Talk:Donna Strickland/Archive 2

Wikipedia Controversy Section
There doesn't seem to be a clear discussion section regarding the criticism the handling her Wikipedia page received only a bunch of discussion attempting to explain the reason which is great but doesn't help us improve the article. Now the fact that controversy around the handling of her Wikipedia article exists and is present in numerous is undisputable making it notable. It obviously deserves to be placed on the article, the criticism given by the journalists may be unfair but all criticism of the RS take must themselves be sourced from RS, so any Wikipedia user wishing to add one should contact a reliable source to either write an op-ed or a comment for a planned article so that that criticism may be backed up.

In the mean-time, a small section regarding the criticism her Wikipedia article received should be added without ratinalizations until those are added to reliable sources.Zubin12 (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Trouble is, as noted above, these stories are spreading inaccurate myths which effectively defame Wikipedia editors, but as we're bound by WP:NOR we really need a reliable and accurate published source for the needed clarification. Also, as this is a BLP we need a very good source to show this storm in a Wiki-cup has actually had significant impact on Donna Strickland – the article's about her, not about lazy journalists, or about hurt feelings at Wikipedia. So, try to get corrections published in the media, but don't try to force this into Strickland's biography. . . dave souza, talk 12:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is about her and incident related to her which the Wikipedia page controversy cleary is even if it didn't impact her, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zubin12 (talk • contribs)
 * This should not be included, per WP:SUBJECT. She is not her wikipedia article Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

All the editors quoting wiki policies as reasons not to include this should remember the most important rule of all - WP:IAR.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 20:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's an idea; Instead of debating this issue, we need someone to go to Criticisms of Wikipedia and add a section about the criticism this page is getting. Whether the criticism is fair or not, it needs to be covered in that article. See the discussion in the Talk page at Criticisms of Wikipedia ... nothing has yet been added to that article about the Strickland situation. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There certainly should be something on this there - but most people looking for this probably wouldn't find it there. That's one reason why I think it ought to be here, in this article (although it would be fine to just link to that discussion, if it existed...).  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 21:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikimedia operates Wikipedia and it published a long article about the controversy. https://wikimediafoundation.org/2018/10/04/donna-strickland-wikipedia/ Why didn’t Wikipedia have an article on Donna Strickland, winner of a Nobel Prize? There is a section: What’s up with bias on Wikipedia? The Wikimedia Foundation does not control editorial content on Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia projects. That is up to a global movement of volunteers who seek to make the sum of all knowledge freely available to every single person. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there some good reason why my edit concerning this affair which was reverted should not be permitted (apart from embarrassment, of course)? --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Dr. Josephson, it is an honor to converse with you.  (I assume you really are who your user page says you are.)  I daresay this is probably the first time the Wikipedia page of a Nobel laureate was edited by another.  Your edit:


 * Despite her achievements, in March 2018 Strickland was deemed by Wikipedia moderators not important enough for a Wikipedia entry.[16]


 * where [16] is a link to an article in The Guardian


 * I did not revert your change, but I will attempt to answer your question. The reasons are detailed all over this very same talk page.  It's a lot to go through.  As I understand it: (a) In March 2018 a draft article was submitted for review for creation. (b) In May 2018 it was reviewed (there is backlog of over 4000 articles for review).  The draft was not accepted for creation because it was poorly sourced.  (c) At any time between May 2018 and October 2018 the original submitter could have edited the draft and resubmitted it, but did not. (d) At any time between March 2018 and October 2018 the original submitter could simply have gone ahead and created that page. (e) The Guardian article is incorrect. In particular, its headline "Female Nobel prize winner deemed not important enough for Wikipedia entry" is both incorrect and misleading.


 * Mainstream media has been "piling on" Wikipedia on this matter. But one might ask, how many articles on Strickland had appeared in MSM before October 2018?  On a related issue, it was asked (as in a news conference at the University of Waterloo) why Strickland was an associate professor instead of a full professor.  Her answer was that she never applied.  Even now, post Nobel Prize, she still would have to apply (but her application can be one sentence, according to the president of the university). So the University of Waterloo has procedures for things, just like Wikipedia.


 * Finally, your parenthetical comment "(apart from embarrassment, of course)". I can not know the motivation of the editor who did the revert, but I very much doubt that embarrassment is the reason.  I doubt that the editor is personally embarrassed by any of this, and I doubt that the editor feels embarrassed on behalf of Wikipedia as a collective.  The editor did suggest that you participate in this very talk page.  And here we are. -- Roger Hui (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, there are already two discussions about this above, and a clear consensus not to include it. The reason is simple: this is an article about Donna Strickland, not an article about this article. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * That is a very artificial excuse if I may say so (in that by this criterion wikipedia is uniquely immune from having critical comment on its actions included in an article), and fully confirms my belief that the reversion was really because any criticism is unacceptable. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Professor Josephson, with due deference to your beliefs, could you please provide a citation demonstrating this alleged uniqueness, or at least an example of another publication required to show inaccurate and misleading critical comment on its actions, and include this information in the article where these actions supposedly were part of the editorial process? Given the lack of response so far from at least one of the publications making these allegations, it unfortunately seems to be common for online publications to go uncorrected, let alone expanded with summaries of such criticisms. . . . dave souza, talk 01:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Does Verifiability apply in this case? "Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." If there are numerous sources that say Wikipedia didn't think Strickland was notable, presumably because she is a woman, and no sources saying the opposite, then isn't Wikipedia stuck with that by its own policy? ghouston (talk) 02:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you read the Verifiability policy, particularly the section headed Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion which clearly applies here? Guidance states we don't give undue weight to This article was criticised by ... coverage, but it could be included in an article where such criticism is the topic such as Criticisms or Gender bias on Wikipedia. Take care, though, there aren't that many sources in proportion to the huge coverage of Strickland's achievement, they're directly contrary to primary sources on the topic, and tend to involve news aggregators or journalists passing on tweets or informing their readers about other articles rather than providing independent coverage. . . dave souza, talk 08:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We're not saying criticism of Wikipedia can't be included. We have whole articles devoted to it (e.g. criticisms of Wikipedia, gender bias on Wikipedia, notability in the English Wikipedia). The question is where it should be included. This article is a purely a biography of Strickland. Giving space to the storm-in-a-teacup about her Wikipedia article would imply that not-having-a-Wikipedia-article is a significant element of her life and career, which is undue and frankly insulting. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What Joe said; I reverted the edit per the guideline WP:SUBJECT, not because criticism is unacceptable; indeed I have previously been quite critical of WP:AFCs rejection of drafts on notable professors and have been critical here too Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Re these stories are spreading inaccurate myths which effectively defame Wikipedia editors above, I can't see this as a defamation of an editor. One can see on the relevant page that an editor did decline the article on definitively spurious grounds, since ref. 2 showed more than just the 'passing mention' referred to, but that she was President of the Society (that page has been updated to refer to her Nobel Prize, but presumably must have referred to her Presidency in May). It would be wrong to blame w'pedia as such for this, but blaming the editor responsible is perfectly legitimate.  But although it is (to my mind) newsworthy it is, in the last analysis, pretty ephemeral as news so I have no problem with my insert being reverted. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for offering your expertise on the adequacy of sources provided with the draft, clearly you're to some extent to blame for not helping with the AfC queue in the [nearly] two months the draft was waiting for review. As we all are. Trouts all round. Agree that the story is ephemeral, and likely to vanish unless learned historians publish a treatise on it, but I'm sure all involved are trying to learn from it and improve things going forward. Regards, . dave souza, talk 17:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Big joke, Dave (re your AfC queue comment). Hahaha! --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Brian, in your edit discussed above you cited a Guardian article. As their mobile version highlights (less obvious, but same link in online version) "More on this topic Wikipedia biases" – that's the topic for this press coverage, not this bio. More usefully, the Guardian's initial coverage quoted Dr Seirian Sumner – a woman scientist in red! Quick, write an article about her before she gets a Nobel Prize or equivalent!! Seriously, she's had quite a lot of coverage in the press, so is likely to pass notability requirements. . . dave souza, talk 13:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Since I know nothing about her but you've obviously been doing relevant investigation, it's clear that you're the person for the job! And I'm not sure that mere 'coverage in the press' is enough to qualify, given w'pedia's obvious high standards, and its apparent wish not to overload the site with women. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have just spent a few minutes googling Seirian Sumner and she does look fascinating! (And notable.)  If/when I have a spare day or month I will create a Wikipedia page for her, and I will just create it without bothering with the AfC process. -- Roger Hui (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipediaworth

 * “If somebody else thinks something that you don’t believe in, just think they’re wrong and you’re right and keep going,” Strickland told a young scientist at the press conference following the announcement of her win. ”That’s pretty much the way I always think.”

In little over 24 hours, en.wikipedia scrambled to *create* a 15,790 bytes article on Donna Strickland who, all at once & at the speed of a laser beam, became Wikipediaworth...  At long last, Donna Strickland has reached the fame of this then not yet 24-year old Wikipediaworthy, whose article was created in May 2005, with a single sentence describing what was making her a Wikipediaworthy: whose daughter she was.


 * 1903 - Marie Skłodowska-Curie
 * 1963 - Maria Goeppert-Mayer
 * 2018 - Donna Strickland

Long overdue congratulations to Donna Strickland. Please "keep going"! :)

FW/--2A01:CB00:885:F600:464:A6A2:E16B:8CBA (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You link to the biographical stub of a 24-year old; it was created by an IP at 04:11, 9 May 2005, when anonymous editors could still just start an article. At  08:24, 13 May 2005, another IP added the biographical detail "shes a crack ho", and the next day it got worse until it was reverted. Do you see now why we require properly sourced draft articles from newbies before putting them into article space? Imagine the furore now if that had been Donna Strickland's first article on Wikipedia, and it had been left unchecked as a little-watched stub! . . . dave souza, talk 12:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear Dave Souza, I totally agree with what you are saying; however, do maintain that a woman has more of a chance to quickly be the subject of an over 100.000 bytes Wikipedia article if she is a rich, face-lifted & body-reconstructed, previously brunette blond bombshell (144,330 bytes), with or without a brain, than if she is a world-renown brainy politician (65,964 bytes), or a scientist-mathematician-physicist (9,072 bytes).
 * No more to say. Please, enjoy your day. Au revoir!
 * FW/--2A01:CB00:885:F600:E87A:66B0:31AE:F4D2 (talk) 09:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a tertiary source. It means that we can only write about things or people with articles/books/etc. published on them.  Since there are countless articles on Paris Hilton, it's much easier to write about her than Yvonne Choquet-Bruhat.  Blame the media, not Wikipedia. T8612  (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear T8612, please allow me to... chuckle...
 * Wiki articles on personalities such as the one on Paris Hilton, today down to 135,982 bytes, lead me to believe that most Wikipedians consider Wikipedia to be another gossip magazine, because, from your quote, Wikipedia being a tertiary source, meaning "that we can only write about things or people with articles/books/etc. published on them", why the content of articles, the subjects of which have tons of publications on them, is so scanty? To name a few: Leonardo da Vinci, a mere (104,753 bytes), Louis Pasteur (90,664 bytes), Russian Revolution (88,331 bytes), Beethoven (74,643 bytes), Madeleine Albright (65,964 bytes), Mozart (68,456 bytes), Michelangelo (66,231 bytes), Shirley Temple (55,442 bytes), The Pentagon (41,193 bytes), Arthur Rubinstein (30,465 bytes).
 * Mickey Mouse manages 89,651 bytes, right below Pasteur, and Garfield 54,495 bytes, way above Arthur Rubinstein...
 * Why put the blame on the media?
 * Best regards, FW/--2A01:CB00:885:F600:AC49:5C89:6D18:3F0E (talk) 08:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We are all volunteer editors here and we tend to concentrate our editing on subjects that interest us, this may be why the contemporary personalities get undue attention, my interests lie in the arts so my contributions reflect this. If you are concerned at the length of Leonardo da Vinci's article the answer is simple...add some content! Theroadislong (talk) 09:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The quality of an article is not measured by its number of bytes. T8612  (talk) 10:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Cher T8612, I agree. However, in the Paris Hilton's case, the number of bytes does (possibly) show the interest of readers pointing in the direction of gossip magazines.
 * To Theroadislong: I do not consider myself to be good enough at writing to contribute to Wikipedia, but I still can give my opinion.
 * Best regards to both of you, FW/--2A01:CB00:885:F600:AC49:5C89:6D18:3F0E (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Link to essay by editor who rejected the May 2018 version
Given that the notability issues are still being discussed here, consider this essay by the editor who made the decision to reject the draft Strickland article in May 2018 as additional input and food for thought (I do not agree with all of it, but consider it of potential interest to those discussing the issue here): User_talk:Bradv/Strickland_incident Markus Pössel (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The link you've shown is to the talk page of Bradv's essay, which is at User:Bradv/Strickland incident. As mentioned on the talk page, there's another good summary at –  . . .  dave souza, talk 20:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * My bad. Thanks for the correct link! Markus Pössel (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

from an experienced reviewer...
Although general comments should go elsewhere, as one of WP's most frequent  reviewer of articles on scientists for the last 12 years, I want to try to analyze why both  the first version   and the draft  were so incorrectly rejected.


 * 1) The usual assumption at WP is that an associate professor would not be notable. This is true the great majority of the time under our current standards--It is, however not true 100% of the time--as this instance shows, but as has been the case also for probably about a few hundred articles. It is not that the status is what we use to decide in a direct way, but that the WP:PROF standards are written and interpreted at a level that in general only full professors will meet them. It is probable that as a result the article was read only cursorily. (The question of why she was only an Associate Professor is of great interest for the sociology of science, and I am sure will be the subject of significant discussion, both now, and for many years to come. I expect that some of the material will go here, but some in more general articles.) ( I have argued for many years that we should adjust our standards to extend notability under WP:PROF to people with the status of Associate Professors at the highest level major research universities.   My reason for this is that these people have been reviewed by true experts in the field as being quite certain to be suficient authorities to not only do excellent work, but to do such excellent work that it will attract graduate students and postdoctoral fellow and promising new faculty to the university.)
 * 2) She is not only a fellow of the major society of her field (and fellowships of societies such as this one are high honors) but the president of the  society.  These are each specific quick pass criteria in the WP:PROF guideline.  I cannot tell specifically if the reviewsw did not notice these because of the apparently cursory examination, or whether it was not realized that this is  the major society, or whether there wasn't awareness that these positions by themselves are sufficient for notability.    (When I review in any field, I automatically  scan for major awards or positions as a first step in evaluating)
 * 3) The article did not list her major papers, or refer to the degree to which they were cited. Since the extent of citation of articles is the usual criterion by which we show someone to have influence in their field, it wasn't obvious. (When I review I try to notice the absence of any of the usual material and then check further)
 * 4) the very large number of non-notable bios submitted at AfC has led to over-hasty work. About 90% of the AfC submission turn out to be unacceptable, and it is understandable that this creates a bias toward rejection of the drafts. (The only way to guard against this is to go slowly and carefully. Trying to clear backlogs by going too rapidly and for too long a time is a recurrent problem at WP., and is parto f our overall working pattern of preferring speed over quality)
 * 5) We have recently in our drive to expand coverage of notable women academics had a noticeable number of submissions of articles for people who are only borderline notable at best. The good faith but sometimes inadequately considered efforts to insert these has led to a degree of suspicion about  articles on apparently dubious or non-standard careers of women scientists. I doubt this was consciously considered here, but there's an unconscious effect also that needs to be consciously guarded against.   (The proper response to this over-enthusiasm is to check carefully every single one to guard against following a pattern).
 * 6) We have no standard way to check on reviews. This means that in practice the work is done at a variable level of accuracy. (I try to check once in a while, but in practice I'm limited by time to checking of other reviews by those people whom I happen to  spot making errors. I don't think there's more than 1  or 2 other people doing such checks, at least on a regular basis)     DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * DGG, you make good points about the reviewing process, but the first (2014) version was apparently deleted as a copyvio, so that looks correct. The draft submitted in March was, when reviewed almost two months later, declined with user talk page encouragement to improve the article, not "rejected". A nuance, but missing it feeds the false narrative the poor author promptly felt felt rejected, or "Wikipedia user tried to set up a page in May, but it was denied by a moderator", per The Atlantic. It seems more likely that a newbie was put off by the template notice suggesting more than two months wait and lost interest. Since it was a borderline decline, it would be better for the reviewer to have an optional template for "needs improvement" rather than the current "submission declined" template. . . dave souza, talk 06:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And, the answer is! increased scrutiny for articles about women scientists to make sure not a single one slips in when it shouldn't. I'm sure the press will rally behind Wikipedia adopting that as a solution. --2600:1700:FB00:9C00:1EC:D710:D4BF:2F7F (talk) 05:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Another whine from a one-edit wonder (or a sock?). The answer is, of course, for more editors to contribute via one of the projects listed at the top of this page, or more specifically the nicely titled WP:Women in Red. . . dave souza, talk 09:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it was a great comment, IMHO. Roll the drums, and sorry if I offend! --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

How many of the media outlets that are so freely casting aspertions at us had published an article about Strickland, or even just mentioned her even once, before she got the Nobel? The answer is zero! If there is to be any blame, the mainstream media are the guilty party. They care more about the Kardashians than scientists. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, we can only write articles after other secondary publications have already covered the subject.

BTW The review templates do make it pretty clear that "declined" is not "rejected" and provide instructions on how to fix the issue that led to the decline. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:07, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not convinced. Unfortunately the original page in March has been censored, but I can see from the history (the oldest item) that she was 'past president of the Optical Society'.  I fed that into Google and this immediately led me to https://www.osa.org/en-us/about_osa/leadership_and_volunteers/past_presidents/, which shows that she held this position in 2013.  Someone holding this position can hardly have held it without being noteworthy for some reason.  It was very easy to find this information, and one is really led to assume strong bias on the part of the moderator concerned, and those who presumably supported the deletion(?).  So it is quite in order for wikipedia's processes to be attacked for this, in my opinion. (I see some aspects of this have been mentioned above, though that writer seems not to have noticed that the presidency was explicitly referred to by the person who created the page.) --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't have moderators. The 2014 version of this article was deleted, quite rightly, because it was wholly copied from another source violating copyright. That version had nothing to do with the draft that was submitted this March. The fact that that draft wasn't accepted was the mistake of a single editor and I think at this point he has been made well aware of it. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I had just noticed that it was not this year's version that I had been referring to. Is there a way to see the version that was blocked, as it seems not to be in the history?  I am of course aware that it was an editor, not a moderator as referred to in the press (it is the infamous arxiv.org that uses moderators to block articles it does not like), who did the deletion. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Brian, the version that was deleted in March 2014 was an exact word for word copy of the two paragraphs of the OSA biography (as archived 2015-08-28) with the order of the paragraphs swapped, and a new opening sentence stating "Donna Strickland is a past president of the Optical Society." You can ask any Wikipedia administrator to check that for you, or give the Wikimedia Foundation good reasons for you to get a direct copy. You could also become an administrator (janitor) and see it, but that's hard work these days! . . . dave souza, talk 10:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we've discussed this adequately in the previous section. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There certainly seems to be some confusion over terminology, here and in the press coverage. To clarify, there have been three versions of this article:
 * Donna Strickland, created March 2014. This was deleted by an administrator because of the copyright violation. As such, it can't be viewed anymore, but it was just a verbatim of a page from the OSA website.
 * Draft:Donna Strickland, created March 2018. Because new editors cannot create articles directly, the creator of this draft had to request that another editor move it out draft status for them. This request was declined (erroneously) by an ordinary editor, not an administrator, and the creator never returned to try again. This version was never deleted and its history remains fully accessible here.
 * Donna Strickland, created October 2018, is the current version of the article.
 * I hope that clears things up a bit. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to the Mar. 2018 draft version and clarifying the procedure. It all seems distinctly problematic. Of course, my views on w'pedia are strongly coloured by my experiences of biased editors who gang up, using dubious interpretations of the rules, to stop anything contradicting their opinions from appearing (yes, that does happen). --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Brian, sorry you've had a tough time with past contributions, you're very much to be praised for making the effort to share your knowledge and make constructive edits to improve Wikipedia. It can be frustrating at times, especially if you're used to publishing original research which is the right thing in academia but not in Wikipedia. In discussions, editors are expected to have their own views (or biases), but the outcome has to comply with policies, including WP:WEIGHT. So, thanks for contributing, hope you have a better time in future, . . dave souza, talk 10:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * There is another key issue. The reviewer who rejected the draft article was aware of the OSA fellowship, but his objection was that the only reference for that was the OSA webpage. Thus, a lack of reliable sources for notability, and the rejection. (They write more about this in this essay: User:Bradv/Strickland_incident.) I think the consequence should be that WP:PROF should explicitly include the statement that when it comes to prizes, professorships, fellowships etc. a statement by the awarding institution should be taken as a reliable source. I've proposed this here: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academics) – please feel free to comment and indicate opposition/support. Markus Pössel (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This idea that OSA wouldn't be a reliable source in this case boggles my mind. What is the logic exactly? Strickland was a president of the OSA, so she'd have the power to update the website to falsely claim that she was its president?? Do such things happen often enough that we need to care about the possibility? ghouston (talk) 02:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Washington Post article calling you out
You should feel proud of yourselves

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/10/08/why-nobel-winner-donna-strickland-didnt-have-wikipedia-page/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.42.233 (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read the extensive and nuanced discussion about the issue on this talk page (above).  Esowteric + Talk  16:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * None of which link to this Wapo article, I might add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.42.233 (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that mistakes were clearly made in the past, and hopefully something has been learnt through that difficult experience, but the people you're addressing here are all volunteers, and most of them have spent the last two weeks diligently compiling, editing and refining this article.  Esowteric + Talk  17:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "but the people you're addressing here are all volunteers, and most of them have spent the last two weeks diligently compiling, editing and refining this article".
 * Nope, I'm addressing the Wikipedia culture that allows this sort of thing to happen in the first place. This is not an isolated incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.42.233 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC) and please learn to sign your posts.
 * You're on the wrong page, per WP:SUBJECT, and if you really think the issue should be covered in Wikipedia you're welcome to add coverage to Criticisms of Wikipedia. . regards, dave souza, talk 18:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * LOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.42.233 (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Repetition
There is quite a bit of overlap and repetition of information between the "Early life and education" and the "Nobel Prize" sections. I think the current second paragraph under "Nobel Prize" should be merged into the part about her Ph.D. research currently under "Early life and education". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Note section contains an error:
Strickland attempted to add Steve Williamson as an author of the paper, but Mourou removed the name as "he hadn't done enough".[6][20]

In the referenced article, as well as reality, the statement is actually that Steve Williamson removed himself from the paper for the stated reason ("he hadn't done enough"), NOT Mourou. As you might imagine, this is quite different than the current version, and should really be corrected. I know because, (a) I was there, (b) the article actually does say that, and (c) Donna told me so when I asked.

- Doug Dykaar, Husband — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dykaar (talk • contribs) 18:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks Dykaar.  G M G  talk  18:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)