Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 132

Archive 125

←

Archive 130

Archive 131

Archive 132

Archive 133

Archive 134

Archive 135

RfC at Talk:Barbenheimer

There is a gender-neutral RfC discussion at Barbenheimer asking that the cited name in a caption (a caption brimming with equality) of one of two in-universe co-equals be shortened to just the nickname. Guess which gender is being asked to give up the full name! Please note that the nomination (given the totally neutral name "OK everyone, let's do this!") does not duplicate the cites and links in the caption. Hopefully some women or those who support women on Wikipedia can women-splain to us the importance of Barbie in the lives of generations of women and, given the equality of the caption, why it should be kept or not kept. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

This is far from an appropriate notice, and I resent the implication that one must lean in a specific position to be "supporting of women". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Someone is placing other notices about the same topic calling it a humor discussion, which it is not. Imply all you want, but replacing the full name of an in-universe female character with her common nickname while, in the same caption, leaving the full name of the male character of the two films tied-together by a societal meme seems non-supporting of women to me. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Article assistance or referral to another project: International Coalition of Girls' Schools

• International Coalition of Girls' Schools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Alliance of Girls' Schools Australasia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

TL;DR: The ICGS article has an advertising maintenance tag. I'd like assistance from editors on rewriting it to make sure it's neutral/non-promotional and stays in mainspace.

I came across these two articles while dealing with an editor with a COI who added copyvio material to the AGSA article. The two entities are merging: I see an article merger in the cards, but I want to make sure that the ICGS article is in good condition and doesn't get deleted for being unduly promotional. This is an international entity with a major role in educating girls and adolescent women, and the more eyes on the subject—eyes independent from the organizations but with an interest in gender equity—the better outcome I feel for the article(s). Can Women in Red assist here, or is there a better project I should contact on this matter? —C.Fred (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The main problem with the ICGS article is that there are not enough independent sources in the article to establish notability. The content is either unsourced, based on their website or on an article in The Educator Australia which reads like a press release. Also, the references to the website are to subpages that no longer exist on the website or Wayback Machine. I can't find significant coverage of the current name, but there may be more under former names. I would suggest removing unsourced and promotional content, leaving a stub article. TSventon (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I have removed most of the article text as unsourced or promotional and removed the promotional tag. TSventon (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Claire Simon, French filmmaker

I just made a draft for French filmmaker Claire Simon. I noticed she didnt have an article when I made a draft for her new documentary Our Body. She has gotten a lot of press for the new film as well as a profile in The New York Times. Thriley (talk) 23:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Credibility bot

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Great to see that you're still keen to help us along, Harej. I am well aware of your skills as back in 2015, you really helped us to develop Women in Red. It's a great pity you have not been able to devote some of your editing time to helping with many of the facilities and bots you developed at the time in connection with your Project X approach which you now seem to have completely abandoned. As a result, we've had to try to find alternative approaches for most of what you provided, especially the membership lists which have not been easy to manage. Thanks to The Earwig, the Metrics continue to produce results. As for your credibility work, it looks interesting but for a project like Women in Red which covers such a wide range of people, works, organizations and approaches, where do you see the sources being most prone to credibility problems? I would guess it would be in connection with BLPs but perhaps you can give us some guidance. I have looked at your Credbot page but could not find any examples of the kind of results we might expect to receive. Nevertheless, I see that Gamaliel, a productive member of Women in Red, is among those who are supporting your initiative.--Ipigott (talk) 05:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

As there have been no reactions, I've left further comments and queries on Credbot here. I was interested to see that WP Women in Red and WP Women were the first two of around a hundred wikiprojects invited to provide support or leave comments. There have also been some interesting reactions to the article in The Signpost.--Ipigott (talk) 06:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

New Draft for Transgender Activist: Draft: Dorian Rhea Debussy

Hi all! Last month, the article for Dorian Rhea Debussy, who is an academic and transgender rights activist, was removed through the AfD queue. The article needed big re-writes, which helped lead to its removal. Two users -- @Ɱ and @Cielquiparle -- went through the process to request the content of the deleted article, so it could be used as a starting point in the drafting process. If you're interested in collaborating with them on this article, please fell free to help out, and this might be of interest for folks who want to contribute to Transgender rights and Feminism focused projects. It looks like they've started the new AfC process here: Draft:Dorian Rhea Debussy Pumpkinspyce (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

FYI I just added a new section on publications after doing a dive through Google Scholar. If anyone is interested, help is definitely still needed in the career section though. I'm hoping that my getting the ball rolling with @Ɱ and @Cielquiparle will help to get more folks from this project involved, especially if you're interested in projects related to Transgender women. Pumpkinspyce (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

It's tough because so many of the sources about her are university publications (which don't count toward notability). She has significant national coverage related to her resignation as a diversity facilitator for the NCAA, but that could be interpreted as a single event per WP:BLP1E. However, the good news is that she has a book forthcoming with Columbia University Press, so it seems highly likely that we'll be seeing reviews and other articles written about her in other independent secondary sources (rather than by her and with more prose than just direct quotes) in the near future. In order not to lose all the work that has already been done, it might be necessary to keep working on the article at least once every few months. Cc: Pumpkinspyce Cielquiparle (talk) 01:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much for letting me know about the forthcoming book, and that's definitely going to be helpful for notability. I definitely feel like some of the editors in the AfD thread (likely cis guys) are holding her to a higher standard tbh.

I'm going to keep working on the rewrite for the other parts of the article, so we can keep it ready for the AfC process. I'm also going to do some digging to see what else I can turn up on her, since I found some content under her deadname too. Would you mind going through the article again, once I finish up in the next few days?

Also, totally agree about keeping the draft active until 1) we feel we have enough source material to demonstrate notability or 2) the book is published so that can help demonstrate notability. Pumpkinspyce (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

FYI @Cielquiparle I just finished the edits that I had planned for the article. Let me know if you get a chance to review. I'm hoping that having your eyes (and others) on it can help. Overall, I legitimately think this could be approved for notability WITHOUT the book you mentioned. Lmk what you think! Pumpkinspyce (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@Pumpkinspyce Speaking as the AfC reviewer who accepted the deleted version of the article, I do not believe that she was held to a higher standard in AfD. I accepted it not because I believed it would survive AfD (the usual standard), but because it had been languishing in the AfC queue for some time and both a) it seemed unlikely that it would get any better in draftspace, and b) I was confident that it would get at least a couple keep !votes, and thus deserved a wider community opinion than an AfC reject. To be clear, I believe that Wikipedia is a transmisogynistic space in general and I agree that the AfD voters were probably cis men. I just don't think either of those were really the problem in this case. -- asilvering (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I strongly, strongly suggest reducing the number of footnotes you're using in this article. Right now this looks like a massive WP:REFBOMB of a non-notable person. You can always come back and tinker with it later, adding more citations and small details, but for the basic establishment of her notability, which is going to be much harder for you to do now because it's already been AfD'd, stick to as few sources as possible. Find the best ones - the ones that talk the most about her, that are independent and reliable - and build the article around those. Cut everything else. Only after you're really satisfied that it shows notability, add the other things back in. You can make a subpage in your userspace to hold stuff you've removed so you have it conveniently handy if you do end up wanting to put it back in later. -- asilvering (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Oof, okay, this is definitely a refbomb. I tried to sort out a bit but in many cases the best citation for the info isn't actually present on the article at all, so I gave up and I'll turn that back to you. As an example, for a sentence like In 2022, Debussy was again announced as a finalist for that same NCAA award., the best possible reference for this would be an announcement on the NCAA website. Instead, it has two footnotes that aren't that, and a third that might have been intended to be that, but is a malformed URL of some kind. -- asilvering (talk) 00:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the advice and help there, @Asilvering. If you have the bandwidth, could you edit one of the paragraphs in the career section to show how to do that? I was thinking more sources would be helpful, but it sounds like going with higher quality and less quantity is the most useful. Obviously, no worries at all if you don't have the bandwidth to tinker with a paragraph as an example, but that would def be helpful for me, since I haven't done too many larger overhauls just yet. I'm thinking that @Cielquiparle may appreciate that too, but I know that they're def more experienced than me. Pumpkinspyce (talk) 02:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Pumpkinspyce Ok, I've done a bit more tinkering, trying to lay out my reasoning as clearly as possible in the edit summaries. Remember that if you want to go back and get something, you can always find it in the page history if you need it. In the case of the "honors" section, you will now see that each sentence has only one footnote - I kept the best ones. You may still want to remove this section entirely, since none of these footnotes confer notability and I'm not sure they add much, from a reader's perspective. (I would personally usually write a sentence like "X has received awards for their work in blah" and put 2-3 footnotes on the end of that sentence, when they're non-notable awards like this, if I put them in an article at all.) There's still a problem with this section, though: the article says Debussy "was profiled" by the ACLU, but that's either untrue or disingenuously worded - there is no profile of Debussy at that link. Which one is she in? I don't want to watch all the videos to hunt for it. I can help come up with a better wording, but whatever it is I wouldn't call it a "profile". asilvering (talk) 03:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Pumpkinspyce As an example of where to make cuts yourself, have a look at the sentence She was previously a diversity facilitator for the NCAA Division III LGBTQ OneTeam Program. That's a simple fact, right? It's not an opinion, it's not in dispute, it's not a sentence like "has worked at various jobs" that might imply we should expect several sources of information. So it should have one footnote. Just one. Right now it has four, and none of them are the place I would consider the most "authoritative" for the statement - the website of NCAA Div III's LGBTQ OneTeam Program staff page. If you can't find that, ok, fine, some journalist namechecking her position will work to verify the information. Pick one. In this case, preferably the most mainstream, most reliable, etc. -- asilvering (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

That definitely helps me with understanding how to do a larger project revision, and thank you for spelling that out so clearly, @Asilvering. I saw that you and @Cielquiparle have been working hard to adjust this, and I'm going to sit back and review you all's work (since I don't want to assume it's finished). But wow, it's been super helpful to have that explained, and it's super good info to know that one authoritative source is more useful than several smaller sources. I sooooo appreciate you taking the time to be thoughtful with explaining all of this! Pumpkinspyce (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm done for now - I was making those edits as an example for you more than anything else, since I don't think it's possible to overcome the AfD decision at this point. -- asilvering (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much for taking the time for all of that, @Asilvering, and I so appreciate it. It's definitely been helpful to see that logic and process on display. I'll go through and tinker with the citations to use only one (i.e. clearest and best) for each statement, so there isn't a Wikipedia:REFBOMB issue. And yes, I'm definitely not planning on submitting this -- given the AfD decision -- until there's substantial more coverage on her. I think @Ɱ and @Cielquiparle were planning to work on the draft and to wait until there is more coverage too, and I know that @Cielquiparle also mentioned waiting until the book was out, since that will help the case like we mentioned with @David Eppstein. But also, just thank you again for being helpful and kind for someone learning how to do a larger editing project for the first time. Super thankful for you and the folks in this group! Pumpkinspyce (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Update: I think I've done all that I can to help build out this page. Some other editors have also given some super helpful suggestions here. If anyone else has the bandwidth to proof and/or edit the page for further suggestions, please definitely feel free to do so. @Cielquiparle has been active with working on this page, and @Asilvering gave me some very useful insights during my edits.

But of course, having another set of eyes on this is absolutely helpful, since this article 1) is being re-drafted AFTER having been previously removed from Wiki via a AfD process and 2) will be submitted AFTER more secondary sources from June 2023 or later come out about Debussy.

Pumpkinspyce (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Several of the comments at the AfD explicitly discussed the refbombing in the article. The nominated version of the article had 39 sources, most determined not to count towards notability. The current draft has 62 sources. That is, the aspects of the article that made it problematic and led to the decision to delete it have become worse. Packing in more content with more low-quality sources is not the way to get this draft approved. It is the opposite. I have to echo asilvering's advice: I strongly, strongly suggest reducing the number of footnotes you're using in this article. Remove the sources that don't mention Debussy, or that only quote her. Remove the sources associated with schools where she has worked. Remove the sources that only use her deadname (we can only use these under MOS:DEADNAME by proving that the subject was notable under that name, an even higher hurdle). If any sources are left, base the draft only on what is in them. Doing that will make it much clearer to AfC and DRV reviewers whether there is a case for even more notability than was already identified in the AfD, which is what you need now to overcome the AfD. Bombing the article with low-quality sources will on the contrary convince reviewers that the needed high-quality sources do not exist. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

To clarify/add to whether there is a case for even more notability than was already identified in the AfD, the very first thing anyone will look for is that there is significant coverage of her after June 2023, the date at which she was found to be non-notable. Personally I would advise against submitting or mainspacing the draft until you can meet this bar. You want your reviewer's first thought to be "ok, good", not "...uh oh". -- asilvering (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the extra advice here, @David Eppstein. I haven't done as many large project revisions and was working to help out @Ɱ and @Cielquiparle, since they pulled the old article after the AfD process. They had both been working on the draft, and I was just adding some of my research skills to help get some other notable source material. It's definitely good to know that reducing the sources to only the best source material is useful for this project, and that's a very helpful insight for me, since I'm less experienced than they are. The very intentional process of editing from @Asilvering has also been AMAZINGLY helpful to see in action. I think @Cielquiparle was planning on saving this until Debussy's book comes out, so I definitely agree with @Asilvering about waiting until there's more coverage AFTER June 2023. Like @Cielquiparle said, I think we should have that when the book comes out, but we may have it sooner, depending on what new coverage looks like. Until then, it's honestly just been helpful to see this moving, so I can better learn how to edit a bigger project. Super appreciative of you all! Pumpkinspyce (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

If they have a book coming out, then I would definitely wait until there are published reviews of the book to cite. Those would help the case quite a lot. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's the plan that @Cielquiparle mentioned! I just used the advice from @Asilvering to simplify the citations and remove instances of 4+ citations in various sentences throughout the draft article. After the editing from @Cielquiparle, @Asilvering, and @Ɱ , the article looks like it's in a way better place than when it went through the AfD process. Even so, I think the plan is to stay tuned for future items (news articles, book, etc.) that can help to ensure the notability criteria are established. So basically, tons of editing is done now, and folks just have to poke at the article every so often to make sure it doesn't get automatically deleted, and it should be submitted once some new articles and/or the book come out, so notability can be established. But also, it's definitely way better done than when it went through AfD, so I think it should be solid for when that time comes! Pumpkinspyce (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

It's certainly been improved but it's quite unusual for such a short article to have so many different references. If people are really notable, their achievements are often well documented in three or four reliable sources. To have to justify notability by including 59 citations is likely to raise serious doubts.--Ipigott (talk) 06:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I feel that, but some of the guys in the AfD discussion were being pretty darn dismissive of a woman's accomplishments, so I think it's probably necessary to have more secondary sources than average. (Like they say, a "woman has to be twice as good as a man in order to get half as far.") But also, I'll defer to folks like @Cielquiparle and @Asilvering for further editing; definitely ping them if you want to help out @Ipigott, as I'm sure they'll also appreciate it. I feel good that I've done some help with cleaning up the article for future submission, but I'm also wanting to move on to other smaller projects now. Pumpkinspyce (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

No, I'd say the "fewer, better sources is best" holds true, and 59 citation still inspires doubt. Remember that people don't get wikipedia articles "for their accomplishments" - they get them for significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. The fewer the better, honestly. I'm talking like 5-10 sources tops. I regularly accept drafts with only three. 20+ is not a good sign. -- asilvering (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you think we should move some of the sections (i.e. personal life, honors, etc.) to the talk page or someone's sandbox and add them AFTER the draft is (hopefully) re-approved for creation, following some new sources post-June 2023? Pumpkinspyce (talk) 00:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Ideally once you have your 5-10 best sources you should rewrite the article based on those. I would delete the Honors and recognition section as there are no notable awards so it looks promotional. TSventon (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much for pitching in with some advice on that, @TSventon. I'll delete that content, and it can be (if needed) added back in later.

@Cielquiparle and @Ɱ, I wanted to ping you, since you two both pulled the old content, as a starting point for the new article. What do you all think about removing the following sections/sub-sections for the AfC submission (to help reduce the number of sources per @Asilvering's advice): Personal Life, Honors and Recognition, and Other LGBTQ Activism? That will lower the nubmer of sources to 38 instead of 55, which is a significant reduction. It's still on the higher side, based on what @Asilvering said; however, I think it really emphasizes more than good secondary source coverage. Submitting with those AFTER some post-June 2023 coverage seems like a good path forward. (I went ahead and removed the Honors and Recognition section per @TSventon's advice, but I'll hold until you all's input for the others.) Pumpkinspyce (talk) 03:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm done being involved here. While I get it that there were/are some weak refs that dilute the ref section and make deletionists go haywire, I am adamant against "building down" the encyclopedia. We're here to add content, and anything true and cited by a weak source can and will later be cited by a better one. I've seen plenty of unfortunate removals already, and we're not serving our readers by removing even more content. Any temporary move just appears dishonest as well. ɱ (talk) 03:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that definitely makes sense, @Ɱ. As I mentioned to some other folks in this thread, I'm still learning how to do larger project revisions, and I'd ABSOLUTELY be willing to go with your suggestion of NOT utilizing the less is more mentality that others have suggested. Would you be willing to still help out on this article, since having editors like you and @Cielquiparle (who are interested in the subject and want to see the article succeed) are important?

As an aside, I definitely agree with you on having more sources (even if they're lower quality), which is why I worked so hard to pull other source material INTO the article. Would you be willing to help out, since I'd love to learn from multiple editors through this project? Also, I'll bring the honors and recognition section back, per your suggestion, @Ɱ, and I won't remove the others mentioned above. I'm hoping that shows you I'm not keen on the deletionist argument but am just trying to learn how to make the article succeed after some very grumpy men wanted to see it removed from Wiki. Pumpkinspyce (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

FYI @Ɱ and @Cielquiparle, I just got that section back into the draft! Pumpkinspyce (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your consideration of my ideas, but others here will likely disagree. Anyhow, I have a lot to do elsewhere right now. It's my opinion that we need to wait for Debussy to earn more real press focus in order for the vote-deletes to be happy and keep the article live. ɱ (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much for that note, @Ɱ, and I definitely feel you. I set up a Google alert for her, and the plan is definitely to wait until there's more coverage before submitting this. I think @Cielquiparle is also keeping eye out for that too. I'll definitely ping you once we get some more coverage and before this is submitted. I realize that you and @Cielquiparle were the reason that we event had the starting point for this new draft, and I want to make sure that your ideas are also included in the draft that gets submitted. Super thankful for ya! Pumpkinspyce (talk) 02:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Topics that account for a disproportionate amount of the gender gap in biographies

A few years ago, someone shared some statistics about sports biographies. What I took away was that if we got rid of all sports biographies, the percentage of all biographies about women would significantly increase. In other words, sports bios were predominantly about men. This was before a bunch of changes to WP:NSPORTS. It made me wonder if similar analyses had been done to break down [all biographies on wikipedia] into categories, analyzing the effect of each on the overall statistics. It'd also be useful if someone remembers the thread I'm talking about and can link it. My own search couldn't find it, and I'm hoping I'm not radically misremembering. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean on this talk page? I remember it as well. Related to the Lugnuts mass article deletion? I'll look for it. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

This is the discussion I remember Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 117#Cricket_players_may_be_under_threat WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been following the Lugnuts saga but hadn't seen this discussion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't remember where that was posted, but what I would point out is that changes to NSPORTS since 2017 have been hostile to the creation and retention of articles on female athletes (such as international footballers and Olympians), essentially because the corpus of RS carries more bias than the lists realiably documenting participation and achievement at the highest levels. Newimpartial (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I think I've heard that regarding Olympians, but weren't some of the other changes to, say, end auto-notability for "if you played for one second in [one of a set of leagues that are primarily mens' leagues]"? Too many discussions to remember clearly. :/ — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that happened, but at least in the case of football there has been a proliferation of first-division women's leagues - and the latter receive less coverage by RS media, so it is more difficult to establish GNG Notability for female athletes (and given the attitudes expressed at athlete AfDs, I thorougly expect sources like this one to be discounted on grounds that amount to IDONTLIKEIT, which compounds the problem for female athletes). People may have assumed that a presumption concerning first divisions would affect the Notability of male footballers more, but I haven't seen any evidence that this is the case, and first division women's football has expanded dramatically at a time when the men's game is largely stagnant.

But that's not even the issue I was talking about above. Editors now argue that being fully capped on an international football team is not grounds to presume Notability, and the effect of this, like the non-presumption for Olympians, is that a much lower proportion of women athletes (national team footballers and olympians) than men with equivalent achievements are deemed to meet GNG and therefore can survive AfD, because of the biases in the sources. Newimpartial (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

As cricket was brought up - I'm also part of WP:WCRIC and have been working on the Women's cricket page for the last couple of weeks - this is also going to become an issue for us. Cricket has very strict notability criteria (WP:OFFCRIC) - if a player has played in one of those tournaments, she's presumed to be notable. Very little women's domestic high level cricket meets that criteria - for a sport that loves stats, domestic stats are almost impossible to come by - which means an exceptional player who didn't play for the national team can be hard to prove. Or, for example, got a couple of caps based off excellent domestic perform and then got injured. All this is especially true for historical players.

Cricket's also an odd one in that people write books about it, like a truely staggering number of books. These are great secondary sources and make writing biographies of male cricketers relatively easy. By contrast, there's maybe a dozen on women's cricket, most from the last decade. The last cricket book I read literally had a page in the back that said "I would've included women's cricket in this book but I really don't know enough about it - go read this one" and his recommendation was one from that list. MsJoat (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Found the one I remember: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_67#Sports,_sports,_sports_(Jun-Jul_2019). Would be curious to see any more recent stats, like a breakdown of athlete bios created before/after the NSPORTS changes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

There are about 170,000 biographies of footballers. If we deleted all of them then we might lose 10,000 women footballers. Not sure about other sports but this would affect the needle measuring the gender gap. My quick guesstimate would be that losing all the footballers would change wikipedia from being ~19% women to being ~21% women. Victuallers (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I find this an odd way of looking at the situation. Another way of looking at it is represented by the recent examination I made of Spain men's and women 's national team footballers here. If enwiki introduced a strong presumption of notability for national team footballers, the percentage of women among Spain national team players would increase from 15% of national team player biographies to at least 28%, while the percentage among living players would, of course, be much higher.

In a broader sense, it seems to me that any effort to remove biographies of women footballers, precisely at a time when the world at large sees their contributions as important and wants to read their stories, would be precisely the wrong way to affect the needle measuring the gender gap. This is directly equivalent to proposing that we improve gender representation by deleting biographies of all scientists (men and women) who died before 1900, who I am sure have similar gender representation to our footballing status quo. The problem for the encyclopaedia isn't the surplus of (boring) biographies of men footballers; it is the missing stories of women footballers, to whom a segment of the enwiki community is hostile (as demonstrated by the actions of this IP editor, whose only edits to date were to PROD roughly 100 articles about women's national team footballers and to file a sceptical report at RSN about a source specializing in women's football). Newimpartial (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that was the big discussion. Somewhere in there it (Alastair Gray?) says that if we take living non-sports people, the % of women in bios is low 30s %. It would be nice to have that updated. Johnbod (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks John, An update of that would be very useful. I'd expect/hoped it to be ~30% for non-sports people and a similar if not larger figure for living people. I'd be disappointed if that isnt true. I console myself that the 19% figure is so low because of (unfixable) history. Very few women mentioned before 1820! I would hope that more modern looking countries would be hoping to see 50% of living people soon (in my children's lifetime). Victuallers (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it was (oops!) User:Andrew Gray - this was his original 2019 blogpost. He hasn't done a more recent post on the subject there. Merely by just looking at BLPs (and ignoring sports/non-sports) you got 23% female (I think it was). Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Life ran away with me before I could follow up on it, unfortunately, but maybe now would be a good time to rerun it all!

As of today, there are 266,095 female BLPs on Wikipedia, approximately 24.9%, so a couple of percentage points up on the figure of 22.67% from May 2019. This share appears to have risen a bit faster than the overall rise in female biographies (19.62% female, up from 17.83%).

One thing that was nagging me back in the day was that determining "sportiness" from Wikidata is a bit tricky: the most straightforward method to use is one that identifies George W. Bush as an athlete, and that's not really what we mean. However we do have a good clue on the WP side - an article tagged as a living person plus using one of our 77 infobox templates. I think it's reasonably safe to say these are pretty widespread for those groups of articles so we won't get too many omissions, and that the presence of a sports-focused infobox strongly suggests their sporting activity was significant.

Using that newer methodology, there are 462,023 sports BLPs of which 75,142 are female sports BLPs - so 43% of BLPs are athletes, and just 16% of BLP athletes are women. The gender split is same as the figure identified in 2019 (discussion), but the total share of sports articles has dropped back a couple of points since 2019. It's possible this is down to the methodology used - I can go back and check my notes for exactly how I calculated it last time - but it might also be a hint that the sports-notability stuff has had an effect as @Rhododendrites: suggested.

Back of the envelope, then, to sum up - 1068k BLPs, less 462k sports, 606k non-sports BLPs. And of those, women make up (266-75 =) 191k, so approximately 31.5% of non-sports BLPs are female. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, the fact that the small proportion of athlete articles that are about women is due, in part, to the shift away from objective criteria for presumptive notability in the domain of NSPORTS to a (restrictive) construal of GNG. For example, working with the articles that exist and those are missing for Spain men's and women's national team footballers (in the collapsed part of my comment above), I show that a strong presumption of notability for Spain national team players would increase the proportion of women among the biographies from 15% to 28%. And the proportion of women among BLP articles for Spain national team players would be higher - certainly above the 31.5% for non-sports BLPs as a whole. In fact, I am confident that the effect of a strong presumption of notability for national team footballers would be that upwards of 40% of national team player BLP articles would feature women. Newimpartial (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

That seems unlikely to me, at least for several years to come - when did most countries first have national womens' teams? A high proportion of BLPs are long-retired. Where is "the collapsed part of my comment above"? Thanks so much for the new figures, Andrew! Johnbod (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

To answer your question: that should have read, "the collapsed part of my comment linked above", namely, linked here. And if the percentages of ever-capped national team footballers who are women is almost 30%, as I believe it is for Spain, then I have no doubt that so few of the women are deceased, and enough of the men are, that the percentage of BLPs would be over 40%. Women's football on the international level is scarcely 50 years old, but it developed much more rapidly than the men's international game. Newimpartial (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah! You realize the 2 Spanish lists there are redlinks? Spain women's national football team played its first match in Feb 1983 (lost 0-1 to Portugal). I'm not sure what "it developed much more rapidly than the men's international game" means, or how that would affect the figures. Johnbod (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

To answer your question: I didn't notice the redlink, which I have now fixed. Also, what I mean about the women's game is that "national teams" were introduced much earlier in the (modern) history of the women's game than in the men's game; the number of national teams competing against each other increased much more rapidly after the first international matches for women compared to men; and the number of international matches played by each national team increased much more rapidly for women's national teams than for men's national teams. Indeed, there have been countries over the last 20 or 30 years where national women's teams have played more games each year than that nation's men's teams. For all of these reasons, the first half-cenrury of international football for women has a completely different rate of growth, in terms of capped players, than the first half-centuey for men. Newimpartial (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

It turns out that if you keep introducing more and more arbitrary constraints to a dataset you can generate any proportions you want. Sure, restricting your focus to "living national team footballers" would raise the proportion of women footballers, but that would also be a stupid notability criterion that makes no sense in real-world terms. JoelleJay (talk) 19:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I took one "missing" Spain women's national footballer (Juana María Perales - played four times in the 1980s) and looked for Spanish-language coverage (including sports-focused archives of newspapers like Mundo Deportivo). I found nothing, so any article about her would be the same type of stub sourced only to a statistics database that we're trying to avoid. Jogurney (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, maybe, but no one was talking about the early years of mens footy - what, 1883 to say 1939? So I'm not sure that helps the discussion. The important take-aways here are Andrew's updated figures, which I think we should put on the main project page:

• 1068k BLPs, less 462k sports, 606k non-sports BLPs. And of those, women make up (266-75 =) 191k, so approximately 31.5% of non-sports BLPs are female
• there are 462,023 sports BLPs of which 75,142 are female sports BLPs - so 43% of BLPs are athletes, and just 16% of BLP athletes are women
• As of today, there are 266,095 female BLPs on Wikipedia, approximately 24.9%.

Would that be a good idea? Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree, I've already barnstarred Andrew for his very useful contribution. IMO the 24.9% figure would make a good measure of our work. The 19.62% contains the bias of history which we can mitigate but never remove. The 24.9% (all BLPs) figure is the one that any honestly-reported developed civilisation would expect to be ~50%. Victuallers (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

But remember that BLPs contain many retired people, and in something like politicians (or footballers) reflect activity in the field going back sometimes 50+ years. Plus I suspect that many of our older BLPs are actually dead, but no one caught it, so the figures may be skewed like that. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@Johnbod@Victuallers Looking at time is an interesting approach!

• Missing birth year BLPs - 150,574, of which 53,355 female - 35.4%
• 1920s birth BLPs - 5,096, of which 1,325 female - 26.0%
• 1930s birth BLPs - 39,055, of which 7,086 female - 18.1%
• 1940s birth BLPs - 95,602, of which 18,495 female - 19.3%
• 1950s birth BLPs - 128,518, of which 27,172 female - 21.1%
• 1960s birth BLPs - 145,300, of which 33,390 female - 23.0%
• 1970s birth BLPs - 150,539, of which 37,893 female - 25.2%
• 1980s birth BLPs - 171,072, of which 42,880 female - 25.1%
• 1990s birth BLPs - 150,880, of which 36,944 female - 24.5%
• 2000s birth BLPs - 30,042, of which 7,542 female - 25.1%

So from the 1970s onwards the figures are pretty stable and close to our overall average. The lower count in the earlier years is offset by a very substantial share in the unknown-year group. I would guess that these are more likely to represent younger people rather than older ones, but it's hard to say without a bit more analysis.

If we discount all athletes using the infobox method, the results are:

• Missing birth year BLPs - 140,177, of which 51,021 female - 36.4%
• 1920s birth BLPs - 4,321, of which 1,228 female - 28.4%
• 1930s birth BLPs - 28,978, of which 6,161 female - 21.2%
• 1940s birth BLPs - 73,095, of which 16,566 female - 22.7%
• 1950s birth BLPs - 95,893, of which 23,644 female - 24.7%
• 1960s birth BLPs - 96,175, of which 26,632 female - 27.8%
• 1970s birth BLPs - 81,682, of which 27,562 female - 33.7%
• 1980s birth BLPs - 58,078, of which 24,816 female - 42.7%
• 1990s birth BLPs - 23,281, of which 11,754 female - 50.5%
• 2000s birth BLPs - 2,850, of which 1,539 female - 54.0%

Those last numbers are amazing to see, albeit on relatively thin as is the steady rise over time to that more representative figure. It also highlights how concentrated in recent years the sports biographies are - ~85% of the 1990s, dropping back steadily until they're ~25% of the 1950s. Of course, that does make the total number of non-sports bios in recent years quite thin by comparison.

Lots of interesting stuff to chew on here.

(One fiddly caveat BTW: enwiki sometimes tags articles on groups of people as BLPs, so our "female" percentage is arguably a slight undercount since ideally you would want to omit those. However I believe in general that it only accounts for ~0.1-0.2% or so. The same caveat applies to the figures reported earlier. I could do a more sophisticated count if you'd like a very precise figure, but it would be more fiddly and time-consuming so I didn't want to run it for all of these.) Andrew Gray (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Enough food for thought there already, at least for now. Many thanks again. I suppose there are a lot of Kpop etc singers, models and actresses in the last 2 groups. Johnbod (talk) 04:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's reasonable to assume that for people in the performing arts (defined broadly), the distribution is much like we see for sports biographies - there aren't many other professions where it's as common to become prominent in your twenties. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks, Andrew Gray, for these interesting lists. They certainly clearly demonstrate how strongly BLPs on athletes influence the statistics. On the other hand, it is encouraging to see that increasing proportions of younger women are being covered in our BLPs. As time goes by, this should provide a basis for improving the percentage of women covered in the EN biographies. Rosiestep: Do you think it would be useful to include these lists on our Metrics page?--Ipigott (talk) 07:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I did a jig! @Andrew Gray: Fancy seeing figures here that are over 50% and I think it illustrates my belief that the bias in Wikipedia is not due to Wikipedians but its due to history. Obviously the figures hide the women who live in the countries where they are not allowed to be educated - but maybe there are not too many notable men from those countries either. Theses figures should not be on the front page of Women in Red - they should be on the front page of the Guardian, Spiegel, Le Monde and the New York Post. Victuallers (talk) 09:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Just gobsmacked with this news, @Andrew Gray:! Thank you! And +1 to what Victuallers just said. Ipigott, sure; go for it. --Rosiestep (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Rosie. I'll prepare a short explanation and add them to Metrics. Victuallers: Maybe with your contacts and the assistance of contributors such as Jesswade88, these figures could indeed be publicized more widely. How about contributing a short item to The Signpost?--Ipigott (talk) 12:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I've tweeted Jess. I think this is newsworthy although it breaks a new narratives. I will have a go at drafting a short bit for the signpost. Anyone want to help? Victuallers (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I would caution that while the 50% ex-sports numbers are pretty eyecatching, the huge shift to sports bios in recent years means that they're based on far fewer articles than in the earlier decades - so any weird errors in my assumptions might end up getting magnified. I'm reasonably comfortable with the figures, but just wanted to highlight that.

Happy to look over whatever you produce for the Signpost, and I'll try to get a blogpost up with details later this week. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, in my typical style Ive just typed it out spelling mistakes, typos and all here. I'd by happy for anyone to copyedit or add the missing links, photos etc. Maybe a graph of %age women by birth year might make the point? (I guess it might show that by 2083 or so then Wikipedia will be 100% women!! - make a good headline for the tabloids!). I have never created a signpost article so the formatting etc may be poor too. Oh! and nice to talk to you again Andrew. Victuallers (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I've been following this fascinating and important thread, and am writing, first, to thank you all for the discussion. I've encountered a number of bios about male athletes over the years that have made me wonder, "How on earth has this guy been considered to be a notable figure when _____ , _____ , and ______" (insert names of prominent women deserving of Wikipedia bio space) "have been nominated for deletion?" I'm not sure if this would be relevant or helpful to the case you're working on making to improve both the addition and statistical tracking of women's bios, but you might also want to take a look at the bios of American football and baseball players and coaches if you haven't already done so. Just two of the football examples include: Donald Seibert, (29th head football coach at Dickinson College who compiled a losing record of 23–39–1), and Fred E. Heckel, a head football coach at Allegheny College who apparently had a winning record, but only coached at that college for one season). Baseball examples include: Dorn Taylor (who "pitched parts of three seasons in the Major League Baseball (MLB), 1987 and 1989 for the Pittsburgh Pirates and 1990 for the Baltimore Orioles" before coaching "baseball at Bishop McDevitt High School...after retiring"), and Doug Piatt (a "former Major League Baseball pitcher" who appeared in 21 games for the Montreal Expos in 1991, all in relief" and who "never received another chance in the major leagues" but pitched "in the minor leagues until 1997"). I'm not someone who is an "anti-athlete bio" editor because I'm generally an inclusionist. (I personally don't recommend articles for deletion because I believe that many of the stubs I encounter that are of non-notable individuals may, in reality, be notable and important to someone else who took the time to research, write and report at least short blurbs about the subjects.) But I do have to say that I'm puzzled by several editors who describe themselves as deletionists and seem to focus on challenging the notability of prominent women (who have made significant contributions to the world) while seemingly ignoring the number of existing bios of men who seem to have been deemed notable simply for picking up a bat or a ball (and then never made much of an impact on the sport they were playing or coaching). I'm grateful to all of you for taking a look at the sports bio issue and look forward to reading more about your findings. - 47thPennVols (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there are many (any?) regular "deletionists" who focus on women's sports bios; sometimes you get a run of AfDs on sportswomen because a whole group of articles on non-notable women players has been identified and they all get nominated, but the same thing happens with male players way more often. I am extremely active in the athlete AfD arena and at least when it comes to !voting I see far more inclusionism for women's AfDs than men's when GNG coverage is otherwise equivalent. The exception is with some of the historic players to whom some sports projects are very attached and intent on maintaining complete directories of blue links. For those you get a lot of editors arguing that routine blurbs in hyper-local newspapers are SIGCOV despite the same sources containing equal coverage of a child's birthday party or someone's arrest. JoelleJay (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I suspect that sport is the biggest contributor the the gender gap in biographies, but there are a few other obvious contributors too. For example, military history. We have 3 231 articles in Category:Recipients of the Medal of Honor, one of whom is a woman. Similarly we have 1 403 Victoria Cross recipients and 1 923 biographies of Nazi Iron Cross recipients. Many of these biographies would pass WP:GNG, but many others consist of nothing more than a transcription of their investiture. (Their inclusion is supported by WP:ANYBIO#1, though.) pburka (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Don't forget there's also the reverse. If you went through Category:Nurses, you'd find it heavily female-dominated, especially if you forget military nurses. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

How many biographies of nurses are included because of an award, rather than significant coverage in independent reliable sources? pburka (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Major awards are 'significant coverage in IRS'. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

An award from one's employer is hardly independent, and a wartime military actively involved in propaganda is hardly a reliable source. Does Nazi meteorologist Karl Brocks really deserve to be in this project? I'm just saying that if someone has the appetite to try to reform our inclusion criteria for war medals, it would tilt the needle a bit further towards equal coverage of women, and it would reduce the number of one-sided hagiographies of fascists, to boot. pburka (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Describing the US Medal of Honor as 'an award from your employer' is disingenuous at best. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The US military is not an independent source on its own members... JoelleJay (talk) 22:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Which is entirely irrelevant. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

It's quite relevant if you're claiming that the award itself is an independent source. And in the past the MOH was given out much more indiscriminately. Does this encyclopedia really need a page about James Brady (Medal of Honor), who earned the recognition in 1865 for "capture of flag"? (Nothing more is recorded about his actions.) pburka (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

No they're not... They're indicators that coverage in IRS can be presumed to exist but in no way do the awards themselves count towards notability. This is a rather common misconception among new Wikipedians, surprised to see it coming from you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Horse Eye's back: I'm not sure quite what you're saying here, but ANYBIO 1 offers a direct presumption of Notability (as GNG itself does); it doesn't offer a presumption of GNG SIGCOV. But I'm not clear whether that is what you're implying. Newimpartial (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The comment I am respond to is "Major awards are significant coverage in IRS." not "Major awards allow the presumption that significant coverage in IRS exists to be made." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Right, and I am not backing up the original statement to which you responded. I am pointing out that the presumption of Notability in ANYBIO 1 is direct; it is not predictive of "SIGGCOV in IRS", in case anyone in this discussion thought that was what it meant. Newimpartial (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Coverage of receiving the award may be SIGCOV in IRS if it's coming from a source that is not the awarding body, is not merely a rehash of a press release, and contains substantial biographical details. Receipt of the award itself (as verified through, e.g., a published list of all awardees) is obviously not SIGCOV in IRS. JoelleJay (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Johnbod, Ipigott, Victuallers, and Rosiestep: (and anyone else interested): I've finally written this up - Gender and BLPs on Wikipedia, redux.

Took a bit longer than anticipated since I ended up regenerating all the data, but there are now some hopefully clear graphs and about a thousand words of methodology to explain where it all came from. The headline figure for 1990/2000 non-athletes has actually gone up slightly, due to some weirdnesses around exactly how I was counting articles in the first draft.

Hopefully it all makes sense - please let me know if there's anything that needs clarifying. I can't promise to have time to delve too deeply into any more of it in the next couple of weeks, but I'll do my best. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Andrew Gray, for this more detailed presentation. I've mentioned it on the Metrics page but you might like to add further explanations. Perhaps it would be possible for you to include images of the graphs, ideally from Commons where others will be able to find them.--Ipigott (talk) 06:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you too, Andrew Gray. As you say, a graph that we never thought we'd see in our lifetime. I'm so pleased that in my mind this shows that Wikipedia's gender balance is a creation of history. If there is/was a plot to delete women from Wikipedia, then it is patently not working. The gender balance is being fixed for living women by Wikipedia editors (despite the editor gender bias). So eight years.... Victuallers (talk) 07:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you too, Andrew Gray. I think your findings definitely need more visibility and others should consider building on the research. I'm also curious if your findings regarding sports figures are replicated on other language Wikipedias. On EN-WP, I'm curious about other occupations besides sports figures. For example, in 2017, I attended a session at Wikimania Montreal regarding the increase in women scientist biographies ("Keilana effect"). --Rosiestep (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

This methodology is a bit hit-and-miss since it relies on a) almost everyone in the target class (athletes) having an infobox, and b) those infoboxes being distinctive (ie something like {{infobox footballer}}). Without that we'd need to find a different approach.

{{infobox scientist}} or {{infobox scientist/wikidata}} + known female is about 10,900 pages, which is significantly under the 23,516 pages reported by Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists, so I am not sure if this method would work reliably here.

For those that do have it, living people + {{infobox scientist}} or {{infobox scientist/wikidata}} is only about 24,500 pages total, and breaks down almost exactly 1/3 women (approx 8200). Andrew Gray (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I think we realise that you have done a bit of (very clever) best guessing, Andrew Gray. I wonder if the accuracy could be improved if wikidata could be persuaded that they need a machine readable version of "short desc" that is almost exactly like type of infobox on the en:wiki as it would only allow one choice to be made. (we could ignore the Seb Coe effect). This would benefit us as could populate it with out multi-lingual friends and then obtain better estimates.... (and the new field could be used bothers e.g. by the different language wikipedias to create a new "designer" infobox for each of the 300 wikipedias). Would wikidata consider this? Victuallers (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Victuallers I've been thinking about this and I'm not sure this would work well, to be honest. Forcing a single value from a strict taxonomy of categories isn't really how WD views the world, and - as we're seeing - it's not really how WP views the world either. We can look at someone and agree "yeah, I guess Coe is still more an athlete" but we wouldn't also say he shouldn't be counted as a politician, for example.

If we were to do this, it would duplicate a lot of what exists already, and need a lot of subjective decision-making - ie, a lot of human labour - for something that is only really needed for overview stats. Inevitably what would happen is that one group would want to slice the world into six groups to get stats from, and another would want to do ten, and before we know it everything is subclassed, and we kind of get back to where we started.

I think it's easiest just to acknowledge - yes, these numbers are probably fuzzy and we shouldn't look too closely at the edge cases, but at the high level of two million biographies, we can see some informative patterns. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I had thought about that too Andrew Gray, and if I had to sell it to the Wikidata community then I would say that Gender is the data model of where we oblige every example to have a single value. We don't worry too much when doing the analysis that gender too has fuzzy edges even when we break it down into a dozen sub-classes. Still you are closer to this that me and if you don't see it as useful then that convinces me. Victuallers (talk) 06:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Jacqueline Felgate

Jacqueline Felgate is a multi-award-winning journalist with 20 years' experience in broadcast, radio and print. Other presenters on shows and networks she has worked for have articles, and she is referred to in numerous articles. I've added a couple of links in articles where she's mentioned. Unfortunately I don't have time to write the article but hopefully someone can. Feuch24 (talk) 02:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I have started a draft: Draft:Jacqueline Felgate. Thriley (talk) 02:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

She has won two Melbourne Press Club Quill Awards and there's some more biographical info at these pages: [1][2]. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Religion editathon

Hello everyone! The Women in Religion WikiProject, a sister project to WIR and dedicated to many of the same goals (except we specifically focus on women in religion), are conducting our first in-person editathon in three years at the Parliament of the Worlds Religions on Tuesday, August 15 in Chicago, IL. So if you're not in Singapore for Wikimania, please join us! For more information, see here. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello Figureskatingfan, and thank you for the invitation! I see information about the in-person event in Chicago, but is there also a "virtual" component as most Women in Red editors are scattered across the globe? Thanks, and good luck with the event! --Rosiestep (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Rosie! Our monthly editathons are usually virtual, but since many of us will be in Chicago the usual week we have them, we decided to switch to all in-person this month. Our editathon is one of the sessions at the Parliament. We'll return to our normal virtual meetings in Sept. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Figureskatingfan: Please let me know if you need any assistance with the new articles created during your editathon. It would also be interesting to hear if you are able to attract new members of Women in Red.--Ipigott (talk) 08:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ipigott, will do. There's going to be at least one experienced Wikipedian who resides in Chicago in attendance. We're very excited! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Where to ask for help?

Hi, There was an article created on bioartist / BBC 100 woman Amy Karle by a Women in Red edit-a-thon in 2021, and it now has a template warning on it. I did what I could to clean up the article but could use more help from the editing community to ensure it is edited appropriately to meet BLP standards. Where is the best place to ask the Women in Red community to please help update the page and remove the template warning? Thank you ~~ ArtistWatch MuseumSurvey (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

ArtistWatch MuseumSurvey, here is fine.

There is an explanation of the tag at Talk:Amy Karle#Article needs to be rewritten. TSventon (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

AfC drafts for attention

There are some promising drafts way at the back of the queue (now at 4+ months again) that need some cleanup and/or ref-finding help, if anyone here has a moment:

• Draft:Esther Okenyuri Anyieni, an MP, obviously notable, WP:RS problems
• Draft:Elizabeth T. Girling, radio broadcaster with a significant archive, strongly suggesting notability, but no sigcov in article yet
• Draft:Catharine West, retired radiobiologist, easy WP:NPROF pass, needs cleanup/de-CV
• Draft:Charmaine Minniefield, Black diaspora artist, not sure if notable, refs turn out to be non-independent when you look closely
• Draft:Leticia Mumford Geer, a nurse who invented a kind of syringe, the article is unfortunately mostly about it and not her

Ones I mainspaced that could use some TLC:

• Marcia Jarmel, on the grounds that a director with multiple notable films is unlikely to be deleted at AfD, but this article is pretty thin. It would really benefit from someone who's good at trawling through newspapers.
• Shirley Jones (artist), written by someone very careful to avoid COI, could use some work by unrelated editors to flesh it out, looks like a fun project imo, and the COI editor (her son) is available for questions

That's all from the four-month+ category right now. -- asilvering (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Letitia Mumford Geer exists! PamD 23:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

So she does! I spent quite a bit of time working on the draft (unfortunately I hadn't seen your reply) only to stumble on her proper article just before hitting Submit. Oh well.

To avoid future confusion, I have redirected the draft to Letitia Mumford Geer. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

That is very odd. The AFC header normally picks up on those things, since you can't accept drafts that have something in mainspace with the same title. -- asilvering (talk) 05:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Draft title was misspelled! I've now made redirects from Leticia Mumford Geer and Leticia Geer. PamD 05:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@PamD, @MrsSnoozyTurtle - I just took a look at the article and I don't think that photo can be of Leticia Geer - it there must have been some confusion when @Rociofraguaspuy: uploaded it..? the arm reads Cadet Nurse, but I don't think that corps started until the 1940s, which is the year Geer died ... Lajmmoore (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Lajmmoore Well spotted: the photo was uploaded as "own work", which seems unlikely as she died in 1935, so I've nominated it for deletion. I imagine it's in one of the sources as a generic "image of nurse using a syringe", but from what you say it's an anchronism even so! Image was added to the article by an editor who adds a lot of images, so their work might merit a look by anyone interested in copyvio images. The editor who uploaded the file to Commons was the one who created the draft, and doesn't seem to have uploaded any more of their "own work". PamD 15:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

See this likely source. PamD 15:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Amazing detective work @PamD! Lajmmoore (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

It was in the first source in the article! PamD 18:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Yikes, thanks for the heads up. I think I counted 13 unlikely ones. Luckily only their most recent edits are adding photos, so that's all I've had to tag. -- asilvering (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

There's another AfC that I would happily review and publish if someone could quickly check the Spanish/German refs: Draft:Rita Payés. Her mother, Elisabeth Roma (here and here), is probably someone about whom we should have an article too. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Catharine West

This biography seems to meet WP:NPROF (as mentioned by Asilvering), however it has been recently declined due to promotionalism.

Could someone please help address the promotionalism? I have made some changes but am not sure whether it's enough to justify publication. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. I pulled some more CV-type stuff out, namely the table of roles - any of those that seem worth mentioning probably ought to go in prose rather than a list/table, so they have appropriate context and don't look like a CV. I don't see any reason this isn't mainspace-able as-is now, though I do think it would be better to integrate the section on her retirement conference into her biography. Very odd out there on the end like that. -- asilvering (talk) 04:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:FIFA World Cup#Requested move 12 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:FIFA World Cup#Requested move 12 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. BilledMammal (talk) 10:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Raising the importance of Timeline of women's education

Hi all, as some of you may know (I've asked about this page before), I've been editing the Timeline of women's education for the past few days and will continue to improve it in the days to come. I feel that this is an important list that can do a lot better and, as such, I'd like to see it go up in the importance scale as well.

Here's what I intend to do over the next few days:

1. Make sure everything is reliably and properly referenced
2. Remove the maintenance tag
3. Add new entries from 2016 to present day
4. Add new entries, where I can find them, for the rest of the timeline
5. Ideally, not sure if I can do this alone but the challenge seems interesting, improve the existing entries.

Any suggestions for what else I might do?

Thanks in advance!

UMStellify (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I notice there isn't anything about the Paris Commune in there (1871). There is almost certainly something that can be added about education, as many communardes were very committed to the idea of women's/girls' education. Off the top of my head I can't give you anything more specific, though I did translate Céleste Hardouin from fr-wiki and that might give you a start. -- asilvering (talk) 05:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for all the time and effort you are putting into this, UMStellify. The tables are coming along very well with good referencing. The main problem is that the timeline is becoming longer and longer (already up from 137,000 to 160,000 bytes) and you are not yet half way through. There might soon be a case for splitting the article into different periods along the lines of Timeline of women in war in the United States, pre-1945, etc., perhaps creating separate lists for the 19th century and for the 20th/21st centuries. It would also be useful to have many more articles on women's education by country, along the lines of Women's education in the United States. The only other countries which have such articles are Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Francoist Spain although several of the articles on education by country devote sections to women's education. As I am particularly interested in the Scandinavian countries, I could perhaps make a start on Women's education in Denmark, also covering the historical aspects. We could draw attention to this need the next time we have a monthly focus on education. Please let me know if you think I could help with anything specific. The only problem for me is that it takes me much longer to edit formatted lists than those with bullet points.--Ipigott (talk) 07:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Asilvering Thank you for the suggestions. I've noted them for when I add new entries to the timeline.

@Ipigott I'm glad you like it! And I am afraid that that might happen, as well. Some of the centuries are too long. But I still think it is important to have one central timeline with other branches that further expand or specialize, such as those of women's education in specific countries.

For now, I just ran a personal marathon of formatting the entire timeline and I'm completely spent. I'll get to the other edits after a break.

I would like to improve this article to GA or, if possible, FA status. That's where I think I'll need the most help and guidance.

Also, as you can see, I've now got a pretty good handle at editing formatted lists, so I'd be happy to help whenever you need me. UMStellify (talk) 10:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

UMStellify: I'm amazed at how quickly you've been able to complete the list formatting. Looks as if you're making good progress towards GA but it would help if you could add more images. As it's a timeline, you should be aiming for FL rather than FA. You might pick up some good ideas from the two women's timeline articles which have reached FL: Timeline of Jane Austen and Timeline of Mary Wollstonecraft. There's also Territorial evolution of the United States (GA) which is presented as a timeline. You should bring this to the attention of Alanna the Brave and other members of WP:Women in Green who specialize in promoting articles to GA class and beyond. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Haha, thank you. It was easy once I got in the groove. Images are on the agenda, right after I add all the missing references. And yes, I meant FL. Thanks for sharing the Austen and Wollstonecraft timelines, they'd be very helpful. I will reach out to @Alanna the Brave for GA review once I feel confident that I've done a good job. UMStellify (talk) 11:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ipigott: You'd be glad to know that I've found and added references for everything on the timeline ***happy dance***. UMStellify (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Ayla Karacabey

This new article could do with more eyes on it. I have twice reverted the removal of sourced info by an editor who is a subject expert and has written about Ayla Karacabey - as far as I can tell, the editor is not happy about the quality of her published research and does not wish it to be used in Wikipedia. I have started a discussion on the article's Talk page and there is also discussion at Meral Ekincioglu2023 (talk · contribs). Tacyarg (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Women in Morocco

If anyone is able to look at Women in Morocco, that would be good. The current version has a fragmentary sentence in the first paragraph: "Others adhere to an Arabized and Islamic . Independence from France in 1956.". I can see there were significant changes to the first paragraph in this edit in 2022. I can also see that that that paragraph is sourced to a blog which does not look like a reliable source, and which does not reflect the current content in that paragraph. I have posted to WP:Morocco but I'm not sure that is very active. Thanks, Tacyarg (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Tacyarg, I have deleted the passage you queried as either unsourced or unreliably sourced. TSventon (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

question for the hive mind

I have run across the red link for Louise Cook (Q18762031) http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18762031 she is the sister of Ida Cook who seems to be the more gregarious of the sisters. You see her article resides under Mary Burchell, her pen name. The sisters were inducted together as recipients of Righteous Among the Nations and have a double entry in wikidata Ida and Lousie Cook (Q58241650) http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q58241650. There is quite a bit out there about the sisters:

• https://www.newyorker.com/books/second-read/ida-and-louise-cook-two-unusual-heroines-of-the-second-world-war
• https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ida-and-louise-cook
• https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/ida-louise-cook-third-reich
• http://www.tracesofwar.com/persons/70623/Cook-Mary-Louise.htm
• https://righteous.yadvashem.org/?searchType=righteous_only&language=en&itemId=4021818&ind=NaN
• https://www.stitcher.com/show/history-unplugged-podcast/episode/two-british-sisters-a-typist-and-a-romance-novelist-save-jewish-artists-from-the-holocaust-with-a-clever-con-involving-opera-210304513

Ida's memoir has been re-released (again) "The Bravest Voices: The Extraordinary Heroism of Sisters Ida and Louise Cook during the Era" and a new book is out about the "Overture of Hope: Two Sisters' Daring Plan that Saved Opera's Jewish Stars from the Third Reich".

So, my question is, how should we cover Louise? I think she should have her own article, even though she is often folded into Ida's story. Or maybe there should be and article on the sisters. They are so often lumped together. Appreciate any thoughts, and also, anyone wanting to take the lead is welcome to. Thanks WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• WomenArtistUpdates: As we already have an article on Ida, I think you should try to put something together on Louise. There might also be a case for a separate article on Ida's memoir. I think there should also be two separate entries on Wikidata. Grouping two people under one heading is not ideal.--Ipigott (talk) 11:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Mary Louise Cook  Done Thanks! WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Charlotte Johnson

Anyone feel like working on an article about Barbie's first clothing designer? I found a photo; there are articles about her, e.g. https://omaha.com/entertainment/barbie-and-the-omaha-woman-who-co-created-her/article_35864996-536a-5f02-ab82-c9de644eb1d9.html Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 23:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

"Bestselling author Kate Mosse urges budding historians and writers to add more biographies of women to Wikipedia"

Cross-posting from Facebook's "Wikipedia Weekly": https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12257295/Kate-Mosse-urges-budding-historians-writers-add-biographies-women-Wikipedia.html -- Rosiestep (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Well spotted. Now on our Press page. Pity no one will be able to cite this, now that we have listed the Daily Mail as an unreliable source.--Ipigott (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Is this copy of the article, at This is Money website, citable? PamD 11:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Nope. Kingsif (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

She brought up the same talking points in this interview with The Wick, which is probably sufficiently reliable. pburka (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

More background here and here. Additions could no doubt be made to her biography.--Ipigott (talk) 06:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @Ipigott That's so interesting, and has passed me by, thus far. Has anyone already checked out her list of 500 women, linked from the bottom of that first of Ian's links, here? I've just had a look at the women with initial "D", a sample of 18, and am happy to report that we've got articles on them all ... though I've created a redirect from Mary M. Daly to Marie Maynard Daly (there was already one from Mary Maynard Daly), and from the incorrect Levitt Dorothy to the correct Dorothy Levitt.

The article (published "31 Mar"; 2022 I think) says "...the first 500 names, which were published on 8 March, International Women's Day. The next 500 will be announced in April. As so many people wanted to nominate trailblazers who are living today, there will also be a list entitled "Living Legends". ": has anyone come across the April list, or the BLP one? PamD 09:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I checked the entries for "E" as well: just the one new redirect needed, from Elizabeth Elmy. That lady, Elizabeth Clarke Wolstenholme-Elmy, has a vast collection of useful incoming redirects already, was just missing the one in Kate's list. PamD 09:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Here are remaining redlinks from the list after redirects have been provided:

• Madelaine Boullen 18th C (redirected to Madeleine Boullogne - pam's guess seems very likely Johnbod (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC))
• Valentine Bussiere 1921-1944 (Resistance fighter (probably not RS), surprisingly not in fr.wiki, a nursery and several streets seem to be named after her)
• Marion Frost 1897-1936 (dates are right to be Marian Frost, pioneering librarian: obit in Nature, and more )
• Jos Gemmeke 1922-2010 (Times obit)
• Patricia McCaul Collins 1917-1995 (Irish soroptimist and founder of special school PamD)
• Ena McEntee 1926-1995 (rescued women from Magdalen Laundries, Ireland)
• Hilda Richardson 1926-2000 (glaciologist and soroptimist)
• Dorothy Rundle 1932-2016 (aka Deri Rundle, author of self-published Never Again, here's a soroptimist source)
• Rosina Sky 20th C (Essex suffragette)

Dsp13 (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, where did this list come from? "Drusilla Livia 58-29 BCE" is surely Livia (Mrs Augustus) - Livia Drusilla (30 January 59 BC – AD 29) - note the era change. There are typos Margaret Benticnk 1715-1785 is Margaret Bentinck, Duchess of Portland. Some of the indian ones may be hard to find, with many spellings. "Sheikha Hasina 1947-2021" is surely Sheikh Hasina, born in 1947 but still very much alive and Prime Minister of Bangladesh. Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Johnbod, the link for the list was posted earlier and is here. TSventon (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Were we supposed to be missing all these? Johnbod (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it is a list of overlooked women, crowdsourced via #WomanInHistory, not of women without Wikipedia articles. TSventon (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I can't find anything for Marion Frost (1897–1936). I tried a number of possible name variants, but no hits. Anyone have an idea who this is? pburka (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC) Looks like PamD figured it out! pburka (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I think I've identified all of them except the 18th-century Madelaine Boullen, and have added links which might help anyone who feels inspired to create articles. Notability might be a bit marginal for some. Good luck. PamD 19:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Could she be Madeleine Boullogne (1646-1710), artist, I wonder? PamD 19:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Obit in Nature is for Marion Frost 1876–1935, which does not quite agree with 1897–1936. Of course the latter dates could be wrong. TSventon (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Marian. And yes, the birth date is different. Hmm. Any other ideas? PamD 15:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I looked and Marian Frost, Rebel Victorian Librarian was the only candidate I could find. Some books call her Marion. There may be more clues in the social media relating to #WomanInHistory. TSventon (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

While most of the redirects are from variant/wrong versions of names, a few are only to mentions in articles:

• Luce Black may or may not have been Shakespeare's "Dark Lady", but seems to have been a real person (or two)
• Kezia Hayter redirects to a quilt she may have coordinated, which has a redlink for her as Kezia Elizabeth Hayter - that needs to be an incoming redirect, if (looks likely) nothing more can be found about her
• Elsa Holzer redirects to a page which mentions her (but she isn't in de.wiki where one might expect to see her)

The rest are a fairly amazing bunch between them, including a human cannon ball. "Rose Nangeli" is, I think, a totally fictitious version of Nangeli, misunderstood from the sentence "In such an exploitative society, the story goes, rose Nangeli, an Ezhava woman who protested the unfair tax system by chopping her breasts off"! Of such stuff are confused stories made, but a redirect is worthwhile. It's been fun hunting down these women. Has anyone seen the other two promised lists from Kate Mosse, I wonder? A second 500 was promised for April, and another list of living people. PamD 15:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

PamD, I haven't seen the promised lists, but I have found a book, which I have not seen mentioned here, via Google books: Mosse, Kate (2022). Warrior Queens & Quiet Revolutionaries. Pan Macmillan. ISBN 9781529092219.. According to the author's note We published the first one thousand names on International Women's Day , 8 March 2021, which does not agree with what was linked previously, and the book contains nearly a thousand names, obviously not all visible via Google books. TSventon (talk) 13:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Olga Paredes

Another editor has created a new entry for Olga Paredes.

Improvements welcome! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)