User talk:Megalibrarygirl/Archives/2018/June
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Aleksandra Čvorović
Hello, I created the Čvorović entry as part of the Women in Red Library Editathon. However, another editor, who kept reverting my edits on that page, has also insulted me on my talk page. How do I go about resolving this? Is there a protocol? I certainly want to avoid what is called an "edit war" and also do not appreciate these types of comments. Abonzz (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I am the editor in question. While I commend Abonzz's efforts and brilliant efficiency, I am concerned by the user's blatant refusal to follow a simple guideline, MOS:BIO. This refusal is based on a completely unsubstantiated claim that the subject does not identify as the national of the country of which she is a national and permanent resident. Yes, it is as absurd as it sounds. What is also concerning is the refusal to provide sources for a claim made in a biography of a living person, which is against the WP:BLP policy and generally a big no-no. Surtsicna (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Firstly, I gave reasonable arguments quoting Wikipedia policy and none of my arguments were directly addressed (see my talk page). Secondly, I was grossly insulted by this user on my talk page. And thirdly, referring to this here as "absurd" is insensitive, seeing as it affects an entire ethnic group. The term "Bosnian" used to be a regional term. It no longer used by the majority (Serbs or Croats). 1 2 Furthermore, the "simple guideline" in question does not appear to be black and white, and does seem open to examples that don't fit the cookie cutter standard (see my talkpage). I don't know if this page is the place to argue this. I mentioned it here first only because I would like to know where it should be addressed, seeing as it is part of the Women in Red Editathon. Abonzz (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- All of your arguments were directly answered. You were also directed to guidelines and policies. An explanation of the word nationality was provided to you, with a note that it is different from the concept of ethnicity. The claim that Čvorović does not identify as the national of the country of which she is a national is indeed absurd and not supported by either of the two links provided. (One of the links even claims that Bosnian language and Latin script are the sole official language and script of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Talk about reliability.) If you wish to argue that Bosnians should not be called Bosnians, that writers from Bosnia-Herzegovina should not be defined as Bosnian writers, etc, you should probably reach a much wider consensus. Wikipedia has hundreds of articles about Bosnian writers, actors, models, etc, and this non-issue does not concern only Aleksandra Čvorović. On a related note, you still have not presented sources for the claim that Čvorović is a Serb, which is necessary per BLP policy. Surtsicna (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- First, let me state up front that I know very little about Bosnia or Serbia. Please remember that if I make mistakes in dealing with the issue. Second, I'll do my best to be impartial and try to sort this out between you two. I have worked with Abonzz a few times in the past and never worked with Surtsicna, but I don't feel like I have a long enough history with Abonzz to need to recuse and ask another admin to look into this. If either of you disagree with this, or with any further statements of mine, I understand and will not be upset at all if you want to talk to another admin. So what I'm trying to say is that I aim to be impartial here and help out best I can!
- Yes, I'm okay with you handling this. This discussion is important precisely because there is so much confusion about Bosnia, which hopefully will be cleared up here. To have a better understanding of the situation, you can always consult the Wikipedia article on Republika Srpska (not to be confused with Serbia). To summarize, ethnic Serbs are one of the three constituent nations of Bosnia and most live in Republika Srpska which is a de facto state. Bosnia-Herzegovina is divided into two legal constituent states, one governed by Serbs and the other by Muslims/Croats. Serbs living in Republika Srpska do not refer to themselves as "Bosnian" but refer to themselves as Serbian or sometimes Bosnian Serb. Even Serbs living in the Muslim/Croat part will refer to themselves as Serbian. From what I understand, MOS:BIO allows for this type of grey area (which I see you will discuss later). Abonzz (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- First, let me state up front that I know very little about Bosnia or Serbia. Please remember that if I make mistakes in dealing with the issue. Second, I'll do my best to be impartial and try to sort this out between you two. I have worked with Abonzz a few times in the past and never worked with Surtsicna, but I don't feel like I have a long enough history with Abonzz to need to recuse and ask another admin to look into this. If either of you disagree with this, or with any further statements of mine, I understand and will not be upset at all if you want to talk to another admin. So what I'm trying to say is that I aim to be impartial here and help out best I can!
- The words that Abonzz feels are an insult seems to come from this edit which says "Yes, the country of which the person is a citizen is an absolute must unless you can prove that this one should somehow be an exception. So far your arguments have been based on endorsing a point of view of extreme nationalists and assuming that Čvorović is one of them. That is disappointing, and I hope that I will be proven wrong." (My bold here.) Do I have that correct, Abonzz?
- Yes, that is correct. Surtsicna has compared my point of view to that of extreme nationalists. I am to infer from his/her comment that endorsing this point of view (that Serbs do not refer to themselves as Bosnian) automatically makes one an extreme nationalist. Furthermore, by calling this idea absurd (here on your page), Surtsicna has belittled my suggestion. In addition to these inappropriate comments, almost all references of Čvorović being Serbian were initially removed from the article.
- The words that Abonzz feels are an insult seems to come from this edit which says "Yes, the country of which the person is a citizen is an absolute must unless you can prove that this one should somehow be an exception. So far your arguments have been based on endorsing a point of view of extreme nationalists and assuming that Čvorović is one of them. That is disappointing, and I hope that I will be proven wrong." (My bold here.) Do I have that correct, Abonzz?
- Abonzz, I understand why you object to the discussion being termed as "absurd" above. This situation is obviously important to you. It is also very important to Surtsicna to make sure that all Wikipedia standards are being followed. I suspect that the words chosen, in this case, "absurd," were done so in the heat of the moment. Being involved in Wikipedia conflict is stressful for both parties. It might be good for all parties (including myself) to refrain from using words that may inflame the discussion as we go further. Is it OK to ask that we move forward from insults? I do not get the impression that any insult was intended on purpose. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- {{u|Abonzz} can you provide references to the sources that you reference were removed from the article? Thank you! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I can provide references. However, will the more serious issue of being called an "extreme nationalist" also be addressed ? It is not only a personal insult but also affects an entire ethnic group.
- {{u|Abonzz} can you provide references to the sources that you reference were removed from the article? Thank you! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- However, it seems to me that Surtsicna was not calling Abonzz an "extreme nationalist," but was instead trying to convey that they felt that Abonzz was promoting a certain viewpoint which is not consistent with the article. Does that seem correct, Surtsicna?
- I would like to deal with the above issue first before going on to the issue with MOS:BIO that is going on. Is that acceptable? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes we can deal with this issue first. I also disagree with the comment made right below and can address it later after your response. Abonzz (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- That is correct, Megalibrarygirl. I am relieved that my message is clear to a third party. Hopefully Abonzz's misinterpretation stemmed from a language barrier. In addition to the MOS:BIO issue, according to which Čvorović's ethnicity is as relevant to the lead sentence as Obama's or J.Lo's, there is a much more serious WP:BLP issue: there is no source confirming the subject's ethnic identity in the first place. If a source is presented, I would like to point out that if MOS:BIO applies to someone like Martin Luther King Jr., who is very much notable for his activism on behalf of an ethnic group, arguing for an exception to be made in this instance is truly unreasonable. Čvorović is not a religious leader or a tribal chief or anything that could justify inclusion of religious, sexual, or ethnic identity against the provisions of the guideline. Surtsicna (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- I would like to deal with the above issue first before going on to the issue with MOS:BIO that is going on. Is that acceptable? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Surtsicna would a similar comparison to what Abonzz is talking about above be perhaps the term Chicano? This is an ethnic identity that is part of a person's politics/worldview and as such is important to add to a biography in the lede. I am trying to understand the issue through a lens that I identify with. Also, if there are reliable sources for Čvorović's ethnicity and importance, would you be amenable to it being a part of the article as Abonzz is advocating? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- The claim that Bosnia-Herzegovina is "divided into two legal constituent states" is sometimes uttered by far-right secessionist politicians, which then results in rebuffals and admonishment from the international community. It is very disappointing to see this POV pushed in an article about a writer who does not take part in such things. What Abonzz is talking about are plain old ethnic groups, comparable to African Americans in the US, Walloons and Flemings in Belgium, Basques in Spain and France, etc. It is difficult to discuss the importance of the subject's ethnic identity when there are no sources confirming that identity. The absence of clear sources this far into the discussion does seem to suggest that, even if an ethnic identity can be verified, it is definitely not of vital importance for the notability of the subject, not any more than her heterosexuality (?). I do not dispute the relevance of this kind of information (if verifiable), but it belongs in a Personal life or Background section, not in the definition of the subject. We do not define Bernie Sanders as a Jewish politician, nor do we define David Bowie as a bisexual musician. Surtsicna (talk) 23:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Surtsicna thank you for explaining this better for me. Abonzz says they have references for the ethnicity which could help the situation and the information could be then included in the body of the article itself. However, I do have to say that I often find that ethnicity can be important depending on situation. It would help to take a look at the references. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Women in Red tools and technical support
We are preparing a list of tools and techncial support for Women in Red. I have tentatively added your name as you have provided assistance in creating images, icons, etc. Please let me know whether you agree to be listed. You are of course welcome to make any additions or corrections.--Ipigott (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- For sure, Ipigott. I'm happy to be listed and help with graphics, etc. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- A tool I have often found useful is Find links to prevent Orphan articles ☕ Antiqueight chatter 18:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Also - there are a bunch of tools under cuts in User:Antiqueight/Tools - Most of them I don't use all that often so to be honest I'm not sure which work and which don't anymore. But I thought they might be useful to you or others dealing with WIR... ☕ Antiqueight chatter 19:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- A tool I have often found useful is Find links to prevent Orphan articles ☕ Antiqueight chatter 18:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Eliška Junková
I'm currently working on improving the article of Eliška Junková (AKA Elizabeth Junek), a rather fabulous Czechoslovakian race-car driver from the 1920s, but I'm struggling to find any English-language source material about her other than these: [1] [2]. If you have time, do you think you could check and see if there are any online sources behind paywalls (articles, papers, etc.)? Thanks, Alanna the Brave (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- (Page stalking) Alanna the Brave: There's also: [3], [4], [5]; and in Spanish: [6]. She was also known as EliSabeth Junek (not EliZabeth). Have fun!--Ipigott (talk) 10:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Alanna the Brave, I found this article: [7] so far. Thank you for your search, Ipigott! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- That certainly helps! Thanks, you two. :-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 00:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry to post and run....
I have so little opportunity to pop in on Wikipedia ATM, but I think it may be worth your and User:Surtsicna taking a look at this sockpuppet investigation with regards to the user you're both having a little difficulty with at the moment. If I had more time I would do more of an in-depth investigation, pull together evidence, and then, once satisfied that there was reason to do so, request the reopening of the sock investigation, but I unfortunately have to dash off again and am not sure when I'll next be back on Wikipedia to respond to anything in a timely manner. Sorry to dump this on you and run, but thought it best to say what I thought I was seeing, so that you can both take a closer look and see if you feel that it could be the same user evading their ban (again) and then request an investigation. All best, and happy editing, Mabalu (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- To be honest, Mabalu, I had the same feeling in my gut, but with a different blocked sock puppeteer in mind. This one is far more likely. This behavior does seem very familiar, though: claims not supported by the cited sources,[8][9][10] and claiming vandalism,[11] bullying, or simple personal attacks[12][13][14][15] when reverted. Oh, and also casting a very wide net to define things as Serbian.[16] I am trying to assume good faith but I hear quacking. Oh, Surtsicna (talk) 10:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Pinging Ivanvector. Does it quack like a duck? Surtsicna (talk) 10:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- (responding to ping) I would say no, not likely. I'm very familiar with the LTA Mabalu mentioned and I don't think this is the same user. For one thing {{ul|Abonzz} has been around since 2016, and was active at a time that Checkuser queries in the case would have detected this account had they been related. Also, I don't want to get into specifics too much but the topics of interest don't quite match. I get a sense that Abonzz may not be disclosing some editing-for-hire relationships, but they're probably just (as they claim) participating in the Women in GLAM editathon.
- As for the discussion, if defining the subject as "a Bosnian writer" is confusing as to whether that indicates her ethnicity versus describing where she practices, why not change it to something like "a writer from Bosnia-Herzegovina"? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Reasonable alternative, of course, but I have a feeling that will eventually develop in a whole address. The word "Bosnian" indicates ethnicity as much as the word "American" does, and I fear we are already giving in too much to a fringe point of view. The whole thing reeks of original research anyway. Surtsicna (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- I also like this particular alternative, Ivanvector. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ethnic Serb from Bosnia or Bosnian Serb could be more accurate (referring to the name Bosnian Serb Republic1). Here are also some points that are yet to be addressed.
- Firstly, the situation in Bosnia cannot be compared to that of British transsexuals or American Jewish people as proposed by Surtsicna - in fact the situation there is quite unique. Republika Srpska (Bosnian Serb Republic) is a de facto state or a legal “state within a state”, meaning that it has its own government, police force, flag, president etc. within Bosnia.1 So the people there consider themselves Serbian and not Bosnian. There is no “state within a state” situation in Britain composed of transsexuals, nor is there a “state within a state” in the US composed of Jewish people.
- Seeing as the Serbs of Bosnia are in a unique situation and do not consider their nationality to be Bosnian, isn't there room for addressing this issue in Wikipedia policy? *MOS:BIO states that context in the lead can be location OR nationality : "The opening paragraph should ... provide context.... Context (location or nationality)". As far as I can understand, location is not specific to a country, so a city or any legal entity can be used, which in this case could be Republika Srpska.
- Furthermore, the country of which the person is a citizen does not appear to be an absolute policy and seems flexible. In the [MOS:BIO]] policy, the word "most" is used which seems to allow for exceptions: "In MOST modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident"
- Also, the use of "Ethnic Serb" in the lead seems appropriate seeing as multiple demonyms are possible according to the demonym page : "Conversely, some groups of people may be associated with multiple demonyms. For example, a native of the United Kingdom may be called a British person, a Briton or, informally, a Brit." Seeing as Serbs are one of the three constituent nations of Bosnia, and live in a separate legal entity, the use of demonyms seems even more appropriate for Serbs then for Brits.
- I don't know what "sock puppet" means and hope someone can explain. I have only been writing on Wikipedia regularly for the past six months and this is the first time I've had a problem with any user on Wikipedia. I've never made any complaints before this and don't understand why someone else's posts are being attributed to my account. I also believe that having one's point of view equated to that of a "extreme nationalist" is insulting and this has not been addressed yet. Finally, I am not a writer for hire, just someone dealing with a serious illness with unfortunately too much time on my hands. Abonzz (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Abonzz a Sock Puppet is the term for when someone suspects that a person is using another account in order to pretend to be someone else. I do not think you are a sock puppet and don't want to let that color the issue about the article.
- I also like this particular alternative, Ivanvector. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Reasonable alternative, of course, but I have a feeling that will eventually develop in a whole address. The word "Bosnian" indicates ethnicity as much as the word "American" does, and I fear we are already giving in too much to a fringe point of view. The whole thing reeks of original research anyway. Surtsicna (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- I do think that it is a miscommunication error that happened with the words "extreme nationalist." These words in their context appear to me to be about the POV of the article, not to be applied to you. I really don't think that Surtsicna intended to insult you in any way.
- I am finding that I am again confused by the situation with ethnicity in Bosnia, however, I can appreciate that it is important to get these kinds of details correct. It can be a BLP problem if such details are not properly attended to. I wonder if we may need to look at referring the issue to someone with greater expertise in the area who can deal more correctly with the nuances that I am not aware of. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- User talk:Megalibrarygirl Thanks for the explanations. And clearing up this issue of ethnicity is a good idea. Its complicated because Bosnia is highly decentralized with 3 ethnic groups who mostly live apart. If you're interested, here are some articles from the UN, Britannica, Le Monde, Vice, BBC, regarding the 3 ethnic groups and the 2 constituent states (state within a state). 1 2 3 4 5 Can the questions of MOS:BIO (location and use of country in lead) and multiple demonyms be addressed once the issue of ethnicity becomes more clear? Abonzz (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- I am finding that I am again confused by the situation with ethnicity in Bosnia, however, I can appreciate that it is important to get these kinds of details correct. It can be a BLP problem if such details are not properly attended to. I wonder if we may need to look at referring the issue to someone with greater expertise in the area who can deal more correctly with the nuances that I am not aware of. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
The claims made here range from merely untrue to hilarious (e.g. "Serb" and "Bosnian Serb" are not demonyms in the first place). It is no wonder that Megalibrarygirl is confused. This is an original research, synthesis, and advocacy charade. What an embarrassment. Surtsicna (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Megalibrarygirl Here are the references mentioning that Čvorović is Serbian and writes in the Serbian language. Čvorović was one of the Serbian writers presenting at an exchange between Slovenian and Serbian poets called the “Literary Evening of Slovenian-Serbian Poetry” held in Banja Luka 1 She has been described as belonging to the “contemporary female poetry of the Serbian language”. 2 Čvorović is included in an anthology for Serbian poets called "Anthology of Serbian Poetry (1847 - 2000)", 3 and another anthology for Serbian writers called “Banja Luka Manuscripts” which was translated from the Serbian language to Hungarian. 4 She was cited in an article about how to preserve the Serbian language 5. She belongs to and sits on the jury of the Association of Writers of Republika Srpska, which promotes Serbian writers and is affiliated with the Association of Writers of Serbia. 6 7 One of her books was also published by the Association of Serbian writers. 8 She is listed under "Serbian works" on the Babel Literature portal. 9 10. Some of these sources were already cited in the entry and I've added extra ones here which can be added to the entry. The Serbian language is one of the official languages of Bosnia. Most Serbs in Bosnia do not see themselves as being or speaking Bosnian, only Serbian. The fact that Bosnia is divided into two legal constituent states is relevant, not a "claim" but a legal fact that is supported by Le Monde, BBC, UN , and the US government, etc (the references are relisted here 1 2 3 4 5). The term "Serb Republic" is the official name of one of these two constituent states, so using the terms "Serb" or "Bosnian Serb" could be a reasonable alternative. Since Wikipedia policy does seem to be flexible about nationality, what would be the exact term, if it's not "demonyms" ? Thanks Abonzz (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Firstly, let me say loud and clear that you are blatantly lying. None of those websites says that Čvorović is an ethnic Serb. Not one. One of them does not even mention her at all. I am very much concerned by your habit of synthesizing conclusions across various Wikipedia biographies. In some cases your claims do not even qualify as synthesis, but appear to be purely made up. Examples include outrageous claims of "sexist views" of a celebrity[17] and, of course, several instances of claims of ethnic or religious identity,[18][19][20] none of which are supported by the cited sources. If Ivanvector's suspicions of paid editing hold water, I must wonder who would order an article that describes the subject's husband as a chauvinist pig. I am doing my best to clean up this mess, but help from other experienced users is very much welcome. Surtsicna (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Abonzz So far, from what I can see (using Google Translate), we have information about her poetry using the Serbian language [21], [22], and [23]. She is included in two Serbian poetry anthologies [24] and [25]. She does talk about the preservation of the language. Does speaking Serbian, however, make her Serbian as well? Surtsicna is correct to be skeptical unless the article says she is "ethnically" Serbian, then we can't assume. I can speak some Spanish, but I'm not ethnically Hispanic. We do need to be careful and precise and not conflate ideas such as ethnicity with language. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- One should also bear in mind that there is no distinction between Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin. Those are just four names for one pluricentric language, Serbo-Croatian. Speaking Serbian, therefore, does not make any Bosnian person a Serb. Everyone in Bosnia-Herzegovina speaks Serbian. And Croatian, and Bosnian. Being included in Serbian poetry anthologies makes one a Serb as much as taking part in a Croat cultural manifestion in the Croat Cultural Center in Banja Luka makes one an ethnic Croat or a Croatian writer. Yes, Čvorović has taken part in Croat cultural manifestations in Banja Luka.[26] Somewhat paradoxically, one of the references Abonzz cited in the article plainly describes Čvorović, in English, as one of "several Bosnian poetesses". Make of that what you will. Surtsicna (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Surtsicna I don't see anything that states that she's ethnically Serbian (all I've seen says she writes in the Serbian language). So I can't see adding any ethnicity to her article without proper attribution right now. Right now, she seems to be a poet who lives in Bosnia so she should be referred to as a Bosnian. I did find an article about Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina but Abonzz hasn't presented the info to show she is of Serbian ethnicity to my satisfaction. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- One should also bear in mind that there is no distinction between Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin. Those are just four names for one pluricentric language, Serbo-Croatian. Speaking Serbian, therefore, does not make any Bosnian person a Serb. Everyone in Bosnia-Herzegovina speaks Serbian. And Croatian, and Bosnian. Being included in Serbian poetry anthologies makes one a Serb as much as taking part in a Croat cultural manifestion in the Croat Cultural Center in Banja Luka makes one an ethnic Croat or a Croatian writer. Yes, Čvorović has taken part in Croat cultural manifestations in Banja Luka.[26] Somewhat paradoxically, one of the references Abonzz cited in the article plainly describes Čvorović, in English, as one of "several Bosnian poetesses". Make of that what you will. Surtsicna (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Megalibrarygirl She is also a member of an associatian that promotes Serbian writers and publishes books by Serbian authors, and that published one of her books. Isn't that enough of a reference proving her ethnicity ? Also, in Bosnia, the three official languages were all once called the same language, that is Serbo-Croatian. But since the 90s, most Croats say they speak Croatian, Serbs say they speak Serbian, Bosniuks (Muslims) say they speak Bosnian. 1 Everyone is essentially speaking the same language but now calls it a different name according to ethnicity. So your Spanish analogy makes sense outside of Bosnia, but not within Bosnia, where language is very much tied to ethncity, but I do understand your point. Also from what I understand here, calling her "Bosnian" without sources seems wrong too, seeing as how language is so tied to ethnicity and that would imply that she was Bosniak (Muslim). Abonzz (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- No, that is most definitely not enough of a reference. Acquaint yourself with WP:Synthesis and WP:Original research. As I just pointed out, she has also taken part in Croat cultural manifestations in the Croat Cultural Center of her hometown. Does that make her a Croat? For all we know, she might be. She might also identify as an ethnic Yugoslav. We do not know that. Now, firstly, there are sources calling her a Bosnian poetess. You cited that source, for heaven's sake! And secondly, any source stating that she is from Bosnia-Herzegovina confirms that she is Bosnian, as "Bosnian" is the adjective referring to Bosnia-Herzegovina. Plain and simple. I am getting tired of arguing semantics with you, as you are intent on advocating a fringe view. Surtsicna (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Megalibrarygirl Surtsicna My point from the beginning is that the use of the word "Bosnian" implies ethnicity. So semantics become especially relevant. Calling her "Bosnian" implies that she is Bosniak (Muslim), even though she writes in Serbian, is part of two anthologies on Serbian poetry, and belongs to a Serbian writer's association (the absurdness of having 3 official languages that are essentially the same is the result of each ethnic group identifying with their own language). If that isn't enough to determine ethnicity by Wikipedia standards, then she shouldn't be referred to as "Bosnian" either, using the same argument. If it can't be proven that she's Bosniuk (Muslim), then she could be referred to as a writer from Bosnia who has written in Serbian. But I don't think it's about this one writer anymore, if "Bosnian" is the automatically assigned ethnicity to anyone from Bosnia (despite there being two other ethnic groups, Croats and Serbs, who mostly don't identify themselves as "Bosnian" or with the Bosnian language). Maybe this issue of Bosnia and ethnicity should be resolved with a much broader group of editors as it involves the semantics of the word "Bosnian". Abonzz (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- If Aleksandra Čvorović takes part in Croat cultural manifestations, is she not a Croat? And no, "Bosnian" is not an ethnicity. It refers to the country. You know that very well. And no, describing a writer from Bosnia-Herzegovina as a Bosnian writer does not imply that the person is an ethnic Bosniak. These two concepts are covered by two articles, Bosnians and Bosniaks. There could be a case for using "Bosnia and Herzegovina" as the adjective instead of "Bosnian" (as already practiced in categories, e.g. Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina women writers), but a possible drawback is that "Bosnian" is the much more common adjective in English (as explained in the article Bosnia and Herzegovina, "A native of Bosnia and Herzegovina, regardless of ethnicity, is identified in English as a Bosnian."). Surtsicna (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- My whole point is that many people confuse "Bosnian" with ethnicity (by "Bosnian" I meant nationality). If you call someone "Bosnian" its assumed that they're Bosniak (Muslim). Furthermore, the Bosnians article states that "most of the people identified with Bosniak, Croat or Serb nationality". So the the idea of Bosnian nationality isn't embraced by the majority of the population. That's why the semantics of this word should be resolved. The common adjective may be easier to use but does not reflect the reality and the Bosnia and Herzegovina article could mention that. Abonzz (talk) 00:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- No, that is absolutely not assumed. As I am sure Megalibrarygirl can confirm, hardly anyone outside Yugoslavia even knows what a Bosniak is. Those people are still usually called "Bosnian Muslims" in English. "Bosniak" is thus much more likely to be understood to mean "Bosnian" than vice versa. The only reality that the common demonym for people from Bosnia-Herzegovina ("Bosnian") does not reflect is that the country is called Bosnia and Herzegovina, not just Bosnia, but it's English. Surtsicna (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Abonzz and Surtsicna: everything that I've read and learned from these past days in this conversation has led me to the conclusion that "Bosnian" is the best demonym for someone from Bosnia-Herzegovina. However, if there's even the slightest possibility of confusion, why not just say "Writer (or poet) from Bosnia-Herzegovnia"? I think the issue is fairly settled and unless there can be a very positive identification of ethnicity, we should not add it to the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- Megalibrarygirl "from Bosnia" sounds good to avoid confusion. I just made the changes (added "from" and language). Thanks for your time.Abonzz (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Megalibrarygirl Some of my changes were undone, eg she’s been translated from Serbian, 1 2 3 4 yet the entry now says Serbo-Croatian (she writes in Serbian, not Serbo-Croatian, with regards to her poetry, translations etc). Also, her comments on the use of slang in the Serbian language were removed even though this is related to her work with children and her general expertise. 5. So changing it back seems appropriate and will wiat for your thoughts. Furthermore, with regards to her ethnicity, she is referred to being a “famous Serbian poet” 6 and a “Serbian writer and librarian”7. She appears to be included in an anthology for Serbian writers from different countries called “Vertrograd Guardians: Anthology of Serbian Poetry in Southeast Europe” by Slavomir Gvozdenović and Miodrag Jaksic 8 9 Abonzz (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- The source you cited in the article did not say that she was translated from Serbian (and that is an awkward phrasing anyway). Serbian is a standard variety of Serbo-Croatian; to state that one writes in Serbian and not Serbo-Croatian reveals an utter misunderstanding of the issue at hand. Her "comments on the use of slang" consist of two sentences, and mentioning that next to research papers is ridiculous. It is obvious that the intention behind this is to bring up Serbian language as much as possible, even though she does not make a reference to it in her "comments". You cannot cite Wikipedia as a source for Wikipedia (see WP:CIRCULAR) and a high school website article written by a third grade high school student cannot be used as a source for anything, let alone a biography of a living person. I kindly suggest that you give this a rest and instead review Wikipedia verifiability policies and guidelines. Many of the sources you use in biographies of living persons are entirely unacceptable, as I have already noted here, on your talk page, and on several article talk pages - to no response. Surtsicna (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Surtsicna I get the impression that you're fluent in the languages that Abonzz is citing. I can use Google translate, but because what is going on here is very nuanced, that's not going to allow me to properly vet the details of the argument when they are provided in the source in another language. I am also confused since Wikipedia mentions Serbian as a language. I'm not sure what the problem in is with that. Is saying Serbian is a Serbo-Croatian language like saying Italian and French are both Romance Languages? Also, Surtsicna is correct: please don't cite other Wikipedias, Abonzz. Wikipedia is not authoritative. I think we may have to refer the situation to a 3rd party who is fluent in the languages the references are written in. I can make a referral if there is not way that you can both agree. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I am fluent. There is less difference between Serbian and Croatian than between American English and British English. For political reasons, the varieties have been treated as separate languages by the authorities since the breakup of Yugoslavia, but international linguists recognize the language as Serbo-Croatian. Serbian is thus a standard variety of Serbo-Croatian, like American English is a standard variety of English. I do not have a problem with referring to the language as Serbian per se, but the reason for insisting on that in this case is the desire to emphasize the subject's supposed Serbness. If half as much effort had been put into describing the subject's career as it was in looking for (and inventing) clues about her ethnicity, the article would have been GA level by now. Surtsicna (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Megalibrarygirl Making a comparison to Romance languages is one way to look at it but it’s more about identity then linguistics, which is why there are three official languages now instead of one (eg. Muslims/Bosniaks saw the term Serbo-Croatian as excluding them). Serbo-Croatian is an older term associated with ex-Yugoslavia and is hardly used there now. Identity is very much tied to having separate languages, which is then tied to culture, history, etc. so using the term Serbo-Croatian has connotations that ignore all of this. There seems to be a lot of effort towards de-emphasizing the word Serbian in this article even though the references confirm the language used by the writer. Her works were included in various anthologies about Serbian poetry, not “Serbo-Croatian” poetry, and her work was translated from Serbian, not “Serbo-Croatian”. Seeing as language is a writer’s tool, being precise about language seems especially important here. Abonzz (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, it's about identity, and all of this is about what you think the subject's identity is. Here she is included in an "anthology of Bosnian short prose". How does that fit into your picture of her identity? By the way, the word "Serb" is an integral part of the name of Serbo-Croatian. Obviously, it is impossible to de-emphasize Serbness by using it. The term Serbo-Croatian is virtually unanimously accepted by English-speaking linguists; it also has the peculiar tendency to cause discontent among nationalists from each side. Surtsicna (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- Abonzz This situation has become beyond my scope. I'm able to handle routine disputes, but understanding the intricacies of a foreign language and its politics is quite beyond what I'm qualified to determine. Would you and Surtsicna like me to locate a person who is more qualified to understand the nuances involved in this article? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- I do not think it takes a linguist to understand the intentions of Abonzz and myself. One of us strives to emphasize the subject's unproven (and unprovable) ethnic identity, and the other opposes it. It is a question of WP:V, not linguistics. Surtsicna (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- Surtsicna I agree for the most part. However, I find that there seems to be a lot about the situation that I'm very ignorant of and I don't want to make incorrect assumptions about the culture because of that. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Megalibrarygirl Concerning your offer, someone who is knowledgeable and neutral about Rep. Srpska and BH Feder. seems like a good idea. Abonzz (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Abonzz: I will look. Thanks for your patience. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Megalibrarygirl Concerning your offer, someone who is knowledgeable and neutral about Rep. Srpska and BH Feder. seems like a good idea. Abonzz (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Surtsicna I agree for the most part. However, I find that there seems to be a lot about the situation that I'm very ignorant of and I don't want to make incorrect assumptions about the culture because of that. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- I do not think it takes a linguist to understand the intentions of Abonzz and myself. One of us strives to emphasize the subject's unproven (and unprovable) ethnic identity, and the other opposes it. It is a question of WP:V, not linguistics. Surtsicna (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- Abonzz This situation has become beyond my scope. I'm able to handle routine disputes, but understanding the intricacies of a foreign language and its politics is quite beyond what I'm qualified to determine. Would you and Surtsicna like me to locate a person who is more qualified to understand the nuances involved in this article? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, it's about identity, and all of this is about what you think the subject's identity is. Here she is included in an "anthology of Bosnian short prose". How does that fit into your picture of her identity? By the way, the word "Serb" is an integral part of the name of Serbo-Croatian. Obviously, it is impossible to de-emphasize Serbness by using it. The term Serbo-Croatian is virtually unanimously accepted by English-speaking linguists; it also has the peculiar tendency to cause discontent among nationalists from each side. Surtsicna (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- Megalibrarygirl Making a comparison to Romance languages is one way to look at it but it’s more about identity then linguistics, which is why there are three official languages now instead of one (eg. Muslims/Bosniaks saw the term Serbo-Croatian as excluding them). Serbo-Croatian is an older term associated with ex-Yugoslavia and is hardly used there now. Identity is very much tied to having separate languages, which is then tied to culture, history, etc. so using the term Serbo-Croatian has connotations that ignore all of this. There seems to be a lot of effort towards de-emphasizing the word Serbian in this article even though the references confirm the language used by the writer. Her works were included in various anthologies about Serbian poetry, not “Serbo-Croatian” poetry, and her work was translated from Serbian, not “Serbo-Croatian”. Seeing as language is a writer’s tool, being precise about language seems especially important here. Abonzz (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I am fluent. There is less difference between Serbian and Croatian than between American English and British English. For political reasons, the varieties have been treated as separate languages by the authorities since the breakup of Yugoslavia, but international linguists recognize the language as Serbo-Croatian. Serbian is thus a standard variety of Serbo-Croatian, like American English is a standard variety of English. I do not have a problem with referring to the language as Serbian per se, but the reason for insisting on that in this case is the desire to emphasize the subject's supposed Serbness. If half as much effort had been put into describing the subject's career as it was in looking for (and inventing) clues about her ethnicity, the article would have been GA level by now. Surtsicna (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Surtsicna I get the impression that you're fluent in the languages that Abonzz is citing. I can use Google translate, but because what is going on here is very nuanced, that's not going to allow me to properly vet the details of the argument when they are provided in the source in another language. I am also confused since Wikipedia mentions Serbian as a language. I'm not sure what the problem in is with that. Is saying Serbian is a Serbo-Croatian language like saying Italian and French are both Romance Languages? Also, Surtsicna is correct: please don't cite other Wikipedias, Abonzz. Wikipedia is not authoritative. I think we may have to refer the situation to a 3rd party who is fluent in the languages the references are written in. I can make a referral if there is not way that you can both agree. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- The source you cited in the article did not say that she was translated from Serbian (and that is an awkward phrasing anyway). Serbian is a standard variety of Serbo-Croatian; to state that one writes in Serbian and not Serbo-Croatian reveals an utter misunderstanding of the issue at hand. Her "comments on the use of slang" consist of two sentences, and mentioning that next to research papers is ridiculous. It is obvious that the intention behind this is to bring up Serbian language as much as possible, even though she does not make a reference to it in her "comments". You cannot cite Wikipedia as a source for Wikipedia (see WP:CIRCULAR) and a high school website article written by a third grade high school student cannot be used as a source for anything, let alone a biography of a living person. I kindly suggest that you give this a rest and instead review Wikipedia verifiability policies and guidelines. Many of the sources you use in biographies of living persons are entirely unacceptable, as I have already noted here, on your talk page, and on several article talk pages - to no response. Surtsicna (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Megalibrarygirl Some of my changes were undone, eg she’s been translated from Serbian, 1 2 3 4 yet the entry now says Serbo-Croatian (she writes in Serbian, not Serbo-Croatian, with regards to her poetry, translations etc). Also, her comments on the use of slang in the Serbian language were removed even though this is related to her work with children and her general expertise. 5. So changing it back seems appropriate and will wiat for your thoughts. Furthermore, with regards to her ethnicity, she is referred to being a “famous Serbian poet” 6 and a “Serbian writer and librarian”7. She appears to be included in an anthology for Serbian writers from different countries called “Vertrograd Guardians: Anthology of Serbian Poetry in Southeast Europe” by Slavomir Gvozdenović and Miodrag Jaksic 8 9 Abonzz (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Megalibrarygirl "from Bosnia" sounds good to avoid confusion. I just made the changes (added "from" and language). Thanks for your time.Abonzz (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Abonzz and Surtsicna: everything that I've read and learned from these past days in this conversation has led me to the conclusion that "Bosnian" is the best demonym for someone from Bosnia-Herzegovina. However, if there's even the slightest possibility of confusion, why not just say "Writer (or poet) from Bosnia-Herzegovnia"? I think the issue is fairly settled and unless there can be a very positive identification of ethnicity, we should not add it to the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- No, that is absolutely not assumed. As I am sure Megalibrarygirl can confirm, hardly anyone outside Yugoslavia even knows what a Bosniak is. Those people are still usually called "Bosnian Muslims" in English. "Bosniak" is thus much more likely to be understood to mean "Bosnian" than vice versa. The only reality that the common demonym for people from Bosnia-Herzegovina ("Bosnian") does not reflect is that the country is called Bosnia and Herzegovina, not just Bosnia, but it's English. Surtsicna (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- My whole point is that many people confuse "Bosnian" with ethnicity (by "Bosnian" I meant nationality). If you call someone "Bosnian" its assumed that they're Bosniak (Muslim). Furthermore, the Bosnians article states that "most of the people identified with Bosniak, Croat or Serb nationality". So the the idea of Bosnian nationality isn't embraced by the majority of the population. That's why the semantics of this word should be resolved. The common adjective may be easier to use but does not reflect the reality and the Bosnia and Herzegovina article could mention that. Abonzz (talk) 00:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- If Aleksandra Čvorović takes part in Croat cultural manifestations, is she not a Croat? And no, "Bosnian" is not an ethnicity. It refers to the country. You know that very well. And no, describing a writer from Bosnia-Herzegovina as a Bosnian writer does not imply that the person is an ethnic Bosniak. These two concepts are covered by two articles, Bosnians and Bosniaks. There could be a case for using "Bosnia and Herzegovina" as the adjective instead of "Bosnian" (as already practiced in categories, e.g. Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina women writers), but a possible drawback is that "Bosnian" is the much more common adjective in English (as explained in the article Bosnia and Herzegovina, "A native of Bosnia and Herzegovina, regardless of ethnicity, is identified in English as a Bosnian."). Surtsicna (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- Megalibrarygirl Surtsicna My point from the beginning is that the use of the word "Bosnian" implies ethnicity. So semantics become especially relevant. Calling her "Bosnian" implies that she is Bosniak (Muslim), even though she writes in Serbian, is part of two anthologies on Serbian poetry, and belongs to a Serbian writer's association (the absurdness of having 3 official languages that are essentially the same is the result of each ethnic group identifying with their own language). If that isn't enough to determine ethnicity by Wikipedia standards, then she shouldn't be referred to as "Bosnian" either, using the same argument. If it can't be proven that she's Bosniuk (Muslim), then she could be referred to as a writer from Bosnia who has written in Serbian. But I don't think it's about this one writer anymore, if "Bosnian" is the automatically assigned ethnicity to anyone from Bosnia (despite there being two other ethnic groups, Croats and Serbs, who mostly don't identify themselves as "Bosnian" or with the Bosnian language). Maybe this issue of Bosnia and ethnicity should be resolved with a much broader group of editors as it involves the semantics of the word "Bosnian". Abonzz (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- No, that is most definitely not enough of a reference. Acquaint yourself with WP:Synthesis and WP:Original research. As I just pointed out, she has also taken part in Croat cultural manifestations in the Croat Cultural Center of her hometown. Does that make her a Croat? For all we know, she might be. She might also identify as an ethnic Yugoslav. We do not know that. Now, firstly, there are sources calling her a Bosnian poetess. You cited that source, for heaven's sake! And secondly, any source stating that she is from Bosnia-Herzegovina confirms that she is Bosnian, as "Bosnian" is the adjective referring to Bosnia-Herzegovina. Plain and simple. I am getting tired of arguing semantics with you, as you are intent on advocating a fringe view. Surtsicna (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Abonzz So far, from what I can see (using Google Translate), we have information about her poetry using the Serbian language [21], [22], and [23]. She is included in two Serbian poetry anthologies [24] and [25]. She does talk about the preservation of the language. Does speaking Serbian, however, make her Serbian as well? Surtsicna is correct to be skeptical unless the article says she is "ethnically" Serbian, then we can't assume. I can speak some Spanish, but I'm not ethnically Hispanic. We do need to be careful and precise and not conflate ideas such as ethnicity with language. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Firstly, let me say loud and clear that you are blatantly lying. None of those websites says that Čvorović is an ethnic Serb. Not one. One of them does not even mention her at all. I am very much concerned by your habit of synthesizing conclusions across various Wikipedia biographies. In some cases your claims do not even qualify as synthesis, but appear to be purely made up. Examples include outrageous claims of "sexist views" of a celebrity[17] and, of course, several instances of claims of ethnic or religious identity,[18][19][20] none of which are supported by the cited sources. If Ivanvector's suspicions of paid editing hold water, I must wonder who would order an article that describes the subject's husband as a chauvinist pig. I am doing my best to clean up this mess, but help from other experienced users is very much welcome. Surtsicna (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
A Texas (barn)Star for you
|
Unofficial Texas Appreciation Award |
| I, as a former Texas resident, hereby award you this Texas Star for your vast help, which resulted in five articles: Carmen y Laura, Ideal Records, Falcon Records (Texas), Corona Records and Zarape Records, all of which are Texas-related. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC) |
- Yee ha! Thank you, 78.26! I'm a transplant to Texas, but I love my little desert corner of the state! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Did I miss something?
I noticed after filing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louise Elisabeth Robertson that you had contributed to it. I could be mistaken but it looks like an autobiography. Thought you'd want to know in case there's something I missed wrt notability. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Bri: I can see that I cleaned up the references, but since I didn't add any, it looks like I didn't find anything else noteworthy. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Cool, thanks. Hope all is well in El Paso – looks to be a bit warm for us from Sasquatch and salmon territory. Oh by the way we just entered the critical two weeks prior to publication of The Signpost, if you are able to join in at the newsroom. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's our usual dry heat, Bri. Believe it not, you get used to it. I'm originally from Cleveland and I love the weather here now. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Cool, thanks. Hope all is well in El Paso – looks to be a bit warm for us from Sasquatch and salmon territory. Oh by the way we just entered the critical two weeks prior to publication of The Signpost, if you are able to join in at the newsroom. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
NPP Backlog Elimination Drive
Hello Megalibrarygirl/Archives/2018, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.
Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!
- As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
- Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar:
. Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: 
, 
, 
, 
. - Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in study
Hello,
I am E. Whittaker, an intern at Wikimedia with the Scoring Team to create a labeled dataset, and potentially a tool, to help editors deal with incivility when they encounter it on talk pages. A full write-up of the study can be found here: m:Research:Civil_Behavior_Interviews. We are currently recruiting editors to be interviewed about their experiences with incivility on talk pages. Would you be interested in being interviewed? I am contacting you because of your involvement in Wikipedia’s Women in Red project. The interviews should take ~1 hour, and will be conducted over BlueJeans (which does allow interviews to be recorded). If, so, please email me at [email protected] in order to schedule an interview.
Thank you Ewitch51 (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ewitch51 I'd be happy to help out. I'll drop you an email shortly! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Kittentime!
A Big thankyou for all the wikiwork you do:) Coolabahapple (talk) 04:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC) -
- Thank you, Coolabahapple! I need some fuzzy snuggles! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Finding/accessing reference sources
Hi Megalibrarygirl,
I have been contributing Wiki articles on women for over a year, and I am interested in learning more about using/accessing references. I have reviewed the Wikipedia Library page and the WikiProject Women in Red/Resources page. I have also applied for and been granted access to Questia resources through The Wikipedia Library, but I have not been given any more details about logging on to Questia (May 26th email said I would hear back in two weeks).
I am a bit confused about the best way to get access to potential sources for future articles. Can you point me in the right direction or tell me which are the best sites/sources I should be using to locate information? I know many sites are category/subject oriented. Arts and humanities, general science and social science would be the categories I would be most likely to use in the near future.
Thanks MauraWen (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Obviously it depends on what topics you're looking for, but have you tried your local library? I get complete access to The Times digital archives, which is great for fine detail on biographies or significant one-off events, and I've found librarians generally pride themselves on being able to find "hard to access" information. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- @MauraWen: Hi! Ritchie333 has a great point about using local libraries. My library provides remote access to EBSCOhost and Gale, for example. When I need access to other databases I don't have through my library or Wikipedia, I go over and visit either my community college library or local university library. Both types of institutions will allow people "off the street" to use their databases inside the library. You can then email the articles to yourself to read later (the databases let you do that.) Also, you may want to sign up for the Open Library run by Internet Archive. It's free and you can "check out" digital books. I've found a TON of good resources there. Also, never be shy about asking for a reference. If I can't find it, I'll reach out to others who may have access. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks! Ritchie333, Megalibrarygirl I may be back later with additional questions, but that definitely points me in the right direction. MauraWen (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Another page stalker MauraWen as someone who has absolutely no access to public libraries in my part of Mexico, I rely on the WP Library. The accesses I use most often are newspapers.com, newspaperarchive.com, Jstor, Muse, Oxford University Press and Cambridge Core. I also have access to EBSCO and Taylor & Francis, but that does not equate to full access to their holdings. If you ever need anything from those, feel free to let me know and I'll try to access it. The free book check out at archive.org is invaluable if you are unaware of it and Hathitrust is a wonderful open resource. SusunW (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you SusunW! I will be checking your recommended resources this weekend. I may have more questions next week. I had no idea you lived in Mexico, I thought you lived in the American Southwest given your earlier comments on talk pages. That's very interesting! MauraWen (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- MauraWen I've lived all over...Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia, Belize, Yucatán and have relatives from Kansas to Virginia. No Notherners anywhere in my history that I am aware of back through the 1660s. Been in Mexico 8 years. We love it here. SusunW (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- MauraWen As a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, I have access to several additional sources. If you need a particular resource and can't access it, just ask me and I'll check and see if it's "under the hood". Also, a few of us have access to Orlando, which is my new favorite. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- MauraWen I've lived all over...Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia, Belize, Yucatán and have relatives from Kansas to Virginia. No Notherners anywhere in my history that I am aware of back through the 1660s. Been in Mexico 8 years. We love it here. SusunW (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you SusunW! I will be checking your recommended resources this weekend. I may have more questions next week. I had no idea you lived in Mexico, I thought you lived in the American Southwest given your earlier comments on talk pages. That's very interesting! MauraWen (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Another page stalker MauraWen as someone who has absolutely no access to public libraries in my part of Mexico, I rely on the WP Library. The accesses I use most often are newspapers.com, newspaperarchive.com, Jstor, Muse, Oxford University Press and Cambridge Core. I also have access to EBSCO and Taylor & Francis, but that does not equate to full access to their holdings. If you ever need anything from those, feel free to let me know and I'll try to access it. The free book check out at archive.org is invaluable if you are unaware of it and Hathitrust is a wonderful open resource. SusunW (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks! Ritchie333, Megalibrarygirl I may be back later with additional questions, but that definitely points me in the right direction. MauraWen (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- @MauraWen: Hi! Ritchie333 has a great point about using local libraries. My library provides remote access to EBSCOhost and Gale, for example. When I need access to other databases I don't have through my library or Wikipedia, I go over and visit either my community college library or local university library. Both types of institutions will allow people "off the street" to use their databases inside the library. You can then email the articles to yourself to read later (the databases let you do that.) Also, you may want to sign up for the Open Library run by Internet Archive. It's free and you can "check out" digital books. I've found a TON of good resources there. Also, never be shy about asking for a reference. If I can't find it, I'll reach out to others who may have access. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
VH1 Trailblazer Honor
Hi Megalibrarygirl- I was thinking of writing an article on this after seeing it mentioned in the news. I tried a Google and HighBeam search to see if it was wiki-notable...There seems to be coverage on the awardees but I couldn't find anything specifically on the actual award/honor. I saw you recently improved the Chicago LGBT Hall of Fame and thought you (or (talk page stalker)) may have some experience on this. Cheers Thsmi002 (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to help, Thsmi002! Have you started the article yet? I'll see if I can dig up some info about it. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- I started (barely) a draft Draft:VH1_Trailblazer_Honor. I couldn't tell if it was a notable enough award or not. Seems like it should be if there are articles on who the awardees are. Thank you! I will work on it later today. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'll add to it, Thsmi002. I think that Logo is also involved: [27] Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help so far! It looks like now it is mostly called VH1 but it was previously the Logo Trailblazer Honor? Some sources say both VH1 and Logo Honor. What are you thinking would be the best title? I am about add the 2014 honorees. Thsmi002 (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- I started (barely) a draft Draft:VH1_Trailblazer_Honor. I couldn't tell if it was a notable enough award or not. Seems like it should be if there are articles on who the awardees are. Thank you! I will work on it later today. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Signpost help, if you are free
If you have time, would you do a copyedit pass on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News and notes? I did much of it myself, which makes me likely to miss my own mistakes. Thanks! ☆ Bri (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, Bri! I'm hopping over there right now. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
A cookie for you!
|
For generous service to Wikipedia. Serenesage (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC) |
- Thank you, Serenesage! Cookies are my favorite dessert! :D Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
July 2018 at Women in Red
| ||
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging |
DYK for Falcon Records (Texas)
On 29 June 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Falcon Records (Texas), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the founder of Falcon Records (label pictured) chose the name in part because it sounded the same in English and Spanish? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Falcon Records (Texas). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Falcon Records (Texas)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.