Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of women who sparked a revolution


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep - this was dragging on too long. Any re-naming or moving needs to be taken off AfD. Bearian (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC) P.S. An editor asked me to clarify, which I think is needed here, even though technically this is breaking the rules. (Please see above: "Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.") The "keep" arguments were stronger than those to "delete", for example, that it is fairly well-sourced, even if some entries have not been verified. Many well-respected editors noted that it is useful, and does not duplicate categories entirely. There was also a discussion about the issue of making Wikipedia more welcoming to women. Perhaps its deletion could lead to bad publicity. Lara made some good points, but the article can be improved otherwise. The rule on verifying through sources is really about being able to source a statement anywhere. If one source is bad, or incomplete, normal editing will result in the addition of sources that do in fact verify the statement in the article. If, after a diligent search, sources can not be found, then the sentence or paragraph needs to be stricken. Much of the dissussion was not that it should be deleted, but that it is wrongly titled. That is the subject of a move debate, and is not properly the subject of an XfD discussion. Sometimes, the consensus argument, however poorly worded, is to keep an article, and in other cases, to delete an article. In either case, we have to move on to other issues and not get too upset. The debate went on for 18 days, and that is enough time. Bearian (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

List of women who sparked a revolution

 * – ( View AfD View log )
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It's very interesting, but there's very little here that isn't covered by Category:Women in war and its various subcategories. Criteria for inclusion appear to be really arbitrary, necessitating an interpretation of "sparked" and "revolution" that is too broad to be useful. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, but tweak criteria or title. I tend to disagree with Roscelese.  This article is just the kind of 'gem' that many would love to wander upon at Wikipedia, certainly feminists, but also military scholars, middle-school teachers, and readers who just like good compilations of information.  The fact that information is spread widely over the Category doesn't help our readers much, and I'm sure the same could be said for many lists; by their very nature, lists are useful for combining disparate content into a convenient location.  The Criteria for inclusion may be a bit vague, but with good descriptions and ample RS, I don't see that as a reason to delete rather than just tweak it. Ocaasic 02:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree something needs to be done, at least establishing criteria for inclusion. The example of Clara Lemlich in 1909 for instance... I don't recall there being a revolution. I wouldn't think leading a strike would count. That said, A woman could be involved in a non-violent or minimally violent revolution, that probably would not be included in the Women in war category, such as the Egyptian revolution example. Perhaps establish a criteria that those listed not also be listed in the Women in war cat? Monty 845 02:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems very likely to me that what the article needs more than anything is just a new title. Although it's very provocative, it is definitely a stretch for many of the individual examples.  What would some good article title alternatives be? Ocaasic 02:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * List of women in war, List of women who started a war, List of women warriors, List of women who changed military history, List of women who changed history... Some ideas. Ocaasic 03:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "List of women who changed (military) history" is completely untenable, and "List of women who started a war" would a) face some of the same problems the current title does with subjectiveness b) remove most of the list content even taking that subjectiveness into account. "Woman warrior" and "Women in war" would also necessitate the removal of some of the content. I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what you think should remain on the list - you say that some of the women on this list wouldn't be in a "Women in war" category, which is true, but they wouldn't belong in some of your suggestions either. Can you be more specific about what you think should stay? Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I think this could be very useful. It adds considerable context that the category does not.  I agree with Ocaasi, its useful even if it needs a few tweaks. -Selket Talk 03:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment as the creator of this article, I was looking for this information in real life and couldn't find it. After doing a lot of research, I thought others could save a lot of time by having it all in one place. The criteria is very defined –– a revolution is a change of government. Every one of these people (except one) became involved, and as a result, there was a change in government. The only exception is Clara Lemlich, and the reason she was included is because it was the first successful major uprising of female workers in American history. And if you take her out, every other example led to a change in government. To address the question of this information already being in categories, it's very hard to find. There are all kinds of seemingly unimportant lists on Wikipedia, what makes them useful is the information is all in one place: List of people considered father or mother of a field, List of record labels: 0-9, List of medieval bestiaries. USchick (talk) 04:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * However, a) while (political) revolutions are changes of government, not all changes of government are revolutions - you list Cleopatra and Jingu, for example b) not all of these resulted in changes of government anyway (Elizabeth). Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I see your point. What was useful to me in real life, is the involvement of women from all around the world, and from the beginning of time. For what I was doing, a nation that was conquered (or not) determined the ruling government. If it's not useful, no problem. Just for fun, look at this list List of Ultraman monsters. USchick (talk) 04:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Ultraman monsters" is a much less useful list, but its criteria for inclusion are much better defined. Are there more specific and less subjective criteria according to which the list could be overhauled? Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that revolution implies more than a mere change of government. Revolutions are ways of changing governments, usually dramatic or sudden in nature.  Also, 'sparked' is a neat word, but it's very subjective.  The spark is literally the first thing that ignites, but in Egypt, for example, was it Asmaa Mahfouz, or was it Khaled Saeed, or was it Tunisia?  Can you have more than one 'spark'?


 * I think the easiest way to fix this is still to work on the title. List of women who sparked a war or revolution?  For me that comes closer, by being a bit more inclusive.  I'd still like to tweak 'sparked' and possibly 'revolution' by changing the word or adding some modifier.


 * Roscelese, earlier I was just brainstorming ideas, not actually proposing them. It wasn't me who mentioned that some of the content was not included in the women in war category; my point was that just because something's in that category doesn't make it convenient to find or read in a horizontally-organized fashion (a snippet from each one), what lists are best at. Ocaasic 05:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I got confused between you and another user earlier. And I agree that a list has the potential to be useful - it's just that it needs defined and reasonably objective inclusion criteria. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete While interesting, and I also found it inspiring, the list has nothing to do with "sparking" revolutions. Elizabeth I for instance, while a great example of a woman leader, defended the establishment of England against a "revolution" which the Spanish were trying to impose.  Lists of female political activists, military leaders, and heads of state would be a good thing for WP (and I'm sure we have them already.)  If you want to take some of these and mix them together that's fine but it might be better to write a book or article for publication elsewhere. Hey you might even get paid for it. The material is inspirational, as I already mentioned. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - It is necessary to keep pages on the women questions. There is a considerable cost to the encyclopedia to eliminate its pages....Wikipedia has a serious deficit of female readers and female editors, and that is a problem, and this sort of thing doesn't help (references Wikipedia: This is a man's world, Where Are the Women in Wikipedia?. It is necessary to preserve this page and to improve it. Thanks, --Geneviève (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you help suggest ways of improving it? Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Update, comment Per objections here, I moved three inconsistent examples (Queen Elizabeth stops a revolution, ticket given to Tunisian man causes him to burn himself alive, and a clothing strike) to the article's talk page. I think the content is now consistent with the title, and a no-brainer for a great list.  I hesitate to invoke communo-political grounds as Genevieve did, and it would be an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument to find a list of men who wore pants into battle anyway--but I think there's something really useful about this kind of content, and since each individual piece is significant enough to be included at an article, the list is just a good vehicle to help readers pull together a theme.  There's no question that the role of women in history is chronically underestimated and underreported.  Assuming we can get the criteria to better match the examples, as I think we're close to doing, why wouldn't we have this list? Ocaasic 17:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - First thing, the title includes an idiom, so if the article is kept, it needs a rename. Alright, so reasons to delete:
 * Very few entries explain any sort of revolution, which, as others have noted, is more than just a change in government.
 * Very few entries explain how that particular woman "sparked" it.
 * One I find particularly troubling is the entry giving credit to Asmaa Mahfouz for sparking the 2011 Egyptian Revolution. That is not realistic. The sources of that biography don't support that claim, though Gulf News reveals that many bloggers claim her's is "the blog that started a revolution". Less than reliable.
 * Another example is the now removed entry for Faida Hamdi. Giving her credit for sparking the Tunisian Revolution, in my opinion, is a slap in the face to the entire situation, pun intended. She didn't spark anything but anger. Mohamed Bouazizi sparked the revolution with the same flame he burned himself to death with.
 * Articles like these are not what Wikipedia needs to fix this claimed gender-bias "problem" on Wikipedia; and such an argument to the contrary is weightless, as it isn't based on any policy or guideline.
 * This article fails to meet standards. It's ill-defined and includes more entries that don't fit within the scope defined by the title and lead sentence than entries that do, thus is serves to mislead our readers. Lara  03:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep, Rename
 * Most of the above arguments against the list seem to be "X, for example, doesn't fit the criteria", but these are not arguments against the list, they're arguments against the inclusion of X in said list, which is reasonable to note at the article's talk or in the edit summary of X's removal but inappropriate to cite as support for deletion of the list at an AfD.
 * If the titling contains an objectionable term or is inartful, the solution is to craft a better title sans idiom and based on which parameters are most relevant to convey. For example, List of women who led a rebellion would allow for inclusion of both violent and nonviolent uprisings, such as Clara Lemlich, while a rebellion can have more than one leader, allowing for Asmaa Mahfouz.  (Faida Hamdi would be exempt, and I think she should be; U.S. chicks learn why from Sesame Street.)  The inclusion of nonviolent uprisings also solves the nominator's problem of its existence apart from the Category:women in war.  This would also open the subject to women whose rebellions were unsuccessful; of course if the outcome is a relevant point, then perhaps List of women who led a successful rebellion.  Women who actually led bona fide revolutions could be a primary subsection of the list.  I think that List of women who led a revolution is more succinct, and would include women who did not single-handedly spearhead it, while excluding women whose rebellions were unsuccessful.
 * I do think that people have a misconception of the definition of revolution, which Websters says is "2a: a sudden, radical, or complete change; 2b: a fundamental change in political organization; especially: the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed; 2c: activity or movement designed to effect fundamental changes in the socioeconomic situation; 2d: a fundamental change in the way of thinking about or visualizing something: a change of paradigm; 2e: a changeover in use or preference especially in technology." (All the 1 definitions are physics oriented.)  Considering that the definition people seem to be taking as the primary for revolution is actually the secondary (2b), and the primary (2a) and tertiary (2c) are both explicitly more inclusive of the sort of broader scope that does not necessitate actually changing a form of government, it justifies inclusion of a broader scope than some here are suggesting; Websters, it seems, would support Clara Lemlich as leading a revolution by both the primary and tertiary definition of the word, which is not limited to violent or military actions.  Therefore, I would submit List of women who led a revolution as the best title.  Abrazame (talk) 11:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - These are fair points. Regarding the first point, however, there is a problem in that the list isn't easily edited. It's greatly, if not completely, synthesis. This is where the title (even sans the idiom) is a problem. I mean, the definition of revolution wouldn't necessarily matter here if each of these women were credited in reliable sources as having a direct influence on the success of a revolution. I'm not a history buff and don't have time to read all these bios, but it doesn't seem to be the case for at least most of these entries. At this point, the entire list could probably be blanked as original research, which is why it's easier to bring it up for deletion rather than transform it into a completely different list. The guideline for lists points out that lists are articles and are held to all content policies, including verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view. As it is, any by-policy editing of this list will pretty much wipe it out.


 * That said, if the title is changed to reflect what is supported by sources, then that remedies many of the above problems. List of women who led a successful rebellion is, I think, the better title. Bringing in Webster's definition isn't helpful. We have an article that discusses the various and argued definitions for what a revolution is. The issue is the sources used in many cases here don't use the word revolution, so it becomes original research to label it as such. Because it's a list, information is condensed, and so maintaining and presenting a neutral point of view can become a problem too.
 * One last thing, what do you mean by (Faida Hamdi would be exempt, and I think she should be; U.S. chicks learn why from Sesame Street.)? Lara  12:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Abrazame, but I 'think' he meant that hitting someone while taking their livelihood away is the kind of basic moral indignity that children learn from public service educational television to avoid, and as such is not a good fit for the theme of this article. It was mentioned to me by USchick that Hamdi's act, although negative, still was a 'spark'.  I find that technically accurate but also pretty insulting and misrepresentative of the significance of what happened in Tunisia, and of Bouazizi's sacrifice.  Including women in this way requires a pretty different approach in the title or the Lead than is currently suggested to the reader.  The original mix of women who 'sparked' or 'stopped' or 'angered someone else to incite' a revolution is misleading.  An inclusive article would require a much less suggestive title. Ocaasic 13:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I could point to any number of lists here at Wikipedia that are not shining examples of what a good list should be, and everybody would concede that we don't apply the imperfections of one article on another. If the people who wrote the Revolution article were focused specifically on the second definition, that is their right and it may improve the article to be so focused, because it's not a dictionary, but just because some current Wikipedia article has such a secondary focus that doesn't tie the hands of all other Wikipedians to apply only that secondary focus to all usage of the term anywhere else at Wikipedia regardless of what can be reliably sourced as the definition in the world outside Wikipedia.


 * Further to that point, or if we are to follow the lead of other Wikipedia usage, we conflate the idea of revolution and rebellion elsewhere at the project, specifically at the almost five-year-old List of revolutions and rebellions. We also combine successful and unsuccessful coups d'etat at the almost five-year-old List of coups d'état and coup attempts.


 * I wholeheartedly support the statement that WP:V applies to lists as well as articles. I didn't check the cites for what remained at the article when I came upon it; again, though, if the problem with the list is that some entries are not cited or that some of the cites don't support some aspect or another of the assertion, then that's a ref tag issue and not an AfD issue.  Clearly some of those women led a revolution or rebellion, and enough so to form the basis of a reasonable list.  Of the six whose articles I clicked upon just now (Deborah, Cleopatra II, Mother Lu, Trung Sisters, Zenobia, Nusta Huillac) five had either sources or Wikipedia articles that declared they led a rebellion or revolt.  Are you arguing that those Wikipedia articles are poorly sourced as well?  Or are you (I can't imagine) suggesting that we need to have one source for all these women sharing this in common and that USchick is wrong to compile herself a list of women who not only various sources but the one Wikipedia tells us led rebellions and revolts?  Because that is not synth, or original research, it is initiative.


 * U.S. chicks was a generic variant of the username of the person who created the article; I was referring to the Sesame Street song "Which one of these things is not like the other?" with which I presumed an American would be familiar. For those who are not, the Public Broadcasting show for children would present, say, five objects, four of which were clearly alike (say, different types of vegetables) and one which was clearly unlike (say, a hammer), and sing the song.  It was flip but unmalicious humor in support of your assessment that it was effrontery for the moment of a bureaucrat abusing her power who drove a man to a desperate suicidal statement to be aligned with women who spent days or weeks or years putting their lives on the line to fight for the rights of their people.  (Although to Ocaasi, yes, Sesame Street did teach the Golden Rule as well, which was the basis of being able to identify the difference.)


 * Finally, to Lara, are you asserting that USchick has not presented a neutral point of view for one or more of the entries, or are you just trying to heap every straw of negativism you can grasp out of the air on this so that it has the effect of coming off like you're finding problems with the article we're actually discussing? What article could you not say that POV could become a problem?  That's not at all helpful.  Abrazame (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem isn’t with the definition of revolution. That is why it’s not helpful to bring it up. We can debate that on the revolution talk page. The problem is that it’s original research to call all of the relevant historical events of these entries revolutions when references do not refer to such. Now, as to the “ref tag issue”, that far understates the problem. The list fails to meet standards, from conception to execution. For the examples you've listed, am I wrong that the entries are clearly historically considered either a revolution, rebellion, coup d'etat, or attempted coup? Or has that information been mostly synthesized from sources? And no, I'm not saying that we need a single source that states each of these women did anything. No reasonable reading of my comments should result in that assumption. What I'm saying is sources need to attribute to these women some sort of major influence on a revolution in order for us to make that claim. Or on a rebellion or whatever else the title change may be. And I'm not arguing about other articles, although lots of discussion in this AFD includes all sorts of other lists and articles for no apparent reason.


 * Best I can tell, this AFD is going in the direction of "Keep because it has great potential if you completely change it, which I'm not going to do, but probably someone will because anyone can edit." I've seen it countless times over the years. This is why the onus shouldn't be on those calling for deletion, rather those fighting to keep it. Make it an article worth our readers time that meets standards or it gets deleted. Just logical, but this isn't the forum for that (no such forum actually exists), so please excuse my digression. So, perhaps List of women who influenced a revolution or rebellion. More accurate title, broadens the criteria for inclusion to accommodate more of the current entries, and it fits nicely with the above list you used as an example of something irrelevant to the discussion.


 * Lastly, my assertion on USchick's entries as far as NPOV go are directly connected with the ill-defined concept and poor execution of the list. The title gives credit to these women for provoking a revolution, specifically. I'm asserting that the entries fail to explain how significant each woman's role was in their respective "revolutions". The Mother Lü article, for example, is a one-sentence microstub that manages to explain what this list does not. Nothing about Olga of Kiev involves a revolution. After her son succeeded her murdered husband, she avenged his death. Where's the revolution? Neither the microstub article (including its single reference) or the entry on Ñusta Huillac explains how significant her role was in any revolution. Or, to be fair, how notable she is for inclusion in WP at all. Bibi Sahib Kaur's entry and microstub article are the exact same wording. Neither explain what revolution she allegedly provoked. It reads as if she merely successfully fought in battle. Malalai Anaa didn't inspire a revolution either. She basically shouted at her fiance not to be a wuss, which inspired the soldiers to fight harder in the ongoing battle against the British. Ani Pachen led a rebellion and was captured. There was no revolution. "Paraska Korolyuk and Yulia Tymoshenko were iconic figures and key activists of the Orange Revolution in Ukraine." From my understanding, Korolyuk participated in the revolution, while Tymoshenko was integral in beginning it. Israa Abdel Fattah was active during the Egyptian uprising, but she did not provoke it. That's nearly half the list. Should I cite some more or have I sufficiently made my point? Lara  19:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see the talk page addressing Olga of Kiev Talk:List of women who sparked a revolution Women in leadership often lack military strength, but they end up doing serious damage by using whatever means they have available to change the course of history. Sometimes by simply shaming (or inspiring) their men into action, like Malalai Anaa. When a man inspires and leads his army into victory, he's called a great military leader. When a woman does the same thing, she is discredited by editors on Wikipedia? If the people of Afghanistan recognize her leadership, why do we question it here? This list is valuable because you won't find military tactics like this used by men. Here they are all in one place and span thousands of years. The other article stubs can benefit from being expanded, but all those people are recognized in their country of origin as strategic military leaders and it gives a starting point for anyone interested in looking up more information. USchick (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Where do their countries of origin recognize them for having "sparked a revolution"? Lara  20:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The objections seem mostly to arise from the title, and even the nominator concedes that the subject of women who took the lead in military actions is notable enough for its own category, Category:Women in war. Categories are fine for people who have time to do the "what's under this rock?" method of looking at one article after another until they locate whatever they were looking for, but a list provides at-a-glance information that a category simply can't give.  Fortunately, it's not a matter of having to choose between a category only or a list page only, WP:CLN.  In that the role of women in the history of war is an important topic that's under-represented, a general page should be available on the subject, whether it's a list or a narrative.  Mandsford 15:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps someone should write that list, because that's not what this list is. Lara  19:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Genevieve2.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * She didn't give a policy based reason to keep the article. Lara  19:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and possible rename per the article's quality and Categories, lists, and navigation templates. CLN says, right at the top: "Wikipedia offers several ways to group articles: categories, lists (including embedded lists, like lists included in See also sections), and navigation templates (of which article series boxes are one type). The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping." In other words, we are wasting our time trying to decide whether the "very little here that isn't covered by Category:Women in war" is worth keeping. I can't see anything wrong with the article at all, it is among the highest quality I have seen at AFD. If it were not for the fact that the nomination says nothing close to it, I would assume by the nom's entries on the talk page that nom decided to bring the article to AFD to be improved. RFC is the place for that, and this article is a very good example of an article that would be a great shame to lose; RFC needs administrator supervision of the same type as AFD to get articles fixed without putting them in jeopardy. Anarchangel (talk) 09:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I also think a name change might be in order such as 'Women involved in uprisings', as the current title is a little too exclusive; this also addresses the problem that the nom has with it being a duplicate of a category, and Lara's concern that the current entries are not adequately described by the title. Anarchangel (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "I would assume by the nom's entries on the talk page that nom decided to bring the article to AFD to be improved" - No, I think it should be deleted. The criteria for inclusion, based on the content of the list, are irreparably vague and subjective. But if it's going to be kept, there are still some improvements that can be made. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have heard it said that the role of a prosecutor in law is to make everything precise and clearcut and that of a defense lawyer, to obfuscate and make things unclear. Yet here it seems the reverse; an easy decision for any editor, what to include in an article and what to not include, is handwaved away as being beyond the scope of mere mortals. The line for inclusion is what editors working on the article decide it is; hypothetically, it is even independent of the title, although I do not recommend that. Anarchangel (talk) 10:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you translate this into clearer wording? The fact that this list doesn't meet standards is pretty clear. What to include is pretty well lined out across various policies and guidelines on Wikipedia. This article fails some of the most important ones pretty clearly. "It's interesting" isn't a reason to keep. "There aren't enough women on Wikipedia, so we can't delete articles about women" isn't a reason to keep. And " I can't see anything wrong with the article at all, it is among the highest quality I have seen at AFD" is not only not a reason to keep (much less a strong one), but it's a good indication that you don't understand Wikipedia's standards. Lara  01:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eduemoni↑talk↓  03:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Rather ahistorical in its implication that revolutions can be "sparked" by individuals, but pretty interesting and nicely done. There's something to be said for that. No opinion as to inclusion-worthiness. Carrite (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

I would appreciate it if anyone interested in commenting would do so regarding arguments to support or delete the list as proposed (or make other proposals someone else may be interested in pursuing), because nobody is arguing to keep the list as it was created; it was of recent vintage and was in the process of being improved. Obviously I could waste my time moving and editing the list, and expected this to be drawing to a close around now so I could take the initiative to do so, but apparently it seems to some that there is more to be said here. This isn't rocket science, and there is no validity to the attitude by some in this discussion that what I am proposing is an extraordinary undertaking fraught with editorial peril. If there is some argument against what I am proposing revising the current list into, I haven't heard it yet and would like to prior to diving in there. Abrazame (talk) 03:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Here are a few of the things the discussion here and at the list's talk page have established:
 * 1) The creator of the list made errors in scope and inclusion.
 * 2) If the list remains it will be moved to a new name.
 * 3) The creator of the list has abandoned the list.
 * 4) I am willing to take the lead and have proposed List of women who led a revolution or rebellion.
 * 5) Both the word and the concept of "sparking" a revolution have been abandoned and will play no part in the list if it goes forward.
 * 6) Anyone who does not fit the parameters of the new title will be pruned (and those already removed who do readded).
 * 7) Any blurbs that do not adequately establish inclusion will be improved.
 * The thing is, really, that "we are going to keep this, but move it to a new title, abandon the original concept, and have almost completely different content" is not really a keep. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want voters to vote based on the proposal, make that the new article. Change the title and prune accordingly. Otherwise, this article needs to be deleted as there isn't a single policy-based keep vote. Feminism isn't a criteria for inclusion. Lara  01:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * New list: The article is now a new list, please review and suggest a name. My suggestion is List of women who led a rebellion or a revolution. USchick (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm very confused with your recent additions. In spite of the problem that the list already contained people who did not actually lead a revolution or rebellion, you've added far, far more who did not lead a revolution or rebellion. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have removed all the headings you added here for two reasons. 1/ Headings in AFDs are not accessible from the AFD edit window and they throw off the formatting on the main AFD page. 2/ This isn't the place for those discussions. That said, the "new list" has more entries than don't fit the criteria than the original one did. The name still hasn't changed and the criteria is no better defined, yet there are additions made to the list and little pruning has occurred. Lara  20:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The definitions are in the dictionary. When the king is defeated in battle, and the person who defeated him takes over the throne and becomes a monarch, what would you call it? USchick (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ask yourself. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Battle of Tewkesbury 4 May 1471, was one of the decisive battles of the Wars of the Roses where Margaret was forced to lead her own army.
 * Second Battle of St Albans fought on 17 February, 1461 where Margaret's army captured the town of Dunstable, where she defeated the Yorkist forces of Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, and recaptured her husband. USchick (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And are these called revolutions or rebellions? No, they are not. I have no idea what point you're trying to make here. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Rebellion: Types of rebellion Mutiny, Revolt, Revolution, choose whichever one you like. How can repeated military battles to overthrow a king not fit the criteria? USchick (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We work based on reliable sources here; your personal belief that a dynastic struggle constitutes a revolution does not meet reliable source criteria. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you disputing the sources for these three articles Margaret of Anjou, Second Battle of St Albans, Battle of Tewkesbury that describe military campaigns led by Margaret to capture the throne? Or are you saying that you need a source to tell you that military combat to overthrow a king is called a Mutiny, Revolt or a Rebellion? USchick (talk) 05:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * USchick, I believe Roscelese is noting the general problem with categorization and (potentially) original research. I'll note that this article has moved from 'sparked a revolution' to 'lead or organized a revolution', to now 'lead or organized a rebellion, mutiny, or revolt'--which is very broad.  It matters the words we pick and that we not keep shifting to make the examples fit the pre-chosen items.  We can decide what the list is, and then pick examples which match.  Or, we can look at the list and pick a title broad enough for all of them; List of women in war, for example, would be the broadest, although we'd probably want to exclude mere support roles (nurses, spies, etc.). Ocaasi c 11:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not making this up, this information already exists with sources in other articles and I combined it into a list List of women who led a revolution. I'm not sure what part of Revolution is being disputed: Overthrow of government: the overthrow of a ruler or political system.
 * If I may say, I think that the one and only way to resolve this is as follows: if you want to get out of this AfD, you have to present a list where every single entry has a reference specifically using the word "Revolution" or "Rebellion". Obviously a good many of the entries on the list do have such a reference, and this and only this will satisfy the heightened scrutiny brought on by an AfD. Those entries that do not have such references should be cut-and-pasted to a thread on the list's talk page indicating why they were removed and what they require to appear on the list. Then, at your leisure, considering your interest in this realm, you (and any interested visitor who comes upon the talk page demi-list) can research historical references about the subject to determine whether it is or is not something that can be cited and should be categorized as a revolution, and if necessary open a thread specifically about that potential entry to discuss the adherence to the parameter. Surely a few will be described as such in scholarly enough of a source as to satisfy the list threshold, and can be added to the main list.  For those that do not, you may find that what they share all falls under a different criterion and justifies a separate list.  As has been said from various perspectives in this AfD, leading a revolution and leading a military battle are not quite the same thing, and for this list to pass muster here, you need to show that the difference is something you are willing to concede in general, and discuss one entry at a time.  It doesn't have to be 100% complete when you first put it up; however, given the AfD, it really should be 100% referenced by a source calling it a revolution when you first put it up.  We simply can't argue whether 15 unique stories are or are not a revolution, that's unfair to yourself, to the list, and to those discussing it with you.  Abrazame (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, what about now? If there was a military conflict with a change in government, I left it. USchick (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Please stop adding headers in the AFD. As previously noted, it breaks the formatting on the main AFD page. As for the article, there is a display of a serious lack of understanding of Wikipedia's policy and an inability to grasp clearly explained issues. You cannot synthesize that something is a revolution, rebellion, revolt, whatever. The source has to support whatever you claim. If you want to put down that "Queen X led a revolt against King X", you have to have a source that says the same. As noted before (I shouldn't have to keep repeating myself), the dictionary definition of a word is irrelevant. What matters is what the sources say. Lara 15:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Leading an army into military battle to overthrow the government is a revolution. Do you have a source that says otherwise? Please see WP:COMMON. What specific policy is not being followed here? A dictionary is a credible source to explain words for people who don't seem to understand English. USchick (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't post essays as rebuttals to Wikipedia's second pillar. That said, it's interesting, thought not definitive, that very few of these entires are listed at List of revolutions and rebellions. Perhaps because they aren't referred to as revolutions or rebellions in sources. Lara  16:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * USchick, you've taken a step in the right direction now, I appreciate that you took my advice, but it was merely a step and at a glance it looks like you need to take four or five more such steps in the same direction to satisfy this AfD. I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but I glanced at the list as it stands now and quite honestly the first entry my eye fell upon, "15th century Isabella, Duchess of Lorraine, leads an army to rescue her husband from the Duke of Burgundy," does not make any case whatsoever for this as being a revolution or rebellion.


 * Any action that goes against the status quo could in the broadest definition be termed rebellious, but the essence of what makes it a rebellion in the context of the situation is not at all clear. I would still argue that the shirt factory woman should be counted as a rebellion, for various reasons I would be willing to go into in a debate specific to her at that list's talk, but I see nothing in this entry about Isabella that would cause someone to argue the same.  The argument in this AfD is not that the examples were not militaristic enough, or were not in the context of battle, but that so many of the entries did not evidently meet the standard of verifiability to a reliable source as being revolutionary.  This is why others in this AfD have been so loathe to concede that simply changing the name would solve the issue, because of how ambiguous several of the unreferenced entries are in supporting a claim to the theme, which is revolution.  And I think the aspect of revolution that people get is not merely, did X fight against invaders, or in some war over a general dispute, but, did X fight to alter their circumstances.  Obviously one's circumstances are profoundly altered by invasion, and often in a way more dire than other revolutions (like the shirt factory episode), but leading a fight against invasion is a war of defense, not revolution.


 * And finally to your most recent point here (edit conflict), I am not a pedantic authoritarian, but the argument against you is that the onus is on you to show that entries to your list are revolutions, each and every one, not that editors need to show you for each and every one that is not. I have and would continue to argue with Lara about where we should source and how we should apply the definition of revolution to specific entries one at a time that fit the bill, but I simply can't do it in the abstract for 27 entries at once, and neither can you.  I say this not in the interest of "getting around" Wikipedia requirements, but of applying them fairly and comprehensively, and of making sure that involved parties understand and will observe the parameters we decide to set.  You're simply not going to win an abstract administrative argument that you have the right to determine what is or not a revolution, and on that point I have to say I agree with Lara and the tack she's taking here.  Abrazame (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * To be clear, my position regarding where we should source is as follows:
 * If the main article of the entry explains the "revolution" or "revolt" or "rebellion" or whatever this list eventually defines as its criteria and is reliably sourced, then I don't believe it's necessarily required to source in this list, but for the reader's sake, why wouldn't we include the source in this list?
 * If the main article of the entry fails to explain the above, then it most surely needs a reference. And the information should be added to the main article entry. In which case, refer to bullet one about need to reference in the list.
 * Basically, I view it, at best, as laziness not to reference the list. It's for the reader's benefit and drastically increases the reliability and value of the article to have a complete reference list.
 * As for applying the definition, I only care about what sources say. Lara  16:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If we're using this list as an example List of revolutions and rebellions, it's an incomplete list that includes uprisings, conflicts and struggles. It's a much longer list with only 20sources. That list is not defined as to what should be included. To be fair, why is it not tagged for deletion? USchick (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Most lists on Wikipedia are incomplete. That's not an issue. The article links to revolution and rebellion thereby taking on the definitions supplied there (though it could use with a drastically expanded lead section), each entry clearly explains how it qualifies, and when you click the articles they reveal greater details with sources to support. There may, of course, be exceptions. In such case those entries should be removed. Randomly clicking through the article, I didn't find any. Lara  17:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's very interesting, because randomly clicking through the same article, I found that list to be extremely vague in what they consider a revolution without any sources whatsoever. I don't think you need my permission to do anything. If you have consensus, do whatever you want. USchick (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep Is this AfD debate still continuing? It seems like a renaming debate.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   09:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename to something like List of women revolutionaries and keep. The 'sparked a revolution' formulation is inappropriate - it seems to me that it would be POV to say that a particular person 'sparked' a revolution in most cases. (I don't agree that this list needs to exist for reasons of gender equity, when we don't have List of men who sparked a revolution.) But if broadened and re-focused to be on female revolutionaries in general, I think it would be fine. Robofish (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Both you and Bluerasberry should note, as above, that while the article could be renamed, the content would also have to be substantially changed to fit the new title. Many of the people on the current list aren't revolutionaries by any conceivable description. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not an article about revolutionaries. USchick (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Isnt it time to close this discussion soon as a Keep,its so obvious.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It actually isn't that obvious considering the majority of keep votes aren't based on anything of merit. Lara  02:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Lara its over.OK--BabbaQ (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It should be over. It's true. But it's not a clear-cut AFD, which is why it hasn't been closed yet. No admin has come across it and felt like determining the consensus. Because while your side has numbers, you lack arguments.


 * The first voter says it should be kept because it's a "gem". While s/he doesn't give a valid reason to keep, s/he is the only one to attempt to improve the article. Another found it "useful". Several voters didn't even give a reason to keep or, to be honest, any indication that they even read the debate (or the article!), like Blue Rasberry. Your vote is completely weightless as it seconds a purely feminist support that has no grounding in policy or guidelines and, quite to the contrary, disregards them completely. Mandsford states that "the role of women in the history of war is an important topic that's under-represented, a general page should be available on the subject, whether it's a list or a narrative", which is all covered by all the articles in Template:Women in warfare and is also irrelevant to the AFD considering that's not what this article is or was.


 * In contrast, reasons to delete are clear and reasoned. Citing the fact that the vast majority of entries have nothing to do with women "sparking" revolutions or, in fact, any involvement in a revolution at all, which serves to mislead readers. Even with the new list (tentatively titled "List of women who led a revolution or rebellion"), there remains a major problem when it comes to verifiability and original research (read: policies). Addressing some of the real concerns, Abrazame posted a strong keep. Strong meaning valid, here, not the self-ascribed "strong" s/he placed on it. S/he's the only keep voter to present a strong argument.


 * So, to be fair, there are weak arguments on both sides. Discounting those weak arguments, it pretty much comes down to a small handful of arguments. That's what the closing admin has to filter out and decide from. Also taking into consideration the discussion that took place between the votes, including the fact that the article was changed to what very closely duplicates other established lists that the author wasn't aware existed, and that many of the entries continue to fall outside of the new criteria. Lara  13:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What entries fall outside the criteria? USchick (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * First, let me reiterate my earlier concern that many entires fail to explain a revolution or revolt and one must go look elsewhere to find out the necessary information. Also, many entries continue to make claims of revolutions and revolts that sources do not support. If this is an issue with the tentative title or criteria for inclusion, see LISTS.
 * Cratesipolis maintained her husband's army after his death and successfully warded off an attempted revolt, she didn't lead one. The ref for this is a dead end ref (because it was a note copied from somewhere else and no accompanying reference was brought with it) for an author by the name of Leon, and it occurs twice; but the biography is a copy/paste of a public domain encyclopedia entry, so there's that.
 * Amastris, according to her biography and the working reference within it, combined four colonies and named the newly created city after herself after she separated from her husband. That's not a revolt or a rebellion.
 * Arachidamia was a Spartan princess who fought against a siege on a Spartan city by Pyrrhus, a Greek general. She didn't lead a revolt or a rebellion. The reference here is the second use of Leon, though the microstub biography actually uses a book by an author named Salmonson.
 * Agrippina the Younger "presided over the exercises of Roman legions." How is that a revolt or a rebellion? And the reference is a dead end ref to an author named Salmonson (oh, see previous). There are 14 occurrences of this one.
 * "In 63, Tacitus wrote in his Annals that women of rank entered the gladiatorial arena." Where is the revolt or rebellion?
 * Li Xiu defeated a rebellion, she didn't lead one.
 * Kahina was a Berber who led a resistance against the Umayyad conquest of North Africa.
 * Parsbit commanded an army against Armenia. What revolution occurred?
 * Thyra commanded an army against Germans. What revolution occurred?
 * Urraca of Castile's entry leads to a ref I don't have access to, but I assume it's talking about the city of Tui (as opposed to the linked Tuy), and neither her bio nor that of her half sister which she fought with, Theresa, Countess of Portugal, mention this city or any revolution or rebellion.
 * Gwenllian ferch Gruffydd, a Welsh princess, led an army against the Normans. She was defeated and killed. What revolution occurred?
 * Alrude Countess of Bertinoro led an army and ended a siege. She didn't lead one.
 * Mandukhai Khatun took command of an army and defeated the opposition. What revolution occurred?
 * Joan of Arc led armies during the Hundred Years' War.
 * Yolande of Aragon supported Joan of Arc.
 * Pierronne fought in the French Army.
 * Amina led an army.
 * Gaitana led an army in resistance of colonization by the Spanish.
 * Mary of Guise led an army against a rebellion.
 * Mary, Queen of Scots led armies against rebellions.
 * Tarabai led an army against an invasion.
 * Anne Josephe Theroigne de Mericourt led female troops in The French Revolution. Does that count?
 * Bibi Sahib Kaur "led armies into battle."
 * Laskarina Bouboulina was a naval commander who fought during the Greek War of Independence. Does that count?
 * Seh-Dong-Hong-Beh is said to have led an army. Doesn't say anything about a revolt or a rebellion. This entry is unreferenced and her microstub article gives practically no information and has a single dead link reference.
 * Malalai Anaa, as I noted before, didn't led anything. She rallied the troops by telling her fiance not to be a wuss.
 * I continue to question whether Asmaa Mahfouz can be credited with "leading" the revolution in Egypt.
 * And I certainly wouldn't say that Israa Abdel Fattah aka "Facebook girl", who "drew the attention of the foreign media" can be credited as having "led a revolution".
 * I'd like to point out that I don't endorse any entries currently in the article simply by virtue that they aren't listed here. If the entry itself seemed to make a valid claim, I skipped it. It's more than possible that some of them are false claims. Lara  20:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The research is strong in you! I still think we should just change the title and then a) userfy or b) relist at AFD if necessary in a few weeks. I still think this article is a gem ;p, but it's a gem with a horrible title and poor references.  But there's something very much a) notable and b) missing (notable + missing = useful, to me) about such a list.  Women in war, Woman warrior, and Category:Women in war or Template:Women in warfare are not sufficient substitutes.  An encyclopedic overview and a Category is no substitute for a good list.  Average readers don't know categories even exist.  Meanwhile, we have List of women warriors in literature and popular culture; we should surely have the real-world equivalent.  There is a viable article here, it just needs to decide if the metric is 'revolution' or 'influence on war' or something else.  (And it needs proper blurbs and citations).  But right now we have List of women who changed the course of history through a prominent military or activist role in war or nonviolent revolution.  Which is too broad by a hair. List of women who changed the course of military and political history is probably more on point, but it reveals the breadth problem evermore.  USchick, can you please decide which examples you want to lose and propose a title which fits the rest. Ocaasi c 21:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The template I mentioned is more than a template. It's a template full of lists about women in war.
 * Timeline of women in ancient warfare
 * Timeline of Women in Medieval warfare
 * Timeline of women in early modern warfare
 * Women in warfare (1750–1799)
 * Timeline of women in 19th century warfare
 * Women in warfare (1900–1939)
 * Women in the First World War
 * Women's roles in the World Wars
 * Women in warfare (1945–1999)
 * Women in warfare (2000–present)
 * This is the problem I was talking about regarding there being lists the author wasn't aware existed. This list is very much full of women who played significant military roles, leading armies and fighting in battle. Those entries, and thus where the article is currently headed, are redundant of existing lists. Lara  22:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I looked at that earlier (Template:Women in warfare) and it didn't see to be in any way as comprehensive as the above post makes it look. Maybe the template needs some expansion or rephrasing. I agree now that almost everyone on this list who is 'just a woman warrior' belongs elsewhere. Which means most of the examples you noted two posts up have to go for sure. So that only leads literally those who had prominent roles in revolutions, and even then List of women who incited, led, or stopped a revolution is getting loose, but it's the only viable remaining topic I can see. Is that a list that has any unique redeeming value? Ocaasi c 22:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The only issue that remains is verifiability. The claims of incited, led, or stopped "a revolution" (or rebellion if that should make the title) must be in the source. This is where problems were encountered in attempting to work on the list over the past couple of weeks, as you know. If we trim out the entries above and then those who fail verifiability, there's not going to be much left. Is a list that short viable when other lists include the same entries? Lara  00:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I found the book that the article is sourcing with the author Salmonson. I ordered it online if anyone is interested. USchick (talk) 00:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice. Hopefully that will clarify some entries. Lara  00:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.