Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 96

Archive 90

←

Archive 94

Archive 95

Archive 96

Archive 97

Archive 98

→

Archive 100

S'Nabou

Hi, I started Alima S'Nabou. Most of the sources available are in French so I had to use Google translate to write most of the article. I'll like comments please. Princess of Ara_(talk) 15:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Now at S'Nabou --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Princess of Ara, what a fascinating subject. I might make a few copy edits if you don’t mind, but overall she seems very solidly notable and entirely appropriate to move to mainspace. Thanks for a great entry! Innisfree987 (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Very interesting! Wikipedia Commons also has two other images of her that are fascinating. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:S%27Nabou JAnnora2 (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Innisfree987, I'd really appreciate the copyedit.

JAnnora2 thank you for the heads up!

I also want to ask if I could add the {{WIR-00-2021}} template to pages I created prior to joining WIR! Thanks! Princess of Ara_(talk) 05:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Princess of Ara, great, will do! May take a quick pass now and a more thorough look again with fresher eyes later on. And it’s just one opinion but I say sure, the more the merrier for the editathon! Innisfree987 (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Princess of Ara: I've upgraded a couple of references - try to give full bibliographic info where possible, not just the title of the book/journal as given in Google books. There's scope for more improvements. And it's sometimes better to quote exact wording explicitly, with source, especially of controversial wordings like "his two Arabs". PamD 08:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your input PamD, I've noted the point on using quotations, I'm just always cautious of copyright infringements but the point you made makes a whole lot of sense especially pertaining to the "Two Arabs" bit. I kept mum on the Nationality bit because she was born in a town that is modern day Nigeria, but Nigeria wasn't a country until 1914. West African? Maybe? I'll put the new source you found and move to main space. Thank you so much! Princess of Ara_(talk) 09:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Princess of Ara: Perhaps "from present-day Nigeria" or something? I'm sure she's ready for mainspace. Have tweaked another ref. PamD 09:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! That ref was talking about Mizon, no reference to her. Princess of Ara_(talk) 09:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I just want to say thank you to everyone that has contributed to the publishing of S'Nabou, it's the most collaborative effort I've experienced in my 5 months on this collaborative project. I feel very warm. Is there any redlist of 18-20th Century Nigerian/West African women I can work on? It'll be a good use of my time and there'll be reduced chances of being accused of COI/UPE compared to BLPs. Princess of Ara_(talk) 18:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

A pleasure to collaborate—thanks for the invitation. As for the red links, I’m not aware of a specific list with those parameters but the Wikidata lists are sortable by date of birth or death, so for instance you can find a few options that way on WP:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality/Senegal. The full index of such lists may be found at WP:WikiProject Women in Red/Redlist index. Checking the Africa contest from earlier this year may give leads too. Thanks for your work! Innisfree987 (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

It's great to have you with us, Princess of Ara. I've seen the difficulties you have had to contend with on other Wikipedia sites. Here we promote friendly collaboration and look forward to future progress. Keep up the good work and happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Innisfree987, I've found the Nigeria list and used the sortable option; found some options I'll be researching on.

Thank you so much for the encouragement, Ipigott! Princess of Ara_(talk) 21:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Princess of Ara, Just to add - this is such an interesting page! really looking forward to seeing more of your edits! Lajmmoore (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. The article certainly contains a sucker-punch in that last sentence. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes! It also took me by surprise! Lajmmoore, Tagishsimon! Thank you!! Princess of Ara_(talk) 12:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Princess of Ara: Here's a list from last year's WikiGap Nigeria contest. Nearly all of them are from the 20th century, only a few are from the 18th and 19th. -Yupik (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Yupik, I'll have a look. Princess of Ara_(talk) 21:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Kate Dickinson or Rebecca Kate Dickinson

Back again... Radio 4 programme currently featuring this Victorian victim of attempted rape on a train. She gets a mention in Valentine Baker (her assailant) but without her name.

• https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000x69z
• https://bradfordunconsideredtrifles.wordpress.com/tag/history/
• https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13555502.2015.1057390?needAccess=true&

Really must log off again and get on with Real Life stuff. PamD 08:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

July 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | July 2021, Volume 7, Issue 7, Numbers 184, 188, 202, 203, 204, 205 Online events: New: July Julies | Finance, economics & banking | Olympic & Paralympic Games New contest (Jul/Aug/Sep): Latin America contest Continuing: Women's rights | #1day1woman See also: "Mind your elders" Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help plan and coordinate future events. Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Final Call for Candidates for AffCom - June 2021

Copy/paste from my talkpage. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Affiliations Committee (AffCom) logo

This is an update from the Wikimedia Affiliations Committee. Translations are available.

This is a final Call for Candidates for the June 2021 Affiliations Committee election.

If you are interested in running, please post your application and follow all four steps on the nomination page by 30 June 2021 23:59 hours UTC.

If you know somebody you think may be interested, please share this with them and encourage them to consider it. If you have any questions about this process or the requirements, please email affcom@wikimedia.org before the application deadline or reach out to any of the current members.

On behalf of the AffCom elections committee,

--- FULBERT (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Indigenous women again in August?

* Planning page for August's Indigenous Women Annual Event
* Our 2020 page for Indigenous Women Annual Event

Before I start advertising it, are we going to be having indigenous women as one of the topics again August? -Yupik (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Yupik yes, it is an annual event. SusunW (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll get the megaphone! (And also add in more women to my list (and maybe clean it up!)) :D -Yupik (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Yupik: great to see you are still interested in promoting indigenous women worldwide. Perhaps you could keep us informed of your creations/additions to other wikis. Has there been any significant progress on the Arctic Knot Conference?`--Ipigott (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi! The main part of the conference starts on Thursday (online, so please join in! Registration is still open.) and the program is packed full of so many interesting talks that I don't think I'll be sleeping much :D The talks and workshops should all be available to watch later on too. -Yupik (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll put this in a separate message: So WiR on the Finnish, Northern Saami, Inari Saami, Skolt Saami (incubator) Wikipedias. We had a cracking month-long contest in April that saw a record number of participants (and new articles too, if I remember correctly), the Finnish wp soar past 20%, the Inari Saami Wikipedia lose its gender gap completely (by the end of the contest 52.68% of the bios were about women), and the Skolt Saami wp gained another bio, this one about the former president of the Saami Parliament in Finland, Tiina Sanila-Aikio, which means that all (5 of) the bios on the Skolt Saami wp are about women :D It was also possible to participate in Olonets Karelian, but no one apparently did. The links under the section Apukeinot are links to redlists, including WiR's own, if anyone wants to sift through them for something to write about :) -Yupik (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I am very much excited for August to come around again and also excited for this upcoming conference. I hope I can attend. We shall see. The August campaign is a chance to further the voices of our Indigenous, and for some, ancestor women and another chance to expand the voices of women in general. Very grateful for this project. --ARoseWolf 18:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

There are notable Indigenous women (Māori and from Pacific Islands) on my project list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pakoire/Performing_Arts_Aotearoa_-_Wiki_Project I could make it a separate list somewhere? Pakoire (talk) 04:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Pakoire Great to see you post here. I am not the one to ask about technical things, but on our invites there is always a place for red lists of names. You can compile them into an actual list and post it here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Redlist index, for people to see anytime. For August, just post the list link or list individual names on the editathon page when it comes out. SusunW (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Pakoire. I have already been looking at the list. I see some great potential for possible articles. Get this list included (lol)! We will have fun with it. :) --ARoseWolf 14:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Performing Arts in Aotearoa Wikiproject with lots of Women in Red

Good day to all / Tēnā koutou

I am running a Wikiproject focusing on performing arts in Aotearoa. People may be interested in contributing. I have an 'at least' metric of 50% women and 30% people of colour - many of whom in New Zealand are also Indigenous Peoples (for the upcoming August campaign). See the project page for suggested articles and to join in - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pakoire/Performing_Arts_Aotearoa_-_Wiki_Project

Many thanks and mauri ora (good health), Pakoire (talk) 04:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Pakoire, very cool! I searched for some of the women on Wikidata, and for those who had a Wikidata item, I added it to your list. Hope that was ok. Rosiestep (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes - adding to lists is great - I am not sure where you have done this - can you please link or explain? Would you recommend I work on the wikidata entries of those who don't have one? What do you use to search under in Wikidata to add to WIR lists? Pakoire (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Pakoire, if you look at the history of your project page, you will see Rosiestep's edits. NZ women may turn up on WIR redlist for relevant occupation(s) and the NZ list if their Wikidata item includes NZ as country of citizenship.--Oronsay (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Oronsay (Pakoire (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC))

Sandy Brown (ceramicist) or similar title

I'm seriously trying to have a wikibreak but have logged back on just to mention this woman, featuring on BBC news this morning:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-57551846

http://www.sandybrownarts.com/reviews.htm

I'm resisting the temptation to create her article ... and will now log off again, to leave her for someone else. She'd count for the "Europe" contest! Needs to be added to the Sandy Brown dab page once written. (Or if not thought notable enough, perhaps this new work should get a mention in the St Austell article, with a redirect from her name, added to the dab page, and a mention in the "see also" of Earth goddess?) PamD 08:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

A number of those sources she lists on her reviews page can be found via ProQuest through The Wikipedia Library. Like this one. And a number of other general newspaper articles on her too. I did a search for ""Sandy Brown" ceramic" to find her. Silverseren^C 08:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

She easily meets WP:NARTIST #4d, "in a number of notable museum collections", or something like that. Stand by and I shall crank up my tiny stub making machine. --- Possibly ☎ 01:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Done: Sandy Brown (ceramist), and added to the DAB page as well. --- Possibly ☎ 01:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Helen Andersen, Canadian artist

Hi all. I just came across this article which appears to be on a notable deceased artist. However, in going through the citations they were either links to generic websites that did not verify the content, art auction websites which did not mention the subject, and links to the artist's own website which were deprecated. None of the sources were of quality so I removed them. There was an obituary to what the article claims is the subject's father, but the obit did not mention Helen at all, so I removed that too, as there was no way of knowing if they are indeed related. The long and short of it is, the article is now unsourced entirely because none of the citations were reliable. I'm having difficulty sourcing the content, but if the claims in the article are true, she should, pass WP:NARTIST. If anyone can help finding and adding references, I would appreciate it. If no sources can be found, I will take it to AFD. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

4meter4 Maybe Times Colonist and Canadian Women Artists History for more notability and just remove what can't be sourced. SL93 (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I can't newspapers.com; but the second source is excellent! Thank you! I will source what I can from that to start.4meter4 (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I clipped the article which should have made it publicly available. If not, I can add from it myself. SL93 (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

4meter4 I will poke around for sourcing, but the notability looks a little marginal to me. --- Possibly ☎ 02:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Possibly SL93 and I already sourced the article to quality references in comparison to where it was when I originally posted here. I'm satisfied with where the article currently stands, but you are welcome to improve it further. Best.4meter4 (talk) 02:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Update request: Gender imbalance per country page

Hello @MarioGom:, please could you update the Gender Imbalance per country list? I circle through adding pages for the bottom 20 countries and have just finished a cycle. Many thanks for your help and for creating the list in the first place. Lajmmoore (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Wow cool—I didn’t know about this list—and good work Lajmmoore making a sustained effort to chip away at it! Innisfree987 (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Lajmmoore: I updated it based on humaniki ... not sure if that's MarioGom's source. Some of the figures changed more than I would have expected in 4 months. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Wow, so cool, MarioGom! I didn't know about this list, either, Innisfree987. Maybe we should link to it in our opening paragraphs on the Women in Red mainpage as it's a good visual depiction of the content gender gap. Lajmmoore, I'm not that technical so curious how you "finish a cycle"? Tagishsimon, did you have to update it by hand, or run a bot, or...? --Rosiestep (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I downloaded a file from humaniki (their "API Link" button), converted its JSON into CSV and then footled around in a spreadsheet. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Tagishsimon, thank you! Clueless regarding what you're describing but grateful for your expertise. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Rosiestep, I think Lajmmoore has been rolling up her sleeves and writing new articles for all 20 countries with the most severe disparities—with this impressive list of articles created this year to show for it: User:Lajmmoore#2021_articles! Really wonderful work as it does double-duty improving coverage of countries themselves underdescribed on en-wiki. Great stuff. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Innisfree987, Thanks so much! The gender disparity 'wheel' is a project I have going on in the background. #SoMuchToEditSoLittleTime Lajmmoore (talk) 07:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Rosiestep, Innisfree987 it was part of one of the events last year too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Meetup/169 combined with another measure. Would be really interesting to re-visit this when we have moved through our continental initiatives maybe?

& "finish a cycle" might be a bit confusing, I made a list and fill it in - but its in a wheel, as I like colouring in the segments - here's the first one from 2020-21 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Circular_list_of_20_countries_with_lowest_%25_of_biographies_for_women_on_EN_Wikipedia.jpg & the one I just finished https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Circular_list_of_20_countries_with_lowest_%25_of_biographies_for_women_on_EN_Wikipedia_-_spring_2022.jpg

I can make a new one thanks to Tagishsimon - really appreciated! Lajmmoore (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Tagishsimon, Thanks so much! The new figures are really interesting - I have no idea how MarioGom organised it in the first place either. I'm just taking a quick look and I'm surprised at the Netherlands - are there really only 169 biographies of Dutch women on EN? Gosh. Many thanks! Lajmmoore (talk) 07:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Lajmmoore It's all dependent on what info is added to Wikidata, I'm afraid. And often only instance of human and sex or gender female get entered.--Oronsay (talk) 08:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Oronsay, this is a really good prompt for me to check up on some of my Wikidata entries. Thanks. Lajmmoore (talk) 08:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Lajmmoore: The problem here is that entries are split in multiple countries: Netherlands, Kingdom of Netherlands... it happens with a few countries, either because there are different ways to count them (e.g. unincorporated US terrotories are part of the US or not? Greenland is Denmark or part of Kingdom of Denmark?) or because of historic countries (e.g. Yugoslavia). MarioGom (talk) 10:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Tagishsimon: I'm using a script to extract the info from Wikidata. Maybe the data from humanwiki is more accurate. I was getting only humans with a date of birth later than 1920 and a country. So I guess the difference comes from that. Different data sources are also likely to compute the country in subtly different ways. MarioGom (talk) 09:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

For anyone curios, I put the articles I've worked on in a table on my userpage. --Lajmmoore (talk) 08:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to Lajmmoore and everyone for the feedback and thanks to Tagishsimon for the update. Given the renewed interest in the data, I'm going to tune my script to compute new data. I'm trying to figure out which countries to present exactly and how to group them. My current thinking is including something like present sovereign states plus some set of United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories and/or List of states with limited recognition. That way places like Palestine or American Samoa wouldn't be excluded from the results. I'll be glad to hear any feedback about which country entries make sense or not. MarioGom (talk) 10:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable & considered way forward; we can maybe look for omissions afterwards. Alternately, you could rely on https://humaniki.wmcloud.org/api/v1/gender/gap/latest/gte_one_sitelink/properties?citizenship=all&project=enwiki&label_lang=en and parse that into a table? --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure humaniki will allow much fine tuning regarding older bios. I'm trying the following:

• Include all countries with a ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code (P297). This includes some disputed territories such as Taiwan, Western Sahara or Palestine, but excludes others with more limited recognition such as Transnistria or Donetsk People's Republic. It also includes overseas territories of the US, UK or France. I know all of these are usually the source of bitter disputes, but it seems to me that the ISO approach is a decent compromise for our purposes.
• Remove the date of birth limit.
• To count an article in a country entry, consider any of the following: country of citizenship (P27), country (P17), country of origin (P495), country for sport (P1532) or place of birth (P19) in a location that is part of the given country in the present. The later is particularly useful for the former Yugoslavia, where a large amount of XX century biographies were not counted in any entry before.

Given the last rule, you may notice that an article can be counted in 2 or more countries simultaneously (e.g. distinct country of origin, citizenship and sports). That's intentional, since we're trying to gather rough country coverage, not accurate individual attribution. MarioGom (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Some subset of human/woman Wikidata items are missing the "country of citizenship" param. These women's names won't show up on WiR country-specific redlists or be accounted for in the "Gender imbalance per country" list. Is there a way to sort out (bot, query, etc.?) what subset of human/woman items in Wikidata, which have at least 1 article in some language Wikipedia, are missing "country of citizenship" param? I think there is such a list for "human" items lacking "gender" param. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Humaniki shows 1.82M wikidata items pointing to EN wiki biographies and lists 1.33M (or 73%) of them as having country of citizenship; and 3.9M humans have at least one language wiki article, with 2.67M (68%) having country of citizenship. Sorting out the gap is probably non-trivial; whatever the qualifications are for membership of EN wiki by country categories, they're wider than country of citizenship, meaning we cannot reliably fill WD country of citizenship gaps from WP category membership. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Tagishsimon, do I understand these points correctly? This (Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Gender imbalance per country) is only accurate regarding the Wikidata items which have citizenship param. Lots (about a third?) of Wikidata human items, of any gender, are missing that information. It will fall on humans to add the missing information. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Exactly that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

After the last update, the missing items are those with none of the following: country of citizenship (P27), country (P17), country of origin (P495), country for sport (P1532), place of birth (P19). MarioGom (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I've applied the changes I outlined above. Some entries such as French overseas departments may be better out of the list given the noisy data, but I guess it's not critical.

Rosiestep, I've used a quite wide criteria for "country", beyond "country of citizenship". Many of our red lists use somewhat broad criteria too. Closing the gap is indeed not trivial. I've created my lists for missing gender per language (see Missing P21 German, Missing P21 Spanish) and I fix entries from time to time. I can do similar lists for humans missing any place property (no citizenship, no place of birth, etc). As Tagishsimon pointed out, the total amount is incredibly high, although per language lists may be doable if others are interested. MarioGom (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, MarioGom, and for what you're doing. It seems like a lot of work. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• This is, of course, all very interesting, not just for our coverage of women on the EN wiki but for all the other languages too. As everyone has noticed, MarioGom has really been helping us to appreciate the diversity of coverage by country, language, etc. If there is real interest for further development along these lines, as the Humaniki project is not yet over, I think it would be useful to find out whether they could offer any further assistance, either on the basis of the existing data or on further development (perhaps to be defined for future work). Perhaps for now Maximilianklein and his Humaniki team can assist with providing better displays of what is available -- although I realize there is a real need to improve the details in Wikidata. I must say I am surprised at how often Wikidata items which have been around for years fail to include basic details of nationality, etc. But as SusunW knows only too well, the lack of men's concern for the nationality/citizenship of women, has created a huge gap in women's history. I think it would also be useful to bring our concerns to the attention of those behind the WDCM Biases Dashboard. Maybe GoranSM would like to comment or should we be contacting anyone else?--Ipigott (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

This is fascinating, but then it makes me ponder the whole scope of how we classify things, which has been running in my head working on women's nationality. You are correct Ian, I am 1) curious as to how people are determining nationality for women and 2) concerned because our field "country of citizenship" isn't technically correct. Having now written or reviewed all of the Americas and all but 2 countries of Oceania, I can say without doubt women lost their individual nationality upon marriage 100% of the time in all of those territories through the 20th century. Legally, nationality and citizenship are two different things (and from a legal standpoint, neither encompasses nationalism or ethnicity, the tie one ideologically identifies with as "their" nation or people). Though many use the words as synonyms, they are not.

Most people are aware women didn't have the rights of citizenship (the domestic relationship of rights and obligations between a national and the nation) so calling a woman a citizen is a misnomer. But most people are unaware that as most women were married, they also did not have nationality (legal membership in a nation) of their own. It changed to whatever nationality their spouse had. Thus a woman who was born in say Palau, became a British national when she married a man who was British. If she married someone who was barred from nationality even if they were a citizen of her own country, she could become stateless or an enemy alien. She may or may not have been a citizen, depending upon whether those rights were bestowed upon women in her particular era. Then there was the situation like say in Dutch Indonesia, where anyone born there was a non-citizen national, and had no right to citizenship unless their father was a native-born Dutchman.

So how does one chose "country of citizenship" for women for wikidata? How do we know if they had domestic rights? If that field were changed to "country of nationality", how would we know if they legally were a national? Sources typically just state where they were born, but then we have this: WP:Ethnicity as a guideline. This sentence Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability is troubling, because where they were born is typically what we know. Maybe I am too focused on this because I have been singularly writing about it for 6 months and will probably be immersed in it for a year before I finish, but I am curious as to how others see this issue. SusunW (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

WD is a kludge. P27 'country of citizenship' has aliases of 'subject of (country)', 'citizenship', 'citizen of', 'national of', '(legal) nationality'. I guess the concept is of a person legally affiliated to a country, whether that be directly, or as a wife of someone with that status. WD doesn't really do nuance; prefers very broad brush. A property for 'Nationality' was proposed upon a time, but the proposal was opposed as 'too vague'. All sorts of legal and temporal issues attend on P27, but, equally, it's possibly the best we're going to get. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Tagishsimon...square peg round hole, (or round peg square hole). It's funny, because nationality is specific--either you are a member of a nation or you aren't. Citizenship is far trickier, as you can be a national/belong and have zero citizenship rights, thus it is what is actually vague. It seems to me we are merely assuming women were citizens or nationals for WD purposes and maybe that is the only way we can do it to generate lists and compile statistics. But to have a guideline that by specific instruction is telling us to eliminate the context of their lives from the lede seems totally bizarre. SusunW (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

SusunW: Thanks for these useful reactions. It looks to me as if this could be an important item for discussion at future WMF meetings on Wikipedia and Wikidata. If our basis for progress is flawed, how can we demonstrate progress? Or can we find an intermediate solution for women's nationality/citizenship on Wikidata on an additional criterion such as "Associated countries". I think we need to progress on two fronts: Wikidata and Wikidara-based statistics.--Ipigott (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Ipigott for your input. And yes, I think the problem is that we are so focused on not "righting great wrongs" that we lose sight of the fact that simply identifying what "is" reality, isn't trying to fix the problem, it's trying to accurately address what exists. How we do that, I don't really know. SusunW (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations. The nuances of citizenship, nationality, etc, are very interesting. However, for WiR redlists or rough geographical gender imbalance statistics we don't really need such nuance. For example, if a woman was stateless for her whole life, I think it's still interesting to include her in country redlists for any country with a close relationship (place of birth, significant residence, etc) and it doesn't even need to be just one. We have women included in redlists of multiple countries (e.g. double nationality, country for sports / country of origin) and that's also ok. At WikiProject level we usually call this "nationality", but that's just an approximation, many redlists already use a much broader criteria for country classification. If nomenclature is a problem, we could just rename things like "by nationality" to "by country". MarioGom (talk) 10:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

For the Wikidata side, I'd say a more realistic goal would be that humans have at least one geographical relation, not necessarily citizenship, such as country of citizenship (P27), country of origin (P495), country for sport (P1532), place of birth (P19) or residence (P551). MarioGom (talk) 11:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

MarioGom thank you for your insights and yes, I think the problem is more in the guidelines not recognizing the nuance, than in wikidata. I mean how else would we deal with people from say Vanuatu? Still working on it, but apparently every ni-Vanuatu was stateless until 1980 (unless they were part of the colonial administration and British or French). It would be ridiculous to omit persons there because they had no nationality/citizenship, so we must be able to tie them to a place for generating lists and stats. Being able to list multiple nationalities in Wikidata, we have a work around (even if the labeling isn't legally accurate). But our guidelines need to be more sensitive to the historical reality that often the only thing we have to give context to where it happened is place of birth, rather than nationality. SusunW (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

SusunW: Maybe we can improve wording on headers? See Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality/Afghanistan for example. The list below is a redlist of Afghanistani women for which Wikipedia lacks a biography article, drawn from Wikidata, using its 'country of citizenship', 'country', 'country of origin' and 'country for sport' properties. But it's not strictly a list of Afghanistani women. Do you have any idea about better wording? If there's an agreement, I can help with moving this disclaimer to the relevant header template, etc. MarioGom (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

MarioGom I like your wording above "geographical relation, not necessarily citizenship", so perhaps The list below is a redlist of Afghanistani women, drawn from Wikidata and for which Wikipedia lacks a biography article, who have a geographical relationship with but not necessarily nationality of Afghanistan? SusunW (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all for the discussion, and MarioGom for the viz/table, and Tagishsimon for pointing out that a version of this can be accomplished with the humaniki API. I would like to make it even easier for you to build the table automatically from the humaniki API, that way it would be easy to track the data over time. What would be needed? Three-dimensional data of humans by project-language/country/date-of-birth? That would be possible in the future, as I work on efficient processing (right now I compute all the 2-dimensional permutations). As for other non-P27 country relations, I'm unlikely to integrate those into humaniki soon, as you have pointed out it becomes messy quickly. (P.S. maybe we can hack on it together at the Wikimania hackathon?) Maximilianklein (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Quick question about #1day1women

Hello members of Women in Red, and thank you for all you’re doing! I recently found out about the #1day1woman project and would like to get involved. My question is whether articles for this project must be created within the timespan of a single day? I have created a few articles for WIR but the research and writing has often taken longer than one day. Unexpectedlydian (talk) 09:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Unexpectedlydian, Absolutely not! As far as I'm aware there's no limitations or anything like that! I interpret it more as #AnyDayAnyWoman and add people who are outside whatever the monthly parameters are. Hope that helps, looking forward to seeing your pages! Lajmmoore (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Lajmmoore, Thank you! That’s great to know. I’ll get cracking with the articles! Unexpectedlydian (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Giving credit where credit is due... the name is a play on #1lib1ref. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Rosiestep, I had no idea! How excellent :) Lajmmoore (talk) 07:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Mahnaz Malik

I just rescued Mahnaz Malik from WP:Articles for Creation. I don't know what was going on with the reviewers on this one. This version was the one rejected a week ago for "Topic is not notable", despite there being a bunch of news articles entirely about the article subject in the reference list right there. Just unformatted and needing a pass with the ReFill tool. But way better referenced than most other starting articles and very obviously showcasing notability. So I cleaned up the ref formatting myself and unilaterally moved it to mainspace. I honestly don't have much positive to say about AfC over the past few months and their reviewing system. Silverseren^C 02:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

AfC appears to be mostly treated by its regulars as a honeypot to keep spammers away from main article space rather than as a genuine way to foster new content and new editors. This has been true for a long time. If someone is new at editing Wikipedia but wants to contribute, my standard advice would be to work on existing articles until gaining the ability to create them directly and stay away from drafts. Even for experienced editors, trying to maintain drafts as drafts until they are ready for mainspace can be a pain because of the constant pressure to keep updating them or get them deleted, so I have given up on doing so and maintain my in-progress drafts on my local filesystem instead of in public. But also, there really is a lot of spam in draft space, so you can see where they get this attitude. Sometimes it can be helpful to do some searches in draft space for topics that might have some hope of being notable and rescue them from languishing there. Thanks for taking this effort in the case of Malik! —David Eppstein (talk) 05:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Bernadette Hingley needs an article

If anyone is looking for a project, I just added Bernadette Hingley, English priest, one of the first women to be ordained in England (b. 1948) to Deaths in 1995. See David F. Ford (22 October 2011). "Obituaries: The Rev Bernadette Hingley". The Independent. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Leila Velez

Whoever wants to take this story (which is, well, extraordinary) to the main page via DYK, you are welcome. I stay clear from the main page, because English is not my mothertongue (which is probably noticeable in the text of the article as well).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

That article is technically a stub and won't qualify for DYK, FWIW. Kingsif (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I had articles of a similar length being proposed and accepted for DYK, but this is fine with me. I might eventually expand the article, but doing so in the next five days (or whatever is the DYK deadline) is not my priority. To be clear, I am not collecting DYKs (in fact, I do not even know how many of my articles ever appeared there), but I thought the topic is such that getting the article on the main page could be motivating for the readers.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• Expanded. Nominated. Done. Silverseren^C 18:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

  Great, thank you very much.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

TW 10K followers

Just saw the post by one of our Twitter admins: our account, wikiwomeninred, has 10K Twitter followers. That is cause for celebration! --Rosiestep (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Rosiestep, thanks for sharing this good news... and the cake is delicious!--Oronsay (talk) 05:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

"Stopping Gender Bias on Wikipedia", by David B. Grinberg, GoodMenProject.com

This article, dated 25 June 2021, may interest some of you. Don't know who was interviewed for the piece, though the Wikidata Human Gender Indicator (WHGI) developers seem likely. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, and I see some truth. But I'd like to know how they arrived at, "men account for about 90% of all English Wikipedia’s volunteer editors ..." Whose calculator did they use for the head count? None of us are required to provide that information when we start editing. Many editors are IPs. My personal user name comes from the Maile vine that grows in Hawaii. Within the last several months, an editor was privately telling me how surprised they were to find out that several editors they assumed to be men, because of the online name or style or anything - and they later found out they were women editors. The Wikipedia editor who told me that was someone I had for years assumed to be male, and they identified to me as a woman. And then there's the transgender editor, whoever that may be. On that point alone, I think they err in their findings. — Maile (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Maile66, thanks for noticing that. That statistic, 90%, is outdated; it appears to pertain to the 2018 WMF Community Insights Report. According to the 2020 WMF Community Insights Report, 87% of editors are men. Thing #2: In 2011, subsequent to the WMF's 2010 Movement Strategy Report, Sue Gardner, then ED, set a goal to increase percentage of women editors to 25% ("Sue Gardner, the executive director of the foundation, has set a goal to raise the share of female contributors to 25 percent by 2015...."). The Grinberg article, however, states the 25% goal in relation to content gender gap. Thing #3: While the Grinberg article states "less than 18% of 1.6 million English Wikipedia bios are about women", according to the WHGI, effective 21 June 2021, 18.94% of the 1,819,936 biographies are about women. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Rosiestep thanks for the info. I do believe that on the internet, here or elsewhere, personal info is only known as far as what someone says they are. I prefer Wikipedia to all else out there, because its structure, and its content is more interesting to me. And I generally like those I often interact with. — Maile (talk) 00:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Maile66 - The data in those WMF Community Insights Reports is based on a subset of total editors: people who (a) somehow got a link to the survey, (b) decided to complete at least a part of it, and (c) didn't pass-up the gender question. Data about everyone else is missing so I view those reports with a grain of salt. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: I just learned that there's a 2021 Community Insights report; its Figure 7 states that the overall proportion of women editors increased to 15% in 2020. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Note as well that this refers to participants on any WMF site (Commons, data, all the other languages, etc.) rather than particularly English Wikipedia; I feel like I may have seen specific en-wiki numbers but can’t find them now. I do note in the methods section: “2638 began the survey, and 1808 finished at least half of the survey.” So the sample of en-Wikipedians would be even smaller. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I think we need to separate out the statistic of male / female editors and male / female biographies. Not being a woman didn't prevent me from improving Caroline Flack to Good Article status, for example. Also, the articles for creation decline of Donna Strickland by Bradv in 2018 has been mentioned again; mercifully they didn't mention Brad by name or associate him with the Arbitration Committee, because that might have caused some seriously unpleasant questions about Wikipedia governance that won't be helpful. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Lauren Berlant

Another day, another ITNRD candidate. Lauren Berlant has died. I’ll be working up the entry as best I can; collaborators especially welcome as it will take me a bit to get up to speed with Berlant’s work, which I only know a little. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Arlene P Maclin

Does anyone see any reason why this one can't be pushed out into main space? Sources look good. I feel notability has been established pretty well. It was created in February but I added the #1day#1woman tag in the absence of any other WIR tag. --ARoseWolf 16:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Promoted as Arlene P Maclin. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: Thank you. :) That made my day extra sunny. --ARoseWolf 17:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Alaa al-Siddiq

Anyone want to take a look at this and see if anything can be done to beef up the sourcing? There's some relevant discussion on my talkpage. I think, myself, that the article likely passes the notability threshhold, but I'm an avowed inclusionist (as I have always said.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Ha, I just came here to say the same thing! Thriley (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Here’s a Times (UK) piece that seems to be about her from 2011 but I hit a paywall. I found it using the Google custom timeframe to search for sources published before her death—if more can be found that way, it would rebuff the BIO1E issue. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I've added in a bunch more sources and removed the notability tag. Most of the news sources, unsurprisingly, were in Arabic and required the use of her Arabic alphabet name to find them. Silverseren^C 17:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Silver! Thriley (talk) 17:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Katalin Susztak

To me, this is a perfect example of the issue with the verification policy. The majority of the sources are books/journals which may be difficult to find online, not impossible, but may be in some cases. Just because a source is not readily available from a simple google search does not mean it can't be used or doesn't represent a reliable source. Some sources are more difficult. The issue is not whether the article is written to GA or FA standard but if the subject is notable. I believe Katalin is notable and her contributions to the study of kidney disease are nothing short of remarkable. This article should have passed the AfC process. I was able to find and cite a source that provided her location and year of birth. I was unable to find a source for her High/Secondary school attendance. --ARoseWolf 18:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Promoted as Katalin Susztak. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, @Tagishsimon. --ARoseWolf 18:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Anne Lequy

Quick question but wouldn't the fact that she holds the position of Rector which, by definition is equal to President of a University in the US, suffice Number 6 of the criteria for inclusion according to WP:PROF? If so then I believe that she passes the notability requirements and the draft should be promoted. --ARoseWolf 18:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Promoted as Anne Lequy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, @Tagishsimon --ARoseWolf 19:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Nannie C. Burden

I would appreciate some help with this subjext if anyone is willing. Singer, political candidate, club leader, and there appears to be a book club named for her but I don't have access to many of the sources. Thanks so much to anyone who wants to pitch in. Let me know if I can help with anything. Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

FloridaArmy, I added a photo. She’s definitely notable; I would move the draft to mainspace right now but I understand wanting to work it up a bit more. I am juggling a few things but will circle back to help if no one beats me to it in the meantime. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

FloridaArmy Hi, you've probably come across this but she seems to have written a foreword to a book (?) called 'The Glory of Womanhood'- published in 1951? But I can only find references to it. I'm pretty new to this so apologies for any mistakes. (Not sure if I should include a link. It'd look quite messy.) Persicifolia (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

FloridaArmy Hi. First, thank you for posting this bio of Nannie Burden. The more I learn about her, the more I wish I could have heard her sing in person. Second, I just wanted to reach out since you mentioned that you don't have access to many of the sources to help build out the content of Nannie Burden. It seems that a fair number of your sources are from newspapers.com, which can sometimes feel frustrating to use because the content appears to be entirely blocked by a paywall. But while it may be impossible to access the digitized images of the actual newspaper pages, it is still often possible to access all or part of a page's content by using the "Show Page x article text (OCR)" that can usually be found directly under the digitized image. You probably have already tried this, but if you haven't, this tip might help (or might help other Women in Red members). Working from your second citation as an example ("Times Herald from Olean, New York July 5, 1929 page 9 via https://www.newspapers.com"), the digitized version of the actual newspaper article ("Soprano Will Give Program Here Monday: Nannie C. Burden To Appear At Bethel Church") is available here. If you scroll down under the image to "Show Page 9 article text (OCR)," and click on the small downward-facing arrowhead, you'll find a large amount of text. Some of it is scrambled to make it harder to access the paid content, but a large portion remains unscrambled, including a wealth of info about Nannie Burden, such as: "Miss Burden won her audience from the beginning. It was early seen that she was a real artist, but as she sang more the audience was fairly captivated and was all her own until the concluding number, "Good Bye." "Those who know good music, who are well versed in harmony and expression pronounce Nannie C. Burden one of the brightest stars in the musical constellation. "Miss Burden was frequently applauded and has written her name in the musical firmament high above the names of her contemporaries." The article then goes on to list the specific titles of the music she was slated to perform on July 9, 1929. I hope this helps and, again, thank you for posting this bio. - 47thPennVols (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

FloridaArmy, I have belatedly realized you’re an experienced editor so you should qualify for access to Newspapers.com thorough the Wikipedia Library partners. Highly recommend applying; it makes things like this so much easier! Innisfree987 (talk) 06:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Mentoring new editors through AfC: a good candidate

Should anyone wish to lend a hand, the author of Draft:Zita Stead mentions on her user page that she is new to Wikipedia, and also the Archivist for the School of Medicine and Dentistry at Queen Mary University of London. She followed up on the feedback left when the entry was declined but no one responded further and she hasn’t edited since then (March). I would help her (if she even sees a message), but I didn’t get far looking for familiar sources: perhaps someone else here knows the terrain better? Innisfree987 (talk) 01:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Equally, very well written article, making at least a claim to notability - "one of the founders of the Medical Artists' Association of Great Britain". Promoted as Zita Stead. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Innisfree987: Thanks for picking this one up. ClareB has in fact been editing for over three years. She had already successfully created five other biographies of women. I hope that now Zita Stead has been revived, she will feel like continuing her good work.--Ipigott (talk) 08:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Mary Beth Heffernan (artist)

Another one that I feel has enough independent and reliable sources that cover the subject significantly. What a cool idea and an amazing difference it has made, even assisting another artist to do this for the COVID pandemic. Definitely notable and has been sustained for more than one event. --ARoseWolf 19:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Promoted as Mary Beth Heffernan (artist). A previous version of this article has been deleted once before as promo / copyvio. We'll see what the crowd makes of it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't look too promotional to me this time but we shall see. Thank you for reviewing it. The sources look good so I think I could argue the point during AfD. It kind of hit home with me personally. I am in full isolation now and all medical staff coming into my room have to wear PPE. I live for smiles and would love to see their faces. --ARoseWolf 19:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

ARoseWolf: Thanks for picking up all these for attention. What you're doing is really useful. Sorry to hear you are in isolation. I hope it's just precautionary and that you are not suffering from Corona.--Ipigott (talk) 08:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC) Here are some smiling nurses to cheer you up!--Ipigott (talk) 08:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ipigott:, leukemia, my friend. I finish my first week of chemo today. --ARoseWolf 11:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Hope the treatment helps. At least you will be able to enjoy the sunshine when you leave.--Ipigott (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I will appreciate it more than I did for sure. --ARoseWolf 12:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Intisar al-Hammadi

Courtesy of the BBC: "A Yemeni actress and model accused of an "indecent act" and drug possession is facing an unfair trial by rebel authorities, Human Rights Watch says." There's mention of the case over on Portal:Current events, but nothing specific linked. Might be fodder here for an article, especially in Arabic-language sources; I'm afraid I don't have either the bandwidth or the language availability to do anything on the subject at the moment. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Maki Ueda

Maki Ueda was put to draft space after being nominated for speedy deletion. She seems like a notable figure. Thriley (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I added a reference and moved it back. SportsOlympic (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Wanjuhi Njoroge

Hello all! I signed up for AFC and am just waiting for the script to be activated. I've just looked at Draft:Wanjuhi Njoroge and re-written some of it (& messaged the creator). Would anyone be able to promote it? I think she meets GNG, in particular for her work with the World Economic Forum! Thanks in advance Lajmmoore (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello All! I am a volunteer at the Science Museum Group and the author of this article on Wanjuhi Njorage - thank you very much for your helpful comments Lajmmoore. I would love to get this moved now from Draft space but don't know how the process works. It seems that you have it in hand! CuriosityScribe (talk) 09:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Moved to mainspace.--Ipigott (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Ipigott, Thanks so much! Hurray! Lajmmoore (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Announcing my candidacy for the 2021 WMF BoT election

Being a co-founder of Women in Red, and for the sake of transparency, I want you to know that I am a candidate for the 2021 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election. I'd appreciate your support when the voting period opens in August! --Rosiestep (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Rosie, this is great to hear. It may not mean much, but after seeing your contributions and vision, you have my support. Urve (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Fantastic! Will someone kindly poke me in August so I don’t miss the vote? Innisfree987 (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Rosiestep, OOOH! how exciting and how fantastic would you be! Good luck! Lajmmoore (talk) 07:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

So pleased to read this. Good luck! If elected, we must all increase our efforts so that your workload is not overwhelming.--Oronsay (talk) 08:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Good to see you're aiming for one more distinction. I hadn't realized you were so fluent in Serbian. That should provide many more opportunities for covering Serbian women and liaising with new recruits.--Ipigott (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Excellent news to hear! You have done so much for the encyclopedia, I appreciate what I have learned from you! Netherzone (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

+1 —valereee (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

You have had and continue to have my support, Rosie, and not just because I like your name ;-). I could go on about how much I adore you and admire you. --ARoseWolf 19:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, one and all. I really appreciate the kind words and the support. Rosiestep (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Unreliable Guidelines: Reliable Sources and Marginalized Communities in French, English and Spanish Wikipedias

This report looks at how our verifiability and reliable source policies are believed to be a cause of systemic bias and marginalising groups from being represented on Wikipedia.

https://artandfeminism.org/resources/research/unreliable-guidelines/

This includes the following recommendations : "De-center English Wikipedia’s definition of reliable source and Westerncentric biases." and "Revisit the user consensus definition and processes. We have called into question the problem of relying on “silence” as consensus. We suggest that a task force is assembled to develop a user consensus process that is welcoming to all editors and potential editors." My concern is how these can be implemented successfully on Wikipedia. I think pretty much everyone reading this page has seen a case when they've written up a biography for the project to get it challenged at AfD, or to have problems with certain sources. Furthermore, the internet has become established enough for certain blogs to have an established reputation as an expert or authority for topics. How can we progress with this without getting our heads bitten off? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Ritchie333, for bringing this to our attention. I don't think there is a great deal we can do to have the guidelines themselves revised but one thing we can do is to include this report as a reference in some of our WiR essays such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Essays/Primer for creating women's biographies (originally drafted by SusunW). In my own experience, we have nevertheless been progressing slowly on the acceptance of sources such as newspapers and journals in languages other than English, entries from databases which are not picked up by Google, and awards which are of importance in their countries of origin.--Ipigott (talk) 11:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333 and Ipigott: I concur 100% that silence doesn't mean consensus. I can only speak for myself, but often I don't participate in discussion on guideline revisions because it is a time sink and an aggressive environment. I have however, in the last month seen some progress. In 3 separate notability discussions, there was recognition of the facts that context matters, i.e. where and when something happened will have a dramatic effect on how much information is available and that quantifying significant coverage is best left vague enough to deal with contextual differences. I was heartened to see several prolific editors effectively argue against the recurring "we don't want to set different standards for different people"/"we aren't here to right great wrongs" misinterpretations showing that we already do recognize different standards and must. One example given was that of an unsuccessful or current candidate for political office — no matter how much detail is given on them and their views, other criteria come in to play.

Another was that pre- and post-internet sourcing differs widely not only because printed material was expensive and selective, but because it was less likely to be widely distributed. Just the recognition that the number of words doesn't indicate the quality of the source, and that sourcing over time has changed is progress to my mind. A few years ago, it did not feel as if those were widely recognized. We still have serious issues with our policies and guidelines around recentism (writing guidelines aimed at BLPs and trying to extend them to historic figures, for example) and standards (writing guidelines based on elitist/mainstream standards and trying to extend them to counter-cultural or developing-world norms). I am not advocating for non-encyclopedic content to be included in an encyclopedia, but against policies that aim for one-size-fits-all. In other words, our guidelines must set standards to maintain quality control, but be flexible enough to recognize cultural and historic differences in not only sourcing, but also notability standards. It's a slow process and it'd be great if we had a better system for developing consensus, but I'm not sure what that would be. SusunW (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I want my daughter to know these amazing women found in articles here and how they rose above the storms of resistance and conquered obstacles in their way. How they persevered to get degrees and accomplished deeds that helped humanity in small and big ways. Every voice matters. It was Maya Angelou who stated, "We many encounter many defeats but we must not be defeated." I never want our daughters to live a defeated life as so many in the past were forced to live. I refuse to be a victim of circumstance and I teach her to never settle for less. Our ancestors accomplished great things as a precursor to our time. They passed it on to us. I will be damned if what they started is not advanced before my time is up. We have made strides but there is still work to be done. As Susun has stated, this is not about righting a wrong, this is about doing what is right going forward. Using common sense, not as a weapon to exclude what we don't understand but, as a springboard to elevate everyone above the clouds. There are Rainbows up there and new horizons waiting to be discovered. The same failed and biased policies will continue to weight us down. We need real solutions and that starts with dialogue. We can't afford to be silent though I understand the reasons for why one would wish to remain silent here. I am not particularly keen on having mud slung in my direction either but mud has its uses too. I could use a good facial (lol). Silence is not a consensus but silence is and will be interpreted as consent whether we agree or not. There are so many Songs that still need to be heard and we decide if they will be heard or not. --ARoseWolf 16:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

There is an old Yiddish proverb which in English has become "Speech is silver but silence is golden." Sometimes it really is more effective to refrain from verbal noise and just get on with the job.--Ipigott (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I know the proverb well and there is truth in it, however, those who wrote the proverb have never endured a controversial AfD, a lengthy DRV, or faced the AfC process on Wikipedia (lol). I've seen entire swaths of cultural significant information on Wikipedia seemingly being challenged in the span of a few hours. One time we had 12 articles on the Lakota brought up for AfD in just a matter of a few hours. It turned into a heated and very controversial set of AfD's. While I do not believe the one bringing them up intentionally targeted those articles because they were Lakota, silence would have had those articles wiped from Wikipedia. For what it is worth, Eight of them were kept, with two being merged and two being deleted. Wikipedia is not a battleground but the one-size-fits-all approach can be a serious adversary when it comes to subjects not historically documented with heavy coverage. --ARoseWolf 12:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

For WP, the maxim, "Choose your battles, but don't choose many" works best, I've found. SusunW (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

That is truly an art form. Many never really master it. Most choose one extreme or the other. They either almost never say anything or say too much. Confounded human nature. --ARoseWolf 17:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

My observations

• This comment is mainly for posterity record and study by academic researchers in Wikipedia culture and also reserved only for reading and discussion among who have made substantial article expansions in previous three months.

1) Idk, Why availability & presentation of information or knowledge can not be just as "state of available and presented information or knowledge at a given moment."

As and when source of better standard becomes available can be made available.

It's ironic that politically less important topics if no one challenges articles can have any info, but if anyone includes a ref for same info not from idealistic platform then it gets immediately rejected. I just don't get this.

2) What happens on Wikipedia is unrealizable expectation of utopian encyclopedia is thrust upon, fear mongering over, false dilemma of slippery slope arguments are presented to justify unrealistically exclusivist judgemental high bar. But real politics is some thing different.

Since Google presents Wikipedia articles in top search results international political politics and religious conservative politics' backdoor vested interest come to awkward status quo where in exclusivist too helps to exclude uncomfortable areas of every side.

So information and knowledge gaps are proudly celebrated by hiding them.

3) Not having any compulsion of regularly adding content helps deletionist privilege to continue to maintain curators upper hand over the writers to maintain their exclusionist hegemony.

4) Wikirulezealotry creates condition almost if one does not have Phd in wikirules you can not sustain here. Wiki-Mullah present rules in fashion of are presented like Biblical inerrancy, Biblical infallibility, Biblical literalism, just like Bibliolatry here curator hegemony seems to have Wikiolatry

5) Many exclusionists work full time as gate keepers at article for creation, draft approval, teahouse, reliable sources notice board. Their only duty seems to be keeping unwanted content out in civil way under pretext of some or other rule.

6) The whole systemic bias is internalised by most Wikipedians, there is hardly any culture of frank and serious introspection among Wikipedia policy watchdogs.

Sorry for not being politically right enough. This comment is not likely to lead to any changes the way Wikipedia culture operates.

• Above comment is mainly for posterity record and study by academic researchers in Wikipedia culture and also reserved only for reading and discussion among who have made substantial article expansions in previous three months.

Thanks and regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Bookku, so much depth in what you have stated here but I like what I am seeing in it. Almost every interaction I have had, of late, with other editors who believe there are clearly defined lines always ends in a perceived battleground. This is not what I believe, by the way. I don't take sides in most discussions because I don't believe there are truly any sides. This idea of inclusionist vs. deletionist is largely made up. It really gets bad when someone feels that the contributions of experienced editors is more valuable than those of new editors, even going so far as to say the ideas, thoughts, views and suggestions of more seasoned editors should be given more weight than those of newer editors. This builds a hierarchy and sets the stage for the exclusion of subjects based on the viewpoints of the most tenured. The only hope that new editors have, in this scenario, is to be silent and wait years before their views will be taken seriously. I literally had a closer of an AfD tell me that they came to the AfD and saw certain editors thy knew and gave their argument more weight because they knew them. This is a prime issue on Wikipedia. There is no higher position here than editor and every editor is equally important from the day they start to the day they see that 10 year anniversary gem from Gerda on their talk page, which I think is such a cool thing she does. I love, Gerda. That's another topic for another time though. Where I will say that seasoned editors have gained an upper hand is they know how to use the various guidelines and wording to say just about anything they want in any particular case. For new editors without the ability to do this they get frustrated and walk away and we lose as an encyclopedia for it. I don't think this, alone, would kill Wikipedia, it's not going anywhere, but it can and does kill the spirit of Wikipedia. Most of us are born explorers. It's in our nature. Most of us came to Wikipedia through exploration. Many lose sight of that along the way, somehow. Every article should be a new adventure and a new wave of exploration. --ARoseWolf 19:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf:

I write less on biographies and explore more on progressive and equality side and that makes navigating in Wikipedia politics a tough job. I find some Wikipedians boasting Wikipedia is biased towards progressive values, but is that really true? real experience may be far from it. My list of drafts is big so to find some collaborative authors for my topics I regularly search history of various articles, I have regularly observed most progressive authoring editors retire much sooner,(no doubt in many instances they keep coming on horizon but most times they remain peripheral) Wikipedia is much policed by political vested interests plus religious conservatives in civil garb of huge list of rules. If some researches invests time and energy my argument will most likely get proven with data. After posting article expansion request on user talk page, most times rather than getting attention of to whom request is made some enthusiastic policing is more often experienced from topical detractors.

I give few examples, (Since intermittently I keep posting article expansion requests on many other language Wikipedias). When I was writing on Women related article I realized a senior academic author is infrequent user of 'he' language wikipedia I placed article expansion request on his talk page their. The political policing is such that, biography article of the article of that author on en Wikipedia got instantaneously listed for AfD under citing some rules to discredit author as reference source. Incidentally some users expert in Wiki rules came and saved article but most often that does not happen.

I give one more example, WP:Coatrack is great instrument for policing unwanted content (See this old talk page discussion); In this instance I found that activist Yasmine Mohammed & Ayaan Hirsi Ali articles were policed not to allow inclusion of their own sourced thoughts in respective articles about themselves. Some how one conservative user theirself agreed WP:Coatrack can not be applied in that way on biographies, but probably he searched my other contributions and went on to apply WP:Coatrack some where else. So there are experts who remain within domains of rules to soft censor unwanted content. When I wanted I discussed possibility of developing summary article Draft:Women's rights in Muslim societies by using content from various other Wikipedia articles they opposed with same instrument of WP:Coatrack. Another interesting thing is when for any summary article or in cases of splits or merge content is borrowed from one article to new article by copy pasting. For decades together no one would have questioned reference source in old article but once fetched for new article and if the new article is inconvenient to one's point of views some how source considered reliable in old article becomes unreliable in new article. And these people never go and question that source in old article. Moreover interestingly enough, Wikipedia has policies which protects such hypocrisies. And not many women on non-biography segment so women support seldomly becomes available in other articles.

I give related example, Some times good articles come where women are under pressure, actually "Women related laws in 'X' country" need to be available for all countries. Similarly 'feminism in 'X' religious societies' but still there is vast scope for additional article 'Hermeneutics of feminism in 'X' religious societies'. 'Hermeneutics of feminism in 'X' religious societies' are too academically sourced so relatively get less vandalized or hijacked compared to 'feminism in 'X' religious societies'. I rescued two such article one Women related laws in Pakistan is listed for merger in Women in Pakistan article. again writing in such way can be considered canvassing and frowned upon labeled as forum shopping. But if women are not watchlisting non-biography women rights related article will keep suffering specially those where women of those communities or regions are not well represented in Wikipedian editing community.

Since I research explore and write on equality related , the topic of equality is ingrained in me to a good extent. One of late news is Vatican's Pope too is reducing some of privileges of clergy at his own conscience, but some privileges are defended (I am not talking of Church only) on Wikipedia. So far so good the discussion which I started was prematurely closed by user involved in the discussion. The user defended by saying Wikipedia is not bureaucracy, then I did not know actually a rule exists that users involved in talk page discussion are not supposed to close discussion prematurely. Ultimately, Wiki seniors on that users side, one of the influential senior user went on making deletions (of course with list of rules) in my most edited article besides threatened me of topic ban. I do have huge list of drafts so I happened to say sorry to save my articles, no other ways out one can be banned here for ever. I had to say sorry not that user, where in I intended to seeking higher bar for encyclopedic values nothing against encyclopedic values. I said sorry I don't have Phd in Wikipedia rules, it's understandable I write with rational & list of logical fallacies so my points become uncomfortable to many. I wrote here than this can be called forum shopping. One can not canvass for improving encyclopedic values either.

Coming back topic of citation sources, many claim Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but fact remains is it depends on who is writing. If me or some other Wiki author writes on Wikipedia with extensive research that writing, too, will automatically derided as non reliable since over all Wikipedia is not reliable?. We are not seeking justification by 'Appealing to false authority' but 'Argument from authority are only right is also logically fallacious'. How any publication platform can be considered low value and negated since international academic community has not taken note of them, is proper? Internationally recognized academic community is not writing on certain topic is mistake of Wikipedians or cause to justify information and knowledge gap? It's like saying, since parents don't have any recognition so child won't have intellect.

As I stated at beginning of my first comment in this discussion why Wiki community can not take encyclopedia as representation of state of available information and knowledge. If there are inaccuracies in any sourced content in Wikipedia, then that means some human fellow, rightly or wrongly, gave some value to that content. And if any academic finds value given to the content is wrong then it is responsibility of international academic community to write research paper on it and make it available so Wikipedians / encyclopedias can consider their critic to be on board or not.

Wikipedia needs to explore how their links with academic communities can be utilized better. Even if Wikipedians do not take some content on board for certain publication being not of reliable standard but if research publish is prima facie good then Wikipedians need to have a via media where in a review request can be made to academicians and we take that info on board along with academic review.

I suppose I went too long. I suppose explorations and writing expanding articles actively with continuity gives an experience which can not be compensated with even huge experience in curation. Here on Wikipedia an army of vested interested curators creates hegemony even legitimate content creators avenues get constricted.Hence I repeat:

Sorry for not being politically right

• Above comment is mainly for posterity record and study by academic researchers in Wikipedia culture and also reserved only for reading and discussion among who have made substantial article expansions in previous three months.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC) [

Results of the WiR Women in Europe contest

Women in Europe

The Women in Europe contest ran from April 2021 through June of 2021. There were 44 active participants who created a total of 684 article that met the contest rules (160 words or 1,000 characters in length). The final tallies for highest number of contributions are:

• Winner: Roundtheworld - 125 articles
• Second place: Fixer88 - 81 articles (tie)
• Second place: Ipigott - 81 articles (tie)
• Third place: Riley1012 - 47 articles

This contest was the third part of the ongoing Continental geofocus challenge. It follows Women in Asia contest (Oct-Dec 2020) and Women in Africa contest (Jan-Mar 2021). The focus for Jul-Sep is Women in Latin America.

Congratulations and thanks to all who participated! WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Remarkable!! Thank you to those who contributed so enormously! Innisfree987 (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Roundtheworld, Ipigott, Fixer88, Riley1012 Amazing work! & an amazing effort from the other 684 articles! #TeamWork Lajmmoore (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Rani Kumudini Devi

So I just created Rani Kumudini Devi, who was the first female Mayor of Hyderabad, India, and I'd like to nominate it to DYK. But after reading through the DYK pages for a while I still have no idea on how to actually make the nomination. Would appreciate it if someone here could help me out, thanks --$ufyan (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

$ufyan, I’m happy to help with the process! The main thing is, is there a short fact about her that you’d like to use as the hook? Something a bit unexpected or surprising works best and it should be less than 200 characters but if you tell me what you want to use, I can help formulate it in the correct length. Innisfree987 (talk) 09:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Innisfree987 "... that Rani Kumudini Devi was the first woman to serve as Mayor of Hyderabad?" is what I was going to use. What do you think? --$ufyan (talk) 10:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

$ufyan, that works! I’ll try to think whether we could dress it up a bit but it’s def a viable option. Looks like you know the formatting and everything! If you haven’t done one before, you don’t need to conduct a review (“quid quo pro”), so you can go ahead and post—I’ll watch but I think you’ve totally got it! Start by typing in the entry’s title here: Template_talk:Did_you_know#How_to_list_a_new_nomination and then it will offer the layout! Don’t worry if you mess anything up, it’s all fixable. Innisfree987 (talk) 10:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Innisfree987 English is not my native language, so please feel free to modify the hook. I've made the nomination here, thanks for the help --$ufyan (talk) 10:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

$ufyan, I would have never known—all looks great. I added a link but that was the only missing bit. If I have an idea for a “hookier” hook, I will pop in to suggest but this looks solid—great job! Innisfree987 (talk) 10:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Marcela Celorio

Take a look at this one. Being Consul General may not be a high post in and of itself but her work in cultural exchanges and her research of dual nationality is pretty awesome. I also like that she speaks multiple languages. I believe she passes our notability criteria. Her work is notable enough and her position is influential. --ARoseWolf 12:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm hip deep in nationality but a cursory glance is that she is notable. Needs clean up, but I've added a link to it to my activists who worked on the issue and if it hasn't been cleaned up before then, I'll give it a stab. SusunW (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Lucy Buck

I finally (finally) had the wherewithal to bang out an article; I'm hoping to go out to Front Royal on Saturday and photograph her grave, among other things. Article's a bit thin, though, and I wondered if anyone else might like to take a look at it and see if they could beef it up. I'm rustier than I realized at writing articles. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Did you ever sign up for The Wikipedia Library? Because ProQuest has some good sources. Looks like Innisfree987 has added several of those. Also, based on the reviews, there's an entire book on her in particular. You might want to see if you can track a copy of that down. Silverseren^C 23:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Great entry! Yes there’s loads more secondary commentary if you’d like it in the Wikipedia Library databases—JSTOR and Proquest both come with the “free” bundle (... happy surprise, they’re all free!) and you can make a separate Project Muse and/or Newspapers.com request if you like. Has totally changed my editing. Marvelous. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Silver seren: I never got around to it, no - I really ought to, one of these days. (Guess I can't always get used to the new-fangled way of doing these things. :-)) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)