Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Religion

Unexpected categories under "Religion"
I was struck by the categories included under "religion", including women who were noted for their contributions to "humanism or atheism". There have been arguments in some circles as to whether humanism is a religion; many have denied it vehemently but this has given a strong boost to those who claim it should be treated as a religion. Pete unseth (talk) 13:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah the need of human beings to categorize. I don't think the inclusion here was remotely intended to give any POV, or statement of same. SusunW (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * SusunW, I think you are probably correct abot the author's intentions. I'm glad that authorial intent is still regarded as important here on Wikipedia. At any rate, this campaign has moved me to create one article so far for a red name in the list, with another underway.  Pete unseth (talk) 12:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It touches on religion, so it's added. This list isn't intended to be "authoritative." ;) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Very cool. I've not been struck by lightening yet ;) SusunW (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * (talk), if lightening struck every time we made mistakes (intentional or otherwise) on Wikipedia, there would be no editors left. But we can enjoy trying to build an accurate encyclopedia together, cooperatively & kindly. I'm having a ball! Pete unseth (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Ida of Louvain
I have just created the article Ida of Louvain, using the information on this red-link page ''(d. 1260), Born in Louvain, France; Ida of Louvain died at the abbey of Ramiège in 1260. Her feast day is April 13.''. First I found the dates and facts given did not agree with a book source I found, but the saint's day did. Then I discovered a French language Wikipedia article on "Ide de Boulogne" which had a main source but provided completely different information, the main unifying factor being the saint day on April 13. Finally I discovered this had an English language version Ida of Lorraine. So I reckon I have completely wasted my time, and plan to abandon this editathon and return to my more normal areas of Wikipedia article-writing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This sometimes happens in crowd-sourced lists, or two people simultaneously create the same article as and I did in the last editathon and Nvvchar and I did just yesterday on Marija Krucifiksa Kozulić. It can be merged and your work preserved. Sorry your experience was not what you expected. I hope that you will give the editathon experience another chance. SusunW (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * , sometimes I put an edit next to the name I'm working on so no one else picks that name. Please don't be discouraged! It's happened to me before, too! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll probably have another go in a day or two. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I am sorry for the negative experience. It reminds me how much work there still needs to be done regarding sorting out information on Wikipedia, across languages, in order to get things right, especially within the neglected area of women's biographies. I hope you have a better experience with the next article. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * can you initiate the merge or whatever needs to be done in that regard? As you know, I am worthless when it comes to technical WP. Thanks! SusunW (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge done. It needs c/e. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * First of all, as you are one of my old friends on Wikipedia, I would like to say how happy I was to see you had signed up for this exercise. Unfortunately, especially when we compare the details on biographies in the various language wikis, we frequently find wide discrepancies in the information presented. Thanks very much for presenting the facts and giving us the opportunity to sort things out. This is real progress. Don't feel discouraged. Just let us know if you need help with any of the other interesting ladies who lead you astray in the future. Let me know by pinging or on my talk page if ever you need any help.--Ipigott (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The two accounts were so different that I wondered whether they were actually talking about the same individual, despite the common saint's day. Actually I guess we are talking here about events that took place eight or nine centuries ago, so I guess discrepancies are to be expected. I will avoid articles about people who lived so long ago in future. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There are three women in the Biographie Nationale de Belgique who might be construed as "Ida of Louvain": a nun, a countess, and a countess who became a nun, all living within 100 years of one another. At present most of the former redlinks are now pointing to the wrong person (they're in articles about the men of the countess's family, rather than articles relating to either of the two nuns). --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've restored the original piece. The problem that most links pointing to it are meant to point to Ida, countess of Hainaut, is a problem for another day. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Antonina De Angelis
I was going to work on the redlink for María Ludovica de Angelis and to make sure someone hadn't started it, I googled it and her birth name Antonina de Angelis. I found an article, almost entirely unsourced under the birth name. To avoid someone else creating a dupicate article, I made a redirect of María Ludovica de Angelis and corrected the sourcing issues in the original file. However, it seems to me that this is problematic, as would not WP's naming conventions require that the article title be the one under which she gained notability? All of the foreign-language pages show María Ludovica de Angelis. I have no idea how to fix this, or correct the links to the other WPs. I also think the naming custom on Antonia De Angelis is wrong as the "de" would not be capitalized in Spanish, but I am not sure about Italian. I thought in Italy it was typical to use "D'"? Any ideas on how to correct this? , anyone? SusunW (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think it matters all that much. I've included an alt Antonia de Angelis in the article but a Wikipedia search will turn her up anyway. The names for the other language wikis should not be a problem. Maybe the others will come around to your preferences sooner or later.--Ipigott (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * If in doubt, I tend to use the name as it appears in the language Wikipedia corresponding with the person's birth, in this case, Maria Ludovica De Angelis. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Me too. I did not find any sources, at all in the birth name Antonia de/De Angelis, which is why I question calling the file that. It is highly doubtful anyone would be searching for that name, IMO. SusunW (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Questions of notability
I have some thoughts about the notability of some of the women listed here. Many are clearly notable for their many accomplishments. One is simply listed as being the spokesperson for a group. Does this mean the spokesperson for every religious (or anti-religious) group is notable enough to qualify for an article in Wikipedia? No.

Many of the women listed here are identified as being "the first woman" to be recognized in some way within a religious group. Many, many men have previously been recognized in the same way within these religious group-- does that make them notable enough to qualify for an article? No. I realize being first meant these women were very carefully scrutinized. Are they listed here simply for being "the first woman"? Or, did those who carefully compiled this list screen out those who were "the first woman" but did not otherwise accomplish enough to be notable?

I am not bringing this up to be obnoxious. Rather, as we write articles about these women (I have done two already, planning to do more), we need to make sure we include more information than simply that the person was "the first woman" to be recognized in a particular way within a religious group. We must be careful to write about their broader contributions and accomplishments, as well. Articles written in this way will show that their subjects are notable, not merely for being "the first woman". I hope that my thoughts on this are seen as constructive.


 * (1) With regard to your query on whether the spokesperson is notable enough for WP, could you provide a name so we can discuss an actual example? It's difficult to make blanket rulings e.g. "spokesperson only does not make someone notable enough". I think queries like this need to be dealt with case by case. (2) Being a first woman to do something is notable in and of itself. This means that the woman had no female role models in the position she was aiming for, possibly/probably faced some resistance from the men already in the position, possibly/probably took a long time to get to the position due to challenges over her gender, possibly/probably had to campaign and promote herself in order to gain the position etc etc. The woman also is noteworthy for inspiring other women to follow her, for showing other women what can be achieved. An example is Elizabeth Alfred, who is notable for being the first woman ordained in Australia by the Anglican church, following a lifelong campaign on the issue. That made her notable. I agree with you that more information than the woman's "first" needs to be included in the article, but I disagree that being "first" alone isn't noteworthy. MurielMary (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * In reference to a person being listed as "spokesperson", the article for which this is the Talk page listed Maggie Ardiente as "spokesperson for AHA". She is a 2015 college grad, the VP of her university's Freethinkers association. An up-and-coming leader, I presume, but none of the information I found on the Web so far indicates that she meets the criteria for being notable. But whether a woman is a spokesperson or "the first woman" in a category was not my main point in my post. Rather, the last paragraph I wrote called for describing women for more and broader accomplishments, not merely a narrow label. I explain this below, though not sure how successful I will be. Pete unseth (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I certainly cannot speak for everyone who added information to this list, only myself. I culled the Ordination of women article and several books I had access to. If I could find links with biographical data, I added them to the list. I did not pull every woman from either source, because some I found no additional data for. From previous editathons, we have learned some people like to find their own sourcing and others like to have a start. So some of the names on the list may have links, some may give considerable information, and some may give no information. I tried not to put anyone on the list who did not have either a link to another article on WP or links I could access. BUT, that being said, we have discovered that just because someone has an article on another WP project does not mean we can find sufficient information to document notability. I also know from experience that the sources I have access to in Mexico are different from those people in the US have access to and different from what people in Europe and Australia and Asia have access to. I'm not just talking about traditional sources, the web access is different (shocking, I know that Google would give us different searches--but I suspect is has to do with copyright issues). So, you may not find sufficient accessible sources where you are. I agree with that being the first should be sufficient to establish that they are notable, but that doesn't guarantee that one can find adequate sourcing to meet WP guidelines. Bottom line, the editor must ensure that they can comply with WP guidelines. Does that help ? SusunW (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, SusanW for a gentle, factual reply. Sadly, what I wrote drew people's attention only to the questions of whether certain criteria automatically make women notable within Wikipedia's framework. I was hoping people would focus on my third paragraph, which was a call to write about their subject's broader accomplishments, not only being "the first woman". That is, a woman may indeed be "the first woman" in some category, but the article should say more about her than merely that one paragraph. This is a way to demonstrate that a person is notable, a way which will convince more people that the subject is truly notable. Pete unseth (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * If they're being written about in several reliable sources as the main point of the writing, they'll pass WP:GNG. Any awards or firsts they have help "boost" their notability rating. If you're not sure about your subject, post it or link your draft so others can help. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 05:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , I hear you, though it seems as if the delete squad on here doesn't really care that people are multi-faceted. More than one AfD discussion has focused on whether someone meets a specific category ... artist, athlete, scientist, etc. rather than GNG, which is, as Sue said all that is really required. Tunnel-vision is fraught with missteps. I just rewrote an article on a file that was deleted in 2011. No idea what it said then, and only 2 votes/not votes, eliminated a file on the woman who founded India's Christian ashram movement, was one of the first women to get a theological degree in India, was one of the first 17 women to be ordained by the Lutheran Church (they ordained them in a group), and was the oldest one to be ordained. She also earned 5 degrees, served as teacher and then principal of a school for 27 years, she was an influential writer, and was involved on the boards of multiple numerous international Lutheran bodies...but she was deleted as not notable...We'll see if it sticks this time. SusunW (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , or anybody else who is interested, the notability question has been asked again. I wrote a piece on a person whose name I found here, Nora A. Gordon. Now that page has been nominated for deletion. Would you like to go there and argue for notability?  Merry Christmas!! Pete unseth (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Organise by Religion?
I wonder if there is a reason why this list is organised geographically? Shouldn't the affiliated religion be the main organising factor? Perhaps in another way of looking at it, can this be organised as a sortable table so it can be sorted based on religion or geography? Caorongjin (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Categoisation's tricky. I'd agree that religious affiliation would be useful to include. Also, it seems strange that the women are classified by where they were from, rather than where they went to - but I guess that's only pertinent to missionaries - which is the subject I've contributed on. Angharadeyre (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

"Secular" within a list of religious women
Seems odd to include "secular" women in the list of religious women. Identified negatively? Other opinions? Pete unseth (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)