Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 81

Archive 75

←

Archive 79

Archive 80

Archive 81

Archive 82

Archive 83

→

Archive 85

Black women who were classical pianists

While I was writing an article about Nerine Barrett, who appears in the Oxford Dictionary for Afro-Caribbean people, I ran across this reference. Mitchell says there are only 13 black women who have played internationally "with distinction": Barrett, Armenta Adams, Monica Gaylord, Helen Eugenia Hagan, Hazel Harrison, Natalie Hinderas, Philippa Schuyler, Vivian Scott, Thomasina Talley, Flora Thompson, Lois Towles, Althea Waites, and Frances Walker-Slocum. When I started Barrett, that meant 7 out of the 13 had no articles. There are still 6 and I think there are adequate sources to write bios on 5 of them. Anyone game? SusunW (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

SusunW: Good find but I note the source is from 2000. It would be interesting to know if any other black women have become virtuoso pianists since. I see that for example Margaret Bonds, Hazel Scott and Nina Simone are not included but we already have articles about them. When I have time, I'll try to make a start on some of the redlinks.--Ipigott (talk) 09:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Good question, Ipigott, obviously, I have no idea, just thought that it was a clear pointer to notability, in line with our BLM initiative, and when I googled, there were multiple sources for most of them (though quite a few of the sources show hyphenated, married names). Thanks for the help! I'm working on Towles. SusunW (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

SusunW: I've put together a short article on Thomasina Talley but have little experience in turning up sources on Americans. If you think it deserves additional work, please feel free to improve it. There appear to be several newspaper articles on her concert recitals but I have difficulty viewing them.--Ipigott (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

That's great, Ian! I am much slower, LOL. I will see what I can find after I finish with Towles. SusunW (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I've also covered Armenta Adams but cannot find adequate sources on any of the others. So that's that for now.--Ipigott (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Cool. I've finally finished Towles, so will see what I can find on the others. SusunW (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Towles looks great. I'm back to my Scandinavians but I see the stub on Monica Gaylord could be expanded on the basis of her coverage on the Canadian excyclopedia. Any offers?--Ipigott (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm trying to sort out Scott. Perhaps someone will be willing to work on Gaylord. I think she was involved in desegregating the Girl Scouts! SusunW (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I've just added Althea Waites. Great find and idea, SusunW! - MapleSoy (talk) 06:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Great job MapleSoy! If you are interested, you might try to find sources for Flora Thompson. Neither Ian nor I are in the US, so that sometimes makes sources difficult to come by. Scott is proving difficult, but I have enough to start and hopefully someone else will be able to improve it. SusunW (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Pleasant read

I just read this talk page and it was nice to read. No conflict. No I am right and the same argument is made over and over never finding consensus. Everyone cooperates and assists. Maybe this is the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Eschoryii (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Eschoryii: Thanks for commenting so positively on our page. We try to keep our discussions and edits as free of conflicts as possible. We have found constructive collaboration is the best approach. I see you are interested in writing about films. Perhaps you would like to spend some of your time writing about women, maybe actresses, producers or screenwriters? If so, why not become a member of our project. We would be very happy to help you along. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Meredith Kopit Levien

Hello! I've come to this WikiProject for assistance with women biographies before, and since an edit request I've submitted on behalf of the The New York Times Company to correct the entry for Meredith Kopit Levien has gone unanswered, I thought I'd return here for help. I've posted a request here to correct some of the page's text. In my request, I've outlined reasons for these specific markup changes to this draft article, for easier copying and pasting. My first request was quickly implemented, but my second request has gone unanswered for a few weeks now. Would a member of WikiProject Women in Red be willing to review this request? Thanks in advance. Inkian Jason (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Helene Billing Wurlitzer

Anyone want to help rewrite a draft that has a lot of copy/pasted content but is about a notable subject? Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Kerri Greenidge

Anyone interested in having a look at this? Just a lecturer so possibly not notable? Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Pl. suggest categories

I have initiated new Draft:Sexual politics and Draft:Sexual politics in south Asia as such I am looking for proactive help in updating and expanding these articles.

Though still it is long enough time to bring drafts to mainspace still wish to know suggestions which categories will be suitable for these two articles.

Thanks

Bookku (talk) 03:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

A Who's Who of Tudor Women

The above link to the OODB led me to do a little bit of searching, which led me to this site: A Who's Who of Tudor Women. Looks like there's a lot of interesting material there. Not my time period, so I'm not sure how I'd begin to go about winnowing subjects down, but it looks to have quite a bit of potential. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

French opera singers

Another interesting site, which I discovered while attempting to research the soprano Jane Rolland (on my to-create list, soon): The website https://www.artlyriquefr.fr has extensive material related to operatic performance in Paris in the 19th and 20th centuries, including lists of women who sang at bot the Opéra de Paris and the Opéra-Comique. There's also a page dedicated to singers who appeared at the Théâtre-Lyrique; women are listed at the bottom.

These pages aren't perfect - there are biographies for a lot of the singers, but there are only names and roles listed for others. Still, I've found that there's the possibility to build articles for them using other sources. Rolland, for instance: she warrants an entry in the Groẞes Sängerlexicon. It's a fascinating resource for anyone with a more-than-passing interest in French opera. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

New ODNB women

14 Early Modern women added to the ODNB today, for those that do this sort of thing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Oooh! ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 13:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Tagishsimon, I just created the biography of one of these women, the epigrammatist, Mary Cheke. Perhaps someone with ODNB access can add further information from that source in due time as I don't have access to it. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

for those who worked on Focus on Suffrage | 2019

Has anyone else in USA been watching "The Vote" on "The American Experience" on PBS? I have and I felt like the it included so much I learned from last year's Focus on Suffrage. I don't know if it available in the U.K., but the Suffragette movement is included, especially contrasting the radical UK approach vs. the American approach. And they are doing a very good job of illuminating the conflicts between the Suffrage movement vs. the civil rights movement. And they touch on the growth of Women's clubs, a topic for WiR in 2018. Fascinating. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I haven't seen it; thanks for the recommendation. I hope it doesn't mislead with regard to Women's suffrage in the United Kingdom. The suffragists plodded along for decades, first with the National Society for Women's Suffrage (1867) and a generation later with the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies. It was the Pankhursts forming the Women's Social and Political Union in 1903, with the slogan "Deeds, not words", that really got the public attention, for better or worse. Toffee hammers for smashing windows, arson, attempting to arrest Winston Churchill, hunger strikes, force feeding - these actions led to them being labelled "suffragettes". The lawful and the lawbreakers co-existed in Britain, which I hope this TV program(me) makes room to clarify. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 23:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Carbon Caryatid The show backs into into the U.K. movement by way of Alice Paul's relationship with the Pankhursts, so no, they do not cover the lawful or the coexistence of the two factions. Much more time is spent on the notion that some/most U.S. suffragists wanted to avoid violence (with the notable exception of Alice Paul). Since it is the U.S. story, there was much more analysis of white women's reluctance to join forces with the Black women's organizations because it would alienate the Southern states. Also whether to approach the vote on the state or federal level. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

WomenArtistUpdates I suppose it's quasi-inevitable, that the programme-makers take that tack. (I've just realised the need for a new prefix, that negates but not totally: yesbutnobutyesbutno-evitable.) Would this TV show reach notability for an article here? My fingers itch to make the links visible. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Carbon Caryatid I don't know about an article. I know what you mean about itchy fingers though :) Here is the link to the show WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Afd discussion on Siya Kakkar

There is an Afd discussion on Siya Kakkar.

Female musicians and luthiers for WIR project

Hi all. I've created the following previously missing pages:

Musicians

• Maya Youssef
• Alice Mary Jelaska
• Negar Bouban
• Djanan Turan
• Marina Toshich
• Shuhrat Razzaqov
• Fatemeh Deghani

Luthiers

• Meredith Coloma
• Emily Alice Shaw

I'd be most grateful if you could help me to make them grow and I'll keep creating more since these are areas I'm interested in.

Regards,

Jo Dusepo (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments

Thank you for the articles; much appreciated. This forum is familiar with the problems of establishing notability of women, arising out of a paucity of sources. As I came to this, 2 out of 9 of your creations had been marked for deletion; right now that's down to one AfD. Please ensure, on the one hand, that you have a good grasp of notability requirements (especially WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN); and on the other, please don't let the deletionists grind you down. Good luck :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hallo Jo, welcome to Women in Red. I've had a look at Maya Youssef and tweaked it a little: there's a lot to learn about editing Wikipedia. A few points:

• Qanun is a disambiguation page: I've fixed the two links to point to Qanun (instrument)

• There is an easy way to avoid linking to disambiguation pages: if you go to "Preferences", "Gadgets", and look near the end of the "Appearances" list you'll see "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange". It does what it says, so you can investigate further and find the right page to which to link. I find it really useful.

• Refer to her by surname only, after the opening sentence
• There's a super quick way to add the DEFAULTSORT (so she files by surname in lists), and Category:Living people and any birth date category (or death date where appropriate): {{subst:L|||Youssef, Maya}}. If we knew her birth year it would go between the first two "|" characters, a death date between the second and third. Lack of death date implies "living" (or you can add "unknown" or "missing" as the death date to suppress this). You get a lot done for a few keystrokes: I think it's a great little template.
• Punctuation always goes before references, with no space
• Category:Syrian musicians by instrument is a category of categories, not one in which to put a person.
• There is no specific category for Qanun players but it's classified as a box zither, a subset of Zither, so I've added Category:Zither players, and also added her to the "Notable players" section of Qanun.
• It's always useful to add the person to the list of people with her surname - in this case Youssef leads to the page at Yusuf, where I've added her in the "Youssef" section

• Moving on to Alice Mary Jelaska, you give a lot of alternative versions of her name, and bold them all. Bolding is only supposed to be used for targets of incoming redirects ... and I've now created redirects from all of those variations (and a disambiguation page for Alice Williamson, which previously redirected to just one of the existing two candidates). Even without the mention of other names in the text I would have created Alice Jelaska as a likely alternative version. Redirects help readers to find what they want, and also make it less likely that some future careless editor will create a duplicate article. (Yes, I'm a redirect geek). Sometimes, doing "what links here" after creating a redirect will find that it makes a red link in an article or list turn blue, connecting your new article to a long-established one, which feels good. Enough for now, I need to cook a meal. I hope some of these notes are helpful. Happy Editing! PamD 18:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

If I may, let me add a couple of suggestions about the related page Talk:Maya Youssef. When the WikiProject Biography template is put on a talk page, a "|listas=" parameter should be included. It serves the same purpose for a talk page that "Default sort" serves for the article. In the case of this talk page, I have added "|listas= Youssef, Maya". That means that the talk page will be sorted by her last name rather than by her first name.

I also added two other parameters (|musician-work-group = |musician-priority= )to the WP Biography template. If you write other articles about musicians, I suggest that you include those parameters, also. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

US Virgin Islanders

While working on a bio, I discovered two sources which list a bunch of women from the USVI. Almost all of them are women of color. Apparently many of the schools in the Virgin Islands were renamed for women in the 1980s. I've gone through both books, pulled together sources, and created entries on this red list, if anyone is interested in working on them for the BLM editathon. SusunW (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Helen Rowland

Hi all! I recently came across Helen Rowland, a stubby article on an American journalist. In that article, there's a bit of prose about a singer, who seems to merit their own article (probably at Helene Daniels, redirects from Helen Rowland (singer), and Helen Hannah Rubin, and maybe something about Rubin and Malone. I'm not sure where to find sources, or if the article exists, but thought somebody here might be interested in putting an article together. Best wishes, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Amat al-Aleem al-Asbahi

A stub I created, Amat al-Aleem al-Asbahi, has been proposed for deletion. I'm keen to ensure we do what we can to mitigate systemic bias, and Yemeni women are certainly intersectionally neglected in WP, so my instinct is to try to defend the page (it's potentially relevant to the BLM editathon). There's now a paragraph in a relevant encyclopedia here which can be added. But I'd appreciate other eyes on the page to see if it can be improved (and don't myself speak Arabic, so have no idea if there are additional non-English sources). Dsp13 (talk) 08:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Dsp13 I searched in Arabic, but found very few sources, mostly all of them repeated the same information about her death, which you already covered. None of them were more than a few sentences. I cannot access the book you found, but that isn't unusual, as sources I can access in Mexico are different from what people in the US and Europe can access. Sorry. SusunW (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Dsp13:, I could access the book (changing the .de to .com makes it accessible outside of Germany) and it would be a good start. Without other meaningful sources, and certainly no sources that focus on her, makes it less likely for it to make it out of draftspace. Kingsif (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

thanks all, I've added that reference at any rate.Dsp13 (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

TFW your subject disappoints you; also, a new Georgia redlist

Ever get halfway into writing up someone and you realize they had terrible opinions on something or did a terrible thing? I write mostly historic figures so this happens a fair amount. One woman I wrote up because her historic house is in my town, turns out in like 1905-1910 or so she was a fundraiser for the very Confederate monuments we're tearing down now. Ugh. And today I was scoping out a woman who founded her own toy company, and one of the sources on Google Books was a National Labor Relations Board ruling from the 1940s in which she illegally interfered in her factory employees organizing. Sigh. Anyway, we soldier on.

On a more positive note, my personal list of redlinks was starting to pile up, so I decided to put it online so others can take advantage. So there's a new redlist for women from the state of Georgia linked from the usual places. Cheers. --Krelnik (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Krelnik: I'm not at all sure you should avoid writing about people involved in supporting Confederate monuments simply because of current trends. If the woman you mention was a notable figure in her day, she deserves a place in Wikipedia. Historical people of note, whatever their views, deserve recognition. Thanks for your useful work on redlists of Georgia women and your contributions to related lists. I see you have also created quite a number of well researched biographies of American women. Impressive work.--Ipigott (talk) 09:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Krelnik: I think this is yet another area where Wikipedia can play a really useful role for the casual reader, to show that person X, whom they looked up because of an interest in event Y, was also involved in social movement Z -- as were an awful lot of other people of that place and time, particularly ones of their race and class etc. The same is even more true for sharing widespread social assumptions or living one's life within the legal framework of the day. The more we learn of our heroines, the more feet of clay we excavate. All those links that we put in, both the context in prose and the wikilinks in hypertext, help our readers (including school children) make sense of the past, and indeed the present. I guess what I'm saying is, don't lose heart; it's valuable work you're/we're doing. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with both of you, completely. Just to clarify, I doubt I would stop writing a bio because of this. As you pointed out, if anything it shows that person needs contextualization. It was just an observation that sometimes your opinion of someone can change a bit as you learn about them. I completed that bio of the Confederate monument funder (Mary Ann Harris Gay). I may still write the one about the NLRB person - Mary Rushton on that redlist - but her sources are a bit iffy so far. Oh and Ipigott thanks for rating a bunch of my articles, much appreciated! --Krelnik (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Krelnik: I completely relate to your ambivalent feelings here and also agree with the comments about the importance of bringing these less savory parts of someone's life to light. I'm trying to focus more on women of color right now, so this has been less of an issue for me so far; but, colorism, for example, and other forms of discrimination certainly exist in many cultures around the world, as well. So, these ugly things are often there no matter who you're looking into. Also, wanted, as a fellow Georgian, to say hi and thank you for this new list for Georgia women. Feel-flourish (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

This has occasionally happened to me but much more frequently I end up being disappointed in a different way, writing a draft of an article but then deciding that what I can say about the subject has no real claim of notability that would stand up if the article were hypothetically brought to a deletion discussion. I have nearly 30 drafts in that state sitting as files on my laptop (so that I don't have to worry about the 6-month deadline for on-wiki drafts). Worse is when you create an article on a living person who appears to be notable and exemplary and then later they end up caught in some embarrassing scandal that you wouldn't want to have helped publicize. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh I feel your pain. I pop into deletion discussions occasionally to do my part and I see so many annoying ones that it has made me super paranoid about sourcing what I put into the mix. That's also why most of that redlist I posted is based on halls of fame and such, I find it very satisfying to write "In 19xx she was inducted into the ______ hall of fame" as the last sentence of the lead para knowing that it might give a deletionist pause. I don't run into that BLP gotcha because I avoid BLPs because of how they get targeted for deletion so much. --Krelnik (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Krelnik believe me, I have multiple first-hand Wikipedia experiences, and deep inner conflicts over such issues. I found myself really conflicted when writing about southerners to find they weren't the movie version I had grown up to believe. I just decided that as long as I was editing Wikipedia, I needed to follow WP guidelines, and not pass judgement on any historical figure. For instance, I brought Margaret Lea Houston up to FL, but it just gnawed at at my conscience that this woman and her husband Sam were slave owners. Some Wikipedia accounts (as well as general Texas lore) have tried to write that Sam freed his slaves before he died. No way. When I was writing on Margaret and wrote that the Texas Governor's Mansion under their tenure was staffed by slaves, I was reverted with a terse edit summary that Margaret and Sam never owned slaves. Many who have a southern city named after them, were slave owners. Did you know old Davy Crockett was a slave owner? I also created Juliet Opie Hopkins, who came from a family that owned about 2,000 slaves - but that doesn't negate her heroism of risking her life by going out into the battlefield to tend to the wounded. We are going through a time of great upheaval at the moment, and I find WP's gazillion rules and guidelines are helpful in that regard. — Maile (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Yup, that's a huge issue with writing about people in the south. My toy factory owner gets even more problematic as I research sources. Turns out in 1954 she had Atlanta's oldest house Huff House burned and bulldozed to build a new factory, even though a historical society had offered money to buy it from her (and presumably move it offsite). Sigh. Now I may have to write this bio as a personal challenge. --Krelnik (talk) 22:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I hear you! I wrote about Jane Mitchel only to discover that he and her husband were staunch supporters of slavery. I also wrote about a eugenicist once - only realising that after I had started about the article. It just shows that you don't have to support or even like a topic to write about it, and it might even help in editing and writing to have a less positive view towards someone. Smirkybec (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I am running into it with some of the women artists working on murals for the WPA. For example Ann Rice O'Hanlon. I agree, the articles should remain factual, but include all the facts. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Siân Evans (librarian)

This one, Siân Evans (librarian), is at AfD (here). I mention it not for the purpose of canvassing but because a comment was made in the AfD, "And if you have not already consulted Rosiestep, she is definitely a person who could point you in the right direction about your questions". So, if I'm not able to respond quickly enough to questions, e.g. time zone differences, perhaps someone here might be inclined to do so. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Rosiestep, note that the nom has changed the nomination, so the questions are in the history. They should probably be responded to at Talk:Art+Feminism where there is a content dispute over when the last edit-a-thon took place: 2017 or 2020? That disputed fact played a role in another deletion discussion, and is likely to come up again. Vexations (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Vexations, I'll add a note and link at the AfD. I don't feel comfortable taking this to yet another talkpage. But perhaps someone else is inclined to do so. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Karin Lee

I've just overhauled an article, Karin Lee, that was nominated for deletion. Anything you can add about this Canadian filmmaker would be appreciated! - MapleSoy (talk) 06:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Abstract Wikipedia

The WMF Board of Trustees has announced on Meta [1] a new sister project, temporarily titled "Abstract Wikipedia" [2]. Its goal is to generate baseline encyclopedic content in a multilingual fashion, allowing more contributors and more readers to share more knowledge in more languages. You can learn more on Meta and can also join the new dedicated mailing list [3]. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Abstract_Wikipedia/June_2020_announcement
2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Abstract_Wikipedia
3. https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia

I'm certainly interested in any "multilingual" improvements to Wikipedia but although I have read carefully through the proposal and related discussions, I find it difficult to understand exactly what will come out of it and how it will "interface" with Wikidata and the current language versions of Wikipedia. I note, however, there already seem to be plans to extend work on the basis of "short descriptions". It is interesting to see that the originator, who has an excellent linguistics research background, is a Croatian with German as a second mother tongue. What would have been very useful would have been examples of how typical encyclopaedic articles (e.g. about a person, city or scientific discipline) would/could be extended to cover a multitude of languages (and with what limitations). Another aspect under consideration is the extent to which bots can be used for translating concepts or whether this will be driven mainly by human interaction. On the basis of my own experience, I expect that (as with Wikidata) most interlingual coverage will be concentrated on the main world languages, starting with English, German, French and Spanish. This to some extent seems to go against WMF's current concern with the languages of the third world countries -- but this may be more a question of time than of design. At this stage, I am not certain whether the Google connection will be an asset or a threat but I note that there is generally strong support. I suppose the recent impetus given by Google to the development of Wikidata can be considered an asset. (If it is good for Google search, it will no doubt improve access to Wikimedia projects.) As the proposal has been accepted, we will no doubt learn soon enough how it is impacting our day-to-day work on Wikipedia and Wikidata.

I have not yet seen any discussion on how these developments could facilitate better multilingual coverage of women. Maybe it would be useful to set up some kind of task force to monitor the situation and introduce suggestions for improvements or even human support as the project develops. I wonder whether those involved in the project are aware of the extent we already use Wikidata for creating lists of redlinks and revealing the existence of articles in other language versions of Wikipedia (or even of references to biographies, etc., in external resources).--Ipigott (talk) 11:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The article New wiki project - Abstract Wikipedia - will boost content across languages from Neowin gives a simple overview of the project.--11:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipigott (talk • contribs) 04:54, July 3, 2020 (UTC)

On the basis of my own experience, I expect this to be regularly confused with the actual encyclopedia, to have much much lower standards for sourcing and accuracy of biographies of living people than the actual encyclopedia, and to lead to problems where the subjects of poor-quality entries blame us rather than wikidata for their poor quality. The English Wikipedia has policies of not generating any text mechanically and of not taking unsourced content from Wikidata but how can we enforce that when the Wikimedia foundation keeps trying to do end-runs around our policies? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Not very clear what point you're making, Ned Ludd. You think nothing else should be done because en.wikipedia exists? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Wow, it's been a long time since anyone called me Ned. I think Wikidata needs urgently to get its house in order with respect to strict sourcing rules for claims about living people (analogous to WP:BLP on :en:), that its refusal to do so should be cause for blocking automatic content creation from its data, and that the enthusiasm of Wikidata-proponents for propagating their data without regard to its accuracy is disrespectful to its subjects, almost a match for the incivil name-calling of your response here. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's refrain from name calling, pleaes. --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ipigott: I really hope that content-creation projects like Women in Red will give some attention to Abstract Wikipedia when the time comes, as it would be an opportunity to propagate the content to other language editions. The idea would be that we could grow the content in a central place from which the language editions could then generate article text to integrate into their Wikipedias. It would be wonderful if Abstract Wikipedia could become a multiplier for the fine work of this project. But also, we'll need some time to get there (and we are happy to have people participate in the early discussions). Let me know if you have questions. --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@DVrandecic (WMF):: As I said above, when sufficient progress has been made on the project we'll certainly look into how Women in Red can participate. At the moment, I think we are doing a pretty good job ensuring that new articles are reflected in Wikidata. Sooner or later, there will certainly be more extensive interfaces to cater for additional information on biographies which can then be extended to other languages. I'm pretty sure we'll be invited to participate in such developments. If you are aware of any concrete steps we could take at this stage, please let us know.--Ipigott (talk) 09:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Thank you! Yes, currently it is too early to talk content on Abstract Wikipedia, indeed. I will make sure to make an invitation here when we get to the point - it will take a few months :) Thank you! --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@DVrandecic (WMF): Sorry if I am bit out of step and jumping in discussion. I felt a bit of concern, here on existing Wikipedias I do already see a strong pro-conservative bias where in Wiki-Maulanas read Wikipedia scriptural rule book too literally, rules been fossilized as tiger's stripes or leopard can't change its spots contributing to multi-layer barriers as far as women related articles are concerned. Is it not some thing more centrlized is more opportunity for conservatives to converge unite, dominate and deny scope for variations. I know rants don't help still expressing for record sake. Thanks. Bookku (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft for Mindy Finn

Resolved

Hello, Women in Red! On behalf of Mindy Finn and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I've drafted a Wikipedia article about her for community review, which I've saved at Draft:Mindy Finn. Finn is a journalist-turned-politician who was the vice presidential candidate for the Evan McMullin 2016 presidential campaign. I should note, Mindy Finn currently redirects to Evan McMullin, the result of this deletion discussion in May.

I understand the community recently decided to redirect her entry, but I have to assume editors took issue with the quality of the previous article, which (based on comments) suggest the entry mentioned little more than her being a running mate for a non-winning political campaign, and potentially contained promotional language and sources all published around the time of the campaign. However, I believe the subject is indeed notable and qualifies for a standalone article, as there are plenty of independent secondary sources that have published in-depth profiles specifically about her, including Bustle, Houston Chronicle, The Forward, Deseret News, Politico, and National Review, among others. They span a decade and provide enough detail to write overviews of her early life and education, career, and personal life, and Finn has worked for multiple presidential presidential campaigns and multiple notable organizations. She has been recognized by Politico, Washingtonian, and Business Insider, as well as the George Washington Alumni Association. She is also mentioned in many existing Wikipedia pages.

The draft is neutral and uses Wikipedia-appropriate sourcing, and Mrs. Finn has reviewed for accuracy. I've disclosed my COI appropriately, and I am looking for an editor who is willing to review the draft and move into the main space appropriately. I've posted similar requests here before, and received some very helpful feedback and assistance, so I figured I'd try again. Feedback is welcome here or on the draft's talk page. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

User:MapleSoy submitted a technical request to move the draft page into main space over the existing redirect, but another editor recommended adding the Articles for Creation submission template, which I've done. Any feedback or assistance taking the draft live is appreciated. Thanks again! Inkian Jason (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The draft has been taken live. I've marked this section as resolved, thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sadie Bonnell

G'day all, this article is at AfD (it seems pretty obvious this has been done in error), but I wondered if anyone here had access to the sources and could cite it to put the AfD firmly to bed. I'd do it myself, but don't have access to Oxford DNB and The Telegraph online. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC) (from Milhist)

I'll have a look at the ODNB now, it's worth noting that with a few clicks via Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library/Databases ODNB is now very easily accessible for all established editors - I've been using it loads recently for that reason. Mujinga (talk) 09:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

That's done, the article now has some citation needed tags in case people have other sources. Interesting that she loved driving fast cars having driven ambulances in the war; my granny drove wartime ambulances also and she never drove anything ever again. Mujinga (talk) 10:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Mujinga Thanks for the information on the Wikipedia Library. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Zineb Sedira

Anyone interested in improving this article on an Arab/French/British woman artist? Seems like she has done a lot of interesting work. This one had been deleted G13 and I saved it from the dustbin (noticed a different good article on the verge of G13 deletion and checked the author's deleted contributions... ugh, sucks when this sort of stuff gets deleted). Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Patricia Mernone

The latest crop of recent acquisitions at the National Portrait Gallery include a drawing of Patricia Mernone by Norman Rockwell. I've been interested in starting an article (the NPG is notoriously tight with its notability requirements), but I can't find a whole lot of information online. I thought I'd throw it to the group to see if anyone with an interest in sports might like to take a crack at it...it's very much outside of my sphere of interest, I'm afraid. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I do have a particular interest in women in auto racing, so I'm happy to give it go, thanks! Penny Richards (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Penny Richards: Awesome - looking forward to reading it! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Here she is: Patricia Mernone. She might very well still be alive, btw, or at least I didn't find any evidence otherwise. Penny Richards (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Penny Richards: Awesome, thanks - looks great! I've done a bit of tweaking. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Comprehensive overview of under-representation of women on Wikipedia

I have just come across David B. Grinberg's article "Unraveling Wikipedia's Mystery Over Women's History" which was posted on Good Men Project on 8 July. It covers Women in Red in some detail, with pertinent comments from Rosiestep and, in particular, Victuallers.--Ipigott (talk) 09:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Ipigott! It is a very good write up of WiR's mission. Always nice to see Rosiestep and Victuallers recognized. I hope the article gets new editors to the project, and encourages existing women and even more good men editors to participate in WiR. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Nice article! --Rosiestep (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Thrilled by the article (and comments above) and David mentions the stupendous Carol Ann Whitehead and Susan Dolan (who hosted the WiR event last year at the Pankhurst's house in Manchester on Ada LoveLace Day). Victuallers (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Unanswered questions

I just noticed there are a couple of posts on the Talk page of Meetup 151 | Focus on Sports | 2020. I am not able to answer them myself. Hopefully one of the team can drop by and respond. Oronsay (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: @SusunW: Thank you both for responding. Oronsay (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

How to record nationality on Wikidata?

I invite your feedback on a property proposal for nationality as a cultural identity over on Wikidata. The proposed property is meant to offer an alternative to "ethnic group" and to nationality as defined by citizenship. Your comments are welcome. Thank you. Qono (talk) 04:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this Qono. No, no, no, no, no, how many times does this have to be said. Women weren't allowed to be citizens in most places in the world until 1957. How in the world would you classify them? "Other"? SusunW (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

SusunW, I think this is part of the reason for the property proposal. Wikidata has nationality based on citizenship and it has "ethnic group", but it doesn't have nationality in the general national-cultural-context sense recorded by authorities like the Union List of Artist Names and Netherlands Institute for Art History (RKD). The property that I'm proposing would allow us to record how these reliable sources are describing a person's nationality in this general sense independent of that person's legal citizenship status. Qono (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The field is useless as far as women are concerned. No source will give you that. We are lucky to find sources at all, much less ones that account for whether or not a woman was a citizen of her country of birth or that of her husband. I have literally seen 3 sources that even discussed that a particular woman lost her citizenship upon marriage. I would venture that the great majority of them, simply assume if she was born in/influential in x she was xian. SusunW (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

SusunW, The property is actually meant to capture the general, assumed, ambiguous sense that you describe: "if she was born in/influential in x she was xian"—but I see how, with the lack of sources for women, more assumptions would be made than for men and I agree that that is problematic. Qono (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Literally, the only 3 women for whom I know nationality was ever discussed in sources is Marie Curie, Maymie de Mena, and Marquesa del Ter. Each of them lost their citizenship on marriage which resulted in historians misidentifying them for years as French, Nicaraguan and Spanish. Ethnicity is about the only classification marker that makes sense for women, IMO, and that battle keeps coming around from those who want to list nationality in article ledes and eliminate ethnicity entirely. SusunW (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

SusunW, it's a complicated issue, and your input is valuable. Thanks so much for participating. Qono (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Tamayo Kawamoto notability?

Hi all! Awhile back, I decided to clean up Draft:Tamayo Kawamoto (a rejected AfC draft) with new sources, thanks to an earlier recommendation on this talk page. Originally, I thought "Of course she's notable! She composed music for early, notable video games". Now that the draft has been sitting at AfC for over a month, I'm rethinking her notability.

Long question short - Does she meet WP:ARTIST or WP:MUSICBIO (#10) as a composer/musician for video games, or should I let this one go? My biggest hurdle has been finding reliable sources (this, in the bottom left, is the only significant one I could find), since she is Japanese, worked in a pre-internet era, and game composers weren't always credited with their names during the time. Most of the sources I've found are not independent, but they do meet WP:SELFSOURCE and can verify the info (at least to my eyes). This is where I'm stuck, basically. I'd appreciate anyone willing to help. - Whisperjanes (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Sexism in infobox template

Hi everyone, in my gnoming of articles on politicians, I've noticed that the fields of many infobox templates on Indian politicians include "Father" but not "Mother" (or "Parents", which I've seen elsewhere). It's a blatant assumption of patrilineal importance at the expense of women.

Now aside from that, my view is that the fields for relatives, spouses, and children should only be filled with those who either have a WP article of their own, or where a reference is supplied showing notability. But that's a sideline to the father-only problem.

I'm hopeless at templates, so if anyone knows their way around them and feels like hunting down the source, please do. Here's an example. Tony (talk) 08:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

That article uses the standard Template:Infobox officeholder. It appears some individual editors just aren't adding both parents, if either are even relevant. Kingsif (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. It's a bad look when the unfilled "Father" field occurs so often, in the absence of a "Mother" field—as if you'd never think of putting a female relative in there. Tony (talk) 04:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Tony1, Your view about showing only notable relatives, spouses, and children is also Wikipedia's guideline for those fields for "infobox person" and related infoboxes. For example, the Explanation field for the "parents" parameter begins with "Names of parents; include only if they are independently notable or particularly relevant." Similar statements appear for "children", "mother", and "father". See Template:Infobox person. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Eddie, thanks. That is widely ignored, sadly. Tony (talk) 04:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

One now-blocked editor has created articles starting with Asha Devi Yadav, using a tailored version of the infobox officeholder template, which doesn't include "mother=" but does include "Father=", with capital "F", which would make it not work even if they added a name. I wonder where they copied it from ? @Tony1: Have your discoveries all been this editor's creations? If so, it might now stop. PamD 05:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Pam, I'll keep track of that and report back if necessary. Tony (talk) 05:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Lists of American Academy of Arts and Sciences elected members

One big new list in three parts, originally created by HRShami:

• List of American Academy of Arts and Sciences members (1953 - 1993)
• List of American Academy of Arts and Sciences members (1994 - 2005)
• List of American Academy of Arts and Sciences members (2006 - 2019)

Due to the typical vagaries (present/absent middle names, etc.) some of the redlinks may already have articles waiting for them. XOR'easter (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure you've already thought of this, but the missing women on the list would be a good candidate for listing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Fellowships. And if others don't know about that redlist, it's a collection of hundreds of women in various academic fields who are all likely notable through WP:PROF#C3. Very helpful for finding missing women to create articles about. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I've just checked the 2006 members and, after updating links, have found only one without an article – Helen Bowdoin Spaulding. In 2007 there are two – Alexandra Leigh Joyner and Helen M. Piwnica-Worms. I will continue over the next few days. Oronsay (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for joining in. XOR'easter (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Lots of pics of modern female artists

Hi all! I came across these poorly categorized photos of female artists from around the world this morning when looking for something related to the Kiasma art museum. There are lots of them that could be used in articles if anyone has use for them. I'm slowly (cropping some) and adding them to these artists' Wikidata items too, so they should show up in the Wikipedias that use automated infoboxes too. Some of these artists might have Commons categories of their own, in which case that cat could be added to the image. -Yupik (talk) 06:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Seeking some more editors at Cleavage (breasts)

Hi all, I hope that you're well in this crazy time period. Aditya Kabir has been trying hard to improve and increase the detail on Cleavage (breasts). I was hoping some editors from here might be able to have a look at check if some of the language and phrasing could be improved, in my mind it is a little sensational (just to be clear - this may have predated Aditya's edits). I come from an anatomy bent and I don't feel I have the experience to edit this article with appropriate nuance - am posting here as I think there will probably be a broader group of editors present that can have a look from more than one perspective.

The article came to my attention after a notification at WikiProject Anatomy talk page and a small side-issue relating to intermammary cleft which was merged. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree on the sensational part. Not just what predated me, but also stuff that I put in (it is easy to be influenced by the language of you sources). Also I am not a native speaker of English, so some sensationalism might escaped by notice. Need real help here. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 00:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I think my opening comment is, does the person depicted in the lead image know they're being used in a significant Wikipedia article. It seems the picture originated from a Flickr scrape taken in 2005. It would be nice to get a shot of a consenting Wikipedian in its place. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, using that as the lead image seems ... not very good. (There does appear to be a self-created Wikimedia Commons upload used later in the article, Image:BBCleavageTopView.JPG, under "Cross-dressing".) XOR'easter (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The description indicates that's a cross-dressing man wearing breast forms, though, so probably not the most representative picture for a lead image. There are hundreds of images in c:Category:Cleavage_(breasts) so I'm sure a better one can be found. Spicy (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I see that the lead image has been swapped out. Next concern: while it's definitely a better picture, should we be foregrounding the rather ... non-preferred term for the Roma people? I mean, yes, WP:NOTCENSORED, "that's just what the painting is called!", etc., etc., but still, it's very ... ehh? XOR'easter (talk) 03:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

So many images in this article are awful. I removed the "downblouse" image, though I expect there may be pushback. Do we also not have neutral photos of bras, that don't look like male-gaze (semi) nudie photos? Yuck. -- Now, having written this and just visited the commons category of bras, I want to pour bleach on my eyes, for the awful collection of objectifying imagery we have. I'm not sure I examined all of them thoroughly, but the answer may well be, no we do not. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• Side comment - funny in an odd way, but maybe not. I've been wondering why we're dealing with this, those of us who got liberated since the Bettie Page and Hugh Heffner eras where men discussed women's bodies in this fashion, as though it were all some intellectual debate. But at least someone brought it here, where it can be elevated a bit. We don't censor, and there's been a few challenging things on the Main Page like this. As an admin, I've deleted my share of entries by a habitual sock who is sure we want to see an image of what he has to offer. Surely, we wouldn't have another article like this, would we? Oh, yes ... there's Buttock cleavage, and I'm transported back to high school male chit chat. My oh my. — Maile (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The Commons category associated with that article is full of pictures that don't even look like they were taken with the subject's knowledge, much less their consent. Someone who has the time should really go through and nominate all of those for deletion (if I get the time, I might just do it myself). TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Maile66. Thanks; I just thought the article would need a bit more perspectives and thankfully this is a fairly active venue that might be able to help out. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@TheCatalyst31 working in the anatomy space, I have definitely encountered a large and gratutitous amount of quesitonable content on Wikicommons, and most of it I think (1) does not have any place there for quality reasons and (2) I doubt consented to be stored forever more on a public domain website. It's a very upsetting process when you look at relevant deletion discussions where the consensus has almost always been to keep. I do wonder if some editors there want to preserve the images for non-encyclopedic reasons. The weird and very specific categories of those sorts of articles seems to support this theory. Anyhow for these reasons I tend to stay away from Wikicommons where possible these days. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@TheCatalyst31: Drop me a line when you start. An extra voice never hurts in an XFD.

People, the article has been improved significantly, thanks to Calliopejen1 and Spicy along with others (including probably me too). Would you people take another look at it?

BTW, the original lead image is gone, and the Hals painting is part of the history section. The new lead image has been found by Calliopejen1 and put in after a discussion. I find it very satisfactory, Calliopejen1 is not as excited though. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Aditya Kabir: I already nominated one of the more egregious ones, and was waiting to see how that one went before doing a mass nomination. (So far it's gotten no attention at all, which sadly isn't unusual for FFDs on Commons.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 12:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

How about a snowball? Can we all just say what needs to be said there? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Kirstin Innes

Assistance in getting this draft approved was requested over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women writers; I'm raising it here in case anyone would like to take a look. I'll be linking it on the creator's talkpage as well. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Help!: recruiting for a research project

Apologies if this is an inappropriate place to post this. Please direct me to the appropriate forum if this is the case.

I’m a graduate student researcher undertaking a study on how women learn to participate in Wikipedia and factors that enable them to persist as contributors. I’m currently seeking individuals who self-identify as women and actively participate in Wikipedia authorship. Interviewees will be asked to sit down with me for an hour long Zoom, Skype, or phone call. I cannot offer any incentives beyond the opportunity to reflect on your participation and a digital copy of our interview transcript.

If you fit this criteria and are interested in being interviewed, please let me know. Thank you for considering! Feel-flourish (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi there Feel-flourish and thanks for letting us know about your research project. It sounds like an interesting initiative. Any insights likely to support the involvement of women contributors will certainly be useful. In this connection, if you have not already done so, you might find it useful to look through some of the research already undertaken in this connection. Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Research. and Wikipedia:Gender gap. As you have already started making some useful additions to women's biographies, it might be useful for you to become a member of Women in Red — just click on "Join WikiProject" on the main Women in Red page. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ipigott, thank you for the links to the Women in Red research page. I've definitely read much of the research featured here, but it's very useful to see it all in one place. I will surely be getting involved with writing some biographies of women and becoming a member of Women in Red. My research is currently in a pilot phase, but I will certainly add it to the WIR research page and the Wikipedia Research Network page upon completion. Thank you, again! Feel-flourish (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Feel-flourish When I started, it was pretty much luck ... hope that a mentor finds you and helps you walk through the minefields. In general, the technology is difficult, writing for wp is the opposite of academic research, and a general knowledge of how to find sources and identify those that will be considered reliable by the community is necessary. Since the development of this project, in many ways it is easier, as there is a very supportive and helpful environment of collaborators with a broad knowledge here. I am happy to speak with you if you desire. You may contact me through the e-mail on my page. SusunW (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Feel-flourish I've been editing consistently for about a year and have a lot of thoughts about this! Feel free to email me! (Lajmmoore (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC))

Feel-flourish I'd love to talk. I've been editing almost a year. Feel free to contact me. AMM Pittsburgh (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Feel-flourish I'd love to chat - I've been editing a couple of years now and have hosted a few events through Art & Feminism. Terasaface (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Terasaface, AMM Pittsburgh, Lajmmoore, thank you all for your interest in this project, the first phase of which has concluded. I tried to take this notice down from the talk page, but maybe it's against the rules to do so? I am so thankful to this really kind community and the editors who generously gave their time to speak with me. I learned so much and was inspired to increase my involvement here. I will definitely reach out to you when ready to launch into a second phase. Thank you, again! Feel-flourish (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

August 2020 at Women in Red

Women in Red | August 2020, Volume 6, Issue 8, Numbers 150, 151, 173, 174, 175 Online events: New: Indigenous women | Countries headed by women Interwiki collaborations: Interwiki Women Collaboration | Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Ending August 31st: Sports (returning for the next Olympics) Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Just a note to let everyone know that I've added in more indigenous women to my list and rearranged the Sámi women list to bunch similar ones together. So now it's easier to focus on say Sami women writers if one is so inclined. :) -Yupik (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Articles on women newly made

Hi. In June and July 2020, I've created these articles about women:

• JoAnne S. Bass - on DYK hold to appear 14 Aug, should be a lead DYK IMHO
• Jan Shutan
• Michi Kobi
• Elizabeth Nance - DYK approved, needs put in prep queue, should really be a lead DYK IMHO, has women in science tag
• Security Democrats (United States Congress) - DYK needs approved, about 5 women 2 men
• Lauren Meyers - DYK needs approved, has women in science tag

I'm not sure how to incorporate these into the WIR project. Thought you may want to know about them. Seven Pandas (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Seven Pandas; good work. WiR's metrics are driven from wikidata; your articles will have been picked up by virtue of their sitelink from wikidata, so there's mainly nothing to be done. It is possible to put banners on the talk page, but not obligatory (nor do I know much about this custom). --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Jane Cocking Glover

Throwing this one out to the hive mind as well.

I've been working on some articles about artists from Washington, D.C., and my work on Pietro Bonanni (about whom more later) has led me to a couple of figures about whom I'd like to write. One is Jane Cocking Glover, who was the wife of a prominent Maryland attorney and long resident in Washington during the nineteenth century. Ordinarily I'd see her name and the dearth of sources and move on, but her portrait was accessioned by the National Portrait Gallery a few years ago, and as I've mentioned above, their notability requirements are fairly strict. Consequently, I've cobbled together this article, but I'm wondering if there isn't more than can be done to expand it. Please feel free to take a look. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• There were over 800 hits on Hathitrust with her married name, many from her time period. There are also quite few mentions of a "Jane Glover" in the National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution which might fit.[1] I apologize that this isn't more helpful. Fred (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Frederika Eilers: That's great, thanks - I wouldn't have thought to look at either of those. I'll have a look, thanks. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Interesting that there's an English poet, Richard Glover (poet) (1712–1785) whose key work is an epic Leonidas ... and a son of Charles Carroll Glover and Jane Cocking is Robert Leonidas Glover (1819-1850). I can't trace a connection between the poet and the Maryland attorney, but who knows. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: Glover family history is proving to be frustratingly opaque, I'm finding. (There have been multiple Charles Carroll Glovers, for one thing.) I know the name well (viz. Glover Park), but putting two and two together is difficult. Doesn't help that there's a contemporary conductor named Jane Glover about whom the vast majority of the sources are. As yet I haven't been able to find anything about the Charles who was married to Jane. I'll try and do a bit more digging tomorrow, see what turns up. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 03:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll have another poke around much later today; like you, a confusion of CCGs & not much light. Working from the poet forwards (b/c I'd like the Leonidas connection to be true) gives us another redlinked Richard Glover, 1790 MP for Penryn [2] & [3] and no US connection beyond the poet-father having property in South Carolina. (A recommendation from the DNB about the father's work: "His ponderous 'Athenaid,' an epic poem in thirty books, was published in 1787 by his daughter, Mrs. Halsey. It is much longer and so far worse than 'Leonidas,' but no one has been able to read either for a century.") --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: Of note: if there was a pendant portrait to Jane's, of her husband, I've been unable to trace it. (Working back through the Corcoran's disbursement lists, there's no record of a portrait of him anywhere in their disbursed collection. Certainly none in the Portrait Gallery.) He's proving to be an intriguing cipher. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Charles Glover (1780-1827)

Charles and Jane Glover were parents of Richard Leonidas Glover, as noted above. The Riggs War, 1913 to 1916: Reform and Revenge by Paul Ryscavage, pp.40-41 states RLG is the father of Charles C. Glover, the banker who is ruining our searches; his article claimed his father's name as Charles, but on no authority. I've amended it to RLG with Riggs as the citation. There's a sentence in Riggs on our Charles: "settled in Washington DC in 1799, became an attorney, rose to prominence in the civic affairs of the young city". There are a couple of footnotes in that book on p.55 (2. & 3.) which may point to more info. (No joy on the Leonidas connection to the English poet. His son died childless; there may have been another son, Captain Glover, but no trace I've found. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

One of the footnotes points to https://www.jstor.org/stable/40067537?seq=1 Charles Carroll Glover, by Allen C. Clark; Records of the Columbia Historical Society, Washington, D.C. Vol. 39, [The 34th separately bound book] (1938), pp. 141-152. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

We need "Charles Glover, a Pioneer Resident of Washington" by Charles C. Glover, Jr., in the Records of The Columbia Historical Society (v31-32) ... it's at https://www-jstor-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/stable/40067450?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents ... I have a copy, but I presume you have JSTOR access. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: I don't, actually, have JSTOR access. Alas. But a little further digging found this: Eminent and Representative Men of Virginia and the District of Columbia in the Nineteenth Century: With a Concise Historical Sketch of Virginia. Between this and one or two other sources, that's enough to bolster the family connection to Charles the banker. I'll update Jane's article accordingly shortly - thanks for the help! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#Charles_Carroll_Glover, you're about a minute away from having JSTOR access (as well as another 28 or so resources). --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: Ooooh. Either Christmas came early this year, or my birthday came late. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Rfc: Why participation of Muslim Women on Wikipedia as editors is too low?

Hi.

If you feel interested in, then kindly do share your inputs on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam#Why is editorial participation of Muslim women on Wikipedia so low?

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 01:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Your list of reasons seems reasonable, especially the language barrier. It seems like the discussion has evolved by to consider not only muslim women contributors, but also the prevalence of biographies covering muslim women. We do have a few listed on our redlist of religion and in october 2018, there was a focus on religious women. There are some very talented individuals in this group in terms to data analysis, so I look forward to see if there is an way to measure the dearth of muslim women on wikipedia. As for contributors, I am not sure how to address that other than outreach programs. I remember outreach by Sara Stierch on other platforms, namely facebook, to get more women involved. Fred (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Christina Milletti

Is this author and professor notable? FloridaArmy (talk) 11:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE: Entry has been flagged as likely paid promotion. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Art competitions at the Summer Olympics

Hi all. I've started work on the often overlooked art competitions at the Summer Olympics. For those who didn't know, between 1912 and 1948, the arts programme was part of the Olympics, with medals awarded for architecture, literature, music, painting and sculpture! This has unearthed some very interesting biographies that I'm sure members of this project would enjoy, including:

• Ethel Barnard, British pianist
• Sonja Carstensen, Danish architect
• Ruby Reynolds-Lewis, Australian composer
• Suzanne Daneau, Belgian composer

These are just the ones I've created in the past 24hrs. Each one (so far) has a detailed biography on Olympedia (the replacement for Sports Reference) as a great starting point. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

How did I not know about art competitions at the Summer Olympics?! Very cool. I wish they would return even if the format evolved. Thanks for sharing, Lugnuts. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I know - great eh?! Glad to help. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

For a full list of pages I've created that are inscope of this project, run this query from WP:PETSCAN. New articles added daily. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:D Indumathi

Anyone want to review this article? Very low h-index in Google Scholar, but otherwise a tidy little article. I'm not that familiar with professor notability rules. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a good start. I am not an AfC reviewer (too few edits still). Usually WP:PROF notability focuses on awards, fellowships, and editorial board participation. Also of note, I believe that YouTube is not considered a reliable source WP:RS. I generally include an infobox and fewer headings for shorter articles. I appreciate that you've included frequent footnotes. Good luck with the article creation process and happy editing! 02:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Wall of Moms

Greetings from Portland, Oregon. I've created a new page for Wall of Moms about a fierce group of women. Improvements welcome. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Sarah Vowell

Not the usual fare for this page, but: I was doing an AWB run of articles the other day, and noticed that someone had put a ton of "citation needed" tags on Sarah Vowell. I think there's an overabundance, personally, but regardless, it requires some looking from someone better acquainted with her career. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Ser Amantio di Nicolao: I fully agree with you that this is over the top. It reminds me of one of my Latin teachers who loved using red ink all over our work. I thought most of us had by now realized how important it is to encourage editors rather than reveal every minor shortcoming. Perhaps you remember the days when we were all told to "fix it" rather than just post a list of errors on talk pages. I must say that's what I still try to do but it may not be the most efficient approach to reviewing. But on the more positive side, Vowell has not yet been AfD'd.--Ipigott (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to combine some of the "citation needed" tags for now so it's at least somewhat readable. I understand wanting to improve verifiability, but this is what the article looked like before the IP edits that added most of the tags - seems a bit disruptive. - Whisperjanes (talk) 06:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

National Women's Soccer League expansion

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:National Women's Soccer League#NWSL in LA, where an editor is objecting to the notability of the league's Los Angeles expansion team being the first majority-woman owned professional sports team in the US. Input from project members would be helpful on reaching consensus. Seany91 (talk) 07:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Curated redlist for Spanish-English translations

Of late, I've gotten a little stalled on translating articles from Spanish Wikipedia. For the benefit of anyone who's looking to work on some, I've compiled a list of good candidates for translation, based on notability, references, and article length. It's not all women, but there are quite a few. Nick Number (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Number: thanks for starting this. I translated one (Marcela Huaita Alegre). Do you happen to remember the talkpage template I should use for translation attribution? It would be great to add these to existing or new lists in the WIR Redlist index although that may be time-consuming. Cheers, TJMSmith (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@TJMSmith: Cool, thanks for turning one blue. I'll remove it next time I edit the list. The tag is {{Translated page}}. I'd use something like {{Translated page|Marcela Huaita Alegre|es|small=no}}, as the wide format fits better with WikiProject templates. The full guideline is at WP:HOWTRANS. Nick Number (talk)

RfD of Charlotte Proudman

I invite editors to join in at the discussion happening at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 30#Charlotte Proudman. Thanks. - Whisperjanes (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Bernhardt of Germany

I started Helene Odilon and I used a source that states that she has been named the "Bernhardt of Germany", but I can't find what Bernhardt the source is referring to. SL93 (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Apparently I was belittling the actress by including her marriages before her career, despite the fact that I would do the same with an article about a man. I have always included their personal life in the first section. SL93 (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I would assume that it refers to Sarah Bernhardt. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the article SL93. The essay pointed to in the edit comment, Wikipedia:Writing about women#Relationships, provides what seems to be well-reasoned advice to define women by their careers rather than their relationships - and that extends to the ordering of this information in the biography. Perhaps you could give some thought to modifying your approach? --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I understand, but I don't like bad faith assumptions and I wasn't trying to define her by her relationships. If I wanted to belittle someone, I would make absolutely sure that everyone knew that. SL93 (talk) 19:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

It was resolved on the editor's talk page, but if I must reconsider my approach based on gender, when does the equality begin and when does it end? For example, I open doors for both women and men. My best friend doesn't do that anymore for anyone because a woman called him misogynist when he did it. I had to second guess helping a woman mail carrier with carrying a heavy package down the apartment complex steps, just like I would have done for a man mail carrier. I didn't even help because I didn't want any backlash. SL93 (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The criticism concerns the article, and not your intent, but I think it is valid. When I look at the version of the article as you initially wrote it, on my laptop screen, I see only a short lead section, an infobox with a portrait of her, and the rest of the screen taken up by a large "Marriages" section. You may well not have intended it that way, but putting things in that order has the effect of emphasizing her marriages and de-emphasizing her stage career, where it is fair to say that the article defined her by her relationships. The marriages section (as it still exists) is flawed by a lack of dates which makes it difficult to determine how it all connects to her career and whether her marriages were brief affairs quickly ended in divorce or whether they were long-term marriages punctuated by other events. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: The sources have no dates. Do you want me to remove the whole section which removes most of the English sources that I could find, and in turn would make there be little proof of notability per Wikipedia's strict guidelines? If someone has dates, I welcome them to help me because I did try looking for them. SL93 (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not advocating removing the sources on her marriages, but if you think doing so and leaving only the material about her stage career would call into question her notability, this suggests that maybe you really are thinking of her as being defined by her relationships and not by her stage career. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• @David Eppstein: Wow. I guess I need to break it down for you - 1) Most English sources barely mention her 2) I can't read German 3) I have dealt with this shit before in regards to sourcing. SL93 (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I was fascinated by her career so I created the article. My attempt to create an article on someone who deserves it made me receive animosity, even though I came here to ask for help. I tagged the article for speedy deletion. SL93 (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I declined the speedy. The article is worth keeping - it may require work, but I don't think it ought to be deleted wholesale. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I only requested deletion so I wouldn’t have to deal with incredibly rude people like David Eppstein. SL93 (talk) 02:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Removing one article from the red, again

The other day I noticed Menen Liben Amede had been deleted for reasons discussed here. Not having faced the problem of restoring a deleted article, I sought advice; I was told I couldn't simply undelete the deleted article, despite it wasn't a copyvio. Since the original article was created by cut-n-pasting other articles about Ethiopia (which I had written), I did the same, creating a new & hopefully better version. -- llywrch (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Can this article be put in article name space

I came across one article Draft:Women in Ismailism. Personally I feel this article may grow better in article name space in longer run but some how seem to fail at stricter article for creation reviews. I don't know what needs to be done to put such articles in article namespace.

Bookku (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Bookku I see there is considerable discussion of women in Isma'ilism. Perhaps some of the material and sources could be included. The article also needs to be copy-edited and more wikilinks need to be included. It would probably be better if those familiar with the topic participated in this. Maybe Ogress could help.--Ipigott (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

New Fellows of the British Academy

The ten women who were elected FBA this month who are missing from Wikipedia are now included on the Redlist of Fellowships and are also all in Wikidata, with references to the award and their workplaces. So, ten more with guaranteed notability are waiting to be written up. Oronsay (talk) 04:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Oronsay: Could that page potentially include Guggenheim Fellows as well? Collecting them is going to be a bit of a process, but it's something I keep thinking I need to get started on. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Ser Amantio di Nicolao Guggenheim Fellows have been collected here -Guggenheim Fellowship. Deleted very recently was the category called Category:Guggenheim Fellows. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

{{ping|Oronsay} I'd seen the deletion discussion - not sure how I feel about it, to be honest. I was thinking more along the lines of female Guggenheim Fellows, rather than all Fellows. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 03:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Ser Amantio di Nicolao I was making a suggestion of where to find an existing list of Guggenheim Fellows to then find female Guggenheim Fellows. So perhaps you could add an explanatory statement on the Redlist of Fellowships and link to that page rather than create a red list. If anyone wanted to make that their focus they could work from that source. Sorry I didn't explain that more fully in my comment. Also the site on the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation often has a photo of the recipient. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@WomenArtistUpdates: Apologies - apparently my woolly brain was woollier than I realized yesterday. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Ser Amantio de Nicolao were you hoping for something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Guggenheim Fellows? I've put some of the earlier ones up there Dsp13 (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Dsp13! I'll bookmark that page and use it. Did it take you long to create? WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

pleased if it's useful! Maybe an hour? Dsp13 (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Dsp13 Yes indeed it is useful. I used it to find Doris Spiegel. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Dsp13 Yes, that's exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. I'll try to start adding a few over the next few days/weeks. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)