This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
with the article White slave propaganda. I initially rewrote this article because of a concern about very close paraphrasing. Minor COI - I know the person whose article was closely paraphrased. She didn't have a problem with it, but I did. My problem is about the word "propaganda" in the title (it is about propaganda in a purely academic sense, but not in the usual meaning of the word), but especially in the emotional content of the article. I just can't keep an NPOV in my own head. At first I thought the article was about race, but just scratching below the surface, it is all about sexual exploitation and rape, not to mention fathers selling their children into slavery and concubinage. So I can't keep a straight head here. Could anybody lend a hand? Smallbones( smalltalk) 16:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
RfC of interest to this project: Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Adding_ways_to_assess_Systemic_Bias_to_WP:N. Montanabw (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, folks. I've written a mostly complete article about a female scientist, currently at User:GRuban/Rebecca Moore. However, I have a conflict of interest: I work for her. I'm a couple of levels below, and my project is not one she's very involved with, she sort of got it grafted on to her team in a company reorganization because it had to go somewhere, so I only see her a few times a year, and it won't be mentioned anywhere in her article, but still, it's formally a pretty clear conflict. So I'd like to ask a favor of the group; that someone, hopefully several someones, go over it, to make sure it isn't being written as a puff piece, and then, if/when any issues are resolved, push it live, to avoid the COI of being written by an employee, as much as possible. I've asked our venerable founder Sarah (SV), and she seems to approve, her comments are on the article talk page. Another person suggested I specifically ask @ Keilana:; asking her too! Basically I want to cross as many ts and dot as many is as I can and still have the article be written; Moore's a thoroughly worthy article subject, environmentalist, global impact, international awards, the works. Please add comments about the article on that talk page; again, while I'll certainly accept and respond to general fixes, the most important thing is to get it to where multiple people can say with a clean heart that this isn't being written from a COI point of view, enough that they'll endorse it going live as a non-COI article. -- GRuban ( talk) 13:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I've worked with replacement of oversexualized images of women's garments for a while now. There's still a lot to be done, though. Until just a few days ago, miniskirt had this photo as the lead image. I was involved in cleaning up bra a while back, but articles like bikini, thong (clothing), undergarment, etc. could really use a critical review.
I believe neutrality of illustrations is still something that is still pretty new to Wikimedia projects overall, especially when it comes to gender issues. I was thinking that an essay on this might be relevant, but since I haven't worked much with essays before (either here or elsewhere), I thought I'd throw out the suggestion here first.
Peter Isotalo 21:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Avoid images that objectify women. In particular, do not use pornography images in articles that are not about pornography. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images states that "photographs taken in a pornography context would normally be inappropriate for articles about human anatomy."
Except when the topic is necessarily tied to it (examples: downblouse and upskirt), avoid examples of male-gaze imagery, where women are presented as objects of heterosexual male appreciation.
Except when the topic is necessarily tied to it (examples: downblouse and upskirt), avoid images that objectify women by presenting them as objects of heterosexual male appreciation.
Thanks. For future reference, how is that different from the way I wrote it, so that she was able to convince you and I wasn't?-- GRuban ( talk) 12:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
The avoidance of the male gaze is the easiest way to sum this up, but I didn't use the phrase above because I knew GRuban would object. Such is the self-censorship. It's not an obscure term but is widely used and understood, and it's precisely what is meant here – namely that men control the representation of women on Wikipedia, and they regularly choose images that please other men, rather than images that depict women as we see ourselves. SarahSV (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
To address Johnbod's point, I can't think of a situation in which articles about Ancient Greece would be affected. We don't represent black people with racist imagery, but that doesn't mean we can't illustrate articles about lynching. But it can be made explicit within the proposal:
Avoid images that present women as objects of sexual desire, unless the topic necessitates it. Examples of the latter would include certain art and history articles, and articles that are actually about sexual or sexist representations (such as downblouse and upskirt).
SarahSV (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm interested to know who is responsible for the content and management of the WP facebook page. There are a couple of issues with the page IMO - first, the content continues the gender bias of the encyclopedia in terms of biographies of men vs women posted. And second, the admins of the page allow anti-women comments to remain on the page without challenging or removing them. For example, today an admin posted about an ancient item, describing it as "the only example known to man". A woman has posted a comment challenging their use of this old fashioned and sexist phrase, and there are now about 30 replies to that comment - most of which attack her personally, swear at her, tell her to go away, call her crass names etc etc. Meanwhile the WP admins have done nothing about this. There is no comeback from WP in terms of setting the tone of the conversation on their facebook page, or protecting people from attack from others, or ensuring it's a safe place to state an opinion. Nothing. Very disappointing and doesn't encourage women to engage with the encyclopedia when this type of communication is tolerated on its public fb page. Thoughts? MurielMary ( talk) 02:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
There is no comeback from WP in terms of setting the tone of the conversation on their facebook page, or protecting people from attack from others, or ensuring it's a safe place to state an opinion. Nothing.That sounds like Wikipedia's usual response to all harassment everywhere: Do nothing and hope it goes away on its own. Why would Facebook be any different? — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 03:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
While it's tragic to have lost these wonderful women, it's great to see that the Recent Deaths section on the main page is 100% women bios at present. Four out of four possible slots are on recently deceased women. I think this is a direct result of the recent change in criteria for RD nominations, whereby notability is no longer contested - simply having an article of sufficient quality and the death being announced in the news is enough for an article to be listed there. Previously, nominations of articles on women for the RD section were frequently opposed on the grounds of lack of notability, which was often (IMO) a result of unconscious gender bias. Anyway, nice to see some more women-centred content on the main page, even if it is in the sad section of deaths. MurielMary ( talk) 02:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Seems like this discussion could be of direct interest to our project. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Damage_done_by_declining_AFC
-- GRuban ( talk) 19:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
A discussion on the use of the word "aviatrix" has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#"Aviatrix", which may interest users who watch this page. — Granger ( talk · contribs) 02:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
This is a request for people (especially females) from the GGTF to give their presumably relatively 'expert' opinion on allegations of 'sexism' raised by males on opposing sides of the current proposal to delete or merge the article " Iron Lady". Basically would a deletion and/or a merge and/or retention be (presumably unintentionally) sexist in practice? The proposed deletion and/or merge is here, and my request for comments is here. Any such comments would perhaps be more usefully left there than here, though if you prefer to leave them here instead, please feel free to do so. Tlhslobus ( talk) 03:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, folks. I'm gathering references in User:GRuban/Becca Pizzi for a woman who's a single mom, and manages an ice cream store, but is notable for winning a series of seven consecutive marathons in seven days on seven continents. She won every one of the seven, individually and in total, and was the first American woman to run the series, and set a record for it, and had long, indepth stories written about how she was going to run, and how she was running, and how she finished and won, by local sources (Belmont Citizen-Herald, Boston Globe), and distant sources (Miami Herald, Kansas City Star), and athletic sources (Runner's World, ESPN), and national sources (Wall Street Journal, CBS News), steadily over a series of 5 months. But, that's really her main reason for notability. (Well, she had a parade held in her name, and had a tribute read into the Congressional Record, and got a marriage proposal on the pitcher's mound of Fenway Park while she was supposed to throw out a baseball; but that all stems from the marathon.) So there could be an argument made that that's all WP:BLP1E. I think she meets notability criteria, at least WP:GNG, if not WP:ATHLETE. But that's me. I'd like to have someone agree with that, that she almost certainly hasn't served ice cream to. (Honestly I'm not sure; I definitely had some at the place I've since read she manages, but don't really recall who was serving it at the time. I certainly haven't spoken to her for anything other than "extra sprinkles, please".) -- GRuban ( talk) 00:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Greetings, Gender gap task force! I've developed a new tool called Cartograph that visualizes Wikipedia articles as an interactive map. The first map visualizes gender focus in Wikipedia articles. Would you test out Cartograph and let me know your thoughts? More info at meta research page Shilad ( talk) 08:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
A discussion on the use of the phrase “crewed space flights" as opposed to “manned space flights” has been started at Talk:Moon, which may interest users who watch this page. Handthrown ( talk) 18:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Dear GGTF members, Siko Bouterse and I ( Anasuya Sengupta) recently co-founded the campaign Whose Knowledge?, to make the internet a little less male, white, straight, and global North in origin. It's our attempt to address systemic bias both on Wikipedia (and other Wikimedia projects) and in other critical spaces on the internet.
tl;dr This message gives you a few updates on our work so far, and invites you to support us - in commenting on/endorsing a Wikimedia project grant we're applying for, and in joining us in the newly recognised Whose Knowledge? Wikimedia user group.
We'd love to have you participate in any way you like! Please let us know if you have any questions. Thanks, Anasuyas ( talk) 01:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
1st, it's been a rough week.
2nd, a small question that I've run into a couple of times, and thought I'd finally ask.
My maternal grandmother, born Dorothy Smallbone, always insisted that we address letters to her "Mrs. Peter XXXX" where XXXX was my grandfather's family name. It's her use of *his* first name that I'm asking about. My grandmother was not a feminist, but was the strongest willed person I ever met, no beaten down victim of male hegemony. She would have been insulted being referred to as "Mrs. Dorothy XXXX". My mother disagreed, but deferred to her mother's wishes in that single case. I've run into similar usage several times on Wikipedia and thought I'd better ask what is preferred here.
The particular instance that made me think about this is the "Mrs. C.M. Schwab School" in Weatherly, Pennsylvania. This is the official name. It was paid for by Eurana Dickey Schwab, wife of the steel magnate Charles M. Schwab. She was obviously more responsible than he was. He managed to build and then fritter away a fortune from the 2nd largest steel company in the world. I imagine she would prefer the official name. Any suggestions?
Smallbones( smalltalk) 17:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I checked my Notifications on m:The wiki way just now and noticed that my 18 June 2015 edit to use more gender-inclusive language had been reverted.
More troublingly, however, was that, if one were to look at the page's revision history ( m:The wiki way) one could see that I clearly explained my reasoning in the edit (edit number 12456750):
"Due to Gender bias on Wikipedia, corrected the exclusionary "himself" to a more inclusive, unbiased "themself." Although purists may complain that "themself" is incorrect agreement this usage helps to not shun female Wikipedians as unwanted outcasts"
More importantly, it's not so much that it got reverted, so much as that the (anonymous/IP only) user who reverted it apparently not only ignored my well-explained reasoning (in the Revision History) but furthermore made what seems to be a rather snide, curt, brash, and condescending reason for their edit (edit number 12652146):
"Really? check grammar pls"
While this just now came to my attention (because I rarely visit WikiMedia and it seems that Notifications don't universally display across all WMF accounts, e.g. from signing into Wikipedia), it is disconcerting to me. Further, I realize it's only one word on one page, but considering that it's an important, foundational "Wikimedian Philosophy" type of page, I would think that of all places it should be one of the most inclusive, so as to encourage maximal users to contribute.
Nota Bene: Instead of reverting it wholly to "themself" I actually used "herself," which is equally "incorrect" (from a prescriptivist's standpoint), but this is concerning to me and I don't want pages like that to seem alienating. Especially considering that bullet-point 8 in the article Nine Reasons Women Don’t Edit Wikipedia (in their own words) found/suggested on m:Gender gap#Read touches on this very same point: that language itself can be alienating to would-be users.
To be honest I can't tell whether this is the right place to voice this type of concern, but it was the best/closest I could find, considering the bullet-point "The talk page is for friendly discussion about how to close Wikipedia's gender gap, including asking for help with articles, AfDs, etc." above.
Thoughts? Insight? I feel like this, although just one word, is a pretty glaring example of language being exclusionary and hurting the efforts of "closing the gender gap," but I'm not sure if I'm being crazy and too radical about this. IDK what the solution would/could be, but it's concerning, so I felt it necessary to discuss.
PolymathGirl ( talk) 04:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for all you help, suggestions, and guidance to those pages, Iadmc!
Simply out of curiosity (because perhaps I don't understand), why would simply wiki-->"WikiWiki" (antiquated name, IIRC) suggest vandalism? (perhaps I don't quite understand what, exactly specifically, constitutes "vandalism," as I've seen Userboxes advertise "this user has been vandalized X times" and have wondered "huh? How?"). Good to know though!
Thanks again for your help!!! PolymathGirl ( talk) 04:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I and I'm sure millions of others have been linked into a lot of articles on various chess positions and terminology this past month, and at least half of those used male pronouns by default as early as the lead, e.g. in Giuoco Piano: "Black aims to free his game by exchanging pieces..., or to hold his center pawn at e5." Actually, if the article didn't assume male pronouns in the lead I think every single one did so at least once in the body. Did I mention that Western chess might have a historically entrenched systematic male bias? Long-story short, I think every chess article needs a once-over on assuming all players are men. I cross-posted this on WikiProject Chess also. SamuelRiv ( talk) 09:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
When you changed it to:Black aims to free his game by exchanging pieces and playing the pawn break ...d5, or to hold his center pawn at e5.
... if I were a beginner player, it would be confusing, and I just might quit when still learning the game. ("Black aims to free their own game" ... what is the author trying to tell me? Does she mean Black aims to free each of their games maybe?! "[Black aims] to hold their center pawn at e5." Huh?! Is the author trying to tell me that the black pawn on e5, is somehow considered center pawn for *both* sides!? Or is it an objective in the game for both sides to strive for a center pawn on e5!? Perhaps that's a chess openings concept I missed somewhere when I started to learn this game!? Should I go back and read over again the chess opening introductory material I read before, to see where I may have missed!? Oh heck, I knew chess was for super-smart people, and I'd probably never 'get' this game. I give up!")That is a conceivable scenario you introduced by your strict gender-neutral obsession-fever, calling me out for "Black aims to free their own game by exchanging pieces and playing the pawn break ...d5, or to hold their center pawn at e5.
MOS violation" and chiding me by inappropriately assuming I'm cool with plural pronoun "they" substituting for singular generic pronoun "he", when I didn't and don't, when I reverted your ambiguous misleading "Black aims to free their game". How about improving articles for ease of understanding for the beginning player, rather than toss her a curve ball to wade through so you can feel happy you have bowed to the MOS God with strict adherence and gained the admiration of other socially contrived gender-neutral warriors? IHTS ( talk) 11:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Why not just use "the"? I.e. "Black aims to free the game by exchanging pieces..., or to hold the center pawn at e5." Works in the plural, too... — Iadmc ♫ talk 18:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Has everybody seen Statement on Healthy Community Culture, Inclusivity, and Safe Spaces from November 13, 2016?
The board is not agin it. In fact, they are for it. It seems to be a very simple, straightforward, maybe even plain vanilla statement. They did say that the WMF management should be willing to put appropriate resources into it. My strong feeling is that the Board, the top WMF folks, WMF staff, Jimbo, etc. are for it, but that they need some guidance and ideas from the community. Ultimately, inclusivity and safe spaces can go as far as the community wants it to go. So it is up to us to get something done. Any ideas? Smallbones( smalltalk) 19:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
My essay: User:Iadmc/Harassment on Wikimedia Projects. Thoughts? There's much more to add: I've only just scratched the surface... See Further Reading, for example — Iadmc ♫ talk 01:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
5 Ways to Disrupt Racism video
Thanks FloNight for pointing us to the category. Certainly food for thought — Iadmc ♫ talk 20:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
@ SusunW: Thanks for the thoughts. IMO, it's the work/cause/etc that makes someone notable—unless the they are simply "famous for being famous", like Paris Hilton for example. Also, both bottom-up management and top-down implementation are equally necessary: the former informs the latter; the latter inspires, endorses and implements the former. I agree that editors need to be less entrenched in their niche areas of editing: admins, in particular need to be more aware than most of the issues facing minority groups on Wikipedia. I made some comments about sourcing on a user's talk page recently. The relevant bits are these:
- The major problems here are WP:RS and WP:N. The former because too many people are apathetic about the issues [transgender people] face every day or, conversely, are too put upon by the system that they feel unable to contribute to the debate. Or are defined as cranks and the ideas they put forward as pseudo-science. Thus they are, by definition (the definition the system defined, circularly) non-reliable. The latter is a problem for exactly the same reason. That, and how can someone be notable if the system decides to define them and their situation as non-reliable and therefore, by extension, also non-notable?
- Solution: carry on regardless. Just get all the ammunition (sources) and rearguard (notables) first. And make sure it is bullet-proof (NOR, NPOV, etc, etc). Or... just add the stuff anyway, knowing it's true, and use what you can to source for now hoping someone else will find better sources in the near future. After all, that's what collaboration is all about.
Since I am male (and cis, straight, white, etc.), I can't possibly experience the frustrations women and other under-represented editors experience every day on Wikipedia but I can try to empathise and help where I can. Any thoughts on my essay (linked above)? — Iadmc ♫ talk 22:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
@ SusunW:
Thanks again for your input! — Iadmc ♫ talk 00:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Can you each comment about your good and bad experiences with adoption? This is Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user, yes? Adopting a new user isn't something I've thought about before now, but I have been here for 10 years now, so now that you've brought it up, am considering it. -- GRuban ( talk) 18:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
about a system for reporting harassment suggested there. Perhaps suggestions for making a new system for reporting harassment should go there to keep the discussion all in one place. But I have a specific question here
What is the current system for reporting harassment? Does it work?
If we could answer that question we'd be a lot better off explaining how we need to change the current system.
At meta, I described what I know about the current system - that the best way is contact the WMF Community Engagement Dept.. Does that work? Not having a lot of experience with it, I'll hazard a guess of "sorta, maybe"
But looking at Wikipedia:Harassment#Dealing_with_harassment we do seem to have a policy on it. Roughly speaking it's "don't over-react, be careful, don't publicly accuse anybody of harassment. If it is really serious, contact ArbCom."
Is that really it for our way of reporting harassment? Does it work? Are there any known examples?
Smallbones( smalltalk) 19:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Ouch! Just read the majority of that. I have apologised to Funcrunch and recognise that I have made rather a disproportionate number of edits here. I get a little obsessive at times: forgive me and do tell me to shut up if so! The previous discussion makes a number of exceptionally important points which perhaps could be summarised as a sticky at the top of this page. Perhaps: "Men may contribute here but please be aware that some of the women who would like to contribute may be put off by too great a male presence. We therefore respectfully ask that men minimise their input." It may avoid more bad blood and a repeat of that incident. OTOH, gentle pushes in the right direction like the ones both of you have given work, too! I'll be off now (there's far too much of me here for sure now!) and pop back every now and then with comments and insight, if appropriate. I'll also continue to think about the issues of harassment and gender inequality and do what I can to help address them on Wikipedia in general. My main concern is classical music and there are plenty of women composers/performers who need articles or whose articles need clean-up. Over (but not out) — Iadmc ♫ talk 04:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Y'know, I didn't know how to report harassment until I read the statement and did little bit of research.
m:Support and Safety and
WP:ArbCom appear to be the correct places: the former for Wikimedia-wide problems, the latter for Wikipedia-specific problems. People need to be informed about the process more. And are they the only places? Do we need a specific stop-off point for harassment? or is there one already? Again, WMF need to make such things transparent and easily found. —
Iadmc
♫
talk
19:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
re: this article in the Washington Post.
Would creating a Wikipedia article add to the harassment in any way? Any advice appreciated Smallbones( smalltalk) 04:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, people can be notable for a single thing. But yes, thinking about it, creating article at the present moment would just attract the trolls and vandals... Wait a year or so and if she's still talked about or, better, has become notable for something more substantial consider writing it then — Iadmc ♫ talk 18:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
External videos | |
---|---|
How online abuse of women has spiraled out of control, Ashley Judd, TED Talks, 16:10 [1] |
I've included this video at Ashley Judd, but think it might be useful elsewhere as well. Feel free to copy the template and place it wherever you think best. Smallbones( smalltalk) 20:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi all. My name is Leila and I am a senior research scientist at WMF. There is a proposal for doing research on interventions that may help reduce the gender gap on Wikipedia. If you are interested, I'd appreciate if you read the proposal and let me know in the discussion page of the proposal whether you or other experienced editors you know are interested to help with it. As you will see once you read it, the intervention will only be meaningful if we can work with volunteers who see value in the research and are willing to give it a try. :) And needless to say, the intervention needs to be fleshed out more, but you will know the general idea with the current level of information. Looking forward to hearing from you. -- LZia (WMF) ( talk) 23:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello GGTF, I come from from the other side of our "Countering systemic bias" project at WikiProject Democratic Republic of the Congo with a request! Some time ago I wrote an article on Sophie Kanza, a Congolese politician and sociologist who also held some positions at the United Nations. I've read WP:Writing about women and made some changes accordingly to the article, but assistance would be helpful. Also, any additional information for the article would be most appreciated. - Indy beetle ( talk) 01:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I am having a problem on the Harem article with an editor who has tried to hijack it to push a theory that seems more interested in emphasizing negative stereotypes of Islam then featuring the women's history aspect of the article. I undid my edits because I don't want to help create a platform to promote negative stereotypes for an editor who has done a very minimal amount of work, and does not seem interested in the women's history aspect of the article. I need help with this because I have been unable to reach consensus with this editor, despite very long discussions on talk. This article is low-importance religion and mid-importance women's history. Seraphimsystem ( talk) 18:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Please see, How a feminist stood up to trolls and measurably changed Wikipedia’s coverage of women scientists if you haven't seen it already. It was published March 7, but I'd missed it so far. What truly impresses me is the measurable impact, both in the quantity and quality of women's bio articles, resulting from the work of Keiliana and Women in Red. Congrats. Smallbones( smalltalk) 17:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Users who watch this page may be interested in an RFC about the use of pronouns in policy, guideline, and help pages: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RfC to adopt a default gender neutral style for policy, guidelines and help pages. — Granger ( talk · contribs) 11:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Users who watch this page may be interested in this RFC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MOS:GENDERID for genderqueer people. — Granger ( talk · contribs) 20:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Spc. Hilda Clayton, a US Army photographer died in Afghanistan while photographing a live fire exercise. See [10] In one way this is the perfect photo to use in an article like United States Armed Forces or Women in the military - it shows quite clearly that both men and women get killed serving their countries. On the other hand many folks might consider the photo to be horrific. I'm sure there will be people who fall on each side and I just want to have an idea of what the reaction will be before I upload the photo. Any advice appreciated. Smallbones( smalltalk) 15:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a proposal to remove the term "nonpartisan" from the info box of the article on the Women's Equality Party. Comments welcomed. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 19:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
(Also posted to WT:LGBT) In light of persistent, deliberate misgendering of nonbinary people (some of whom identify as genderqueer) in Wikipedia articles, and the recent RfC on same which failed to gain consensus, I have drafted a MOS-NB template to complement the existing MOS-TW and MOS-TM templates for trans women and men. I invite constructive feedback, respecting that this draft is in my userspace and I myself am agender and prefer singular they pronouns. Thank you. Funcrunch ( talk) 23:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
There's a dispute about a feminist philosophy journal at WP:AN. It's specifically about what kinds of sources are regarded as RS for the inclusion of women's names, in case anyone is interested. See here. SarahSV (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I am having a "discussion" on the talk page of this article. The lead states Linley's family and marital relationships first and then her achievements in singing. I have changed this around twice and had it reverted by another editor twice; I have started a discussion on the talk page but the other editor is just being sarcastic. Other opinions would be welcome, TIA!! MurielMary ( talk) 22:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
A request for comment has been initiated related to the inclusion of women's football/soccer leagues in the Current Events portal. Input is welcome:
Hmlarson ( talk) 22:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
A request for comment is open regarding a proposed change to the WP:NFOOTY guideline here: RfC: Proposal for WP:NFOOTY guideline. Input is welcome. Hmlarson ( talk) 22:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Emily Davison, the suffragette who died at the Epsom Derby in 1913, is at FAC. If anyone would like to comment, please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Davison/archive1. SarahSV (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Friends! Here is the current draft of my project proposal: Investigating the Impact of Implicit Bias on Wikipedia. I value your input and would greatly appreciate your feedback. Please share it on the project proposal discussion page. Thank you in advance! Best, Jackiekoerner ( talk) 04:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
There's currently a proposal to change the wording of the introduction of WP:NSPORTS which impacts articles related to women athletes and women in sports. Many women's leagues, for example, are not included in various sports notability guidelines and editors rely on WP:GNG while most male athletes articles are given a pass by sports notability guidelines without having to meet WP:GNG. Input is welcome: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#NSPORTS_introduction Hmlarson ( talk) 20:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
In case anyone wants to watchlist this, there's a disagreement about whether Rippon's bibliography should be included, following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Aronowitz bibliography, which is being interpreted as having set a precedent. Pinging The Vintage Feminist, who created the article about Rippon and Gina Rippon bibliography. SarahSV (talk) 00:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_female_military_historians. Zazpot ( talk) 14:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Second nomination AfD open for discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly Neher (2nd nomination) Hmlarson ( talk) 18:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
If anyone thinks this is notable, I'd suggest !voting now instead of relying on a recreate. Sometime a quick speedy delete of WP:G4 (Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) happens without discussion. Then, this would get stuck in WP:DRV to recreate.— Bagumba ( talk) 16:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a proposal put forth by another editor to add the top American women's league, the NWHL, to the Hockey notability guideline: WP:NHOCKEY. As it stands now, the WP:NHOCKEY excludes most women players in top leagues, including the NWHL. Articles about women players for the most part rely on WP:GNG though "fails WP:NHOCKEY" is often noted in AFDs (articles nominated for deletion discussions). The discussion is here. Input is welcome. Hmlarson ( talk) 20:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't happen often, but right now all 4 of the 4 images of people on the main page are of women. Woop woop! Of course, particularly proud to see my countrywoman Jacinda Ardern featured :-) MurielMary ( talk) 23:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
HI there - I was invited to join the Gender gap task force and am very very keen to do so! How do I sign up? Have I already? Could someone let me know? Thanks very much - Perry Bill ( Perry Bill ( talk) 11:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC))
You are invited to join the discussion at RFC: Non (computer science) pioneers listed as computer science pioneers just because they're female. Zazpot ( talk) 13:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Zazpot ( talk) 13:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
(Also: You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List_of_pioneers_in_computer_science#The_first_X_to_achieve_Y_is_not_noteworthy. Zazpot ( talk) 15:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC) )
Discussion on the inclusion of Cordelia Fine and Gina Rippon. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 01:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I went onto Kevin Spacey's blp today to see if the Anthony Rapp allegation & subsequent apology etc. from Spacey had been added. I was quite shocked to see it on both men's blps as part of their personal life and said so on both talk pages. I then visited Harvey Weinstein's blp where it is (quite rightly IMO) separated into it's own section of Allegations of sexual harassment, assault and rape with a link to the main article.
However, I went through the first half dozen or so alleged victims of Weinstein and where his name was mentioned it was again as a part of the alleged victims' personal life. Surely he is not part of their personal life. Isn't this a breach of WP:AVOIDVICTIM? -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 02:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Part of the problem may lie in how we are framing this. These women are part of a group that chose in 2017 to speak out. That's how it should be framed. Not "A was raped, B assaulted, C harrassed". SarahSV (talk) 05:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The basic problem is that the format "Early life", "Career", "Personal life" is only suitable when most of a biography's contents are related to the subject's career. As a result anything non-career related tends to get shoehorned under "Personal life", and doesn't get integrated into the rest of the person's chronological timeline. For someone with significant non-career related information, it would be better to re-organize the sections into chronological segments of the person's life. isaacl ( talk) 16:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment: In my opinion, it's a case-by-case matter. In some cases, the Personal life section might be the best section to include the material, especially if it didn't get much media attention and it would be WP:Undue weight to give it its own section. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
And by "not much media attention," I'm mainly thinking of significantly less famous people, including YouTube personalities. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
OK, case in point, Tara Subkoff - I tried to use Sarah's suggestion of incorporating the subject in the group that chose to speak out, while yet putting it in the Career section, which the incident seemed most relevant for in her case, since it was directly relevant in changing her career. What say you all? -- GRuban ( talk) 02:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pioneers in computer science. Zazpot ( talk) 20:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
with the article White slave propaganda. I initially rewrote this article because of a concern about very close paraphrasing. Minor COI - I know the person whose article was closely paraphrased. She didn't have a problem with it, but I did. My problem is about the word "propaganda" in the title (it is about propaganda in a purely academic sense, but not in the usual meaning of the word), but especially in the emotional content of the article. I just can't keep an NPOV in my own head. At first I thought the article was about race, but just scratching below the surface, it is all about sexual exploitation and rape, not to mention fathers selling their children into slavery and concubinage. So I can't keep a straight head here. Could anybody lend a hand? Smallbones( smalltalk) 16:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
RfC of interest to this project: Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Adding_ways_to_assess_Systemic_Bias_to_WP:N. Montanabw (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, folks. I've written a mostly complete article about a female scientist, currently at User:GRuban/Rebecca Moore. However, I have a conflict of interest: I work for her. I'm a couple of levels below, and my project is not one she's very involved with, she sort of got it grafted on to her team in a company reorganization because it had to go somewhere, so I only see her a few times a year, and it won't be mentioned anywhere in her article, but still, it's formally a pretty clear conflict. So I'd like to ask a favor of the group; that someone, hopefully several someones, go over it, to make sure it isn't being written as a puff piece, and then, if/when any issues are resolved, push it live, to avoid the COI of being written by an employee, as much as possible. I've asked our venerable founder Sarah (SV), and she seems to approve, her comments are on the article talk page. Another person suggested I specifically ask @ Keilana:; asking her too! Basically I want to cross as many ts and dot as many is as I can and still have the article be written; Moore's a thoroughly worthy article subject, environmentalist, global impact, international awards, the works. Please add comments about the article on that talk page; again, while I'll certainly accept and respond to general fixes, the most important thing is to get it to where multiple people can say with a clean heart that this isn't being written from a COI point of view, enough that they'll endorse it going live as a non-COI article. -- GRuban ( talk) 13:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I've worked with replacement of oversexualized images of women's garments for a while now. There's still a lot to be done, though. Until just a few days ago, miniskirt had this photo as the lead image. I was involved in cleaning up bra a while back, but articles like bikini, thong (clothing), undergarment, etc. could really use a critical review.
I believe neutrality of illustrations is still something that is still pretty new to Wikimedia projects overall, especially when it comes to gender issues. I was thinking that an essay on this might be relevant, but since I haven't worked much with essays before (either here or elsewhere), I thought I'd throw out the suggestion here first.
Peter Isotalo 21:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Avoid images that objectify women. In particular, do not use pornography images in articles that are not about pornography. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images states that "photographs taken in a pornography context would normally be inappropriate for articles about human anatomy."
Except when the topic is necessarily tied to it (examples: downblouse and upskirt), avoid examples of male-gaze imagery, where women are presented as objects of heterosexual male appreciation.
Except when the topic is necessarily tied to it (examples: downblouse and upskirt), avoid images that objectify women by presenting them as objects of heterosexual male appreciation.
Thanks. For future reference, how is that different from the way I wrote it, so that she was able to convince you and I wasn't?-- GRuban ( talk) 12:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
The avoidance of the male gaze is the easiest way to sum this up, but I didn't use the phrase above because I knew GRuban would object. Such is the self-censorship. It's not an obscure term but is widely used and understood, and it's precisely what is meant here – namely that men control the representation of women on Wikipedia, and they regularly choose images that please other men, rather than images that depict women as we see ourselves. SarahSV (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
To address Johnbod's point, I can't think of a situation in which articles about Ancient Greece would be affected. We don't represent black people with racist imagery, but that doesn't mean we can't illustrate articles about lynching. But it can be made explicit within the proposal:
Avoid images that present women as objects of sexual desire, unless the topic necessitates it. Examples of the latter would include certain art and history articles, and articles that are actually about sexual or sexist representations (such as downblouse and upskirt).
SarahSV (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm interested to know who is responsible for the content and management of the WP facebook page. There are a couple of issues with the page IMO - first, the content continues the gender bias of the encyclopedia in terms of biographies of men vs women posted. And second, the admins of the page allow anti-women comments to remain on the page without challenging or removing them. For example, today an admin posted about an ancient item, describing it as "the only example known to man". A woman has posted a comment challenging their use of this old fashioned and sexist phrase, and there are now about 30 replies to that comment - most of which attack her personally, swear at her, tell her to go away, call her crass names etc etc. Meanwhile the WP admins have done nothing about this. There is no comeback from WP in terms of setting the tone of the conversation on their facebook page, or protecting people from attack from others, or ensuring it's a safe place to state an opinion. Nothing. Very disappointing and doesn't encourage women to engage with the encyclopedia when this type of communication is tolerated on its public fb page. Thoughts? MurielMary ( talk) 02:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
There is no comeback from WP in terms of setting the tone of the conversation on their facebook page, or protecting people from attack from others, or ensuring it's a safe place to state an opinion. Nothing.That sounds like Wikipedia's usual response to all harassment everywhere: Do nothing and hope it goes away on its own. Why would Facebook be any different? — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 03:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
While it's tragic to have lost these wonderful women, it's great to see that the Recent Deaths section on the main page is 100% women bios at present. Four out of four possible slots are on recently deceased women. I think this is a direct result of the recent change in criteria for RD nominations, whereby notability is no longer contested - simply having an article of sufficient quality and the death being announced in the news is enough for an article to be listed there. Previously, nominations of articles on women for the RD section were frequently opposed on the grounds of lack of notability, which was often (IMO) a result of unconscious gender bias. Anyway, nice to see some more women-centred content on the main page, even if it is in the sad section of deaths. MurielMary ( talk) 02:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Seems like this discussion could be of direct interest to our project. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Damage_done_by_declining_AFC
-- GRuban ( talk) 19:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
A discussion on the use of the word "aviatrix" has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#"Aviatrix", which may interest users who watch this page. — Granger ( talk · contribs) 02:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
This is a request for people (especially females) from the GGTF to give their presumably relatively 'expert' opinion on allegations of 'sexism' raised by males on opposing sides of the current proposal to delete or merge the article " Iron Lady". Basically would a deletion and/or a merge and/or retention be (presumably unintentionally) sexist in practice? The proposed deletion and/or merge is here, and my request for comments is here. Any such comments would perhaps be more usefully left there than here, though if you prefer to leave them here instead, please feel free to do so. Tlhslobus ( talk) 03:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, folks. I'm gathering references in User:GRuban/Becca Pizzi for a woman who's a single mom, and manages an ice cream store, but is notable for winning a series of seven consecutive marathons in seven days on seven continents. She won every one of the seven, individually and in total, and was the first American woman to run the series, and set a record for it, and had long, indepth stories written about how she was going to run, and how she was running, and how she finished and won, by local sources (Belmont Citizen-Herald, Boston Globe), and distant sources (Miami Herald, Kansas City Star), and athletic sources (Runner's World, ESPN), and national sources (Wall Street Journal, CBS News), steadily over a series of 5 months. But, that's really her main reason for notability. (Well, she had a parade held in her name, and had a tribute read into the Congressional Record, and got a marriage proposal on the pitcher's mound of Fenway Park while she was supposed to throw out a baseball; but that all stems from the marathon.) So there could be an argument made that that's all WP:BLP1E. I think she meets notability criteria, at least WP:GNG, if not WP:ATHLETE. But that's me. I'd like to have someone agree with that, that she almost certainly hasn't served ice cream to. (Honestly I'm not sure; I definitely had some at the place I've since read she manages, but don't really recall who was serving it at the time. I certainly haven't spoken to her for anything other than "extra sprinkles, please".) -- GRuban ( talk) 00:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Greetings, Gender gap task force! I've developed a new tool called Cartograph that visualizes Wikipedia articles as an interactive map. The first map visualizes gender focus in Wikipedia articles. Would you test out Cartograph and let me know your thoughts? More info at meta research page Shilad ( talk) 08:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
A discussion on the use of the phrase “crewed space flights" as opposed to “manned space flights” has been started at Talk:Moon, which may interest users who watch this page. Handthrown ( talk) 18:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Dear GGTF members, Siko Bouterse and I ( Anasuya Sengupta) recently co-founded the campaign Whose Knowledge?, to make the internet a little less male, white, straight, and global North in origin. It's our attempt to address systemic bias both on Wikipedia (and other Wikimedia projects) and in other critical spaces on the internet.
tl;dr This message gives you a few updates on our work so far, and invites you to support us - in commenting on/endorsing a Wikimedia project grant we're applying for, and in joining us in the newly recognised Whose Knowledge? Wikimedia user group.
We'd love to have you participate in any way you like! Please let us know if you have any questions. Thanks, Anasuyas ( talk) 01:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
1st, it's been a rough week.
2nd, a small question that I've run into a couple of times, and thought I'd finally ask.
My maternal grandmother, born Dorothy Smallbone, always insisted that we address letters to her "Mrs. Peter XXXX" where XXXX was my grandfather's family name. It's her use of *his* first name that I'm asking about. My grandmother was not a feminist, but was the strongest willed person I ever met, no beaten down victim of male hegemony. She would have been insulted being referred to as "Mrs. Dorothy XXXX". My mother disagreed, but deferred to her mother's wishes in that single case. I've run into similar usage several times on Wikipedia and thought I'd better ask what is preferred here.
The particular instance that made me think about this is the "Mrs. C.M. Schwab School" in Weatherly, Pennsylvania. This is the official name. It was paid for by Eurana Dickey Schwab, wife of the steel magnate Charles M. Schwab. She was obviously more responsible than he was. He managed to build and then fritter away a fortune from the 2nd largest steel company in the world. I imagine she would prefer the official name. Any suggestions?
Smallbones( smalltalk) 17:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I checked my Notifications on m:The wiki way just now and noticed that my 18 June 2015 edit to use more gender-inclusive language had been reverted.
More troublingly, however, was that, if one were to look at the page's revision history ( m:The wiki way) one could see that I clearly explained my reasoning in the edit (edit number 12456750):
"Due to Gender bias on Wikipedia, corrected the exclusionary "himself" to a more inclusive, unbiased "themself." Although purists may complain that "themself" is incorrect agreement this usage helps to not shun female Wikipedians as unwanted outcasts"
More importantly, it's not so much that it got reverted, so much as that the (anonymous/IP only) user who reverted it apparently not only ignored my well-explained reasoning (in the Revision History) but furthermore made what seems to be a rather snide, curt, brash, and condescending reason for their edit (edit number 12652146):
"Really? check grammar pls"
While this just now came to my attention (because I rarely visit WikiMedia and it seems that Notifications don't universally display across all WMF accounts, e.g. from signing into Wikipedia), it is disconcerting to me. Further, I realize it's only one word on one page, but considering that it's an important, foundational "Wikimedian Philosophy" type of page, I would think that of all places it should be one of the most inclusive, so as to encourage maximal users to contribute.
Nota Bene: Instead of reverting it wholly to "themself" I actually used "herself," which is equally "incorrect" (from a prescriptivist's standpoint), but this is concerning to me and I don't want pages like that to seem alienating. Especially considering that bullet-point 8 in the article Nine Reasons Women Don’t Edit Wikipedia (in their own words) found/suggested on m:Gender gap#Read touches on this very same point: that language itself can be alienating to would-be users.
To be honest I can't tell whether this is the right place to voice this type of concern, but it was the best/closest I could find, considering the bullet-point "The talk page is for friendly discussion about how to close Wikipedia's gender gap, including asking for help with articles, AfDs, etc." above.
Thoughts? Insight? I feel like this, although just one word, is a pretty glaring example of language being exclusionary and hurting the efforts of "closing the gender gap," but I'm not sure if I'm being crazy and too radical about this. IDK what the solution would/could be, but it's concerning, so I felt it necessary to discuss.
PolymathGirl ( talk) 04:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for all you help, suggestions, and guidance to those pages, Iadmc!
Simply out of curiosity (because perhaps I don't understand), why would simply wiki-->"WikiWiki" (antiquated name, IIRC) suggest vandalism? (perhaps I don't quite understand what, exactly specifically, constitutes "vandalism," as I've seen Userboxes advertise "this user has been vandalized X times" and have wondered "huh? How?"). Good to know though!
Thanks again for your help!!! PolymathGirl ( talk) 04:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I and I'm sure millions of others have been linked into a lot of articles on various chess positions and terminology this past month, and at least half of those used male pronouns by default as early as the lead, e.g. in Giuoco Piano: "Black aims to free his game by exchanging pieces..., or to hold his center pawn at e5." Actually, if the article didn't assume male pronouns in the lead I think every single one did so at least once in the body. Did I mention that Western chess might have a historically entrenched systematic male bias? Long-story short, I think every chess article needs a once-over on assuming all players are men. I cross-posted this on WikiProject Chess also. SamuelRiv ( talk) 09:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
When you changed it to:Black aims to free his game by exchanging pieces and playing the pawn break ...d5, or to hold his center pawn at e5.
... if I were a beginner player, it would be confusing, and I just might quit when still learning the game. ("Black aims to free their own game" ... what is the author trying to tell me? Does she mean Black aims to free each of their games maybe?! "[Black aims] to hold their center pawn at e5." Huh?! Is the author trying to tell me that the black pawn on e5, is somehow considered center pawn for *both* sides!? Or is it an objective in the game for both sides to strive for a center pawn on e5!? Perhaps that's a chess openings concept I missed somewhere when I started to learn this game!? Should I go back and read over again the chess opening introductory material I read before, to see where I may have missed!? Oh heck, I knew chess was for super-smart people, and I'd probably never 'get' this game. I give up!")That is a conceivable scenario you introduced by your strict gender-neutral obsession-fever, calling me out for "Black aims to free their own game by exchanging pieces and playing the pawn break ...d5, or to hold their center pawn at e5.
MOS violation" and chiding me by inappropriately assuming I'm cool with plural pronoun "they" substituting for singular generic pronoun "he", when I didn't and don't, when I reverted your ambiguous misleading "Black aims to free their game". How about improving articles for ease of understanding for the beginning player, rather than toss her a curve ball to wade through so you can feel happy you have bowed to the MOS God with strict adherence and gained the admiration of other socially contrived gender-neutral warriors? IHTS ( talk) 11:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Why not just use "the"? I.e. "Black aims to free the game by exchanging pieces..., or to hold the center pawn at e5." Works in the plural, too... — Iadmc ♫ talk 18:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Has everybody seen Statement on Healthy Community Culture, Inclusivity, and Safe Spaces from November 13, 2016?
The board is not agin it. In fact, they are for it. It seems to be a very simple, straightforward, maybe even plain vanilla statement. They did say that the WMF management should be willing to put appropriate resources into it. My strong feeling is that the Board, the top WMF folks, WMF staff, Jimbo, etc. are for it, but that they need some guidance and ideas from the community. Ultimately, inclusivity and safe spaces can go as far as the community wants it to go. So it is up to us to get something done. Any ideas? Smallbones( smalltalk) 19:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
My essay: User:Iadmc/Harassment on Wikimedia Projects. Thoughts? There's much more to add: I've only just scratched the surface... See Further Reading, for example — Iadmc ♫ talk 01:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
5 Ways to Disrupt Racism video
Thanks FloNight for pointing us to the category. Certainly food for thought — Iadmc ♫ talk 20:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
@ SusunW: Thanks for the thoughts. IMO, it's the work/cause/etc that makes someone notable—unless the they are simply "famous for being famous", like Paris Hilton for example. Also, both bottom-up management and top-down implementation are equally necessary: the former informs the latter; the latter inspires, endorses and implements the former. I agree that editors need to be less entrenched in their niche areas of editing: admins, in particular need to be more aware than most of the issues facing minority groups on Wikipedia. I made some comments about sourcing on a user's talk page recently. The relevant bits are these:
- The major problems here are WP:RS and WP:N. The former because too many people are apathetic about the issues [transgender people] face every day or, conversely, are too put upon by the system that they feel unable to contribute to the debate. Or are defined as cranks and the ideas they put forward as pseudo-science. Thus they are, by definition (the definition the system defined, circularly) non-reliable. The latter is a problem for exactly the same reason. That, and how can someone be notable if the system decides to define them and their situation as non-reliable and therefore, by extension, also non-notable?
- Solution: carry on regardless. Just get all the ammunition (sources) and rearguard (notables) first. And make sure it is bullet-proof (NOR, NPOV, etc, etc). Or... just add the stuff anyway, knowing it's true, and use what you can to source for now hoping someone else will find better sources in the near future. After all, that's what collaboration is all about.
Since I am male (and cis, straight, white, etc.), I can't possibly experience the frustrations women and other under-represented editors experience every day on Wikipedia but I can try to empathise and help where I can. Any thoughts on my essay (linked above)? — Iadmc ♫ talk 22:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
@ SusunW:
Thanks again for your input! — Iadmc ♫ talk 00:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Can you each comment about your good and bad experiences with adoption? This is Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user, yes? Adopting a new user isn't something I've thought about before now, but I have been here for 10 years now, so now that you've brought it up, am considering it. -- GRuban ( talk) 18:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
about a system for reporting harassment suggested there. Perhaps suggestions for making a new system for reporting harassment should go there to keep the discussion all in one place. But I have a specific question here
What is the current system for reporting harassment? Does it work?
If we could answer that question we'd be a lot better off explaining how we need to change the current system.
At meta, I described what I know about the current system - that the best way is contact the WMF Community Engagement Dept.. Does that work? Not having a lot of experience with it, I'll hazard a guess of "sorta, maybe"
But looking at Wikipedia:Harassment#Dealing_with_harassment we do seem to have a policy on it. Roughly speaking it's "don't over-react, be careful, don't publicly accuse anybody of harassment. If it is really serious, contact ArbCom."
Is that really it for our way of reporting harassment? Does it work? Are there any known examples?
Smallbones( smalltalk) 19:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Ouch! Just read the majority of that. I have apologised to Funcrunch and recognise that I have made rather a disproportionate number of edits here. I get a little obsessive at times: forgive me and do tell me to shut up if so! The previous discussion makes a number of exceptionally important points which perhaps could be summarised as a sticky at the top of this page. Perhaps: "Men may contribute here but please be aware that some of the women who would like to contribute may be put off by too great a male presence. We therefore respectfully ask that men minimise their input." It may avoid more bad blood and a repeat of that incident. OTOH, gentle pushes in the right direction like the ones both of you have given work, too! I'll be off now (there's far too much of me here for sure now!) and pop back every now and then with comments and insight, if appropriate. I'll also continue to think about the issues of harassment and gender inequality and do what I can to help address them on Wikipedia in general. My main concern is classical music and there are plenty of women composers/performers who need articles or whose articles need clean-up. Over (but not out) — Iadmc ♫ talk 04:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Y'know, I didn't know how to report harassment until I read the statement and did little bit of research.
m:Support and Safety and
WP:ArbCom appear to be the correct places: the former for Wikimedia-wide problems, the latter for Wikipedia-specific problems. People need to be informed about the process more. And are they the only places? Do we need a specific stop-off point for harassment? or is there one already? Again, WMF need to make such things transparent and easily found. —
Iadmc
♫
talk
19:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
re: this article in the Washington Post.
Would creating a Wikipedia article add to the harassment in any way? Any advice appreciated Smallbones( smalltalk) 04:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, people can be notable for a single thing. But yes, thinking about it, creating article at the present moment would just attract the trolls and vandals... Wait a year or so and if she's still talked about or, better, has become notable for something more substantial consider writing it then — Iadmc ♫ talk 18:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
External videos | |
---|---|
How online abuse of women has spiraled out of control, Ashley Judd, TED Talks, 16:10 [1] |
I've included this video at Ashley Judd, but think it might be useful elsewhere as well. Feel free to copy the template and place it wherever you think best. Smallbones( smalltalk) 20:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi all. My name is Leila and I am a senior research scientist at WMF. There is a proposal for doing research on interventions that may help reduce the gender gap on Wikipedia. If you are interested, I'd appreciate if you read the proposal and let me know in the discussion page of the proposal whether you or other experienced editors you know are interested to help with it. As you will see once you read it, the intervention will only be meaningful if we can work with volunteers who see value in the research and are willing to give it a try. :) And needless to say, the intervention needs to be fleshed out more, but you will know the general idea with the current level of information. Looking forward to hearing from you. -- LZia (WMF) ( talk) 23:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello GGTF, I come from from the other side of our "Countering systemic bias" project at WikiProject Democratic Republic of the Congo with a request! Some time ago I wrote an article on Sophie Kanza, a Congolese politician and sociologist who also held some positions at the United Nations. I've read WP:Writing about women and made some changes accordingly to the article, but assistance would be helpful. Also, any additional information for the article would be most appreciated. - Indy beetle ( talk) 01:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I am having a problem on the Harem article with an editor who has tried to hijack it to push a theory that seems more interested in emphasizing negative stereotypes of Islam then featuring the women's history aspect of the article. I undid my edits because I don't want to help create a platform to promote negative stereotypes for an editor who has done a very minimal amount of work, and does not seem interested in the women's history aspect of the article. I need help with this because I have been unable to reach consensus with this editor, despite very long discussions on talk. This article is low-importance religion and mid-importance women's history. Seraphimsystem ( talk) 18:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Please see, How a feminist stood up to trolls and measurably changed Wikipedia’s coverage of women scientists if you haven't seen it already. It was published March 7, but I'd missed it so far. What truly impresses me is the measurable impact, both in the quantity and quality of women's bio articles, resulting from the work of Keiliana and Women in Red. Congrats. Smallbones( smalltalk) 17:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Users who watch this page may be interested in an RFC about the use of pronouns in policy, guideline, and help pages: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RfC to adopt a default gender neutral style for policy, guidelines and help pages. — Granger ( talk · contribs) 11:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Users who watch this page may be interested in this RFC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MOS:GENDERID for genderqueer people. — Granger ( talk · contribs) 20:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Spc. Hilda Clayton, a US Army photographer died in Afghanistan while photographing a live fire exercise. See [10] In one way this is the perfect photo to use in an article like United States Armed Forces or Women in the military - it shows quite clearly that both men and women get killed serving their countries. On the other hand many folks might consider the photo to be horrific. I'm sure there will be people who fall on each side and I just want to have an idea of what the reaction will be before I upload the photo. Any advice appreciated. Smallbones( smalltalk) 15:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a proposal to remove the term "nonpartisan" from the info box of the article on the Women's Equality Party. Comments welcomed. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 19:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
(Also posted to WT:LGBT) In light of persistent, deliberate misgendering of nonbinary people (some of whom identify as genderqueer) in Wikipedia articles, and the recent RfC on same which failed to gain consensus, I have drafted a MOS-NB template to complement the existing MOS-TW and MOS-TM templates for trans women and men. I invite constructive feedback, respecting that this draft is in my userspace and I myself am agender and prefer singular they pronouns. Thank you. Funcrunch ( talk) 23:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
There's a dispute about a feminist philosophy journal at WP:AN. It's specifically about what kinds of sources are regarded as RS for the inclusion of women's names, in case anyone is interested. See here. SarahSV (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I am having a "discussion" on the talk page of this article. The lead states Linley's family and marital relationships first and then her achievements in singing. I have changed this around twice and had it reverted by another editor twice; I have started a discussion on the talk page but the other editor is just being sarcastic. Other opinions would be welcome, TIA!! MurielMary ( talk) 22:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
A request for comment has been initiated related to the inclusion of women's football/soccer leagues in the Current Events portal. Input is welcome:
Hmlarson ( talk) 22:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
A request for comment is open regarding a proposed change to the WP:NFOOTY guideline here: RfC: Proposal for WP:NFOOTY guideline. Input is welcome. Hmlarson ( talk) 22:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Emily Davison, the suffragette who died at the Epsom Derby in 1913, is at FAC. If anyone would like to comment, please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Davison/archive1. SarahSV (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Friends! Here is the current draft of my project proposal: Investigating the Impact of Implicit Bias on Wikipedia. I value your input and would greatly appreciate your feedback. Please share it on the project proposal discussion page. Thank you in advance! Best, Jackiekoerner ( talk) 04:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
There's currently a proposal to change the wording of the introduction of WP:NSPORTS which impacts articles related to women athletes and women in sports. Many women's leagues, for example, are not included in various sports notability guidelines and editors rely on WP:GNG while most male athletes articles are given a pass by sports notability guidelines without having to meet WP:GNG. Input is welcome: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#NSPORTS_introduction Hmlarson ( talk) 20:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
In case anyone wants to watchlist this, there's a disagreement about whether Rippon's bibliography should be included, following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Aronowitz bibliography, which is being interpreted as having set a precedent. Pinging The Vintage Feminist, who created the article about Rippon and Gina Rippon bibliography. SarahSV (talk) 00:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_female_military_historians. Zazpot ( talk) 14:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Second nomination AfD open for discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly Neher (2nd nomination) Hmlarson ( talk) 18:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
If anyone thinks this is notable, I'd suggest !voting now instead of relying on a recreate. Sometime a quick speedy delete of WP:G4 (Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) happens without discussion. Then, this would get stuck in WP:DRV to recreate.— Bagumba ( talk) 16:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a proposal put forth by another editor to add the top American women's league, the NWHL, to the Hockey notability guideline: WP:NHOCKEY. As it stands now, the WP:NHOCKEY excludes most women players in top leagues, including the NWHL. Articles about women players for the most part rely on WP:GNG though "fails WP:NHOCKEY" is often noted in AFDs (articles nominated for deletion discussions). The discussion is here. Input is welcome. Hmlarson ( talk) 20:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't happen often, but right now all 4 of the 4 images of people on the main page are of women. Woop woop! Of course, particularly proud to see my countrywoman Jacinda Ardern featured :-) MurielMary ( talk) 23:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
HI there - I was invited to join the Gender gap task force and am very very keen to do so! How do I sign up? Have I already? Could someone let me know? Thanks very much - Perry Bill ( Perry Bill ( talk) 11:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC))
You are invited to join the discussion at RFC: Non (computer science) pioneers listed as computer science pioneers just because they're female. Zazpot ( talk) 13:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Zazpot ( talk) 13:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
(Also: You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List_of_pioneers_in_computer_science#The_first_X_to_achieve_Y_is_not_noteworthy. Zazpot ( talk) 15:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC) )
Discussion on the inclusion of Cordelia Fine and Gina Rippon. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 01:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I went onto Kevin Spacey's blp today to see if the Anthony Rapp allegation & subsequent apology etc. from Spacey had been added. I was quite shocked to see it on both men's blps as part of their personal life and said so on both talk pages. I then visited Harvey Weinstein's blp where it is (quite rightly IMO) separated into it's own section of Allegations of sexual harassment, assault and rape with a link to the main article.
However, I went through the first half dozen or so alleged victims of Weinstein and where his name was mentioned it was again as a part of the alleged victims' personal life. Surely he is not part of their personal life. Isn't this a breach of WP:AVOIDVICTIM? -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 02:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Part of the problem may lie in how we are framing this. These women are part of a group that chose in 2017 to speak out. That's how it should be framed. Not "A was raped, B assaulted, C harrassed". SarahSV (talk) 05:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The basic problem is that the format "Early life", "Career", "Personal life" is only suitable when most of a biography's contents are related to the subject's career. As a result anything non-career related tends to get shoehorned under "Personal life", and doesn't get integrated into the rest of the person's chronological timeline. For someone with significant non-career related information, it would be better to re-organize the sections into chronological segments of the person's life. isaacl ( talk) 16:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment: In my opinion, it's a case-by-case matter. In some cases, the Personal life section might be the best section to include the material, especially if it didn't get much media attention and it would be WP:Undue weight to give it its own section. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
And by "not much media attention," I'm mainly thinking of significantly less famous people, including YouTube personalities. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
OK, case in point, Tara Subkoff - I tried to use Sarah's suggestion of incorporating the subject in the group that chose to speak out, while yet putting it in the Career section, which the incident seemed most relevant for in her case, since it was directly relevant in changing her career. What say you all? -- GRuban ( talk) 02:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pioneers in computer science. Zazpot ( talk) 20:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)