Thanks for doing this. I hope you can publicize it more widely. This seems like it ought to have a mention at least and maybe even a small section in the Community portal? EllenCT ( talk) 12:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that some of these have corresponding articles on other Wikipedias, particularly those not working in the Anglophone world. (Perhaps in some other countries Wikipedians are better at keeping track of academics, or non-Anglophones that get cited are somewhat more significant on average.) I noted those I found in the comments. Perhaps a translation of these could be the start of an article for them? You could try contacting the appropriate requested translations. Rigadoun (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Good afternoon. I created an article for Susan Amara and intend to create articles for more members of the "Missing woman scientists" list, but I am struggling to find any reliable sources for Jenny Andrews. I am presuming that inclusion of a person in Thompson-Reuters' Highly Cited Researchers lists provides sufficient evidence that the subject is notable, but what should we do if there is no other information about the subject? For example, I can find several mentions that Jenny Andrews is a clinical scientist at City Hospital NHS Trust in Birmingham, England, but nothing further than that. All sources for that fact are found in documents that credit her as a contributor. Should I cite her inclusion in the Highly Cited Researchers list as a source for describing her as a highly cited researcher? I am currently working on a draft for an article on Jenny Andrews, but it is currently a single sentence with a single source. Kind regards, Matt Heard ( talk) 01:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
@ BD2412: is there any way to easily calculate how many redlinks have turned blue while they were listed on this page over time? If not, please don't trouble yourself. It's just an idle curiosity. But it looks like it may be substantial, doesn't it? EllenCT ( talk) 00:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Apparently, the men's original list is based on the 2001 data, while the women's one uses the 2014 data. Should we update the men's original names to the new data, too? Or at least include some notification on the difference? --
Axolotl Nr.733 (
talk)
22:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Regrettably, many of these eminently deserving scientists, such as Jenny Andrews discussed above, appear not to have received enough coverage in reliable sources to pass the general notability guideline. They may pass the specific criteria for notability as an academic, but without third-party in-depth coverage it's difficult or impossible to write a biography without synthesizing facts from disjoint primary sources. The density of such under-studied scientists is increasing as the biographable ones have their redlinks blue-ified and removed.
I propose that a table be kept on this talk page, or a column added to the project-page table, tallying editors' admissions of failure to find sufficient coverage in reliable sources for each scientist. Once three editors admit such failure, the scientist in question should be removed to wait for due recognition from future journalists. This will clear away a layer of unbiographable researchers and make room for a fresh round. FourViolas ( talk) 02:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks for everyone's input! I've enacted some version of the proposal, feel free to adjust it. FourViolas ( talk) 00:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Is there a way for us to help collect references and citations that establish notability or some of these women scientists? It has been fairly easy for me to find notability references for Karen Oberhauser and I will be able to do the same for some of her PhD graduate students who have also acquired notability in the popular press, newspaper articles and even television interviews. They just happen to be doing research on a popular topic right now-Monarch butterflies. So these women get a lot of press. As I'm researching these women, is there a way for me to supply the references I find on other women scientists?
MN Star Trib. profile
. Thanks for your work!
FourViolas (
talk)
01:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Btw, there is a category:ISI highly cited researchers, so every article from this list can be added there. Axolotl Nr.733 ( talk) 11:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I have come up with a quick draft of this notable woman scientist. She has multiple newspaper articles in a multitude of journal articles. She is well known in Lepidoptera circles.
Hey, I like this Task Force or whatever it is called, this is a good effort. But, proposing names to work on, in alphabetical chunks, as started here with "Missing scientists (from A)", is biased! Maybe not everyone is aware, but it is because names in different cultures/countries are distributed quite differently. I think that among "A"s that English / WASP names are over-represented. And it will take forever to get through the "C"'s. I bet there won't be any Sikhs included, until S (for Singh) is reached. I bet that Vietnamese will be under-represented, until Nguyen is reached. There may be relatively few of those two groups, but you get the idea. If someone has a spreadsheet or database of all of the names, they could easily draw a random sample instead, while keeping track easily of the sampled ones. Would that be better?
And, would it help to create chunks of interest / connection to different WikiProjects? When a drive to fix up unreferenced BLP articles was going a couple years ago, cooperation was sought, and I coordinated with WikiProject Canada, members of which fixed up a number of articles. Is there a nationality field in the data? Or use location of universities? Just an idea. -- do ncr am 20:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I've started a somewhat parallel project on Wiktionary to create entries for Women honoured in scientific names.
Last time I checked, only 15 out of 677 taxonomic eponyms in Wiktionary are named for women (2.1%). And even of those 15, five are mythological figures. Wiktionary can be more challenging to edit than Wikipedia, especially binomial nomenclature entries, but I encourage anyone up for the challenge or willing to learn to give it a go and create some of these missing entries. — Pengo 00:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
There does not have to be significant coverage of their biographical details. There has to be enough coverage of what they are notable for, and the citation record alone shows it. If people want to come to an encyclopedia to find out who they are, it's their science they're looking for, not their home town. . I intend to write each of the--if I verify the citation record is sufficient (in senior positions, which can sometimes be a question ifthere were only 1 or 2 papers) . (We do have one verified fact about their life: what organization they were affiliated with at a given time. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I was happy to find this effort in the Wikipedia community as I agree that the site should take efforts to reverse inherent bias in covering all materials, including notable academics. I take the stance that this is not a biased approach, but similar to the notion that it is not that "All Lives Matter," but that Black Lives Matter when addressing systemic prejudice within the racial system (if a house is burning to you pour water on all houses or just the one on fire?). I agree that the Thompson Reuter's citation list has issues, such as not distinguishing the order of authors, so I thought I would suggest another option that passes notability criteria. That is, there are a number of female academics that are listed as Members of the National Academy of Science, but for whom there are no Wikipedia pages. From a cursory search, several of these are highly cited scientists for whom there are numerous primary source references, such as Kristen Hawkes (anthropology) whose work has contributed to the Grandmother hypothesis. I certainly know of male scientists with Wikipedia pages who have contributed far less. Additionally, there are even female NAS member who work in the US and there are no English language pages for, even though there are pages in other languages (such as Linda S. Cordell). It seems to me that a systematic effort should take place to fill in these pages, which could be a component of this page. I think that there's certainly room for these pages to be added and the number is not staggering. Thoughts? PiWi 21:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I wrote a short article on one of the physicists on the list, John Allison (physicist), only to end up nominating it for deletion myself, some time later. I realized that Allison is included only due to his massive coauthor citations, and has played no central or leadership role in notable research. While clearly a successful academic, he is not a notable one. I believe that it is highly likely that many other people on the list are in this category. Xxanthippe wrote at AFD:
I suggest that - especially for physicists - we heed Xxanthippe's warning and consider h-index when vetting these scientists for inclusion. -- Wormcast ( talk) 00:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).
Thanks for doing this. I hope you can publicize it more widely. This seems like it ought to have a mention at least and maybe even a small section in the Community portal? EllenCT ( talk) 12:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that some of these have corresponding articles on other Wikipedias, particularly those not working in the Anglophone world. (Perhaps in some other countries Wikipedians are better at keeping track of academics, or non-Anglophones that get cited are somewhat more significant on average.) I noted those I found in the comments. Perhaps a translation of these could be the start of an article for them? You could try contacting the appropriate requested translations. Rigadoun (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Good afternoon. I created an article for Susan Amara and intend to create articles for more members of the "Missing woman scientists" list, but I am struggling to find any reliable sources for Jenny Andrews. I am presuming that inclusion of a person in Thompson-Reuters' Highly Cited Researchers lists provides sufficient evidence that the subject is notable, but what should we do if there is no other information about the subject? For example, I can find several mentions that Jenny Andrews is a clinical scientist at City Hospital NHS Trust in Birmingham, England, but nothing further than that. All sources for that fact are found in documents that credit her as a contributor. Should I cite her inclusion in the Highly Cited Researchers list as a source for describing her as a highly cited researcher? I am currently working on a draft for an article on Jenny Andrews, but it is currently a single sentence with a single source. Kind regards, Matt Heard ( talk) 01:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
@ BD2412: is there any way to easily calculate how many redlinks have turned blue while they were listed on this page over time? If not, please don't trouble yourself. It's just an idle curiosity. But it looks like it may be substantial, doesn't it? EllenCT ( talk) 00:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Apparently, the men's original list is based on the 2001 data, while the women's one uses the 2014 data. Should we update the men's original names to the new data, too? Or at least include some notification on the difference? --
Axolotl Nr.733 (
talk)
22:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Regrettably, many of these eminently deserving scientists, such as Jenny Andrews discussed above, appear not to have received enough coverage in reliable sources to pass the general notability guideline. They may pass the specific criteria for notability as an academic, but without third-party in-depth coverage it's difficult or impossible to write a biography without synthesizing facts from disjoint primary sources. The density of such under-studied scientists is increasing as the biographable ones have their redlinks blue-ified and removed.
I propose that a table be kept on this talk page, or a column added to the project-page table, tallying editors' admissions of failure to find sufficient coverage in reliable sources for each scientist. Once three editors admit such failure, the scientist in question should be removed to wait for due recognition from future journalists. This will clear away a layer of unbiographable researchers and make room for a fresh round. FourViolas ( talk) 02:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks for everyone's input! I've enacted some version of the proposal, feel free to adjust it. FourViolas ( talk) 00:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Is there a way for us to help collect references and citations that establish notability or some of these women scientists? It has been fairly easy for me to find notability references for Karen Oberhauser and I will be able to do the same for some of her PhD graduate students who have also acquired notability in the popular press, newspaper articles and even television interviews. They just happen to be doing research on a popular topic right now-Monarch butterflies. So these women get a lot of press. As I'm researching these women, is there a way for me to supply the references I find on other women scientists?
MN Star Trib. profile
. Thanks for your work!
FourViolas (
talk)
01:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Btw, there is a category:ISI highly cited researchers, so every article from this list can be added there. Axolotl Nr.733 ( talk) 11:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I have come up with a quick draft of this notable woman scientist. She has multiple newspaper articles in a multitude of journal articles. She is well known in Lepidoptera circles.
Hey, I like this Task Force or whatever it is called, this is a good effort. But, proposing names to work on, in alphabetical chunks, as started here with "Missing scientists (from A)", is biased! Maybe not everyone is aware, but it is because names in different cultures/countries are distributed quite differently. I think that among "A"s that English / WASP names are over-represented. And it will take forever to get through the "C"'s. I bet there won't be any Sikhs included, until S (for Singh) is reached. I bet that Vietnamese will be under-represented, until Nguyen is reached. There may be relatively few of those two groups, but you get the idea. If someone has a spreadsheet or database of all of the names, they could easily draw a random sample instead, while keeping track easily of the sampled ones. Would that be better?
And, would it help to create chunks of interest / connection to different WikiProjects? When a drive to fix up unreferenced BLP articles was going a couple years ago, cooperation was sought, and I coordinated with WikiProject Canada, members of which fixed up a number of articles. Is there a nationality field in the data? Or use location of universities? Just an idea. -- do ncr am 20:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I've started a somewhat parallel project on Wiktionary to create entries for Women honoured in scientific names.
Last time I checked, only 15 out of 677 taxonomic eponyms in Wiktionary are named for women (2.1%). And even of those 15, five are mythological figures. Wiktionary can be more challenging to edit than Wikipedia, especially binomial nomenclature entries, but I encourage anyone up for the challenge or willing to learn to give it a go and create some of these missing entries. — Pengo 00:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
There does not have to be significant coverage of their biographical details. There has to be enough coverage of what they are notable for, and the citation record alone shows it. If people want to come to an encyclopedia to find out who they are, it's their science they're looking for, not their home town. . I intend to write each of the--if I verify the citation record is sufficient (in senior positions, which can sometimes be a question ifthere were only 1 or 2 papers) . (We do have one verified fact about their life: what organization they were affiliated with at a given time. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I was happy to find this effort in the Wikipedia community as I agree that the site should take efforts to reverse inherent bias in covering all materials, including notable academics. I take the stance that this is not a biased approach, but similar to the notion that it is not that "All Lives Matter," but that Black Lives Matter when addressing systemic prejudice within the racial system (if a house is burning to you pour water on all houses or just the one on fire?). I agree that the Thompson Reuter's citation list has issues, such as not distinguishing the order of authors, so I thought I would suggest another option that passes notability criteria. That is, there are a number of female academics that are listed as Members of the National Academy of Science, but for whom there are no Wikipedia pages. From a cursory search, several of these are highly cited scientists for whom there are numerous primary source references, such as Kristen Hawkes (anthropology) whose work has contributed to the Grandmother hypothesis. I certainly know of male scientists with Wikipedia pages who have contributed far less. Additionally, there are even female NAS member who work in the US and there are no English language pages for, even though there are pages in other languages (such as Linda S. Cordell). It seems to me that a systematic effort should take place to fill in these pages, which could be a component of this page. I think that there's certainly room for these pages to be added and the number is not staggering. Thoughts? PiWi 21:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I wrote a short article on one of the physicists on the list, John Allison (physicist), only to end up nominating it for deletion myself, some time later. I realized that Allison is included only due to his massive coauthor citations, and has played no central or leadership role in notable research. While clearly a successful academic, he is not a notable one. I believe that it is highly likely that many other people on the list are in this category. Xxanthippe wrote at AFD:
I suggest that - especially for physicists - we heed Xxanthippe's warning and consider h-index when vetting these scientists for inclusion. -- Wormcast ( talk) 00:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).