Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force/Archive 11

New gender related article which seems to need work - Beta Uprising
Those interested in gender related articles might want to take a look at the newly created article Beta Uprising. "Beta uprising" appears to be a phrase used on 4chan and reddit to refer to "beta" men who engage in violence or support violence against "alpha" men and violence against women. The current version of the article is minimally referenced and seems to need more sources and it's unclear if topic meets notability guidelines. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks Bobo. This is a very difficult subject.  Women (and men) should study Robert Bly to help them understand how the Feminist Movement has affected men.  Life ain't easy.  We women know how hard culture has made our lives.  Men have faced the same thing though from the other side of the fence.  It would be good to see some help with that article, though I wonder how difficult it would be to find appropriate sources...  Gandydancer (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This seems to be a concept that has been bubbling under in certain circles for some time. It's interesting because it fits in with the ubiquitous narrative of sociological oppression.  I'm sure Nietzsche would have some comments to make.
 * The article was, however, taken to AfD then speedied, and is now at deletion review.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC).

The Atlantic - How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women


-

This article mentions the Gender gap task force.

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It says that Lightbreather quit the GGTF a short time after 24 July 2014. She was still commenting here up to June this year, and is still on the participants list.
 * It trots out the old canard:




 * In fact, as was originally intended, the category is now fully diffused by gender and (separately) by century.
 * Four or five other errors have already been fixed.


 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC).


 * Lightbreather did leave GGTF in July 2014, because she was being wiki-stalked, though she later returned as I recall. I can't see the point of focusing on errors that don't change the substance. Sarah (talk) 01:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It shows the shoddiness of the research. It's a short article so far I am aware of at least 7 and probably eight errors.
 * And really the reason this material is in the article is to bolster the "Ooh those awful orcs" narrative.
 * I opposed the banning of Lightbreather [in the GGTF case] but to pretend that it was due to her gender is equally slipshod.
 * By the time you remove the errors for the article, and provide context for the rest it vanishes into nothing. Precisely the type of "reporting" that is used to support moral panics, witch-hunts and other bad actions.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC).


 * PS Lightbreather edited this project every month from July 2014 to March 2015. The narrative that she was driven off anywhere is absurd to anyone that has seen her combative editing style.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC).


 * The point is that a woman was harassed, but she didn't lower her profile and go quiet as most Wikipedians are trained to do. She kept talking about it, kept challenging her stalkers, and kept asking for admin and ArbCom assistance. You can see in the evidence phase that her efforts to draw attention to the harassment were actually used as evidence against her.


 * As a result of that behaviour, and other behaviour related to gun-control edits, she was banned. But had the issue only been her gun-control editing, it would almost certainly not even have reached ArbCom. That is the substance. Sarah (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * She reached ArbComm already in two cases - this was at least her third. If you or I were to deceptively sock in an Arb case about us, I don't think we would fare as well as Lightbreather.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC).


 * Speaking as someone who has been involved very significantly in press coverage related to Wikipedia in the past, for an article written by a journalist not on direct, friendly terms with a Wikipedian before the article was assigned, I've seen many pieces with far more errors than this. This article doesn't suggest that Lightbreather was banned because she was a woman, rather it highlights a pattern of harrassment that LB only had to endure because she was a woman. The article's errors are in large part minor to anyone who is not part of our insular community, and provides a significant light on to problematic aspects of our community to those who aren't members. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

If only the Wiki-community would adopt a gender neutral approach :( GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Geek Feminism Wikia
While the Wikia, in itself, may not violate the doxxing policy, it does openly link to and support a "predditor" doxxing list, a list of personal information tied to Reddit accounts they allege have harassed people. I don't think we should be supporting a website that supports doxxing against ANYONE, no matter who it is. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 12:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , you raise a very important point about how harmful it can be to raise unsubstantiated allegations against others. Wikipedia, and the Internet in general, needs better ways to deal with online harassment than gossiping about individuals, calling them things like "a missing stair", and making vigilante attempts at real-life retaliation. I think that things are getting to a point where regardless of where individuals stand regarding men's rights or feminism, we all need to acknowledge that what happens online can impact real life, or as the current Wired Magazine headline says: The Idea That Online Life Isn’t Real Is Trite—And Harmful. Having the local police officer say, "wow, I wish I could punch whoever said that!" and send you home is clearly not an optimal response for someone receiving online threats, harassment, or subject to damaging and unsubstantiated allegations.


 * The efforts to form a "Cyber Exploitation Working Group" in the US look like some of the first steps at making an organized effort to extend some of the protections citizens enjoy in their offline lives to the Internet. And your post offers an unfortunate example of how men need these protections as well as women.


 * Much more could be said (including non-US) ... but will leave it there for now, so others may weigh in. I hope your post will provoke some re-thinking among people here who believe all allegations of harassment should be handled "transparently", in public, without confidentiality. --Djembayz (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't see whether the link is problematic, because it requires subscription. Sarah (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec)This is the English Wikipedia, not Wikia. You should raise this issue over there if you would like to see this list, which I haven't seen, deleted. Liz  Read! Talk! 21:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is that the GGTF links to the Geek Feminism wikia page on the main project page, and that same wikia contains doxxing materials. 71.11.1.204 (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

RFC: 2015 Art+Feminism Grant
Art+Feminism has prepared a combined renewal of our IEG grant and PEG grant. If awarded, these grants will fund: childcare and refreshments for the 2016 international Art+Feminism Edit-a-thons; in-person training sessions for New York-city based volunteers and online training sessions national and international node organizers; the expansion of our outreach to post-secondary institutions and international Wikimedia chapters; building sustainable infrastructure for node organizers; and making our materials more intersectional. We seek community comment to help complete the grant process: here -- Theredproject (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Signpost editorial
has written a powerful editorial for the Signpost: Women and Wikipedia: the world is watching. Sarah (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The headline is good. The rest is about the same quality as the article it bases itself on. And ends with a very strange request for every admin, functionary and arbitrator to resign so that "we" can take over.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC).


 * It's an excellent article, and it doesn't ask every admin to resign. It asks that editors who try to minimize the problem and disrupt discussions about solutions get out of the way, including those in a position of trust. Sarah (talk) 00:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You are right. It only asks "those who care" to  get out of the way.
 * " But if you do care, you will only have to do one thing: get out of the way. ... If you are in a position of community trust, such as an administrator, functionary, or arbitrator, resign."
 * Just put the author and his pals in charge and everything will be fine!
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC).
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC).


 * If you can lead, lead. If you can help, help. If you can’t lead and can’t help, get out of the way. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Main page gender bias
I think someone from here needs to put the main page on their watchlist as no-one there seems to realise this project exists - see Talk:Main page. The discussion there is not the best example I've seen of the way to encourage more women to join the project. Richerman   (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Richerman, if you have an issue with the answer I gave feel free to raise it with me directly, rather than running off trying to canvass support elsewhere to try to find someone to back you up. The OP in that thread asked a specific question about differential numbers of male and female biographies on the Main Page, and I gave a straightforward—and correct—answer, in that we currently have only 16 biographies of women that are FA standard and have not already run,* and running a strict 50-50 ratio will either wipe out the stock of female biographies within a couple of months (if the rate at which we run female bios is raised to parity with male bios), or cause a huge backlog of male bios to build up (if we adopt an "only run men when we also run women" policy); that 16 is presumably unlikely to grow rapidly in future, as three of the most prolific authors of FA-level biographies of women have recently been chased out of the area and are focusing on other topics. * The 16 is a slightly misleading figure, as there are also articles in other sections, such as books written by women or portraits of women, but not enough to drastically affect the balance. As regards the gender imbalance when it comes to article subjects at FA level, this is something highly unlikely ever to reach parity, at least in anything but the very long term; there are many fields which were historically exclusive to or dominated by men, and fewer fields which were exclusive to women, so the imbalance within historical biographies is always going to skew things even if the imbalance is completely addressed in present-day biographies; plus, many of those male-dominated fields such as politics, warfare, art history and sports are fields with a disproportionately active number of editors. (While more focus on women's history is probably a good thing, I don't see parity in biographies ever being reached even with a significant push to get editors to focus on female bios.)  There are obvious reasons why WT:GGTF is not a good place to direct brand-new users; many of the discussions are in a wikispeak which assumes a familiarity with Wikipedia policies, history and jargon which has the potential to be very off-putting to new editors. &#8209; iridescent 17:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * , thanks for drawing attention to that discussion. The thread sums up the problem women face. made an interesting suggestion that was was met with comments from an admin that left-handed pharmacists and his back yard are also under-represented, and from others that they found it insulting. But her idea is worth exploring, namely whether the policies need a tweak so that more women are represented.


 * MurielMary, if you have time, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. I liked your idea about notability, in women's history, consisting of a woman being mentioned at all. (But if you don't have time, please don't worry about it. One of the problems women face here is that they're expected to jump into discussing women's issues and it becomes very time-consuming.) Sarah (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * @SlimVirgin, this is probably veering off the point but "being mentioned at all" is already our notability standard for every topic, provided the mention is in multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources. The trouble in practice with taking "just being mentioned" as a standard is that one ends up with tiny, one-line articles, because there's nothing more known about the topic than that he or she was mentioned—see Susanna (disciple) or Thomas II of Constantinople as perfect examples of articles on people who are inherently notable so by Wikipedia standards deserve their own article, but on whom it's literally impossible to write more than a couple of sentences. There are cases where it's possible to take articles about people about whom virtually nothing is known up to featured article standard, but those are exceptional cases where a mythology grew up around the subject, and the article effectively becomes about popular perception of the subject rather than the subject herself. &#8209; iridescent 17:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, being mentioned isn't in itself enough to pass notability. See Notability (people). WP:NOTINHERITED might be causing problems too. MurielMary wrote: "Women's history as a field has different criteria for notability than general history - for example knowledge about a woman born before say 1900 is considered noteworthy in itself as so little is known about women of that era. There is no additional requirement of 'notability' or 'achievement' to meet." But I agree that it leads to short bios. Sarah (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability (people) doesn't trump the general notability guideline, and its primary purpose is to give us a pretext to shoo away people who demand Wikipedia host a biography of their Uncle Ernie on the basis that his prize pumpkins were mentioned in two separate local newspapers. The actual rule is "more than a trivial mention" in multiple, independent etc etc etc. (My personal feeling is that a lot of these unexpandable stubs would be far more useful combined into lists, rather than standalone articles, but so many people are obsessed with getting the article count up, I find it almost impossible to do in practice without people complaining.) The notability guidelines are also explicitly about what justifies creating a separate article; people who don't meet them can still be included as subsections of other articles, which is probably going to be the right place for most of the "people who are known just for being mentioned", since the book/inscription/piperoll which mentions them will likely have an article of its own, and people interested in one are almost certainly going to be interested in the other so it makes sense to keep them together. &#8209; iridescent 18:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no problem at all with the response you gave or any of the other more thoughtful responses, other than the fact that ho-one answered the question "Is there a policy on encouraging diversity? If not, how does that get discussed?" by telling them about the project set up to do just that. I would have thought that when something about gender bias was brought up on the front page it would be the ideal opportunity to publicise the project and perhaps recruit a new member, so I came here to suggest that someone from here keep an eye on the page in case it comes up again. My comment about the discussion not being the best way to attract women to the project was referring to the fact that it degenerated into crass remarks dismissing the points raised as trivial. My apologies if it seemed otherwise. Richerman    (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

"Wikipedia Has a Misogyny Problem"
Anne Quinlan, "Wikipedia Has a Misogyny Problem", Verily magazine, 28 October 2015. Sarah (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We'd have been better off, if Wikipedia upon its creation (in 2001), had requested all incoming editors to not reveal their gender :( GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Because "Don't ask, don't tell", worked so well? --GRuban (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedians rarely meet each other in person. Ours is a syber world. GoodDay (talk) 06:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Cyber world" only participation is pretty common in Canada-- but if 2017 Wikimania is held in Montreal, you may find you start making in-person friends in Canada also. Elsewhere in the world, many places have in-person Meetups. The staffers at WMF and in the larger chapters also have to deal with each other live and in person in the office, the Wiki Education Foundation also relies on meeting in person with students, as do some GLAM collaborations, and various Wikimedia meetings.


 * Full virtual anonymity, including gender, isn't an option for the core group of real-life movement folks. Because full anonymity isn't possible, it's important to maintain standards of conduct that are compatible with your volunteers keeping their paid employment. I have spoken with two people in person who feel that their difficulties on Wikipedia are negatively impacting their search for paid employment. They are an example of what Professor Citron said in her talk (talk starts around min. 42:54) about how Internet participation and harassment definitely has the potential to have negative real-world consequences.


 * I am especially concerned for our younger editors as they age out of student life into the workforce. We've seen some rather drama-filled, unappealing confrontations as people push back and forth between Wikipedia and the attack websites, seeking to exert social pressure to impact the actions and reputations of individual Wikipedia editors. Sometimes negative text and imagery related to gender and sexuality is used as a convenient method of attack. The assumption that everyone under age 25 or 30 is in a strong position to ride out these sorts of attacks is not necessarily correct. People do grow and change, but while they're recovering from youthful indiscretions and growing up a bit, most young men and women still have to work for a living. Our younger editors are not all going to become independent businesspeople or work in a shop floor environment. We don't want participation in online Wikipedia to become a red flag to office-setting employers that suggests someone has unsavory companions, and can't get along in civilized company.


 * It is important to recognize that right now people can't get away from Wikipedia. When our governance structure fails, and people can't get satisfaction, they will still be reminded of what happened every time they go on the Internet. If we want to reduce the popularity of the attack sites, with their mean, unacceptable tactics of counterharassment, we need to have a functional governance structure on this website for redress of grievances. And we need to make it clear through our actions that this is the website where civilized conduct is a requirement, that makes an effort at fairness and even-handedness in its conflict resolution. --Djembayz (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You've slam dunked. I can't give a rebuttal, here. :) GoodDay (talk) 02:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * And another article that wildly mischaracterizes the Lightbreather case. Great. Capeo (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * GoodDay, that argument misses the point. If we had all decided not to reveal our genders – but the editing community had otherwise developed in the same way – it would still be a largely male and often sexist culture, and many women would still feel uncomfortable working in it. Sarah (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I wish others would follow my lead & approach each other as being 'gender neutral'. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your approach,, but I don't think that treating others as 'gender neutral' is the answer. I don't want to be treated as gender neutral, and many others don't either. Choosing to treat me as gender neutral wouldn't be respecting my own personhoood; I'm a woman and I present myself as a woman and want to be recognized as a woman. I personally think it's more respectful to look at how others present themselves and treat each person as they wish to be treated, whether that's in a gendered or non-gendered way. As a way of working with that, we can all try to be as respectful as possible to one another and say sorry when we screw up. I think that the Misogyny (and racism) on Wikipedia needs to be called out when it's encountered--immediately. That's the best way, IMO, to "fix" misogyny. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm confident that if others adopted my way of thinking, there'd be more harmony on the 'pedia. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Michelle Payne for In the news, main page
Hi there, just an FYI that there is a nomination over on the ITN page for Michelle Payne, first female to win the Melbourne Cup. Anyone interested in supporting feel free to put in your two cents' worth. :) I think the link to that page is WP:ITN/C MurielMary (talk) 09:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment on exclusionary criteria for notability
Hi there, thanks for the invite over here! I made (what I thought was) a fairly innocent post on the main page discussion last week, which resulted in quite an interesting thread! Due to the time difference between the northern hemisphere and southern (where I am) I missed the latter part of it - but it was cool to see other editors chiming in with the exact points I wanted to make. (e.g. ) Cheers! MurielMary (talk) 06:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Particularly, clarifying the point about "exclusionary criteria". By that I mean that expecting articles on women to meet the same criteria as articles on men is in itself highly problematic due to the different range and number of sources available to scholars. There are numerous notable women in history about whom only a few sentences could be written, and that would be the sum total of our knowledge of her. However I am guessing that this would not be considered "good article" or "feature article" material due to it not meeting the criteria set. My question is, is there a precedent in women's studies or women's history (I don't know of one myself) where this is addressed, and could criteria here at Wikipedia be tweaked to accommodate this difference? I think it's one way (of several) in which articles about women could be raised to higher visibility.
 * I was also interested in the argument that having very few articles on women for the main page (was it the featured article list?) meant that those articles had to be spaced out over a long period of time. I really disagree! It's such a circular situation. Readers don't see material about women on the main page, therefore they are not inspired to write more material and/or get the impression that Wikipedia isn't interested in material about women, therefore fewer articles about women are written. I wonder what would happen if the circulation was changed so that every second featured article was about a woman? (Even if this means repeating articles used a few months/years ago). How would that change the look and feel and culture??
 * Final thought - how about producing a simple "guide to writing a gender-friendly article" for all editors, or even adding criteria such as these to the general guidelines on writing any article. e.g. "when writing a biography about a famous man, include information on his spouse; even create a stub article about his spouse and let editors who might be interested in expanding it know about it". (I am working at the moment on a bio of Agnes Busby - there was an article about her husband James Busby which didn't even mention her!! When actually she did a huge amount to support his role.)
 * Wikipedia is a tertiary source, we base our articles on secondary sources, which are in turn based on primary sources. The world at large is biased in its generation of secondary source, which means that less secondary sources get about women. As a tertiary source, wikipedia cannot fix that, that's a battle for a different battleground. What we can do is attempt to get articles for as many women (and non-whites and non-straight and ...) as possible within the constraints we have. Some encyclopedia, such as Te Ara: The Encyclopedia of New Zealand suspend their tertiary source temporarily to cover minorities, but that assumes that you have an alternative selection criteria, which we don't have (in Te Ara's case it was a core team of late-career professional historians and encyclopedia writers picking balanced lists of people).    Stuartyeates (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, it's lovely to hear from you, and thank you for raising that issue about the main page. It's a topic people have tried to grapple with for a long time, but we've made little progress. I'm going to ping , one of the directors of the Today's Featured Article (TFA) slot, who has written several featured articles about prominent women. Brian, it's not only about TFA, but about the general lack of representation of women on the main page. MurielMary opened a discussion about it recently; see Talk:Main Page#Gender bias on main page.


 * MurielMary, regarding a writing guide, we do have Writing about women. Any feedback about that would be very helpful, and of course feel free to edit it. Sarah (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi thanks for that response. I'm not that familiar with all the parts of Wikipedia yet but last night I came across a page of featured articles about women (I think it was a list of articles at FA level). There were about 116 articles on the list. Some of them had been used on the main page already - does this mean that they can't be used a second time?  what's the policy on repeating articles? Some of them might not have been updated since they were used, but others might be good to go again, e.g. a biography of a deceased person like Georgette Heyer I also wonder about a widening of the main page to include requests for help e.g. "Today's article needing work" which could be a place to feature really noteworthy subjects on whom sources are lacking (which is the case for many women's and minority group's subjects!) MurielMary (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Kia ora Stuartyeates, thanks for that angle on sources, that's good food for thought. MurielMary (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello Sarah, hello MurielMary. I have to be brief because tomorrow morning (Monday) I'm catching a plane, and don't have much time. Briefly, then. My responsibilities only extend to the TFA section on the main page, so I can't comment usefully on other aspects of the page. The broad rules for TFA are explained HERE, including the rule that articles nominated for the main page should not have appeared before. This is not quite an absolute law; in about a dozen cases (over 12 years) an article has run twice, but the circumstances for this have to be exceptional.


 * There are (I think) 16 featured women biographies that have not yet run. You can see them HERE. That's about one tenth of all the featured biographies  that haven't run, a sad proportion I agree. The articles of some highly significant women, e.g. Jane Austen, Eleanor Roosevelt, Mother Theresa etc are not featured, and could be if there was  sufficient will to work on them. I have done my best to help in this area; to date I have written nine featured women biographies and am currently working on a tenth. And now I have to go – back in a week! Brianboulton (talk) 01:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for that interesting response and the links to the relevant pages about TFA. I notice that for November 1 to 19 there's only one article which is specifically about women so I have nominated some from the list of FA that haven't run yet (hope I did that correctly!) for later dates in November the page is WP:TFAR  what do you think, shall we make a habit of having women's articles on that list?? MurielMary (talk) 01:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, the problem with nominating them all at once is that there won't be any left, and they can only run once (as things stand). One solution is to write more featured articles, but it's a lot of work. I do like your idea of hosting a "Today's article needing work" slot on the main page. If some of these could be from one of the women's wikiprojects, that might encourage more women to become editors. We could even have a dedicated slot for women's articles needing improvement. SarahSV (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi I just discovered a page that is exactly what I was suggesting, it's called "Today's article for improvement" WP:TAFI - the articles on its list are from a reasonably broad range of categories and there are a few on women/women's studies e.g. today's article Allegra Versace As the page already exists, we could use it to request help on articles being written on women/women's studies, rather than re-inventing the wheel. What do you think? MurielMary (talk) 10:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * MM: I notice you've added The Story of Miss Moppet to the summary chart on the requests page. You need to complete the requests procedure as set out; this is quite complicated the first time you do it (for example you have to provide a "blurb" or summary of the content) and I'd advise that you get some help on this at first. I endorse what Sarah says about not using up the scarce resource too quickly. Also bear in mind that some articles would best run on significant dates, e.g. birthdays or other anniversaries. Finally, we have a requirement that TFAs should reasonably show the full range of Wikipedia's featured work, which restricts the extent of choice. Brianboulton (talk) 08:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks Brian I just realised that there is more to the request than filling in the chart, I'll work on that next. I'm not sure what the meaning of "show the full range of featured work" is though, could you clarify for me? Many thanks. (No rush if you are travelling and unable to respond) MurielMary (talk) 08:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It means that TFA should proportionally represent all Wikipedia featured articles. In other words if there are lots of FAs on battles, generals, and Simpsons episodes being produced (which there are, the Wikiprojects for these topics are quite effective) then TFA should also contain lots of battles, generals and Simpsons episodes. Back when User:Awadewit was active, TFA ran the Wollstonecraft-article-of-the-month. I miss her. --GRuban (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * MurielMary's point is that this perpetuates the bias. Women see these main pages and decide Wikipedia isn't for them, so the war/video game/Simpsons hegemony continues. The question is whether we ought to showcase the type of work we have or the type of work we want. SarahSV (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * A collaboration seems like a good idea. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Well it turns out that that particular article isn't a good candidate for TFA as there are known copyright/plagiarism issues with it! Will hunt out a better candidate :) MurielMary (talk) 08:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Should be ok. The copyright cleanup page for this article indicates the copyvios have already been removed (see item 14 in the first 1-20 list). -- Euryalus (talk) 09:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Assuming WikiProject Women/Featured Articles is the list you mean, this is a user-generated list with no criteria for inclusion, and there are some very odd choices on it (a history of a country whose population included women, a film with a central female character, a mental illness which affects men and women, a painting which includes a little girl…); there are also quite a few articles which probably ought to be on it but aren't. Most non-biographical articles don't pigeonhole neatly into "male topics" and "female topics"; does a painting of a woman by a male artist qualify, for instance, or a mostly-male band with a female singer? &#8209; iridescent 10:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I am inclined to support User:MurielMary here. If it is considered useful to have FFAs on the front page, don't be concerned with running out. Their presence will encourage the creation of more. By the way Women In Red have had some considerable success with DYKs. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC).

Comfort women
Apparently some editors, including myself, have had trouble adding information on "comfort women" coerced by the Koreans into prostitution during the Korean and Vietnam Wars. The sources seem fairly solid on this:. but I'm getting some pushback from established WP editors. If anyone here is interested in joining the discussion, it's here. I will also leave a notice at WProject:Feminism. Cla68 (talk) 05:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Other editors interested in getting involved in this would do to well to read previous discussions on the page Cla links, notice both the quality of sources Cla68 is using (which are primarily self-published or from Japanese outlets,) as well as Cla68's previous involvement with gender issues here, as well as knowing that Cla68 sought to punish the administrator who moved Chelsea Manning's article to it's proper title. There's certainly a place on Wikipedia for discussion of Vietnamese comfort women, but I would be careful in assuming that Cla68 is earnestly editing articles about gender to ensure that important historical events are accurately represented.  Vietnamese comfort women should certainly be documented here, but it'd be a good idea to be aware of Cla68's past with regards to gender related issues in approaching this one with him. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Kevin, I know you didn't appreciate it when I once criticized you for your problematic attitude towards gender equality issues here in Wikipedia and I'm aware since then you've tried to improve your support for gender equality and representation. I appreciate your efforts to do so.  However, please don't let your personal animus towards me get in the way of addressing an important women's issue which has so far been suppressed in Wikipedia.  In fact, I invite you to also participate in that talk page discussion.  The topic is more important than me and you. Cla68 (talk) 06:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we need to focus on the content here, rather than other editors. I think we can all agree that anyone wishing to take up this baton needs to be very careful and thick-skinned. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with you Stuart, but to quote a recent famous tweet, I don't want to send any unwitting people in to the cultural buzzsaw this situation will likely involve, and Cla68's previous involvement in gender issues and his particular approach here make me think that (a) it's going to suck for anyone who unwittingly gets involved, and (b) AGF with Cla68 w/r/t gender issues is hard to strictly follow. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral notices, User:Cla68, you're canvassing right now. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for the Arbitration Committee are open
One of the criticisms laid at the door of the Arbitration Committee is that it is too male. The only way to solve is to get more women elected and that cannot happen unless women are prepared to stand - last year's election featured only one person who openly identified as female. As of a few moments ago, there were 17 candidates only two of whom I believe openly identify as female. I figure that here is a good a place as any to find women who will be willing to improve that ratio, but if there are other or better places please spread the message.

Nominations are open until 23:59 UTC 17 November 2015. All the details are at or linked from Arbitration Committee Elections 2015 (WP:ACE2015). Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . I'd like to add my own view that more women are not what we need necessarily. We need people of any gender who believe diversity matters, and who are able to see the sexism. One of the problems we face on Wikipedia is that a significant proportion of editors are blind to it, and women are not immune from that. We need people on the Arbitration Committee who are not blind to it, and who take it as seriously as they would racism and homophobia. SarahSV (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Bias in nomination of female biographies
If you look at WikiProject World's Oldest People/Article alerts, you'll see that a large number of nominations are all against female biographies. The editors there need to be scrutined more as their deletion spree is now stopping but it's still disruptive. 166.171.123.86 (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing it here. SarahSV (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * IP is an evader & has been duly blocked. GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note the editor behind this IP range has been topic banned. --Neil N  talk to me 00:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Harassment consultation
Just want to make sure that everyone is aware of this: Harassment consultation 2015. The Foundation is asking for ideas, and I know several GGTF members have talked about this, so now is the time to tell them. Pinging, who has written eloquently about these issues. SarahSV (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the headsup. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've suggested that the Foundation hire a harassment expert. Thanks for your comment there, Stuart. SarahSV (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections now open
There's been a lot of interest in the ArbCom election this year and all the candidates. Please see Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015 for general questions. Anybody who wants to view my recommendations for voting, please see User:Smallbones/ACE2015. All other voters' guides are also linked to from the top of the page.

I think that anybody who is interested in this project should be interested in voting. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 00:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Harassment report
The Wikimedia Foundation and others – pinging, and  – have published a useful overview of research into online harassment at Research:Online harassment resource guide. The section called "Bystander Interventions" is of particular relevance. One of our biggest problems is that Wikipedians don't recognize harassment when it's happening, or don't step forward to say something – sometimes because a wikifriend of theirs is doing it, or they don't like the target, or they fear being singled out themselves. SarahSV (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link! This brings me to another question that's been on my mind for a while. It seems like one of the most effective and common checks on harassment is social disapproval. And I've been blown away to see harassers supported- egged on, even- across the Wikimedia projects. Some of you are probably aware that I have no problem at all being singled out for stepping forward, but I've also been demonized and marginalized by the community to some degree- in part for taking strong stances on controversial issues and, no doubt, also breaking a more than my share wikitaboos along the way. ;-) I know some of you have gotten some of the same treatment, and, given the much more significant contributions to the project you've made compared to I, that much more unjustly so IMO. Is it helpful or detrimental for me to show support for a victim? Does it matter that I'm a man? I try to be sensitive to the fact that I'm somewhat limited to empathizing vs. sympathizing, not having to face the barriers that woman do here and elsewhere.
 * How can someone in my position best help? How would I- and others who may not be as plugged in as others here- know about abuse that is currently happening in our community so we can speak out? I'm more than happy to add my voice, but the absolute last thing I want to do is make matters worse for victims. Sorry for all the questions, and thanks for the answers/advice! -wʃʃʍ-  22:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * , I'm currently working on an idea that might be helpful in that regard, something that I'm trying to adapt from strategies used elsewhere to combat violence against women. It is basically a social norms approach designed to make people realize that their opposition to harassment and aggression is the norm, not something they need to fear speaking out against. So yes, it's helpful to show support for the victim, and your own gender makes no difference. A kind comment on someone's talk page can make a big difference or a post underneath the harassment supporting the victim or urging others to comment.


 * The one thing that can be tricky on WP is that those engaged in harassment have at times claimed to be the victim, and it's hard to combat that because bystanders don't want to have to read dozens of pages before making a one-sentence response. But I have several times seen harassers turn the tables on their victims (we saw it during the case) by pointing to the victim's increasingly frantic requests for help as evidence of the victim's instability and "battleground" behaviour. This happens in real-life too, where harassers may end up taking victims to court. SarahSV (talk) 00:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Just continuing some thoughts: a major problem is that almost all Wikipedia's dispute-resolution processes – arbitration evidence pages, workshop pages, AN/I – lend themselves easily to harassment, including inadvertent harassment, because they take place in public, go on for too long, and involve too many people. Each person commenting does not intend to harass or bully the editor at the centre of it, but the overall effect is often precisely that. So while it's important to address the most egregious forms of harassment, we also need wholesale reform in the way we handle disputes, and in the way we treat each other in general. SarahSV (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This is almost just a random article I just read, but it has a kinda sorta relation to the social norms approach Social Media Shaming: Can Outrage Be Effective? Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI, just hours ago Martin Shkreli reneged on the pledge that leads that article after all. Outrage, it seems, is only effective until the target decides people have forgotten about it. --GRuban (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Anti-bullying task force proposal
In case anyone here is interested, is proposing the creation of an anti-bullying task force. See Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 19. SarahSV (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The basic question, in my view, is whether bullying really is a systemic problem in Wikipedia.  My own thought is that bullying is not a systemic problem.  I think that bullying is not a systemic problem in the way that the gender gap is, but others may disagree.  My own comments about bullying are to be found in the linked articles, but I think that there are at least two issues.  The first is the use of the bullying policy, both properly and improperly.  Many claims of bullying are by disruptive editors.  The second issue is whether some action should be taken, such as creating a task force, to deal with the problem of bullying.  So the real question is whether some special action is needed to deal with bullying.  Comments?  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it may be useful to recast the issue in terms of clique behaviour, which I do think is prevalent, as is to be expected in any community. To avoid fragmenting the conversation, I have commented in the village pump thread. isaacl (talk) 04:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

25% Target by ?
Hi all, does anyone know whether the 25% female editors target was set for the start of 2015 or the end? Articles usually say "by 2015". The strategy pages themselves say it will take us "through 2015". Also, does anyone know what the definition of "editors" is for this target? I know we'll come up short regardless of the answers, but it seems to me that we shouldn't let an excellent opportunity to think back on the progress (or lack thereof) addressing the gender gap slip by unnoticed if it's coming up in 1 month. Thanks! -wʃʃʍ- 20:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My first reaction is that it doesn't matter for 2 reasons. 1) we're so far short that any mention of it would look like "social media shaming" of ourselves; and 2) do we still not have a reasonable measure of the % of women editors? There has, of course, been a huge effort to bring in new women editors, e.g. all the edit-a-thons and the funding of women-related projects.  This needed to be done so that we can find out "what works". But let's not confuse inputs with results.  And we need a good yardstick (measurement) first. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm in full agreement that the Gender Gap is something we need to start measuring again.
 * That said, both Jimmie and Sue have conceded that we're nowhere near that target in the mainstream press- apparently they're confident even without an editor survey to back it up- and I doubt they consider that "shaming". Personally, I would characterize it as "raising awareness", which is necessary to solve problems in any community. My opinion on targets created to address any given issue is that there's no point in setting and widely publicizing them if we don't check and just as widely publicize our progress. At least we should admit that we stopped measuring the Gender Gap, even after asserting we'd have semi-annual editor surveys in the 5-year strategic plan. If we don't hold ourselves accountable, the rest of the world will.
 * I understand your first argument, and there seems to have been more substantive efforts at closing the GG this year that have made a difference. Unfortunately, we can't tell how big the difference is in the numbers we're supposed to be holding ourselves to. :-( -wʃʃʍ-  22:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * and, it would be helpful if the Foundation would ask every editor with over (say) 1,000 edits in the previous 12 months what gender they are. This could be done every year so that we could track the changes. SarahSV (talk) 00:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Large-scale surveys are very political and incredibly hard to do right. I am unlikely to support a survey unless experience statisticians have signed off on the methodology and proposed analysis. The chances of enduring the inevitable bun fight and ending up with no reliable data (or worse: misleading data) are just too high. A 1000 edit limit, for example, biases against those who might use disposable accounts to avoid harassment. I'm actually quite interested in having a discussion about how to design statistical instruments to measure this, but that discussion needs to be mature before we go to the WMF, IMHO. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It certainly seems to be the case that existing data hasn't been collected or reported in a way that the community finds genuinely convincing. (It's also, IIRC, usually the case that men overestimate how much women speak in a large mixed group, reporting "about equal" speaking time when women speak ~30% of the time - I wish I could remember where I saw that now.) So I agree with Stuart; it would be great to see a real, authoritative estimate of the scale of the problem, but it really has to be done right, and be seen to be done right, to have any hope of overpowering people's vague impressions and anecdata. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * , just because the outcome wouldn't be perfect doesn't mean it wouldn't be useful, especially if it were repeated every year. SarahSV (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * (EC)I'm sorry if my comment about shaming was tongue-in-cheek, obviously being up front about our lack of success is better. I'm concerned that we apparently haven't done anything in several(?) years about measurement - maybe I've missed something. I'd guess that the hang-up on measuring is that the WMF wants to do it perfectly.  That's the wrong way to do it.  Perfectly implies a census - all editors - which is just impossible (except perhaps Sarah's limited number of editors above).  But it's not really rocket science.  The answer is random sampling.  Even with a random sample of just 400 editors, the survey will be accurate ±5%.  Right now I'd summarize our knowledge about the gender gap is "it's somewhere between 10-20% female editors, but that was about 5 years ago." A ±5% survey should be possible to finish within a month from *now*.  What's stopping us? You could repeat this every 3 months if you really wanted to, or wait and get a bigger sample (say 2,000 editors), and then slice and dice the data to your heart's content.  But I have to emphasize that finding a proportion via a sample is the easiest possible thing to do in statistics.  Let's do it, now.
 * EC with the above 3 comments. I'm not trying to shame anybody here, but ask 1000 statistician on the simplest way to find a proportion with sample data ±5%, and 1000 will give you pretty much what I said above.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 01:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm in (entirely unconditional ;-)) agreement with what you say above. I'll add that once we've started measuring it, we could iteratively improve accuracy until we have a consistent way to get the data that would convince the community and professional statisticians that it's sufficiently accurate to base our goals on. I think that some degree of anonymity and, like you mentioned, random selection would probably be necessary. And I think it should happen now, or as close to the end of the year as possible. Maybe the WMF won't be as resistant to the idea as we think. Let's ask them. Where's the best place we can start this discussion? -wʃʃʍ-  01:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , I think you're hitting on something really important: we have to measure how many women are sticking around, and not just registering like the 2013 "microsurveys". But IMO we should measure both. I'd like to know what the attrition rate is for women vs. men, along with a few other interesting demographic dimensions. To be clear, I don't think the purpose of the 2013 was to provide a comparable dataset to earlier surveys; IIUC, it was to measure the effectiveness of new features like VE. For a really thorough breakdown of what editor surveys have been run that are relevant to the GG, wrote up a great summary here.  -wʃʃʍ-  02:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Right,, that's the thing. It would be good to know how many women are actually involved with Wikipedia now, contributing to articles, talk pages, policies – i.e. how many women are helping to shape Wikipedia's content and culture – and to what extent that figure rises and falls over time. SarahSV (talk) 02:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * FWIW, there's this study that claims to correct the 2008 editor survey for non-response bias. -wʃʃʍ-  02:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * and, if that's the easiest way to get useful data I'm all for it. Perhaps the person to start with would be . Tilman, if you see this, who is the best person to approach within the Foundation to set up a random sample of editors to ask about gender? SarahSV (talk) 02:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Beat me to the link to . :-D Let's make sure he sees it, tho. what say you? Thanks for any info!  -wʃʃʍ-  02:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Lets design a decent survey
Here's a quick sketch of an on-going survey: The 'random editors' are the closest to ground-truth and used for the majority of the statistical number crunching. The 'long-standing editors' are valuable for perceptions of change over time and being 'informed opinions' about things. The 'engaged editors' are statistically un-useful (due to the possibility of vote stacking) but may yield useful suggestions for improvement and be useful for engaging the editor population. Responses without a correct verification hash would be grouped with the 'engaged editors'. 'Every 2000th edit' is just a number, it could easily be adjusted up or down as necessary for you desired sample size. The advantage of an on-going survey is that any timed survey will undoubtedly fall on someone's holiday weekend / low editing ebb. Thoughts? Stuartyeates (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A survey webserver that serves surveys and records answers. It also records certain optional parameters passed in with users when they arrive (campaign id, edit id, project id (wiki, meta, commons, etc), language id (en, de, etc), verification hash, etc)
 * A bank of questions. Wording for core demographic questions can be lifted from a standard survey (because how you ask questions influences the answers). Looking for age, ethnicity, location (defaults to geo-location), gender, suggestions for improvement, ... More questions will undoubtedly arise. Once tested, questions can be translated.
 * A small wikimedia modification that triggers every 2000th edit to suggest the user complete the survey (passing in edit id, project id, language id, verification hash) These are the 'random editors'
 * A batch-mail to a sampling of long-standing editors who have email enabled suggesting the editor complete the survey (passing in campaign id, project id, language id, verification hash) These are the 'long-standing editors'
 * Posts to relevant fora enabling the editors / the general public to complete the survey (passing in campaign id, project id, language id, verification hash) These are the 'engaged editors.'
 * I think that makes a lot of sense. I really like the idea of sampling multiple groups of editors at once. I don't know enough about statistics to say whether population overlap would be a big concern. Even then, it's not like the system wouldn't know the editor already responded based on another entry point and couldn't just skip over that 2000th edit trigger for editors that have. We'd have to make sure that the order of the questions are randomized, and, assuming they are, would you think that partial responses would be acceptable? One of the biggest problems is that there is a lot of demographic data that would be extremely useful, and not all of our editors have a lot of time. That's significant, because it has been shown in multiple studies that women have less leisure time than men in developed countries. -wʃʃʍ-  02:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * (a) population overlap is the point, because it enables you to normalise one against the other (b) sampling the same editors multiple times is not a problem because both their gender and their perception of gender issues on wikipedia may change. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, if we think about this, we may be able to sample random users in the same manner. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Videos from NASA
Hi, I don't know if you are aware about these videos from the NASA, but I have uploaded some, and intend to add more. I think it is good material for Commons Media of the Day, and they might be useful for this WikiProject. By the way, if you think some other videos would be useful, please tell me, I am happy to help. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Mamta Patel Nagaraja.ogv was MotD on 13 November 2015.
 * File:Dr. Renu Khator - NASA MissionSTEM.webm
 * File:Lolo Fatoyinbo - GSFC STEM.webm
 * File:Jane Thipphavong - ARC STEM.webm
 * Hi, I'd like to have some feedback. Are these useful? Should I upload more? Regards, Yann (talk) 11:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Scholarship applications for Wikimania 2016
Scholarship applications for Wikimania 2016 are being accepted 5 Dec 2015 - 9 Jan 2016. Please consider applying! To learn more about Wikimania 2016 scholarships, please visit: https://wikimania2016.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scholarships. To apply for a scholarship, fill out the application form on: https://scholarships.wikimedia.org/apply. Recommendations regarding the Wikimania scholarship application... Applying for this scholarship is akin to the GMAT's Analytical Writing Assessment. This is no time to be sloppy or lackadaisical. Be clear and be thorough in each section. This is about differentiating yourself from the X number of other applicants, so do a great job in explaining: 'why you?'. I became a Wikipedian in 2007, but didn't apply for a Wikimania scholarship (and thankfully I received it) until 2015 because I suffered from Impostor Syndrome. I thank AdaCamp and my wiki friends for helping me deal with this demon. Do not let IS silence you. Get over it. You are deserving. Apply! (P.S. As a member of the Wikimania 2016 Scholarship Committee, I will recuse myself from reviewing those scholarship applications where I would have a personal bias.) --Rosiestep (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

HUGE backlog at Good Article nominees - can you review an article?
There's a huge backlog at Good Article nominees and it's pretty awful - this backlog goes back to APRIL. There is only one woman in the list of History category (disclosure: I nominated that one - Stalin's first wife) but there are quite a few women articles in other categories that deserve consideration for GA. They're just sitting there. Any experienced editor can review an article - there's a guideline to follow. Can you take a look and try to help here? Thanks! —Мандичка YO 😜 07:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

How can one bring awareness to the problem of harassment on Wikipedia without unintentionally perpetuating it?
Hi all, one of the more sensitive aspects of addressing on-wiki harassment seems to be that it's hard to convince others of the magnitude and pervasiveness of the problem without citing specific examples. But to do so, we potentially find ourselves in the position of repeating some of the most repugnant slurs I personally have ever come across. I'm wondering if there's any consensus here on that issue, and what different takes everyone has on it if there isn't.

Does it perpetuate harassment to cite the extreme examples, because that may make it more difficult for the victims (which may directly or indirectly represent a large group of users) to move on? Or is it for the common good to use such examples as an effective way to raise awareness of the issue? If I found an example particularly illustrative, is there any way I could cite it while being sensitive to the victims' perspective? If, for example, it were an insult directed at a particular user, would it be OK to cite it after consulting them first? Or is it best to just steer clear of specific situations and talk instead in generalizations? What would be the most effective way to do that? Are there telling stats that could be cited instead?

Silence is certainly not the best way to address this issue, but what is the best way to speak up? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! -wʃʃʍ- 21:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It's a good question. Thanks for asking it.  I don't know the answer. Reference to the harassment without repeating the wording of it is likely the best way to go much of the time. Not specifically naming the victim might also be useful. Not contributing to the "circus discussions" that have happened around the issue might sometimes help (I'm really not sure). OTOH, if the harassment was done very openly on an often-visited page, maybe there's no need to be coy about what everybody already knows.  If there was a private, official place to report harassment, that would likely be the best; and then they might be able to produce statistics that won't make victims relive the harassment.  I hope more folks join this discussion. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 21:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The idea about a private place to report harassment makes a lot of sense to me. ArbCom certainly hasn't proven to be effective at bringing a quick end to it, and that's not surprising as it seems to have been designed to resolve disputes, whereas harassment is a very different thing with very different consequences. But it's something of a Catch-22, since we seemingly need to raise awareness to get the community to understand that such a measure is necessary.
 * BTW, I just looked through all the ideas on Harassment consultation 2015 and didn't see anyone hit on the importance of a private place to report harassment. ;-) It's your idea to put your name next to, but I'd be more than happy to add it myself if you choose not to. Best! -wʃʃʍ-  08:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for raising this. The best thing is to ask the victim privately if it's okay for you to cite the example. Some people come out fighting and want the harassment to be highlighted. Others can't bear to see it repeated. I've suggested that the Foundation hire an expert on harassment to act as a consultant on some of these issues, including how to spot that it's happening. See Harassment consultation 2015/Ideas/Hire a harassment expert. SarahSV (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm venting here. Probably the wrong place but I had a recent encounter that really upset me. It started at WP:AN  and continued (uninvited) at my talk page. I found it a very strange encounter from a (male) admin insisting I find a common word sexist. :-(   —Мандичка YO 😜 07:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikimandia, I feel you. There's a particular irony when men take it upon themselves to mansplain to women what women should be offended by. Sorry that happened to you. Safehaven86 (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * In fairness to, the word hysterical does carry deeply sexist baggage. He wasn't arguing that any particular woman ought to be offended by it, rather that it has a troubled history. SarahSV (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Also true. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes he was - he was insisting that another person's specific usage of the word "hysterics" (in the original conversation) was sexist. Several people said it was not sexist, including me, and pointed out that men are very capable of hysterics (haven't we all seen proof of that here on Wikipedia?) and he came to my talk page to argue with me why it was sexist.  —Мандичка YO 😜 12:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Howdy, Wllm & everyone else in this discussion. IMHO, the community would probably oppose the idea of a 'private' place to report harassment. FWIW, I choose to view all editors as non-gender :) GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I imagine it's not difficult to be gender-neutral when your gender is the one unaffected by discrimination, and the majority on WP. I admire your idealism, though. Idealism is a dying art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.187.250 (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't agree. When you have a problem at work or school, you don't have to talk to Human Resources, or managers, or teachers, in public, you can absolutely talk to them in private. We already have wide precedent of private contacts with admins and arbitrators to report other kinds of misconduct, for example outing, or evidence which requires outing. I don't see any problem with reporting harassment in private. --GRuban (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm just pointing out that the community would likely oppose it, unless the accused harassers were allowed to defend themselves in such a 'private' place. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Vicki Garvin article
Could an administrator please have a look at the Vicki Garvin article? It's being investigated for a potential copyright issue, but that's been going on for ages, and I think it's clear it does violate copyright. If you agree, please delete the article and the copyright investigation notice and replace it with this article: Talk:Vicki Garvin/Temp. Please let me know by posting here if you do this. Thank you!GrecianEarn (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the article, so you can go ahead and install your version. A couple of sources call her a trade unionist, or "radical trade unionist" (Campbell 2007, p. 342), so you might consider opening with the more descriptive "African-American trade unionist," rather than "activist." But that's after just two minutes on Google, so you should do what you think best. Also, the usual format is to place the References section before Further reading. SarahSV (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The IP has re-created the entire content on the talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * That's the new version, which seems fine. I'm not sure I agree that the old version was a copyvio. It does follow one source closely, but I'm not seeing where it copied it. But again, that's after a brief look. If there's a new version, the best thing is to work from the new one. SarahSV (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm putting in the new version, just to be safe on copyright problems.GrecianEarn (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Sexist imagery accounts
A socketpuppeteer was recently blocked on multiple accounts for disruptive editing.


 * Sockpuppet investigations/Utbindas

The user had a penchant for adding sexualized imagery of women. Might be a good idea to scrutinize user contributions for inappropriate image additions.

Peter Isotalo 01:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I nominated the files on Commons for copyright violation. But I couldn't find "sexualized imagery of women". URL? Regards, Yann (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's an obvious one that I reverterd at pantyhose, and this one was reverted previously at bra.
 * Peter Isotalo 16:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Speaking of sexualized images, List of brassiere designs could use some work. Of the eight styles represented, all but two are plunge. SarahSV (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * , I've fixed most of the above. Perhaps we should try to find photographs of bras alone. I'll try to find time to look on Flickr or company websites and ask for releases. SarahSV (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Bra up for GAR
The article bra is up for good article reassessment. Scrutiny and suggestions for improvement from GGTF would be quite welcome.

Peter Isotalo 16:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Just noting that several people are active there, and there are more comments under . SarahSV (talk) 02:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Updating and Adding Women in Tech Articles
Hi all, I'm going through our women in technology articles and updating them so they are current. I'm hoping this also has the side effect of rekindling the interest of editors who have gone inactive but kept these articles on their watchlists. I'll be adding more and doing some categorization soon. Any help would be greatly appreciated. The list I've been working off of is 3 years old, but pretty comprehensive. Not all of these groups meet WP:NOTE, but you might be surprised that some of them don't have articles yet. -wʃʃʍ- 21:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . There's also WikiProject Women/Women in Red you might want to look at. SarahSV (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * , I also meant to mention 's list at User:Gobonobo/Gender Gap red list. SarahSV (talk) 04:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * , thanks for the linx! I'm adding a bunch at WikiProject Women/Women in Red right now. Is there any reason there are two separate lists? They seem to have very similar objectives. -wʃʃʍ-  05:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yikes! There's a whole list of separate efforts here: User:Gobonobo/Gender_Gap_red_list. Seems like we'd have a bigger impact if we merged all of these. -wʃʃʍ-  05:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

We still need your help. ..
Why isn't the GGTF more active? I'm looking through the ArbCom and ANI cases for historical notes, but there are a couple of questions I'm pretty sure I won't find answers for there: I need this group, because I need to learn how I can be part of the solution. That could be said about pretty much everyone in our community- men and women. Please help us by staying strong even in those moments when the opposition seems stronger. Thanks! -wʃʃʍ- 09:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Change is hard for this community. The cultural changes necessary to close the gender gap won't be easy. In addition, any effort will face active resistance from some vocal, provocative, and politically powerful editors. But the community needs to learn more about this issue. In particular, since we're something like 80-90% of that community as it stands, men like me need to learn more about it. If this initiative falters, where should we go while we wait for another forum to get enough critical mass? There's an opportunity to lead by example and show that we can learn, too. For example, what I've seen in various ArbCom and ANI cases is a lot of unimaginative, offensive baiting from editors who would say anything to undermine what this group is doing. These tactics aren't new and they're hardly rocket surgery. We can learn from past experiences to come up with solutions to stay focused and motivated.
 * Moreover, isn't this exactly what the detractors wanted? For us to give up? Every movement for social change has faced opposition. What all successful movements share is the determination to keep moving the issues forward against this resistance to change- and changing themselves based on what they've learned from each experience.


 * Hi, the GGTF was relatively active last year, but a few users arrived to disrupt the talk page. A couple of GGTF participants reacted strongly to that, then someone opened an ArbCom case that saw those participants (but not the disrupters) banned. It left a bad taste, and it was hard to recover our enthusiasm. I agree that we ought not to give up, but as always it's a question of finding volunteer time. SarahSV (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood. I was particularly bummed to see banned; I've had a lot of interactions with him/her in the past and s/he's always been helpful (kinda strange that I'm not sure whether s/he's a man or a woman, but s/he wouldn't be first Wikipedian to keep her gender to herself is s/he is a woman.) I haven't run across the others before I got active here, but it's clear to me that none of them have done or said anything remotely as offensive as other editors in that case. And only one editor in that case seemed to have a mile-long record of bad behavior, along with a mile-long record of warnings and sanctions that have gone unenforced for the most part. Onwiki injustice is obviously something we need to address. But, if I'm not mistaken, the editors who were slapped with site bans can now request that their bans be lifted, and I'll be reaching out to remind them.
 * Regardless, this is most likely the exact outcome those disrupters wanted. If we let it phase us, then they have succeeded in their minds. In reality, of course, the entire community has failed. But if we come back and focus on our efforts instead of those who want to derail them- ever reminding ourselves that the best response to provocation is no response- we will snatch that "victory" away from them. Of course, we shouldn't be as shortsighted and superficial as them; there's no "victory" to had in the whatever consequences these editors might eventually face with their childish behavior. The only victory for us will be in progress towards closing the Gender Gap. That said, why are we giving them the self-satisfaction of watching us effectively give up? -wʃʃʍ-  20:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * , why was added to the case in the first place is a mystery. All s/he did that I'm aware of was defend people here who were under attack. SarahSV (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've reached out to him/her to encourage him/her to request a review, but I haven't gotten a response so far. :-( I think the community has an opportunity to show how it has learned from the on-wiki and off-wiki events over the past 2 years or so by reviewing all of the sanctions in that case, because IMO every ban was unjust in one way or another. I hope that both of these editors come back and demonstrate to the community that, while there are a few lessons for us to learn about how we handle provocation, we will always come back. So, please, and, come back and let's get your bans reviewed. You could really breathe some life back in to this effort, with or without a topic ban on the project itself.  -wʃʃʍ-  03:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As a member of WP:RETENTION, I left a message at Carolmooredc's talkpage. I wasn't able to do so at Neotarf's however, as that user talkpage is still locked. GoodDay (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, that was kind of you. I was going to ask the protecting admin to unprotect User talk:Neotarf, but I see it was at the user's request. I'd like to see , and  reinstated. The bans were all part of the same thing, even though they're from separate cases. SarahSV (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe all 3 editors will eventually be reinstated :) GoodDay (talk) 04:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * We need someone who's good at templates to create a "Free the GGTF Three" template. I think someone did create one for Carol, but I can't find it. SarahSV (talk) 04:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's an idea. GoodDay (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We just passed one year on two of those bans, so now is a good time to do it. I would display it on my user page. I don't believe should have to wait a year for her review, so I think it makes sense to group them all together. The real problem is whether they want to come back. :-/  -wʃʃʍ-  04:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Found it. It's User:Milowent/FreeCarol. I'll try to fiddle with it if doesn't mind., it would be a good idea to wait until the new committee is in place. They might be more willing to take all the circumstances into account. SarahSV (talk) 05:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * By all means, take it and do with it whatever you want to raise awareness!--Milowent • hasspoken 05:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

, thanks! If anyone wants to improve it, please do. It links to the GGTF, Carol, Neotarf and Lightbreather. SarahSV (talk) 05:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment from newbie - I just joined the TF and I'm not sure where to start. I posted above asking for help with reviewing GA nominations for women. We really need more biographies of great women brought to GA and Featured Article status! I'm also active at WP:AFD and try my best to rescue articles on women. —Мандичка YO 😜 16:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Also been wondering, for a few days now, where to start. Heart the Red orientation, but it's sooo much work to start a whole new article. Is there a way to find easier work, f.e relevant articles that just need re-writing, organizing, more references?
 * While thinking about how to increase cooperation among us Wikipedians in general, through Game theory Cooperative games, i wrote this page (User:LeoRomero/scx/3D2Do), which describes one approach, and provides examples.
 * I'll be back to create a 3D2Do page for GGTF, and hope that it helps.
 * Thanks GGTF, and Mabuhay! - LoRETta/LeoRomero 03:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I do hope this helps: WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force/3D2Do - Mabuhay! - LoRETta/LeoRomero 18:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Expertise wanted re possible Gender Equality Issue over Women's Handball at In The News
There is currently a proposal here to include the recent Women's World Handball Championship in our In The News section on the Main Page. As with quite a lot of sports, the Men's Championship is automatically included per WP:ITN/R, but the women's championship is not. So comments there by people who understand our Gender Equality policies far better than I do might be useful. There are also possible 'Anglo-centrism' issues which I intend to mention in my comment there, but I don't know where to request expert comments on that aspect, so if anybody here knows where such expertise can be found could they please either let me know or else post a comment there themselves.Tlhslobus (talk) 05:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Women's rights in 2015
I was just looking at Women's rights in 2014 and even though it was quite controversial when written, it seems to be a fairly successful article. B rated, about 700 views per month, fairly complete. With all the year end reviews coming up, this might be the time to start Women's rights in 2015. BTW, I think this type of article is best in a series, as more years are added, the more successful the series becomes. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 03:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This is an excellent idea, . I hope we can start looking for sources to see what to cover. SarahSV (talk) 23:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

A fanwork AfD that may be of interest
(Star Wars spoilers, in case anyone is watching for that!) I've been poking at whether there's some potential future for the Finn/Poe article, which is currently nominated for deletion: Articles for deletion/Stormpilot. Since fanwork (fan fiction, fan art, and related creative activities) is popular primarily among women, fanwork topics are negatively affected by the gender gap. It'd be helpful to see more editors review this article who have some expertise and interest in fanwork topics. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

"Midriff"
I don't really know why midriff exists as a stand-alone article. I know I'd rather see it as a sub-section of abdomen. Currently, it seems to be exclusively about women's bare tummies. Even if it won't be merged with abdomen, it definitely more critical eyes and a some editorial love.

Please note that we also have waist.

Peter Isotalo 13:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * My 2c is that it's not appropriate for merging with Abdomen. "Abdomen" is a technical term, while "Midriff" is a fashion concept; combining the two would be akin to combining Footwear and Chelsea boots. &#8209; Iridescent 14:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * There was a merger proposal a while back but with consensus clearly against it. It's quite unclear why Abdomen doesn't mention anything of what is covered in midriff, though. The comparison between footwear and a specific type of shoe is very exaggerated. An article like midriff seems more like the equivalent of abdomen in society and culture. The choice of "midriff" as the article's title is fairly arbitrary. Overall, I get the impression that anatomy articles are deemed "too serious" to include content on social and cultural issues. That's a very obvious example of systemic bias in favor of medicine.
 * The main issue however is that midriff could just as well be moved to perceptions of women's abdomens in its [current state].
 * Peter Isotalo 18:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think we should redirect to something else, not least because it's a very poor article full of fluff. If someone can find real content about the midriff as a fashion thing, the "Social and cultural perceptions" section of Abdomen could be expanded. But for now the article is just "some people wear clothes that show the centre of their bodies," as an excuse to post images of women. SarahSV (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input. I think I'll continue the discussion at talk:midriff.
 * Peter Isotalo 10:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

BLP query re: Susanna Paasonen
I created an article for Susanna Paasonen and added her to the following categories (amongst others): Erotica and pornography websites · Gender · Feminism · Social theories · Third-wave feminism · Women's rights · Internet ethics · Internet culture. These were removed without explanation, on restoring them as unexplained content removal they were reverted again as: Reverted good faith edits by The Vintage Feminist: I'm pretty sure these categories were removed because they don't seem to be appropriate for (living) people. (User:Drmies). I can see how the Erotica and pornography websites might be an issue but in what way are the others inappropriate for blp? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I see some people in Category:Third-wave feminism, but not many in Internet culture or Women's rights. And a subcat of Women's rights is Category:Women's rights activists, so in that case that's certainly the better option (or, if she is a scholar of rather than an activist in, the better option is to create that category). It is my opinion that those categories are better for concepts and topics than for people--but I can't speak for, who removed them in the first place. Drmies (talk) 05:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * They are simply too broad. We don't put Einstein in the category Science, or Obama in the category Politics. Susanna Paasonen is a person. She is not a website, she is not a gender, she is not a social theory, not a women's right, etc. I have added a more appropriate category, Category:Feminist studies scholars as well as Category:Media scholars. I hope you can see why they are a better fit for a biographical article? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Piotrus, swapping is better than removing. So women's rights women's rights activists (or a subcat); feminism  feminists, and so on as far as possible. SarahSV (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, the problem is that she isn't really an activist or a feminist but she commentates on both. She also writes about internet ethics and internet culture. I've added Category:American ethicists and Category:Cultural academics but they're a bit broad. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The Vintage Feminist, the article is a bit heavy on non-biographical prose. In general, any article that has more lists, links and templates than actual article prose needs trimming.
 * Peter Isotalo 20:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ...or expanding with more biographical prose, surely? That's the catch-22 of female academics, they receive less coverage than their male counterparts, even to the point where they are nominated for AfD due to their lack of press coverage, therefore lack of notability (I'm having that argument at the moment over Deirdre M. Condit). I wonder how many male sports stars are on WP with just a list of their results / scores as a bio, but then I guess that's why we need the GGTF. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I went to argue keep at Articles for deletion/Deirdre M. Condit. It was open when I started, but by the time I had previewed and tried to save, had closed it as delete. As of January 2015, 15.5 percent of our 1,445,021 biographies were about women. Are standards other than the WP:GNG being applied more often to women than to men? Pinging too. SarahSV (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just had a message on my talk page about the swiftness of the closure too. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It was closed six minutes after the seven-day period, while people were still commenting. Perhaps would be willing to re-open it. SarahSV (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * can't really answer if other standards are used "more" often for women, but I can say that it comes up a lot. GNG is broad and has zero limitations to what may be considered as notable. Thus, it is extremely weird that a small group of people want to categorize multi-faceted human beings into the narrow scope of some specific guideline. SusunW (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've noticed before that an academic who is notable for X is deemed not notable because not a notable prof. The favouring of the sub-pages of the GNG does seem to be a problem. Do we keep lists of women's bios that are deleted? SarahSV (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There was also some talk in the discussion about moving it to draft. I've re-created an old draft - Draft:Deirdre M. Condit, perhaps Megalibrarygirl can add the material she had found (or is there a way of re-opening the discussion long enough to copy the last version over to draft?). --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, ! I can find my sources again if you need them for the article. However, it would probably be easier to have send the draft to you. He seems pretty open minded on his User page bio, so I'd suggest asking him. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The Vintage Feminist, just to clarify, I'm not criticizing attempts to expand coverage of women. I'm just saying that biographical articles ought to be focused on biographical content rather than highly detailed bibliographies.
 * Peter Isotalo 22:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The category rules are horrid, but we've yet to find a better alternative. I've made some tweaks and changes to the article. If someone has time, ideas for improvements include: add 3-7 most cited articles from google scholar to the article below the list of books; expand the body text to include all the terms in the 'see also' section; look for decent secondary sources (maybe articles in feminist magazines?) rather than the current ones which are primary sources; track down and add her PhD supervisors; check her co-authors to see if they have articles; etc. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It might be a good idea to put separate discussions under separate headers (I had no idea why I got pinged several times in a discussion about categories that I'd never been part of). Regardless, to keep things simple, if you have any specific questions or requests regarding deleted articles, please feel free to ask on my talk page. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

GenderPOV template
has created a maintenance template to place at the top of articles with "unbalanced perspectives" in their description of gender. It will be useful for articles like Midriff. SarahSV (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I do understand why this is being proposed, given that until a few months ago, Wartime sexual violence contained erotic imagery from the fantasies of a male 19th century artist, and people had defended this vigorously on the talk page. (I think midriff is just an example of an exceedingly poor article in general, but there are articles that have specific problems with gender bias or gratuitous sexualized depictions of women.) To the broader point though, I have a couple of concerns about this proposal.
 * Does Wikipedia really need another template? In my experience they never solve problems.
 * If there is going to be a template, it should link to policy or guidelines, and definitely not to this, which is merely informative rather than prescriptive, and includes speculative generalizations about how women think. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The template will at least signal to readers: "yes, we know." SarahSV (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Gender issues are very much in focus and make one of the biggest categories of POV issues on Wikipedia. It strikes me as no less relevant than globalize.
 * It's just a draft at the moment, so feel free to edit it for clarity and user-friendliness.
 * Peter Isotalo 14:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

There's only one way to find out if a template will be problematic or not & that's to use it. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting us know about this template! I think it will be useful and I'll use it where appropriate. Safehaven86 (talk)


 * Safehaven86, GoodDay, I'm glad you like the idea. Please don't hesitate to make improvements.
 * Sarah, do you know if we need to add this to Template messages/Disputes before we start applying it?
 * Peter Isotalo 18:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * One more who thinks this template could well be useful. Thanks, Peter. --GRuban (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just added it to Women in Northern Ireland. It's a rubbish article generally. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Template illustrations
I suggest keeping an eye on images that are used in link templates like template:smoking. I just switched out a very pretty, but also stereotypical portrait of an old (white) man in a mustache smoking a cigar, to a simple pic of a burning cigarette.

Link templates like this are often used quite frequently and adding just one image can have an immediate effect on hundreds, or even thousands, of articles at once.

Peter Isotalo 13:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, While I agree that the previous picture is an overly romanticised depiction, I am not sure that it is within the purview of the GGTF. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Pornography Perceptions suggestion
Quick question, just off the top of my head, if there were a proposed name change from WikiProject Pornography to WikiProject Pornography Perceptions, what kind of reception would it get? I know there would be a opposition from some, but I'm talking about if it were put to the wider community.

If you take something equally contentious like WikiProject Abortion, the main page states the project's scope as: ''The purpose of this WikiProject is to provide a central place to discuss work on articles in Category:Abortion and its subcategories. These articles relate to Abortion, Abortion law, the Abortion debate, and the History of abortion.''

... in other words its intention is neutral.

Compare that with the opening statement of WikiProject Pornography:


 * This project covers various topics related to the subject of pornography, such as:
 * * Pornographic actors, actresses and models, as well as related infobox templates.


 * Additionally, the project is to implement a standard means of procuring information on pornographic actors, as well as to address what is proper for an encyclopedic article on porn stars.
 * * Other porn-related biographies, such as notable porn film directors and photographers.
 * * Other pornography-related topics, such as pornography genres.
 * * The larger topic of pornography itself, and social and cultural issues surrounding it.

The closest it gets to suggesting anti- as well as pro- is the last statement, the over arching tone is we ♥ it. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, I fear it is unlikely to be positively received by the wider community. A considerable issue with the proposed title is that it covers only a part of the scope of the project (the 4th bullet point). I conceive that editors entirely neutral on the subject matter itself, but firmly committed to the Wikipedia project, would oppose on that basis alone. I do concur that the scope statement itself wants review and amendment, and would encourage this. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 05:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I don't see how that would address editors interested in anti-pornography articles etc. What about the Pornography portal? Anti-pornography academics currently go into the porn portal/project and when I've tried to add the pornography portal to glamour model, Page 3 girls, (there has been a lot of debate in the UK over whether Page 3 is softcore porn), I've found myself on the receiving end of comments like This is actually a meta-discusssion because we want to use wikiprojects in her bio that label her, bypassing the need for reliable sources, and associate her with porn. ...I removed the porn-portal from the main article page because of its higher visibility and due to the label it attaches to her. If the wording of the scope of the project/portal change but the name stays the same then it still has the effect of labeling any blps that it's attached to. If the issue is that we must not label people, how do we add them to the project/portal in a non-labeling, more neutral way? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 06:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I get the feeling that this might actually be an issue with how we link portals than pornography overall. Could you give some concrete examples of disagreements over inclusion in articles?
 * Peter Isotalo 13:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keeley Hazell - I was still a newbie at the time. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, compare how relevant a link to the pornography portal would be in other cases. How about Dita von Teese or Fredrik Eklund? Both have actually done straight-up pornography, but are more well-known for other things. I'd be skeptical about linking to the porn portal in either case. And what about Dworkin or MacKinnon? They are both extremely relevant to the topic of pornography (as critics), but is it really relevant to link their articles to the pornography portal?
 * Peter Isotalo 20:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, but it would be relevant to link their articles to the pornography perceptions portal, which is why I think both the portal and the project should be renamed. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems like a form of POV forking for projects. Any project dealing with the subject X could cart off perceptions of X to a different project. I don't see how that would be workable.
 * Peter Isotalo 00:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure I know what you mean. If an article relates to the subject of pornography then how would it be POV forking to add them to the pornography project/portal? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I was commenting on the idea of "pornography perceptions". I'm objecting to the idea that a project about pornography needs to be renamed to accomodate the inclusion of more critical views.
 * Peter Isotalo 15:05, 9 January 2016


 * How would you move progress on NPOV then, i.e. those interested in editing articles which espouse more critical views who do not want to join the pornography project or have the this user is a hard-core member of WikiProject Pornography user box on their user page? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Simplest solution: don't add the infobox. Any user is free to interact with projects and the articles that it is associated with it without having to formalize their activities. Neutral descriptions of riticism of pornography should be a natural part of the project in my view, just like other perspectives.
 * Peter Isotalo 10:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

A new project, or a sub-project seems like a good idea. Of course, there is no requirement to join a project in order to edit whatever you want, or even if you were to join the project to put up a user box. I've read criticism of our "Mind the gap" user box right on these pages. --GRuban (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The word "perceptions" was just an initial idea btw, the project was originally called WikiProject Porn stars and changed after this discussion (9 March 2007) and this discussion (19 March 2007). I rejected pornography debates as the blps of porn 'stars' are not debates. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Video game coverage
I've been engaging in discussions at talk:Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain and talk:Dead or Alive 5. There's some disagreememt of how much coverage criticism of sexualized portrayal of female characters should have. Please feel free to comment on how to achieve appropriate neutrality in these matters.

Peter Isotalo 11:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

AfD of interest
Editors here are likely to be interested in Articles for deletion/Taharrush gamea. SarahSV (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Reform of Wikipedia
You might be interested in my page: User:Biscuittin/Reform of Wikipedia. If not, just ignore it. Biscuittin (talk) 12:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion: Hero/Heroine/Heroism
Some editors here may be interested in the discussion on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hero#Requested_move_17_January_2016 Note that the motivation of gender balance among Wikipedia editors is invoked there. I've added some (intuitive rather than particularly informed) opinions and would like to see comments from others who have thought more about this sort of thing than me. I found the link c/o https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy  Arided (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Gill Fielding draft deletion debate
I have been arguing the case for the notability of UK entrepreneur and property developer Draft:Gill Fielding for some time and the best I have got from one editor is that there 'may' be 'solid notability.' My references span the period 2001-2016 and include The Daily Telegraph, The Times, Daily Mail and Daily Express plus multiple regional/local publications. There is also a chapter in a published book about millionaire women. The references prove that Gill has appeared on Channel 4 and the BBC on mainstream shows. I am now concerned this article will be deleted due to the systematic bias against women on Wikipedia and would like to request help from the participants in this project. Thank you. Neilho (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure what you mean by "this article will be deleted", it is still draft, you can copy it and paste it back under your own user name. Do you mean that you plan to put it in the mainspace and you are worried that it will be put up for deletion when it is there? If so then notification on talk pages is fine (e.g. There is currently a discussion going on about XXXX which GGTF participants may be interested in.), but there are strict rules against canvassing (see: WP:CANVAS).


 * Having said that, looking at the different versions of the drafts it seems less of a notability issue and more of an encyclopedic tone issue: "Fielding was born in 1957, in Canning Town, East London, into a poor family." should be "Fielding was born in 1957, in Canning Town, East London." and "In 1997, Fielding realised that she was a millionaire.", should be "By 1997, Fielding was a millionaire.", Manual of Style, Words to Watch might help and you can always get advice from WP:Teahouse. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hang on, forget all that, you need to address this message from User:Smartse first: User talk:Neilho, do you know Fielding personally? Have you co-written a book with her? Please see: WP:Conflict of interest and WP:Paid-contribution disclosure. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

"Women Through the Glass-Ceiling: Gender Asymmetries in Wikipedia"
I thought this might interest you: "Women Through the Glass-Ceiling: Gender Asymmetries in Wikipedia" by Claudia Wagner, Eduardo Graells-Garrido, David Garciam; submitted on 19 Jan 2016. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , thank you for posting this. It looks very interesting, and these are definitely good questions they're asking. I'll read through it later today. SarahSV (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Fascinating article. Thanks for sharing! Safehaven86 (talk) 05:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You may be interested in posting it to https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l or similar. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Problems at Suffragette
There is a problem on the Suffragette page with a user edit warring under an account and as an anonymous IP. I am just going out, but after this message on my talk page it doesn't look like the problem will be solved any time soon. Perhaps others would like to answer the user's concerns here on the article talk page. Richerman   (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have requested page semi-protection at Requests for page protection. That will keep IPs and really-new editors out for a period of time (if granted). If the problems reoccur at the end of the period, feel free to apply for longer periods. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. Richerman    (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There has been a decision recently for Emmeline Pankhurst to get a statue in Manchester. It's part of a drive for more female statues in the UK. Perhaps it was a trigger? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move
There is a requested move that may interest people here at Talk:Taharrush jamai. SarahSV (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Women in Red mentioned in Time magazine
Thanks to one of our own,, Women in Red was mentioned in Time earlier this month. We work hard, and sometimes we don't know if anyone is paying attention, but the world is noticing. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on the mention, . SarahSV (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad to see this - a decent article, and someone I know!-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Feedback requested
I've collected some data and done some simple analysis on it at User:Smallbones/1000 random results. In particular the section at the bottom on "Biography, Women and Men" might be of interest to folks here. Very briefly, women's bios, according to several measures, are slightly lower in quality than men's bios one month after being started, and the difference increases over five years. IMHO, this likely results from cultural bias and a lack of source information, but in any case, knowing about this likely lower quality for women's bios is important and seems to be just another obstacle to overcome.

I know there are projects and edit-a-thons focusing on writing women's bios in March and at other times. Could you let the organizers know about this, if you consider it to be relevant to their efforts?

There's a discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales, that seems to be focusing on high quality articles (to my surprise) and you can leave feedback here or at User talk:Smallbones/1000 random results

Any feedback appreciated.

Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

You might be interested in this
Feel free to copy it and post it where it might be most useful. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 19:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Women's breast size in Infobox model
Discussion at Template talk:Infobox model about the template including women's bust, waist and hip measurements. SarahSV (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Created a page for a prominent female economist who was deemed "not notable"--what to do?
I created https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Katharine_Abraham, but the submission was declined on the grounds that "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability." The subject of this article was twice confirmed by the U.S. Senate for prominent positions, as indicated in the references I listed. Moreover, the subject of this page is one of very few red links on Council of Economic Advisers. What should I do now to get this article created?EAWH (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This will be accepted. It should already be rated "Start". A few suggestions:


 * Get some news sources rather than just government websites - she must have been covered e.g. when testifying before Congress
 * some polish on formatting will help
 * mention MIT and Brookings
 * a couple journal articles (e.g. AER 2009) will help but it doesn't need much more than that
 * Break it into a few sections.
 * contact me on my talk if it doesn't get approved again. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 03:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * , there's no need to go through Articles for creation. You can create the article directly at Katharine Abraham. I've put the title on my watchlist and I'll help you if needed. But if you prefer to go through Articles for creation, that's okay. I'm happy to help you there too. SarahSV (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * , I hadn't realized I could do that. Thank you for the advice!!EAWH (talk) 03:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Make sure you move your draft rather than copying and pasting it into the article space. As multiple people worked on the draft, we need to keep that history for policy reasons.  Rebbing    talk   04:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, I should have expressed myself differently earlier because now I appear to have advised ignoring what the people at Article creation said, and I didn't intend it that way. I meant only that (a) there was no need to go through that process, especially for an article like this; and that (b) once improvements had been made, per the AfC advice, the article could be added directly to mainspace. Sorry for expressing myself poorly. But the article seems to be in good shape now, and that's the main thing. SarahSV (talk) 04:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

SPI discussion
SPI Policy discussion may be of interest to project members: Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry. Montanabw (talk) 04:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting us know, Montanabw. SarahSV (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

"Women are everywhere"
Hi, "Women are everywhere" is a project about the gender gap problem in Wikipedia, with a focus on Italian Wikipedia. You can find a draft for an Individual Engagement Grant at this link https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Women_are_everywhere. It would be great if I could have your help and your feedback on this project to improve it. Many thanks--Kenzia (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This looks very interesting, Kenzia, thanks. SarahSV (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for comments at Resting bitch face regarding the article's title
I thought this might be of interest:

Rebb ing   02:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

A bit of writer's block
Can anybody help out at Nathalia Holt? I'm not doing a good job, but will try again tomorrow. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

2016 Just For The Record IEG & PEG Grants notification — intersectional & gender diversity on Wikipedia!
Just For The Record has prepared a combined IEG grant and PEG grant application to work on the promotion of more gender diversity on Wikipedia with an intersectional perspective. These grant applications build upon the exciting results of our 2015-2016 Brussels-based series of events addressing the gender gap on Wikipedia. Just For The Record has created a network in which expertise on these questions is created and shared. With our new applications, we want to expand this knowledge and network beyond the context of the edit-a-thon!

If awarded, the PEG grant will fund: location and refreshments for the 2016-2017 Just For The Record edit-a-thons. If awarded, the IEG grant will fund: research and analysis into the representation of gender on Wikipedia, combined with the construction of a research/ambassador network, leading to an intersectional non-sexist guide on how knowledge and history can be written in a more diverse way. We seek community comment, discussions and endorsement signatures (section at the bottom of the pages) to help complete the grant process: here and here! Many thanks, Lfurter (talk) 09:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Fourth-wave of feminism
Can we do better than this?

A couple of years ago I read the history of feminism's fourth wave. I thought it was a bit US-centric so I added some material from Kira Cochrane's book All the Rebel Women: The Rise of the Fourth Wave of Feminism, (chapter one is available on Google preview). ISBN 9781783560363 (diff). That was diluted into something that Cochrane was "advocating" rather than an account of events over the summer of 2013 (diff).

The new article is shorter than the pre-existing section and it states that Cochrane "defines fourth wave feminism as a movement that is connected through technology". She actually says, "Everywhere you looked in the summer of 2013, a fourth wave of feminism was rising in the UK, women were opening their eyes to misogyny and sexism, and shouting back against it." She does discuss the way that technology is used in campaigns (social media, Everyday Sexism Project etc.) but to describe her book as if that is all there is to it is misleading. Also I'm not quite sure why it is called "fourth-wave of feminism" and not just "fourth-wave feminism".

I've avoided wading in so far as a lot of fourth wave feminism is oppositional to the MRA and there seems to be an attempt to quash that as a definition and define it using a more wishy-washy spiritual definition. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that Fourth-wave of feminism is a stub. I suggest that you sketch a plan of what you want the article to contain (on the talk page) and invite others to add suggestions and.or improve make the changes. Marshalling ideas before rewrites of contentious subjects is always advisable. Feel free ping me to help when you have a plan. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I've cleaned up some of the refs, but looking at the talk page the article is now part a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment course page (it's an interesting list of articles), so it may be better to wait and see. I left some suggestions on the talk page for the student editor who will be working on it. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I've made some copy edits, added a few details and refs. It should probably be moved to Fourth-wave feminism in keeping with the other articles, and it would be good if Cochrane's description could be expanded. SarahSV (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Women in Classical Athens Peer Review
I thought this might be of interest to members of this wikiproject. I have opened a peer review request for Women in Classical Athens at WP:Peer review/Women in Classical Athens/archive2, with the aim of bringing the article up to featured status. I would be very grateful if anyone interested takes a look and comments briefly. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks interesting, . I'll leave a comment there. SarahSV (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Negative press
FYI just saw this somewhat negative press related to funding? Waste Report - hopefully the project is going to at least get some use out of this funding! — xaosflux  Talk 21:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * That banner is something else. Stretching text or graphics is rarely a good idea. Yes, it now takes up a more proportional width, but the lettering is suboptimal, the kerning is distracting, and the circular seal is now an oval. Until I saw the URL, I assumed this was a bad parody of a Tea Party press release.   Rebb  ing   22:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Where/how to apply for funding for meetups?
Hi there, I'm a bit lost on this - I'm sure I have read somewhere on WP about funding available for costs involved in organising meetup events which encourage recruitment and retention of women? I'm organising a WP Women writers' group in the city I live in (Christchurch, New Zealand) and would like them to be monthly events. There will be some small costs involved with hiring a venue, providing refreshments etc. Can anyone direct me to the right page/resource to make an application? Many thanks! MurielMary (talk) 09:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think most meet-ups get funding, or need it. They are normally in cafes/pubs etc (or as picnics) and people provide their own refreshments and transport, so there's really no organizing cost. No doubt funding is available for more structured events, but it might be best to build up to those.  Johnbod (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * OK maybe I am confusing meetups with edit-a-thons? The events I want to create need to be in a Wi-Fi area preferably with printed resources available i.e. a library. This entails a room rental fee. MurielMary (talk) 02:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * MurielMary: meta:Grants:PEG? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes! That's what I was looking for!! Many thanks Nikkimaria MurielMary (talk) 02:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you work with one of the librarians to identify on a topic that the library or research organization finds interesting (local history, something they have a special collection for, etc), they will usually donate the space and the librarians will help prepare the research, and recruit volunteers. Then all you have to pay for is coffee/tea and a snack. If they don't donate the space, try another local organization (history society, museum). If the org is enthusiastic, they will usually bring some other people with them, and that makes the whole thing more fun. Sadads (talk) 01:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Great ideas, thanks Sadads! MurielMary (talk) 02:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , the Foundation recently introduced Rapid Grants, which looks as though it might be useful for you. SarahSV (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Old pix, new inspiration grants
I just ran into the photo on the left and thought I'd crop the original (at the LOC) and uploaded the 2 banners.

I should check in more detail, but the LOC had an exhibit on the history of the women's movement. Have these photos been uploaded in any systematic manner?

There is a new Inspiration grants program about harassment starting May 31. I'll suggest that we prepare something fairly big, get support here first and organize it, and all support it. A particular idea follows, but there may be better:

Hire academics for a study on what the WMF can do to lessen harassment on Wikipedia, particularly against women. The study could outline how other websites deal with harassment issues, what would the costs be for a proposed menu of possibilities, how would these proposals fit with Wikiculture, and expected results for a range of programs.

So this is *not* a study we'd do ourselves. Rather, we'd ask for proposals from academics to do the study. It would *not* recommend programs that we'd implement ourselves. Rather at the end, we'd be able to take the study to the WMF board and say "Here is a range of possible programs you can implement, here's what we expect they would accomplish, and here's what it is expected to cost."

How much would such a study cost? How much should we ask for? Would $10,000 be enough?

All ideas welcome. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 17:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , it's a great idea, but $10,000 would be nowhere near enough if you want to hire harassment experts. First, how long do you think they would need to spend on it? SarahSV (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are certainly correct. $10k might be divided into $200/hr X 50 hours, which seems too low and too short. The tradeoff would be, what's the chance of getting more than $10k?  If we managed to get $30k, that's $250/hr X 120 hrs.  Maybe I'm aiming off the mark. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could contact a few academics and find out what they charge for similar work. I would think $250,000 would be closer to the mark. SarahSV (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sure we wouldn't get $250,000 through an inspiration grant. But do we really need that kind of study?  I'd say that 100 hours put in by somebody who knows how harassment is dealt with other places would move things along.  Perhaps the output would be a 30 page report.  If the WMF wanted more than that after seeing the report, they'd be willing to put "real money" into it.
 * Are there other suggestions that would move the anti-harassment ball forward in a major way for an amount that would be possible to ask for a grant for? Maybe "major way" is too ambitious. Does anybody have ideas where we could get the maximum possible results with the resources that are possible thru an inspiration grant? Smallbones( smalltalk ) 19:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Just for reference the June Inspire Campaign is at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Inspire
 * There is one fairly popular grant proposal at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Women_are_everywhere which requests 23.700 euro Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Heels
FYI:– Articles for deletion/High heel policy. Andrew D. (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Update The article high heel policy was kept, thanks to the efforts of MurielMary and others. It is now in the queue to appear on the mainpage in the DYK slot.  The petition which started this is also progressing and you can follow its progress through Parliament at High heels and workplace dress codes inquiry. Andrew D. (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * , thanks for letting us know. Interesting article. SarahSV (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Per WP:LIGHTBULB, the article has been derailed again. Please see Template:Did you know nominations/High heel policy. Andrew D. (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It was more down to a poorly worded and misleading hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Evidence Parliament has scheduled a committee meeting for this next Tuesday -- see Calendar for 28 June. There are also some more general sessions for Women and Equalities, taking evidence from people like Melanie Dawes, who is the "Civil Service Gender Champion".  I might look in if I can get time  but the more the merrier.  The London meetups are usually very male but maybe there are some women editors in the area who might be interested.  There are often events in London and it's good to take photos when one can.  I took some snaps of the Jo Cox More in Common memorial yesterday, for example.  Please feel to get in touch if you want some help getting access or info about such. Andrew D. (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * the current hook looks good: ": ... that, in 1770, Parliament considered an act concerning high heels (pictured) and now, in 2016, it is making a fresh inquiry?" Astonishing really. SarahSV (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Gendergap barnstar
Dear all, on this talk page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards, I proposed to introduce a gender gap barnstar on English Wikipedia. I did the same on Dutch Wikipedia (but on that project, a new barnstar does not need community approval). Up to now, no comments resulted. Perhaps some of you are interested to introduce such a small reward. Meanwhile, keep up the good work! Ellywa (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Ellywa. I don't know what the procedure is for getting a new barnstar approved, but in the hope it will help, I indicated my support on the other page. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)