Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Help requested

with the article White slave propaganda. I initially rewrote this article because of a concern about very close paraphrasing. Minor COI - I know the person whose article was closely paraphrased. She didn't have a problem with it, but I did. My problem is about the word "propaganda" in the title (it is about propaganda in a purely academic sense, but not in the usual meaning of the word), but especially in the emotional content of the article. I just can't keep an NPOV in my own head. At first I thought the article was about race, but just scratching below the surface, it is all about sexual exploitation and rape, not to mention fathers selling their children into slavery and concubinage. So I can't keep a straight head here. Could anybody lend a hand? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The thing that most jumps out at me is the quoting and italicizing of "white" and white slave children. This seems unusual, and, to someone new to the topic, unnecessary. --GRuban (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I've been having problems with the vocabulary there. I don't like "white" and "black" as a description of race, but "European descent" and "African descent" is clumsy and tricky when it comes to "mixed-race". "Octaroon" and "quadroon" are quite accurate, but antique and perhaps offensive. The original article is about a tiny event, 8 people take a 2-4 week tour of the north. And there are closely related events, but it's hard to know where to stop. I've thought of just redoing the article as Sexual exploitation of slaves in the United States or ''White slaves'' in the United States (which are slightly different topics given that there were slaves of 100% European descent). The source I added under "Further reading" has the best info so far, but I still have to check it out. I may just add that info in and then decide on the title and topic! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Just on the title, this is worth taking into account - the phrase 'white slavery' used in different contexts. As a standalone article the title needs to reflect the regional and era-specific focus. AnonNep (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The meaning of the words "white slavery" has changed. Also the article isn't really about sexual exploitation of slaves as such, since it's not about slaves in brothels, it's about light skinned slaves, however they got that way - presumably mostly through sexual exploitation, but not guaranteed. Also it is only about the slavery period in the United States. How about combining all that into a single solution: make the title Light-skinned slaves in the United States, in the header, prominently give the explanations of the words: "light-skinned (white)" and "dark-skinned (black)", then go on to use white and black throughout the article, without either italics or quotes. --GRuban (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again. I hadn't seen the Sexual slavery article, but there are related articles around, e.g. something like Treatment of slaves in the United States. I'm pretty sure I could find material on brothels, there is certainly enough on the "fancy girl" slave markets in New Orleans (the whiter the more expensive), but what I've seen so far relates to concubinage - one man's personal prostitute. I have moved away from ignoring the "how they got to be light-skinned" question. The sources are quite clear about it, and in the end it's quite obvious. The cases of 100% European-descent slaves are there, but so-far seem rare, even if they were politically and emotionally very important. And then there is the case of a claimed "63/64th white slave." I guess I'll just slog thru it and see what happens. Maybe I'll end up with a clunky title like Slaves of European-descent in the United States, similar to GR's Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Should have posted this earlier

RfC of interest to this project: Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Adding_ways_to_assess_Systemic_Bias_to_WP:N. Montanabw^(talk) 06:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Montanabw, thanks for letting us know. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Review an article for COI?

Hi, folks. I've written a mostly complete article about a female scientist, currently at User:GRuban/Rebecca Moore. However, I have a conflict of interest: I work for her. I'm a couple of levels below, and my project is not one she's very involved with, she sort of got it grafted on to her team in a company reorganization because it had to go somewhere, so I only see her a few times a year, and it won't be mentioned anywhere in her article, but still, it's formally a pretty clear conflict. So I'd like to ask a favor of the group; that someone, hopefully several someones, go over it, to make sure it isn't being written as a puff piece, and then, if/when any issues are resolved, push it live, to avoid the COI of being written by an employee, as much as possible. I've asked our venerable founder Sarah (SV), and she seems to approve, her comments are on the article talk page. Another person suggested I specifically ask @Keilana:; asking her too! Basically I want to cross as many ts and dot as many is as I can and still have the article be written; Moore's a thoroughly worthy article subject, environmentalist, global impact, international awards, the works. Please add comments about the article on that talk page; again, while I'll certainly accept and respond to general fixes, the most important thing is to get it to where multiple people can say with a clean heart that this isn't being written from a COI point of view, enough that they'll endorse it going live as a non-COI article. --GRuban (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Now live at Rebecca Moore (scientist), thank you Sarah and Keilana! --GRuban (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Image essay?

I've worked with replacement of oversexualized images of women's garments for a while now. There's still a lot to be done, though. Until just a few days ago, miniskirt had this photo as the lead image. I was involved in cleaning up bra a while back, but articles like bikini, thong (clothing), undergarment, etc. could really use a critical review.

I believe neutrality of illustrations is still something that is still pretty new to Wikimedia projects overall, especially when it comes to gender issues. I was thinking that an essay on this might be relevant, but since I haven't worked much with essays before (either here or elsewhere), I thought I'd throw out the suggestion here first.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Don't go mad. I'm dubious that the garment in the new lead pic at miniskirt actually is one - it certainly doesn't meet the definition given at the start of the article. What do people expect to see at bikini? Johnbod (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Previous lead pic in bikini

Previous second-after-lead-pic in same article

You're free to comment at talk:miniskirt if you think it was a bad choice. But that wasn't really the point. Bikini is a lot better than before, but that's only because active work by other editors (including me). Before I replaced it,[1] it was the image posted to the right here of model Michelle Merkin (see link above). Don't even get me started on second-after-lead-pic... In the current version of bikini there's still quite a lot of visual focus on highly specialized performer clothing like trikini, the fairly rare microkini and difficult-to-define monokini. And we still get random additions of entirely redundant eye candy like this (inserted under heading "Etymology")[2] In an encyclopedic article about a garment I'd expect to see common examples of that garment either on or off living people, but not just on professional models, performers or the occasional porn actor. I mean, you are aware that most bikinis are actually worn by normal people as swimwear, right?

And you don't see any problem with photos like this as a lead pic? And these aren't uncommon. Just look at pantyhose. Almost any garment worn primarily by women is very likely to be illustrated by sexualized images.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Peter, thanks for posting about this here and for working on it. I hope you don't mind that I swapped the lead bikini image; I liked the one with the lifeguards. (Also, would you mind removing the two from this page?) I'll try to find time to do some more. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

And I once again linked them rather than having them post here, the latter image reduces a woman to her body parts and as such creates an uncomfortable environment here and may well be misunderstood. We can all just click on the links if we want to view the images for purposes of discussion. Fair to say they are overly-sexualized images on these pages and that is something we all agree needs work. Montanabw^(talk) 01:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I've been removing examples of gratuitous or excessive sexualization for several years now. Bra and cleavage (breasts) are examples of articles that have seen a lot of debating on this issue. I'm pretty convinced we don't need more discussion here whether it's actually a problem or not.

Having more editors working on the issue is good, but from personal experience, I know there are ways to get rid of sexist. There are some arguments that work better than others and more efficient methods of choosing suitable alternative images. Personally, I'm not sure that images like this of New Jersey lifeguards that Sarah introduced are really the best way to deal with the problem. The basic issue here regardless of whether we're talking about gender representation or not is neutralit. Sexualized images are usually never neutral, but we're not consistent in our neutrality if simply replace bikini models with lifeguards in "work bikinis" since they're not much more representative of bikinis (or the womem who wear them). It would be far more useful to make collages of several images in cases like this since the argument for using a lead image of a bikini model is just as strong as a photo of professional lifeguards in work clothing.

This is a specific example of what I think we should try to put in writing to avoid having the same discussions over and over. Does anyone have feedback on how to deal with this?

Peter ^Isotalo 13:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Montanabw and Peter, what we need is something in a guideline or policy about avoiding sexist imagery. Wikipedia:Writing about women (an essay) says:

Avoid images that objectify women. In particular, do not use pornography images in articles that are not about pornography. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images states that "photographs taken in a pornography context would normally be inappropriate for articles about human anatomy."

Except when the topic is necessarily tied to it (examples: downblouse and upskirt), avoid examples of male-gaze imagery, where women are presented as objects of heterosexual male appreciation.

Perhaps we should try to add something to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. Something like:

Except when the topic is necessarily tied to it (examples: downblouse and upskirt), avoid images that objectify women by presenting them as objects of heterosexual male appreciation.

SarahSV ^(talk) 22:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

How about just "... as sex objects". Shorter, and more to the point. --GRuban (talk) 01:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out what it means. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

But surely we don't want people to bring in sexualized images made by women, or by gay men, or for women's magazines, and argue that they should therefore be acceptable? After all, that describes a non-negligible fraction of such photos. Keep it short, and to the point. --GRuban (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow. We're talking about images that "objectify women by presenting them as objects of heterosexual male appreciation." That's the topic. Who has made them is not the issue. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Your suggested wording would mean that a free erotic image from On Our Backs, or Girlfriends (magazine), or the equivalent (presenting women as objects of lesbian appreciation) would be acceptable. We shouldn't make policies longer to specifically introduce loopholes. --GRuban (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

My take is that we do want to be careful about creating a "lesbian porn loophole." I would prefer something like " avoid images that objectify women by presenting them as objects of sexual desire." I don't like the weasel wording of "male appreciation." That soft-pedals what we are talking about. JMO. Montanabw^(talk) 23:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Montanabw, I'd be fine with that. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. For future reference, how is that different from the way I wrote it, so that she was able to convince you and I wasn't?--GRuban (talk) 12:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

It's subtle, GRuban, and I'm not quite sure I can explain my reasoning as clearly as I'd like, but I'll try: first, the phrasing makes the smallest change possible to the way it's currently phrases; thus narrowing the potential for drama — or at least narrowing the debate if the drama starts. I've found that small, incremental changes are best. But second, a phrase such as "objects of sexual desire" versus "sex objects" provides a bit of nuance that keeps the general philosophical underpinnings comprehensive and avoids another possible loophole that would be particularly an issue in the situation we are discussing here -- your phrasing might be enough to shut down the thong shot, i.e. body parts only (an "object"), but not the miniskirt shot (which could be argued is OK because it's a photo of an entire human being and not just a body part shot). The broader language works for the miniskirt shot because it can be argued that the pose is sexualized in a manner that is not necessary for an article about miniskirts. I don't know if that explains the issue clearly, but I hope it helps. Montanabw^(talk) 18:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Is sex object only a body part? Our article disagrees. But anyway, Sarah, was that your objection? Not to the removal of the "heterosexual male" qualifier? --GRuban (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The suggested wording you're discussing here strike me as being way too compact and difficult to interpret, especially by anyone who isn't fairly deeply involved in feminist discourse. The initial quote from Wikipedia:Writing about women mentioned by Sarah when suggesting additions to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images is still the best in my view (the one that actually gives examples and tries to explain male gaze). I don't see any reason to cut it down.

I'm kinda partial to expanding what we have in Wikipedia:Writing about women#Images before we suggest to add anything in in the Manual of Style. There are more issues at stake here than just the sexism. Sarah's insertion of the "work bikini" image in the lead of bikini is a relevant example here since it really isn't a goo choice as an introductory image. Combating sexism and generally improving the imagery of women on Wikipedia doesn't mean we should disregard basic neutrality.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Gad, I hate that term "male gaze". It's obscure, offensive, and doesn't actually describe what it intends to (since, of course, not every male gaze is a "male gaze", and plenty of female gazes are "male gaze"s ,and what about gay gazes and... it's just a mess). We want to write something like "Don't use sexy images where they aren't necessary.". Surely we can write that without using either offensive ambiguous obscure terms or multiple paragraphs? --GRuban (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The avoidance of the male gaze is the easiest way to sum this up, but I didn't use the phrase above because I knew GRuban would object. Such is the self-censorship. It's not an obscure term but is widely used and understood, and it's precisely what is meant here – namely that men control the representation of women on Wikipedia, and they regularly choose images that please other men, rather than images that depict women as we see ourselves. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for looking out for my feelings, Sarah. I would still like to know your objection to my phrasing that you wouldn't accept; was it that you considered sex object an obscure term or one that could be misinterpreted, unlike male gaze? Whatever we propose, presumably we want to cover the cover image in Girlfriends (magazine), an image of a lesbian by a lesbian for a lesbian? So whatever we write should. It might be nice if we also covered the first image in Briefs and the lower right image in Swim briefs, but not strictly within the scope of the original proposal to cover images of women. --GRuban (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Those are separate issues. The issue here is the use of images that present women as objects of male approval. The problem doesn't lie with lesbians, but with patriarchy and power. You keep trying to change the subject, so that instead of moving forward with a proposal, we're having to explain what the topic is. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Really? I thought, as you agreed and Montana wrote, the issue is "images that objectify women by presenting them as objects of sexual desire." You still haven't explained your reasoning for agreeing to that and not my phrasing, by the way. --GRuban (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the first six posts in this discussion, I don't see a narrow definition of the issue in question. Though I appreciate you are interested in a specific subset of the initial discussion, personally I don't see a need to limit the ensuing replies to only this subset. isaacl (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm definitely for clarity and a bit of WP:OBVIOUS in guidelines. I don't think I really care all that much if the MoS includes "male gaze" or not, and I agree that there is a lot of merit in simplified suggestions like "Don't use sexy images where they aren't necessary". I'm familiar with feminist ideological standpoints overall (and agree with just about all of them), but when it comes to fixing sexist imagery in article space, my experience is that a more generalized, practical WP:NPOV standpoint works a lot better and that it cuts down on off-topic ideological discussions.

The bottom line here is still pretty simple: replacement or removal of unncessary sexy pics from article space. Here's a suggestion sans overt ideological points:

Avoid images that objectify women by focusing on physical attributes of their bodies that is not relevant to the article topic. In particular, always refrain from using "sexy" images in articles that are not about sexuality. Some article topics can be marginally relevant to displays of sexuality (like bikini models or lingerie bras), but this does not mean that sexualized imagery should be used to illustrate the topic as a whole.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd certainly oppose that. The effect on articles on many kinds of art such as Ancient Greek art, if the policy was taken seriously, could be drastic. Seriously. Why are we only talking about "women"? Here that is the topic sure, but you can hardly expect to get a gender-specific policy adopted by the community. Johnbod (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Peter Isotalo: Feminists notoriously have extensive disagreements with eachother, especially on matters of sexuality, so if you agree with just about all of them you must be a very complicated person.

@Johnbod: The reason we are only talking a bout "women" may be that many editors see this as a problem of promoting the self-objectification of young women. It's not a general anti-sex sentiment.

I agree however that all these proposals are probably dead on arrival, because, for better or worse, sexualized representations of women are a huge part of humanity's cultural heritage, and any serious attempt to restrict them in general would amount to a massive censorship program, against Wikipedia's principles. It's also probably not wise to use feminist jargon in the policy. "Objectification" is a complicated concept, which per Martha Nussbaum involves some indeterminate combination of seven different criteria which are themselves somewhat vague. Ultimately it's very much a "know it when I see it" sort of thing, and lots of people, such as me, don't see it.

If we want to write a policy which might more narrowly address the phenomenon of gratuitous sexualization of women in women's fashion articles, we might say something like: "In articles about fashion or popular culture, try to use images which show typical body types, and when equally good alternatives are available, avoid images which appear to be designed to sexually arouse the viewer, unless this is relevant to the article content." --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

To address Johnbod's point, I can't think of a situation in which articles about Ancient Greece would be affected. We don't represent black people with racist imagery, but that doesn't mean we can't illustrate articles about lynching. But it can be made explicit within the proposal:

Avoid images that present women as objects of sexual desire, unless the topic necessitates it. Examples of the latter would include certain art and history articles, and articles that are actually about sexual or sexist representations (such as downblouse and upskirt).

SarahSV ^(talk) 16:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Would this not suggest we should remove Phryne Before the Areopagus from Phryne? Surely it's not necessary to the topic. And about your wording of the first sentence, how is it different from saying "avoid images that present women as subjects of sexual desire"? --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

There was already a complaint, fairly unreasonable to my mind, about the use of a Titian on some mythological subject I think. That editor said they had done some work removing nudity from similar articles. I wish I could remember the article concerned. If it were to become a guideline/policy, I think it very naive not to expect floods of such edits. Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

If there's a genuine concern that this would lead to the unwarranted removed of older works of art with nudity, I'm sure wording could be added to clarify that this usually isn't applicable. As someone who writes about history, I wouldn't exactly be worried about early modern European being expunged. It's extremely overrepresented as it is, especially in depictions of ancient or medieval history.

This issue of gratuitous sexist imagery isn't limited to just "fashion" or "popular culture" btw. I've noted sexy silliness in articles on celebrities (a gratuitous cleavage image of Gong Li[3] and even completely unrelated topics like laptop.[4] It just happens to be most obvious in those types of articles.

If you want to talk about representation of illustrations of women in general. This is not limited to topics about garments or whatever. Most articles on (external) human anatomy like hand, neck, human leg is very much male (and very much white). Among the exceptions are midriff, which is really nothing but a pop culture fork for abdomen focused on the sexiness of exposed female bellies.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, as for celebrities, how about the 1954 upskirt shot of Marilyn Monroe above a subway grate? That's not necessary to an article on her, but it belongs. I think this proposal needs to be worded cautiously if it is going to have a chance of passing, and should be written in a way that everyone can understand. (I'm also aware that we are now four men and two women discussing sexualized images of women on GGTF, so I'll refrain from commenting further until there are other opinions.) --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so "necessary" might not be the best wording. Here's some tweaked phrasing:

Don't use images that objectify women as objects of desire or clearly sexualized images when it is irrelevant to the article topic. In particular, always refrain from using "sexy" images in articles that are not about sexuality. Some article topics can be marginally relevant to displays of sexuality (like bikini models or lingerie bras), but this does not mean that sexualized images should be used to illustrate the topic as a whole. Images that are objectifying or sexualized may be relevant in articles that are about topics that are about sexuality or objectification, like upskirt or various sexual fetishes. Similarly, cultural topics like nude (art) are appropriately to illustrate with images of nude women.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I must insert here a link to Talk:Bikini#Lifeguards, where Peter and Sarah are disputing the lead image in Bikini which started all this. Peter supports an image of a woman in a bikini which Sarah believes is still too sexual for the article, and prefers an image of rowers, which Peter doesn't believe to be representative, or mannequins in a shop window, which Peter doesn't believe to be a good picture. Sammy1339 may, unfortunately, have a point with his reference to the feminist sex wars. Even though we may agree on the general goals, we still seem very distant in terms of the specifics. --GRuban (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Peter doesn't appear to be a feminist, so the reference to feminist sex wars doesn't work. The dispute is about Peter wanting to use a model who was photographed professionally to sell a bikini brand. The aspect that puzzles me is why men would want to decide on the lead image for an item of women's clothing. You don't see women fighting over how to illustrate boxer shorts. Anyway, please proceed without me. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow, ouch. Um ... I'm not good at defining other people as feminists or not (No true Scotsman comes to mind), but Peter certainly seems to be trying to reduce the unnecessary sexualization of women here, no? Does it really come down to whether you agree on one specific image? --GRuban (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Seriously. That's a bit of a low blow from Sarah. Not to mention, Sarah, are you actually saying men shouldn't be giving their opinions on articles that pertain to woman's clothing? That's pretty much the antithesis of what WP is supposed to be. As an aside, the rowing pic you prefer doesn't show a bikini. I checked out some rowing rowing apparel sites and they uniformly call that a sports bra and the bottoms are short trou (which have extra padding for comfort and abrasion resistance). I see no issue with Peter's choice personally. It's not sexualized at all. Unless you consider any image of a woman in a bikini as sexualized. Capeo (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, she wasn't slapping Pater, I think you are misconstruing what she was replying to the above user, who was, basically trying to lump anyone who disagreed into a (presumably intended as derogatory) "feminist sex wars" category. Sarah pointed out that Peter didn't fit whatever stereotype was being implied. She sounds, overall, to be supportive of Peter Isotalo's efforts, though perhaps disagreeing on some nuances. Montanabw^(talk) 23:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify that I've identified as a feminist without ifs, buts or caveates for the past decade.

With that said, I don't bring that up here on Wikipedia because I prefer to avoid ideological discussion or arguments as much as possible. I'm not going to comment on the actual contents of this meandering, off-topic debate, but I'd like to stress that my strong dislike of all this speculative debate about my opinions. I didn't bring the issue up, I've tried really hard to focus on actionable content-related issues, and I don't discuss other users' ideology on Wikipedia.

In other words: leave me the Hell out of this, all of you.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, wow. I'll stay out of here then. Y'all seem more interested in ideological quarrels anyway.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh do stay, Peter, I think the point was that you are a neutral voice in all this, it was meant as a way of speaking against those who want to discredit "feminist" thought or something. Male allies are welcome. Frankly, if you want my personal opinion, I kind of wonder if mannequins should be the way to go... just like they use drawings instead of photos in some of the sex articles, perhaps article about revealing clothing should be mostly examples placed on store mannequins. I'm totally annoyed that these articles are sometimes galleries of "photos of hot babes" collections when that is manifestly unscientific. Montanabw^(talk) 21:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

As for the rest, phrasing of policy needs to minimize gaming of the system, but let's not do any false equivalency here. The primary problem is the straight "male gaze" philosophy in inserting overly-sexualized imagery -- or far more than needed -- where it is not encyclopedic. Montanabw^(talk) 21:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Who manages WP's facebook page?

Hi all, I'm interested to know who is responsible for the content and management of the WP facebook page. There are a couple of issues with the page IMO - first, the content continues the gender bias of the encyclopedia in terms of biographies of men vs women posted. And second, the admins of the page allow anti-women comments to remain on the page without challenging or removing them. For example, today an admin posted about an ancient item, describing it as "the only example known to man". A woman has posted a comment challenging their use of this old fashioned and sexist phrase, and there are now about 30 replies to that comment - most of which attack her personally, swear at her, tell her to go away, call her crass names etc etc. Meanwhile the WP admins have done nothing about this. There is no comeback from WP in terms of setting the tone of the conversation on their facebook page, or protecting people from attack from others, or ensuring it's a safe place to state an opinion. Nothing. Very disappointing and doesn't encourage women to engage with the encyclopedia when this type of communication is tolerated on its public fb page. Thoughts? MurielMary (talk) 02:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The Facebook page seems to be run by a Mr Jeff Elder (jelder@Wikimedia.org) who is listed as social media director at the WMF. Us ordinary WP admins don't have any special moderator rights or access to the page. I agree re the archaism of this specific phrase and, more generally, the importance of active moderation of comments; have emailed the WMF along these lines, if others share this view it might be worth them doing the same. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks, that's very helpful! MurielMary (talk) 02:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no comeback from WP in terms of setting the tone of the conversation on their facebook page, or protecting people from attack from others, or ensuring it's a safe place to state an opinion. Nothing. That sounds like Wikipedia's usual response to all harassment everywhere: Do nothing and hope it goes away on its own. Why would Facebook be any different? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Update: two of the more revolting comments (one about the woman's sex life and one encouraging her to self-harm) have been removed from the conversation in the last hour. I doubt that the people who posted them did this, so perhaps a page admin is actually paying attention? Pinging Euryalus and Peter_Isotalo FYI. MurielMary (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Update: Evidently so—a few minutes ago, a page admin commented, "Heather, we're really sorry about this. We failed to see the negative comments directed at you. We've gone through the comments and sent you a note. Can you please let us know if you got it?" —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I manage our social media accounts. Thank you for pinging me, and don't hesitate to do so in the future, or to email socialmedia-internalwikimedia.org. We didn't see this situation, or we would have knocked down the hurtful comments sooner. We have done so now, and connected with the person who was targeted by them. On the issue of posts about great and historically significant women, we try to make it a real priority. We'd welcome suggestions of posts we might be missing. Here are our current guidelines on Meta-Wiki. JElder (WMF) (talk) 23:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

All-women RD section

While it's tragic to have lost these wonderful women, it's great to see that the Recent Deaths section on the main page is 100% women bios at present. Four out of four possible slots are on recently deceased women. I think this is a direct result of the recent change in criteria for RD nominations, whereby notability is no longer contested - simply having an article of sufficient quality and the death being announced in the news is enough for an article to be listed there. Previously, nominations of articles on women for the RD section were frequently opposed on the grounds of lack of notability, which was often (IMO) a result of unconscious gender bias. Anyway, nice to see some more women-centred content on the main page, even if it is in the sad section of deaths. MurielMary (talk) 02:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia sexism brought up at WP:ANI

Seems like this discussion could be of direct interest to our project. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Damage_done_by_declining_AFC

"... The reason that no reply would answer the accusations is that the supposed arguments here are not the real message, because this is essentially about men being offended that a woman has "taken the measure" of a man and found him wanting, rather than agreeing that men are always notable because they are men. This is more of the sexism that occurs on Wikipedia, disguised, of course, as an argument about policy. ... "

--GRuban (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my read of the situation is that the editor was being called on basic behavior and threw in a red herring by claiming it was sexism. It's not, it's someone who is unhappy that they were challenged on their editing. Has zero to do with sexism. Montanabw^(talk) 05:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Use of "aviatrix"

A discussion on the use of the word "aviatrix" has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#"Aviatrix", which may interest users who watch this page. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Request for GGTF opinions on allegations of 'sexism' raised by males on opposing sides of the current proposal to delete and/or merge the article "Iron Lady"

This is a request for people (especially females) from the GGTF to give their presumably relatively 'expert' opinion on allegations of 'sexism' raised by males on opposing sides of the current proposal to delete or merge the article "Iron Lady". Basically would a deletion and/or a merge and/or retention be (presumably unintentionally) sexist in practice? The proposed deletion and/or merge is here, and my request for comments is here. Any such comments would perhaps be more usefully left there than here, though if you prefer to leave them here instead, please feel free to do so. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Opinions needed: woman suitable for an article?

Hi, folks. I'm gathering references in User:GRuban/Becca Pizzi for a woman who's a single mom, and manages an ice cream store, but is notable for winning a series of seven consecutive marathons in seven days on seven continents. She won every one of the seven, individually and in total, and was the first American woman to run the series, and set a record for it, and had long, indepth stories written about how she was going to run, and how she was running, and how she finished and won, by local sources (Belmont Citizen-Herald, Boston Globe), and distant sources (Miami Herald, Kansas City Star), and athletic sources (Runner's World, ESPN), and national sources (Wall Street Journal, CBS News), steadily over a series of 5 months. But, that's really her main reason for notability. (Well, she had a parade held in her name, and had a tribute read into the Congressional Record, and got a marriage proposal on the pitcher's mound of Fenway Park while she was supposed to throw out a baseball; but that all stems from the marathon.) So there could be an argument made that that's all WP:BLP1E. I think she meets notability criteria, at least WP:GNG, if not WP:ATHLETE. But that's me. I'd like to have someone agree with that, that she almost certainly hasn't served ice cream to. (Honestly I'm not sure; I definitely had some at the place I've since read she manages, but don't really recall who was serving it at the time. I certainly haven't spoken to her for anything other than "extra sprinkles, please".) --GRuban (talk) 00:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that attracting national coverage for such a feat makes her notable, even if she hadn't set a new world's record. Ignore anybody who claims BLP1E applies. Had Wikipedia existed in 1953, I'm sure the same nay-sayers would have argued that Edmund Hillary was famous for only one thing and didn't qualify for an encyclopedia article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not one event, it's multiple ones. But yeah, Malik makes a good point... sigh. Montanabw^(talk) 01:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@GRuban: Absolutely notable. I've taken the liberty to edit your userpage draft a bit. Can you get any photos, if only of the ice cream shop? Maybe you could leave your phone number at the shop and ask if you can take a photo of her training some time? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Visualization of Gender Focus in Wikipedia Articles

Greetings, Gender gap task force! I've developed a new tool called Cartograph that visualizes Wikipedia articles as an interactive map. The first map visualizes gender focus in Wikipedia articles. Would you test out Cartograph and let me know your thoughts? More info at meta research page Shilad (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Wow, very cool! Looking forward to checking out this new cool. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Gender neutral vocabulary regarding space flight

A discussion on the use of the phrase “crewed space flights" as opposed to “manned space flights” has been started at Talk:Moon, which may interest users who watch this page. Handthrown (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like it was one person against the world, but they have said they are stopping now. I gave a fairly authoritative source just in case. --GRuban (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Intro to Whose Knowledge? and requests for participation

Dear GGTF members, Siko Bouterse and I (Anasuya Sengupta) recently co-founded the campaign Whose Knowledge?, to make the internet a little less male, white, straight, and global North in origin. It's our attempt to address systemic bias both on Wikipedia (and other Wikimedia projects) and in other critical spaces on the internet.

tl;dr This message gives you a few updates on our work so far, and invites you to support us - in commenting on/endorsing a Wikimedia project grant we're applying for, and in joining us in the newly recognised Whose Knowledge? Wikimedia user group.

• We're planning to put out a survey soon to map gaps and opportunities in online knowledge, and it would be great to hear from you about what and whose knowledge is still missing online (including and beyond the great red link lists this group works on). Our hope is that the results of this survey can help spark more people to participate in filling those gaps, support your work, etc. Is this something that people on the Gender Gap Task Force would be interested in helping with/participating in? More information is in this project grant proposal. It would be great to have your feedback or endorsements by November 2 if you're interested, and for you to pass on this information to anyone else you think might be interested.

• We've also got a newly approved Whose Knowledge? Wikimedia user group. Please join us!

• Siko and I launched Whose Knowledge? at the AWID Forum in Brazil recently, along with Wikimujeres Wotancito, FloNight and Raystorm. The forum is the largest gathering of feminists from around the world (outside of the UN processes), held every three-four years. You might be interested in the blog posts we wrote, introducing WK? to the AWID forum folks, and in seeing what we learned from mapping the feminist internet while there.

We'd love to have you participate in any way you like! Please let us know if you have any questions. Thanks, Anasuyas (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to take the liberty of moving this section to the bottom of the page; in general new talk page sections go at the bottom. If you strongly disagree, you may revert. --GRuban (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

No worries at all, GRuban, thank you for doing that! And yes, I was working more from instinct rather than checking precedence on this page (I know a few different places in which the order shifts), which I should have done. Anasuyas (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• One thing I think is needed is to address if the notability guidelines at WP:GNG/WP:NOTABILITY add to the systemic bias problem, particularly at WP:AFD. I have made some preliminary attempts to discuss the issue, but it seems my attempts have been viewed as "weakening" the standards and I could not explain effectively the difference between looking at some sources differently. An example of one that drove me nuts (and all are welcome to improve the article, which is now userfied in my own sandbox) was this one (The AFD was here, you reallt have to read and weep). (In contrast, note the guidelines for Cricket players and porn stars) Montanabw^(talk) 18:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Small question, but ...

The Mrs. C.M. Schwab School

1st, it's been a rough week.

2nd, a small question that I've run into a couple of times, and thought I'd finally ask.

My maternal grandmother, born Dorothy Smallbone, always insisted that we address letters to her "Mrs. Peter XXXX" where XXXX was my grandfather's family name. It's her use of *his* first name that I'm asking about. My grandmother was not a feminist, but was the strongest willed person I ever met, no beaten down victim of male hegemony. She would have been insulted being referred to as "Mrs. Dorothy XXXX". My mother disagreed, but deferred to her mother's wishes in that single case. I've run into similar usage several times on Wikipedia and thought I'd better ask what is preferred here.

The particular instance that made me think about this is the "Mrs. C.M. Schwab School" in Weatherly, Pennsylvania. This is the official name. It was paid for by Eurana Dickey Schwab, wife of the steel magnate Charles M. Schwab. She was obviously more responsible than he was. He managed to build and then fritter away a fortune from the 2nd largest steel company in the world. I imagine she would prefer the official name. Any suggestions?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

We should prefer the name used by a clear majority of sources, or if no clear majority, the official name that she chose. If she had wanted to name it "Hogwarts", we would respect that, so why should we not respect this one? --GRuban (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Smallbones, are there sources who use a name other than the name given to the school at the time? That is, what is the common name now?

I've encountered the same issue when citing older sources, where female authors are sometimes named after their husbands. In those cases, I add the name the publication used at the time (Mrs. John Smith), then I add the woman's own name in brackets if I can find it. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. You've given reasonable ways to handle it. "Schwab School" is probably the only other name used. In this case, it is not a big deal - it's a sentence or two in 2-3 articles. It is a magnificent building on a stunning site and I've got photos from last week as well as the old postcard, but I'm not sure I'd be able to find enough for a full article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Am I wrong? Crazy? Too radical?

I checked my Notifications on m:The wiki way just now and noticed that my 18 June 2015 edit to use more gender-inclusive language had been reverted.

More troublingly, however, was that, if one were to look at the page's revision history (m:The wiki way) one could see that I clearly explained my reasoning in the edit (edit number 12456750):

"Due to Gender bias on Wikipedia, corrected the exclusionary "himself" to a more inclusive, unbiased "themself." Although purists may complain that "themself" is incorrect agreement this usage helps to not shun female Wikipedians as unwanted outcasts"

More importantly, it's not so much that it got reverted, so much as that the (anonymous/IP only) user who reverted it apparently not only ignored my well-explained reasoning (in the Revision History) but furthermore made what seems to be a rather snide, curt, brash, and condescending reason for their edit (edit number 12652146):

"Really? check grammar pls"

While this just now came to my attention (because I rarely visit WikiMedia and it seems that Notifications don't universally display across all WMF accounts, e.g. from signing into Wikipedia), it is disconcerting to me. Further, I realize it's only one word on one page, but considering that it's an important, foundational "Wikimedian Philosophy" type of page, I would think that of all places it should be one of the most inclusive, so as to encourage maximal users to contribute.

Nota Bene: Instead of reverting it wholly to "themself" I actually used "herself," which is equally "incorrect" (from a prescriptivist's standpoint), but this is concerning to me and I don't want pages like that to seem alienating. Especially considering that bullet-point 8 in the article Nine Reasons Women Don’t Edit Wikipedia (in their own words) found/suggested on m:Gender gap#Read touches on this very same point: that language itself can be alienating to would-be users.

To be honest I can't tell whether this is the right place to voice this type of concern, but it was the best/closest I could find, considering the bullet-point "The talk page is for friendly discussion about how to close Wikipedia's gender gap, including asking for help with articles, AfDs, etc." above.

Thoughts? Insight? I feel like this, although just one word, is a pretty glaring example of language being exclusionary and hurting the efforts of "closing the gender gap," but I'm not sure if I'm being crazy and too radical about this. IDK what the solution would/could be, but it's concerning, so I felt it necessary to discuss.

PolymathGirl (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

You could try the clunky "himself/herself". This is a perennial problem and, given that we have no gender-neutral pronouns for people in English, a difficult one to address. "Itself" is obviously wrong, referring as it does to thing with no gender (although animals are often referred to as "it"); "themself" is not universally accepted; "themselves" is plural, so also wrong. The only solution I can think of is "himself/herself" or "himself or herself" or "him/herself". Same with "he/she", "he or she", "[s]he" (yuck...), etc. Leave it as "herself" and let the IP stew...! — Iadmc♫^talk  06:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Add The IP also did this which suggests a vandal — Iadmc♫^talk  06:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I've edited the page to correct the lead and to use "himself/herself". Let's see what happens... — Iadmc♫^talk  06:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Final thought: Anyone know if Wikimedia has a place for such concerns? Surely they are just as blighted by the gender-gap? — Iadmc♫^talk  06:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah: m:WikiWomen's User Group and m:Whose Knowledge? — Iadmc♫^talk  06:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for all you help, suggestions, and guidance to those pages, Iadmc!

Simply out of curiosity (because perhaps I don't understand), why would simply wiki-->"WikiWiki" (antiquated name, IIRC) suggest vandalism? (perhaps I don't quite understand what, exactly specifically, constitutes "vandalism," as I've seen Userboxes advertise "this user has been vandalized X times" and have wondered "huh? How?"). Good to know though!

Thanks again for your help!!! PolymathGirl (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

It just looked like a weird edit. And no problem :) — Iadmc♫^talk  04:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I think Isaacl nailed it in a follow-up edit. The non-gender binary "themselves" is definitely an improvement. After all, singular they is word of the year. gobonobo ^{+ c} 05:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

For f_'s sake, we have a gender-neutral singular pronoun in English, singular they, in common usage since the recorded existence Modern English, EME, and Middle English (prior to that there were more genders a la Low German). While the use of "themself" has been a more-contemporary construct, language is allowed to change, though whether "themself" has been more popular than "themselves" in the singular (or if the latter has been deemed unacceptable, though it hasn't to me and my local peers) in contemporary dialects of English would need citation based on proper studies. Regardless of the object reflexive case, the to say the singular they is "ungrammatical" is simply wrong throughout historical, literary, and common usage despite attempts in 18th-20th century British prescriptivism, and MOS should emphasize this fact perhaps even more than it should emphasize the importance of gender neutrality when discouraging defaulting to he or she in pronouns. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

You say MOS "discourages" use of he/she. Before you accused me of committing a "MOS violation". Make up your mind. IHTS (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I should add that there is also not much historical or literary preference for "themselves" over "theirselves" either. (Though modern Germanic and Romance languages seem to think reflexive pronouns should affix to the object (at least according to Google's dictionary), although their root is different – e.g. French moi même, se, nous-mêmes; German mich selber, sich/selbst, uns selbst (no possessive use in Spanish or Portuguese either, but those are the only ones I checked).) English can't decide in general on the possessive (myself, hisself(var.), herself(eq.), itsself(var.), yourself, thyself(obs.), ourselves, theirselves(var.)) vs. the object (himself, herself(eq.), itself, themselves) for reflexives. By the way, even if your word processor or browser's dictionary marks "theirselves" as a misspelling, remember that they often dump a public-domain dictionary in there, i.e. Webster's from 1900 or so, so that you can only write about the "Great Coliseum of Rome."— Preceding unsigned comment added by SamuelRiv (talk • contribs) 14:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with SamuelRiv that singular they is perfectly valid English grammar, and has been for hundreds of years. I even use they for my personal pronoun (being agender), though that gets even more pushback... Funcrunch (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Chess articles

I and I'm sure millions of others have been linked into a lot of articles on various chess positions and terminology this past month, and at least half of those used male pronouns by default as early as the lead, e.g. in Giuoco Piano: "Black aims to free his game by exchanging pieces..., or to hold his center pawn at e5." Actually, if the article didn't assume male pronouns in the lead I think every single one did so at least once in the body. Did I mention that Western chess might have a historically entrenched systematic male bias? Long-story short, I think every chess article needs a once-over on assuming all players are men. I cross-posted this on WikiProject Chess also. SamuelRiv (talk) 09:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

This is very much a personal opinion and don't take it as any kind of policy statement, but I'd consider this a context where the sexist language is appropriate. Since the underlying "plot" of every chess game is two kings marshalling their troops—and explicitly kings, since queens have a different role in the game—when one is talking about the sides (black and white) rather than explicitly about players, defaulting to masculine pronouns makes sense. Thus "black is forced to move his rook" but "each player has only three minutes to make their move". ‑ Iridescent 13:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

That's actually a fair point. ⟨If one wanted to push that debate (which I don't but it's fun to throw around facts) one could talk about those active societies in which the gender-marked titles "king" and "queen" are applied irrespective of the gender of the recipient, though I don't know of any Indo-European societies doing this (and if there are any they'd be small villages anyway).⟩ The other side is all the reasons for maintaining gender-neutral language particularly in prestigious careers and sports, as well as the fact that the singular they has been uncontroversially popular in English for hundreds of years until the language reformers of the 18th and 19th centuries came around. You know, like the ones that gave American spelling so much colour at the cost of a Coliseum-full of rotten etymologies and misappropriated rules to choose from. I guess even if I take your point at its fullest my opinion would still be for GNP here, in this case mainly for the sake of the newest chess audience. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Au contraire. For a beginner player, this was simple, clear & precise:

Black aims to free his game by exchanging pieces and playing the pawn break ...d5, or to hold his center pawn at e5.

When you changed it to:

Black aims to free their own game by exchanging pieces and playing the pawn break ...d5, or to hold their center pawn at e5.

... if I were a beginner player, it would be confusing, and I just might quit when still learning the game. ("Black aims to free their own game" ... what is the author trying to tell me? Does she mean Black aims to free each of their games maybe?! "[Black aims] to hold their center pawn at e5." Huh?! Is the author trying to tell me that the black pawn on e5, is somehow considered center pawn for *both* sides!? Or is it an objective in the game for both sides to strive for a center pawn on e5!? Perhaps that's a chess openings concept I missed somewhere when I started to learn this game!? Should I go back and read over again the chess opening introductory material I read before, to see where I may have missed!? Oh heck, I knew chess was for super-smart people, and I'd probably never 'get' this game. I give up!")

That is a conceivable scenario you introduced by your strict gender-neutral obsession-fever, calling me out for "MOS violation" and chiding me by inappropriately assuming I'm cool with plural pronoun "they" substituting for singular generic pronoun "he", when I didn't and don't, when I reverted your ambiguous misleading "Black aims to free their game". How about improving articles for ease of understanding for the beginning player, rather than toss her a curve ball to wade through so you can feel happy you have bowed to the MOS God with strict adherence and gained the admiration of other socially contrived gender-neutral warriors? IHTS (talk) 11:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Another para re your recommendations, here. IHTS (talk) 12:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

"Black aims to free each of their games": Note this requires a plural, so my edit would have to have been "Black aims to free their own games" for your interpretation to be possible. SamuelRiv (talk) 13:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Why not just use "the"? I.e. "Black aims to free the game by exchanging pieces..., or to hold the center pawn at e5." Works in the plural, too... — Iadmc♫^talk  18:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Except once you start talking about the game, you've already lost. (Apologies to everyone.) SamuelRiv (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

You lose... as do I because I thought about it... — Iadmc♫^talk  20:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Board resolution on inclusivity and safe spaces

Has everybody seen Statement on Healthy Community Culture, Inclusivity, and Safe Spaces from November 13, 2016?

The board is not agin it. In fact, they are for it. It seems to be a very simple, straightforward, maybe even plain vanilla statement. They did say that the WMF management should be willing to put appropriate resources into it. My strong feeling is that the Board, the top WMF folks, WMF staff, Jimbo, etc. are for it, but that they need some guidance and ideas from the community. Ultimately, inclusivity and safe spaces can go as far as the community wants it to go. So it is up to us to get something done. Any ideas? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I suppose I ought to put forth some ideas of my own, just to get things started. I'm sure other people will have better ideas though.

• There will likely be another Idea Labs request for funding program early next year. Have your ideas ready for that.
• Hiring a full-time professionally-qualified anti-harassing staff member at the WMF who has the power to ban harassers and take other needed steps. If we can't make such a proposal now, when else would we be able to?
• A separate wiki just for women and/or minorities where they can work out new articles or policy proposals without harassment. I'd think this would require some strong exclusionary power from the site's admins and perhaps some sort of ID for editing by signed in accounts only. Otherwise it could be a target for attacks by trolls (perhaps this page might be an example on how trolls are attracted to certain spaces). It would take a lot of work, and some "unWiki" steps. So it might not be worth the overhead expended to get it going. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Smallbones: It's a very welcome statement. I'll repeat what I've been requesting for years, namely that the WMF hire a harassment expert, someone with an academic or professional background in the area. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Thanks for pointing us to the statement. Even more interesting are the sources, especially the 2015 Harassment Survey. I've downloaded it and my first reaction is "Oh dear"... I've started writing an essay which was going to be my reply but it became too long to include here... I'll post the link when I've finished! One initial reaction to your thoughts: I don't agree with segregation even in a "positive" form but more of that in my essay... — Iadmc♫^talk  21:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

My essay: User:Iadmc/Harassment on Wikimedia Projects. Thoughts? There's much more to add: I've only just scratched the surface... See Further Reading, for example — Iadmc♫^talk  01:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

5 Ways to Disrupt Racism video

I like the video linked in the essay. Perhaps the YouTube version is more accessible. Any idea on how to adapt it for our circumstances? Just for the heck of it, I'll ping Fuzheado (talk · contribs) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I've changed the link to YouTube. I'll have to think about an adaptation. Anyone else any ideas? — Iadmc♫^talk  03:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it's: {{ping|Fuzheado}}: @Fuzheado: Any ideas (Fuzheado) about using the video in my essay? Or creating one similar, perhaps? — Iadmc♫^talk  04:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you Smallbones for pinging me to comment. I agree that the statement from the WMF Board is a big deal and a step in the right direction. To me one of the biggest aspects is the Board's request for the WMF management to direct resources to addressing the issue. I encourage everyone to look through the existing ideas on meta to see if there are good ones worth supporting.

Harassment consultation 2015 or other ideas that can be found in the IdeaLab. Category:IdeaLab/Ideas/Inspire/Addressing harassment. :And of course more ideas are welcome. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks FloNight for pointing us to the category. Certainly food for thought — Iadmc♫^talk  20:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if as a passerby on someone else's page if my comments were appropriate for inclusion here, but being asked to cross-post, I offer what I said there:

"I don't know if the discussion there is open to everyone, so I'll just post my comments here. I am not in favor of "separate but equal" as a general rule. But that being said, in this environment, there is very little ability to change set-in policy to be more inclusive because the group of very vocal voices against change are entrenched. What is odd, is that because each group tends to focus only on their specific "cause" you have those various entrenched groups in each area—creation, policy, deletion, admin, etc.—with each not realizing how the project as a whole is effected. Bottom-up management has not made WP a more inclusive place, instead it has made it a more rigid place. It seems apparent to me, that for real change to be made, it will need to be a top-down implementation, which I am not sure would ever happen.

One of the biggest barriers to addressing the gender gap is the type of coverage sources give. But the powers that be, refuse to recognize that. I can best explain it by an example. Several days ago, I did a search to see how many articles for a well known man or woman it takes to create a biographical piece. I put in 2 names with no identifying characteristics: Gloria Allred and Geoffrey Robertson. For him, the very first link I pulled up gave a fairly complete bio: [5] (Surprisingly it does actually mention is personal life, though many articles on WP leave out family information on men's bios entirely) For her, the first five links had merely snippets in a bunch of articles, most of which focus on her work, her celebrity clients, her activism and a lot to do with Donald Trump. Little to do with her life, so I modified the search to Gloria Allred, biography. Weeding out the non-notable IMDB, and fan sites, I came up with her age, she went to high school (where?), she went to Loyola Law School in the 1970s, she went to University of Pennsylvania, she married twice; her age, she is a feminist, interested in politics, in 1966 she was working as a teacher, she was born in Philadelphia, she went to the University of Pennsylvania, she married twice. As is easily seen, multiple articles are needed to even create a biography. Imagine on someone not as famous, how many links one must pull up to complete a biography for a woman? Which is why, in article after article, the question comes up about sources being more about their work/their cause being more important than the woman behind the cause, [6], articles which namecheck a woman in a list of other discussion,[7], whether the selective criteria or GNG is applicable, [8], [9], etc. Unless and until we figure out a way to adequately address that sources for men and women are different, we will never address the systemic inequality of a gender gap. Just my opinion. SusunW (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)" SusunW (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@SusunW: Thanks for the thoughts. IMO, it's the work/cause/etc that makes someone notable—unless the they are simply "famous for being famous", like Paris Hilton for example. Also, both bottom-up management and top-down implementation are equally necessary: the former informs the latter; the latter inspires, endorses and implements the former. I agree that editors need to be less entrenched in their niche areas of editing: admins, in particular need to be more aware than most of the issues facing minority groups on Wikipedia. I made some comments about sourcing on a user's talk page recently. The relevant bits are these:

1. The major problems here are WP:RS and WP:N. The former because too many people are apathetic about the issues [transgender people] face every day or, conversely, are too put upon by the system that they feel unable to contribute to the debate. Or are defined as cranks and the ideas they put forward as pseudo-science. Thus they are, by definition (the definition the system defined, circularly) non-reliable. The latter is a problem for exactly the same reason. That, and how can someone be notable if the system decides to define them and their situation as non-reliable and therefore, by extension, also non-notable?
2. Solution: carry on regardless. Just get all the ammunition (sources) and rearguard (notables) first. And make sure it is bullet-proof (NOR, NPOV, etc, etc). Or... just add the stuff anyway, knowing it's true, and use what you can to source for now hoping someone else will find better sources in the near future. After all, that's what collaboration is all about.

Since I am male (and cis, straight, white, etc.), I can't possibly experience the frustrations women and other under-represented editors experience every day on Wikipedia but I can try to empathise and help where I can. Any thoughts on my essay (linked above)? — Iadmc♫^talk  22:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Iadmc: From my point of view, I collaborate with those I feel safe with, avoid controversial topics on here like the plague (other than the fact that women and specifically minority and non-western women can be controversial just for being), and weigh every interaction. I am cautious, being a woman has taught me to be so. While the suggestions in that video would probably work in an "in person" encounter, much of what one experiences on-line is quite different. Anonymous vitriol, bullying and just plain-old disagreeableness is far harder to deal with, as is the pile-on effect of calling together far-flung compatriots. I often deal with the type of pile-on that occurs in discussions by withdraw from engaging--giving argumentativeness no oxygen often smothers it. Many that repeatedly go to discussions like those I linked above, aren't interested in listening or learning, only stating their own point of view. I tend to think we do far better when we are open to learn from each other, but that environment has to be fostered, rather than just allowing those who speak loudest to rule. Wikipedia itself is hard to understand and knowing who or where to report things to near impossible. What I know, beyond doubt is that the system is neither inviting, nor supportive. One must make their own networks of "safe spaces" and if one is really, really lucky, a mentor or two might find you and help you along. I boldly create content, typically on dead people because it is less likely to be challenged and mostly ignore other facets of the platform. SusunW (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@SusunW:

• The reason "the system is neither inviting, nor supportive" is that it is self-policed... But who polices the police? WMF is really just the company that deals with the software and though Jimmy Wales has full user-access rights and certainly takes an interest in all things Wikipedia-related, he generally only steps in when all else has failed. And ArbCom is simply there to arbitrate between editors and is bound by the policies. They have no role in making sure the encyclopedia as a whole is balanced. Indeed, nor does anyone else, as far as I'm aware. Nor is there any particular group or panel responsible for tackling harassment—either generally, in setting up policies etc, or individually, in tackling cases of bullying/harassment/threats/etc. I think there should be.
• "I tend to think we do far better when we are open to learn from each other..." I agree! But how do we foster such an environment?
• "I collaborate with those I feel safe with..."; "I boldly create content [that] is less likely to be challenged..." Each of us works best when we work in a manner we are most comfortable with—though it is good to get out of that comfort zone once in a while. And dead people need a voice, too... They can't do much themselves, any more... unless ghosts, saints, reincarnated souls, etc. exist, of course!
• re mentors: you can ask for an adopter but how useful they are in terms of the issues discussed here is anyone's guess

Thanks again for your input! — Iadmc♫^talk  00:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Iadmc "only steps in when all else has failed", might indicate that it is time. The climate is not one of individual disputes, but rather prevailing winds—the inmates (or wolves if you like) are running the asylum. I had heard/read about the issues before I joined WP and now having edited for several years and having experienced it first hand, I can say that it hasn't gone away and is becoming even more entrenched. To foster something, you must actually *do* something about it. Recognizing that there is a problem, repeatedly acknowledging it, but doing little to nothing to stop repeated behaviors is a tacit endorsement of the status quo. If one is truly interested in change, policy changes and implementation must happen and must be driven. Hire a professional team to evaluate the policies which are in place whether they are for contributions, oversight or harassment. Make changes to same, require implementation of those changes. Sounds simple, but it isn't. (P.S. If you think content about women and minorities is less likely to be challenged, dead or alive, I think you didn't look at the links I provided above. very dead, merge her to her husband's page?) (P.P.S. In my experience the adopter system is as broken, as many others on here, but if you persevere, you will find collaborators and mentors that make it worthwhile to remain.) SusunW (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@SusunW: I agree: pointing and poking at something only aggravates it. One needs to be pro-active and discussion is the way to inform action, usually—which is why I have joined this group and similar. "Hire a professional team" is actually against the ethos of the Wikimedia Projects and one of the reasons Wales and Sanger fell out, IIRC. OTOH, we need people who know what they are talking about, so I would endorse the idea in this one aspect... (I wonder if Jimbo will wander over now I've tagged him? Would be nice!) — Iadmc♫^talk  18:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• P.S. I agree that any writing on women is going to be controversial, dead or alive, indeed Wiki or otherwise...
• P.P.S my adopter Martin was very helpful (when I was user:Jubileeclipman) but I've no idea if he still adopts or if he has any understanding of the issue raised here.

re Adoption

Can you each comment about your good and bad experiences with adoption? This is Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user, yes? Adopting a new user isn't something I've thought about before now, but I have been here for 10 years now, so now that you've brought it up, am considering it. --GRuban (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Martin taught me about Wikiquette and Featured Articles (and how not to annoy the multitude of editors/watchers...) and pointed me to Help:Cheatsheet, and Help:Edit summary. No bad experiences at all. Interaction here. I adopted a user and helped her a little but found the process tricky, especially as she was only about 13... She wanted to know more about a now defunct social-media-style status indicator. I never bothered with adoption after that. I guess it depends what the user needs and who they are. Someone who knows about gender-gap issues would be a wonderful addition to the Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user scheme, though! — Iadmc♫^talk  19:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

GRuban I applied, more than once and got no response at all to my request. Fortunately for me Montanabw, Sadads and Dr. Blofeld all found me, how, I have no idea. They helped me with the frustration of trying to learn the technical pieces of writing an article, Wikifying it and set me up with various sources from the Wiki library. I am a researcher and writer, so those parts were not difficult, but the technology parts are still way outside of my comfort zone. They helped me get autopatrolled so that I did not have to submit articles to AfC, introduced me to DYK, GA criteria, etc. Through them, I met others and developed a network of collaborators. I still work mostly in article creation. SusunW (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

How to report harassment?

I commented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/November_2016_-_Statement_on_Healthy_Community_Culture,_Inclusivity,_and_Safe_Spaces#General_comments_about_WMF

about a system for reporting harassment suggested there. Perhaps suggestions for making a new system for reporting harassment should go there to keep the discussion all in one place. But I have a specific question here

What is the current system for reporting harassment? Does it work?

If we could answer that question we'd be a lot better off explaining how we need to change the current system.

At meta, I described what I know about the current system - that the best way is contact the WMF Community Engagement Dept.. Does that work? Not having a lot of experience with it, I'll hazard a guess of "sorta, maybe"

But looking at Wikipedia:Harassment#Dealing_with_harassment we do seem to have a policy on it. Roughly speaking it's "don't over-react, be careful, don't publicly accuse anybody of harassment. If it is really serious, contact ArbCom."

Is that really it for our way of reporting harassment? Does it work? Are there any known examples?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I contacted the Support and Safety team to report persistent harassment. It partially worked. (Not willing to discuss more details publicly; e-mail me for more details if you wish.) Funcrunch (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes Support and Safety is the particular part of Community Engagement that does this. I think "It partially worked. (Not willing to discuss more details publicly)" is about all we can expect to hear from people who have actually been involved there. I also don't mean to use this as a forum to criticize Support and Safety. I've never heard anybody say "these folks were completely useless" If there are faults there, I think it is how the system is set up (by the WMF, or maybe because of community requirements), or maybe just that dealing with harassment is inherently difficult.

Has anybody tried the ArbCom route? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, arbcom does indeed get fairly regular complaints about harassment, usually of the form "someone I encountered on Wikipedia is harassing me on another website" or "someone is posting my personal information". Unfortunately there's usually not much we can do other than the obvious blocking and oversighting as needed. Serious issues get referred to Support and Safety as well. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: thanks for this info. I'll ask a few questions that I don't know if you can answer. If you can't, please just ignore them. About how many harassment complaints to ArbCom are there each year? 10? 30? 100? (very approximate is fine) About how many get fully handled by ArbCom and how many are sent on to Support and Safety? Do you personally think that the "extra step" of having ArbCom work before S&S is worth the extra effort. Any info on how well this works would be appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I haven't kept records specifically on how many we've received, and can really only say anything for 2016. I'd say ballpark of 50ish harassment- or outing-related issues? Of course some are specious, and the seriousness and time investment varies considerably.

Arbcom isn't an "extra step"; people are welcome to contact us or the WMF or both with whatever problem they've run into. We'll probably suggest that someone contact Support and Safety if there are significant real-life implications for whatever the problem is, but in most cases the issue isn't really in their remit, for example:

• Sometimes people know there's not much we can do but just want to let someone know or put things on the record. That kind of community-institutional-memory function isn't something SuSa can do.
• SuSa can't really be expected to give specific community procedure and policy advice for every wiki, or even the large ones. Think things like "I don't feel comfortable editing under my real name anymore, what are my options?" or "I brought this user to ANI and now he's sending me abusive emails and I wasn't sure where else to report it."
• Arbs and functionaries are still the right people to contact if you need something suppressed, or you think your harasser is socking, or similar, even if it's an extreme case where you'd also contact SuSa. (Of course, actual emergencies should go straight to emergencywikimedia.org.)

I will say that I think the community in general is really bad at two things that are necessary when dealing with harassment, namely:

• The community is terrible at responding sensitively to people who are upset. I mean, individual community members are often great, but "the community" as a collective entity is bad at this. People who are being harassed - or who feel that they are - tend to be upset. Upset people tend to behave in ways that are less than perfectly collaborative and civil and policy-compliant. Misbehavior tends to attract "helpful" people who will do things like arrive on the editor's talk page to "helpfully" remind them that we have a civility policy and suggest they calm down. Which, of course, never works. And then they're more upset, so more people decide to "help". This steamroller dynamic can feel like harassment in its own right, and certainly doesn't feel like community support.
• The only thing the community is worse at is not sticking its collective nose in everyone else's business. I was surprised how quickly I went from "moar transparency!" to "mind your own business!" after joining arbcom. For whatever reason many editors seem to more instinctively identify with a hypothetical editor who is falsely accused of harassment than they do with a hypothetical harassment victim.

What I don't see is how these problems are really amenable to being addressed by things like well-meaning board resolutions or WMF hires. They're community-culture issues and the community has historically resisted taking cultural cues from the WMF in this way. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

"For whatever reason many editors seem to more instinctively identify with a hypothetical editor who is falsely accused of harassment than they do with a hypothetical harassment victim." <- Hence one of the most popular "ideas" in this year's Inspire Campaign to combat harassment was paid interviews with editors who have been accused of harassing others in order to assess the "the social and psychological impacts on the targets of these processes of shunning". (See also the "Don't feed the trolls" idea, which suggested that harassment victims get some sleep and exercise.) Funcrunch (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for these insights Opabinia regalis. Never really considered the implications of Wikipedia:CALMDOWN. "They're community-culture issues..." is exactly right. And precisely the problem. Hence, "systemic" in the title of this project. The question is: How do we challenge and then change this culture? I don't know the answer but resolutions and discussions are a start. Indeed, if we don't talk, we don't communicate; if we don't communicate, we don't exchange ideas; if we don't exchange ideas, we can't collectively do anything. And doing must always follow thinking. @Funcrunch: I'll have a look at those links and tell you what I think — Iadmc♫^talk  23:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Iadmc: Re "I'll... tell you what I think", that isn't strictly necessary. I'm relatively new to this conversation so apologies if this sounds harsh, but as you are a self-described straight white cis male, you might want to evaluate how much space you are taking up on a page devoted to countering systemic bias. (I am a queer black trans person, for the record.) Funcrunch (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Funcrunch: A little harsh... But: Isn't it precisely people like me that need to be properly informed? Shouldn't people like me be involved in gender-gap discussions? Isn't systemic bias caused by people like me, therefore shouldn't people like me be involved in helping to sort it out? And it isn't just people unlike me who are harassed: the policy page relates to everyone. Please do not be offended by my presence here, I am only trying to help as best I can. I am bound to make mistakes simply because I don't know the issues, being indeed male, cis, and straight. That's the other reason I'm here: to learn. I hate discrimination, too, and want to make it history. The only way to do that is to engage those who are discriminatory and change the culture they create. I am shamefully part of that culture, yes. But I stand up for the right of everyone to be whoever they are. You're black, trans and queer. Someone else is white, agender and multisexual. I'm straight, white and cis. So what? We are who we are and that is the end of it — Iadmc♫^talk  00:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Iadmc: I didn't say you shouldn't be involved in the discussion; I said you should pay attention to how much space you're taking up in it. Your reply further illustrates my point. Funcrunch (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Note editors who do not identify as female have been asked to step back to allow female editors to take the initiative on this discussion page. Thus there is limited opportunity for participation by others in this venue. isaacl (talk) 03:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Ouch! Just read the majority of that. I have apologised to Funcrunch and recognise that I have made rather a disproportionate number of edits here. I get a little obsessive at times: forgive me and do tell me to shut up if so! The previous discussion makes a number of exceptionally important points which perhaps could be summarised as a sticky at the top of this page. Perhaps: "Men may contribute here but please be aware that some of the women who would like to contribute may be put off by too great a male presence. We therefore respectfully ask that men minimise their input." It may avoid more bad blood and a repeat of that incident. OTOH, gentle pushes in the right direction like the ones both of you have given work, too! I'll be off now (there's far too much of me here for sure now!) and pop back every now and then with comments and insight, if appropriate. I'll also continue to think about the issues of harassment and gender inequality and do what I can to help address them on Wikipedia in general. My main concern is classical music and there are plenty of women composers/performers who need articles or whose articles need clean-up. Over (but not out) — Iadmc♫^talk  04:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Y'know, I didn't know how to report harassment until I read the statement and did little bit of research. m:Support and Safety and WP:ArbCom appear to be the correct places: the former for Wikimedia-wide problems, the latter for Wikipedia-specific problems. People need to be informed about the process more. And are they the only places? Do we need a specific stop-off point for harassment? or is there one already? Again, WMF need to make such things transparent and easily found. — Iadmc♫^talk  19:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, if it's purely an on-wiki thing then you can also use normal on-wiki channels to sort it out. If you think we need better instructions, you could suggest some additions to WP:HARASSMENT, which is probably where most people look first. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: What do you mean by "normal on-wiki channels"? Talk pages? ArbCom? Or something else? I'll have a look at the Policy page and see if anything could be clearer. But yes, now I think of it that's the obvious place to look! — Iadmc♫^talk  22:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Article on Olga Cox?

re: this article in the Washington Post.

Would creating a Wikipedia article add to the harassment in any way? Any advice appreciated Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Creating an article on someone notable can never be harassment. The main issue is simply that they are alive. There is certainly plenty on her, we just have to be sensitive and unbiased in our coverage of her, her life, her work, and her opinions and the reaction to them. — Iadmc♫^talk  00:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree. There is nothing notable about her other than the present events - as is evidenced by the above searches - and I'm sure she would like this whole sorry episode to be forgotten about as soon as possible. An article about them would just be another focus for the idiots and do her no favours at all, why throw petrol on the fire? Richerman (talk) 11:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Richerman. Unless Cox is clearly notable for things other than this terrible harassment of her, we should not create an article. Wikipedia pages rank very high in search results, so an article would be a magnet to post sensitive information that could further inflame the situation. Funcrunch (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't have much to add, but would like to say that I agree wholeheartedly with Richerman and Funcrunch. Articles about people who have already been targeted for harassment need to be treated particularly delicately. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, people can be notable for a single thing. But yes, thinking about it, creating article at the present moment would just attract the trolls and vandals... Wait a year or so and if she's still talked about or, better, has become notable for something more substantial consider writing it then — Iadmc♫^talk  18:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to all who responded. There certainly are 2 sides here. Having a clear example of what harassment can do and how it works would be nice, but not adding to the harassment is the overriding concern at this time. It's a good thing I asked! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Ashley Judd TED talk

External videos
How online abuse of women has spiraled out of control, Ashley Judd, TED Talks, 16:10

I've included this video at Ashley Judd, but think it might be useful elsewhere as well. Feel free to copy the template and place it wherever you think best. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Research on ways to reducing gender gap on Wikipedia

Hi all. My name is Leila and I am a senior research scientist at WMF. There is a proposal for doing research on interventions that may help reduce the gender gap on Wikipedia. If you are interested, I'd appreciate if you read the proposal and let me know in the discussion page of the proposal whether you or other experienced editors you know are interested to help with it. As you will see once you read it, the intervention will only be meaningful if we can work with volunteers who see value in the research and are willing to give it a try. :) And needless to say, the intervention needs to be fleshed out more, but you will know the general idea with the current level of information. Looking forward to hearing from you. --LZia (WMF) (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Care to review?

Hello GGTF, I come from from the other side of our "Countering systemic bias" project at WikiProject Democratic Republic of the Congo with a request! Some time ago I wrote an article on Sophie Kanza, a Congolese politician and sociologist who also held some positions at the United Nations. I've read WP:Writing about women and made some changes accordingly to the article, but assistance would be helpful. Also, any additional information for the article would be most appreciated. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

After a quick reading, I find it to be a very good overview of her life. It covers all the bases. A couple of things might make it better. 1) I don't know enough about the Congo, it would be nice if I learned more about how the place affected her life. Just a bit more context and I'd learn more about her and about the Congo. 2) It's a bit formal, ticking off all the steps in her life. I'd really like to know more about her as a person - is there a quote or an incident that shows her as an individual or that really shows what she considered most important in her life? Of course those are tough to find even in the very best biographies. Thanks for a very good article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Help With an Article

I am having a problem on the Harem article with an editor who has tried to hijack it to push a theory that seems more interested in emphasizing negative stereotypes of Islam then featuring the women's history aspect of the article. I undid my edits because I don't want to help create a platform to promote negative stereotypes for an editor who has done a very minimal amount of work, and does not seem interested in the women's history aspect of the article. I need help with this because I have been unable to reach consensus with this editor, despite very long discussions on talk. This article is low-importance religion and mid-importance women's history. Seraphimsystem (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

"Keiliana effect" Wikimedia blog

Please see, How a feminist stood up to trolls and measurably changed Wikipedia’s coverage of women scientists if you haven't seen it already. It was published March 7, but I'd missed it so far. What truly impresses me is the measurable impact, both in the quantity and quality of women's bio articles, resulting from the work of Keiliana and Women in Red. Congrats. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

RFC about pronoun use

Users who watch this page may be interested in an RFC about the use of pronouns in policy, guideline, and help pages: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RfC to adopt a default gender neutral style for policy, guidelines and help pages. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Another RFC about pronoun use

Users who watch this page may be interested in this RFC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MOS:GENDERID for genderqueer people. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Would this be in bad taste?

Spc. Hilda Clayton, a US Army photographer died in Afghanistan while photographing a live fire exercise. See [10] In one way this is the perfect photo to use in an article like United States Armed Forces or Women in the military - it shows quite clearly that both men and women get killed serving their countries. On the other hand many folks might consider the photo to be horrific. I'm sure there will be people who fall on each side and I just want to have an idea of what the reaction will be before I upload the photo. Any advice appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Women's Equality Party - affiliation parameter in infobox

There is currently a proposal to remove the term "nonpartisan" from the info box of the article on the Women's Equality Party. Comments welcomed. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Draft template for nonbinary subjects

(Also posted to WT:LGBT) In light of persistent, deliberate misgendering of nonbinary people (some of whom identify as genderqueer) in Wikipedia articles, and the recent RfC on same which failed to gain consensus, I have drafted a MOS-NB template to complement the existing MOS-TW and MOS-TM templates for trans women and men. I invite constructive feedback, respecting that this draft is in my userspace and I myself am agender and prefer singular they pronouns. Thank you. Funcrunch (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to those who gave feedback. The template is now live at Template:MOS-NB. I've already added it to the talk pages of several non-binary BLPs. Funcrunch (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Dispute about feminist philosophy journal

There's a dispute about a feminist philosophy journal at WP:AN. It's specifically about what kinds of sources are regarded as RS for the inclusion of women's names, in case anyone is interested. See here. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The dispute at AN is about an admin's behaviour. But anyone wanting to comment on the content dispute is welcomed to bring the topic up at WT:JOURNALS, although I would advise people to read read WP:JWG and User talk:Randykitty#A request for background. It is specifically not about women's names, it is about whether or not academic journals articles should list the editorial board's members / how to avoid WP:PROMO. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Assistance please on Elizabeth Ann Linley lead

I am having a "discussion" on the talk page of this article. The lead states Linley's family and marital relationships first and then her achievements in singing. I have changed this around twice and had it reverted by another editor twice; I have started a discussion on the talk page but the other editor is just being sarcastic. Other opinions would be welcome, TIA!! MurielMary (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Current sporting seasons > Football (soccer) 2017

A request for comment has been initiated related to the inclusion of women's football/soccer leagues in the Current Events portal. Input is welcome:

• Portal talk:Current events#RfC about Current sporting seasons > Football (soccer) 2017

Hmlarson (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment: WP:NFOOTY guideline

A request for comment is open regarding a proposed change to the WP:NFOOTY guideline here: RfC: Proposal for WP:NFOOTY guideline. Input is welcome. Hmlarson (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Emily Davison FAC

Emily Davison, the suffragette who died at the Epsom Derby in 1913, is at FAC. If anyone would like to comment, please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Davison/archive1. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Project Proposal: Investigating the Impact of Implicit Bias on Wikipedia

Hi Friends! Here is the current draft of my project proposal: Investigating the Impact of Implicit Bias on Wikipedia. I value your input and would greatly appreciate your feedback. Please share it on the project proposal discussion page. Thank you in advance! Best, Jackiekoerner (talk) 04:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Jackie, thanks for letting us know. It sounds interesting. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:NSPORTS intro wording change proposal

There's currently a proposal to change the wording of the introduction of WP:NSPORTS which impacts articles related to women athletes and women in sports. Many women's leagues, for example, are not included in various sports notability guidelines and editors rely on WP:GNG while most male athletes articles are given a pass by sports notability guidelines without having to meet WP:GNG. Input is welcome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#NSPORTS_introduction Hmlarson (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Gina Rippon

In case anyone wants to watchlist this, there's a disagreement about whether Rippon's bibliography should be included, following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Aronowitz bibliography, which is being interpreted as having set a precedent. Pinging The Vintage Feminist, who created the article about Rippon and Gina Rippon bibliography. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, there isn't actually a discussion there, but I did ask the admin who closed the AfD for clarification that discussion is here. It's not so much about Gina Rippon as it is about how long a scientist's bibliography should be / should they have one at all. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I've created >50 academics articles and my rule of thumb (when I include a bibliography) is to use google scholar and include four most-cited items plus any others with more than 100 citations. Wikipedia articles are meant to be primarily body text and a huge block of bibliography isn't. I can't think of an academic for whom I'd advocate a stand-alone bibliography except maybe Paul Erdős. Gina Rippon's bibliography should almost certainly be either trimmed or restructured. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

If that is the rule of thumb that you use then fine, but there is no precedent or policy in this matter. To suggest that there is as was done here is incorrect. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_female_military_historians

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_female_military_historians. Zazpot (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Holly Neher

Second nomination AfD open for discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly Neher (2nd nomination) Hmlarson (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Well I joined in... kinda wish I hadn't. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

LauraHale might be interested in commenting there. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

This sort of incident that people are is one event tend to miss that these historic one note kind of events for firsts as they relate to women in sport, when they reach a critical point with some media attention (which tends to be enough that the information is easily findable), they get more widely cited. Their participation as outliers tends to lead to specific name citations in academic research and books published on the sociology of women in sports. The body of research on this topic huge in the extreme.

But a broader issue is the research also talks about how their are issues of sexism as they relate to women's participation, where these women's achievements are hidden, downplayed and minimized. American football is covered extensively in research as it relates to fan response to their participation. Importantly, the research talks about the more that American society tends to head towards a more gender equitable one that opens up opportunities for women, the more that American football attracts men who see the sport as a way of defining hypermasulinity. They see women's involvement as fans and players as a threat to their definition of masculine ideals. There becomes this need to downplay the role of women. (This of course is a bit in conflict with the NFL's goals of increasing female viewing and participation in fandom, as their male fan base has plateaued a bit. The best way to insure they continue in the future is to attract and maintain a large female following.)

Given this, no matter how many sources you cite for some women in some sports, even if it were to top over 50 and included both national and international newspapers in multiple languages, some people are always going to be opposed. You can't "win". The only way to win would be to have admins who close who recognize the problems of bias in the arguments, and otherwise support policies like WP:GNG where there is a clear demonstration of notability as it relates to women and not allowing contributors to argue for an artificially higher bar than policy demands of women, minorities in their own country and people from non-English speaking countries. It isn't a battle I am particularly keen to fight because it puts you in the cross hairs. --LauraHale (talk) 10:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

The objections are, ostensibly, not that she's female, as much as that she's only famous for one event, which event was rather recent, so it's not clear if she's of any lasting notability. So the battle might be lost immediately, but won later, simply if reliable sources keep writing about Neher. We can come back in four or six months. --GRuban (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

The one event thing rather misses the point, as this not one event. It is someone doing a notable first, for which that makes them notable. This argument of one event tends to fail, and is often trotted out in sports arguments because similar levels of coverage for male during one season where there is not a first would result in automatic notability. That a season's worth of coverage, irrespective of the first aspect, is where the systematic bias is.

The people who are engaging in biased behavior cannot be reasoned by pointing this aspect out that they have different standards. They will engage in wikilawyering to argue one event, despite the standards being less for male athletes who receive similar levels of coverage.

The focus on hypermasculinity as it relates to the NFL and American football (gridiron) is a topic worth reading if you're interested in the issue of systemic bias in women's sports. A few papers that might be worth starting with include

* Football, it’s a man’s game: Insult and gendered discourse in The Gender Bowl

*The mismeasure of masculinity: the male body, ‘race’ and power in the enumerative discourses of the NFL Draft

*The Televised Sports Manhood Formula

*New Media and the Repackaging of NFL Fandom

*Sports and Male Domination: The Female Athlete as Contested Ideological Terrain

*Examining Media Contestation of Masculinity and Head Trauma in the National Football League

*Boyhood, organized sports, and the construction of masculinities

*Boys to Men

*‘Have You Got Game?’ Hegemonic Masculinity and Neo-Homophobia in U.S. Newspaper Sports Columns

*Women’s Sport Spectatorship: An Exploration of Men’s Influence

*Reflections on Communication and Sport: On Men and Masculinities

*‘‘I Used to Think Women Were Weak’’: Orthodox Masculinity, Gender Segregation, and Sport

Revisiting this in a few months is not going to change the fundamental narrative that will be put forth of one event, despite prolonged coverage over a period of time that covers a season's performance. While not comparable because it involves a professional league, WP:NBASE says, "Have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues" and "Have appeared in at least one game in any of the following defunct leagues". Standards for other sports on English Wikipedia for notability include playing one game. Playing one game is not considered WP:1E for these guidelines. Here, people are being asked to define WP:1E as a whole season. If you're not going to get a keep here despite a season's worth of coverage, you're not going to get it in a few months. The same underlying biases discussed in literature about football being tied to masculine identities still applies. This means it comes back to an issue of training an admin core to recognize these biases that result in a woman not being notable for a season's worth of media coverage, that includes national media coverage, for being WP:1E when similar standards are not applied to men. Months are not going to make a difference on this as those biased arguments will still win the day. --LauraHale (talk) 08:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

If anyone thinks this is notable, I'd suggest !voting now instead of relying on a recreate. Sometime a quick speedy delete of WP:G4 (Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) happens without discussion. Then, this would get stuck in WP:DRV to recreate.—Bagumba (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Grr. All right, you convinced me. --GRuban (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I tried to find a similar male sportsperson whose article was kept, but I'm not sure which categories to look in. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure I'd find local politicians that get less coverage (and not even at the national level) of their entire term than Neher has gotten in a few weeks. There's an intellectual bias against athletes being encyclopedic, and people have a knee-jerk reaction to high school athletes when most are limited to routine coverage in the local paper. So take a HS athlete, and combine it with the fact that it's a girl who achieved a first for females for her state, then people parrot BP1E despite her getting coverage for more than one event, and the closer counts votes.—Bagumba (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to add NWHL to Hockey notability guideline

There is currently a proposal put forth by another editor to add the top American women's league, the NWHL, to the Hockey notability guideline: WP:NHOCKEY. As it stands now, the WP:NHOCKEY excludes most women players in top leagues, including the NWHL. Articles about women players for the most part rely on WP:GNG though "fails WP:NHOCKEY" is often noted in AFDs (articles nominated for deletion discussions). The discussion is here. Input is welcome. Hmlarson (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I presume you mean National Women's Hockey League (2015–). The link NWHL is a dab page. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Hmlarson: thanks for letting us know. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Main page illustrations today

It doesn't happen often, but right now all 4 of the 4 images of people on the main page are of women. Woop woop! Of course, particularly proud to see my countrywoman Jacinda Ardern featured :-) MurielMary (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Invited to join - have I joined?

HI there - I was invited to join the Gender gap task force and am very very keen to do so! How do I sign up? Have I already? Could someone let me know? Thanks very much - Perry Bill (Perry Bill (talk) 11:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC))

Well, formally you add your name to Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force#Participants. But that's the easy part, that's not the most important thing. More important things, in terms of impact ... and difficulty! ... are actually working to narrow the gender gap, such as:

• Writing and expanding articles about women, and subjects of interest to women: User:Gobonobo/Gender Gap red list has a lot of red articles; for a model to follow in turning them blue, you could do worse than looking at Special:Contributions/Keilana
• Editing articles about women to reduce bias: Wikipedia:Writing about women
• Recruiting female editors. --GRuban (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at RFC: Non (computer science) pioneers listed as computer science pioneers just because they're female

You are invited to join the discussion at RFC: Non (computer science) pioneers listed as computer science pioneers just because they're female. Zazpot (talk) 13:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Zazpot (talk) 13:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

(Also: You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List_of_pioneers_in_computer_science#The_first_X_to_achieve_Y_is_not_noteworthy. Zazpot (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC) )

This link does not point anywhere, as [[RFC:...]] is not a valid Wiki shortcut. ValarianB (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I assume this is about the RFC here: Talk:List of pioneers in computer science#RFC: Criteria for inclusion in this list. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it also has to be read in conjunction with the two threads above it for background to the RfC – The first X to achieve Y is not noteworthy and Meet criterium? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

ValarianB, I'm unsure why the original link stopped working. Sorry about that. Pretty sure it worked when I inserted it. Anyhow, have now updated it.

Granger, correct; thanks!

The Vintage Feminist, also correct; thanks! Also see other recent discussions on the same page, and edit comments in recent deletions, additions, and reverts made to the article.

Please WP:PING me if you reply here, as I am not watching this page. Thanks! Zazpot (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Also related: User_talk:Icewhiz#3RR. Zazpot (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC Template:Evolutionary psychology

Discussion on the inclusion of Cordelia Fine and Gina Rippon. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Sexual assault allegations as someone's "personal life"

I went onto Kevin Spacey's blp today to see if the Anthony Rapp allegation & subsequent apology etc. from Spacey had been added. I was quite shocked to see it on both men's blps as part of their personal life and said so on both talk pages. I then visited Harvey Weinstein's blp where it is (quite rightly IMO) separated into it's own section of Allegations of sexual harassment, assault and rape with a link to the main article.

However, I went through the first half dozen or so alleged victims of Weinstein and where his name was mentioned it was again as a part of the alleged victims' personal life. Surely he is not part of their personal life. Isn't this a breach of WP:AVOIDVICTIM? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Reasonable. Where would you put them? Career subsection, since these were career related assaults? Separate section? For Spacey, however, arguably his reaction to the accusation, by coming out as gay, is very much personal life. --GRuban (talk) 03:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I think a sub-section of their career would also be inappropriate. A section of its own would be the most appropriate. For me, if the allegations are true, then it is an intrusive thing that happened to them not a part of their personal life or their career. The analogy would be, if you were attacked on your way to work would you consider it part of your personal life, part of your career or neither. For me it would be neither, someone else describing it as one or the other would be compounding the intrusiveness on my life of the initial attack. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it's not appropriate in "personal life". It could be placed in "early life" in several cases or in its own section if it's more than a sentence. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem with making it a completely separate section is that it gives the event additional weight: we'd have a table of contents for a person reading

• Early life
• Career
• Personal life
• Assault allegations

as if a single assault were as important to that person as their whole career, or their whole personal life, or their whole life before their career. People are different, but for most of them I don't think it was. For most, I honestly think making it a career subsection would be best, since for most of them it didn't have an impact equal to those other things, and it was an encounter in the course of their career, and we have to put it somewhere. Where would we put a car accident someone was in, or fraud that someone suffered, that didn't really mark someone for life? Kyra Sedgwick and Kevin Bacon each lost money in the Madoff investment scandal - we have to put that somewhere, but we don't make it a standalone section, it didn't cripple them, they go on, and we put in Personal life. If it didn't injure them for a long period, I'm guessing we would make it a subsection of something, even if it doesn't fit perfectly. (Then, of course, there is Asia_Argento#Personal_life where she alleges both assault and also consensual relations with Weinstein. People are complicated.) --GRuban (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Just looking at one on the list, she says he raped her in her home in the late 1980s when she was in her 20s and harassed her for years afterwards. That would certainly have affected her for life. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll buy that. But people are different: reading a few random sources from Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations here is Tara Subkoff's story in Variety, where it clearly affected her quite a bit, but by affecting her career more than anything else. And here is Sean Young's story in The Telegraph where she says she was harassed by Weinstein, but it didn't seem to have much impact as such; she was, she says, also harassed by Warren Beatty, and penalized for the accusation by Barbra Streisand and was herself accused of stalking James Woods ... people are complicated. --GRuban (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to respond to this but I don't think we should be viewing rape and investment scandals in the same light. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Of course; the point is that each situation seems different enough that it might need to be written about differently. I don't see a generally applicable rule. If you pick a specific case, or several, where the assault allegations don't belong where they are now, I'll be glad to help. For example Sarah's cite of being raped and harassed for years seems to rate a separate section for most biographies. Sean Young's story accusation that Weinstein exposed himself to her almost certainly doesn't. Tara Subkoff's accusation that Weinstein damaged her career seems fitting for career. Asia Argento's claim of a complex five year relationship could well belong in personal life. GRuban (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Sean Young's accusation ("story"?) that Weinstein exposed himself to her does not appear on Sean Young's blp, which is exactly my point. If it were to be added which section should it go in? I'm not sure that I agree with the sentiment that it "certainly doesn't" rate a separate section. I would argue it downplays and underestimates what happened to not give it its own section, even to the point of breaching WP:NPOV. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, accusation, no argument, changed. Her accusation against Warren Beatty, also mentioned in that Telegraph article, doesn't have its own section. Should it, and if not why not? If it should, should they go together ("Accusations of sexual harassment") or separately ("Accusation of sexual harassment against Warren Beatty"; "Accusation of sexual harassment against Harvey Weinstein")?

I think making it a separate section would be undue weight relative to the rest of her article. I can imagine a separate section for rape, or multi year stalking, or having your career ruined (or at least noticeably delayed) because you won't have sex with someone. Those could be major life affecting events. I somehow don't see that Weinstein exposing himself to Young affected her at that level. It may well be worth mentioning in a sentence in the article, but I think it would be undue weight to give it a separate section. That would minimize the rest of her life by comparison. I am not a Sean Young expert, but just from reading that Telegraph article, where she talks about it for a single paragraph, I doubt she or others consider it of the more important things in her life; I would guess that there are movie roles, relationships, children that she, and those that study her, consider far more important, and that don't have individual sections.

As a related matter, I notice her article does have a paragraph about being arrested for slapping a security guard. That doesn't seem to fit personal life either, though that is where it is, so would you move that up to be a separate section? I wouldn't, for the same reason. And while I wouldn't want to be accused of comparing rape to investment, I would think that physical assault and sexual exposure, though different, could be viewed in the same light. --GRuban (talk) 05:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Part of the problem may lie in how we are framing this. These women are part of a group that chose in 2017 to speak out. That's how it should be framed. Not "A was raped, B assaulted, C harrassed". SarahSV ^(talk) 05:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The basic problem is that the format "Early life", "Career", "Personal life" is only suitable when most of a biography's contents are related to the subject's career. As a result anything non-career related tends to get shoehorned under "Personal life", and doesn't get integrated into the rest of the person's chronological timeline. For someone with significant non-career related information, it would be better to re-organize the sections into chronological segments of the person's life. isaacl (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment: In my opinion, it's a case-by-case matter. In some cases, the Personal life section might be the best section to include the material, especially if it didn't get much media attention and it would be WP:Undue weight to give it its own section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

And by "not much media attention," I'm mainly thinking of significantly less famous people, including YouTube personalities. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Specific article example

OK, case in point, Tara Subkoff - I tried to use Sarah's suggestion of incorporating the subject in the group that chose to speak out, while yet putting it in the Career section, which the incident seemed most relevant for in her case, since it was directly relevant in changing her career. What say you all? --GRuban (talk) 02:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

And there was a silence across the land. How about multiple choice?

1. Yes, this is great!
2. No, this is terrible, you should do X!
3. Part good, part bad, improve it like so: ...
4. Other: ...

--GRuban (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)?

@GRuban: I like the way you did that. You began with the positive emphasis on her membership of the group that decided to speak out (I would maybe say that she "joined the group of women speaking out about the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations), then you segue nicely into the reason she did Imitation of Christ. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Done, except not "speaking out about" - the group of women are not merely discussing or even supporting the allegations, they're making them. --GRuban (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Thing is...editors or readers are likely to miss that and therefore are likely to add material on the matter to the Personal life section, where they usually see such information. Either that, or they will start a section for it if they don't see it already noted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, so ... what do you suggest? --GRuban (talk) 02:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pioneers in computer science

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pioneers in computer science. Zazpot (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)