This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Donna Strickland article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
Frequently asked questions Why didn't Wikipedia have an article on Strickland before she won a Nobel Prize?
The current version of this article was created in October 2018, shortly after Strickland won the Nobel Prize. Before that, there were two unsuccessful attempts to create an article about her. The first, in 2014, was
immediately deleted because the entire text was copied from another website, infringing the original author's copyright. The second attempt, in March 2018, was via the
articles for creation process, where new users submit drafts to be reviewed by another editor before it is published.
Draft:Donna Strickland was submitted for review once. It was declined because the reviewer decided that the references it cited did not establish the notability of the subject. The creator of the draft did not attempt to submit it for review again and the page was not edited again until October 2018, when it was redirected to this newly-created article. Further reading: Erhart, Ed (4 October 2018). "Why Didn't Wikipedia Have an Article on Donna Strickland, Winner of a Nobel Prize?". San Francisco: Wikimedia Foundation. Was this article previously deleted because Wikipedia editors thought that Strickland was not notable?
No. One previous attempt to create this article, in 2014, was
deleted because it was
copyright infringement. In March 2018, an editor declined to publish a
draft article on Strickland, but this draft was not deleted; it remained in existence until it was superseded by the current version of the article, created in October 2018. The reviewer's
pro forma reason for declining included a link to our
notability guidelines for biographies, but in a
subsequent discussion most editors agreed that Strickland was notable before she won the Nobel Prize. The reviewer clarified that they agreed that Strickland was notable, but had declined to publish the draft because at the time it did not include any references to
independent, reliable sources. Why is the controversy over Strickland's Wikipedia article not mentioned in this article?
The subject of this article is Donna Strickland and her work,
not the article itself. Although there has been a significant coverage of the fact that there was no Wikipedia article on Strickland until she won a Nobel Prize, these sources are about this article, not about Strickland. A
self-reference to it here would therefore be putting
undue weight on an incident which is not a significant aspect of Strickland's life or work. The incident is instead mentioned in our article about
criticism of Wikipedia. Whether to include it in this article has been discussed
here,
here, and
here, with the
consensus being against inclusion for the time being. This
can change, for example if the 'Wikipedia incident' becomes a significant part of Strickland's biography as recounted in reliable sources, as opposed to just a frequently-cited example of the shortcomings of Wikipedia. |
![]() | A news item involving Donna Strickland was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 2 October 2018. | ![]() |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest and
neutral point of view. Their edits to this article were last checked for neutrality on 20:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC). Error: Disclosures that use the |checked= parameter should also use |editedhere=yes for at least one contributor.
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 January 2020 and 10 April 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Peer reviewers:
Chemistry Pink Lady.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I work for the Optical Society and noticed that there is some editing work happening to round out this profile. I noticed it was missing images and some content. I'm currently assisting with updating the bio on our website as Dr. Strickland has been actively involved with the society including as our 2013 President and we've seen a lot of interest for obvious reasons today. I don't want to make any edits myself due to COI but I wanted to extend the offer of assistance in acquiring media or information/references if desired. - Tinynull ( talk) 22:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Carries mum added personal details about Strickland's children, which were incorrectly sourced, i.e. this one [1] doesn't mention her being her daughter. Her edit summary was…"I met Donna at an NSERC event at York University on Thursday 5 October and while we were chatting about her Nobel Prize win, she told me that she wanted details about her adult children added to her Wikipedia page. This is especially relevant given that she is a woman in STEM and her daughter is following in her Physics footsteps. I have done as she requested." I am not adverse to her children being mentioned but please can we have better sources? Theroadislong ( talk) 12:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Theroadislong, I apologize -- I'm not very good at this wikipedia chat thing. I hope I'm doing this right. Thanks for explaining -- I will ask Bryan Gaensler and Donna Strickland if and how they want to handle this. cheers, User:Carries mum —Preceding undated comment added 12:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Dear Theroadislong, I have found an independent source for Hannah Dykaar -- it is a Globe and Mail article ( https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-canadian-scientist-donna-strickland-shares-nobel-physics-prize/). Aparently, Hannah's FB post/page is also open.
This is from the Globe and Mail article: "Certainly, Dr. Strickland does not have to go far to serve as a role model to young female researchers. She and her husband, Doug Dykaar, also a physicist, have two children, including a daughter, Hannah, who is a graduate student in astrophysics at the University of Toronto.
Ms. Dykaar said that at first she thought her mother’s phone had been hacked when she got a text from her telling her about the Nobel prize." Carries mum ( talk) 13:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
If we are going to mention the children by name, shouldn't we clarify whether they carry the name Strickland or Dykaar or some combination? The source for the daughter ( https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-canadian-scientist-donna-strickland-shares-nobel-physics-prize/) identifies the daughter as Hannah and Ms. Dykaar but the source given for the son ( https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/oct/20/nobel-laureate-donna-strickland-i-see-myself-as-a-scientist-not-a-woman-in-science) doesn't contain the personal name given here (Adam) or clarify his surname, only listing him as "son". I lean towards just describing them as son and daughter, but we should definitely source whatever we use. -- Khajidha ( talk) 21:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I feel the wikipedia incident related to Strickland & this article should be mentioned in a line or two.
... and link to article about the topic.
ee --
88.111.90.165 (
talk)
04:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
it has been discussed in details here https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/we-need-talk-wikipedia-jessi-hempel/?trk=eml-email_feed_ecosystem_digest_01-recommended_articles-7-Unknown&midToken=AQEDrRWco2Ykhw&fromEmail=fromEmail&ut=3cXNeIVEEiYUw1 it boils down to increasing Wikipedia capacity to better process request by encouraging users to donate to ultimately being able to rely on the info wikipedia publishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edekkar ( talk • contribs) 13:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
"The consensus thus far is to exclude." - sounds like you guys are just trying to hide your shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.162.155.29 ( talk) 02:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
To repeat, WP:SUBJECT is clear that "If publicity regarding an article is significant enough to be included in Wikipedia, that information would not be included in the article, unless it is relevant to the topic of the article itself." The subject the media were excited about is Criticism of Wikipedia#Notability of article topics, where this article is already covered. At the top of this thread is a request for those complaining to look at Talk:Donna Strickland/Archive 1#Material on AfC rejection onwards – clear consensus not to include had been reached by Talk:Donna Strickland/Archive 2#Wikipedia Controversy Section. So, the discussion is stale, unless and until new sources show direct relevance to Donna herself. . . . dave souza, talk 07:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
The incident is indeed covered at Criticism of Wikipedia#Notability of article topics and rather more strongly in my essay at User:Andrewa/Why they do not want you to use Wikipedia#News sources.
IMO the incident should be covered in the article on her if and only if it receives more significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. It may even be that there is enough coverage for a separate mainspace article on the incident. But all I see outside of Wikipedia so far is a media beatup, with some lobbyists predictably jumping on the bandwagon to bang their own drums. So it would be undue weight IMO to even mention it at this stage. Wikipedia is important but not that important! Andrewa ( talk) 19:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
This was just recently published:
Allow me a short note: In Wikipedia it is quite normal that sometimes a person is announced to be a new Nobel prize winner, but that we (in en.WP) still have no article about the person. In the ten years before Strickland, that happened roughly in 7 procent of the cases. Men and women alike. Ziko ( talk) 19:34, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/wikipedia-bias-1.6129073 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.190.23 ( talk • contribs) 12:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Donna Strickland article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
Frequently asked questions Why didn't Wikipedia have an article on Strickland before she won a Nobel Prize?
The current version of this article was created in October 2018, shortly after Strickland won the Nobel Prize. Before that, there were two unsuccessful attempts to create an article about her. The first, in 2014, was
immediately deleted because the entire text was copied from another website, infringing the original author's copyright. The second attempt, in March 2018, was via the
articles for creation process, where new users submit drafts to be reviewed by another editor before it is published.
Draft:Donna Strickland was submitted for review once. It was declined because the reviewer decided that the references it cited did not establish the notability of the subject. The creator of the draft did not attempt to submit it for review again and the page was not edited again until October 2018, when it was redirected to this newly-created article. Further reading: Erhart, Ed (4 October 2018). "Why Didn't Wikipedia Have an Article on Donna Strickland, Winner of a Nobel Prize?". San Francisco: Wikimedia Foundation. Was this article previously deleted because Wikipedia editors thought that Strickland was not notable?
No. One previous attempt to create this article, in 2014, was
deleted because it was
copyright infringement. In March 2018, an editor declined to publish a
draft article on Strickland, but this draft was not deleted; it remained in existence until it was superseded by the current version of the article, created in October 2018. The reviewer's
pro forma reason for declining included a link to our
notability guidelines for biographies, but in a
subsequent discussion most editors agreed that Strickland was notable before she won the Nobel Prize. The reviewer clarified that they agreed that Strickland was notable, but had declined to publish the draft because at the time it did not include any references to
independent, reliable sources. Why is the controversy over Strickland's Wikipedia article not mentioned in this article?
The subject of this article is Donna Strickland and her work,
not the article itself. Although there has been a significant coverage of the fact that there was no Wikipedia article on Strickland until she won a Nobel Prize, these sources are about this article, not about Strickland. A
self-reference to it here would therefore be putting
undue weight on an incident which is not a significant aspect of Strickland's life or work. The incident is instead mentioned in our article about
criticism of Wikipedia. Whether to include it in this article has been discussed
here,
here, and
here, with the
consensus being against inclusion for the time being. This
can change, for example if the 'Wikipedia incident' becomes a significant part of Strickland's biography as recounted in reliable sources, as opposed to just a frequently-cited example of the shortcomings of Wikipedia. |
![]() | A news item involving Donna Strickland was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 2 October 2018. | ![]() |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest and
neutral point of view. Their edits to this article were last checked for neutrality on 20:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC). Error: Disclosures that use the |checked= parameter should also use |editedhere=yes for at least one contributor.
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 January 2020 and 10 April 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Peer reviewers:
Chemistry Pink Lady.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I work for the Optical Society and noticed that there is some editing work happening to round out this profile. I noticed it was missing images and some content. I'm currently assisting with updating the bio on our website as Dr. Strickland has been actively involved with the society including as our 2013 President and we've seen a lot of interest for obvious reasons today. I don't want to make any edits myself due to COI but I wanted to extend the offer of assistance in acquiring media or information/references if desired. - Tinynull ( talk) 22:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Carries mum added personal details about Strickland's children, which were incorrectly sourced, i.e. this one [1] doesn't mention her being her daughter. Her edit summary was…"I met Donna at an NSERC event at York University on Thursday 5 October and while we were chatting about her Nobel Prize win, she told me that she wanted details about her adult children added to her Wikipedia page. This is especially relevant given that she is a woman in STEM and her daughter is following in her Physics footsteps. I have done as she requested." I am not adverse to her children being mentioned but please can we have better sources? Theroadislong ( talk) 12:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Theroadislong, I apologize -- I'm not very good at this wikipedia chat thing. I hope I'm doing this right. Thanks for explaining -- I will ask Bryan Gaensler and Donna Strickland if and how they want to handle this. cheers, User:Carries mum —Preceding undated comment added 12:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Dear Theroadislong, I have found an independent source for Hannah Dykaar -- it is a Globe and Mail article ( https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-canadian-scientist-donna-strickland-shares-nobel-physics-prize/). Aparently, Hannah's FB post/page is also open.
This is from the Globe and Mail article: "Certainly, Dr. Strickland does not have to go far to serve as a role model to young female researchers. She and her husband, Doug Dykaar, also a physicist, have two children, including a daughter, Hannah, who is a graduate student in astrophysics at the University of Toronto.
Ms. Dykaar said that at first she thought her mother’s phone had been hacked when she got a text from her telling her about the Nobel prize." Carries mum ( talk) 13:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
If we are going to mention the children by name, shouldn't we clarify whether they carry the name Strickland or Dykaar or some combination? The source for the daughter ( https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-canadian-scientist-donna-strickland-shares-nobel-physics-prize/) identifies the daughter as Hannah and Ms. Dykaar but the source given for the son ( https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/oct/20/nobel-laureate-donna-strickland-i-see-myself-as-a-scientist-not-a-woman-in-science) doesn't contain the personal name given here (Adam) or clarify his surname, only listing him as "son". I lean towards just describing them as son and daughter, but we should definitely source whatever we use. -- Khajidha ( talk) 21:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I feel the wikipedia incident related to Strickland & this article should be mentioned in a line or two.
... and link to article about the topic.
ee --
88.111.90.165 (
talk)
04:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
it has been discussed in details here https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/we-need-talk-wikipedia-jessi-hempel/?trk=eml-email_feed_ecosystem_digest_01-recommended_articles-7-Unknown&midToken=AQEDrRWco2Ykhw&fromEmail=fromEmail&ut=3cXNeIVEEiYUw1 it boils down to increasing Wikipedia capacity to better process request by encouraging users to donate to ultimately being able to rely on the info wikipedia publishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edekkar ( talk • contribs) 13:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
"The consensus thus far is to exclude." - sounds like you guys are just trying to hide your shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.162.155.29 ( talk) 02:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
To repeat, WP:SUBJECT is clear that "If publicity regarding an article is significant enough to be included in Wikipedia, that information would not be included in the article, unless it is relevant to the topic of the article itself." The subject the media were excited about is Criticism of Wikipedia#Notability of article topics, where this article is already covered. At the top of this thread is a request for those complaining to look at Talk:Donna Strickland/Archive 1#Material on AfC rejection onwards – clear consensus not to include had been reached by Talk:Donna Strickland/Archive 2#Wikipedia Controversy Section. So, the discussion is stale, unless and until new sources show direct relevance to Donna herself. . . . dave souza, talk 07:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
The incident is indeed covered at Criticism of Wikipedia#Notability of article topics and rather more strongly in my essay at User:Andrewa/Why they do not want you to use Wikipedia#News sources.
IMO the incident should be covered in the article on her if and only if it receives more significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. It may even be that there is enough coverage for a separate mainspace article on the incident. But all I see outside of Wikipedia so far is a media beatup, with some lobbyists predictably jumping on the bandwagon to bang their own drums. So it would be undue weight IMO to even mention it at this stage. Wikipedia is important but not that important! Andrewa ( talk) 19:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
This was just recently published:
Allow me a short note: In Wikipedia it is quite normal that sometimes a person is announced to be a new Nobel prize winner, but that we (in en.WP) still have no article about the person. In the ten years before Strickland, that happened roughly in 7 procent of the cases. Men and women alike. Ziko ( talk) 19:34, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/wikipedia-bias-1.6129073 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.190.23 ( talk • contribs) 12:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)