Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 87

Archive 80

←

Archive 85

Archive 86

Archive 87

Archive 88

Archive 89

Archive 90

Consultative Council (Poland)

The women's revolution in Belarus (Coordination Council) has spread to Poland. This is not just massive sustained street protests: this may turn into a real women's revolution and Poland might once more become an inspirational example to the world for progress in political freedom and human rights (as in the 1980s Solidarity movement).

The Consultative Council that aims to be something like a horizontally organised, grassroots, shadow Cabinet that is not going to wait three years for an election (my interpretation, not RSed!) is currently about 2/3 women: Consultative Council (Poland)#Membership. Missing articles for the women members include:

• with solid existing pl.Wikipedia articles - all sources used are Polish-language
  • Barbara Labuda  Done - Astrophobe (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Danuta Kuroń  Done - Astrophobe (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Monika Płatek  Done - Astrophobe (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• no pl nor en articles
  • Mirosława Makuchowska (active in Campaign Against Homophobia) - search also for Mirka (nickname) Makuchowska  Done Boud (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Katarzyna Bierzanowska  Done Boud (talk) 03:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Kinga Łozińska  Done Boud (talk) 00:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Articles already started include: Chmiel, Przyłuska, Łoboda, Lasota, Oleszczuk. These five would all be worth a visit by people good at Category:-ising. Boud (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC) Update, two new women members of the Council:

• no pl nor en articles
  • Katarzyna Pikulska  Done Boud (talk) 01:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Aleksandra Kaczorek  Done Boud (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Boud (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Articles among these worth adding to your watchlist:

• Talk:Nadia Oleszczuk
  • Someone there suggested deleting the page, with reasons including: She became a member of this Council simply because she is a woman.

Boud (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• And the page just received its first vandalism attempt that was quickly reverted (not by me). Boud (talk) 01:49, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• Nadia Oleszczuk is now semi-protected. Semi-protection won't handle this alone: a more subtle attempt to delegitimise Oleszczuk's role has been made, and, for the moment, handled. Boud (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this really thorough rundown Boud. Unless I hear that someone has a draft going, I'm happy to take care of the three remaining redlinks today. I'll go start work on them now. - Astrophobe (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Astrophobe: Great! I don't have any drafts underway. Go ahead :). Boud (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again for pointing out this gap Boud! Yesterday didn't go quite how I planned, but I finished the three remaining pages today. Some of the ones I wrote are a bit shorter than I would have liked, but it's a start. - Astrophobe (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Excellent work - thanks :). If you still have some energy left, I see that Marta Lempart of OSK already has a solid pl.Wikipedia page. Along with Klementyna Suchanow, Lempart is one of the key spokespeople of OSK, which facilitated the selection of the Council membership. Boud (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Mildred Sledge

Would anyone be able to help get this drsft fixed up and into article space? Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

New documentation on mapping content gaps

Mapping content gaps on Wikimedia Collating information to map what is missing from Wikimedia

Hi all

I've just completed some documentation that you might find useful about working with people to map topics missing from Wikimedia projects, the work Women in Red has done has really formed the based of a lot of it. Help:Mapping_content_gaps_on_Wikimedia

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

This looks great! Thanks for putting it together :) Hopefully it will help Wikipedia / WikiProjects / edit-a-thons streamline their processes - especially for any new projects that might need a roadmap on how best to start (or to help current projects engage with their editors). - Whisperjanes (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @John for your work on this. Note, Women in Red welcomes questions/comments from individuals or other communities regarding mapping content gaps. This page is the best way for them to connect with us. Likewise, we're open to learning from others! --Rosiestep (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much Whisperjanes and Rosiestep do you know of any examples of lists created for Women in Red I could use as an example that have been written up as a report or project or something? John Cummings (talk) 10:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

John Cummings, I'm pinging Merrilee regarding possible write-up. I think this was the example list (note the additional column for "# of library holdings"). --Rosiestep (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Jack Schwadron

I realize this is not about a woman but BigMusicBaby, a new contributor and recent member of WiR, is concerned that her first new article has been proposed for deletion. With the recent additions and sources, it looks to me as if it deserves to be kept on the basis of general notability. The sources from the New York times seem quite detailed.--Ipigott (talk) 09:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Pansy E. Black

I just approved this one from draft, but it's not clear to me whether she's notable. For your attention/review. Thanks! Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Added some refs, details, etc. She was active in San Antonio's theosophical community, and gave an interesting lecture (predicting the end of privacy, in 1933). I wonder if (like many women in SF in the 1930s) she wrote more under other pseudonyms. Hope someone can contribute about that if she did. Penny Richards (talk) 03:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:List of historical women

This ongoing discussion may be of interest to this project. GMG^talk 11:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the link GreenMeansGo. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Eyes on an AFC

Hi all, at the end of August I think, I made the mistake of using the AfC template when creating an article in draft space: Draft:Death of Naya Rivera. I then figured I would appreciate eyes on it anyway, and submitted it. Now, I know it can take a while but it's been a month and a half, or 2 months? And I do think the article is in fantastic shape, as well as appropriately project-tagged, so I don't see why it's not been accepted - so I'm here to ask if anyone who has time to read it can see something wrong with it that I might have missed. It's woman-focused and I know people at this project are often prepared to read through drafts :) I'm patient, but it's also in part been created because the section at the bio article was out of hand, others have worked on it, and if the bio is nominated for GA it would be helpful for the draft to be accepted ASAP so the bio can be trimmed. Kingsif (talk) 06:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Kingsif: Done. Interesting article. I see it had been queued for over a month. Certainly looks like a good candidate for GA.--Ipigott (talk) 07:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Ipigott there's quite a bit of content that is not directly related to the death and ensuing aftermath. It should be moved to the biography, if it is not already covered there. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Dodger67: It was moved out of the biography after a brief discussion because the bio is very long. You could have checked before suggesting that. It should also be very clear from the length of the "Death of" article that such a level of coverage of death is too detailed for a bio. All the content is related; some is background and appropriately sectioned, and I don't expect you would argue the disappearance and investigation are unrelated, so I can't see where you're getting that idea – unless you want to bring up anything specific over at the correct talk page? Kingsif (talk) 07:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Sadurmelickh, Female Tartar warriors were real or fictional ?

Greetings,

While researching for Draft:Women, conflict and conflict zones and Draft:Avret Esir Pazarları I came across The bondage and travels of Johann Schiltberger'(available online @ gutenberg.org/files) is one of first western travel account by an eascapee of forced slavery of Ottomans. Strangely enough when Ottoman female slavery was rampant his travel account makes scant mentions of the same, ironically mentions a strange case of empowered women warriors taking revenge from a Tartar king. Schiltberger's accounts while largely doubted still one ends up wondering why one would end up in such myth making or was it real to an extent or just a folklore?

Do we have enough academic sources to count Sadurmelickh as encyclopedic notable?

Bookku (talk) 03:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Sherri Nichols

Hello again -- I found this article at speedy and wondered whether anyone here might be able to help out with it. The subject is a specialist in baseball stats, and seems potentially notable, but it's been contributed as part of an educational programme and the tone isn't encyclopedic. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 04:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Nicole R. Fleetwood

Hello, I just made an article for professor Nicole R. Fleetwood. She does really wonderful work. Feel free to improve it as there is plenty to add. Thanks for everything that all of you do! Thriley (talk) 02:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this entry! I have added references to a few book reviews so just in case, she should definitely pass NAUTHOR no matter what. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Thriley (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Women of the Bauhaus

I am working on an article about Kitty van der Mijll Dekker for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/180 on textile arts. While connecting Mijll Dekker's article to other articles I came across the article Women of the Bauhaus. The article was tagged in 2017 for not being written in an encyclopedic style. There has been a fair amount of editing since then. The article was tagged in 2020 with the suggestion that it be merged into the article on the Bauhaus. I think the article should have the first tag removed, but am reluctant to do that myself. I also think there may be some WiR editors who would like to weigh in on the proposed merger. Would anyone care to take a minute to look at the article? Thank you. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Jooojay, You commented about this back in June and your opinion got archived, unremarked on. I don't understand why the discussion is on Bauhaus, rather than Women of the Bauhaus, but you may want to write again. Do you know how one goes about removing the tag requesting the merge? Thanks. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done and  Done. Thank you WiR editors. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

British Library event - Women In Leeds

Hi All, I just wanted to inform people about an event I'm involved with in Leeds, between the museum service, libraries and the British Library this Sunday, to add a few more Leeds Women into articles https://www.bl.uk/events/unfinished-business-leeds-wikithon-women-in-leeds - I've been asked to explain a bit about Women in Red and why I edit, which I hope is OK? Also, I got sent some Women in Red badges a while ago and I just wanted to check it was OK to offer them to people who made some successful edits? Thanks Lajmmoore (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I speak out of turn, as resident non-member of WiR, in saying yes & yes & have a good event. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Here's WiR's first contribution: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Leeds --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Tagishsimon, that's AMAZING! Thank you so much! Will send it on to everyone now! Lajmmoore (talk) 14:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Here's a second list - Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Leeds2, now including anyone with an association with the University. Maybe a few more useful names amongst the many researchers. I'll link to this from the shorter list. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Fantastic, Tagishsimon. BTW, if Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Leeds2 is about the university, would it be useful to rename it Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/University of Leeds? Plus friendly reminder to add the university one here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Redlist index#Educational institution (WD). And I added Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Leeds to a new section in our redlist index: Cities. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Tagishsimon: Amazing indeed! That's a very interesting new approach to redlists. I was just wondering how many cities there are in the world with a population of a quarter of a million and a university. Looks as if there might be well over a hundred in China alone (but they might not be organizing editathons over the next couple of weeks). I have a feeling Edinburgh might appreciate the same treatment.--Ipigott (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

They're all witches in Edinburgh, as it turns out. Allegedly. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Edinburgh. I'm inclined to keep the associated-with-the-university lists separate from the associated-with-the-city lists, mainly b/c they tend to be 1,000s of ORCId derived 'researcher' items. We should have (more) lists per university. Lists by city, or by University, are not very scalable, there being so many both of them. Not sure if or how to proceed. Request only? (Worth noting, the report takes the metropolitan area - for Edinburgh, the 'City of Edinburgh' council district, finds all human settlements within it, and then finds bio items that point to any of these human settlements; so for Leeds, 'Leeds Metropolitan Borough', which extends to Pool in Wharfedale, Otley, &c). --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I added Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Edinburgh here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Redlist index#Cities. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Interesting... "Survey of Scottish Witchcraft - Accused witch ID" seems to be competing with "badminton player (Q13141064)" for the most useless, bothersome addition to Wikidata. Perhaps we should start compiling a list of potential deletes on Wikidata.--Ipigott (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata has a much broader scope than language wikipedias. The Survey of Scottish Witchcraft bio items, amongst other things, allow maps of the temporal and geographic distributions of accusations to be drawn (Examples). SoSW in wikidata has, iirc, won awards & been widely praised. Your deletion proposition would get very short shrift. (And you might get turned into a frog.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

But could you make a redlist of badminton players accused of witchcraft? WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Tagishsimon: What you say about the witches is just the kind of thing which needs to be documented in the Wikidata article. It also needs to be updated. You seem to be well placed to make some improvements.--Ipigott (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll give that some thought. It does seem somewhat lacking and dated. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Wiki/Women/Womxn Meet Up for Movement Strategy Implementation

Preceding the global movement strategy implementation events scheduled for November 21&22 and December 5&6, regional, thematic, and language-based wiki communities are holding their own events. Wiki/women/womxn of all language communities will be coming together for a Zoom meeting this weekend. Hope many of you can participate.

• WikiWomen's User Group/WikiWomxn Meet Up for Movement Strategy
• Saturday, November 14, 2020, at 16:00 - 18:00 UTC
• Special guest: Katherine Maher, WMF CEO and Executive Director

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Sad to see there are no participants.--Ipigott (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I am so sorry if that is misleading, Ipigott. There is no expectation to sign in on a Meta page before participating... or even during, or after, especially as adding your username may 'out' you.

For those who are interested and unaware, WikiWomen User Group conversations don't occur on Meta; they occur in the WikiWomen telegram channel. If you are a woman/womxn and wish to be added, please ping me off-list. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I hope the event on the 14th was very successful. Thank you WIR, for all that you do in helping to close the gap here on Wikipedia. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Tsistunagiska; appreciaate your kind words. From all accounts, it was very successful. The notes are being anonymized and once done, a link will be added to the meetup page on Meta. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

English-language Wikipedia's Meet Up for Movement Strategy Implementation

The English-language Wikipedia's Meet Up for Movement Strategy Implementation will occur on Tuesday, 17th November 2020, from 5 to 7pm UTC via Zoom. Details here: m:Wikimedia UK/Events/Discussion about priorities for the English Wikipedia. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

This event occurred today. When it was my turn to give an opinion, I spoke specifically about en-wiki Women in Red. When asked to choose and rank the Top 3 Recommendations, I picked and ranked them thus:

1. 4/Ensure Equity in Decision-Making
2. 3/Provide for Safety and Inclusion
3. 2/Improve User Experience.

See m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Recommendations#Recommendations created by the Movement for further information about the 10 Recommendations. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Sonali Dev

I just undeleted this one because it was G13 deleted without ever having been submitted/considered. I submitted it now. I'm not sure whether she's notable but I figured you all might be interested in having a look... Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

She seems to have books published by commercial publishers, shortlisted for interesting award, writes in popular genre ... I have made a few additions. Might do more tomorrow.--MerielGJones (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I see that @Devonian Wombat: has now published this page. Thanks!!--MerielGJones (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Paging art buffs!

Hello! By chance do we have any art buffs available to lend a hand on First Lady Michelle Obama (painting)? I have a forthcoming DYK on a related entry (a new bio of the woman who designed Obama’s dress!) and the hook mentions the painting, so I have been trying to beef up the page (initially a stub). I’ve ended up 5x’ing it already (!), but I could still use some help, especially in the section on the painting’s style. Even knowing the goal is to summarize sources, I feel a bit timid describing the portrait (leading to overreliance on quotes) and could use a hand from someone more comfortable handling formal analysis of painting. General revisions, copy edits, and other contributions also gratefully received: it’s a bit rough now but I think it could wind up quite a strong article. Thank you much! Innisfree987 (talk) 03:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

A related plea

Would also be very grateful for a hand with the entry for the portrait’s painter, Amy Sherald. Recently two apparently new editors have added a large amount of sourced material, which is great, but it’s written more in an academic-art voice than for a general audience. There’s also some overlapping info as well as probably too much detail, so wrapping my arms around it all to figure out what stays and what goes is a process! More eyes on any portion or all would be much appreciated. Thanks all! Innisfree987 (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Redlists / Listeria

Listeria has had an update ... please keep an eye out for any anomalies with redlists or other Listeria pages you use; perhaps take an extra step to check the page history - is the list updating, and if not, does a manual update work? Right now there's an outstanding sort issue, and at least one example of a page that isn't updating. Please list any issues found, here, or on the issue log. thx --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Tagishsimon: As far as I can see, none of the articles on textile artists I have created over the past couple of weeks have been deleted from Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Textile. They are all blue linked. Ditto on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/BDSW.--Ipigott (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. There was a SPARQL error in the first of those, but even with it fixed, no update. Both logged. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Tagishsimon: I see both of these were updated by Listeria yesterday.--Ipigott (talk) 13:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

1950s stage actor and TV producer: Dale Baum

I recently stumbled across Dale Baum (actor), a 1950s stage actor and WJTV producer from Flint, Michigan/Mississippi. I think she likely meets WP:N but it's outside my area of expertise. Hopefully someone here might be interested in starting an article. Here are some sources I found: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] TJMSmith (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Sara Radstone

This, on a living British ceramicist, needs a little buffing-up. She's unquestionably notable, & (see the talk) google provides some good links & text to RSs. I think there is a COI issue (see talk again), which needs some more declaration. Can anyone help? Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I have accepted this draft because several editors have vouched for the notability of the subject and so it is unlikely to be deleted. Mainspace articles don't need to be perfect or complete. Please continue to improve Sara Radstone. ~Kvng (talk) 13:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Kvng, Please reconsider your promotion of this article to the main space. Regardless of whether the artist is notable OR if there is a COI issue, the 740 word article has only two citations. The article will probably be tagged as needing more citations and also be challenged on notability. I think it would be much better for the author to create an acceptable article from the draft. Only they know where they obtained the information for this essay. Additionally, by promoting this under-sourced essay, it encourages additional under-sourced articles, and more clean up work. The Wikipedia community would be better served if you pinged the author with a list of what needs to be done to promote this article as your first step. Thanks. Pinging Iridescent with the request that they second this request. Anyone else who agrees that this is a draft article, please feel free to add your voice Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

WomenArtistUpdates, the fundamental criteria for accepting AfC submissions is that they are WP:UNLIKELY to be deleted. This article clearly meets that criteria. The mission here at WP is to improve articles collaboratively. In general, very little collaboration happens in Draft: space. Most authors of drafts are new to WP (this is no exception) and have limited ability to make an acceptable article. It is therefore AfC policy to accept flawed articles on notable subjects so they are visible to the larger community of editors and get the improvements they need. ~Kvng (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I second the above from WomenArtistUpdates. This kind of premature moving to mainspace is actively disruptive, since you're intentionally putting a new editor's first contribution into an environment in which it's likely to be plastered with maintenance tags and nominated for deletion, which tends to confuse and upset new editors and often ends in their leaving; serving as an incubator space for viable articles that aren't yet ready is precisely the point of draftspace. The article was not submitted to AfC as ready by the author, but by a drive-by editor, and it clearly isn't ready. Kvng, please reconsider this move. ‑ Iridescent 16:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Iridescent, the author submitted the draft for review so they thought it was ready for mainspace. We get a lot of criticism from authors at AfC for reluctance to accept. I agree that contributions from new editors can be treated harshly at WP. I don't have a solution but I don't think the solution is to sideline their contributions. ~Kvng (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Where are you getting "the author submitted the draft for review" from? As I've already said, it was submitted for review by a drive-by editor, not the author (or anyone with any previous involvement with the page), shortly after I'd rescued it from CAT:CSD and sent it into draftspace. ‑ Iridescent 20:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Kvng, just for my information, is that policy even for largely unreferenced BLPs? (At this point I think energy is best spent improving the entry but just want to make sure I’m up to date on AFC reviewing policy, as I haven’t done it in a while.) Innisfree987 (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

AfC does not make policy for wikidata, only for AfC. I've not tracked down BLP policy specifying the need for at least one source, but there is the widely used & accepted Template:Prod blp used to enforce the unfound policy: that BLPs require at least one source. Any talk of BLPs needing more sources, just because, is for the birds. They need more sources, per WP:V if there is information likely to be challenged. We are all well within custom & practice, and probably policy if anyone can track it down, to promote BLPs having only one citation. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Tagishsimon, I was asking about AFC policy, not mainspace. Over the years AFC has changed a lot and at times some project leaders have felt strongly about enforcing different rules about promotion, even on threat of removal from the reviewing group. Was just trying to confirm where that stands now. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry perhaps you were not replying to me though. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The "delete BLPs without any sources" policy is at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people, for the record. ‑ Iridescent 18:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't really agree it's so terrible to make it an article now, though I wouldn't have done it myself. This is virtually the only article the creator has worked on, & help from others is probably needed, which will also reduce the possible COI. As I said at the top, I added 2 refs to the talk which themselves should squash notability issues when used. Johnbod (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. WP:AFCSTANDARDS states "Article submissions that are likely to survive an AfD nomination should be accepted and published to mainspace." As explained by other editors, Radstone meets WP:ARTIST based on available sources. The article can be promoted and tagged accordingly (i.e. COI, BLP sources needed, improve categories). TJMSmith (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

However at that same policy page: If what is written in the submission meets the notability guidelines, but the submission lacks references to evidence this, then the underlying issue is inadequate verification and the submission should be declined for that reason. Like I say, I don’t think this entry should be draftified now, but I remain confused about the AFC policy... Innisfree987 (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Innisfree987, we have additional guidelines at AfC but the purpose of the guidelines is to implement the policy of accepting submissions that are unlikely to be deleted. BLPs are subject to higher standards and if they're unsourced they are likely to be deleted quickly.

AfC reviewers are volunteers like the rest of us and like the rest of us have varying ideas about the best way to improve the encyclopedia. I'm sorry if my actions have upset anyone. I don't think I've made a mistake here but I've definitely made my share of mistakes so that's not out of the question. If you don't think the article should be in mainspace, at this point, the remedy for that is at AfD. ~Kvng (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you made a clear mistake, didn't bother to check the history to see if the person submitting the article actually had anything to do with it, moved an obviously inappropriate article (that had only just survived speedy deletion) back into mainspace, refuse to admit your mistake, and are now saying that it can't be moved back to draftspace and needs to be AfDd instead? I can't remember the last time I encountered an editor on Wikipedia whose attitude so disgusts me. ‑ Iridescent 20:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

You probably missed the part of the discussion where voices spoke up for this being a good call on Kvng's part. Your words, Iridescent, do not say much about Kvng, but speak volumes about you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Iridescent, AfD is the master forum where, as a community, we assess whether articles are suitable for the encyclopedia. If you believe there is a consensus that I've made a bad call, you may wish to nominate the article for deletion and request in your nomination that it be WP:DRAFTIFYED rather than deleted if found to be unsuitable for mainspace. ~Kvng (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to Ceoil, WomenArtistUpdates, 14GTR, TJMSmith, Vexations, Johnbod, Ser Amantio di Nicolao and Tagishsimon who worked on the article today. ~Kvng (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

[Havnt read the infighting above...but]..it seems, but of course I cannot be sure, that Kvng's move followed this post to Johnbod's talk (which I watch), with the assumption being (I strongly guess) that it would be grandfathered (by JB)...I also read the following posting there that way.[9] Having read up over hours since, intended or not, it turns out to have been a good move. Lets move on, with some lessons learnt. Ceoil (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Kvng you seemed to have acted out of the best of intentions, but would take on board Iridescent's guidance....I see your talk page is littered with bot msgs raising similar concerns. Ceoil (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I would hope we can all agree the article is now articlespace-ready, & should be safe from a notability challenge. Thanks to all who have helped, not that more wouldn't be useful. Johnbod (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Iridescent, I was not aware of that that post and the history of this draft. Now I understand why this was so upsetting. ~Kvng (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Any takers ?

Greetings,

A bit different topic. We all know Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. While every 11 January Wikipedia adds up one more year to it's age, encyclopedias and Compendiums too add up a year more to their much longer history.

When did you last visited wikipedia articles Encyclopedia Compendium and History of encyclopedias? What is their status ? When I visited those the last two are tagged for lack citations. In Encyclopedia#Characteristics section too almost six paragraphs are missing in citations.

1) After reading all three articles on Wikipedia as a reader I do not get information what a reader of an encyclopedia is supposed to expect from encyclopedia or readers part many commercial encyclopedias might have done marketing putting those points forward so can one find any such information in any source? (I am not expecting discourses of Wikipedians but discourses of Non Wikipedian intellectuals or marketeers of traditional encyclopedias.

2) Another missing point is how an encyclopedic entry needs to be written features tools challenges etc. again not Wikipedian point of views but editorial or intellectual discourses of traditional encyclopedias writers or editors.

3) How an ideal Compendium and Encyclopedia content quality is supposed to look like (beyond it's alphabetical etc organizational aspects) again not Wikipedian point of views but editorial or intellectual discourses of traditional encyclopedias writers or editors with critique of some Compendium and Encyclopedia.

4) Is there any (Non Wikipedia) source that would say or suggest Compendium and Encyclopedia as 'up to date' state of information / knowledge ?

Does this supposed to concerns women? May be and may not be, depends how one looks at it. At minimum as most in this project focus largely on biographies may be biographies of women who contributed to Encyclopedias and Compendiums may interest. Personally, I do see it one more angle, some of contributors may be facing hurdles of some strange Wikipedia rules and in course of time internalizing them, what was participation of women in forming all those rules ? Whether all of them are logical and fair enough to women? or few of them are avoidable hurdles? If one works on the topic then handling systemic biases will become easier? If no one worked on the topic then that is good opportunity to work on.

Actually one anon IP helped with a list of sources too on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. If topic interests some one following is list of sources with which one can support the articles.

• Sanford, Eva (1949) Famous Latin Encyclopaedias
• Tsien, Tsuen-Hsuin (1952) A History of Bibliographic Classification in China
• Preece, Warren (1965) The Organization of Knowledge and the Planning of Encyclopaedias: The Case of the "Encyclopaedia Britannica"
• Sullivan, Lawrence (1990) Circumscribing Knowledge: Encyclopedias in Historical Perspective
• Burke, Peter (1996) Reflections on the history of encyclopaedias
• Binkley, Peter (ed.) (1996) Pre-Modern Encyclopaedic Texts.
• Fowler, Robert (1996) Encyclopaedias: definitions and theoretical problems
• Twomey, Michael (1996) Towards a reception history of western medieval encyclopaedias in England before 1500
• Harvey, Steven (1998) The Medieval Hebrew Encyclopedias of Science and Philosophy
• Stockwell, Foster (2000) A History of Information Storage and Retrieval
• Toshio, Yokoyama (2007) Some notes on the history of Japanese traditional household encyclopedias
• Würth, Stefanie (2008) Historiography and Pseudo-History
• Burke, Peter (2013). A Social History of Knowledge.

Hope this is a helpful start. If you can’t read any of the paywalled articles, you can request them at WP:RX because you are using them to improve Wikipedia.

Any takers for the task?

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Biografías de Mujeres Andaluzas

This site turned up in one of my searches earlier today. Looks like it could be quite useful - how useful I'm not sure, as I don't speak Spanish. Hopefully it might be of some value to others, though. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank, Ser Amantio di Nicolao. Gamaliel, this site might be of interest for your Wikidata work. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Women's poll tax repeal movement

I started an article the end of October that I thought I would have finished by election day, November 3rd, but that wasn't the case. It has grown exponentially and I am thinking that it might be a good nominee for FA. But, to do that, there are 20 redlinks to women, one man, and a couple of organizations that should probably be blue before I nominate it. I need an army of helpers. I've pulled together enough sources for each, I think, that notability can be verified and GNG can be met, so that at a minimum a stub can be written. Obviously we all have different access to sources, so some of these can probably be expanded more than just what I listed. If anyone is willing please see here and just mark which one(s) you take so we don’t end up with duplicates. I will very much appreciate any helpers. Thanks! SusunW (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

If you remind me about this, I have access to Ancestry through Wikimedia library and, after building up skills by recreating family trees that already exist, I might be able to find more historical sources. Kingsif (talk) 05:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I can see, Susun, that you have been putting a great deal of energy into this important aspect of American history. As I am currently involved in writing biographies of the Scandinavians who played such an important part in developing textile arts, I don't think I can devote much time at the moment to creating new articles on American activists but could help out later if the list still contains red links. I was wondering if it would help to create a List of American poll tax activists or perhaps a List of American women poll tax activists. Such a list could include those already blue linked and increasingly cover those whose red links change to blue. Maybe we could also have a Category:American poll tax activists or Category:American poll tax activism. (I'm not too sure whether I have chosen the best wording for these — please advise.) Drop me a line if you would like assistance with copy editing, etc.--Ipigott (talk) 12:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @Kingsif and Ipigott:. Any help at all will be appreciated. Kingsif, that'd be great. I just tried to pull enough together on the fly to confirm notability and get the basics of birth death on each of them. Some of those are unfortunately find-a-grave which is not a WP RS, but at least gives a context for their lives. The lists would help, as would the categories, but I am not really an expert on categories. There are those that would argue these are just civil rights activists, but it was the point that feminists and civil rights fighters converged, so technically they are both and a different animal. ;) I will definitely ask you to copy edit the main article Ian. Still trying to make sure that the structure is right and that we haven't omitted anything important. I appreciate your offers to help very much. SusunW (talk) 13:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much to @Penny Richards and Megalibrarygirl: for picking up some of these. We could still use help. Innisfree987 I noted above that you have access to reviews of works. The last 3 women on the list (Lois Scharf, Ronnie L. Podolefsky, and Sarah Wilkerson-Freeman) are historians and it would certainly help if we could find reviews of their works. Don't know if you are interested, but your note above made me ask. SusunW (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

SusunW, hi and thanks for thinking of me! I actually don’t have access right now, just am willing to scrounge Google Scholar for the paywalled refs that usually show enough content (the first page, typically) to verify they exist and confirm notability at least, and hopefully leave breadcrumbs for anyone who does have access and can expand the entry from those refs. Would be happy to do that much on these if it would help, but may not get to it for a few days as I’m trying to buff up two entries forthcoming at DYK (First Lady Michelle Obama (painting) and Amy Sherald, the portrait’s painter.) But very happy to do those next, I have indeed created a lot of notable historian stubs that way. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much Innisfree987 I definitely think it will help, if you have time to do it. SusunW (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

SusunW, great! I’ve just set myself a reminder note about it! I’ll try to update you soon. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Gosh so sorry—by the time I got to this, you’d already done a far better job on the first two than I could have SusunW! I’ve started this little stub for the third—Draft:Sarah Wilkerson Freeman—but I don’t know if you’ve already concluded she’s not notable? I think it’s borderline but technically meets our NAUTHOR requirements as major contributor to significant piece with multiple reviews... Tell me what your take is. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Oops sorry just found your big list, will comment there! Innisfree987 (talk) 03:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Innisfree987 Thank you so much. Yes, we've been working on the list like crazy. Have only a few to go. Really appreciate your help with Wilkerson-Freeman. I can expand it a bit, possibly later today. SusunW (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I just want to thank everyone who helped create the articles for the activists involved in this movement. There are others in the article who we may also at some point be able to document. There is only 1 left that hasn't been spoken for: Susan B. Anthony II, niece of the suffragette. Anybody interested? SusunW (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

BBC 100 women

The new list is a bit late but its now available. I have done a quick scan and I reckon we may already have an article for about half of them. Creating a wikidata record for all of them and creating a table for all of them are tasks looking for a taker. Usually about 80-90%v of these are notable and get their own articles. See here. Keep safe. Roger aka Victuallers (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Watch the misleading headline for "Carolina Castro, Place of birth: Argentina, Union leader" - that's the bosses' union, rather like eg the Confederation of British Industry. Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Made a table for them, but not everyone has an item in Wikidata (only 45 don't this year!). I've checked about half of them that aren't in Wikidata; I'll check the rest before I head off to bed and update the table should I come across anyone else. -Yupik (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The numbers were even better than I thought; only 38 don't have items in Wikidata (and one of those is Unsung Hero)! If anyone goes to write an article on Etheldreda Nakimuli-Mpungu, please note that the BBC's own list has dropped a 'd' out of her first name. -Yupik (talk) 04:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Yupik: started an entry on one of the missing people: Q102267785. Thanks for making that table! TJMSmith (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I've updated the table to reflect that :) -Yupik (talk) 06:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Yupik, for making a quick start on these. I see Victuallers and Oronsay are expanding the list of names on Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 07:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Some great work emerging - editors can now find the Nigerians, the disability activists, the filmmakers etc - got a minute? add a minute amount? It all helps. Any ideas for missing images? Victuallers (talk) 09:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Victuallers, I've updated the table with the wikidata items now - the only one not done is "Unsung Hero" as I wondered about notability,etc. Lajmmoore (talk) 08:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I had been thinking about this - its a big subject, which is counter intuitive as its really about the meaning of nothing. I remember reading an academic paper about the 17 different meanings of nothing (eg in a spreadsheet it might mean, don't know, precisely zero, not important, value yet to be entered etc). In this case its like when Time Magazine made person of the year "You" by which they meant what some say as "Everyman" meaning a particular person who could be anybody. In this case I think the BBC meant "Everywoman". I suspect that concept is notable given some research - but obvs not notable for this one occasion. If there was an "Everywoman" article to describe it then I think we could have wikidata item to match it and use that for the 100th woman. But without that article/definition then I think we can only assign 99 of them to wikidata. Well thats my thoughts ... oh, and good work! 09:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, big thank you to Yupik for the table. It makes updating the article so much easier. Still need to update all the bios with the BBC 100 Women info. Oronsay (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I started a draft for Draft:Gülsüm Kav - I wonder if this could be added to the December projects ideas list? Lajmmoore (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Many of these activists could fall under the ongoing BLM and Anti-discrimination editathon. TJMSmith (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

TJMSmith, Great point! Lajmmoore (talk) 07:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Esther Wunnicke

Hello again -- I've declined a speedy on Esther Wunnicke, a deceased Alaskan activist; can anyone help to clean it up and source it? There's a note on the talk page from the creator about access to offline sources. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 03:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for declining the deletion. Wunnicke is notable as an inductee in the Alaska Women's Hall of Fame. I've added categories/templates, expanded the infobox, and created a Wikidata entry. TJMSmith (talk) 04:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much, TJMSmith -- it's not an area in which I edit, so I was a bit at sea with it. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Scotland becomes first nation to provide free period products for all

Created a stub The Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Act needs expansion major legislation for women.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

One Question

Hello, The red linked articles for Indian women have been listed here. Can I create any article from it? Imfarhad7 (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Imfarhad7: If you are referring to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality/India, you need to be careful how you proceed. The list simply gives the names of women who have either been covered in other language versions of Wikipedia or have been included in Wikidata from other sources. You need to choose women who have been extensively covered in secondary sources: newspapers, books, critical reviews, awards, etc. For more guidance, see our Ten Simple Rules and our Primer for creating women's biographies. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok. I got it. Thanks for your reply. I will ask if I need any guidance.Imfarhad7 (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

International Center for Research on Women

Would anyone like to clean up and add sources to International Center for Research on Women? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I did a few searches. It's a challenge to find sources because the ICRW has published many articles and books itself, and it is cited by many more articles and books. It is so well known as a resource for information on women's issues around the world that there is no introduction given when they are cited in, for instance, the New York Times. Perhaps a more seasoned editor will have better luck. I will keep looking. IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 07:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

FYI, I am drafting a cleaned-up version. I'm not fast, so it will probably take some time. IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

December with Women in Red

Women in Red | December 2020, Volume 6, Issue 12, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 182, 183 Online events: New: Women who died in 2020 | Philanthropists Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Contest (Oct-Nov-Dec): Women in Asia Other ways to participate: Help us plan future events Join the conversations on our talkpage Become a member Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Some sources for the philanthropic women

Just cruising through the various states linked on:

Many of these states where there is a link in the above navbox, have redlinks and sources to philanthropic women. — Maile (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Nancy Thorndike Greenspan (Q102363177)

Hi all, I am generally not sure of the proper place to ask this, but I recently created an article for a book by Nancy Greenspan and noticed she had neither a Wikidata item nor a WP article on her. I created the Wikidata item (Q102363177) and wanted to know if others believe she is notable enough to get an article. She is the author of The End of the Certain World which has enough coverage that I would think she is borderline notable by WP:NACADEMIC #1/4 almost by that alone. She also coauthored several psychology books with her husband Stanley Greenspan. I don't have much experience with creating articles on people, so I just wanted to know what others think. Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I suspect the WP:NACADEMIC argument would not go very far (she does not seem to be particularly highly cited and I don't think the argument for WP:NACADEMIC 4 is obvious), but I'm just guessing. However, if nothing else, the super in-depth critical coverage this book got from huge outlets like the NYTimes, WSJ, Nature, etc should easily qualify for Greenspan's work having "won significant critical attention", giving her likely notability by WP:AUTHOR 4. - Astrophobe (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Like I said, I am really unexperienced with notability for people, I appreciate the clarification. Now that I read that, I think it also qualifies under WP:AUTHOR 3. It is certainly a "significant work", as attributed by nearly all of its reviews, and it has indeed been the subject of many independent periodical articles and several other reviews in newspapers, easily qualifying under that criteria. I think that is a good enough argument to create. Thanks again! Footlessmouse (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Warning/Editing Suggestions For You

Hi There, It looks like you made an incorrect, but good intent edit. For more information on the hierarchy of American universities, please see US News and World Report Best College Rankings. For quick a summary:
1. Princeton University (NJ)
2. Harvard University (MA)
3. Columbia University (NY)

Other notables: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MA)
Yale University (CT)
Stanford University (CA)
University of Chicago (IL)

These, especially numbers 1, 2, and 3 above, are typically considered the best. If you have any other further questions surrounding this topic please feel free to reach out to me. 68.199.120.122 (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this wasn't posted to the correct place. SL93 (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@SL93: The IP is actually posting this exact message in multiple places, looks like a ban is in order for whatever fucked up trolling is happening. Pushing lots of university rankings in recent article edits for no clear reason, too. Kingsif (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for 48 hours, as this spate of postings followed a warning about edit warring. We can't block IPs indefinitely, and this appears to be part of an IP range. Also, they're appealing the block, stating that the above posting was an accident. Maybe it was - we'll see. — Maile (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Launching the #SheSaid drive on Wikiquote

Why is Graca Machel not on Wikiquote?

On the 20th October, at the Gender Gap panel for the Creative Commons Virtual Global Summit, |Wiki Loves Women's Anthere and Islahaddow launched the SheSaid campaign. The SheSaid drive is aimed at improving the visibility of women across Wikimedia projects by creating new or improving already existing Wikiquote entries spoken by notable women.

Why the SheSaid campaign? One reason is to balance the representation of gender in the entries of Wikiquote. The other is to show that women's quotes are less likely to be featured than men's. Here are a few statistics:

• On the English Wikiquote main page on 6th of Oct 2020, in the Selected people section... 29 men are featured and only 4 women (check out the screenshot on the right...)
• There are 233 women who have a featured article on either French or English Wikipedias... with no entry on the French Wikiquote check it out
• There are 141 women featured article on the English Wikipedia with no wikiquote entry check it
• There are 519 women listed on the French wikiquote check it and 3117 men listed check it out

Obviously, not all women say good quotes that would make a wikiquote entry worth it. Still...

How to get involved? SheSaid runs until the 20h of December 2020. We hope you will take part! Find out more and join the campaign here.

Islahaddow (talk)

Rosie's story on an Irish podcast

A week or so ago I noticed Headstuff had come up with a 30-minute podcast on Wikipedia's Women in Red but I did not have time to listen to it in full until today. It announced an interview with Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight but in fact I discovered that after introductions lasting about 13 minutes, Rosie presented a 15-minute uninterrupted account of how she became an editor on Wikipedia and later devoted special attention to articles about women. It was of particular interest to me as I had collaborated with Rosie for quite a time before Women in Red finally came along. Well worth listening to if you have the time.--Ipigott (talk) 16:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Ipigott, I listened to it to and found it so interesting! Definitely worth a listen! Lajmmoore (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Ipigott, thank you! That is me and my mate Fionnuala who started the podcast (after a lot of encouragement from someone already on the network). The idea is introduce the "behind the scenes" to people who may never actually edit Wikipedia but to promote better understanding of how it works. So glad you enjoyed it! Smirkybec (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Smirkybec: Great idea to do a series of podcasts on Wikipedia for the non-initiate. I also enjoyed listening to The World According to Wikipedia, especially the bit about the Scots Wikipedia which was new to me. Despite your suggestion to go to headstuff.org for more information about your plans, I could find nothing on their front page. It would be interesting to know how you intend to develop the series, possibly with dates and titles of future episodes. Perhaps you could also contribute something to Signpost.--Ipigott (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Ipigott It's a very new show, the third episode is out tomorrow with the one and only Netha Hussain! The plug to go to Head Stuff isn't necessarily find out more about us, but to plug all the other shows and the network. Eventually, when there is more of an archive of shows to listen to it will make more sense, but I might tweak the wording to clear up any confusion :)  The show is going out every 2 weeks, and I have tentative plans for most of those shows going into March - all going well. I'm open to suggestions though! Thank you very much for my barnstar and new userbox! Smirkybec (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Polish women MPs as citizens for women's right to choose

Simone Veil was associated with this in France nearly half a century ago - her hardest political fight and for which she is best known. Polish women members of parliament - the Sejm - who are on a citizens' legislative initiative committee created 12 Nov 2020 to legalise women's right to decide on abortion include the following. These Polish women deserve to be known.

• reasonable en pages: Wanda Nowicka, Marcelina Zawisza, Joanna Senyszyn
• tiny en stub: Joanna Scheuring–Wielgus
• Katarzyna Kotula
• Katarzyna Ueberhan
• Monika Falej
• Katarzyna Kretkowska
• Magdalena Biejat

Boud (talk) 02:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Is it bad that what I took out of this was that I really should restore that lovely image of Simone Veil? On to the Polish women! Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 17:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Women in Climate Change editathon on 1-31 December 2020

Some of you may be interested in participating in an editathon, hosted on Meta, focused on Women in Climate Change. Details and sign-up here. If you do create an article for that event, you are warmly welcome to also add the new article to our #1day1woman event page. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Rosie. This is an increasingly important area which is likely to receive significant support in 2021 from countries around the world, including the US. We targeted "Environmentalists" in May 2019 but it is high time to prioritize it again. On our ideas page, I have suggested "Climate and environment" for January 2021.--Ipigott (talk) 10:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Global Conversations continue on Dec. 5 & 6

Hola, こんにちは, Ciao, Hello, سلام, Halo, Salut, 你好, Nnọọ, হ্যালো, Hallo, สวัสดี, Dzień dobry, வணக்கம், приветствие, שלום, Mholo, हैलो, γεια, Ahoj, ഹലോ, 여보세요, مرحبا, Բարեւ Ձեզ, Olá, Xin chào, Hallå, ಹಲೋ, Sawubona, Здраво, Merhaba, Talofa, హలో

Global Conversations Dec. 5 & 6

Distinguished Wiki(p/m)edians, greetings. 250 people participated in virtual Global Conversations that took place on November 21 and 22. The conversation continues on December 5 and 6 and we warmly invite you to take part. Registration is open until December 4. Looking forward to seeing you.

Since September, many groups have shared their local, regional, and thematic priorities for implementing the Movement Strategy recommendations. During the first set of Global Conversations on Nov. 21 and 22, we focused on initiatives that should be globally prioritized and coordinated. We invite you to read the selected global priorities. What do you like about them? What is missing? And what would make you want to play an active role in implementation? Share your thoughts in advance and continue the conversation on December 5 and 6.

Looking forward to seeing you again or for the first time on December 5 and 6.

MPourzaki (WMF) (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, MPourzaki (WMF). Really appreciate that someone from the movement strategy core team would personally deliver it.

All, here is the program for this weekend's event. The same program will be used on Saturday and Sunday (December 5 and 6). The reason for the two days is to accommodate people in different time zones. I've registered. Hope you do, too. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Check an image for a GA review?

Knowledgeable friends! There’s a nearly complete GA review for an important South African anti-apartheid activist, Priscilla Jana, but it’s hung up on a question about whether the image, File:Priscilla Jana.jpeg needs an additional fair use rationale beyond what’s in the file (to be clear, the image is only being used in this entry, nowhere else.) Is there someone experienced in fair-use images available to advise us on whether more information needs to be appended or if it already has what’s required? The “add a rationale” banner is tripping us up. Thank you for any and all guidance! Innisfree987 (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Innisfree987 I don't think it is saying you need an additional fair use rationale, but rather that someone has to review what you already have in there. But, I am no expert. Pinging Yngvadottir who has been able to help me with photo image problems before. SusunW (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

SusunW, thank you so much—that is also my impression but the GA reviewer would like confirmation. If Yngvadottir has time to cast an eye, I would be grateful! Innisfree987 (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see an admin has now reviewed the image. I thought it was all right, but I'm not that much of an expert. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, thanks for your input, it’s very helpful to hear it looked alright to you too! Innisfree987 (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Leslie Kanes Weisman

Help is requested on improving the above article, which is up for deletion.Possibly (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I expanded the article a bit and many reviews of her book. Thanks for helping to improve the article. TJMSmith (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Carroll Milton Williams

While looking through potential article subjects, I discovered that one of the "woman" listed in the entomology section is actually a man — despite the name! Carroll Milton Williams already has an article, so should be removed from the red list. MeegsC (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Solved. His name will be removed from the Entomology redlist on the next Listeria update. Oronsay (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Listeria is seriously borked right now. Don't hold your breath :( --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing guidelines hindering coverage of marginalized communities

Interesting recent presentation by Wikipedian in Residence Erin O'Neil and Art+Feminism's Kira Wisniewski titled "Information activism on Wikipedia" from the University of Alberta. O'Neil: "There are barriers to younger, racialized, less covered in public and mainstream media people." Wisniewski: "Our stories are getting mistold, misrepresented and they are not complete." Hour-long video available here.--Ipigott (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I do believe we should have guidelines here and where those guidelines can be met, they should be met. But, as I have pointed out on many occasions, one of the pillars and foundations of Wikipedia is that there are "no firm rules, guidelines or policies" when it comes to content. Unless Wikipedia comes to grips with the reality and enormity of its ever increasing role in society it will never achieve the full potential that it can be. The issue is not the system but the application of the system. I have had it preached to me constantly over the last two months, Wikipedia is not here to "right great wrongs." To which my reply is, "Who the hell is Wikipedia to think it can right great wrongs in the past?" We can't go back in time to right anything that was done. The past is the past. What we want is for Wikipedia to not perpetuate those great wrongs into today by staying silent or idle with regards to their reality just because the truth has been suppressed by limited coverage. Soon there will be no fence to ride and no tall ivory tower to hide in because we are tearing the fence down and taking a wrecking ball to that ivory tower. Wikipedia will have to make a choice as a whole. It will expose those who are sympathetic supporters or, at the very least, apathetic towards the "way it used to be" when women and minority communities were being marginalized or actively targeted for annihilation (Eugenics in enter country name here). My mother fought hard to bring me into this world and gave her life so I could have it. I am determined that I WILL leave it better than I found it. I will never forget my ancestors or their struggle. Otsalanvlvi (we are all brothers and sisters). It's time we started acting like it. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I have argued ad nauseam that the best sources for documenting marginalized communities are the best sources identified by those communities, rather than mainstream media/academia. I am not proposing lowering standards or allowing uncurated material (we are an encyclopedia, after all), but I am proposing recognizing that standards are different. If that means theses from "X Studies" (insert Women's, Latino, African-American, Native American, etc.) programs, curated oral history programs, local newspapers or organizational journals, then it does. Academia has not focused on people who make up the bulk of the world in their collection of history and historical people and events. Thus, the same kinds of material are unlikely to be found for say male politicians and women involved in political movements. Doesn't mean there aren't sources, which are reliable, just that they are different. Putting on blinders and trying to make every subject fit into cookie-cutter molds of sources is perpetuating gaps in information. Trying to find ways to be more inclusive isn't righting great wrongs, it is simply recognizing the potential knowledge we can capture with logical sourcing guidelines, rather than rigid rules. SusunW (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

SusunW, ugh, I cannot tell you how much I appreciate hearing that articulated so clearly!!

I can’t say that part any better so I’ll only add I wish WMF would invest in one of those automatic close-captioning programs (they can’t be too expensive, I see some politicians using them regularly), to make resources like this accessible to anyone with a hearing impairment. Would love to be able to see the full video. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

There is definitely an issue of projection here in Wikipedia. I have argued the same points, SusunW, only to be told that Wikipedia is not the place to change social norms. Change society's thinking first and then Wikipedia will follow suit. In other words, if genders or groups are discriminated against and suppressed in society then Wikipedia "must" also reflect this within its own articles because the integrity of the encyclopedia (sticking to the general notability guidelines) is more important than filling gaps. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I must admit I have little fondness for the "Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs!" slogan. In the big picture, the entire point of Wikipedia is to right a great wrong, namely, the lack of access to knowledge. XOR'easter (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a fairly serious problem: that constant and misplaced minimizing contributes, IMO, to failure to reckon with the impact of what Wikipedia does on real living people. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

This is an excellent point SusunW — one place where I constantly see this is academics outside of English academia, where a lot of scholarly exchanges happen on free blogging platforms. It's very common to have, say, the chair of a major humanities department at a large university in Latin America posting a scholarly review of another academic's book on Blogspot, because their university doesn't fund enough web space for them to post all of their work. So those free platforms that we view as hugely suspicious just become one of the de facto media of academic exchange in academic communities that don't have a wealthy enough ecosystem to make sure that a review of every important book gets placed in an academic journal. I have even seen academics who easily pass NACADEMIC but whose faculty pages and CVs are hosted on free platforms. And if you try to include those sources, not only will it be automatically suspect to most editors, but Blogspot is one of the websites that gives you a big scary anti-advertisement warning that you have to push through whenever you try to add it to a page. I suspect this badly hurts our coverage of academia outside of wealthy countries. - Astrophobe (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Astrophobe I've seen this too. Here's how you get around that issue, which I agree is common in Latin America. WP:RSSELF says Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. So cite your ref and at the end add a field like this "|postscript= . Self published source; however author has published [link to worldcat or google scholar, etc. "articles"] in curated publications on similar subject matter." Hope that helps some, but it does not solve the overall problem that the same types of references are just not available worldwide. SusunW (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a very good suggestion and totally normalized in the Wikipedia medicine articles for example. Frustrating that it catches more suspicion as regards underrepresented topics. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much to both of you for pointing out supportive policy and precedent. Adding a postscript in the ref is a good suggestion. I completely agree that these sources are technically allowed, and I don't shy away from adding them so long as they're reliable, but I am concerned about how often they are removed from articles and how many editors are discouraged from adding them. - Astrophobe (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@SusunW: Your point above, re: logical sourcing guidelines (etc.) is very well stated. I will say that I think there has been some movement towards a positive resolution in this regard, largely driven by Wikiprojects such as this one. To wit, that when a group such as WiR is populated with editors who produce good, solid work, people tend to notice, and give members a bit more leeway in choosing sources. (Longevity helps, too - I'm sure I've gotten away with some things based on my near-fifteen-years' tenure here that I might not be able to get away with as a greenhorn.) When those members work in a less-trafficked area, then the sources they point to generally (but not always, admittedly) begin to be seen as more legitimate. What also helps, I find, is the increased acceptance of specialized encyclopedias as sources...and the preponderance of same, in all manner of subject areas. The problem remains, yes - especially for living subjects (which is one of the reasons I tend to confine myself to writing about the dead - I often feel that I can better defend their notability through the rear-view mirror, as it were). But I think we're slowly lurching towards a place where we want to be. It's taking time, yes, but we're getting there. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Noni Lichtveld

I see this has been moved back to draft:Noni Lichtveld although it seems to me to deserve to be kept in mainspace. The reviewer appears to think the Dutch sourcing was not adequate. Any views?--Ipigott (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Promoted - Noni Lichtveld. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Marjorie Ziff

Hi All, I wondered if anyone might be interested in help? I was at an event recently where someone began a page for Draft:Marjorie Ziff - a philanthropist from Leeds. There's a problem in that most of her contributions are packaged with her husband, but she was awarded an MBE in her own right and has made lots of contributions, particularly to Jewish welfare. I'm a bit short of time at the moment, but I wondered if anyone would have a chance to take a lot at the draft that has just been declined at AfC? Thanks Lajmmoore (talk) 10:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I added a couple bits of information and references that I could find. Silverseren^C 02:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Just declined by DGG. The easy route is to add the info not already there to Arnold Ziff and redirect & bold there. Johnbod (talk) 02:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I've added another ref - a celebrity sculptor sculpted her. And added categories and defaultsort, so if she becomes a redirect we can see her in appropriate categories. But the article does seem very thin on her actual biography - where was she born, educated, etc. PamD 10:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The speech made in 2005 at the honorary degree ceremony would be useful, as it will have concentrated on her rather than her husband. But it isn't in the university's current website. Might be findabel via Internet archive as I'm sure it will have been available at the time. PamD 10:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

And the University News archive section starts in Jan 2006: irritating. PamD 10:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Found and cited the uni's press release about the hon degree, but there must have been a formal speech, which must surely be archived somewhere! Not sure if the uni still publishes the Annual Review, but that used to include Hon Grad speeches (threw out several 1990s issues of it while clearing our Leeds attic recently). PamD 11:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Yup, found the Annual Review 2018-19 online. So someone needs to check a shelf in the uni library to find that source. Good luck. Now must really log off: this is supposed to be a wikibreak to give me time to ... clear the attic etc. While living in Lancashire. In lockdown. Both areas Tier 3. Aaargh. PamD 11:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I moved the draft to mainspace. At the very least, it would pass an AFD as a redirect to her husband. (also I created the category, Jewish women philanthropists). TJMSmith (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

TJMSmith, PamD, Silverseren, Johnbod Thanks so much for all your help! If you can send me the library reference either I (or a friend) might be able to get it, if you're away. All the help very much appreciated :) Lajmmoore (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Image source for contemporary Nicaraguans

Hi all! Wanted to share an exciting discovery: the Nicaraguan news site Confidencial has posted all the archives to its associated television news shows, This Evening and This Week (think, 60 Minutes on a shoestring) with a Creative Commons license on YouTube. It’s fantastic for screengrabing images to illustrate entries. The quality isn’t the best but it’s so much better than no image and our coverage of Nicaragua is so weak, so this is a great opportunity—I’ve already done four women’s bios: Sofía Montenegro, Magaly Quintana, Claudia Chamorro Barrios, and Francisca Ramírez, all of whom are super famous in Nica.
Very happy to help anyone who needs so feel free to ping me, but basically the MO is search YouTube for “Confidencial” + the name of the person you want—tick the CC license box to filter the search results and you’ll get really just Confidencial videos. I personally have focused on studio interviews where I can tell for sure it’s Confidencial’s IP but folks with stronger Spanish than mine might have a better time figuring out what live-action footage is theirs versus licensed from somewhere else. Happy hunting, do let me know if I can help. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

PS. Now there’s a category to tag resulting images with, “Media from Confidencial”, so all the images sourced this way can be seen together (here!) Innisfree987 (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thandekile Ruth Mason Mvusi

Thandekile Ruth Mason Mvusi, created in July as part of the BLM/Anti-discrimination WiR edit-a-thon, is being considered for deletion. Dsp13 (talk) 12:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Margaret Gale

Draft:Margaret Gale needs pulling over the finishing line. "English operatic soprano who sang leading roles with Sadler’s Wells Opera Company throughout the 1960s and early 1970s". --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: I'll look in a couple of my usual sources to see if it can be beefed up. But it seems to me that she does meet the notability requirement already, given the fact that she sang leading roles with a major opera company, and that's established in the article. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Mildred Mottahedeh at AfD

Can anyone here help out with sources for this American ceramics collector, businesswoman and philanthropist? Espresso Addict (talk) 10:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the article was kept and is a successful example of a collaborative WP:HEYMANN! Great work everyone! TJMSmith (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Volunteer Author for New Page Needed?

A Wikipedia page is needed for an incredible woman who organized and led efforts to acquire, preserve, restore one of the most well known Revolutionary War sites, helped preserve another internationally known site, worked with the original Daughters of the American Revolution and became founder, first Regent of one of the first significant Chapters of D.A.R., was Matron-In-Chief / Nurse for three years during Civil War, at times tending over 2,000 wounded soldiers, was present (nearby) for Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, was State Regent at 1893 Chicago World's Fair, Authored three books, all while helping organize, raise funds / supplies, donate time for multiple other National, State and Community causes.

While collating information for another project regarding this incredible women it came to our attention that she is more than well-deserving of a Wikipedia page, yet none exists. There are highly qualified historical writers who have written or supplied content and bibliographical data over the past 100+ years, however there are currently no writers that we personally know that are available and that also have the proper Wikipedia experience needed to author this page in a deserving way.

As you can easily tell I am neither a Historian or Writer. What we do have is an incredible amount of factual data supporting all of the above contributions, and more. We are hoping to find a qualified writer to properly utilize that information for a page. The information historians, historical organizations, Authors and others have uncovered and have direct hyperlinks to, comes from the Library of Congress, U.S. National Park Service, contemporary magazine and newspaper articles, pictures and factual data uncovered by highly qualified historians over the past 100+ years.

Please let me know if there is a qualified volunteer author we can review the data with and who can write the initial article.

Thank You.

CBrookUM — Preceding unsigned comment added by CBrookUM (talk • contribs) 03:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• If you name her here, with a few identifying facts and perhaps links to one or two sources, she may catch someone's interest and if they consider that she meets the notability threshold they might start an article on her: that's how Wikipedia works. PamD 08:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• @CBrookUM: See above, but alternatvely I'd advise you to just go ahead and start the article. You don't need to be "a Writer or a Historian", just someone who has reliable independent sources which show that the woman in question is "notable" in Wikipedia's terms. Help:Your first article has a lot of useful advice and a link to an article "Wizard" which will guide you step by step. Other editors may well then chip in to improve and expand the article. Just go for it. If you mention her name here, sympathetic editors are likely to have a look and help or comment. PamD 14:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Pam — Preceding unsigned comment added by CBrookUM (talk • contribs) 02:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)