Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 122

Archive 115

←

Archive 120

Archive 121

Archive 122

Archive 123

Archive 124

Archive 125

Draft:Linda Gerdner

This discussion has been closed, per email request. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi folks!! I'm looking for help on this draft as well. The coi editor User:Linda Gerdner thinks its notable and it seems to be borderline. There is a claim to notability but I couldn't determine if it was valid. Perhaps somebody do something with it. scope_creepTalk 11:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC) I was expecting to find refs to dementia and music from the 19th century - but it appears no. I looked at this which seems to imply that development is recent (since 1980 or so). I would suggest to the editor that the article isnt really about them (so no strong COI apart from the invention(ish) claim). Maybe their interest is in writing about the new intervention and this might make a less self centred (amd more valuable) contribution. She could leave others to add what a key role she made when the subject was described. HTH Victuallers (talk) 12:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC) Thanks for flagging, @Scope creep. I started fixing, I believe she is notable. Two things caused me to pause (just raising this as a general question to anyone reading): 1) Discussion about her (definitely secondary) in alternative medicine/therapy journals (via EBSCOHost). Are those considered reliable or not? 2) I do think she writes about herself in the third person, more than most. For example, I really wanted to find the sources for all the awards she has won (and there are many). But what do you do with a journal article like this, authored by Gerdner, where she discusses Gerdner and her own awards and citations in the third person? (Or am I skimming the source wrong?) Cielquiparle (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC) Its not much at, 5 citations and it is the medical field with high-citation counts. If there is coverage, which I doubt, it will be the awards that make the article. I couldn't find anything, just a glimmer. scope_creepTalk 15:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC) I counter in Google Scholar and got an h-index of 27. I don’t know what our threshold is in a medical field tho. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC) My top rated article is over 500 citations in a top ranked journal. That was the article that they did a followup in 9 years. For the most part I have published in top tier research journals in the health Linda Gerdner (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Scopus has 1,205 citations and an h-index of 17, which in my experience is below average for professional researchers publishing in the broader dementia, therapy, and gerontology fields, although given the intersections with sociology and nursing in her articles, a narrower interpretation of her discipline would likely produce different averages. That said, NPROF requires The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, and it's unlikely that music therapy is considered a sufficiently major subdiscipline in this context. I'll also note that, while 58 Scopus coauthors is too few for me to comfortably analyze, among the 45 coauthors with 8+ papers Gerdner falls right at the median for h-index. JoelleJay (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Music therapy is NOT my focus!!!!!!!!!! It is Nursing. Music Therapy is a discipline in and of itself. any lay people do not understand that. Research Gate is what most of my colleagues use, but that cite includes my dissertation but not my award winning article. I am sorry but I just viewed a video about Wikipedia and how it was a reliable source at one time, but now as one of your editors said, this group can include any thing they want about an individual. That has certainly been my experience in this experience. A few example of individuals were provided and I do not want to be any part of this. How many times do I have to tell you that my work has been used world wide, I don't even think you have the draft to work that I wrote with verifying information. I am not a music therapist. I have been told my one that my work is fradulant. I have written an extensive multifaceted evidence based guideline. IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT LISTENING TO PREFERRED MUSIC. I DON'T WANT TO END UP ANOTHER ONE OF YOUR STATISTICS. I AM TIRED OF YOUR MISINFORMATION. Just forget it! 174.22.111.173 (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Apparently I was not logged in. That is the reason my name is not attached. Also, someone was questioning if the "therapy" journals that I was published in where credible. I haven't published in any therapy journals. You are not qualified to work on this. I also do not want to be at the mercy of the one person who said he/she can edit my bio after live on a air and say anything he wants. He added, I wonder if she knows that. He also discussed my "bylines" I am also not a jouranlist. You have opened my eyes to why my colleagues do not want students using wikipedia. I told you before to stop beating a dead horse - I am already dead. CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!! You are not anything like the professionals I have worked with during my career. It is our!! Linda Gerdner (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC) One more thing, I have one a lot more than develop an intervention to reduce agitation in dementia. But all of that information was removed. You people DO NOT LISTEN. I am just a fradulant MT with bylines on award winning research articles. One award was presented by one of the top researchers and clinicians in the world. I have a photo of myself when he gave me the award. I guess he was totally wrong about me - he should have listened to all of you. And what did you devote your life to????? Forget the 6 books that I have published reviews that are outstanding. My colleagues (from one of the top universities in the u.s., if not world) and I edited a book and contributed chapters. I have worked with Hmong Americans and African Americans in the Arkansas Delta. YOU ARE A BUNCH OF BULLIES. I WOULD LIKE TO LOOK AT YOUR RESUMES. YOU ARE CERTAINLY LIMITE IN YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT I HAVE DONE. YOU ALSO DON'T LISTE AND SOMEONE SEEMED TO THINK MY HIGHLIGHT WAS ONE SENTENCE IN ROLLING STONE. THAT WAS NOT IN MY DRAFT. YOU HAVE A VERY NARROW FOCUS AND HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO SEE THE BIGGER WHOLE. YOU ARE EXTREMELY LIMITE IN YOUR THINKING AN KNOWLEDGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Linda Gerdner (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC) During the 1980s and before physical and chemical restraints were being used to manage agitation. Yes, that is true. Music therapists primarily did group interventions based on era but that is not the same an long=term care facilities did not have the finances to pay for a music therapists. If they did, music therapists were not there 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Individualized music was a breakthrough for agitation. But it is not simply playing preferred music. It is individualized at multiple levels. Many have bastardize this intervention and as simply playing music the person likes. There are many none health care professionals have tried their own versions of this intervention and charged nursing homes as much as $40,000 to teach staff and to "certify" staff in this intervention. I was asked to testify against this person in a NY court of law. There are still many persons who do not understand the cause of behaviors associated with dementia and how to work with persons who experience dementia. I am continuing to be an advocate for persons with dementia and their family members. This is a very vulnerable population. There are many who continually want to exploit. In addition, I have tried to show how my work is also focused on other ethnic and racial groups who have been ignored and underserved. My work builds upon itself in an effort to make a difference in this world. It is not simply jumping on the most lokely topic to get funded to make tenure. It is because I truly care and want to make a difference. Linda Gerdner (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC) @Linda Gerdner Thank you for your work. I liked the Rolling Stone article. Are there any other secondary sources you recall that we might be able to refer to and cite? Books, magazine articles, newspaper articles, or other journal articles – even if you don't have the exact clipping to hand, if there are any you recall off the top of your head, someone here may be able to locate a copy. Or other websites that are significant. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC) All of the information below is included in my draft. The Rolling Stone magazine is a big name but I thought it was rather superficial. It could go back in the draft. To me these other items are more important I included replication studies in 12 countries on the draft that I submitted. One even has Gerdner in the title of the article TWO INTERVIEWS ARE INCLUDED ON THE INTERNET. THE FIRST PROVIDES DEPTH BY SOMEONE WHO KNOWS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF MY WORK. Gerdner, L. A. (January 10, 2013).  Individualized Music. Interview on Web-TV by Ruben Muñiz Schwochert for International Non-Pharmacological Therapies Project. View this program at http://vimeo.com/63811378 THIS SECOND INTERVIEW was done following my getting the award at the conference in Canada. The "journalist" is someone of importance in Canada, but the interview is somewhat superficial. The first video is of much greater depth. Gerdner, Linda (featured interview) through the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) on Television Newsworld / “As It Happens with B. Budd/S. Cole" on August 17, 1999. (repeat airing on August 18, 1999). [1] This shows how my work is being used in Norway: [2] Gerdner, L. A. (2009). “Top cited papers in International Psychogeriatrics: 4. Effects of individualized vs. classical ‘relaxation’ music on the frequency of agitation in elderly persons with Alzheimer’s disease and related disorders. Reflection. (With commentary by Nicola T. Lautenschlager)” International Psychogeriatrics, 21(4): 667-671. I WAS ASKE TO WRITE A FOLLOW-UP 9 YEARS HAVE MY ORIGINAL STUDY WAS PUBLISHED TO SHOW THE ADVANCEMENT OF MY WORK. MORE IMPORTANTLY A COMMENTARY WAS WRITTEN BY Nicola T. Lautenschlager, regarding the significance of my work. JAPANESE RESEARCHERS MADE STATEMENTS ABOUT HOW THEIR WORK SUPPORTED MY MID-RANGE THEORY. I THOUGHT THAT WAS VERY IMPORTANT. Importantly, Japanese researchers, Suzuki and colleagues (2004)[17] expanded the evaluation of the individualized music for persons with dementia by including biophysiological and functional measures in addition to behavioral outcomes. Researchers concluded that “the changes in CgA levels supported Gerdner’s mid-range theory” (p. 17). A second study by Suzuki and colleagures (2007)[18] expanded outcome measures by adding both immunoglobulin A (IgA) as well as saliva chromogranin A (CgA), and once again concluded that findings support Gerdner’s middle-range theory. I ALSO HAVE A NUMBER OF NEWSPAPER ARTICLES FROM CANADA ABOUT MY RESEARCH WITH INDIVIDUALIZED MUSIC. I HAVE JUST MOVED SEVERAL TIMES AND WILL NEED TO DO SOME SEARCHING. THESE ARTICLES ARE LISTED ON MY DRAFT. I WILL SEARCH HIGH AND LOW IF THE CUMULATION OF INFORMATION WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE. I have to get ready for a physician's appointment in Iowa City, I will look for those articles when I get home and anything else that you might need. Best, Linda Gerdner Linda Gerdner (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC) Interviews do not count toward GNG unless there is significant discussion by the interviewer that is separate from the interview itself. Thus video interviews are extremely unlikely to qualify. Academic citations to one's work are also generally not sufficient, although the Japanese article you reference above looks like it could partially contribute to BASIC. Overall the sources found so far do not support notability, but if there is independent SIGCOV across multiple newspapers that may bring it up to borderline. JoelleJay (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Let me explain from the beginning. I worked with a paid editor to create a draft of a wikipedia page. I did not know that he was banned from doing this. He supposed submitted a draft with three or four areas of what I believed to be significant contributions to my discipline. It was published on-line after it had been rewritten with most of the content deleted and the content that was included false, seriously so. I had to make important corrections. Such as I am not a geriatrician, I am a doctorally prepared nurse with a focus in family care of persons with dementia. Suddenly, I found myself in a situation, since I was correcting information that I was not allowed to correct because I am the focus of the wikipedia page. I had to make those changes because it opened me up to liability issues. The person from Wikicreator told me Wikipedia made those erroneous changes. Someone volunteered to be an editor for me and told me to write a draft. I believe I spend over a month doing that and the entire draft was deleted, apparently I put it on the wrong page or something. The person who volunteered as an editor thought my publication and citation count alone qualified me for a wikipedia page. After I posted my draft, with what I thought was validation of my accomplishments the heavens feel in and the page was deleted. A number of editors have been criticizing my accomplishments and were referring back to information that had been included by someone else (such as the Rolling Stones article). I was also told that all I had to do was do a lit search and music therapists had been working with persons with music and dementia for years. I was told that I was making fraudulent statements about my work. The documents, that one person described as having my byline, was an international award winning study that was published in a top tier journal. This same study was recognized 9 years later for the the forth most highly cited article in that journal. This was followed by an invitation to write a follow-up on article on the progression of my work. This was followed my a commentary from a researcher in this area on the impact of my work. I did not even know this person, the editor of the top tier journal made the request. Again, this was an international award. I was inducted as a fellow to the American Academy of Nursing for this work and the other work that have done with persons of other ethnic groups and their families (remote Arkansas Delta and Hmong Americans). Being a member of the AAN is the highest honor a nurse can receive. Beyond that is becoming a Living Legend (but you about have to be dead for that to happen - o.k. I am exaggerating for effect). My work with individualized music is different from what a music therapist does. In the 1970s and 1980s even thought music therapists may have been working with dementia patents health care professionals were still using chemical and physical restraints to address the behavioral issue. I served in middle management in LTC and know the problems. I came up with an approach that was different from what was being used my music therapists and it could be taught to staff and family. I provide education information to help them free of charge. In addition, many LTCF did not have the finances to hire a MT and that remains true to this day. I developed an idea that could be used 24/7, not just when a therapist was present. This idea received much recognition. The people in the health care field (MDs and nurses) know the importance of my work and have replicaeted. I also developed an evidence-based guideline that is in its 7th edition. This guideline has been distributed by nursing and or medicine at U of Iowa, Stanford University, and University of Michigan. It is my understanding that my opportunity for a wikipedia page has already been rejected. I do not believe that any one or very few saw what I wrote I don't know. I was told to remove it but it was already removed. Although I was told that someone was going to start editing a page for me, I could not find it until just know. It is very brief and it does not include the other areas that I believe are important. I have built on my research and I tried to show that. Too many people in academia flip from one top to another without really making any impact in the world for patients and their families. I tried to do that, I have been dedicated to achieving that goal. I think that one person who has been criticizing my work is a romance writer (I could be wrong). I am use to be critiqued by people in the area of my study. I tried to find another and I was puzzled by his focus I believe it dealt with technology - I did not really even understand. It is no wonder I am having difficulty understanding. The thing that is most frustrating, when the first editor completely erroneous statements about by discipline and had author names incorrect for publications, I was afraid I was going to have litigation against me. I had to make those corrections, but the heavens fell in again. Now when I mentions issues related to individualized music they think it is the same as music therapy. Music therapy is a discipline in and of itself. I have a doctorate in nursing with a focus on dementia, I have spent nearly 30 years developing this work, but I have just been told today that MT has been doing this since the 70s and I am fradulent. I have never experienced anything like this. My last draft also identified myself as a visiting scholar in Sweden. One more think, one of the television interview was conducted after winning the award in Canada and it was done by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The journalist did not answer questions that provided a great a depth but it was what it was. The interview was conducted internationally online and you could tell that person had depth of information by the questions that he asked me. Sorry that this is so long, but as far as I now I have been rejected, I don't know if anyone saw the draft that I worked diligently on. I have received many negative comments. One person even implied that he could edit my page if it went live. They don't have the background to understand. Others in this field know. I am working with a group in Australia who is implementing individualized music, if I am such a fraud, why would they work with me from that distance. They have implied I am egotistical, any wikipedia page that I have ever seen is about the accomplishment and work of that person. I finally asked those person to leave me alone, they have humiliated me enough. I can take constructive criticism if the person knows the content, but seems like we are in two different worlds. I had to explain. People are only getting bits and pieces... Linda Gerdner (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC) I have some doubts about the claim to notability. Statements in the article such as "Gerdner was one of the first to research the impact that music can have as therapy for patients with dementia" is easily falsifiable by consulting a google scholar search for "music therapy" Alzheimer's and limiting results to, say, 1970-1990. There seems to be plenty of recognition of the value of music therapy, plenty of work going on in the field. I suggest Rolling Stone may not be the most reliable source for extraordinary medical history claims. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC) I removed the Rolling Stone reference. It was one of your editors who put it in and liked it. Did you watch the video that was done around 2013? Did you read the commentary that accompanied the 9 year follow-up??? Did you know that Barry Reisberg what one of the persons who felt I was worthy of an award. Do you know who he is? Do you know the what it takes to become a fellow of the American Academy of Nursing - a lot more than it takes to be worthy of wixipedia page. You do not have the knowledge base to judge me. You have put me through enough humiliation. Just let it go. Go to the literature and review how troublesome behaviors were treated in nursing homes between 1970 and the time I started publishing my work in the early 1990s. If you would have had a parent with dementia who had to be placed in a nursing home for their behaviors, then you might understand or realize. For know I have taken all the disrespect I am going to. Your have no respect for me, or my accomplishment -- let it rest. This is overkill, sorry you feel I am so stupid an unworthy. 174.22.111.173 (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC) Sigh. And then folks wonder why some editors prefer not to work on BLPs. Penny Richards (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC) They must be knowledgeable in the discipline and they must not be accusatory. Wake up to why people do not trust the content of wikipedia. Do not be so accusatory unless you understand the entire circumstances. Stop humiliating me!!!! It is over. This is why so many do not want to deal with editors who do not understand the discipline. It is over LEAVE ME Alone. What don't you understand about that. You are beating a dead horse. I am already DEAD. Linda Gerdner (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC) Reminds me of the song "How Can I Miss You When You Won't Go Away?". WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC) I just liked Rolling Stone because it seemed like one of the few examples that wasn't a byline by the subject (!). Given the comments, I'm quite concerned that subject has not read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, which explains all the downsides of having a Wikipedia article, including the fact that any editor can in theory go in to your article and change it, as long as they are able to cite reliable sources. And if they find secondary coverage that you don't like, you don't necessarily get it removed, unless there is a very good reason. Cielquiparle (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Linda Gerdner, I truly empathize with you. Music is my life. I know it can help many things. It can help circumstances that are as of now unknown to most but I also understand that Wikipedia has to have limits to what it can and can not allow. by it's very nature, Wikipedia has to maintain some level of bias against certain viewpoints or the inclusion of certain content. So often subjects of BLP's found on Wikipedia develop this notion that what is written here is absolute truth or that an article about them somehow becomes who they are rather than simply telling what our criteria allows us to say about them. The intent of this article is not to take away or add to your accomplishments. The intent of this article is not to elevate or diminish you as a person. It is simply to tell a version of what reliable sources say about you. You are not dead even if an article about you here on Wikipedia is. Your Song still lives and I hope it continues to live and be shared with others through your work in life. --ARoseWolf 21:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Thank you. Let the abuse from others STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!! I wonder what their accomplishments are. Most hide behind pseudo names, in an effort to simulate a Blind Review. Linda Gerdner (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Linda Gerdner, what I said was not to criticize anything any editor here is doing because we have restrictions we have to operate by in regards to our policies, however, I have learned that a subject having an article on Wikipedia does not make it more true nor does not having an article make a subject less true. We can only go by what independent reliable secondary sources say about a subject. We can not include something that is not said by those sources and anything that is said by those sources is subject to inclusion so long as it meets our criteria for due weight. That could be criticism or praise, positive or negative. This is why an autobiography article is such a bad idea. You can not control any aspect of what an article here says about you if it is found in reliable sources. At this point I do not see the abuse you are trying to say exists but I also empathize with the fact that is how you feel. It is valid because you feel it but the evidence does not support the claim. Their accomplishments are irrelevant because they are not the subject of a potential article. Mine do not matter to Wikipedia either. They matter to me and to those who know and love me. My name is Asareel, btw, a rose and a wolf is just symbolic of who I am. --ARoseWolf 14:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC) I have always been taught NOT to use secondary sources, because it is not reliable. I went on line last night an looked at how wikipedia is viewed. People have tried to make corrections on erroneous information and the editors write something worse than was originally written. There are numerous videos out there. Your co-founder even has spoken on video (primary source) the wiki 500+ citations for one article that won an international award and whose research has been duplicate in 12 countries including Iran. I was contacted by a research in Iran about my work. That was in the draft that was deleted. I like to see any of you get an accomplishment like that in your lifetime. None of you have the knowledge base to critique my life. During my retirement years I have written 6 books and am on my 7. That means I am no longer doing research. That is one heck of an accomplishment. A professor at Stanford said I am make probably more significant contributions than I would have been allowed to make in academia. No my books ARE NOT romantic novels like one of your editors is famous for. This has been a NIGHTMARE!!! My anger is not at you as much as it as the little uneducated trolls. The first video I found was by complete accident, it focused on the misinformation on the media in general. I did not expect wikipedia to be there. Wikipedia was really trashed. I meant to see that, I feel like most of your editors just want to tear someone down who has been significant accomplishments in their life. The article was rejected a long time ago, but editors just kept trying to destroy my accomplishments. There are some very accomplished people that have been chewed up and spit out by you people. They don't care, the people who have read their books and their research articles know how brilliant they are. Yes they are brilliant. No, I am not but I am a hard worker and made many accomplishments. I received an international award by top researchers in the country. Are music therapist part of that group. NO. In my opinion they are close to activity personnel. An copy of my 60+ page 7th edition was attached to my draft. Evidence guidelines are what drive practice. That guideline is being used across the globe. Yes, even in Iran. It think it is a blessing that I have been rejected rather than endure the groups criticism. I told people to stop (even after I was rejected, but no they just had to keep pouring salt Linda Gerdner (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC) over the wound. I told them to stop I was already dead and they kept going. Miss leadership kept on, beating the dead horse. I found her on-line unless it is someone else. The man who knew the field of healcare or medicine, wrote about a physician who was long dead. Yep I think that qualifies someone as a medical scholar. I am exaggerating, but I am trying to make a point. I appreciate you humanity, I do. But I am so angry at the other trolls (that is how they are viewed). Maybe those that are on a power trip should see how they are viewed by others. IF THEY FOLLOWED THE RULES SO PRECISELY THEY WOULD NOT HAVE SO MUCH MISINFORMATION OUT THERE - IT IS NOT HARD TO FIND. In the academic world you are not allowed to critique someone's work unless you have some knowledge of the field. It is obvious this power hungry trolls have no knowledge of my area. I am free of this disaster. Now I need time to heal... Linda Gerdner (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

News from the destub mines

Sometime this weekend, the Wikipedia:The 50,000 Destubbing Challenge will surpass 4000 destubs listed, and 8% of its goal total. Hooray! I know this, because this morning I completed my own destub challenge, which was also my 12th alphabet run -- 26 destubs, all women's bios, Annette to Zanzye. Destubbing can be so satisfying, highly recommended as a variation on the usual diversions. Penny Richards (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Female animals, perhaps by name?

One of our most recent new members, Pandelver, has suggested under "Need for attention to female animals too" on my talk page that it might be useful to consider whether Women in Red should also embark on reducing the gender gap on animals.--Ipigott (talk) 11:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Would 'Animal Women in Red' or something else you suggest be a name for a task force which brings attention to the females of every other species who are notable for inclusion in Wikipedia as a global encyclopedia? Only a small handful are as yet part of popular consciousness though we know these by personal names which we humans have given them. Koko the ground breaking keyboarding gorilla, Chaser the female Bordie Collie whose over 1000 word human vocabulary for her own stuffed toys dwarfs the 75 words already considered high for dogs working for humans, or Laika the first Soviet space dog. These actually did, themselves, what made their human scientists and family famous. Laika died for it, her death right in her capsule was planned by mission control after they celebrated getting her out of Earth's atmosphere alive. A few more immediately came to mind, mentioned on Ipigott's talk page. Ipigott finds we have some horses listed by personal name on Wikipedia but little else.

But we humans are only 1 in 2-8 million animal species as biologists guess.

I ask what we should call the subproject of acknowledging 'women' of our sister taxa because here we're the Women in Red project, and 'Non-human Females in Red' is, today, clunkier. Humans have been such automatic aggrandizers, our modern society usually draws the distinction line between human 'people' with 'women' and 'animals' with 'females'. On the other hand, traditional societies who saw humans as peers of at least other highly sentient species, not as masters of slaves, call other species people and are comfortable about other species' 'women'. Furthermore, the endonym of any race or tribe usually derives from that socioelect's word for 'people' so we have spent millennia keeping the status of 'people' from other fellow humans just as long patriarchal millennia refused so many kinds of masteries to women, reserving them for men. And when we're not feeling too haughty only about prodigy individuals, I bet most Nobel physiology prizes were earned on the bodies of thousands of mother and daughter mice who were given women's names by their 'caretakers'. Yet UK legislation is recognizing sentience in cephalopods and decapods, octopuses and lobsters, and the thrust with species mentalities well above those is to speak of their intelligence, emotions, personalities, social signficances and individual accomplishments.

Animal females (yes, 'animal women' is awkward today, too) have been noteworthy but overlooked in real life, besides plentifully inspiring in fiction, myth and religion, and we are still naming monuments and off-planet places predominantly after males, when using both human names and names of animals. It is quite possible that a century from now when biology really breaks the cellular confines of discrete species, the mainstream will treat femininity in other species and hybrids, including some we are likely to modify toward human forms of sentience, the same way we treat human femininity. US colloquial society has retired the political phrase 'affirmative action', while Hollywood has taken formal steps to include minorities including women in key film-making roles, as of these few years. In fact, there must be a huge repertoire of female animal stars in Hollywood productions, alone. Some of what's extraordinary about animal women and what they do is imbedded in existing articles as tertiary features, but their patterns in bigger pictures doesn't emerge without highlighting. How will we at Wikipedia bridge the gap for noteworthy animal women since we are the ones who write and compose their profiles?

Here at Wikipedia, Women in Red is working to reach gender balance. If we recognize that females of other species have been responsible for so much of what's encyclopedically worthy in human achievement, without credit, and that some have been individually named by humans or are of individual notability themselves, it also helps the global audience which reads and uses Wikipedia normalize attention to human women. Outlines and what Ipigott imagines might be article series, I am sure the urges which brought you to Women in Red will suggests formats we can accomplish the equalizing redress.

First I ask of your insight, what should we call an initiative like this.

Then, how, with what Wikipedia tools would you like to honor women both in close kindred like Great Apes and in other sister species? Pandelver (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Strikes me as completely out of scope for WiR & something that should not be a sub-project of WiR. With the best will in the world, "animal women" is not a thing. Nor has any evidence been adduced that there is a gender disparity on WP with respect to individual animal articles which needs to be addressed. For sure, adding more individual animal articles is a good thing to do, where notability is met and reliable sources are available. Adding more female gendered organisms is also good, if that's your thing. I don't think the initiative helps WiR, and it's also closer to bringing WiR into disrepute than I care for. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Tagishsimon. Women are people. Please don't broaden the project to "femaleness in red", that doesn't interest me at all. Penny Richards (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

There might well be a case for writing more articles about female animals but I don't think there is any reason why that should be part of Women in Red. On the other hand, there may be a case for adding more articles to Category:Female characters in anime and manga. I don't think there is much evidence that female animals have been receiving substantially less attention than their males counterparts.--Ipigott (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to WiR @Pandelver. Cultural representations of femininity broadly writ is an interesting topic, but, for my money, this project is appropriately dedicated to increasing the percentage of biographies of women. You might find more enthusiasm for writing about animals someplace like WP:Animals or WP:WikiProject Animal Rights. I hope you’ll keep contributing to WiR too though! Innisfree987 (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• Since Pandelver doesn't link to anything, it may be worth pointing out that the top of the tree for the animal biographical articles we have is Category:Individual animals. We seem to have well over a thousand, mostly horses and dogs etc, but for example 3 molluscs. Like most above, I don't feel a pressing need for more, nor does a quick sample seem to show much of a gender bias, except where it follows from eg the way horse-racing and other stud-type patterns of domestication work. For example, despite the advantage bulls have in participating in sport (whether they like it or not), Category:Individual bovines contains by my count 35 males & 18 females - better than the human ratio anyway. Nor do I think it is within scope for this project. Johnbod (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you, Johnbod, I have only cast the briefest glance at that Category list, though its topics seem on the light side for the most part. I am glad to become aware of it, especially if you think it's been filled enough to be top (or root is it?) of our English W's tree, as many category pages are thinly spotty, seems people have not put most articles into relevant categories except in sometimes eclectic streaks of attention, little marathons. Pandelver (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I have a first case for a mild article creation, actually a slight import, on Sangduen "Lek" Chailert who has a short article so far on Simple English Wikipedia, and this is a bridge case into the topic I have asked you all about. Lek is a human female conservationist who is among the dozenish living people currently dubbed 'Elephant whisperers', in her case mainly with Asian elephants, with broad media attention in which she usually shares elephants' names, personalities, and sometimes special talents or histories, elephant societies being fundamentally matriarchal. So I would love your guidance please, Women in Red colleagues, with:

(1) Doing the import, as the article Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia does not give the knowhow of imports within the same language family at W, and I have not done a wholesale import myself before that I recall. One issue is the fine detail of referencing or the latest W quasibot technologies to import source article sources and in what ways to modify their details in the destination wiki, and the temporary or permanent use of 'see sources' in source article statements as the Copying article suggests as a working approach.

(2) Whenever I point out immanent work I've identified, I am NEVER proprietary as working editor, so if any of you feels the yen to accomplish this port before I make time to finish it, please always do so with full blessing, and moreso if you add what all editors including I have not or have not yet thought to meaningfully add. I expect articles to evolve, almost always grow over time, as knowledge and knowledge of knowledge and implications do.

(3) Lek's article may serve as a mild first case of better inclusion of female elephants in consort with Lek's female human achievements and notability, including working out how to parse such influences to the correct extents, so Lek's bio is good starting material. Lek is herself mentioned in regular English W's article on Elephant Nature Park in sections of which that article is now treated as her partial bio, so melding and linking sections between the Park article and Lek's new bio on regular English, grown out of Simple English, is a cohesive task.

(4) Where at Women in Red do we keep and add to a list of identified articles to be created, such as a list of women needing bios, or candidates to be discussed, or subtopics of feminine notability to be created? Not just in the rolling archives of this talk page, surely? Is there a work-to-be-done repository, where the Lek article should be added and from which we may all see what else calls us individually to add? BIT LATER: Ah, would the area be the WiR Categories menu???

(5) My own work, especially writing projects and duties, does not avail me as a regular per-month volume contributor on behalf of Women in Red; what mostly transpires into W is working on articles collateral with my ongoing work outside W. One of the larger containers with which you may conceive me is as having a sociologist's perspective on what we all do. In which regard, as important as species recognition is in the real world for our great grandchildren, what impresses me as needed is a renaissance, perhaps through a Wiki Project, within the present W community to actually institute several ethos elements which we glossily purport. Yet which both evolved disputative culture and the revising editorial hierarchy in practice thoroughgoingly unravel. Because we are so subject to the common and ordinary real human world phenomenon, of many who get enthused about being supervisory editors in the same way that many relish being cops. A recognized personality orientation in the case of police. Swift handling of misinformation to the public is important. It may take presumptive action like wholesale reversions. Yet what is always important hand in hand is vetting its content to preserve what's so far worthwhile, without demoralizing line editors or recent volunteers. So what might be called for are the following (if you know of existing Wikipedia organizations or even philosophical factions, being as fruitfully full of these here as elsewhere, please let me know):

1) That Wikipedia's purpose and criteria are far more for its readers and their uses than for its proferring writers and compilers, and the different ways in which our material is used by reader sociolects and types within those is paramount, far above the salaciousness of 'edit wars' or 'ownership' in atavistic sense by individuals trying to guard bits or be zero-sum game instead of complementary

2) So that what is encouraged is much stronger collegiality, whose depth of mutual engagement in material is typically apparent because it incidentally produces real friendships, not only drinking-fountain acquaintances and alliances; it elevates the corpus of editors who boost each other in the delivery (and experience) of important work, conveyed through to readers and increasingly aware of what readers want that they are not yet getting.

3) Editors, especially up the hierarchical line, whose evident tenor is championing the satisfactions of knowledge, inspiring this attitude of getting the best, which is not just objectivity but the brilliance of knowledge we come together to present, eclipsing games in all directions of mere cops and robbers. Don't we really want Editors, those who shape what's written into greatness, contributing their editorial sense? Even without originality in our charter. The moreso therefore, those who build and care about what should be added as much as subtracted, who have vision for what's important in article's growth. At some point, of course, as with any organization, no matter how grass roots or partly decentralized, such tones are usually best fostered in unison with the most senior strategists who shape the organization overall.

4) Perhaps we may develop, including for Women in Red, guidance recommendations for what SHOULD be in an article, positively, such as about persons, living, fictitious and dead, what makes an article more complete to serve readers who do not dismiss it to use an article elsewhere as preferable to our W articles on a topic or person cluster, not as addenda to smashingly good treatment here. Becoming conscious, including through surveys and studies, of the living, changing pulse of both large and important special groups and individuals who are the readers, learners, citers, inventors, implementers, and future collaborators of articles here. And not to be a new formidable prescriptive wall but out of our pith as editors about what's pithy in valuable, sufficiently versatile articles for our real constituency, which is all the varied users, not overweening influence by any including casual mainstreams. Rather, guides to sections and contents and forms which are of greater usefulness to more.

I look forward both to adding to our shared pool, human for a while for now, with you, and personally, to those profound friendships which are beyond advocacies and shared habits and variant tastes, and which never need compromise but fully embrace those in each other as what makes us great people.

Warmly, in this New Year begun,

~ Pandelver

Stub about author Sally Green reverted to redirect

I noticed that author Sally Green did not have an article written on her and enthousiastically started collecting sources. I created a stub that was quickly marked with 'primary sources' and 'notability'. WIthin six days the article was reverted back to its redirect of her most notable work. I wanted to have a second opinion on this as I see male authors with the same problems that are not being turned into redirects. Do you think the revert was right? Martsniez (talk) 07:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me it would be useful to expand on Green's achievements by drawing on the many critical assessments of her work, for example from The Guardian on Half Bad, The Times on The Smoke Thieves, The Financial Times on The Smoke Thieves, Heart Full of Books on Half Wild, Cups & Thoughts on The Smoke Thieves, etc.--Ipigott (talk) 08:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Heart Full of Books and Cups & Thoughts are blogs so they would not contribute to notability. TSventon (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted the draftify - we are missing the point that its a notable article and it can develop into one in main space. Best of luck @Martsniez: - the main thing that it was missing was a WIR template but I've fixed that. More than enough good sources. Victuallers (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you all for the helpful comments. As an irregular contributors I sometimes struggle when other more seasoned contributors argue notability and sources. It is helpful and encouraging that I can ask for some assistance and second opinions on these matters. Thanks also for the new direction of sources that I hadn't thought about yet. Martsniez (talk) 06:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy to report back that by many great edits by various persons the article has gotten in great shape within a few days. Many thanks! Martsniez (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Celebrating Wikipedia Day today!

Short notice, but I thought some of you might be interested in this: in 45 minutes (at the top of the hour), come join the m:SWAN call which, this time, is a one-hour around-the-world-celebration of Wikipedia Day. For privacy, you can keep your audio and/or video on or off. More info and Zoom link here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Wikimedia_Affiliates_Network#January_2023_meeting Rosiestep (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Rosiestep, sorry to have missed that. Happy Wikipedia Day to you, and to all a Good Wikipedia! Pandelver (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Who's Irish (or Irish beguiled)? And who knows valid etymology sources for personal names?

Part of this is a shout out for lil contributions to lil Pegeen, but that article also raises a longstanding question for some of us:

What sources, especially translingual, do you know for citing etymologies, given that Wiktionary is by now well populated but askance to forbidden, Douglas Harper's once solo effort has made Etymonline the closest second on the web, but far less fruitful, a fraction of Wiktionary, and the bits of etymology in the few good narrow dictionaries online by language hardly venture across language boundaries very far for global metrospeak in major languages especially, or for close kinships of neighboring tribes? Resources you can share for us to use extensively?

Today I put the first half dozen cites and also more instances into what I'd found the entirely uncited but rouge Irish woman's name Pegeen article. And had as yet even missed how Auntie Mame limelighted Pegeen into the 21st century.

Pegeen was stylish in English earlier last century; this article had already started by saying Pegeen is Anglicized Irish for "little Peig" or "little Margaret" but doesn't even explain, why Margaret? Some of us have already heard Margaret's from the Greek word for 'Pearl'. I don't know myself the particular descent from Pearl to Peg and Peggy perhaps? to the obvious use of that cute Celto Gaelic diminutive -een to form Pegeen. So the raw facts in the first line so far are true but don't illuminate readers yet, no tingles of understanding or artful appreciation. Nacreous etym's the evocative flow between people's cultures, creating these words with which we gleam our interflows on W, a no neh?

Please jump in there if you've the Irish gall to better blush Pegeen's cheeks, it's a small task, but relies on the big grace of knowing a Wiki-venerable online source or having an authoritative tome of English, Celto Gaelic, Greek or interlingua reference which captures this etym or a social history of the name's migration or permutation. And I've made an edit note by each of the first 2 literary/ arts fictive instances where the Pegeens from Playboy of the Western World and the 1920 film yearn for better subentries. Always welcome you working hand in hand, thanks. And perhaps you'll bring more outstandging women named Pegeen to light for everyone, I especially imagine if you can delve out those from Ireland and Scotland for sure, and perhaps cognates in Wales, Brittany and adopted into English, so even Aussies.

Go Brách, cairde! Pandelver (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say I don't find your changes to Pegeen to be an improvement. The article is about the name. The reader is not informed by lengthy cast lists, nor prolix plot summaries concerning characters having that name, not least when there are self-standing articles on the book/film/whatever in which such information properly should be sited. Section headings should be sentence case. I note, too, your very long posts on this board; generally boards such as this work better with concision. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, dear Tagishsimon, we are variously born together to work different facets, especially completing each other with those which have not consciously become productive work. I look forward to your adding to Pegeen what you recognize will make Pegeen more complete, Slainte. Pandelver (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Well yes, but also, mainly, no. Articles should contain information about the subject of the article. Articles should not contain off-topic information. That's generally the way encyclopedias work. If you don't wish to take this concept seriously, I will happily revert your additions. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, so I am taking this fully seriously. Pandelver (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Tagishsimon, are you extending me the fullhearted collegiality with which we shall relish, through difference of perspective, building together? So we may both put all lesser quirks, sarcasms or such, aside, in good forthright collaboration? Pandelver (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Do please consider that the paradigm of hyperlinks so fundamental to Wikipedia and most else online today, the way we use and think, is the emphasis on interrelation, which is a seachange in topic and off-topic from previous centuries. Then I shall refrain from more ideas because nothing is ever an attack, it is always an invitation, and you must surely step into the space with your extended hand before it's proper for me to further lift my already lifted one to you, my peer. Pandelver (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I cast out here for others' contributions because so far I have just put in more of what others had started. What you find prolix, when some of us are staring at a list of unobvious items as we learn, will find laconic in giving just the first gist from which we decide what to explore on other pages, without which the first page is not yet a useful guide. So come, Tagishsimon, what may you suggest as new content which will make this rather petite topic in any case a stellar petite article, not a bland one inciting no really compelling interest, promising not even intellectual excitement? Shoot, I'm all ears, then we succeed in this thread of threads. Shoot, please! Pandelver (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Here you go. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Help with drafts?

Would anyone be willing to look at two drafts of bios of Indigenous women artists that were just recently (and IMO incorrectly) rejected? They are Draft:Marlana Thompson, which I've tried to bolster, and Draft:Vicki Lee Soboleff. Thank you for any insights into this situation. Carolina-parakeet-42 (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Carolina-parakeet42

@Carolina-parakeet-42: Draft:Marlana Thompson is a clear and unambiguous WP:NARTIST pass by virtue of her work in major museums. Draft:Vicki Lee Soboleff, in my view, is also an NARTIST pass, with work known to be in two major museums, and the recipient of a named award. Both appear to have been declined on, essentially, WP:GNG grounds, which is entirely wrong where NARTIST is met. They are both well-written and well-referenced articles which WP should be glad to have.

I have promoted one to mainspace, and will promote the other in a minute or two. There's always a risk that a deletionist may take one or both to Articles for Deletion; I hope that doesn't happen, but it's worth at least anticipating it. If so, obvs, they're likely to receive 'keep' !votes from this quarter.

@SFnativeAKM: You have enough edits that you can move your drafts to mainspace (or write in mainspace from the word go. I recommend you avoid the Articles for Creation route, because that service is busy and often makes poor decisions. If you need any assistance in this respect, this board is a good place to come to. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Both could do with categories, and obvs any other wikilove anyone feels like bestowing on them

• Marlana Thompson
• Vicki Lee Soboleff

--Tagishsimon (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I'll try to contribute to these tomorrow. Carolina-parakeet-42 (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Carolina-parakeet-42

tbh, SFnativeAKM, new editor on a Smithsonian editathon, has been given the full stereotype very worst reception WP offers: two very good articles declined at AfC and a scary COI notice left on their talk page. Welcome to the project indeed :( --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I've done everything I can for Vicki Lee Soboleff. I think it's looking a lot better and more solid now, SFnativeAKM, Carolina-parakeet-42. Silverseren^C 19:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, it looks great. SFnativeAKM (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@SFnativeAKM I've added a redirect from Vicki Soboleff (good idea anyway, and this exact form is used in one of the sources), and created a surname page at Soboleff as there are three people to include (if she'd been the only name-holder I'd have made a redirect). These bits of navigation help make an article accessible. PamD 16:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

And I've also created redirects from Marlana Thompson Baker and Marlana Baker, and added her to Thompson (surname). And added the date of birth of both to the lead - it was in the infobox in each case, but a standard opening sentence for a biography includes dates when known. PamD 16:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Does the Daily Mail ban affect Wikipedia's coverage of women?

It is currently being argued at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard that the Daily Mail article "Fifty years ago, SHIRLEY CONRAN launched Femail with this racy cover. Today, we recreate it for a special edition as she rejoices how women got to wear the trousers!" published in November 2018, cannot be used as a source because it doesn't qualify as the Mail talking about itself, and is thus subject to the general ruling that anything written in the Mail by anyone for any purpose, is to be treated as if it is a deliberate fabrication for the purpose of making money. Fair enough. Perhaps it is, and I guess nobody can prove Shirley isn't complicit in that fraud. As absurd as it sounds, that is the logical basis for this all encompassing ban, the prospect of deliberate fraud, not easily corrected mistakes. But I was struck by the oft seen supporting argument that by definition, anything that can only be sourced to the Mail, is de facto unimportant to Wikipedia. I wondered how this sits with members of this project. Since in my experience, for reasons well understood here I imagine, you don't have to go too far into the depth of articles like this before you reach a point where you're reading material which would be unambiguously valuable to the goals of this Project (writing women's stories), but which have been ignored by so called reliable sources. I don't know what can be done about it, short of finding a way to have Shirley independently (and it has to be independently) repeat these words in a source deemed acceptable, which may not be practical at all, given her age and the general jealousy the rest of the media has toward the hugely popular Mail, unwilling as they are to admit it is more than just a right wing rabble rouser, as pieces like this show, both in the past and the present. I hope this doesn't discourage people, but if you're thinking that there is any way or means to get the majority of Wikipedia editors to reflect on the unintended (or should the be intended?) consequences of what was a fairly lightweight and clearly prejudiced examination of the alleged issues, certainly when asking for proof that the Mail specifically has a deliberate fraud problem, one far beyond what can and has been seen at other newspapers, even the gold standard ones, you would be mistaken. If so, it does rather strike me as perhaps the biggest single example of a Wikipedia rule deliberately and permanently enshrining a gender gap as an immutable quality of Wikipedia. Thoughts welcome. DefJamKlapp (talk) 11:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The prohibition of the Daily Hate as a reliable source arises out of the observation that it is not a reliable source; it makes stuff up to suit its agenda. That Shirley Conran started Femail is mentioned in her article. Trying to leverage the gender gap to support lifting the ban on this rank publication is quite a take. Please be assured that banning the DM has not materially adversely affected gender gap work, and also be assured that that ban is very very far away from "the biggest single example of a Wikipedia rule deliberately and permanently enshrining a gender gap as an immutable quality of Wikipedia". --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

DefJamKlapp: Thanks for bringing this up. For a start, I know that some of the most active Women in Red contributors are 100% in favour of maintaining the ban on the Daily Mail. I therefore don't see much chance of making any changes. I'm not so sure myself that the Mail is any worse than several other British dailies which are all keen to increase sales by coming up with stories which cannot be authenticated. Perhaps the main problem with the Mail for many editors is that it tends to take a firmly conservative view of the world while the socialist views in other papers appear to be more acceptable however far-fetched they are. As I am not a supporter of any particular political party, I would therefore prefer to see a more nuanced approach to any ban on a Britsh newspaper which is so widely read. In this particular case, some of our more enterprising editors may be able to find independent sources in support of Femail. I must say that we are usually able to find solutions in our interest to present important information.

While I'm here, I must say I am not at all happy with the current changes to presentation which I have struggled with for months if not years on the French wiki. The only way I was able to reply to this item was to work on an edit of the full talk page. If anyone else is experiencing difficulties, I suggest you report them to Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022.--Ipigott (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes, the UK; famous for its - checks notes - socialist media. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: You're going to make me quote that bit from Yes, Prime Minister, aren't you? (Sorry.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

:) --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The central problem, of course, has nothing to do with the DM but rather that the OP is permanently banned from all Wikimedia projects. I'd recommend nuking the section per DENY, to be honest. JavaHurricane 01:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Sandy Irani

Sandy Irani is a professor and former chair of computer science at UC Irvine, on leave as associate director of the Simons Institute for the Theory of Computing [3]. She is the daughter of Michigan computer science professor Keki B. Irani [4], a student of Richard M. Karp [5], a trustee of the Sage Hill School [6], a well-cited researcher on online algorithms and quantum computing [7], a recipient of the 2019 IEEE TCMF Distinguished Service Award for her leadership of the SafeTOC initiative for combating harassment at theoretical computer science conferences [8], and a newly elected ACM Fellow [9]. I normally try to make sure articles exist for all women ACM Fellows (and am in the process of checking existence for this year's batch) but in this case I have too much of a conflict of interest: she is a friend and close colleague. Maybe someone else would be interested? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

She was quoted briefly in a 1998 LA Times piece on women in computing. Quoted at some length by MIT News (which I believe she is independent of), source also verifies "specializes in quantum computation". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 07:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikidata to Gender Rescue on Wikipedia (WiGeData )

I've just come across a funding proposal on meta - Wikidata to Gender Rescue on Wikipedia (WiGeData ) - wherein, to my admittedly quite jaundiced eye, a group of academics is intent on some form of wheel reinvention, perhaps with added spokes & such. Notable by its absence in the proposal is any pointer to past work - e.g. Humaniki & its priors; just clear blue sky and WiGeData. Perhaps we're doomed to do this, eternally, every three or four years. Anyway. Some of you here may well wish to support it; who knows. I think the MO is they need support via that page to get their grant. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Tagishsimon, for notifying us of the formal grant application. This item was discussed on our talk page in late November under "Research proposal on Gender and Wikidata" where I expressed a few reservations.--Ipigott (talk) 07:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

So it was, here. Missed that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Here's the link to last November - I'm making a note of these on the Meta page, to point funding reviewers to our concerns, and the fact that although some were addressed, not all were. Lajmmoore (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Susan Tanner (diplomat)

Is up for deletion. Was Australian ambassador to Spain as well as Chile. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Feminism and Folklore 2023

Hi WIRED team, we are going to organise Feminism and Folklore 2023 here on English Wiki, writing contest will start on 1 February. I would like to invite all you to sign up and participate to write/improve articles. I would also like to request the project maintainers to send a mass message to inform our WIRED members about the writing contest. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 20:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)