Not her first coverage as a librarian-Wikipedian. But let me add my congratulations also! —David Eppstein (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, David Eppstein! I really appreciate this wiki-love. It means a lot to me. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Political hostesses
I just created Category:Political hostesses and would like help populating it. Deb (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Place to add women's bios for translation to other language wikis
A twitter convo this morning led to some ideas about a place where we could share women's biographies to be translated into other languages. While we have Wikidata lists, this might be something a little different. Do you think this would be a good project for Meta? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- This certainly has potential: maybe for Meta, or maybe for WikiProjects dealing with women in other languages. Wikidata redlists like the ones we use on the English Wikipedia could be produced for any other language. Another option would be for us to produce lists of our higher quality biographies on women as a basis for other language groups to either create new articles or improve existing ones. I'm not sure to what extent we can really afford the time to participate actively in a multilingual project along these lines. It would be far better if competent volunteers from other languages could coordinate what they need.--Ipigott (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Anyone have any ideas how to input this Library of Congress ID into Muir's authority control file? Though she published 2 books, cannot find her on VIAF or ISNI. Thanks! SusunW (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Another interesting press article
Wikipedia's forgotten women: inside the editing marathon to fix imbalance, Nadja Sayej, The Guardian, 15 March 2018.--Ipigott (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
This is a tricky one, and I was hoping some of y'all might have an opinion on it.
This article was initially created as Otgonjargal Davaasuren last year, and AFD'ed in December: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otgonjargal Davaasuren. It was then recreated, and deleted in January. It's been recreated at least once again since - I'm sure I deleted it a third time back in February, under a slightly different name - and here it is again.
I'm torn. On the one hand, AFD aside, I think she just might meet notability requirements; I can't speak Mongolian and I can't do a search for many sources. On the other hand, I see no evidence that the creator has actually interacted with any of the people who have posted messages on his talkpage. (I'm wondering if there might be a language barrier at play, too.) So I don't know how much good it will do pushing for further fixes from that end.
Ultimately, I'm inclined to delete this article due to the previous AFD. But if anyone can see a way towards salvaging the content, please let me know. I'll try to hold off on deleting it for a couple of hours, at least. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- I went ahead and deleted it. Too many problems. If she meets the notability threshold it can be recreated using the proper channels. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
SusunW, would you be interested in doing a page for Olive Lester [11]? She was the longtime friend of Lotta Hetler James. Elisa.rolle (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Also Lester's friend, Emily Webster, seems worthy of an article [12]. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Lester sounds interesting. Let me see if I can dig up more sources. SusunW (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- I am sure I found enough to write about Lester, though of course it is snippets here and there. Olive P. Lester is how I will write it, as most sourcing follows that naming, but I'll do a redirect when I'm done. SusunW (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- considering James died in 1945 I found interesting that Lester was listed as long life friend and that they shared house. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Lester was 27 years younger though... could be this is not the same? The coincidence would be too strange... interested to read your article when you do it. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Elisa.rolle I'm thinking that it is a different Olive Lester. Olive P. Lester does not appear ever to have lived anywhere except in New York, though she did obtain her PhD in Chicago. SusunW (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- SusunW, I think so as well, there is an Olive Lester that was involved in social work in California, but not enough info for an article. LOL, indeed Olive P. Lester is worthy of an article and, well, I think that Emily Webster is probably a special friend... what a coincidence. Elisa.rolle (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Elisa.rolle Olive P. is done. I have searched every database I can find and have been unable to find anything but tiny snippets on your lady, who was Olive Irene Lester.[13] SusunW (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- SusunW, this is great. Sometime I wonder how it is possible that profiles like this do not have a Wikipedia page... Elisa.rolle (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Elisa.rolle the march of history before 1970, was one that included pretty much only the stories of "great men". Average people, women and minorities were simply considered as bystanders, or supporting props. Very few textbooks or encyclopedias before the 1970s included women's history at all, so it isn't remotely surprising to me. It's why sources are so hard to find for most women who lived before the internet age. It isn't that there weren't notable women, it is clearly that societal and media biases excluded them. The reality is that most of them will remain lost to history because no one knows enough to tell their story. I have no illusions, with the way people were recorded, there will never be 50/50 representation of women or minorities in the history books, but if we can retrieve even some of them one person at a time, the story of all of us becomes much clearer. SusunW (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- SusunW You know the saying, "The more things change, the more they stay the same"? Taking this concept into the 21st Century ... long-time acquaintances of mine that might be considered a "power couple". He became head of a national organization, and did great works bringing in capital and making it a better organization. He retired, and his wife was given the job. She did the same thing he did with the same skill and extraordinary results. He died, and the memorial services that followed would make you think the earth stopped spinning. A few years later, she died. Most people didn't know about it until months later when about three sentences appeared in some publication ... giving where she was born, when she married him, the children she raised and her date of death. — Maile (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- Maile66 doesn't surprise me a bit. So many people drink the kool-aid and never question that the history we have been spoon-fed is selective. "To the victor goes the spoils" quite literally means those with the power get to create the stories for posterity, whether they are accurate or not. SusunW (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- SusunW, one profile at the time then. I sometime spoiled the balance with gay men profiles but also that is a seriously underrepresented field. I was the one to write the page for Israel David Fishmam he was the founder of the Gay Round Table at ALA, for him not to have a page was a shame... I do not yet feel comfortable writing pages like before I just did some simple edit but maybe soon. Elisa.rolle (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- Elisa.rolle when you are ready. And I have zero problem with balancing the record by adding any member of a marginalized group. Our collective history is so much more than has ever been told. SusunW (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- SusunW, one profile at the time then. I sometime spoiled the balance with gay men profiles but also that is a seriously underrepresented field. I was the one to write the page for Israel David Fishmam he was the founder of the Gay Round Table at ALA, for him not to have a page was a shame... I do not yet feel comfortable writing pages like before I just did some simple edit but maybe soon. Elisa.rolle (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- Maile66 doesn't surprise me a bit. So many people drink the kool-aid and never question that the history we have been spoon-fed is selective. "To the victor goes the spoils" quite literally means those with the power get to create the stories for posterity, whether they are accurate or not. SusunW (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- SusunW You know the saying, "The more things change, the more they stay the same"? Taking this concept into the 21st Century ... long-time acquaintances of mine that might be considered a "power couple". He became head of a national organization, and did great works bringing in capital and making it a better organization. He retired, and his wife was given the job. She did the same thing he did with the same skill and extraordinary results. He died, and the memorial services that followed would make you think the earth stopped spinning. A few years later, she died. Most people didn't know about it until months later when about three sentences appeared in some publication ... giving where she was born, when she married him, the children she raised and her date of death. — Maile (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- Elisa.rolle the march of history before 1970, was one that included pretty much only the stories of "great men". Average people, women and minorities were simply considered as bystanders, or supporting props. Very few textbooks or encyclopedias before the 1970s included women's history at all, so it isn't remotely surprising to me. It's why sources are so hard to find for most women who lived before the internet age. It isn't that there weren't notable women, it is clearly that societal and media biases excluded them. The reality is that most of them will remain lost to history because no one knows enough to tell their story. I have no illusions, with the way people were recorded, there will never be 50/50 representation of women or minorities in the history books, but if we can retrieve even some of them one person at a time, the story of all of us becomes much clearer. SusunW (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- SusunW, this is great. Sometime I wonder how it is possible that profiles like this do not have a Wikipedia page... Elisa.rolle (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Elisa.rolle Olive P. is done. I have searched every database I can find and have been unable to find anything but tiny snippets on your lady, who was Olive Irene Lester.[13] SusunW (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- SusunW, I think so as well, there is an Olive Lester that was involved in social work in California, but not enough info for an article. LOL, indeed Olive P. Lester is worthy of an article and, well, I think that Emily Webster is probably a special friend... what a coincidence. Elisa.rolle (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Elisa.rolle I'm thinking that it is a different Olive Lester. Olive P. Lester does not appear ever to have lived anywhere except in New York, though she did obtain her PhD in Chicago. SusunW (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Lester was 27 years younger though... could be this is not the same? The coincidence would be too strange... interested to read your article when you do it. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- considering James died in 1945 I found interesting that Lester was listed as long life friend and that they shared house. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- I am sure I found enough to write about Lester, though of course it is snippets here and there. Olive P. Lester is how I will write it, as most sourcing follows that naming, but I'll do a redirect when I'm done. SusunW (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Lester sounds interesting. Let me see if I can dig up more sources. SusunW (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I was just bold and moved this out of draft space. It now completes our set of winners of the Rapallo Carige Prize, which I've been working on for the past two days; I've created stubs on all the others that were missing. It's my first time moving something out of draft space - would one of y'all mind taking a look and making sure I didn't screw it up? Thank you kindly. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Interesting article but I'm rather confused about Einaudi. Are you referring to Giulio Einaudi the publisher or to the man himself? Perhaps you could include appropriate links.--Ipigott (talk) 08:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Ipigott: I didn't actually write any of the article - I just approved it from draft status. I'll take a look and see which it is; based on other articles about prizewinners I'd bet it's the publishing house rather than the publisher. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Annie Yellowe Palma
Some of you may be interested in this BLP, Annie Yellowe Palma, and the conversation about it at this talkpage, User talk:AnnieYellowePalma. Pinging my friend, Rebecca O'Neill (WMIE), as you may not have this page watchlisted. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control
This might interest some of you, especially Megalibrarygirl. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks Rosiestep. I'll take a look! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Treatment of maiden names, née and né according to the Manual of Style
There's a discussion of how to name and format surname changes over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#"Maiden names" to "Surname changes". It seems to be focusing on men, which seems odd to me, since it's mostly women who change their names, but here we are at 85% male Wikipedia. I much prefer the use of "born" to née and né, for reasons I give over there (example at P. L. Travers); this format is already widely used on Wikipedia, though not so widely as née, and maiden name is a sexist and outdated term. I post this here in hopes of recruiting more women to weigh in on that topic, as I think these are worthwhile changes. Or am I the only one who feels this way? Thanks. Aatist (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- I have never before seen "né" used for a man, not even in French. It looks to me like another Wikipedia invention. Let's just keep "born".--Ipigott (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- I, too, support "born", and have stated my reasons for it on that talkpage. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure I have seen "né", rarely...can't remember where, but I think it was somewhere pretty old-fashioned. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- IMO, just another matter of "splitting hairs". Unless one is concerned about gender neutrality, it totally doesn't matter, as all are accepted in a standard dictionary. Why we need another "rule", is beyond me. Use what you are comfortable with. SusunW (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- I prefer "née" for a woman's maiden name and "born" to introduce a person's date and place of birth.--Oronsay (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- IMO, just another matter of "splitting hairs". Unless one is concerned about gender neutrality, it totally doesn't matter, as all are accepted in a standard dictionary. Why we need another "rule", is beyond me. Use what you are comfortable with. SusunW (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure I have seen "né", rarely...can't remember where, but I think it was somewhere pretty old-fashioned. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- I, too, support "born", and have stated my reasons for it on that talkpage. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
First Ladies and redirects
Rich Farmbrough has been helping create articles from the list Spouses of the Governors of California, a list created for the December 2017 WIR First Ladies edit-a-thon. Pretty much, Rich has been creating stubs.
- Ruth Amelia Perkins was moved to Ruth Perkins by John Cline upon request by Rich Farmbrough. It looks to me like it was in the process of being created as a stub. Then Fram changed it to a redirect to the governor's office with the edit summary "redirect; no reliable independent sources with indepth information about her seem to be available"
- Lizzie Weller was first a stub created by Rich Farmbrough, with PamD, MarnetteD and Ma'az doing some edit on it, before Fram redirected it with the edit summary "redirect; no indication of notability".
- Amelia Irwin has the same kind of history. Rich created a stub, FeanorStar7 and I did some editing on it. Fram redirected it with this summary "Redirect to remove plagiarism and because she isn't independently notable anyway"
Need some feedback here from editors involved, and from this project. For me personally, I try not to create stubs that are only a few sentences. But the last I heard, Stubs were an accepted form of article creation. If not, WIR should address that on future edit-a-thons. But if spouses of politicians can be deleted as non-notable, that seems to punch a hole in what WIR is trying to do. Any thoughts? Also, I would prefer leaving redlinks, as opposed to redirects. If no redlink exists, then there is no visible indication that an article is needed. — Maile (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- They were not redirected because they were stubs, but because neither the article not a basic online search indicated that they were notable (notability is not inherited, and if your only claim to fame is "being the wife of a governor" then you probably shouldn't have an article (Amelia Irwin had an expensive inaugural ball, and hosted tea for the President's wife once; I don't think this is really sufficient to qualify as independently notable on enwiki, or that this is the kind of woman we desperately need to have more articles on). If they aren't notable, then you either redirect or you delete and unlink: leaving redlinks for non-notable subjects is not what redlinks are intended for. Furthermore, the articles (especially Lizzie Weller) were WP:Plagiarism from the public domain source, which isn't allowed anyway. Perhaps it's best to check the other similar articles on these first ladies for similar problems, but certainly some of them had stronger claims to notability than these three. Fram (talk) 13:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't realise that he had bulk redirected these articles, only the one he notified me of. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC).
SusunW, Elisabeth Burger, Economist and government consultant, was Frieda S. Miller's daughter. Elisa.rolle (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
- She seems like an interesting woman as well. Between this and this one could probably create an article on Elisabeth as well. While the Harvard piece is an index of her primary source papers, the analysis by Susan Earle, Meghan Pipp, Ella Lesatele, and Margaret Dalton, of the material contained and their observations of her struggles as indicated in the diaries are clearly secondary reporting and not OR from a primary source. SusunW (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
- An interesting woman raised by two interesting women ;-) --Elisa.rolle (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
- She seems like an interesting woman as well. Between this and this one could probably create an article on Elisabeth as well. While the Harvard piece is an index of her primary source papers, the analysis by Susan Earle, Meghan Pipp, Ella Lesatele, and Margaret Dalton, of the material contained and their observations of her struggles as indicated in the diaries are clearly secondary reporting and not OR from a primary source. SusunW (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
"Whose Knowledge?/VisibleWikiWomen"
I am happy to report that the March notable women image campaign, m:Whose Knowledge?/VisibleWikiWomen, which WiR is supporting, has been officially approved at Commons! I think this means that not only are the WiR and the WK communities working on uploading images of notable women, but that Commons regulars are are also supporting the campaign. To participate, just add the Commons category of VisibleWikiWomen to your uploaded image. It's my hope that this becomes an annual March event at Commons, like WikiLovesMonuments (the international wiki photo contest around cultural heritage) and WikiLovesEarth (the international wiki photo contest around focused on natural heritage in protected areas). Hashtag: #VisibleWikiWomen. Points of contact: @May Hachem93, Señoritaleona, and Seeeko. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
"I am not a female architect. I am an architect"
I just came across this 2017 article by dezeen.com. Even though it's 10 months old, I thought I would share it here as a friendly reminder that some people like things to be phrased differently than others. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- Reminds me of my discussion with the representative from the 99s. They were on the opposite side of that divide, stating that the name of their career, regardless of what Wikipedia said was aviatrix. Her take was that they had to work twice as hard to be able to fly and just lumping them in with other pilots did them a disservice. I love diversity! SusunW (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- The French have moved in the opposite direction over the past 20 years or so. Most of the professions were always expressed in the default masculine gender, whether you were talking about a man or a woman. It was always le professeur, le ministre, le peintre, etc. Now, if you are referring to a woman, you have to say: la professeur, la ministre, la peintre. So in French, whether she likes it or not, Dorte Mandrup est une architecte. Vive la diversité! I note, by the way, that 3,296 Wikipedians are proud to have adopted Category:Female Wikipedians on the English Wikipedia, far, far more than in any of the other language versions.--Ipigott (talk) 07:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- English Wikipedia has far more editors than any other language version. How does the 3,296 compare as a percentage? Edwardx (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Interesting, and it rang a bell. I wrote Ellamae Ellis League. She was one of the first women to be a licensed architect in Georgia. She was quoted in a 1962 interview: "I am always an architect. Not a woman architect, but an architect. I encourage women going into the profession not to concentrate on being separate as a woman but to concentrate on being a good architect." I included it as a pull-quote in her article. --Krelnik (talk) 03:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, nice to join WiR and commenting here with my WCCWiki project hat on. The project creates, improves and watch lists pages for female classicists, and one of the pages our eds edits (Dorothy Tarrant) is currently locked due to a disagreement on gendered language. There's a request for comment here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Dorothy_Tarrant#RfC_about_Emeritus/Emerita. If anyone would like join the discussion it would be welcomed by our project, as we'd like to get the page unlocked before February next year... Claire 75 (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- The French have moved in the opposite direction over the past 20 years or so. Most of the professions were always expressed in the default masculine gender, whether you were talking about a man or a woman. It was always le professeur, le ministre, le peintre, etc. Now, if you are referring to a woman, you have to say: la professeur, la ministre, la peintre. So in French, whether she likes it or not, Dorte Mandrup est une architecte. Vive la diversité! I note, by the way, that 3,296 Wikipedians are proud to have adopted Category:Female Wikipedians on the English Wikipedia, far, far more than in any of the other language versions.--Ipigott (talk) 07:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Reminds me of my discussion with the representative from the 99s. They were on the opposite side of that divide, stating that the name of their career, regardless of what Wikipedia said was aviatrix. Her take was that they had to work twice as hard to be able to fly and just lumping them in with other pilots did them a disservice. I love diversity! SusunW (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Beatriz Sofía Rosado Cedeño at AFD
I PRODded Beatriz Sofía Rosado Cedeño earlier today; the PROD was removed and the article has since been listed at AFD. I'm bringing it here in the unlikely event that someone here can salvage it. I'm not sure it is salvageable; despite my lack of knowledge of Spanish a cursory Google search suggests there's barely any information available to establish notability. Furthermore, variants of the article have been deleted eight times over at the Spanish Wikipedia, seven of them within the past month; two of those variants have since been salted. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Plenty of promotional articles about non-notable or marginally notable people are created every day. Statistically, some of them will be women. In my view, it is generally better for editors to devote their limited time to starting new articles about people who really merit an article. Edwardx (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Edwardx: Couldn't agree more. Thing is, since I don't speak Spanish, I wanted to bring it up here in case anyone who does, and who has an interest in the subject, could point me towards something I'm missing. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Looking for a "co-author" for Draft:Magda Wierzycka
I recently started a draft about Magda Wierzycka, a prominent South African businesswoman. Unfortunately I don't really have much time to work on it lately, but I feel it's quite important to create an article about her while she is featuring so prominently in the South African media, as much for her business dealings as her social activism. So I'm here asking if anyone might be interested in joining me to create the article. I've placed a fairly large list of potential sources on the draft, though there is quite a lot more available on the web. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I have been trying to assume good faith with the new editor of this page, but s/he keeps removing the "excessive citation" tag without reducing the number of citations. The editor seems to have an agenda about recording every name and position of the subject's siblings for posterity, which is not the way Wikipedia works. I suggested linking important people to their pages at the Hebrew Wikipedia, and s/he responded that there are no Hebrew pages. I went ahead and did the interlanguage links. Perhaps one of you gentle guides could explain things to this user. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Dana Awartani just came up on the new pages feed. I was able to easily find a half dozen sources, but it still needs a prose edit to flesh out the substance of her work.104.163.147.121 (talk) 03:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Strange series of new WiR members
Since the beginning of the month, many of our new members have registered on WiR without any other contributions to Wikipedia. They have not even created their own user pages or played around in a sandbox. This has not happened before. Quite a number seem to come from the same source as they say they need help with translations. For the record, their user names are: Koakonsultings, MaMat18, CamilleDC, Fpasquale, Victoria Taboada and WikiCheshire. Can anyone throw any light on any of them or why they are registered without any other contributions?--Ipigott (talk) 11:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- Why would you encourage an investigation of editors who have literally done nothing?
What happened to WP:AGF?104.163.147.121 (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps they are being encouraged to join Women in Red by their school or event facilitators, e.g. John Cummings (UNESCO event), Victuallers (teaching a class in the UK), Art+Feminism (hundreds of events happening around the world this month), Wikimedia Sweden's WikiGap initiative (dozens of embassies next week), and so forth? --Rosiestep (talk) 11:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- Rosiestep: They don't usually join WiR as the very first thing they do on Wikipedia. We might have a user-friendly membership registration interface but it would be more logical for them first to register on Wikipedia itself. I'm not sure whether they are allowed to join Wikipedia via WiR. Normally checks are made on user names, etc., at the time people register on Wikipedia. I wouldn't mind so much if they went on to do some editing but these ones have done nothing more at all. They will of course disappear from our WiR membership list if they are not active for a month. I fear that will include most of them.--Ipigott (talk) 12:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- Have a look at the discussion over at User_talk:Bcmurch - I wonder if that has something to do with it, too. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm encouraging new editors to join Women in Red as part of the Wiki4Women editathon on International Women's Day with the hope that it will encourage them to continue contributing after the event because they know where to go to ask for help and advice. John Cummings (talk) 10:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- As far as I can see from Wikipedia:Tutorial/Registration, new users have to create an account via Login before they do anything else. I'm not at all sure whether any of those mentioned above are in fact registered members of Wikipedia. Rosiestep, as our most senior administrator, would it be possible for you to find out?--Ipigott (talk) 14:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm encouraging new editors to join Women in Red as part of the Wiki4Women editathon on International Women's Day with the hope that it will encourage them to continue contributing after the event because they know where to go to ask for help and advice. John Cummings (talk) 10:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- Have a look at the discussion over at User_talk:Bcmurch - I wonder if that has something to do with it, too. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- Rosiestep: They don't usually join WiR as the very first thing they do on Wikipedia. We might have a user-friendly membership registration interface but it would be more logical for them first to register on Wikipedia itself. I'm not sure whether they are allowed to join Wikipedia via WiR. Normally checks are made on user names, etc., at the time people register on Wikipedia. I wouldn't mind so much if they went on to do some editing but these ones have done nothing more at all. They will of course disappear from our WiR membership list if they are not active for a month. I fear that will include most of them.--Ipigott (talk) 12:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- Rosiestep, Victuallers, Megalibrarygirl, SusunW: Today we have at least one more: Sarafurxhi. It certainly seems to be the Sara Furxhi with this profile. It therefore looks as if someone in Paris is encouraging these people to register on Women in Red before registering on Wikipedia. Until this problem is sorted out, I will not longer respond to such registrations with messages of welcome, inclusion in our mailing list, etc. People should not be coming in through the back door, especially if they do not intend to contribute further to Wikipedia. cc (John Cummings).--Ipigott (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Ipigott:, sorry, I don't understand, these users are creating a Wikimedia account before they join Women in Red? Isn't it impossible to do it the other way around? I don't understand what you mean by 'back door'. Perhaps I'm missing something? John Cummings (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- John Cummings: Hi there, John. For me there does indeed seem to be a problem because if I look at the contributions made by any of the editors I have mentioned, I find only their registration to Women in Red. Normally, when I come across completely new WiR members, I see evidence of their Wikipedia registration. For example, today we have a new user: Narges rsl. If you look at Narges rsl contributions, you will see there was a Wikipedia registration on 2 March and a WiR registration on 4 March. This is the way things usually work. I have been handling memberships of WiR for years and until now I have not come across a batch of new editors without a Wilipedia user page or without any other contributions to Wikipedia. You say they have all registered with Wikipedia and have a normal login. Perhaps you can assist me in finding out how I can verify this. It's certainly good to have new WiR members but I would expect them to have at least one editing contribution to Wikipedia before or after their WiR registration. I hope we can sort this out together as I think you are making good progress on UNESCO and I would like to help as far as I can.--Ipigott (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- By the way, I've just come across your Wiki4Women page and I can see that you first ask people to register on Wikimedia. Maybe they are indeed doing so but I don't know how to find them.--Ipigott (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm over the moon that they are registering!!! I know its odd but I can cope with the unusual attention for the project. Lets not deter them, even if they may be Les Sans Pages contributors in time. Victuallers (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- Ditto, Victuallers; ditto.
- At the various wiki events I've been attending in the last year, or year and a half, there's been much talk about the word "participant", and that our historical method of "ranking" a "participant" was by "edit count" (higher edit count meant "better"), but that this thinking was archaic and that everyone who wants to participate is important. At the crux of the matter is the opportunity for evangelization. If someone just shows up (at an event, or on our talkpage, or etc.) without saying/writing a word, if they have a positive experience, they might leave and evangelize in a positive way. Likewise, if they have a negative experience, they are apt to tell their family and friends about that, too. So friendliness and kindness can truly lead to positive wiki outcomes. For example, my son, Sean, was just such an evangelist, and then I became an editor! --Rosiestep (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yes! I've also noticed that at events, new women editors sometimes like to work together on an article — one's looking things up, one's typing, or they take turns, or they discuss together how to say something, or how to format it. (Maybe men do this too, but I tend to be at events for nurturing women editors.) I can certainly imagine a situation where two women both work on an article, and learn a lot by working together and encouraging each other, and that's exciting! But only one account gets "credit" for those edits. Penny Richards (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm over the moon that they are registering!!! I know its odd but I can cope with the unusual attention for the project. Lets not deter them, even if they may be Les Sans Pages contributors in time. Victuallers (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- By the way, I've just come across your Wiki4Women page and I can see that you first ask people to register on Wikimedia. Maybe they are indeed doing so but I don't know how to find them.--Ipigott (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- John Cummings: Hi there, John. For me there does indeed seem to be a problem because if I look at the contributions made by any of the editors I have mentioned, I find only their registration to Women in Red. Normally, when I come across completely new WiR members, I see evidence of their Wikipedia registration. For example, today we have a new user: Narges rsl. If you look at Narges rsl contributions, you will see there was a Wikipedia registration on 2 March and a WiR registration on 4 March. This is the way things usually work. I have been handling memberships of WiR for years and until now I have not come across a batch of new editors without a Wilipedia user page or without any other contributions to Wikipedia. You say they have all registered with Wikipedia and have a normal login. Perhaps you can assist me in finding out how I can verify this. It's certainly good to have new WiR members but I would expect them to have at least one editing contribution to Wikipedia before or after their WiR registration. I hope we can sort this out together as I think you are making good progress on UNESCO and I would like to help as far as I can.--Ipigott (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
@Ipigott: I understand this is not the usual way things happen, they should all be adding to their edit count on Thursday and by being part of WiR and getting welcome messages and notices it will hopefully encourage them to continue editing. :) John Cummings (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- John Cummings: OK, in that case I'll continue to welcome them, check their additions, and deal with any calls for assistance, as I do for all our other new members of WiR. Given the strong support from Victuallers and Rosiestep, it looks as if you are probably on the right track. Sorry I bothered you with inappropriate questions and good luck on Thursday.--Ipigott (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Ipigott:, not inappropriate at all :) Thanks very much for all your help. John Cummings (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Is it possible that these people have started making edits on other Wikipedias (e.g. fr) and are connecting to WIR via a global account? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- As they seem to come from the UNESCO environment, I've checked them all out on the French wiki but there have been no contributions there as yet. We might get some on Thursday. I've also noticed that Koakonsultings is now suspected of being a sock and has also had all his other contributions deleted. Maybe John Cummings knows him and can help out?--Ipigott (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Ipigott: they aren't showing any registration on Meta, either? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- Megalibrarygirl: The only one I have found on Meta is Fpasquale who contributed a wiki4women guideline in Spanish on 3 March. Let's see how things develop tomorrow.--Ipigott (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Expanded and updated Anne Finucane article
Hi all, I'm looking to expand upon an article created as part of a WikiProject Women in Red contest and reaching out here to see if project members would be able to help. On behalf of Anne Finucane and Bank of America, I've drafted an expanded version of Ms. Finucane's Wikipedia article for community review. The current article is minimal, and I've worked to create an accurate and neutral overview of her early life and education, career, and personal life, using Wikipedia-appropriate sourcing. I am looking for an editor who is willing to review my proposed draft here. If you're able to help, my request is at Talk:Anne Finucane and I welcome feedback there. Thanks, Inkian Jason (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Inkian Jason: The sourcing looks fine but the article is rather over-promotional. If it had been written by someone not associated with Bank of America, it would no doubt have been less effusive, especially the "Recognition" section. You might also be able to add to it from this recent article. As this is not a new article, you should of course incorporate improvements into the existing Anne Finucane article in the usual way. You could also include something on her concern for gender equality, for example this.--Ipigott (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Ipigott: Thank you so much for taking a look at the draft and providing feedback. I'll take a look at the additional sourcing you've shared, and see what updates are possible. I'll also take a fresh look at the "Recognition" section; is there anything specific there you'd suggest amending or reducing? If you'd have time to share more detailed thoughts, perhaps on the draft's talk page, that would be great so I know which parts need work before I reach out to others. Thanks again. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- Inkian Jason: I'll reply here as the talk page you refer to is for the article in mainspace rather than the draft.
- I can only speak for myself but under "Recognition", I would have combined certain passages, bringing together some of the references. For example, "Since 2012, press reports have described Fincuane as a leading female figure in American banking.<:ref name=Image/><:ref name=Portillo/> She has ranked highly on lists of influential American women... The awards she has received include..." Listing everything in detail looks more like a cv than an encyclopaedic article. But as I say, that is my opinion; others might not agree.--Ipigott (talk) 11:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Ipigott: Thanks very much for your helpful and specific feedback. Please see this update to the draft, and let me know if you suggest other changes to the current version of the "Recognition" section, or have recommendations for finding other editors to review and move content into the main space. Thanks again, Inkian Jason (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
- Inkian Jason: It seems to be progressing along the right lines. Why not update the mainspace article section by section. Other editors will then be able to intervene there as they wish.--Ipigott (talk) 08:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Ipigott: Thanks very much for your helpful and specific feedback. Please see this update to the draft, and let me know if you suggest other changes to the current version of the "Recognition" section, or have recommendations for finding other editors to review and move content into the main space. Thanks again, Inkian Jason (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
- I can only speak for myself but under "Recognition", I would have combined certain passages, bringing together some of the references. For example, "Since 2012, press reports have described Fincuane as a leading female figure in American banking.<:ref name=Image/><:ref name=Portillo/> She has ranked highly on lists of influential American women... The awards she has received include..." Listing everything in detail looks more like a cv than an encyclopaedic article. But as I say, that is my opinion; others might not agree.--Ipigott (talk) 11:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Ipigott: While that's a great suggestion, on articles where I have a financial conflict of interest I do not edit directly. Instead, I stick to the guidance from WP:PSCOI to suggest new material and seek volunteer editors to review and copy markup over to the main space appropriately. Is this something you'd be willing to help with? Thanks. Inkian Jason (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
- Inkian Jason: I appreciate your concerns but as I've already made a number of comments on your draft, I think it would be preferable if another editor handled the follow-up on this. In any case, I rarely work on articles about Americans. I prefer to devote my time to writing about women from non English-speaking countries, relying on my language knowledge to provide the coverage they deserve. If no one else responds over the next two or three weeks, please let us know as I think it would be a pity if your research is not used to improve the article. Your improvements will of course have to be worked into the existing article. I am unfortunately not familiar with the process for drawing on your draft as you are in fact the copyright holder for what you have written and I cannot simply use it as a source myself. As a result, it looks to me as if it will require the assistance of an administrator, perhaps Rosiestep or Victuallers, in order to safeguard the editing history of what you have prepared — unless of course you decide to edit the existing article yourself.--Ipigott (talk) 08:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
- I ve looked at it and it is still quite peacocky. I have started to tone it down more. Maybe Inkian Jason can make it more objective. Victuallers (talk) 10:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Ipigott and Victuallers: Thank you, both, sincerely for your time and help reviewing the draft. I did post one remaining request on the article's talk page, if you have a quick moment to correct a couple minor typographical errors. Also, I'm so pleased to see the article highlighted on WikiProject Women in Red's Twitter! Thanks again. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
- I made one edit re EL and added a few things to her Wikidata entry. I'll leave further editing to others as I tend to prefer avoiding BLPs --Rosiestep (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Looking to improve representation in editorial board
Hi all,
I'm looking to improve gender, ethnic and geographic representation on the current WikiJournal editorial boards. We're looking for keen advocates of open access, public outreach, or academic publishing to join the boards of the three current WikiJournals (Medicine, Science and Humanities).
The WikiJournal format couples the rigour of academic peer review with the extreme reach of the encyclopedia. Peer-reviewed articles are dual-published both as standard academic PDFs, as well as directly into Wikipedia. This improves the scientific accuracy of the encyclopedia, and rewards academics with citable, indexed publications. It also provides much greater reach than is normally achieved through traditional scholarly publishing.
So, if you know anyone who might be interested in this sort of project, please feel free to point them in our direction, or you can send them the info below. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 06:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Further info and links for those interested
|
|---|
WikiJournals couple the rigour of academic peer review with the extreme reach of the encyclopedia. They are therefore an excellent way to achieve public engagement, outreach and impact public understanding of complex topics (articles often get >100,000 views per year). Peer-reviewed articles are dual-published both as standard academic PDFs, as well as directly into Wikipedia. This improves the scientific accuracy of the encyclopedia, and rewards academics with citeable, indexed publications. It also provides much greater reach than is normally achieved through traditional scholarly publishing. There are currently three journals that, together, aim to cover most fields:
Time commitment is pretty flexible, with editors generally devoting 1-5 hours per month. General strategy
Outreach
Article invitations
There are also mailing lists available to keep up to date with what's going on in the journals.
|
Diana Chire
the article on Diana Chire is up for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.163.147.121 (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Monthly theme suggestion: Iron curtain of translation
Hi! I've been writing a lot of articles related to the Soviet Union on Wikipedia to break down the information iron curtain through translation, mainly aviation articles and biographies of soldiers. I've come to notice that there's a HUGE "iron curtain", translation-wise, between Russian and English Wikipedias; many things objectively very notable, from devastating plane crashes that killed over 100+ people to some of the most revered Heroines of the Soviet Union do not exist on English Wikipedia or are only stubs while a Russian version of the article will hold featured article status. How about a monthly theme be about translating some women's biographies from Russian? There's more than just Russian women, the Russian version is (usually) the most comprehensive version of an article if it's a bio about a person from the USSR or commonwealth of independents states since Russian is a defacto lingua franca and/or widely known in many areas beyond Russia (ex, Kazakhstan, Ukraine). And unlike some of our redlink shortlists, the articles are already written, often complete with inline citations and infoboxes to simplify the writing process. Could a translation project be considered for some months theme? Thanks.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- @PlanespotterA320 and Rosiestep: each month we include a geo-focus and redlinks from other-language WPs that can be translated. Just go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas and propose having the former Soviet Union as a geo-focus for some month where there isn't already a geo-focus listed. The big problem with translations is whether or not they are accessible in other regions, but I do lots of translation work as do several others here—though I must admit, I typically translate directly from sources and not from other WP articles. SusunW (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- We haven't done a Soviet Union event yet so adding it to the calendar in 2018 makes sense. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- A list of female Heroes of the Soviet Union is available, complete with redlinks. It's very useful as it solves the transliteration issue, which is to me the chief concern in considering translations from non-Western alphabets. There are also some very interesting people who were named Hero of Socialist Labour. I wrote up a couple during the November contest - Zuurakan Kaynazarova and Kerimbubu Shopokova, both Kyrgyz - and I know there are plenty more. I'm sure a fair number are from the Central Asian republics, which would greatly help increase our coverage of those areas, too.
- We haven't done a Soviet Union event yet so adding it to the calendar in 2018 makes sense. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- @PlanespotterA320 and Rosiestep: each month we include a geo-focus and redlinks from other-language WPs that can be translated. Just go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas and propose having the former Soviet Union as a geo-focus for some month where there isn't already a geo-focus listed. The big problem with translations is whether or not they are accessible in other regions, but I do lots of translation work as do several others here—though I must admit, I typically translate directly from sources and not from other WP articles. SusunW (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- As for translating: not being fluent in Russian (and not trusting Google to help me overmuch), what I've tended to do is write new articles in English based on available sources, and link those over to the Russian-language pages where necessary. It helps to unearth some sources in English. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- Let's make it Russia/Soviet Union. That would provide a basis for wider coverage, before and after the Soviet Union. In addition to all the sportswomen, there are quite a few interesting names on our Wikidata redlist for Russia.--Ipigott (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Progress on student editing under the Wiki Education Foundation
An interesting article by Emma Kerr titled Women’s-Studies Students Across the Nation Are Editing Wikipedia has recently been published in The Chronicle of Higher Education. As I suggested some time ago, I think WiR should try to intensify support for these initiatives and make it more widely known that we are ready to assist new editors as they develop their skills.--Ipigott (talk) 09:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC) The Wiki Edu tools are very useful Victuallers (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
- Very cool article, Ipigott. I'm not sure what we do to work with them. But I am in favor of such a move. SusunW (talk) 08:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- I've argued in many places over the years that Education projects are not properly linking with subjectarea WikiProjects. This leads to a few problems; class projects lose out on a huge resource that can often greatly improve the effectiveness of their contributions, and secondly, WikiProjects either don't notice class projects or experience them as intrusive/disruptive. Active intentional collaboration between Education projects and WikiProjects can be a powerful multiplier. The same also frequently applies to editathons. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
A male listed
At Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality/Turkey on line 352 (currently), the entry Korkmaz Haktanır belongs to a male and to a female. It needs to be removed. My note in that line related to this mistakewas reverted. CeeGee 18:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
New Women in Red list
Hello. I've made a Women in Red work in progress list of missing women who have won/nominated for an award/medal and inducted in hall of fames/walk of fames. Question is: What should I name this under Women in Red since it covers so much? @Megalibrarygirl: @Ipigott: --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hi MrLinkinPark333! I think calling it "Awards" might be good since British and American English speakers spell "Honors" differently. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- Okay. I've moved it under awards. It's not finished but it's a start. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hi MrLinkinPark333! I think calling it "Awards" might be good since British and American English speakers spell "Honors" differently. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Just a note
My laptop is in the shop, so I won't be covering the Pinterest board until it's back (assuming the hard drive is salvageable--fingers crossed there). Hoping it won't be more than a few more days. I can check in here from the desktop but all my passwords and resources are on the laptop. I was in the middle of an article when it died, grrr. - Penny Richards (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- I have so been there Penny Richards. Hope you are able to save it. SusunW (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
"How one prolific Wikipedian is giving voice to pre-20th century women’s stories"
I am appreciative of this nice post by Cassidy (Wiki Ed) of Wiki Education Foundation regarding my Visiting Scholar work at Northeastern University, Boston, focused on pre-XX-c English-language women writers. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- Congrats, Rosiestep, nice article! SusunW (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- Rosiestep Nice piece - I enjoyed reading it very much. Congratulations. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Can somebody help with this? The text suggests she's notable (or at least might be) and translated from another Wikipedia (the Russian one, I would guess) but a search for sources brings back nothing. I think it's because her name is misspelled as Google suggests alternatives. It's tagged for CSD A7 and I can't do much unless I can put at least one source (even if it's a passing mention) which will stop that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: Looks like the proper transliteration is Rimma Aldonina. She's on Commons under that name. In Russian: ru:Алдонина, Римма Петровна. Looks like it should be salvageable that way. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- Ritchie333 A couple of sources are accessible from the Russian WP. I have no idea what they say, as I don't speak Russian and PDFs aren't translatable, but [14] and [15] are clearly about her. SusunW (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- I think we need a Russian speaker to finish this one off (we've got several around here, is Ymblanter still around?) but at least it's got a source and a link to ru-wiki, so I think we can keep the deletionists at bay for the time being :-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- Judging from the Russian Wikipedia article, she is notable as an architect and might be (or might be not) notable as an author. However, the sourcing standards in the Russian Wikipedia are way below what we expect here, and reliably sourcing this article would be quite some work (even assuming the sources are online). Since the article has been clearly created by the machine translation, the easiest is probably to move it to a draft. A couple of months ago I would likely be able to dig at least some sources in a day, but currently I am enjoying a prolonged wikibreak as a result of a harassment incident, and I will not be able to work on it in the coming days. If somebody could ping me in say half a year (or otherwise I can add it to my watchlist) I might be able to work on the article then.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- She seems notable enough to me. The English article certainly needs to be improved. A.Savin who is interested in architecture may be able to help. See also [16]. --Ipigott (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- Judging from the Russian Wikipedia article, she is notable as an architect and might be (or might be not) notable as an author. However, the sourcing standards in the Russian Wikipedia are way below what we expect here, and reliably sourcing this article would be quite some work (even assuming the sources are online). Since the article has been clearly created by the machine translation, the easiest is probably to move it to a draft. A couple of months ago I would likely be able to dig at least some sources in a day, but currently I am enjoying a prolonged wikibreak as a result of a harassment incident, and I will not be able to work on it in the coming days. If somebody could ping me in say half a year (or otherwise I can add it to my watchlist) I might be able to work on the article then.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- I think we need a Russian speaker to finish this one off (we've got several around here, is Ymblanter still around?) but at least it's got a source and a link to ru-wiki, so I think we can keep the deletionists at bay for the time being :-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- Ritchie333 A couple of sources are accessible from the Russian WP. I have no idea what they say, as I don't speak Russian and PDFs aren't translatable, but [14] and [15] are clearly about her. SusunW (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
April 2018 at Women in Red
| ||
|
To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list or
Women in Red/international list. To unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list. Follow us on Twitter: |
"Wikipedia's community is 85% male, and founder Jimmy Wales isn't sure how to fix it"
A link to this article just got emailed to me. The article is from October but I'm not sure if everyone saw it then. Quite lovely to have the Wikipedia founder call out our community. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- The problem can't be fixed if one is misidentifying what the problem is. First and foremost, the "need to make sure that Wikipedia is a welcoming environment" is irrelevant if it isn't a "safe" environment. Second, there needs to be a systemic review of the policies and guidelines to remove the biases (or at least identify them) therein. Until that happens, yes, nothing much will change. SusunW (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- I know a couple of editors who have asserted to me they are female off-wiki, but have not publicly revealed so and you cannot tell from their username. So the "85% male" thing is somewhat skewed - should there not be a third category of "undisclosed"? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- There's also the broader problem, to me, of editor retention at large. We haven't even figured out how to fix that. Our numbers of editors have been fairly stagnant for some while, if I remember correctly. Until we figure out how to bring a consistent, steady stream of new people into the project, we're not even going to be able to address the gender gap, in my opinion. If anything's going to be the death of us, it's that. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- Seems like you'd better enjoy conflict and competition and general one-upmanship if you want to edit Wikipedia. I'm finding them exhausting and time-wasting, myself, so I'm close to done. Aatist (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- This is completely true. Many bullies roam Wikipedia, and to last one has to have a very thick skin. There is very scant enforcement of WP:CIVILITY, meaning you can basically get sh*t on, or sh*t on someone else with no ramifications. Reporting something at ANI is sometimes akin to having the reporting party attached to a pole in a public square, then pelted with rocks by other editors. And there's even a policy for it, WP:Boomerang. It's a deeply male macho bullying environment, to put it plainly. That said, I have also seen lots of other editors like Softlavender and MontanaBW engage in what I would call (in my opinion) aggressive action, so I am not 100% certain it is a gender issue. It's certainly a climate issue. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- Aatist, I am sorry you are feeling disheartened, and I hope you know you have supporters here at Women in Red. You can also email me directly if you prefer to chat that way.
- Ritchie333, you make a valuable point. Given a wiki survey, some women will disclose they are women; some women will lie and say they are men; and some women will not answer the question. There are complex reasons for making these choices; a woman who responds one way on one wiki survey, may respond differently on another. Ergo, none of the statistics we have on % of women editors can be considered accurate. This is why I hedge my comments (e.g. during an interview) by saying, "We think women make up between x and y percentage of overall editors –and the percentage on one language Wikipedia is not necessarily the same as for other language Wikipedias– but we will never know for certain, because of the following reasons." --Rosiestep (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- Aatist Sometimes you have to just step back and take a bit of a rest, to recharge. I do from time to time, too. What always bugs me is that people who want to pick a fight over something keep coming back to it, and coming back to it, and wearing you down. I'm very much of the "throw up my hands and move on" school of thought, myself. Strikes me as a healthier way to go, ultimately. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- Seems like you'd better enjoy conflict and competition and general one-upmanship if you want to edit Wikipedia. I'm finding them exhausting and time-wasting, myself, so I'm close to done. Aatist (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- There's also the broader problem, to me, of editor retention at large. We haven't even figured out how to fix that. Our numbers of editors have been fairly stagnant for some while, if I remember correctly. Until we figure out how to bring a consistent, steady stream of new people into the project, we're not even going to be able to address the gender gap, in my opinion. If anything's going to be the death of us, it's that. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- I know a couple of editors who have asserted to me they are female off-wiki, but have not publicly revealed so and you cannot tell from their username. So the "85% male" thing is somewhat skewed - should there not be a third category of "undisclosed"? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- I do find it discouraging that these old old figures are still quoted. While the actual number is more important than what the media thinks the number is, I think it is better that they have a more up-to-date view. Apart from the mere fact that truth is better, implying that the balance hasn't shifted despite substantial efforts makes people less likely to want to help. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC).
- I attended an outreach event today (pictured) that had a feminist focus and most of the attendees were women. The women seemed to enjoy it and learnt some basic skills but my experience is that they don't tend stick at it afterwards. One reason for this must be that the social side of online Wikipedia is lacking compared to a live event like an editathon. If you do it well then Wikipedia tends to be a solitary grind of difficult writing without reward or feedback. And if you get involved in controversy or lack competence then it gets very nasty very quickly. The men who stick at it tend to be two types:
- Gnomes who enjoy chipping away at some tedious task for its own sake. They are obsessive types like trainspotters, who also tend to be male.
- Intellectual show-offs who like parading their knowledge and correcting others. These also tend to be male like the contestants on University Challenge.
- Changing this would require major intervention to alter Wikipedia's culture and social dynamics. That's not likely to happen until there's a collapse of the current order. Andrew D. (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Andrew Davidson: You talk of "collapse of the current order" - how close to that are we, do you think? Because I've seen some worrying signs recently. Specifically, I see that a number of productive longtime users - of both genders - have pulled up stakes and left in the past month. Without going to deep into it, the reason appears to be that they got bogged down in long-time editing disputes. And I'm sympathetic. I've managed to avoid such disputes, for the most part, but I can easily see expending so much energy on one that I want nothing more to do than to walk away for a while. I hope it doesn't come to that, but I fear it may, even temporarily.
- More of those longtime editors are leaving, and there aren't enough people stepping into the void right now. And one of these days it's going to be too much, I'm afraid. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- Such disputes are quite inefficient because Wikipedia doesn't have a satisfactory editorial process for resolving them. For example, there's currently a dispute about the use of videos in medical articles. This involves several veteran editors who are going at it hammer-and-tongs – edit-warring; acrimony, &c. I believe that one of them (SandyGeorgia) is a woman though so maybe that's not a good example for the gender-gap issue. Andrew D. (talk) 09:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Andrew Davidson: Maybe not of the gender-gap issue, but it sounds like precisely the sort of thing that drives productive editors away regardless. It has to be dealt with before we can begin discussing more editor engagement. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- I go back to my premise of safe space. If we cannot adopt a no tolerance policy towards those types of behavior, then certainly a "three strikes" policy, with no excuses or explanations allowed. I find it quite ineffective for people to be allowed to explain away their abuses. Did you violate incivility, warring, etc.? Yes, strike one, no matter what your reason, ditto x 3. Institute a cooling off policy and if the behavior returns, at then end of a second x3, bye bye. It's an encyclopedia for pity's sake, not life and death emergencies. Surely we can all behave like adults and make the space welcoming and safe. SusunW (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
If anyone speaks Dutch, the Dutch page on Henriette Pimental could do with a translation to English. She ran a daycare in Amsterdam and worked with Walter Süskind and Johan van Hulst to rescue over 500 Jewish children in 1943. History has mostly focused on the male roles, but she would seem to have been equally important. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 07:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- Paging Drmies Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- The problem with the Dutch article is that it is not referenced. It would be preferable to create the English article from scratch, drawing on the many available sources such as [17], [18], [19]. I'll try to make a start on it today.--Ipigott (talk) 09:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you Ipigott. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- The problem with the Dutch article is that it is not referenced. It would be preferable to create the English article from scratch, drawing on the many available sources such as [17], [18], [19]. I'll try to make a start on it today.--Ipigott (talk) 09:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- thanks, that was stunningly fast!104.163.147.121 (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
It does need a redirect page for the common spelling Henriette Pimental, methinks. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
BBC feature was 8th most popular this morning in U.S. on BBC App
Not sure if this was mentioned in other spaces, but this BBC feature is great: http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-43559778/women-fighting-for-equality-on-wikipedia Hmlarson (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hmlarson: Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Let's hope it will have some impact.--Ipigott (talk) 07:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Yulia Skripal (it's a redirect to her dad, currently) is on the front page of BBC News (and most other British news websites) as she's regained consciousness and is talking. I think it's WP:TOOSOON for an article, but if she continues to regain health, she may well have a lot to say to the press. Or maybe she'll just want privacy and say nothing at all. Either way, probably one to watch. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- What was she known for known before the poisoning? I cannot find anything other than she is the daughter who got poisoned. She's extremely famous though, at the moment.104.163.147.121 (talk) 02:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- There's plenty about Yulia's backround here. It might be worthwhile adding details about her on the Sergei Skripal article. Or maybe she's already famous enough for a separate article.--Ipigott (talk) 09:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Opportunity to share your concerns on women's treatment and any other matters on the WMF survey
I am posting this here as it provides those of you who are concerned with harassment and related matters to express your views. It took me about 15 minutes to go through all the questions. Anyone can respond.
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.
You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.
Thank you!
Forwarded by --Ipigott (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
"You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community." Ipigott, haven't you just invalidated the results of this survey completely by changing it from a random selection to a targeted selection? Fram (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- Fram: Thanks for taking an interest in this. I actually came across the survey elsewhere and completed it before I was "randomly" selected. I was not aware of any restrictions on further distribution. In any case, as the message has been distributed to many highly active editors, it has been posted on many frequently accessed user talk pages (including my own). I understand that it has also bee distributed through the social networks. If you take the survey yourself, you will see that there are questions on where you found the survey which will be taken into account in the analysis.--Ipigott (talk) 10:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- It is very hard to find the actual strategy decided by the WMF for this survey. Their sampling strategy page[20] says "Either at the beginning or at the end of the survey, we add a separate survey collector, where respondents are asked "What is your username? We will not be linking your username to your responses; we simply want to keep a record of who is taking this survey." We can use this to help us remove respondents who were not in the original sample.", so if they follow this approach, your posting the survey here is in the end just a waste of time for everyone who fills in the survey from here, and for the people checking which answers to accept and which to reject (this "waste of time" was not your purpose, I don't mean it as an attack on your posting here, but as a description of the possible end result). Fram (talk) 10:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- Fram: Thanks for the clarification. On the basis of your explanations, perhaps it is best for others not to respond to the questionnaire. On the other hand, I think it is useful for them to know that the WMF is seriously trying to improve conditions for editors. On a completely different subject, I appreciated your recent work on the well illustrated Flemish Expressionism. If you are really interested in the topic, Émile Langui's book Expressionism in Belgium might be of interest. As a Belgian with an art background, you might be able to get hold of it.--Ipigott (talk) 10:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- It is very hard to find the actual strategy decided by the WMF for this survey. Their sampling strategy page[20] says "Either at the beginning or at the end of the survey, we add a separate survey collector, where respondents are asked "What is your username? We will not be linking your username to your responses; we simply want to keep a record of who is taking this survey." We can use this to help us remove respondents who were not in the original sample.", so if they follow this approach, your posting the survey here is in the end just a waste of time for everyone who fills in the survey from here, and for the people checking which answers to accept and which to reject (this "waste of time" was not your purpose, I don't mean it as an attack on your posting here, but as a description of the possible end result). Fram (talk) 10:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I worked on this draft some time ago and then forgot about it. I've just retrieved it from the G13 bin. If there is anyone here interested in working on it please do so - before it gets tossed into the G13 bin again. I will try to do some work on it too though my time here is somewhat limited lately. I have listed a fairly good collection of sources in English on the draft, so the ability to read Arabic is not needed, at least initially. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Body Positive movement
Hi all, I have an article that I would like to request help with. Full disclosure, this article was created by Wiki Education students and has been worked on by other students since its creation. I work with Wiki Education, which is why I'm limited in how much I can really do here.
The article in question is the Body Positive Movement. It's currently up for deletion because it has issues with OR, tone, and sourcing, however I do think that this is an notable movement because there is coverage out there for it. There are a lot of women who have participated in this movement and it is something that is largely female driven and oriented, which is why I thought to come here for assistance in article cleanup.
I'm not going to be able to start cleanup until after work today, but I wanted to get some others to help participate since many hands can make light work. Some sourcing I've found is as follows: [21], [22], phttp://www.jstor.org/stable/10.14321/qed.4.3.0195[
Would anyone be interested? ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
A women compound in Boston
So I did a little bit of research today... I digged the life of Eleanor Raymond, one of the first female architects. Her partner was Ethel B. Power, an editor of Home Beautiful. They lived together with Mary P. Cunningham, a landscape architect and professor at Smith College and Harvard University, and Mary's twin sister, Florence Cunningham, an educator. There is also Eleanor's sister, Rachel Raymond, interior designer. Many of their commissions arrived from female friends, like Amelia Peabody (a sculptor), Natalie Hays Hammond and Marion Blanchard Farnsworth, who, with her partner Helen Stanley Johnson, were known as The Aunts... Most of these women are forgotten, if not for local glory... --Elisa.rolle (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)