Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 57

Archive 50

←

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Hello! About "socialites"

I'm starting to think about my speech at Wikimania this year and I want to focus on the issues around gender representation in Wikipedia. I have as an idea for a sort of case study the term "socialite" (see also Category:Socialites).

Kardashian, a disambiguation page for the famous family, neatly sums up what I'm thinking about. The father, a famous attorney and businessman, is called that, and properly so. Of the children, 3 of them - the daughters, are called 'socialite'. The son, Rob, who as far as I can tell "spends a significant amount of time attending various fashionable social gatherings" (the key phrase from our definition of the term) as much as his sisters do, is not called 'socialite'.

If this were an isolated case, I'd just move on. But I started researching how we use the term, and I'm not at all happy with what I found. While the Kardashian family is actually a very good example of "socialites" (were it to be applied in a gender neutral way) I suppose, I think it is far more often used (by the tabloid media and non-serious media in general) as a subtle "put down" for women who are successful in their own right but who also attend fashionable events and come from famous families.

It is seldom used for men, regardless of their social life. (I did a spreadsheet and looked at about 30 examples from our category, just to confirm the pattern.)

My current view is that this is an old fashioned term which might properly be applied only to members of aristocracy in the distant path who didn't have any other career or accomplishments other than being prominent by virtue of their social standing, hosting parties, and so on. Even in this case, I would personally cast a critical eye on older sources which may have used the term as a way to "pooh pooh" the independent accomplishments of women of high social standing through birth or marriage. I hasten to point out that we need not slavishly follow the particular language of older sources - we don't call Martin Luther King, Jr. a "negro" even though contemporary media about him back in the day of course used the term extensively.

I'm actually not here with a particular proposal, and I don't even know if I'm in the right place. I just wanted to think about this with people who may also be concerned about this kind of issue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Another data-point, fwiw - counts of people with occupation=Socialite grouped by gender from wikidata gives us male=213, female=685 ... and Rob Kardashian gets the socialite appelation on wikidata. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

And a couple of temporal analyses based on date of birth for people with occupation=socialite - remembering that wikidata occupation coding is a very blunt instrument indeed:

absolute values

• from 1400 to 1499 - 1
• from 1500 to 1599 - 2
• from 1600 to 1699 - 6
• from 1700 to 1799 - 46
• from 1800 to 1899 - 247 (Normalised= ~1250)
• from 1900 to 1999 - 532 (Normalised= ~665)
• from 2000 to 2099 - 1

normalised values based on [1]

• from 1900 to 1910 - 1003
• from 1910 to 1920 - 734
• from 1920 to 1930 - 929
• from 1930 to 1940 - 424
• from 1940 to 1950 - 406
• from 1950 to 1960 - 350
• from 1960 to 1970 - 423
• from 1970 to 1980 - 407
• from 1980 to 1990 - 672
• from 1990 to 2000 - 322
• from 2000 to 2010 - 112

And an ngram. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to interpret the data on occupation coding without normalizing on the number of people in total. What I mean is that I think there are a lot more people of all sorts ("socialite" and "not socialite") in wikipedia in recent times.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Yup, good point. I've normalised the 1900-2010 values, in a rough & ready fashion, based on biography volumes indicated in the WHGI all time gender at date of birth graph, and done the same for two of the centuries. And by the same token, we know that only 17.83% of biogs are women, so normalising the m/f counts gives us a ratio of 259:3842, which rather speaks to your initial gender representation concern. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment

I think it's an outdated terminology we should relegate to the leaving behind in the 20th century. "Socialite" to me meant women like Barbara Hutton (whose 3rd husband Cary Grant was never called a socialite). If America can be considered to have an "aristocracy", it was generally white wealthy people, women who inherited wealth and were groomed to marry the right people. The Vanderbilt family would be a prime example. Along the way, many of them contributed to our culture, such as Doris Duke. Does anybody ever call Elizabeth II a socialite? I'm not suggesting that it's correct to categorize the term as "white", but how many persons of color in past centuries can you think of being called "socialite"? But what we have today are people famous for being famous, selling their names, images and likeness wherever the dollar turns. Perhaps we should not use the term on anyone born after a certain decade.— Maile (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

This does seem to be a heavily gendered term. When a man is mostly known for his socializing he's more likely to be called an epicure, courtier, and bon-vivant, or some such. But I think "socialite" has more than one meaning. Beyond the "aristocracy" or "famous for being famous" people we seem to be mostly talking about, it has also been applied to quite a few 19th- and early 20th-century American women who were prominent in the social clubs of their locale, because that was the only thing most women of those times and places were allowed to do. For these women, I think it acts more to describe how they made the most of the opportunities they had, than to be dismissive of their other accomplishments. On the other hand, it can be a danger sign for the article. Many Wikipedia editors tend to believe that being prominent in women's social clubs is not a thing one should be notable for, and so apply strict standards for what level of coverage is needed to have articles on such people. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isophene Goodin Bailhache for a recent example of an article that was deleted for this reason. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, you comment on Cary Grant not being called a socialite, but neither is Mary Pickford. I think the term may be alright as a catch-all for historical women who both fit into the category and don't have another, more specific classification (writer, actress, investor), but the term should be limited to those cases where it's actually a good description, or as part of a complex listing, e.g. as in Paris Hilton, where the term is used as part of a long list of other notable roles she fulfils (and it's probably arguable as to whether that really adds anything more than "media personality" does). Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 09:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, Jimbo. I'm really pleased to see that you intend to address the Wikipedia gender gap in your speech for Wikimedia. I agree that discussion of the term socialite is a good starting point as it covers the main (often only) "occupation" (rather than profession) of many of the women whose articles carry the category. Allow me to point out that Category:Socialites dates right back to May 2005, when it was added by Cleduc with the definition: "A socialite is a person of social prominence who is considered to be an influential social figure." His edit comment is "An occupation, not a profession." At the same time, he added the following to the article Socialite: "The word may also be used to describe a person's occupation. A person who does little more than attend society functions is often considered a socialite." See: [2]. A brief examinitation of Category:Socialites by nationality shows that it has been applied above all to those living in the English-speaking countries, especially the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada (in that order). A fair number of socialites have biographies created over the past couple of years by members of Women in Red such as Elisa.rolle and Rosiestep who have drawn on biographical dictionaries which are now in the public domain. It seems to me that the category Socialites has frequently been used when more precise occupations/professions Category:Philanthropists, Category:Writers were not appropriate. That may be one of the reasons why there are considerably more women socialites than men in the English version of Wikipedia, although I have not undertaken a detailed examination. Interestingly, there is no equivalent to the Socialites category in French and German. It is used in Spanish, but mainly for articles about Americans. Hope this helps.--Ipigott (talk) 10:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

True re your comment about Mary Pickford. An odd bit or trivia comes to mind re the past acceptance of the term. I haven't read the book on which Alfred Hitchcock based the film Marnie. Granted, movies make their own reality. The title character is a thief, a woman who works as a typist as an foot in the door to stealing any company's cash stash. She's caught by company owner Sean Connery, who eventually marries her. On their honeymoon cruise, she tells her new husband, "What do you mean what will I do with my life? I assumed I would be society hostess." From clerk typist felon to wealthy society hostess via marriage. Odd as it is, maybe not so off base for its time period. — Maile (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Yesterday, I participated in an event about women in engineering. My plan was to focus on Sarah Guppy – an influential member of Bristol society who was an associate of Brunel. When dealing with such subjects, we must be wary of credentialism because such women were often denied formal qualifications. Such people are often the most interesting subjects but may be difficult to classify and categorise. Other types which may have such issues include:

• activist
• amateur
• debutante
• dilettante
• eccentric
• entrepreneur
• polymath

We should not require everyone to fit into a formal professional structure. Jimbo himself is a good example of someone who made a difference by being different and doing something new. Andrew D. (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Is that a common problem? I haven't seen it often, but then, I do image work, so I'm not always paying attention to infoboxes. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 13:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• We've discussed "political hostess" here before - no article, but Category:English political hostesses now has 13 members (I think it was 3 before), which is still way too low. There's a small category tree (Category:Political hostesses), though apparently they are entirely an Anglophone thing! We might make more use of "hostess", though obviously this is so far a gendered-only term. Personally I think "socialite" is pretty much gendered, certainly in British usage (though it's really an American term - UK newspapers never call anyone here one). Modern English rather lacks terms for rich people with no real job, which is a pity as there are so many of them. I've noticed "philanthropist" is now essentially a non-gendered term for this in American usage. There's not much we in WP can or should do to influence gaps in the language - no doubt something will emerge. Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: I cannot agree that British newspapers never call anyone a socialite. Just make a search on British socialite Guardian or British socialite Daily Mail and you'll see how frequently it is now being used. It looks to me as if it is creeping into British English pretty rapidly, like so many other American terms.--Ipigott (talk) 10:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's interesting, though the number of uses is not massive. Interesting, the British meaning seems to be significantly different, with strong connotations of wild child/party girl etc. Almost every one of these hits (Telegraph also) refers to someone with well-publicized addiction issues or other involvement with criminal charges of some sort. Such an ENGVAR difference might be an issue in using the term more - I don't think it carries such connotations in the States. Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• That brings to mind Mrs Montagu who is categorised as a salon-holder as well as a socialite, and that's another type of hostess. That then reminds of the "Ladies of Quality and Distinction" that were the subject of another recent event. There were indeed many such women who were formally in the shadow of their husbands but still managed to make a difference, by using their social standing and connections. Andrew D. (talk) 14:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Indeed - that exhibition closes on Sunday, btw. Apart from the questions of what we call people in the first line of a bio, or what categories we put them in, there is a serious lack of general articles on this area of women's history - so political hostess etc. This is all too typical of WP's approach to social matters, which is far too much led by biographies. Of course there are always exceptions, like the epic Women's literary salons and societies in the Arab world. Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm very glad to see you here, @Jimmy, and addressing this topic. I tend to write about pre-XX-c women. As others have mentioned, and you might inherently know, the opportunities for women in terms of education, occupation, and profession were limited in that time. What was possible for some women was to develop a circle of friends and acquaintances who would meet and discuss topics of interest to them, the "salon". The salonist would have had to have financial means, e.g. an appropriate home to host such gatherings. How many of these circles, large or small, existed we will never know as the greatest triumph of a salonist was to make it into the "history books". Some did so in their own right, while others did because they were a daughter or wife of someone who was "notable". From her wiki article, we know that the salonist Germaine de Staël (1766–1817) began attending salons as a child, sitting at her mother's feet. Apparently involved in some scandals, I think she would have been characterized as a "socialite" or "celebrity" if the term were in vogue in her day. Germaine's mother, Suzanne Curchod (1737–1794), held various salons, the first being a literary group. Mother and daughter were both writers. And not just writers, but women writers who were published, no small feat in their day. How many women were published in the pre-XX-c era, we will never know. This is because many of them took on a gender-neutral pen name in order to get published. Take, for example, Eunice Eloisae Gibbs Allyn (1847-1916). She wanted to become a teacher, but her mother opposed this, instead, wanting the daughter to "enter society". Acquiescing to her mother's wishes, Eunice did not become a teacher. Instead, she started writing. But as her brother didn't want a member of the family to be known as a "Bluestocking", Eunice had to take on a pen name in order to get published. She went on to become a part of the Dubuque Ladies' Literary Union, and eventually published using her real name. Mark Twain had a copy of her book, The Cats’ Convention on his bookshelf. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Interesting discussion here, and one that I have discussed many times in the Dutch gendergap workgroup. There probably are lots of men that should have socialite added to their occupation in Wikidata. I would not use the occupation data in Wikidata as any kind of source for global indications of occupations in Wikipedias of any language. This is because most often the occupation field in Wikidata has been used in the past as a dumping ground for the "claim to fame" in the article lead. This is part of a larger problem in the push to populate Wikidata with data as properties are created. These incremental pushes have been amazingly useful, but still fill Wikidata with many messes. For example, a quick query on the number of items returning P106=criminal is higher than the number for P106=socialite, whereas I would assume this should be the other way around. Also both numbers are way too low. The further back in time you go the worse it gets for occupations, especially for religious people. The number of male theologians far outweighs the number of female theologians, but the funny thing is that it is almost wholly based off some specific imported religious dictionaries, leading us to believe that Germany brought forth the most theologians of all in the world. We have agreed in the Dutch gendergap workgroup to use socialite for women when no other occupation is at hand. The very fact that they have some source writing about them is because they were socially active at a high level. This includes non-published notable female actresses and poets in private circles (who e.g. come down to us today in the many portraits and stories of them), but also sponsors for public health&education initiatives, etc. Jane (talk) 09:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Frankly Jane, this is another example of the kind of "shove them somewhere, it doesn't really matter where" attitude that is one of the factors making Wikidata so useless (the similar approach you have to calling all religious writers "theologians" being another). To say "The very fact that they have some source writing about them is because they were socially active at a high level" is evident nonsense, especially for writers. Why on earth don't you have a category for actresses of all people? Johnbod (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Nope, this time the blame is not all mine. Socialite is a word that translates differently (much like theologian does). The difference is that such catch-all terms for men tend to be actual historical professions, whereas such catch-all terms for women are not. E.g. occupation "actress" would have been an insult to women who were of high class in historical private literary circles who acted out plays. I believe we do use this as occupation however, because that word comes closest to the person's actual creative output. My point about female theologians is that historical ones did not receive credentials. This was in response to an earlier discussion that peoples' occupations are best left blank if they were not professions. Needless to say I disagree with that. On the theology aspect, I was also referring to mothers of the church, not modern religious writers. Jane (talk) 08:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

And failing to deal adequately with designators that mean different things in different languages is another big problem with Wikidata. I don't see why "amateur actor" should be a problem, though I doubt many or any people were mainly notable for this. Vast numbers of courtiers acted in court festivities up to about 1700. Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The OED denotation (last updated 2009) says "U.S colloquial. A person who is prominent in fashionable or wealthy society; a person who is fond of social activities and entertainment." My understanding of its connotations is more diffuse. Nowadays, it reeks of very wealthy "trust fund babies", i.e. young adults who don't have to earn a living, and who get papped falling out of taxis drunk. It inhabits a Venn diagram with "famous for being famous" ("nonebrities") and "party animal". But historically, isn't "socialite" more akin to a political hostess, for those women from non-political families? In other words, didn't the socialising of the wives and mothers facilitate the business successes of their husbands and sons? It's not just going to social events, but creating them - in other words, work. I see the strategic socialising (hosting dinner parties, introducing people) of certain so-called socialites as another form of women's invisible labour. Oh look - a redlink. Which might just prove my point. --Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Carbon Caryatid, where I come from, I don't ever recall hearing the word socialite applied to women's networking, as it had a connotation of upper-class partying. In my middle-class world, the creators of daytime events called "at homes" were "hostesses" and the people they were trying to attract to attend were "callers". They were very definitely networking events planned to solicit information, make connections, and promote ideas and agendas. "Dinner" or "cocktails" could serve the same function at night, but rarely was the word "party" affixed to the event. Everyone knew it was a working event if you were invited to "a dinner", distinct from a party. They were also very definitely events focused around unpaid labor. Groups of women sitting around the dining table selecting who should be invited, what should be offered as food and drink, organizing who would prepare what dishes, and selecting which children would be honored to assist with decorating and cleaning up. I distinctly remember the last part, "you have been chosen to wash the dishes" was supposedly an honor as opposed to a chore (it wasn't). LOL SusunW (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Interesting point and I agree in theory. Sometimes "hostess" is a term that now means a kind of attractive young female guest "famous for being famous" on TV, Netflix and online advertising, most common on Wikipedias in Asia. We have them on TV all the time in talk shows, though generally they thankfully have some other more suitable occupation for Wikidata (writers, actresses, sports figures, etc). Their claim to fame for Wikipedia generally comes from their fashion plugs and popular appearances and not their other work (though the one does generally lead to the other, yada yada). Some "hostesses" are mildly pornographic in nature. Therefore, notable "tupperware party hostesses" of the kind you describe would be better to call socialites I think. Especially since these women in small towns were married to or active in local politics. I think in general there is a distinct difference between the type of historical woman whose audience was mostly men to the type of woman whose audience was mostly female. Jane (talk) 09:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: You wrote: " I think the term may be alright as a catch-all for historical women who both fit into the category and don't have another, more specific classification"...I think that's a fair point. "Socialite" is very much an outdated term to me, nowadays - I'd never think of calling anyone contemporary by that term. I tend to think of it as referring to a particular kind of person, in a particular kind of role, at a particular time. Which indicates to me that maybe there are instances when people are classified as such and it's not the most useful category. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so what is then? This is where we came in. Johnbod (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is interesting, because I'd always seen it as a relatively neutral term for somebody whose notability in large part derives from being a part of the high-society social set. I don't see it as being equivalent to "women's networking" and certainly not to "political hostess", and I don't see it as being outdated: taking a pick of numerous respected broadsheets turns up quite a lot of "socialite" references in the here and now. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I think we may have come up with guidance for using the term in a way that does not diminish other accomplishments, while avoiding usages that probably are best replaced with "media personality" and other such terms that more accurately reflect the rather different modern forms. I think that, to be included, their role in high society, gossip, and other such things needs to be a large part of their notability, not a cause of other aspects. Ellen Terry is an actress who became famous through her work, and most of the rest of her fame tis in to that. Alice Roosevelt Longworth may be fairly described as a socialite, but her very popular tell-all autobiography mean we need to add "and writer" - but the writing at least partially came out of her socialite status. Unless we want to diminish them to "heiress" which seems awful. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 10:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, for historical cases, we should use "society lady", which when taken seriously was a pretty full-time job. There is also "society hostess". For earlier periods in Europe, a Category:Courtiers tree exists, and I think is under-used. While not always involving a lot of work in the normal sense, being a courtier was enormously time-consuming. When was the word "socialite" first used? Not before 1800 I expect. We probably shouldn't use it before some 19th-century cut-off. Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

"Society lady" seems to not have the same depth of meaning. The only reason we're having this discussion instead of saying the word should not be used is because, for a certain group of 19th and early 20th century women, it's a better description than some others. I mean, take Alice Roosevelt Longworth again. I think that one might be able to call her a "noted wit and political..." something. But what? WAS she a hostess? She was clearly important and a trendsetter. "heiress and notable wit"? ... well, yes, but that doesn't quite get her influence. I think the reason "socialite" is useful is because it's a sort of "hold this thought, we'll explain in more detail." It's broad and vague enough that it sets out a space one can build on. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 11:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm finding this discussion fascinating. I think we've identified several categories of people who are called socialite in Wikipedia and I think we should address them separately as the solution to the issue may be different in different cases.

My concern is basically that the term is generally perceived to be negative, at least in contemporary usage. If a woman is socially prominent and successful in her own right it seems clear to me that it is dismissive of her accomplishments to call her a 'socialite'. This most often happens for children of wealthy or famous parents. Let me give an example: Jade Jagger is professionally a Jewellery designer but she isn't in that category although she is in the category British socialites. Zero of the sources for the article call her a 'socialite' - please don't view this as an invitation to go find some because they surely do exist, quite possibly as a result of what Wikipedia says! (COI notice: she's a neighbor who I know).

This is a very different category from the (rather rare, I think?) people who have made a career of "being famous for being famous" - the Kardashians are the most familiar example.

And this is still different from historical examples of women who are notable for holding political/intellectual salons back in a time when most professions were denied to them. And that's different from courtiers, which really implies visiting a royal court I think. And that's also different from women who are notable for purely being socially influential without an intellectual/political salon component, etc.

I think some of these uses are wrong and some of them might not be. I'm still reflecting on it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for caring about this issue! I agree it would be nice to have "an ontology of socialites" if only so I could weed out all the girls born after 2000 labelled as such. I understand you are more concerned with the ones born 1950-1990 which is fine too. As for the negative connotations, who cares? We make those connotations and are the keeper of the occupation ontology for English Wikipedia, so lets just do it and get it done. Example of an 18th-century socialite? Here you go: Ann Willing Bingham. Jane (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Who cares? I do. Using language with negative connotations for no reason is not appropriate or consistent with our NPOV policies. If, as I argue, we are using a negative word which implicitly criticizes or diminishes someone's accomplishments, and if we are doing so in a very gender-specific way, that's really bad.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The word "socialite" evidently carries a large amount of baggage, and it's clear from the foregoing that it carries different sets of baggage for different people. When I write Wikipedia contributions I try to keep in mind the differences between American English and British English (and maybe if I was better educated I'd add Indian English and English as a foreign language in China and mainland Europe and ,.. and..) As far as possible Wikipedia readers deserve clarity. For that reason there are words I hardly ever use in Wikipedia because I believe they will be differently understood on different sides of the Atlantic. English has an exceptionally rich vocabulary. (There are lots of words....) Never say never, but I respectfully submit that where an acceptable alternative is available, "socialite" is one of those words we should avoid using in entries because of the extent and variety of the baggage it carries for each of us (well, for me anyhow). Regards Charles01 (talk) 10:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

That's more or less where I come down. It's a word that can be avoided, and never-say-never and some historical cases may absolutely warrant it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Fine. You have two options: 1) come up with another non-negative word that means the same thing or 2) add it to all the husbands of the socialites (for those that were married). Right now, Wikidata is a mess when it comes to occupations for these women. I would say for example, that Abigail Adams was a socialite in Boston, but she was way more interested in family and correspondence than parties. Right now on Wikidata she has one occupation and that is politician. I find that interesting. I am inclined to agree that all first ladies were politicians, though not in the sense that we associate with their husbands. I suppose the same is true for even Melania, currently listed as model, jewelry designer, celebrity, and politician. Jane (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem we have is how one briefly summarises someone like Alice Roosevelt Longworth. "Socialite" at least holds open enough space that she fits, whereas all the other terms seem to be too narrow to encompass her width of influence. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 11:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes that is the core issue of this problem. I was watching an interesting documentary on the BBC last night with "4 icons": Emmeline Pankhurst, Helen Keller, Gandhi, and MLK (because, well, MLK's birthday I suppose). Pankhurst and Keller are both examples who became famous enough for Wikipedia through their activism. Both Gandhi and MLK would have made Wikipedia without their activism. So even in the case of minorities, men historically had community recognition for their occupations, while women did not. Jane (talk) 11:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

There is discussion upthread on when "socialite" came into use. When I quoted the OED, I should have added dates. The first citation is to 1909. "Oakland (Calif.) Tribune 20 June 31/1 Here the ultra socialites were wont to gather at the bidding of the lovely daughter of the house." I can post more citations, if that would be helpful, and if it is not deeded to exceed fair use. (I would think it's OK to copy one word's full entry, but will bow to consensus.) Curiously, the 1989 previous edition has the same denotation, but several more citations. --Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

This discussion has very broad applications and hits on the problems of historical marginalization. How do you categorize people in general who were historically active, but don't easily fit into professional categories. As many women, particularly married women, were not legally allowed to have jobs or professions even into the mid-20th century, they are simply hard to categorize. For example, what does one do with community workers? Technically, they were forerunners to social workers, but weren't trained professionals, as they are now. They also weren't strictly activists, because while their work had political connotations, their main aims were to provide assistance, uplift, and education, not agitate for change. Club members doesn't adequately describe them either (and there is no such category for the multitudes of women who participated in these types of endeavors), nor does socialite. At times these moved into activism, like the hoards of women who organized the Montgomery bus boycott, or the women of the Pan American Round Tables launched the Peoples Mandate to End War at the beginning of the 2nd World War. But, for the most part, they performed social services at a time when these types of endeavors were not professions. Even political hostesses, or at-home hostesses performed roles now occupied mostly by professionals, such as career coaches, political consultants, etc. More aptly, it seems to me that rather than socialites, they were social service workers or social influencers. SusunW (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Reformers? Of these I see two types: the "socialite" type throwing social class as wedge to move things along and get stuff done, and the "activist/grass roots organizer" type working from the bottom. I think we need a little subproject to identify these occupations. Also, to my surprise, I just noticed the objection by @caseyexplosion to the label "activist" on twitter being used to identify trans-people who do not consider themselves activists. Sigh. Should we make all tweeters writers? I would be fine with that too. Jane (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, Jane, yes: tweeters who create original content are writers. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

This has got me thinking about another type of present-day "socialite": social media influencers. I'm a fan and follower of The Bachelor and its spin-offs. Several of the contestants have gone on to become "social media influencers",[3] and are actually making a living off of it.[4] For the moment, there's no Wikidata item for "social media influencer" and no Wikipedia article (there's a redirect). There was also no category for it, so I created Category:Social media influencers and populated it with some of the articles (mostly people, but also a dog) that contained the phrase "social media influencer". --Rosiestep (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I also think these people and vloggers are worthy to promote to writers, if they seem to tweet with a lot of text as well, or even if their vlogs are working from a pre-choreographed script. We have come a long way since Gutenberg and so we need to think up a new way to name these modern creative methods of expression that communicate ideas in the same way writing used to do (I am thinking of the Dutch pamphlet wars of the 18th-century). Jane (talk) 11:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

And what the heck do you do with women who were cultural preservationists? I have done tons of these. Clearly they weren't trained curators, ethnographers, musicologists, anthropologists, historians or the like, but a lot of women made efforts to catalogue and preserve their cultures. SusunW (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

how about the word aristocrat? Also, i disagree with Rosiestep. If we call people who make social media posts writers, who isn't a writer then?Fred (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, now, this is ridiculous.... (Susan B. Anthony issue)

...Would you believe that there isn't a single image in the article on Susan B. Anthony of any real quality? The lead image is a mediocre reproduction of an engraving. There's an awkwardly composed shot of her and Elizabeth Cady Stanton (which would be fine if this didn't exist). It uses a rather good, but nonetheless drawn image of Stanton, and the other two images are mediocre, even if I'd keep one. The best thing in the article is a coin.

So, let's fix this, shall we? Here's some proposals, tell me what you think:

• Lead image: Either https://www.loc.gov/resource/bellcm.02005/ or https://www.loc.gov/resource/bellcm.02036/ - Vote now on which you prefer!
• Current lead image moved to section about the book it appears in. It's probably notable enough there. The image in THAT section can go pretty much anywhere, it's not particularly relevant there.
• Image in "Early Life" stays where it is.  Done Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 08:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• The Elizabeth Cady Stanton image could stay with the drawing, or be swapped for File:Elizabeth_Stanton.jpg - we don't have anything that great for her yet. https://npg.si.edu/object/npg_NPG.71.30?destination=node/63231?edan_q=suffrage perhaps? It's a painting, though, which might be too visually noticeable for someone not the main subject.

• The image in the anti-slavery section is kind of arbitrary, and not well reproduced. What about http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cph.3c11423/ or http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ds.07409/ ?
• The "Split in the women's movement" image is kind of meh, but I guess it's okay for now.  Done
• The next few images are fine...  Done
• Stanton/Anthony Group photo replaced with https://www.loc.gov/resource/mnwp.159001/ as discussed above.
• It's not a huge upgrade, but http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cph.3b32106/ can replace File:Portrait_of_Susan_B._Anthony.jpg
• In "Death and Legacy" - do read the description of this, the title is hugely misleading - http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ggbain.12783/ would be a great addition next to the discussion of the phrase "Failure is impossible".
• In the memorials section, add http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppmsc.00029/ and https://www.loc.gov/item/mnwp000058/  Done

...For such a prominent leader in American suffrage, I think this will greatly help. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 21:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Would you believe that AdamC posted a whole thread about the Susan B. Anthony article without posting a single link to it :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds like a thing that idiot would do. Someone Who Is Not Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs, totally is Adam.} 21:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I prefer the 3/4 view (image 02005) to the profile (02036). It's less detached, impersonal, and formal that way. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm with David, prefer the 3/4 image to the profile. SusunW (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Reportedly Susan B. Anthony was vegetarian. MaynardClark (talk) 04:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I've started this. Hester C. Jeffrey now has a rather nice image. It's going to take a bit. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 13:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I've finished the memorials. I'm kind of trying to do the images that serve the most double-duties or which are quick first. I don't think the one sculpture will pass at FPC, Leila Usher well might. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 09:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Playing catchup on some older stuff. Will be getting back to this soon. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 12:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

And got pulled into getting Rossini up to FA. But I can slip in lots of women on the way. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 07:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Frances Lee McCain

I happened upon this article on actress Frances Lee McCain while performing other tasks. It has no reliable sources. It's only source is IMDb. I tried finding sources, but only found one that I am not sure about, a wiki, here: [5]. This is not an area in which I usually work. I actually tried doing a couple actor articles a year ago, and had trouble finding reliable sources at that time. Anyway, please help me decide if this article needs rescued or put out of its misery. And then, naturally, help me with the resolution? I will work on it if we can find sources or if it goes to AfD, then I just need some "Support". Thanks...

The article would almost certainly survive AfD given that her many film/TV/stage roles easily pass WP:NACTOR#1 and her career is well-documented in film/TV encyclopedias as well as RS coverage/reviews of productions in which she was involved. (Not to mention the occasional "Where is the cast of Footloose today?" pieces.) But I added a few refs to discourage drive-by nominations. Bakazaka (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Bakazaka Thank you for your help. I will see if there's anything I can contribute tomorrow. dawnleelynn^(talk) 06:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Redlists for Black History Month women

Do we have Wikidata-generated redlist for African diaspora (Q385967) to include Black British (Q3244280), African American (Q49085), and all the other nationalities from Category:People of African descent. If not, would it make sense to create? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes! I use (Q2050339) Afro-Caribbean a lot, through of course these can be broken down into multiple (30 ) country-specific groups. SusunW (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Tagishsimon, is this something you'd be interested in creating? --Rosiestep (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm a little hesitant (quite apart from being manically obsessed by getting the gender property properly specified on all items, which is taking up all of my time right now.) First, to my current understanding, codes such as Black British (Q3244280), African American (Q49085) &c. are used in conjunction with the P172 (Ethnic Group) property, and the number of women without articles having an ethnic group qualifying for Black History Month are fairly few - try running this report of counts by ethnic group. Second, we do not get any further forward if we add P172 values to items based on wikipedia category memberships, since by definition we already have wikipedia articles for the people, so we get no additions to the redlists. Third, we have comprehensive redlists by nationality, so that angle is covered.

I'm happy to do what I can, and I may be missing the point - if you can point me in the right direction, that'd be good. Here's Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/African-Americans, since there are items there to be dealt with. I put together Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Women by ethnicity but that's too large and should be broken back down into a set of redlists for discrete ethnic groups - doeing so would give us another bank of WD lists for the redlist page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Tagishsimon, how about a redlist of missing people from subclass African diaspora (Q385967)? --Rosiestep (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Not happening. Pages that link to African diaspora (Q385967) --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh. Maybe it is happening, when I think about it. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/African diaspora ... but it's a list of 1 person :( --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

How about expats of all the African nations listed here? Or maybe someone has a better idea? --Rosiestep (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

But there's no data in wikidata to support it. We have Country of Citizenship and we have Ethnic Groups. Per last night's answer, we already have lists by nationality (i.e. Country of Citizenship). And we have about 4k items with Ethnic Group, of which <100 are relevant to BHM. Sorry. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Modelling the Wiki Women in Red structure in other WikiProjects

One clearly visible factor that has contributed to the success of the wir movement on Wikipedia is the number of dedicated volunteers that coordinate activities for the movement. I'm inclined to think there are other less-obvious factors that has aided the engagement of many Wikipedians to this WikiProjects. I might be wrong, but the oldest memory I have on how I became a member of this WikiProject was through Dr. Blofeld's Africa Destubaton contest, which I think contributed to popularizing wir within the wiki community. As a volunteer, who will like to see a similar level of diligence among members of WikiProject Nigeria, it'd be nice if anyone can share tips on what he/she thinks can be done to see this modelling structure replicated in other WikiProjects.

Even though the scope of WikiProject Nigeria is less generic to what wir offers, I want it to be an active on-wiki community where alarm can be raised on articles that needs improvement or monitoring, and a good-faith policy-oriented response will be duly provided. Regards. HandsomeBoy (talk) 09:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

HandsomeBoy teamwork is critical. There is too much work for one person. Critical to my mind are lists of articles to be improved or created, essays on what will help with your specific focus area, and an active helpful group. SusunW (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the words of wisdom. I'll always remember them.HandsomeBoy (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Things I would add to this, HandsomeBoy: (a) Develop subpages and subcategories as needed, while making sure you have a "naming convention" strategy for them. (b) We're learning that pictures are important, too (e.g. visibility is about articles images), so consider developing a Commons strategy for images uploaded within the scope of your wikiproject. (c) It took us a few months before we got good with social media, but we're pretty good now with Twitter and Pinterest. (d) People participate in our events who aren't necessarily "Members" so we developed an "Opt-In list" (and an Opt-out one) that we use to MassMessage our monthly invitation. In the last few months, the invitation note only lists the upcoming events, but also contains links to a couple of topics on our talkpage, inviting people to join in the conversation. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Appreciate. HandsomeBoy (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikiloveslove on Wikipedia with a gender gap focus

Hi there, This year we are adding a wikipedian and gender gap contest to the Wiki Loves Love contest on Commons. I hope our project will participate, the idea is to add content related to ceremonies, festival and testimonies of love on Wikipedia. We have set up a list of articles to work on which also tackle themes of gay weddings (also the laws relating to it), and alternatives like free union, polyamor, bride buring, children marriages, bride abduction. You can have a look here (we have placed the project on Meta to allow multilanguage participation). You can participate as a project or as individual contributors. The main project page is here : Wiki Loves Love on wikipedia 2019. I hope that you will participate! Nattes à chat (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Adding logo. Adding timeline: 10 February, 2019 - 31, March, 2019. Adding Commons Category, in case you want to upload images: Category:Images from Wiki Loves Love 2019. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Thamk you @Rosiestep:. --Nattes à chat (talk) 07:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Kate McClymont Re-Write

I have just given Australian journalist Kate McClymont a tickle and removed the stub template. It will need a proof read. I'm looking forward to seeing any improvements an interested editor can make. 8==8 Boneso (gnaw) 01:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Well done! She's such a notable figure and her previous article was rubbish. It could use a little bit of a prose copyedit in places but it's so much improved over what you started with. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words The Drover's Wife. Prose isn't one of my best attributes and I'd procrastinated long enough over this one. I'm sure another editor can improve it. There is a lot more that can be added to the page too. And you are right, the stub was embarrassing; I couldn't leave it in that state. 8==8 Boneso (gnaw) 02:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Self-published books?

I created a stub-class article for Oumou Armand Diarra and I got a warning popup about self-publishing. Her book was published by Xlibris, but she had other articles as well. Is this going to be deleted? Thanks, Natalie Bueno Vásqueƶ 20:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natalie Bueno Vasquez (talk • contribs)

Natalie Bueno Vasquez It's always hard to say which articles will be challenged. That there's a (legitimate) pointer to a self-published book doesn't help, but equally it's not a good reason for taking it to deletion. There are some other sources - such as https://www.jstor.org/stable/40837585 - which could be used to augment the references. I think if it were taken to deletion, it would get keep-support from those who think that the probability is that Malian authors tend to suffer from fewer good sources than US or European authors. hth --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The self-publishing warning seems to be nonsense, because the only thing the self-published book is sourced to (since she wrote it, and it's not about her) is the fact that...she wrote it. It probably doesn't contribute much to notability, but there's nothing wrong with it in my book. If you're worried about it potentially getting nominated for deletion, it might be a good idea to explain the bibliography section - the body of the article doesn't refer to her books at all, and since they're in French it's not immediately obvious to an English reader what she's written. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Books should generally be sourced to published reviews of those books. (Published means in academic journals, newspapers, or magazines, but not blogs or sites like Amazon or goodreads.) If you can find multiple published reviews for multiple books, the article will be easy to defend against deletion according to WP:AUTHOR, regardless of whether her books themselves are self-published. If not, it won't make much difference whether the books are published or self-published. But it might make sense to mark the self-published ones as self-published in the text of the article, rather than hiding that information in the identity of the distributor in a footnote. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Relating to reviews but may not help in this case, @Dream Focus: created a custom book review search for helping find RS. Some discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_–_Rescue_list#Need_a_custom_search_engine_for_book_reviews StrayBolt (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

My usual starting point for finding academic reviews is to search for the author's name on JSTOR. In this case, that found one review and an interview, both in French. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Absher (application)

Just created a stub this can be expended.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Renu Malhotra

Would anybody here be interested to help expand this article, Renu Malhotra, about a planetary scientist? Jehochman ^Talk 15:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jehochman: Yes! Definitely interested. Have you found any good additional sources? I've made an interlibrary loan request for a recently-published history of the study of Pluto that might be of some help. Somewhat relatedly, I'm wondering if you might be interested in doing some copyediting or cleanup on Ruby Payne-Scott, which I recently expanded a good deal. ␄ –Nucleosynth (t c) 00:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I’d be happy to review that. Jehochman ^Talk 01:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Really glad for your help. ␄ –Nucleosynth (t c) 01:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Excellent choice. You can add her GS profile [6] which means that she will pass WP:Prof easily if somebody is misguided enough to take her BLP to AfD. Unfortunately such things happen.Xxanthippe (talk) 06:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC).

looking for copyedits or other suggestions for Ruby Payne-Scott

I've set a personal goal for this year to do substantial work on at least one article of a woman scientist every month. For my first effort – I've not done too much writing on Wikipedia before – I've expanded Ruby Payne-Scott a good deal and would love copyedits, suggestions, thoughts, anything. Thanks! ␄ –Nucleosynth (t c) 00:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Nucleosynth: You've made a good start on Ruby Payne-Scott. I've done a bit of copy editing on it but the lead still needs to be expanded (presenting a summary of her main achievements). There are also a few paragraphs where you need to add references. Now that you are a member of Women in Red, I think you will find it useful to look through our Ten Simple Rules. I hope these will inspire you to start creating women's biographies. Please let me know if you need any further assistance.--Ipigott (talk) 10:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

No suggestions, but just wanted to say that I enjoyed reading this article and learnt something. Best wishes, Tacyarg (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I did a very minor copyedit for neutral language re: Fiona Hall, whose article does mention her prominence but the source for that would need to be added to Ruby's article; the words "more prominent" or similar would likely need to be a direct quote. Very nice article, especially for a first effort! valereee (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

International Day of Women and Girls in Science

I've created this header to tie these three posts together. In light of the attention that the world is paying this year to "International Day of Women and Girls in Science", I think it would make sense for us to make Science an annual February event. I know that Ada Lovelace Day in October is also celebrated, which might mean Science and/or STEM twice/year, but why not? --Rosiestep (talk)

Also, see this regarding a Women STEM event happening now at University of Leicester where an editor has encountered trouble while assisting newbies. Don't know if there's a meetup page? cc: Victuallers --Rosiestep (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I did propose it for February, but it wasn't accepted (too much already) and moved out for later. They went with a focused subset of scientists under Geofocus: The Ancient World. I think STEM should be used for Ada Lovelace Day in October, not just Science. StrayBolt (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we should have a calender of days and months during the year which are dedicated to women or women's achievements. We could then announce pertinent events on our main WiR page with links to any editathons, etc. I see we have International Women's Day on 8 March, International Women in Engineering Day on 23 June, Women's Equality Day on 26 August, International Day of the Girl Child on 11 October, and International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women from 25 November. We also have Women's History Month, Black Women's History Month and LGBT History Month, Then there are all the national days and months. Perhaps Megalibrarygirl can help with this.--Ipigott (talk) 12:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

University of Toronto targets Canadian scientists

In connection with the International Day of Women and Girls in Science on 11 February, the University of Toronto has been encouraging coverage of Canadian women scientists and individuals belonging to marginalized groups. Their Wikipedian in residence, Alex Jung has been helping out. (cc:Soulsinsync)--Ipigott (talk) 11:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Ian. BTW, Alex Jung, you are welcome to use any of our redlists if you find them helpful. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks both! All props to Soulsinsync who put it together along with Heather at Gerstein Library and Guita Lamsechi. On a related note, I'll be uploading an FAQ/Toolkit for Wikipedia instruction and edit-a-thons soon, for anyone who'd benefit from material to host an edit-a-thon along these lines. --Utl jung (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@royalsociety @wikiwomeninred on Twitter

Thank you, Victuallers, for the notification regarding The Royal Society spotlighting Women in Red on Twitter. Awesome, in deed! --Rosiestep (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

"This is why I’ve written 500 biographies of female scientists on Wikipedia"

Cool article by Jesswade88 published 3 hours ago in The Independent: "This is why I’ve written 500 biographies of female scientists on Wikipedia". --Rosiestep (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

"Read New Wikipedia Entries About Women With 'Women in Red'"

Published today by Nick Douglas at Lifehacker, a new article about Women in Red: "Read New Wikipedia Entries About Women With 'Women in Red'". It links to an article, "From Chinese spies to award-winning geologists, we’re making women visible on Wikipedia", published January 8th by New Statesman, which mentions Women in Red in the context of the fantastic work being done by Jesswade88 (450 new biographies on Wikipedia in the past 12 months) and the honor she's received for it, being named by Nature as one of ten people who mattered in 2018. Congratulations, all! --Rosiestep (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: Nice. This is the kind of piece I've hoped to see more of in recent years - the "how you can help" piece. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, Ser Amantio di Nicolao. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Rosiestep: I actually mentioned this under Press (now relegated for some reason to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/About us) a month or so ago but apparently no one looks at that page any longer. When we had a direct link from the main WiR page it was far more effective. Unfortunately we cannot move it back without assistance from Project X. Any views on this or should we just post interesting press articles on this talk page? You will note that is what I have been doing over the past week or two but it's a pity relevant press articles are no longer listed together.--Ipigott (talk) 12:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Isarra - We need your help again. Can you please sort this out? Thank you.

Ipigott - The reason why I post the press items on this talkpage is that I know there are a lot of eyes here, including people who don't keep an eye on other subpages of Women in Red, e.g. WMF employees, etc. I am glad the press items are also posted in the "Press" section because (for me) it's a valuable historical resource. Others might see this differently. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Rosiestep: I agree with you that it is useful to include press articles on the talk page if they are likely to lead to reactions but in fact at the moment there seem to more people looking at the main page than at the talk page. If the Press section were to be set up so that additions counted as changes to the page, I think that would alert all those who "watch" it. Maybe the simplest solution would be to include interesting press articles under Announcements (which looks to me as if it is an integral part of the main page rather than a transcluded subpage). And perhaps it would also be a good idea to keep announcements a bit longer, maybe three months. At the moment, they seem to disappear very quickly. How do others feel about this?--Ipigott (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I can't wait to read this! :D Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Anything that makes it easy to both find and re-find I am in favor of Ipigott. I am constantly looking for something I read and have a devil of a time to re-find it on the page or in the archives. Usually because I cannot remember what the conversation was in relation to. Sometimes the reverse happens, especially if it is a new scientific analysis of WP. I know the topic, but not the name of the article I want. Would that there was an easy way to store and catalogue these. (We need a library! sigh) SusunW (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Well someone seems to be reading this carefully day by day. See Read New Wikipedia Entries About Women With 'Women in Red'. Nick Douglas seems to have written quite a few pieces on Wikipedia. I wonder if he's a contributor.--Ipigott (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I also want a section to easily find things like this Bias against funding Canada's female scientists revealed in study. SusunW (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Rosiestep: Hey, sorry, I've been travelling, so I sort of lost track of this. The Press page is its own subpage of WiR; while it's currently transcluded on the about us page, you can also transclude it on the main wikiproject page just as easily. Basically just open the relevant section on the about us to see how it's done if you're unfamiliar (and remove it there if you want), and you should be good to (re)use it wherever (which I think was the point having it as a subpage, so you could use it multiple places, but if not there's also ye old subst: and redirect to section just get rid of the subpage outright). Does that help, or did I totally miss what you were after again? -— Isarra ༆ 11:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, Isarra, I don't understand what to do.

Techie pagestalkers, help? --Rosiestep (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Rosiestep and Isarra: I believe I've done the needful. ␄ –Nucleosynth (t c) 00:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Nucleosynth, thank you! --Rosiestep (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, very cool. I didn't even know you could do it that way. -— Isarra ༆ 11:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

List of female Fellows of the Royal Society

This is missing nearly all 2017 elections and all 2018, so about 20 women in total. They can easily be picked up from List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 2018 and 2017. They should (almost) all have photos in the equivalent Commons cat - some don't seem to be in the articles. Then 2019 will be announced in a couple of months, though the official photos take a while to come through (they are only taken at the ceremony, a while later). It would be great if someone could take this page on - the list templates are pretty fiddly at first, but it is an important page, with nearly 8,000 views last year. It's pretty mechanical updating the list. Johnbod (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I am working on 2017 Fellows at the moment. Happy to plug away at this. Oronsay (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Completed, and ready for the next batch in May. Oronsay (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

March 2019 at Women in Red

		March 2019, Volume 5, Issue 3, Numbers 107, 108, 112, 113 Happy Women's History Month from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual events: March: Art Feminism & #VisibleWikiWomen Geofocus: Francophone Women Continuing initiatives: Suffrage #1day1woman
		Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: English language opt-in International opt-in Unsubscribe --Rosiestep (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

"History has a massive gender bias. We’ll settle for fixing Wikipedia."

In today's Washington Post, by Monica Hesse. Nice piece - I think it gets a lot of what we're trying to do better than a lot of other news pieces I've read. It also ran in print today - I've already had someone alert me to it. :-)

I mean, it's not perfect...I'd like to know more about this excerpt:

One of Oba’s colleagues, Ilana Ross, who spearheaded the company’s Wikipedia project, told me the group had tried to submit a Wikipedia article on the New Zealand writer Alison Waley, but it was rejected. She showed me a screenshot of the rejection. Perhaps, it posited, Waley could just be part of her husband’s Wikipedia article instead?

Specifically where that suggestion was coming from. (I have my suspicions.)

I'm going to try and shoot her an e-mail today about this. May be tricky, given I have meetings all day. But as the Post is my hometown paper I feel that a comment or two may not go amiss. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah. Found the draft. Draft:Alison Waley. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

This article came up in a Google search a couple of days ago but I have been unable to read it without subscribing. That's why I didn't mention it here. How do the rest of you manage to read it? Are you all subscribers?--Ipigott (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I get a free browse option (in the UK) of 2 articles, per month perhaps. Maybe you've looked at the Washington Post recently? While not exactly the "standard" gender gap article, it didn't have much new imo. Except for a somewhat startling claim that the WMF said that "a few years ago" WP only had 3% of biographies of females. That's a new one for me - does anyone have a source for it? Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

It says the percentage is up 3 percent from a few years ago, according to the Wikimedia Foundation, not that it is up from 3 percent. XOR'easter (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, that's better, thanks! Johnbod (talk) 03:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Ipigott clear the cookies out for the Washington Post (I also do it for the NY times) and you should have access. SusunW (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

SusunW: Thanks, that worked. Interesting article.--Ipigott (talk) 09:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The article in Washington Post made me also look at Draft:Alison Waley by User:Ehsehsehs623 and the references. I added many more references and created Alison Waley (Q61768107). It looks like there is a general lack of information about Alison Waley other than a footnote here and there or someone mentioning her in passing. Also it does not help that she was known under great many names. I think we should figure out few more facts about her:

• Her "Fairy Ring" column in New Zealand Newspaper seemed to run from late 1920s to early 1940s (see here). The database has articles with dates from 1929 to 1942. That seems to contradict the current article which says that she was in UK after 1929. Perhaps she went back? Or did someone else continue her column as "Fairiel"?
• She was described as widely read poet in New Zealand, but I could not find much more about that period.
• She was married to Hugh Ferguson Robinson and in 1931 had son John Grant Robinson according to geni.com. It would be great to back it up with other references and figure out start and end dates for that marriage.
• She collaborated with Arthur Waley to rewrite his translation of Monkey King [7]. Any other publications?
• not much is known about her in years 1966-2001. [8] other that she lived in Highgate in Arthur Waley house here.
• She seemed to be buried in Highgate Cemetery together with Arthur Waley, per mention "Alison Waley and Arthur Waley's grave at Highgate Cemetery" in [9]. Unfortunately I could not find any pictures in c:Category:Graves_at_Highgate_Cemetery
• I found info about 2 obituaries: 12 May 2001 in The Times and 25 May 2001 in Hampstead and Highgate Express. However I did not find them yet.

It would be great if others help with some of the loose ends. --Jarekt (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

As chief librarian to the Wikipediverse, Megalibrarygirl should be able to get historical newspaper and book references to expand the draft. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I added to her article a bit. It seems like she was the literary executive for his estate... but not much info about that either. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Choose a biography by picture Comment

Hello all! Based on the images that Rosiestep uploaded to #1day1woman 2019, I created a redlist based entirely on images. I think it might be a fun way to choose a new biography. Sometimes I pick a person to write about because they look interesting. Here is the redlist which I'm going to alphabetize and add more to. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Very cool! Thanks to you both! SusunW (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Awesome, Megalibrarygirl. There are lots of other photos we could add there if editors are interested in doing so. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I haven't been able to get here lately as much as usual, but I wanted to say that I love this idea as I too have sometimes been drawn to an image as a starting point-- especially for 19th century women, since a published photo might be proxy for at least some level of notability.Alafarge (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

At present that set of pictures isn't going to help improve coverage of non-US women! Any good picture sources from the rest of the world? PamD 23:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Metrics

Hello. I was wondering why the articles at the monthly editathons are not included in the metrics count, even though they are tagged on the talk page as being part of WIR. An example is Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/January 2019 in comparison to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/105. I believe that are under the monthly editahons and #1day1women are not being counted. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The majority of meetup 105 articles are in the January stats. Of those that are not, it's either because the articles were started in a month other than January, and so are found in a different metrics month (generally December or November - example LaRee Sugg - see her what links here); or they're not a biography and so were not picked up by Reports Bot (which only looks for biogs), and nor were they added manually - examples are Kithaab and Women in Games. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I see that the Wikidata stats this week bring us back to 17.73% which is where we were at the beginning of last September. But for the first time this seems to be a much more accurate figure as thanks to all the intricate work Tagishsimon has been doing, nearly all the missing gender information on both male and female bios has been entered on Wikidata. There were far more men to be covered than women, no doubt partly because over the years WiR participants have been pretty efficient in adding female categories to new biographies or even creating full Wikidata entries for them. Let's hope that Women's History Month provides a real boost to our stats. On the brighter side, I'm pleased to see that [10] shows that women's bios on the Korean, Norwegian, Japanese, Swedish and Spanish wikis are now all above 20%. Of course we make it relatively easy for them as they have over 280,000 articles from the English wiki on which to draw.--Ipigott (talk) 08:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I have done some data analysis over the years on the women across wikis and there is surprisingly little overlap. I think you will find the high Asian wiki numbers are the result of 2 things: fewer articles overall (leading to fewer historical male bios, which is a huge factor in the English Wikipedia skew) and a lots of young female popular figures (K-pop singers, hostesses, and girl-groups). The reason for less overlap among women than men is also because women historically did not travel much and therefore did not become known outside their own country (except in those cases where their written works were translated, like Jane Austen and Anne Frank). Jane (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: Wait a second. Are you telling me the metrics only count when the draft was made and not when the article was made? LaRee Sugg was by me, I made the draft in November but didnt get around to finish it until January. If so, that's misleading. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Yup, that's the way it is. It's for that reason that, if you check out any of the metric month edit histories, you find new additions occurring right up to the present day. Sad truth is, Reports Bot is only so clever, and there's not much in an edit history to mark a move from draft or sandbox to article space. So yes, on the one hand it's inaccurate. On the other hand, it's all that's on offer. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

MrLinkinPark333, It is correct for Reports Bot to use the draft creation date vs. the move to article space date. This is because where an editor creates the article isn't part of the algorithm; when an editor creates it is the data point used by the bot. Basically, it's an issue of "Edit History": "Edit History" accompanies the article when it's moved from Draft space to Main space. I think Reports Bot uses the the same date algorithm in the case of splitting, but I haven't verified that. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: Okay. Thanks for the explanation. It's the first time I've come across this discrepancy. Now I know. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I think, fwiw, that the true percentage of female biogs is between 17.64 & 17.67, after spending a day digging around items with no properties. Whether WHGI drops to that level remains to be seen - depends on how quickly statements are added to the blank items. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Tagishsimon: That's quite an additional reduction. As most of your other lists seem to be empty, I suppose your estimate is based mainly on "Pages not connected to items" on your Wikidata metrics page. But most of the humans on those lists now seem to have Wikidata items anyway, e.g. Rasha (9846 on the list, Q18706501), Ton Smits (Q2453265), Kate Lord-Brennan (Q50676528), Kerry Sharpe (Q50676544). Have you any idea how many EN Wiki articles are not yet included in Wikidata and approximately what percentage of these are humans? I believe you said recently that it was difficult to keep up with the backlog, so it might be quite a time before Wikidata catches up. Unless of course we can do anything to help things along. If there are indeed a significant number of EN wiki women without Wikidata items, it would certainly be useful to include them on Wikidata, not only as that would increase the total number of women's biographies but because them would also appear in the Wikidata red lists for the other language version.--Ipigott (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The backlog is mainly in items that have no properties - I estimate there are 3000-5000 items for biography articles which have neither a P31 nor a P21 property. Next, there are perhaps 300 biography articles without items - although that number will change from day to day, depending on whether anyone puts effort into creating items (and perhaps 6k articles, overall, with no items) . Items with P31=Q5 but no P21 are mainly under control and most new instances get sorted out within a few hours of being created - ‎Nat965 doing sterling work on this right now. And items with incorrect gender codes - at least for those where its possible to create a revealing report - also under control. The vast majority of the 3-5k are male biogs, so my estimate for the percentile simply adds 3 to 5k to the percentile denominator. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/Wikidata is still the place to go for anyone who wants to help sort out the problem.

Overall, the biggest problem between en.wikipedia and wikidata is items created for articles, but with no properties. There's a particular bot which, from time to time, creates items by the thousands, with no properties - graph - and iirc last time a query was done, there were about 750,000 such items. Sad truth is there are more articles beng created than there is capacity in the people who create and code items. The wikidata metrics page at least now provides petscan reports which can assist in managing the problem, but the jury's out on how many people find this sort of thing an undertaking they want to involve themselves in. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Mactutor wikiproject

I added a column to this project to show which profiles are missing. Please have a look and maybe we can help each other's projects. Wikipedia:MacTutor archive--Akrasia25 (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Akrasia25: Thanks for your interest in Women in Red and your interest in collaborating on the biographies of female mathematicians. There are unfortunately only a handful of women on your Wikidata redlist, all the rest are men. I see we have over 400 women mathematicians listed from Wikidata here and many more crowed-sourced here. I see we already have Hildegard Rothe-Ille, Ene-Margit Tiit and Eleanor Pairman on these lists. I am not sure how your Wikidata list differs from ours (at least for women). That leaves Martha Betz Shapley, Clarisse Doris Hellman [11], Elena Moldovan [12], Judita Cofman [13], Margaret Boyle, and Mary Simpson [14]. It looks to me as if all these deserve biographies. David Eppstein may be interested in helping out with some of them.--Ipigott (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions! They should at least be added to the crowd-sourced list. I haven't had a chance to look at them individually yet to see what more should be done with them. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Understand and was surprised myself. This one finds those bios that have bios that have been printed in MacTutor History of Mathematics archive and the link is connected so they have a quick start to a short bio with good references. The project started back in 2005 and there are three of us active on it now.--Akrasia25 (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Akrasia25: Thanks for all the hard work on your MacTutor biographies. They look as if they'll be very useful for covering the missing women. I see you've created quite a few biographies on Wikipedia too. Perhaps you would like to help to turn some of the remaining links from red to blue.--Ipigott (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Ipigott Sure. I will give it a shot. Watch the MacTutor pages for updates and postings.--Akrasia25 (talk) 13:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I added Moldovan and Cofman to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Mathematics — probably both are notable. Shapley [15] [16] and Hellman are probably both also notable, but as an astronomer and historian of astronomy respectively, rather than as mathematicians — do we have project members who cover that topic? Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Astronomy doesn't exist. Boyle [17] and Simpson, to me, look non-notable despite having some coverage on the MacTutor site: their MacTutor articles, if translated to Wikipedia articles, would be worthy of A7 speedy deletion, as they make no claim of significance or importance for their subjects. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

David Eppstein: Thanks for looking into this. It would indeed be useful to have both crowd-sourced and Wikidata lists for astronomers. Tagishsimon mentioned something about problems with the tools over the next couple of weeks but perhaps we can create a Wikidata list later (on Q11063 and Q752129) and see how many come up there.--Ipigott (talk) 08:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Tool problem now sorted. WMF got their dates wrong - specified an outage lasting until Tuesday 26th when they meant Tuesday 19th. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

214 - Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Astronomers --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)