Talk:Emily Temple-Wood/Archive 1

Inclusion
I think the bit about the Harry Potter buttons is too trivial to include here, even if it is referenced. On the other hand, the article should mention that Emily is on the Board of Directors of two 501(c)(3)s: Wiki Project Med Foundation and Wikimedia District of Columbia, and is Vice President of the latter. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Source!
"In early March, the internet was introduced to the best-case scenario for what happens when women are the butt of online abuse: Emily Temple-Wood." -http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/19/women-in-science-on-wikipedia-will-we-ever-fill-the-information-gap

Cheers! Ocaasit &#124; c 16:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Notability
I have tagged this article for notability. It seems that if Temple-Wood is notable, she has only just become so - none of the articles prior to March 2016 provide significant coverage of her. But even though there are several news outlets talking about her this month, she are all saying basically the same thing, and they should all count as one source. Basically, this is (currently) an example of WP:ONEVENT. StAnselm (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Immediacy of sources is irrelevant as it evident that Temple-Wood's work has (is) addressing an established/identified issue at a major media organisation. The sources each offer their own discussion of the issue, if they were merely parroting boilerplate PA copy such a "one source" argument might be justified. It's evident from the sheer scale of her contributions to Wikipedia that she is a significant contemporary biographer as well. Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The "discussions of the issue" are about Wikipedia and/or systemic bias. Can you point to an scrap of information that is not already in the Wikimedia blog post? I don't see any, and that's what makes it a classic one-source situation. StAnselm (talk) 01:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue has been ongoing for years, and Temple-Wood's work on women scientists has similarly been ongoing for years. Montanabw (talk)  02:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But that doesn't make her notable. In this case, it's the single event of her resolution that has gained news coverage. StAnselm (talk) 02:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it's at AfD now, so no sense debating the issue in two places.  Montanabw (talk)  02:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the AfD will close as no consensus; in which case the notability tag could still be restored. I wonder if a merge might be appropriate; it may be good to have all wikipedia people of borderline notability together in a list. (But it may be difficult nailing down the inclusion criteria.) StAnselm (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad Temple-Wood's is creating more content here, but in regards to notability, I've got several questions that I hope someone can enlighten me on. Is this the first case of notability solely because of ones actions on the English Wikipedia? (aside from Jimmy Wales) and is an article the right way to recognize contributions here? What about other activists who try and raise the profile of other causes here, like veganism, or indigenous peoples rights, or environmental issues? If their activities are highlighted in an article which is then republished in several other places, does that warrant an article here as well? Philip72 (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd say that discussion has been held and closed. Next time a wikipedia editor is noted by the BBC, we can revisit.   Montanabw (talk)  22:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To be fair, though, she wasn't mentioned in a BBC article per se, just a blog post. Everymorning (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * That doesn't really answer any of my questions, Montanabw, and it raises a few more. Who gets to determine discussion is over? Is the AfD the authority? and for how long is it closed/forbidden?  Philip72 (talk) 04:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If I have to explain it to you, you won't get it. Let's say that if something that survives AfD gets dragged there again without any substantive changes in circumstances, it is apt to not go well for the nominator, who is apt to be accused of being a troll. Maybe someone else with more patience can discuss it with you.   Montanabw (talk)  08:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Birthday
Hi all, I know I can't really source reality but I was born in May 1994. None of the articles have really given anything beyond me being 21 (I turn 22 in May) and if someone's willing to take my word for it, that'd be great. If not, I can try to get my birthdate into a reliable source somewhere... Keilana (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The way I interpret WP:SOCIALMEDIA and WP:CIRCULAR, this talk page is now (strangely enough) an acceptable source that you were born in May 1994...though I don't know if others will agree with that interpretation. If no one objects, I'll edit the article accordingly. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * By the SELFSOURCE guideline, as part of the reliable sources page, You can go on to your twitter account, @Keilanawiki, and post your birthday, where I will source the information for your article.The Cross Bearer (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Seeing no objections, I've edited the article, citing Keilana's comment above. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a benefit in using this talk page as source. The article can do without the exact birthday. Nemo 17:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

A question
I may be incredibly naïve, but I must ask: why is she being harassed? The article does not explain this, nor do any of the three articles I have read (Footnote references “18”, “19”, and “20”).

If she is simply being trolled by imbeciles, that should probably be explained in the article. If, on the other hand, some morons have taken umbrage to any charges she may have made against Wikipedia regarding sexual, cultural, or racial bias, should not the charges be included in the article too?

In other words, why is there simply a mention to her reaction to this harassment, but no explanation of what caused it, how intense it was, and what forms it took? It seems to me this kind of information is rather important, considering she apparently became famous because of her response to it.

Le vrai Sabourin (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * More or less, she's a woman, and has opinions. If you really want to know, you'd have to spent a lot of time on the dark corners of the internet, trying to synthesize a deeper explanation that some people just have knee-jerk reaction to some things. Sadly, the causes haven't been discussed in sources (to my knowledge, at least), so whatever the cause it, we can't put it up per WP:RSWP:SYNTH and WP:BLP. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't Wikipedia have records of the harassment? Particularly since it appears to be occurring via the platform. This would make the claim properly cited and attributable. Also, why haven't the harassers been identified? Philip72 (talk) 04:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think the harassment happened on Wikipedia, but that it happened by email, so it's not publicly viewable. Everymorning (talk) 04:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Women face harassment on Wikipedia just for being women; women in "high profile" roles such as the administrative corps and the Arbitration Committee face even more. She has not made public any further reasons for why she thinks she is being harassed—this could be because she does not think there are further reasons, because she does not wish to discuss them, or quite likely because she does not know why people have decided to target her. Wikipedia articles rely on the external sources they cite, and if these sources don't provide the information you're looking for, it cannot be included.


 * Most on-wiki harassment is removed using revision deletion or suppression so as not to facilitate more attention to the harassers and more harm to the victims. Even if it were publicly recorded, it probably would not be reproduced in reliable sources—it's despicable, and most reliable sources have enough integrity to not encourage it by putting more attention on it.


 * I would guess there is some combination of on- and off-wiki Wikipedia-related harassment; at least, that has been my experience. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * A lot of it was off-wiki and via emails I believe. Whatever was on wiki probably has been deleted. As for identification, the internet is very often anonymous. Which is partly why harassment thrives and is so hard to curb. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, lacking though it may be through no fault of any responder.

The fact that “Women face harassment on Wikipedia just for being women; women in "high profile" roles such as the administrative corps and the Arbitration Committee face even more.” is a sad reflection on Wikipedia, to say the least.

I do not pretend to understand what kind of pressure this young lady must have come under, but I do feel her response is one worthy of emulation: no diatribe, no demeaning behaviour, just a graceful determination to contribute in a positive manner.

More power to her.

I just wish the imbeciles who harassed her, whatever the reason, could be held up for public opprobrium. Le vrai Sabourin (talk) 04:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Please tag immediately
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.230.93.81 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 11 May 2016‎
 * There is no consensus to add this tag, because a deletion discussion could not reach a consensus on notability.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Signpost article
There has been a long-term slow-motion edit war going on here about whether a Signpost article Temple-Wood wrote should be included. Can some of the editors involved in this dispute (which does not include me) please discuss whether it should be included or not? Everymorning (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Only if the article has been the subject of third-party reporting. Writing a Signpost article is not notable, otherwise I would be the subject of many Wikipedia articles by now.--Milowent • hasspoken  19:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Strawman. No one is claiming that "writing a Signpost article is notable". This is not a notability issue. You are unable to cite a policy that only works discussed in external sources may be mentioned in a "works" section. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It just seems undue. Every shit I take should not be in a wikipedia article.--Milowent • hasspoken  23:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Another straw man. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * A rational argument over why every shit I ever took should not be in a wikipedia article is not a "straw man." Perhaps it is a shit man, I will need to consult my Plato.--Milowent • hasspoken  12:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Significant because this Signpost article is part of a much larger issue, one that has been reported in RS such as the WashingtonPost, that has garnered international notice, and is central to ETW's notability (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC))
 * Going to invoke BLP here, in that the cursing in the article could violate "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment" provision. It's a borderline case but given the recent BLP fiasco I was involved in, clearly BLP is harsher than I used to interpret it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, for fuck's sake, such cursing is not a BLP violation. Are you disrupting to make a WP:POINT? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC
 * Agree with Andy. ETW did the cursing in a Signpost article. There is no cursing in this article, assuming BLP would even apply to cursing - BLP does not refer to wording of the sources. Who is at risk of being harmed here? No one!(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC))
 * I'm thinking of future employment, etc. BLP applies to links too, and in my view there's a possibility of harm. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you also worried about the careers of the authors of The Fucking Cunts Treat Us Like Pricks? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Given the above and some off-wiki re-calibrating (thanks, you know who you are), clearly my interpretation of BLP was off-base—I apologize to all involved above. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, we cannot control the wording or titles of sources. If we were to cry BLP violation for every swear word in a source we be very short of sources. There are no legitimate, Wikipedia driven reasons given here so far for reverting the addition of the Signpost article.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC))
 * This is a WP:CRYBLP issue and not a real issue unless the author herself suggests she wants it taken down. If the article is still standing in the Signpost archives, then it's appropriate here so long as we have the proper attribution.   Montanabw (talk)  22:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I write bios on famous authors all the time -- I'd never include a list of magazine articles written by the subject unless some article was independently notable. I'd ditch the "works" section altogether.  To be frank, I assumed someone wanted the work cited in the article to try to "expose" the subject to ridicule.  I have no idea what is really up; I previously advocated for deletion of this article in the AfD.--Milowent • hasspoken  23:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Your personal quirks and misunderstandings are not relevant here. Your "notability" canard has already been well-refuted, above. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Being the most powerful editor on Wikipedia is not a "quirk," friend.--Milowent • has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken 12:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Third Opinion Request One of you folks had requested a third opinion on this dispute. I have to decline the formal request, I'm afraid, as there are several more than two editors involved here. I would not in passing, though, that notability (or lack thereof) does not appear to be applicable here. The BLP issue is trickier, but I do feel that a piece authored by the subject of the article cannot constitute a BLPVIO about themselves, unless they have indicated a disavowal of it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Just a quick observation. Linking to an article by a living person which contains swearing is not a BLP violation. Some Americans are so up-tight about swearing. Imagine what you'd think about David Cameron saying "too many twits might make a twat" or Cameron Diaz telling Graham Norton to "shut the fuck up" on the Graham Norton Show. Could someone explain what the "possibility of harm" is? AusLondonder (talk) 00:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The Signpost piece belongs here. It's one of Temple-Wood's works, and it's clearly related to her activities on Wikipedia, for which she is notable. There are no BLP violations. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * OK since I've been asked to comment - I don't think me saying "fuck" a few times is a problem for my future employment - my current employers think it's fine (and my grandma thinks it's hilarious, fwiw), and I've already matriculated into medical school. If it helps, I've also written for Nautilus and the Genetics Society of America (whenever the latter gets published). :) Now to catch up on several days of pings and emails post-graduation... Keilana (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * BLP has nothing to do with this, nor does the juvenile tone. I've been removing it because WP:OWN is an issue, and attributing the page to a single author raises license problems under GFDL. Townlake (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * While Wp:OWN might be a reason to question an editor's actions; it isn't a reason to remove RS content. Personal attacks are a problem though, and not needed here.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC))
 * Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, and the Signpost is part of Wikipedia. Townlake (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What does the comment about "juvenile tone" mean? AusLondonder (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking. See all the discussion of the evils and joys of swearing above. That discussion is a distraction from the real problem here: GFDL Wikipedia (WMF Terms of Use #7.g) (CC license) says the authors of that Signpost page are on the History tab, Signpost says the author is Emily Temple-Wood. They can't both be right. (As of this writing, Keilana is not listed in the history as an author of the Wikipedia page. And she won't ever be an author in the article's existing diffs.) Townlake (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess I don't understand what you're getting at. Are you suggesting ETW didn't write the signpost article. The history on that page and diffs refer to the additions to the page rather than to who wrote the sign post article posted on the page, so I'm not sure what point you're making.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC))
 * The WMF Terms of Use provide a clear resolution to the matter at hand. I have nothing more to add. Townlake (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok Thanks. I don't believe there is application here, or application is a stretch, but just my opinion.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC))
 * I don't understand Townlake's argument either. The Signpost article says that it was written by Temple-Wood, and no one seriously doubts that this is true. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

If we are going to have a section on "works" that includes contributions to Wikipedia, it would be wrong to only include a single Signpost piece. Temple-Wood's more significant works within Wikipedia have been her substantive article creations. Therefore, all her substantial articles should be added to the "Works" list (if we retain it).--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken 12:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Andy Mabbett has objected to my inclusion of the work by Emily Temple-Wood known as Beatrice Hahn being added to this article. . I believe Beatrice Hahn is much more worthy of inclusion than the single Signpost contribution, it is a much better work by Emily Temple-Wood.  In any event, I also note Ms. Temple-Wood has contributed two articles to the wikimedia blog  which are not cited in the Works section.  Nor is this 2010 work, nor this 2007 contribution  for which she was named runner up in the global Naming X competition in 2007 for 12+ age category. (ETA: another work  )--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  15:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Except that's not really what you put in the works section, is it? What you wrote was that Beatrice Hahn wrote Wikipedia in April 2016, which is an entirely, and clearly wrong, claim. But back on topic, individual article creations should be left out, both because they are written by the collective, and listing 380 or so articles created is silly. People can look individual contributions to Wikipedia they want, since they are given her username. The Signpost piece however, is something with her name on it, and contains commentary, much like if she wrote an op-ed for the New York Times. That's why we mention this one, and not Beatrice Hahn, which is just one of hundreds of articles she created.


 * Also, I've added the Wikimedia blog pieces in the external links section. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I agree with Headbomb in that although she has created many articles, it's inappropriate to include any given one unless it has gotten a lot of attention in the media, and because, unlike columns for the Signpost, articles aren't owned or written by the editors who create them. Everymorning (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "it's inappropriate to include any given one unless it has gotten a lot of attention in the media". I can agree with that; I don't think any of her works under her name have reached that threshold.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  20:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Copy-editing
Hello. I've made some copy-editing in the article... I am not a native speaker of English, so please check if I did not mess anything, haha. Thanks!!! Ser Arthur Dayne (talk) 08:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Agnes Fay Morgan Research Award
Hello, Emily -- I know you've been writing articles about women scientists, so I thought I'd share what I just discovered. I've been copy-editing Elmer McCollum, and toward the end of the article there is a mention of Agnes Fay Morgan. I wondered why there was no link at her name, so I did a search and found that there is an article entitled Agnes Fay Morgan Research Award. I thought I'd mention it to you because if we have an article on the award, maybe we should also have an article on the scientist – when you have time. – Corinne (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Positions
Is T-W still involved with the D.C. groups now that she is no longer residing in that area?--172.56.1.123 (talk) 06:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * As far as sources indicate, yes.  Montanabw (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * https://wikimediadc.org/wiki/Board_of_Directors --172.56.0.93 (talk) 09:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have never lived in DC, and am still the Vice President of Wikimedia DC, as I have been for several years. I have lived in Chicago or its suburbs my entire life. Keilana (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

What a wonderful article!
I don't know where I've been but congratulations on such a fine article on such a fine person. Thank you to the person who created this content.

Best Regards:


 * Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  20:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

"sponsored by Commonwealth Edison"
Is this necessary? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably not.Shortsword (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Removed, for now at least. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 June 2020
Nationality pakistani Other names zeeshan raza awan kashmiri Education intermediate from ranger school till plaza karachi superhightway karachi & (c.i.t) course from dow university ojha Occupation student & professional footballer Awards runner up of 400 meter race from nawab shah karachi pakistan from ranger school Zeeshan raza awan kashmiri (talk) 07:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. At this time, these descriptions do not appear to be related to the article's subject. --  S. Hinakawa  (talk) 07:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 October 2020
Can the following piece of wiki-code be added so readers can view the English translation of a citation title that is written in French?

Please add the following:

|trans-title=For each sexist email received, she creates a scientist's Wikipedia page

to:

Adding this piece of code may help the few WP readers who might be ignorant of the French language to be interested enough to read a translated version of the cited article.

Thanks! -- 68.50.32.85 (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is my understanding that "une scientifique" in French means that the scientist is female, whereas "un scientifique" would indicate a male (or gender-neutral) scientist. Should the translation incorporate that nuance, since that is the point of the cited article? What wording would you propose? – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I apologize for not responding sooner. I agree with your suggestion since my knowledge of the French language is very limited (and my translation was obtain via Google Translate, which is not the best tool available). When possible, we should strive to preserve the nuance of the original in any translation. Thank you for the addition. -- 68.50.32.85 (talk) 02:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 November 2020
Can the following (or something similar) be added somewhere in the article (I would suggest the "Early life" section):

Since 2020, she is a medical school graduate and a practicing physician.

Her website https://www.emilytemplewood.com/about can also be used an additional reference.

I believe that these very difficult and worthy accomplishments should be mentioned somewhere in her biography.

Thanks -- 68.50.32.85 (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ Thanks for the contribution. BJackJS  talk 21:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 July 2023
In the last sentence of of Early life and education, Chicago is misspelled as Chiago. (My request is that this typo be fixed.) 209.214.83.194 (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)