Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 61

Archive 55

←

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

→

Archive 65

Dorothy Meigs Eidlitz

I found Dorothy Meigs Eidlitz hiding in a listing of the National Gallery of Canada's permanent collection. Her Times obit calls her an "amateur photographer", but there she is in the National Gallery of Canada's collection, and in the Brooklyn Museum's collection. I thought I would post here as there are some very good editors who lurk this page. There is much more that could be expanded in this article; in particular I was not exactly sure how to characterize her advocacy for women: feminist, advocate, campaigner? She's really fascinating, and must have had a huge art collection as the web is littered with "gift of the Dorothy Meigs Eidlitz foundation" passing mentions, for serious artworks from her collection that are now in museums across North America.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP: I've added a few bits and pieces but you seem to have covered all the essentials yourself. Maybe someone can find images of her photographic work which we can include in the article.--Ipigott (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I added a redirect from Dorothy Eidlitz - always a good idea to add rds from all plausible versions of a name, and here the first source uses this in its title. PamD 18:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Data about BLPs

Andrew Gray has been kind enough to compile some data about BLPs, using Wikidata, and has written a fascinating blog post about it: Gender and deletion on Wikipedia. He has uploaded the graphs to Commons.

There have been some questions recently about whether existing BLPs about women (BLPs that have not been deleted) were more likely to have been taken to AfD at some point. Andrew thinks that used to be true, but that things have recently levelled off. He wrote: "Female BLPs created 2009-16 appear noticeably more likely than male BLPs of equivalent age to have been through a deletion discussion at some point in their lives (and, presumably, all have been kept). Since 2016, this has changed and the two groups are about even."

Andrew, thank you for putting all this together. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

This is very interesting, SlimVirgin, and thank you, Andrew Gray, for compiling the information and writing the blogpost. I'm curious if this methodology could be used on non-BLPs to offer a similar perspective? --Rosiestep (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Rosiestep, yes, I'm sure it can. Andrew will be able to say more. I meant to thank RexxS too for responding to the request on Wikidata. Also pinging David Eppstein who was interested in the AfD issue. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the ping. It's interesting to see that according to this data recent articles on women are not much more likely than those on men to be taken to AfD, unlike in the past. That has not been my experience but the ones I see are probably a skewed sample. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

David, bear in mind that this is about BLPs, not all biographies, although I get the sense that BLPs are more likely to be nominated. Another factor (if I've understood this correctly) is that the data is about BLPs that have not been deleted. It would be interesting to see the figures for all BLPs/biographies, the deleted ones too, but I don't know whether Wikidata can do that. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, that would be interesting (including the BLPs which were deleted). Pinging Victuallers as we had wondered about this very point. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Our Wikidata expert, Tagishsimon, might also be able to help with this. I would also like to point out that a couple of years ago there was of huge batch of BLPs on sportswomen which were deleted. That must have had a considerable effect on the stats. (See also my comments here.)--Ipigott (talk) 06:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

This report,[1] published in February 2019, though it measures only sociologists, concludes similar findings about BLPs at AfD. It concludes that deletion likelihood is similar, but also concludes that our PROF guidelines propagate under-representation of women and minorities in that they "transmit existing inequalities into the encyclopedia and magnify them informationally". SusunW (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh thank you!! A discussion worth having! Gathering some solid evidence is exactly what we require. This reads like an informed debate. I have to go to bed now but I do so with an increased confidence in this project. Victuallers (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The post mentions one ambiguity with the data: the fact that, for older existing articles, women are more likely than men to have been nominated for deletion could mean that there was a greater rate of nomination for women than for men, but it could instead mean that the rate of nomination was the same but the women's articles were more likely to survive (and their survival is why we still see more of the nominated ones today). But it doesn't mention a different and important ambiguity. From the data, recent creations have more-similar nomination rates between men and women than older creations. The natural conclusion one would leap to from this is that, whatever was causing the inequality in nomination rates has gone away and everything is more or less equal now. But that doesn't necessarily follow from the data. A different, and equally consistent hypothesis is that we are in a steady state where there are two phases of nomination, one for newly created articles and one acting on a longer-term basis on older articles, that the nominations for newly created articles are egalitarian, and that the nominations for older articles are not. Under this steady state hypothesis, the reason older articles are more unequal is not because the nomination rates have changed, but merely because those articles have had more time to be subjected to the unequal longer-term nominations. If you repeated the same experiment a few years earlier or later you would see the same picture, with the same appearance that things are becoming more equal, shifted over by however many years, with things never actually becoming more equal. I'm not saying that this is more likely, only that we can't rule it out. So it's interesting data but still not conclusive. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: I would certainly agree with your suggestion that there are probably two deletion "processes" - one acting on new articles (and probably very time-sensitive), one longer-term. I think we can even see evidence of the longer-term one - once an article is more than a couple of years old, the likelihood of having an associated AFD does seem to slowly increase with age for both populations, which is what you'd expect with such a background effect. As to which is more likely to be biased, I can easily imagine an argument either way; agree it's hard to rule out such an effect! Andrew Gray (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I think this is an important issue for which I am grateful to have some statistics. I am relatively new to Wikipedia editing, so my view is one of fresh eyes. As a newbie working to add BLP content on women who are also queer and/or women of color, the biggest barrier I have seen to closing the gender gap and making WP better at covering diversity is not bias on the part of editors, but the lack of coverage of diverse people in the conventional RS. This data would tend to support that impression, although I'd need to see an analysis of deleted articles to be completely satisfied. I'd like it if there was a way for WP to give extra weight to coverage in diverse reliable sources like Ebony, Out Magazine, and Curve for example, but I'm far too new to WP to know if that's possible, practical or even desirable. —IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

IdRatherBeAtTheBeach I mostly work on dead people, for whom English is not a first language, who are women of color and often LGBT. Sources are hard for people who have not been part of the "power elite", regardless of whether they are living or dead. I think we just need to reiterate for various demographics, if the most reliable sources for that community have determined that a person is notable, then they are, regardless of if mainstream sourcing recognizes their contributions. You will get pushback that it is not wholly independent, that the source has a COI, and that they are local sources/or limited circulation, etc. But, the precedent IMO is WP:PROF, which unless something majorly changes in the next few days/weeks has clear consensus in the RFC (request for comment) that if the media outlet is deemed reliable, its coverage is acceptable as a source. SusunW (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move: Chairman

In case anyone is interested, see Talk:Chairman#Requested move 8 May 2019. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I have been following the lengthy discussions on chairman and similar terms. While I have no strong views on the matter, I try to adapt my own usage in articles to the terms preferred by the individuals under discussion. Nevertheless, I think we should be careful not to make Wikipedia prescriptive. Our encyclopaedia, like other similar works, should reflect common usage. Articles should have the titles users are most likely to expect, while common variants should be explained and included as redirects. If, for example, users are looking for "chairman" and find an article headed "chairperson", they will no doubt be surprised. The same arguments apply to "craftsman", "spokesman", "statesman", etc. Perhaps more account should be taken of the pros and cons put forward in the article Gender neutrality in English.--Ipigott (talk) 10:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I just !voted before reading this, and before voting looked up Fireman and Postman. They redirect to Firefighter and Mail carrier, so I see no reason why Chairman should not also redirect to Chairperson (and similarly with the other terms). RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

RebeccaGreen: Interesting... I suppose "mail carrier" is American. I've never seen the term although from my days in Canada I do remember "mailman". It sounds to me like a paper bag or possibly a pigeon. But I suppose we Brits should give in to the American dominance of Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 11:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is American. We certainly don't use it in Australia - unless perhaps for a company carrying mail. We tend to use 'postie' as a gender neutral term, though I expect that there's a more formal term too. At least other terms are given in the first sentence of the article. As for US dominance - there are so many dominances! Film and TV over stage or books, Google results over offline or paywalled sources - and yes, US over other countries, not to mention men over women - so much to do! RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

RebeccaGreen: Well you've made a good start yourself. Four really interesting informative biographies of Australian women. Two of them look as if they are very close to GA standard. Keep up the good work.--Ipigott (talk) 13:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

How to proceed with names that are in the list but have Wikpedia pages in another language?

Hello, In looking through the 'Women in Red' list (occupation/artists) I have noticed a few names that do not not have an English Wikipedia page but do have either French, Spanish or German Wikipedia pages. How are we to proceed with these names? Are we to create an English page and include info from the existing page (adding if we can) - or - are we to notify the 'Women in Red' project that a page exits for the name in another language? One example is Chantal duPont (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chantal_duPont). Thank you!LorriBrown (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I can't comment on best practices, but Chantal duPont took me about fifteen minutes to parse and translate from the French. About 80% of the original material is lost, as I do not have the patience to parse each award from the French wikicode , which uses different names for ref values, to English wikicode. I have done a few from French and it strikes me that it's about 20% better than starting from scratch. It is not as much fun either, as you are basically doing machine-like translation tasks, rather than thinking about something original to write.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

LorriBrown It's been a while since I have translated a page, as usually I find it easier just to start from scratch. But, if you translate from any other language, you need to attribute it using the translated template on the talk page, i.e. {{translated page|(2 digit language code)|(article name in the original language)|version=(of the original language)|insertversion=(version on English WP)}} (If I got it screwed up, someone will come along and correct me, but I think that is the correct format.) The version numbers can be found by going to the view history tag and pressing on the time/date for the article. It will take you to the article and in the address bar (http:www.) will tell you the version. Another thing you need to do is when you have completed the article, on the task bar on the left hand side, scroll to the bottom. Where it says "Languages" press edit links. Type in your digit language code (i.e. es, fr, de) and the name of the article in the original language. It will then link all language versions with your new English one. SusunW (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

It strikes me that some code (to translate the reference fields and other relevant entries) would be a wonderful thing here. The code would take a non-English article, and produce a properly referenced English article, leaving just the English text to be translated manually. I write code sometimes, but am not sure what language would be appropriate for this task. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Such a translation tool does exist example of Spanish to Italian. It has just been disabled on English Wikipedia as an RFC ruled it introduced too much bad content. --LauraHale (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@LorriBrown: For me, it depends. I recently wrote Alicia Miyares Fernández which was available in three other languages. Because these articles were not fully sourced with references, I worried they were vulnerable to lots of tagging and possible deletion nomination. I've also had experiences where lack of citations can mean content was copied (either from Wikipedia to sources, or from other sources to Wikipedia). It felt safer to use existing references and start from scratch. If the article in Spanish was well sources and those sources clearly established notability for English Wikipedia, I would feel much safer straight up translating, which I more or less did for 1970 Law on dangerousness and social rehabilitation. It is more a preference issue for me as to the way to make the least waves when mainspacing to make sure content sticks. --LauraHale (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The relevant guidelines are at Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. I'm a big proponent of translating, as it's faster than de novo article creation and often benefits multiple underrepresented groups at the same time. I tend to cherry-pick articles that already have good sourcing, as this greatly reduces the amount of work required. Even so there are always links to fix and references to update. Nick Number (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP, SusunW, LauraHale, & Nick Number Thank you each for you input on this topic! I likely will create a page from scratch for her, and perhaps the others as well. This info is very helpful to understand how best to proceed. LorriBrown (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

You could just add to this: Chantal duPont! ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

In my case, I usually start by using the other language articles only for their references (as possible sources for an English article), write the article from scratch from the references, double check the other articles in Google translate for relevant claims that I neglected to include, and then if necessary search for proper sources for those claims and add them. So I don't directly translate (even with the assistance of Google translate), mostly because I don't trust the other-language articles to be properly sourced and comprehensive (or worse; in a recent example, Julena Steinheider Duncombe, the foreign-language article appears to be a direct translation from the English obituary, so translating it back would end up being a form of plagiarism). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• I use {{Illm}} a lot for this sort of situation. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• Regarding the translation tool, it only exists for a limited amount of translation, e.g. Spanish to English (I've used that one a lot!), but not, for example, Serbian to English, etc. English Wikipedia doesn't require English language references, so if you are able to review the ones in say, Spanish, you can use them and some of what the translation tool suggests (but it's not perfect).
• Regarding the Wikidata-generated redlists, I think Tagishsimon is working on my request to add a column for "# of sitelinks" to all of them; currently, it is just on some of them. For me, it's very helpful to know that there are multiple language versions of Jane Doe's article, and sometimes, I've used that to influence what article I create next. I might also review the translation of all of her articles as the basis of creating hers. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• LorriBrown: I realize I am coming to this rather late in view of all the constructive comments which have already been made. Nevertheless, as someone who has perhaps created some 500 women's biographies which already had an article in some other language version, I would suggest you begin very carefully by assessing first of all whether an article in English would be considered sufficiently notable on the basis of the criteria used for the English Wikipedia. Many of the other language versions are far more inclusive, some of them accepting articles with few if any declared sources. You can probably ascertain whether the article would be accepted in English by searching for secondary sources, especially those providing substantial coverage of the subject in books, journals and other encyclopaedic sources (not just in English but in other languages).

The Women in Red template provides some guidance here, especially under Resources, especially biographical dictionaries. Like David Eppstein, I don't think I have ever translated a foreign language article word for word although I know we have a number of WiR members who have done so quite effectively. I prefer to examine all the sources I can find and recreate the article from scratch. While I'm pretty fluent in most of the European languages, I do from time to time make use of Google translate and other machine translation systems for languages such as Finnish, Hungarian and Estonian which are unlike most of the other European languages. Even if you are not fluent in other languages, you will frequently find that women covered in other languages often have excellent sources in English too. In addition to searches on the name of the person in question, you will often find clues to other sources under awards, publications, news items, etc. Finally, you will often find it far easier to write articles about people who are no longer living than about living persons. Obituaries in large circulation newspapers are often an excellent source. If you are interested in any particular person, just let me know on my talk page and I may well be able to help you along (or simply advise you that the person in question might not make the grade on the English Wikipedia). I see by the way that you have already created four informative biographies. You can apply your experience to developing articles on women of interest you find on other language Wikipedias.

Good starting points for Chantal Dupont include this and this in English and this in French. Let's see how you get along.--Ipigott (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I usually translate (Japanese>English) articles in the Content Translation tool, then add a ton of English-language references and additional content once I've moved the article to draftspace. Non-English references are allowed, but I try to make it easier for anyone reviewing the article to see the subject's notability by using English sources. This also means that I do a ton of research before actually translating the article to make sure that there are enough viable references in English. By translating the page rather than writing from scratch, I can just hang the references wherever necessary, rather than putting together original sentences.

But as I'm sure you've gathered, everyone has a different process, so you should do what works best for you!Mcampany (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP, Thank you for setting up a page for her! Awesome, will try to add more info to that page! :-) LorriBrown (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you David Eppstein, Andy Dingley, Rosiestep, Ipigott & Mcampany for your input as well. This is all very helpful information on this topic!LorriBrown (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

fellows in the aaas

Hey everybody! Mix 'n match has a list of American Association for the Advancement of Sciences fellows. Every woman with a fellowship here (ie every woman on the list) meets the notability standards for Wikipedia! If you would like to help, the link is here. When these women are in Wikidata, they get automatically pulled for redlists!

If you set the action on "match mode", it's a super quick (and personally, very fun) way to match and create Wikidata items with some women (lots of men too). But, eventually, it would be awesome to see a graph of women who have been elected fellows over time and by field/division (there is a huge gap in engieering, it seems), so if you'd like, when you add somebody, you can put this information:

• add the statement "sex or gender" and enter "female"
• add the statement "occupation" and enter "scientist" or more specific terms (eg. "chemist" or "engineer") if you know it
• add the statement "award received" and enter "Fellow of the AAAS"
• add qualifier "point in time" and enter the year
• add qualifier "field of work" and enter the section's title (eg. chemistry or biological sciences, etc)

This sounds like more than it is, and if anybody knows of faster ways to do it, please let me know! Thank you if you can help. I'm going to put this on WP:Wiki scientists too. Sbbarker19 (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Just added a baker's dozen women scientists of various specialities using above instructions. Yes, it is slow but worthwhile! Also amended above instructions so easier to see what needs to be added in Wikidata. Oronsay (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I am so excited!! Sbbarker19 (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The other better AAAS just elected Clare C. Yu as one of its fellows [2]. I would create an article but I have a COI (I'm not sure we've even met but we work at the same university). Maybe someone else wants to? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

RonBot11 not running?

Hi, just wondering why RonBot11 has not run for the last 3 1/2 weeks? The page was last updated by RonBot11 on 7th of April. I hope it will resume - there are many notable subjects whose draft articles can be improved and resubmitted/moved to mainspace, it would be a great pity to lose access to the rejected drafts. (I posted this on the WikiProject Women in Red/Drafts Talk page, but perhaps that is not viewed often - or perhaps no one knows why RonBot11 isn't running ...) RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Paging @Ronhjones: Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for paging User:Ronhjones, I didn't think of that. I looked at his user pages today, including User:RonBot, and this bot is supposedly still active, and should be running automatically - but isn't, sadly. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Pacific cricket

Hi. Combining two niche areas in one go, women's cricket and individuals from Pacific islands, I've created the following biographies following the conclusion of the 2019 ICC Women's Qualifier EAP tournament:

• Selina Solman
• Regina Lili'i

They are the current captains of the Vanuatuan and Samoan women's cricket teams respectively. Every little helps! Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

FP stats

22 FPs of or related to women have been promoted since the start of the year, out of 156 FPs. Remembering that many FPs do not involve people (besides the photographer) at all (animals, buildings, etc) this makes for a fairly healthy 14% of all FPs for this year. Using a sample of 100 images, about 61% of FPs have no substantial connection to a human with gender (no painter, no composer they're related to, no humans. So buildings, space objects, animals, fruits, etc, but not things like paintings or posters where they could potentially be attached to a gender). Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.6% of all FPs} 16:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden that is very cool! Did you see the photo I found for Aletta Jacobs by Max Büttinghausen? It is the best photo of her I have ever found and I am so hoping you can work with it to remove the surface imperfections and improve it. SusunW (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, didn't you see I was working on it? I'm kind of busy at the moment, but it should be in the net couple FPCs. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.6% of all FPs} 16:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Dancing a jig! Adam Cuerden, I did not, but the last 6 months have been crazy for me and last week was my birthday week, so I have been off-line more than on. This news makes me soooooooo happy! SusunW (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden, I am so jazzed to hear that 22 out of 156 FPs are about or related to women. Statistically, that's incredible, right?! Wow and congrats! BTW, the application period is open to submit a session proposal for Wikimania Stockholm 2019. Maybe consider submitting one regarding your work? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I won't be there. I'd need a scholarship to afford it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.6% of all FPs} 19:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: You're inspiring me to start looking at some potential FPs as well. What do you think of File:Lolotte and Werther by Eunice Pinney.jpg, for instance? It's an intriguing example of folk art by a rare early American female folk artist. Think it'd pass muster? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: I think that should do quite well. Be sure to clearly state why it's important. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.6% of all FPs} 03:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: Of course. I'll try to have it up before bed. Another I've been waffling on: File:Lady Seated in a Boston Rocker MET ap66.242.14.jpg. I love the piece - Davis is a fascinating artist whom I've recently discovered - but I'm not quite convinced it's originally in black and white. What compounds the issue is, some of her work is in black and white, while other pieces were touched up in color. It's tricky, to say the least. (Now, if the National Gallery would get off its duff and properly digitize its watercolors by Mary Ann Willson - those, I think, would be fascinating FPC candidates.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 03:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: The words "Watercolor and graphite on smooth-surfaced tan wove paper" give me pause here. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.6% of all FPs} 04:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: Oh, damnation. I really like Davis, but that was the only picture I could find that was even remotely of FP quality. Ah, well - thanks for spotting. Another one: what do you think of File:Woman with Roses in Hair.jpg? There are condition issues, but I think those are present in the original. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: I think the damage makes it a poor example of her use of colour: it's blurred the washes, and made it likely non-representative. It would probably pass if there's enough information on the painting itself to make an article on the painting. Otherwise, I'd keep looking. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.6% of all FPs} 04:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, Eunice Pinney is up. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Adam I was hoping you might make it to the Edinburgh Uni Library session on the 29th of the this month. (29th WIR ed editathon on the 29th). I'm sure Ewan would find time for a presentation by you (in leau of Wikimania). Brilliant work, Roger aka Victuallers (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Victuallers: Should be doable! Though if you have Skype or something, we should probably talk a bit about what you'd like to see covered, as I don't know the audience breakdown. Could you also add Nathaniel Gardner to the list of people, though? (Also, I have to leave by 7, as I got tickets to Avenue Q a month ago, and will have a very unhappy fiancé if I cancel them now) Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.6% of all FPs} 01:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Adam Cuerden: Ooops I got the date wrong ... and even then the editathon finishes at 5. The link is here. Do feel free to skype me - you can get my attention on Twitter #wikiwomeninred or send me an email in good time. Roger aka Victuallers (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Early May FP report

Since I tend to update these occasionally at first, a lot of these were mentioned, but since a lot have closed, here we go!

• (Jacinda Ardern after the Christchurch mosque bombings) continues to await OTRS approval.
• (Rei Kawakubo's fashion designs) passed.
• (Aline Duval) failed to reach quorum, and so has not passed.
• (Young Bhil girl) also had quorum issues and failed.
• (L'enfant et les sortilèges) hasn't failed yet, but will probably fail to reach quorum. (ETA: It did fail to reach quorum. It'll be back in a month or so.)
• (Mary Jackson), however, has massive support. (ETA: and passed)

Nothing since then yet. We can hope. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.6% of all FPs} 04:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: Any interest in trying your hand at retouching File:Heart Mountain Relocation Center, Heart Mountain, Wyoming. In his barracks home at Block 7 - 21, Bi . . . - NARA - 539206.jpg, for newly created article Julena Steinheider Duncombe? Among other issues (like the dust spot on the negative on the kid's cheek) it may have been flipped: the caption doesn't match the photo. Or maybe the caption was merely written by someone dyslexic. It is also used on Bill Hosokawa. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Unless they're all left-handed, I find it doubtful it's flipped. The calendar, insofar as I can tell, appears to have the dates arranged correctly. The mother holds the baby in her left hand, keeping her right hand free (typical for right-handed people). The person reaching for the cup does so with his right hand. The man holding the cup right of him has a watch on his left wrist - again, typical of right handed people. It seems more likely the description was done from the negative. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.6% of all FPs}

Thanks for the restoration! The subtle midrange contrast boost is a big improvement — their faces looked just like the wallpaper before. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Fifth-wave feminism

I have a draft on my user space of an article called fifth-wave feminism to describe a particular wave of feminism that is most prominent in Latin America. It has over 70 sources, most of them in Spanish. The problem is, right now Fifth-wave feminism redirects to How_to_Be_a_Woman#Fifth-wave_feminism. In 2017, before a lot of the material now found in the article I drafted existed, fifth-wave feminism was nominated for deletion and then redirected. I feel that the situation has changed enough that this warrants revisiting but unsure how to do it... and for the most part, I could probably name the article Fifth-wave feminism in Ibero-America without losing much (except for mild references to Poland, small bits on the USA, the UK, Turkey, Sweden and Ukraine which are kind of marginal to begin with.). Does anyone have advice on how I should go forward with main spacing? Or does it seem too marginal altogether that it shouldn't be main spaced? --LauraHale (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@LauraHale: I think it should be mainspaced and it should replace the redirect that currently exists. Giving that article title to a redirect for Moran's book is problematically Global North-centric. I suppose you could add a hatnote that says "not to be confused with" and link to the "How to be a woman" article so as to preserve what was there. --nonmodernist (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@LauraHale: I'm not aware of any evidence that there's such a thing as fifth-wave feminism. The small number of people who've used the term haven't explained clearly what it might mean. Do you have any high-quality English-language sources that we could look at? SarahSV ^(talk) 05:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: I came across this from the Irish Times which draws on The Guilty Feminist. But I've also been looking through Laura's draft which is supported by a wealth of sources mainly in Spanish. It looks to me as if it would be well worth while including it in mainspace, possibly with minor adaptations. The main problem appears to be the title. How about something like the Birth of fifth-wave feminism in Iberia and the Americas? That might allow for developments elsewhere to be included too. Laura has recently produced a wealth of historical accounts of the development of feminism in Spain. It would be great if she can now extend her expertise to covering Latin America.--Ipigott (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the problem with specifying "in Ibero-America" is that the article also has info on the UK, Poland, and Sweden. The sweeping international approach here is a benefit, not something that should be removed. And again, there is no reason that the redirect to Moran (who clearly hasn't done her homework on international feminist movements) should get to occupy that piece of mainspace. LauraHale's article is a good step towards correcting the Global North bias of WP coverage, especially around feminist topics (as are so many of her recent articles)! --nonmodernist (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi @SlimVirgin:. Thanks for the feedback. There are no good sources on fifth-wave feminism in Latin America and Europe in English. There are some sources in English like How is Western-Influenced Contemporary Performance Practice in Dialogue with Fifth Wave Feminism? but this deals with only England and does not mention Poland, Spain, Argentina, Brazil or any other European or Ibero-American or non-European countries. (It does mention the United States, Ireland, Canada, and Australia. It does not mention New Zealand, South Africa, Singapore, India or other English speaking countries.) It is probably the best academic publication in English I have found using open-access content. There are other tangential references in English, but these are often exclusively in a single English speaking national narrative context.

Most of the references use Spanish and Portuguese (with some Polish or Farsi language), some of which have been translated to the other for readers of newspapers and magazines in those languages. They reference fifth-wave feminism as an Ibero-American and Polish movement, not one of English speaking communities. It is also one these feminists self-describe as coming from outside the academy, one which rejects Anglo-Saxon feminist models and as being a wave not about theory but about activism and engaging in this activism (often in response to gender violence) out of love for their fellow women. There is little to no theory actually discussed, beyond the rejection of capitalism and neoliberalist policies. The very nature of this wave, being in opposition to English speaking models, and its anti-capitalist nature based on taking to the streets appears to not make it of interest to English speaking feminists who are invested in their own feminist wave models. (Which can cause huge whiplash. I've mostly been reading about feminism in Spanish because I am writing about Spain. When I try to concept check some things, the Anglo-Saxon models don't match up and it gets more confusing when dealing with the fourth-wave outside of English speaking feminist writings as a lot of them talk about open rejection of queer theory. The cognitive dissonance is overwhelming.)

To which I guess is a long way of saying that, I would like to provide you with English language sources but English language feminist writers do not appear to be interested in writing about the experiences of non-English speaking feminists... which is already part of a broader critique anyway about the failings of these models. Not sure what can be done. My best options feel like label this as Ibero-American fifth-wave feminism since it doesn't fit with the Anglo-Saxon model and since there is a huge paupacity of sources in English. :( --LauraHale (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Ipigott, that source isn't an RS for this. Laura, this is the English-language Wikipedia, so you need to use English-language sources or supply English quotations in footnotes from your sources to show that they support the text. See WP:NOENG:

Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page.

Individuals may be mentioning a fifth wave here and there, but Wikipedia has to wait until there's a greater mass of sources. The danger is that everyone wants to be the new Rebecca Walker ("I am not a post-feminism feminist. I am the Third Wave.")

Writing about feminism in Ibero-America is not a problem, but if that's what you want to do, call the article Feminism in Ibero-America. Italy, Poland and the UK aren't in Ibero-America. You wrote about the UK:

For British feminists, a potential fourth or fifth-wave assumes that most of the inequalities faced by women in domestic and private spheres have disappeared or will shortly disappear; most of the goals of feminists have been accomplished. The new wave for British feminists will instead turn to a critique of feminine behavior in a post-patriarchal world.

What do those sources say to support the text or anything about a fifth wave? Notice the age of the citations: 2003, 2007 and 2014.

Notwithstanding everything you wrote above, would it not be better to use English-language sources when writing about British feminism? SarahSV ^(talk) 19:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the sources to support the UK paragraph, the first is just a book review of Moran's How to be a Woman. Source two is pp. 84–103. Source three is pp. 151–172. Laura, can you supply page numbers? SarahSV ^(talk) 19:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm surprised that the 'fifth wave' is already a thing. I did a little bit of reading on the fourth wave, and there were few resources then. I would recommend reaching out to the editors on WP:Feminism for their opinion. I feel like the article could be more balanced. The one USA source is in Spanish and there is no section for Canada. It's probably a language thing, but your use of the word anglo-saxon feels archaic to me. The critique section of the wave system sounds vague to me. There is already a description on a potential fifth wave in History of Feminism and it'd be great if you exanded the by countries sections there. Happy editing to all! Fred (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Jess Wade

Heads up for WiR - https://twitter.com/jesswade/status/1123494971435290624 - "since this whole thing, every page i’ve made has been tagged for deletion and queries made about people’s notability." You all might want to keep an eye on Jess's recent contributions. Currently just two pink-listed articles in her last 500 edits, one an AfD heading for snowball keep, and the other a deletion review heading for "don't be so stupid". Clarice Phelps seems to have been the immediate trigger, on which question there is a DailyDot article and, if we cannot have an article for the subject (her page has been salted by admins), we are surely at a point where we can have an article on Clarice Phelps Wikipedia controversy. Also smh. Also ❤️ Jess Wade. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

& @Jesswade88: fyi. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Many of these AfDs seem to have been initiated by the same user who requested to move the two WiR primers (see above). --Nonmodernist (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

It looks to me that with over 1,200 page views, Clarice Phelps is actually receiving far more attention than might have been expected if her biography had not been the subject of deletion. (Jesswade88's other recent articles have between 200 and 600 page views.) Unfortunately, the way things are going, it doesn't look as if there is much chance of saving the article. So where do we go from here? (If the article is completely removed from Wikipedia, it will still appear here. But that's hardly a solution.)--Ipigott (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

By coincidence, I had a brief interaction with Larry Sanger on twitter last night. On Clarice, it's the normal normal: we need to assess what sources there are, and whether they provide notability either for a subject article or for a controversy article. If we think we can make the arguement for the first, then we should go to WP:DRV and argue the case. If a controversy article, then we can start it and sit back and wait for the inevitable AfD. Clearly new sources may arise at any point, and so older decisions do not bind our future actions. I've not done any work on surveying sources; right now I'm obsessively cleaning an oven, just so you know a man's work is never done ;) (Sugar soap for the greasy stuff and vineger for the glass btw kids; gleaming. But I digress.)--Tagishsimon (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth working on this any longer. I've read all the discussions and the tweets. But we should, as you suggest, concentrate our attention on Jess Wade's future additions. She's doing a wonderful job, on Wikipedia itself as well as on Twitter and in the press.--Ipigott (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Just an FYI - the behavior in question has been brought up at WP:ANI. (Not inviting comment...merely informing, should anyone be interested.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I am disappointed by the language used by those seeking deletion of the articles on Clarice and Ana Achúcarro and their accusations of the statements against the AfDs. I follow WIR and Jess on Twitter and do my bit with links, etc to help incorporate new articles into WP. I am unwilling myself to weigh into the debates, but please keep up the strong defence of both these articles and the Women in Red project. I hope the situation settles down and we can get on with our work creating new articles.Oronsay (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Worth noting that bogus primary source & other nagware tags are being added to Jess's work; and, in the case of Leslie Kolodziejski, entire sections removed diff. Very depressing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd actually concur with the removal of the patents list (it's more suited to a CV than an actual biography), but the prose paragraphs (During her early career...) look defensible. XOR'easter (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

And now there's this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Tuttle. I was honestly thinking that was more of a "draftify per WP:TOOSOON" situation, but then I started looking for sources, and now I'm wondering if anyone bothered to do that before complaining. XOR'easter (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Since Jess's last few new articles are all "She was elected a member of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in 2019 ...", we can expect a quieter time while these last. There are still plenty of redlinked female scientists of very strong notability, & I wish she would concentrate on these, rather than walking the line of WP:TOOSOON. I was looking at this old list I compiled in 2014 and was surprised that quite a few are still red]] - it's been linked to from various places. Still no Betsy Bang! Johnbod (talk) 11:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

There's also this list, every woman on which has an entry in a biographical dictionary, which I usually find a solid criterion for notability as well. I'm surprised at how many redlinks are left on it as well. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Did you not notice that that's untrue before reposting it here? "since this whole thing, every page i’ve made has been tagged for deletion and queries made about people’s notability" Do you actually believe that? It's very simple to prove it wrong. Click on any one of the 500+ articles that have not been tagged for deletion, and you'll see that this is an invented claim. Natureium (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Natureium: Your attitude to Jess Wade's work goes before you, Natureium. As to your dismissal of Jess's claim, you invite us to look at the 500 article she started BEFORE the issue she refers to as rebuttal of the claim that every article she started AFTER the incident have been tagged. So let's add to our understanding of your view that all of Jess's work needs to be minutely policed the idea that you also think she's a liar.

As I urged elsewhere, please go and take a look at yourself in the mirror.

If you go through Jess's most recent articles, you'll see what looks quite clearly like a campaign by Netoholic, with contributions from you and from WBoG. Whilst I'm sure you are not a club, one - well, I, if perhaps not you - can imagine the distress of an editor having each & every one of her contributions being tagged and the majority taken to AfD as soonas she created them. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Tagishsimon, You know nothing about me, and have been going out of your way from the first time you addressed me to assume bad faith. It is not true that every article she has made has been tagged for deletion. Perhaps you can imagine the distress of all of the people you have ascribed motivations to based on your own judgment. Natureium (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure by your lights you are working in good faith. I'm equally sure that when turning up on an ANI forum dealing with mass tagging & AfDing of Jess's contributions, you pipe up with "no, she needs even more stringent scrutiny"; and coming here repeatedly saying "she's lying", that you show crass poor judgement. I'm not very surprised you don't like the reaction you're getting from me, but what did & do you expect? The three of you may not be a club, but you're certainly acting as a gang. Netologic is taken to ANI. You turn up to cheerlead their behaviour. Later, Netoholic having decalred that they will not be taking any more of Jess's articles to AfD, you take a Jess article to AfD, and Netoholic is the very first supporter you get.

If you apply dessicated forensic analysis to any of our work you will find faults. And if you extrapolate from the faults that sort of analysis has found, to the whole body of a person's work, you arrive at the conclusion that you seem to have struck on: that all of the person's work needs that sort of forensic analysis. That way lies madness. That is the point I was seeking to make in finding faults in one of your articles: it's easy to do, but it's wrong and it's harmful to the individual, to the community, and to wikipedia, which is currently being dragged through the gutter as a hang-out for misogynists based on your actions and those of the other two. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Pointing out that someone isn't completely off the mark in an ANI thread accusing them of things is perfectly acceptable. I didn't insult anyone, as you have repeatedly. I don't mind you pointing out problems with the articles I create. Going through these articles thoroughly and with good faith can only improve them. The good faith is key there. Not only were you incorrect about the problems you identified with the article, you did it to be rude rather than to fix anything (which you easily could have since you were going through it anyway). Natureium (talk) 22:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

You're very quick to dish it out, Natureium - I'm rude, Jess is a liar - but not so keen to receive criticism yourself. You might want to go away and think about that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm concerned there's an elephant in the room here. Jess's contributions are being scrutinised in some cases for sexist and misogynistic reasons, of that I have no doubt, and I'm well aware of the often toxic atmosphere which exists for anything other than white male geeks editing Wikipedia, but Jess really hasn't helped herself by saving articles which have serious sourcing deficiencies. The Clarice Phelps draft when first saved says "She graduated from the University of Tennessee with a PhD in chemistry in 2014." sourced to [3]. This source makes no mention of Phelps having a PhD, she isn't introduced as Dr Clarice Phelps, and on further analysis, it doesn't even confirm Phelps is a University of Tennessee graduate. The hot topic at the moment, Sarah Tuttle has a smaller but similar issue. The first line says "Sarah Tuttle is a Professor of Astrophysics and Science Communicator" but when looking at sources, we only have [4] discussing Tuttle's current title (assistant professor) and we have a second source [5] linking through to Tuttle's page at the University of Washington [6] where their title of assistant professor is confirmed, unfortunately this source wasn't used in the initial revision of the article as saved by Jess.
I know it's frustrating sometimes to have an article running away through your fingers because it's missing a couple of sources to confirm what you know or think you know, but the combination of original research and synthesis we see in some of Jess's articles is a large part of why so much of her work is being heavily scrutinised. - Nick (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, and I'm afraid similar stuff has happened at Rylie Green, which I have tried to untangle. Aside from the Phelps and Tuttle articles, I think it is the only one I've looked at. - Sitush (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nick: I have looked at four creations since this situated erupted but only three in any depth. At the Rylie Green article, there were issue taking the form of fact and mis-statement; in addition, the AfDs noted similar issues at the Clarice Phelps article, and problems are also emerging at Caroline Moore (academic). The other article I looked at was Sarah Tuttle but I didn't follow through on that one because I got a bit lost with the terminology etc. As I said yesterday at Talk:Caroline Moore (academic)#Bigging up, less haste might make for more speed - Jesswade88 doesn't have to create one new biography per day.

While mistakes are inevitable, the rate and scale of them from a random selection is rather alarming and, which is more concerning, they seem to have persisted right through from at least February 2018 (creation of Rylie Green) to the present time (Phelps, Moore). I'm guessing this is everyone's "fault" for lack of scrutiny that might have enabled Jesswade88 to improve her writing over time, and instead lauding her efforts without perhaps much consideration for the detail. It now leaves us with a mammoth task. Worse, such a huge block of scrutiny - didn't someone say there were 600 articles? - is likely to discourage Jesswade88 from participation in future, which would be sad.

Or is it just that I've been incredibly unlucky in landing on a very few poor examples among the 600? - Sitush (talk) 09:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Just quickly checked - it is 603 creations as of now, but probably some of those are redirects etc. - Sitush (talk) 09:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello Sitush, can I clarify that you are suggesting that none of the 603 articles are notable and therefore they should all be deleted? I suggest you read the articles before deciding on notabilty.Duncan.Hull (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Where have I said that? No, I am saying that the number of errors is concerning - there were issue taking the form of fact and mis-statement. - Sitush (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

“The rate and scale of these (mistakes) is alarming?” You say you’ve checked 4 so far? Before criticising my ability to write a wikipedia biography you could try reading some of the other 600 :-). I’d argue that they’re better quality than lots of the biographies / pages on this site. Of course, it would be even more helpful if other people contributed and the articles grew/ stayed up to date. As I recall, your criticism of Rylie Green arises from the fact she got promoted since I made the page last year? Jesswade88 (talk) 05:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

No, the issues at the Green article were more than that. I am very deliberately not going through everything you have done because I will just be accused of misogyny and stalking but you are aware that numerous other of your creations have attracted attention. There's nothing wrong with what you are trying to do; I just question the result and wonder if slowing down might resolve some of the issues. OTOH, if you really want me to go through all of your creations then I certainly can but I have suspicions that you won't like the outcome because you will be overloaded with pings. - Sitush (talk) 06:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Women's World Cup: A call for DYKs

Hello WiR! I am currently working on expanding coverage of women's soccer (football for those abroad) in celebration of the upcoming FIFA Women's World Cup, which runs from June 7 to July 7. It would be great if we could wrangle together a full set of eight DYK hooks to run on the final, and I have already taken the liberty of starting us off with Template:Did you know nominations/Im Eun-ju. Feel free to message me if you spot candidates for a potential DYK that need polish or further research; to start, there's plenty of red links and stubs at 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup (namely referees and a few managers listed here) that could yield a few DYKs. SounderBruce 23:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Duchess Harris

Could someone have a look at Duchess Harris? The article has been edited by accounts whose usernames sound as if there is a CoI. There are some formatting and editing issues. I don't have notability concerns but think the CoI and formatting issues put the article in danger of being nominated for deletion. I'm hesitant to edit it myself as it's not a subject I know much about. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Not my area either, but agree that there are issues. Have tagged it "like resume". Edwardx (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Tacyarg, you should report this over at WP:COIN. I tagged the article as an autobiography, given the edit history. I also warned the user with a similar name to the article ("The Real Duchess"), and applied TNT to some of the egregious promotional additions. It is still far from balanced.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, both. I looked at COIN but it says that forum is for when discussion on the talk page has failed. I tagged the other CoI username with Autobio also. Tacyarg (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The actual wording at COIN is "Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality." That is certainly the case here. Due to the insidious nature of COI, users and pages are often brought to COIN without prior discussion. This is an obvious case of autobiography. Usually the autobio tag scares off self-promoters, but COIN is more effective as it brings the attention of many editors to the page. It also requires notifying the users in question, which means they come to the discussion to explain themselves.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Requesting suggestions on an article

(Moved discussion) I have started a page on Woman's Exchange Movement. Writing a better article is beyond my abilities. Is there a place (aside from here) where I can let interested parties know this is a subject they might want to get involved with? It is a very interesting combination of feminism, altruism, and history. For example the movement had a surge after the Civil War (genteel war widows) and then again after economic disruption later in the century. Social class is a facet of this movement as well, and I have no idea how to side-step POV. I am pinging Megalibrarygirl, Victuallers, SusunW, Ser Amantio di Nicolao and Rosiestep (I'm going straight to the top) for advice on finding historians who would like to tackle this. Oh and any suggestions on tags for the talk page too. Thank you!. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Wow, these stores were the Etsy of the 19th Century! I looked for additional sources, but they were hard to find.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

WomenArtistUpdates fascinating subject. Never heard of it. ThatMontrealIP, the first two places I always look on historical subjects is Hathitrust[7] and archive.org.[8] If you check the links, you'll see there is quite a bit of info available. This one is particularly detailed. I'll try to look for a bit more tomorrow, but have a crazy schedule for the next week. SusunW (talk) 03:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

WomenArtistUpdates I'll look, too. I've been working on improving Friends of Libraries which was a stub. These groups are usually run by older men and especially women, so I see it as another systematic bias on Wikipedia that the article is in such sad state. Even worse, finding sources about Friends of the Library is hard because many of these groups didn't think it was important to document what they did. Historians pretty much ignore them. It's sad. Thanks for bringing the WEM to my attention, too. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't see that as "systematic bias" about gender. WP is absolutely hopeless at all such topic articles, especially about such minor social movements. The old version might easily have been much worse. Instead, most of our editors who write anything at all write biographies, or other articles on single discrete subjects. Johnbod (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl I think that the issue I am running into with the Woman's Exchange Movement (as well as clubwomen when that was featured) is that most of the real work was/is being accomplished on the local level. The national networks rise up out of the local exchanges (and women's clubs and friends-of-libraries). If only WP could replicate that organic growth in the articles; for example local historians writing about local exchanges. Evidently these altruistic women were meticulous in keeping records within their own organizations.

19th century American women tended to roll up their sleeves and work in their communities to get health, education, and welfare, rather than flapping their mouths on a national stage. I also agree with Johnbod that topic articles aren't attractive to most editors. Each topic needs to be approached uniquely, without a template BUT still contain no original research.

Thank you to everyone who took a run at the article. It is looking so much better. I will continue to research and would appreciate any suggestions/sources any WiRer runs into whilst wiki-ing WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod and WomenArtistUpdates: I do view it as bias. It's a bias in our society that sports, games and entertainment are considered more worth our time (and money). Topics like Friends of the Library, homeless shelters and so on are dismissed as boring. An archivist I know discussed this kind of bias in the sense that even groups like Friends or charities don't consider their records "important." These types of groups don't save their records as often as other groups that are run by younger people or men. We have less information about them because these groups tend to not to "toot their own horn." Bias comes in many forms, I've discovered. Sometimes groups are biased against themselves! :) As for the article itself, do you need access to Newspapers.com articles, WomenArtistUpdates? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Fair point: there might be less interest in smaller non-profit societies, and more emphasis on things like sports teams, as you say. But this is simply because the audiences for sports, entertainment and games are typically many thousands of times larger.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Authors & their works (new occupations)

After an argument about women & their works I explained that only women writers seem to show up on Wikidata correctly (as in: not conflated with their works). For youtubers, there should be separate items for the person (with birthdate) and the youtube channel (with inception date), even though Wikipedia has these together. My question here is, should English Wikipedia care at all about this or not? So, e.g. should English Wikipedia always link such articles to the person Wikidata item or not? Jane (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

for working on articles re: women in STEM...how to best approach personal/family life sections?

Hi Folks! I'm a new wikipedian working on Women in Red articles since March with a focus on Women in STEM. I'm hoping for some of your thoughts on something I have been encountering with greater frequency lately on wikipedia. Specifically, I have come across a series of start or stub articles which I'd like to improve where the notability or personal life/family sections of a female scientist is more overdeveloped than career + scientific discoveries. Once I improve these science sections I am wondering appropriate steps forward on addressing the personal life or family/spouse sections. Should the personal life section generally remain as-is? Also should the spouse be included in the infobox if he's a notable scientist (as I've seen in some instances)? I do not want to detract from the length of any existing article or the completeness of any biography however, in some instances, this extra information doesn't seem pertinent to notability. many thanks! alie Nanobright (talk) 06:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Nanobright My random thoughts, if it is a BLP (biography of a living person), it should focus on education, career, research. Personal information should be sparingly included, unless the information is widely known. If, on the other hand, the person is dead, a more complete biographical entry places the person in the context of their time. SusunW (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Nanobright I tend to think in most cases that personal information can remain as-is. As this primer notes, personal information can help us understand name changes and gaps in work history that shape women's careers in ways they may not shape men's. Keep in mind as well that not every fact included in a biography needs to work towards establishing notability! As long as the subject is notable per WP standards, appropriate biographical information helps fill out the article. If there are particular articles you think may have too much personal info, maybe leave a note on the article's talk page to see if others agree? --nonmodernist (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Nanobright I'd say, if someone has a notable spouse (or other relative), and this fact can be cited to reliable sources (ie, it's not a secret), a bluelink in the infobox is helpful in knitting the article into the fabric of wikipedia. Those links improve both parties' articles. It probably doesn't need extensive discussion in the personal life section, in most cases, but if it provides context, it can certainly be mentioned. (I mostly write about dead people, though. BLPs need to be more careful about such things, as SusunW notes above.) Penny Richards (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Generally, good information should not be removed in pursuit of some notion of balance. More information on other aspects may appear later, and the ideal solution is to add it now. Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

It needs to be sourced, and it needs to be relevant. I generally include the kind of work the parents did (as a way of setting context) but I tend to include names of spouses or other relatives only when they are independently notable or when their connection to the subject is necessary to explain other aspects of the subject's life story. For instance, in some cases the women I've written about have made otherwise-unlikely moves such as giving up a tenured position for a lesser one, to follow their husbands, and if there are sources for it then it's important to include that explanation. If I do include information about a separately-notable husband, I make sure that both articles cover the marriage in the same way. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi everyone @SusunW:,@Nonmodernist:,@Penny Richards:, @Johnbod:, @David Eppstein:, thank you so much for getting back to me, this is helpful context. My game-plan will to keep as-is in cases where the information is already present as long as it is well sourced and also link in the infobox in instances where the spouse is notable. Since I mainly have been working on BLP, my preference is to not research or make any further efforts to add this type of information in consideration of privacy and also because it seems hard to keep such information current. With that said, I do agree there are cases where including personal details are important to explain career moves etc. But there are also several articles where the added info has felt like a red-flag in terms of detracting from article quality...A particular example is an article in my to-improve queue Lily Jan. In this instance I would like to develop and expand the fact that her lab and research is joint with her spouse and to elaborate on joint publications. However, the section at the bottom currently exists discussing details of her marriage ceremony and names of her children does not seem relevant and again to the above points seems to be invasion of privacy since the info is not well sourced. For the example I addressed above I think it is particularly interesting to compare the language and personal life content on her article to that of her spouse Yuh Nung Jan. Both address their marriage but in different contexts re: scientific career. Irrespective of how my efforts shake out for improving these two articles, it does sounds like explaining and addressing things on the talk page on each article is a good path forward + to assist editors down the line. thanks again! Nanobright (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Linda Craddock

Greetings, please note that Linda Craddock has a page now. Do please let me know of the best way to notify the project of new pages created. Best, LorriBrown (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@LorriBrown: I think the standard way at the moment is to add {{WIR-108}} to the talk page. That will allow it to be picked up by the project pages. Megalibrarygirl should know the correct template if it's not that one. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Ritchie333 Thank you! I'll make a note of that and also place it there. :- )LorriBrown (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

LorriBrown: If you use WIR-108 on the talk page, you should also add the article to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Meetup/108#New_or_upgraded_articles. I've added this one for you.--Ipigott (talk) 07:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Review of draft article requested

Hello! I am working on a draft article on the journalist Sarah Jones. The draft is here: Draft:Sarah_Jones_(journalist). I would greatly appreciate any feedback on the draft, particularly whether you think Sarah is notable, whether the draft has the proper tone, and whether the structure works. Thanks! DanDavidCook (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

DanDavidCook: It's coming along quite well but I think you need to expand on the Remembering Fallen Journalists movement in the body of the article. You might be able to build on [9] and [10]. You can find lots more about Sarah Jones from her own web site here. You could include it under External links. You'll also find more awards on her LinkedIn profile. I can't find anything on a book on cancer at 13. Maybe that's another Sarah Jones.--Ipigott (talk) 10:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Ipigott. I have seen the sources on her website. Some of them don't meet the credible source standard, but I could add a few others. Eventually I would like to break out a section on Fallen Journalists once it gets more coverage. The sources for the cancer book are the two that do not link to anything. They are archived articles from the Cleveland Plain Dealer and the Chagrin Valley Times. Perhaps I can locate them online somewhere. But do you think overall she is notable? DanDavidCook (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

DanDavidCook: I was giving these not so much as sources in their own right but as a guide to what else you could look for. It might be useful, for example, to look for further background on each of her awards. On the cancer book, I am surprised it can't be found under searches on publications although I see she mentions it in this source which you have cited. As for her notability, I think it is a borderline case. It might be argued that she has been covered by a sufficient number of sources for her general notability to be acceptable. I think you could expand on fallen journalists now - just search on "fallen journalists 3 may". But you must substantially improve the article or it may well be refused or deleted.--Ipigott (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Great feedback, thanks. The case may be that she is not yet sufficiently notable. I keep a draft of these articles in google docs so I can store it there if it is declined. Again, appreciate your help and all you do for Wikipedia. DanDavidCook (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

DanDavidCook: If you can expand the article on the basis of these suggestions, I think we could move it to mainspace. Ping me when you're ready.--Ipigott (talk) 07:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Barbie The Welder

"I'm a Barbie Girl"

Can anybody help here? I came across Draft:Barbie The Welder which was tagged as a soon to expire draft, and added one independent source. The juxtaposition of the topics in the name appeals to my sense of humour, and I'm sure I can spin a DYK like "... that this Barbie likes playing with arc welders?" out of it. I don't think she's notable, but I know some of you like a challenge, so if any of you can improve this to mainspace standards, great. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Might be notable, as there has been some news coverage. But the article is basically a promotional ad for her. I took out Barnes and Noble and Amazon as they were used as sources for her books. The books appear to be self-published.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

it's been put up for deletion. i think there's enough reliable sources on it now to ensure survival. Mujinga (talk) 07:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Mid-May FP report

Well! All the ones from the last FP report have closed (Mary Jackson passed, if anyone didn't see), so let's review the current crop:

• (Lolotte and Werther by Eunice Pinney) - This is passing, and should be promoted in a few days.
• (Christina Nilsson) - Also passing!
• (Bill Hosokawa's home at the Heart Mountain Relocation Center, with Julena Steinheider on right) - Passing, I think.

I'm quite hopeful for this set of FPCs. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.5% of all FPs} 01:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Quick update, and, I'd imagine SusunW is very happy now...

• (Aletta Jacobs) - just nominated. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.5% of all FPs} 06:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and shout out to Victuallers for finding another excellent image, now nominated. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.5% of all FPs} 01:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• (Ray Strachey)

Need help with merging M. Harrison

I just posted an article on Mabel Harrison, a golfer. As it turns out, there's a stub for Mary Harrison (golfer), and now I'm pretty sure it's the same person (that one only has two references from US papers, and a picture from the Library of Congress; her name was never Mary, but that doesn't mean a reporter or two couldn't get it wrong). So they should probably be merged, right? Can someone help? Penny Richards (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Penny Richards,  Done --Rosiestep (talk) 05:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Penny Richards (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Josefa Toledo de Aguerri

I was about to write an article on Aguerri, when I realized that across wikis her name is a typographical error and logged as Aguirre. There are NO sources under the name Aguirre, nor are any of the affiliated authority control identifiers. So, I moved the English and Wiki.sv versions to the correct spelling (though my explanations are in English) and I corrected the Wikidata page. On Wiki.es, I do not see any way to move the page from the wrong spelling to the correct spelling. Can someone help? Thanks! SusunW (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I was just able to rename it by going to "Más" in the upper right and selecting "Trasladar". Nick Number (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Nick Number! It's weird, I don't get "Más" when I go to wp.es. Heck, I didn't even know what "Mer" or "Flytta" mean in Swedish, but it was in the same place as my "More" tab on wp.en. When I pressed Flytta, it was obviously the move page function (though I did check in translate just to be sure). I speak Spanish, have nothing on the page remotely like move or more. (Only tabs I have are read, edit, see history and I am signed in globally???). Doesn't really matter, as long as we got it fixed :) SusunW (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

How would you crop this?

The handwriting is gorgeous, and I'd like to preserve it, but since it's wide, it would make her image smaller at thumbnail, so maybe it's best to crop? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.5% of all FPs} 21:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden, I, like you, toyed with cropping it but left it because it was pretty. In reality, it probably should be cropped if it is going to be restored. SusunW (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• Update* Adam Cuerden in my review for Military History A-class, it was commented upon and suggested that the photo be cropped for consistency with the other images.[11] Please advise if you can do this, as I have no earthly idea how to do it and usually ask someone to do it for me. SusunW (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

June events with WIR

June 2019, Volume 5, Issue 6, Numbers 107, 108, 122, 123, 124, 125 Check out what's happening in June at Women in Red: Virtual events: New topics: Pride / Royals / Space Geofocus: Mediterranean Continuing initiatives: Suffrage / #1day1woman Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Draft:Sophia Wisniewska

Hello! On behalf of Sophia Wisniewska, I've submitted a draft article about her as part of my work at Beutler Ink. Given my conflict of interest, I do not edit the main space and ask independent editors to review for accuracy, neutrality, and verifiability. Moments after submitting, the draft was rejected, so I was hoping for some feedback about what improvements are necessary at this time. Any feedback would be helpful, thanks, Inkian Jason (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

​The draft was declined at AFC due to its inability to overcome the exclusionary criteria for articles which meet the basic requirements of WP:NBIO. In other words, the sources you provided which were examples of significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that were reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject (The Washington Post and NBC News) were both about one event only — the subject having been fired from her job as chancellor at USFSP. Other editors here may repeat the same searches you've presumably made for additional sources, but beyond that, I'm afraid there's not much more feedback to provide which would WP:OVERCOME the lack of sourcing that is preventing the subject from moving beyond this exclusionary criteria. Regards,  Spintendo  09:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I thought the article was probably not neutral - rather smoothing over the main thing she is notable for, her firing and the (alleged) conduct leading up to it. Johnbod (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, Inkian Jason, and thanks for coming here and sharing your difficulties with us. I'm sorry you are having trouble with Sophia Wisniewska but I must agree that your sources are primarily based on her firing. If you can find other sources in support of her notability, it might be possible to move the article to mainspace again. In this connection, you might find it useful to look through our Ten Simple Rules -- although I see you have already written at least two other interesting biographies of women. You might also like to become a member of Women in Red by registering on the project's main page as you are obviously interested in improving the coverage of women on Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all for the helpful feedback. I've shared a reply at Draft talk:Sophia Wisniewska to keep discussion tied to the proposed content. Inkian Jason (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I've added 5 sources to the draft to expand the "Early life and education" and "Career" sections, and add a brief "Personal life" section, as requested. Are any project members able to take another look, please? Thank you. Inkian Jason (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Japanese names

To what extent should account be taken of the new Japanese preferences for writing names with the family name first? See Foreign Minister Taro Kono to ask media to switch order of Japanese names.--Ipigott (talk) 07:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Like the government, I think this will create a technological nightmare and agree that we should proceed cautiously. I see no reason why one cannot use the template {{Japanese name|Surname}}, which renders as "In this Japanese name, the family name is X" to clarify name order. I am truly unclear why it is not in the same format as it would be for Hungarian, which renders as "The native form of this personal name is surname firstname. This article uses Western name order when mentioning individuals." SusunW (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I foresee ongoing slow-motion edit wars (much like we already have in Chinese names) for people who are ethnically Japanese but live elsewhere over whether we should use the Japanese ordering or the ordering of the place they actually live. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I would hope that isn't the case, but suspect you may be right. Hopefully, using the template might mitigate some of the edit warring. SusunW (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I certainly agree using the template would provide useful clarification. Unfortunately very few of the bios of Japanese women include it. Above all, I think we need to take account of how published English sources cite the names, for example in translations of Japanese authors. For the time being, there therefore seems to be no reason to make any changes.--Ipigott (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Elizabeth L. Gardner up for deletion

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Elizabeth L. Gardner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion
  

Women Airforce Service Pilots. WW II pilot. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Upcoming events in the Pacific Northwest

• June ??: Atari women - Seattle - Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle/Atari Women (stay tuned for more details).
• June 12: 1000 Women in Religion - Vancouver, British Columbia - Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver/1000 Women in Religion 2019. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I see 1000 Women in Religion now have a new website.--Ipigott (talk) 06:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)