Talk:Women's International Democratic Federation

Website

What's the story with the website URL? Seems to resolve to a 'domain for sale' page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Tagishsimon don't really understand the question. Is it about the organization's domain? SusunW (talk) 06:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

If you click on the website URL in the infobox, you get taken to a domain for sale page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Tagishsimon I think we can remove it then. No point in having a link that doesn't work. Same with the affiliates. I think having a few when there were so many is silly, especially since we cannot identify at this point which are active or not. The only two I can say are with certainty are Vietnam and Western Sahara, but obviously since the president is from El Salvador and previous one was Brazilian there must be organizations there. SusunW (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree. The Affiliates list mainly confused me. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

1945 members identification

Marie Trojanová

Is Marie Trojanová, currently identified as cs:Marie Trojanová (komunistická politička) actually her, or is she cs:Marie Trojanová (lidovecká politička) (People's Party politician; KDU-ČSL)? Mathglot (talk) 09:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Mathglot, good sleuthing! I appreciate your help. These aren't easy to identify ;). The People's Party one says she was a member of the National Women's Front (Národní frontě žen). Which corresponds to the organization in French "Front National des Femmes" on page 406 of the 1945 report. I'll change the link. SusunW (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that was exactly the bit of info that led me to post here. It's pretty indicative and probably right, but I wish we had more to go on. I set up this section on Trojanová as a subsection, so if/when we have more questions like this, we can just tack them on here and keep them in one place. If you prefer to have them all as separate sections, feel free to refactor. Mathglot (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Russians

GRuban I found the Russian version of the 1945 conference. Unfortunately it isn't a full view and hathitrust's version only allows searching, but with no result other than page number *sigh*. So, using Yandex and the French version, I was able to back into spellings in Russian that I could search here and then search for English sources on the names. The two I cannot identify with an English version are Julia Beliaeva/юлия Беляева (Yulia ?) and Catherine Tulenieva/Екатерина Тюленева (Ekaterina ?). Zinaida Gagarina/Зинаида Гагарина I can confirm is the same spelling, but can't find enough to determine if she is notable. Can you tell me what these English transliterations would be? I appreciate your help. SusunW (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Yugoslav's

Nada Brutchich/Нада БРУЧИЧ is it Nada Bručić? Olga Milochevitch/Ольга МИЛОШЕВИЧ is she Olga Milošević, Secretary General, Yugoslav Red Cross[1][2]? Complete blank on Vida Toruchitch can't even figure it out to search the Russian version. Toručić seems likely, but it gets no google hits. SusunW (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Kusma I know you don't speak/read Russian, but you do French and Slavic, right? Any help with these names? Do you speak/read Greek? See below. SusunW (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Milochevitch is French transliteration? Serbian Cyrillic should be Милошевић, but the ћ doesn't exist in modern Russian Cyrillic. My guesses for Vida Toruchitch would be Вида Торушич in Russian or Вида Торушић / Vida Torušić in Serbian. —Kusma (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Muchas gracias, mi amigo. Brutchich and Milochevitch are how the names are listed in the 1945 French report. Вида Торушич is how it is listed in the Russian version, which says she was the Slovenian Minister of Social Welfare. CIA documents call her Vida Torusic. SusunW (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Vera Nicolefska

"Ευδοκία "Βέρα" Νικολέφσκα-Φότεβα" of the "Πανελλήνια Ομοσπονδία Γυναικών" in many sources. No idea how to transliterate it. I find nada for Nicolefska or Nikolevska/Nikolevski. SusunW (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Eudokia "Vera" Nikolefska-Foteva of the Pan-Hellenic Federation of Women. Hmm, could be Vera Nikolovska? —Kusma (talk) 14:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Kusma You are brilliant! A Greek work, giving Nikolovska in English is here. SusunW (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

And then we have [3], [4], and [5] which all call her Evdokia. SusunW (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

efn snafu - help required

I've been trying & failing to add another note. If you have a look for efn|name="Nairobi-1985" in the article you'll see an efn tag in the body, and an efn reference in the notes section, both commented out. And there's a corresponding reference in the bibliography, UN|2023. I cannot get the efn in the body to hook up with the efn in the notes section, and I'm not exactly sure what sfnlink and its text= parameter is all about, so, help, mainly, please, Susun or @Mathglot:, who I think knows how these things work. thx. (I guess whilst I'm here, I should also say that I'm not sure what the best harv ref is for the UN web page I'm pointing to; UN|2023? UN|1985?) --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: Checking... Mathglot (talk) 06:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

t/y. Very confused. Seemed to me I was following the pattern for the other efns. But it's late and I have been stupid before so... ---Tagishsimon (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

That's an interesting one. I've fixed it so it renders properly, now, but there's some kind of problem with the embedded url, so I've commented that out, and left a hidden text note about it embedded in the note. Likewise late, and I may not get to fixing that last bit, but at least it wasn't really a problem with efn and sfnlink, but something to do with efn and embedded links; what exactly, I don't know yet, but we'll figure it out tomorrow!

Btw, you'll see some simplification of the sfnlinks coming soon; it turns out you can drop the "text" param, when the text value is just the preceding params; that is, if you have {{sfnlink|Jones|2015|text=Jones (2015)}} you can just write, {{sfnlink|Jones|2015}} and it figures out the text from the first two params. It's when they are different, that you need to use the |text= param. Also, there's a |p= param (or 'page', or 'pp', or 'pages') so there might be some of those, too. Mathglot (talk) 06:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I just had a brainstorm. In the past, when I have run into ornery problems with {{efn}}, many of them can be fixed by naming the unnamed text param as |1=. So, instead of coding {{efn|<All sorts of weird characters and sketchy stuff here...>}}, instead, you code: {{efn|1=<All sorts of weird characters and sketchy stuff here...>}} and that fixes it. I'm going to head over and try that, now, and see if that means we can have the url back. Mathglot (talk) 06:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mathglot: It's happy with a PDF URL, which takes us where we want to go. Thank you for curing it all. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, you fixed it already; cool. If you run into any problems with it next time, try the '|1=Tricky efn text here' trick next time, and see if that works before trying to figure out what's wrong. Get some sleep! Mathglot (talk) 06:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Noted & understood, t/y. I think we probably need to keep text= in the sfnlink b/c we seem to have adopted a format of the ref details within parentheses. (I suspect we could have used sfn instead of sfnlink within the efns to get [n] type refs, but that's a game for another day.) Too late for sleep, I fear. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Using {{sfn}} would've been first choice if it worked in this context, but it doesn't because of a bug. You can't use {{sfn}} inside a list-defined {{efn}} reference because of a long-standing bug in mediawiki software which generates a false "missing key" error and blocks the efn. See Template:Sfn#Sfn embedded in list-defined ref does not work for a description of the problem, and Phabricator bug T22707 for the gory details. Template:Sfnlink was created partly as a workaround for this bug, and that's why it is used here. The parens can go outside the sfnlink, so the text param isn't really needed. Mathglot (talk) 06:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Right, I see, on both counts. (As it is, there's one ref without parenthesis right now, so I'll add () rather than remove all text= ) --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I am cracking up. I read this about 4 times. No idea. Tagishsimon, you know me well because you didn't ping me, because I wouldn't have known the answer. (As a general rule, yes ping me, but on a technical thing, no point. I won't know. Technology is not my thing.) I only know how to do what I do. If I need to add another note, I'm asking Mathglot. SusunW (talk) 13:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

SusunW, lol, not to worry; here's a copy-paste model that should clarify things:

Copy-paste model for list-defined explanatory notes, with instructions:

In the running text of the article, add a link to the explanatory note at the bottom, like this: The meeting took place in 1945 and a good time was had by all.{{efn|name="Refname"}} In the "Notes" section in the appendixes at the bottom of the article, add this: {{efn|name="Refname"|1='''Keyword:''' Your explanatory footnote text goes here. {{sfnlink|Last1|Last2|YYYY|p=987)}} }} Explanation: Refname – the refname in the "Notes" section needs to be identical to the Refname in the article body. |1= – optional, but recommended. If there's nothing squirrely in the Explanatory text, you can drop the |1= at the beginning. If you get a broken efn of some sort, leave it in. It never hurts to keep the |1=, and may avoid problems like the one that started this section. Keyword – the bolded keyword is optional. I like to do this, because I'm someone who will actually sometimes browse a good "Notes" section (I'm the type who will read the dictionary sometimes, too), and the bold keyword is like a dictionary headword, and helps clue me in what I'm reading about. You can drop this if you don't find it helpful. Explanatory text – The running text of your note, however long you want, with optional embedded sfnlinks. Sfnlink – optional. if you want one (or more) of these, you can place them anywhere you would place an {{sfn}} template. Normally, you *would* just place an {{sfn}} here, but a mediawiki bug makes that impossible, so in this context, use {{sfnlink}} instead as a workaround for {{sfn}}. The parameters are designed to be (almost) the same, so just code your {{sfn}} template the way you normally would, and then change sfn to sfnlink and it should work. The |text= param isn't needed, unless you want to display link text that doesn't match the author/year info. A simple usage will generate parens around the year: {{sfnlink|Cotton|1946|pp=403–407}} → 'Cotton (1946) pp. 403–407'. If you want parens around the whole thing, just add them: ( {{sfnlink|...}} ). You might want to put a leading and trailing space around sfnlinks to keep them from bumping into running text, or each other, but that's up to you.

Does this help? Mathglot (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

P.S. The documentation of {{sfnlink}} could stand improvement. Feel free to make them yourself, at Template:Sfnlink/doc, or leave comments at Template talk:Sfnlink about pain points, or what needs improvement. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Mathglot it literally makes my head swim. I know nada about coding, only know how to do notes because someone told me years ago how they did them and I posted it on my user page. I literally just copy and past that exact thing every time I add a note. That said, I can "try", if I need to add another note. ((shivers)) SusunW (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

SusunW It's up to you, but WP:BE BOLD applies, so go ahead and try! The good news is, the worst thing that could possibly happen is that it wouldn't work; but you'd see that in Preview mode, and you could just try again, or back out and not Save it, if you can't work it out. Another possibility, is just go ahead and save the broken version anyway, and someone else will come around and fix it. It's a wiki, after all. Mathglot (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

LOL. I am not bold about coding, but I'll try. 100% sure someone will have to fix whatever I do. SusunW (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Mathglot, I tried but it isn't finding the ref, although the ref is there. Can you help? SusunW (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

SusunW good job, you almost had it, you were about 90% there. I fixed it for you in this edit. The problem was, there was punctuation inside the |ref= param in the citation, which looked like this: '|ref={{harvid|''As One!''|1953}}'. You matched that up perfectly in the sfnlink, using the identical value, which is exactly how you are supposed to do it. The problem was the italic markup (and I'm not too sure about the exclamation point, either). If you stick to A-Z, a-z, 0-9, hyphen, and underscore in the 'ref', it will work next time. Just do it exactly as you did, but with the restricted character set, and all will be well. (So give yourself a pat on the back!)

That said, I see why this happened, because the original source gave no author name, so you used |ref= and did the best you could. It's not wrong to use the title, or part of it, in the ref, but it is more usual to pick something that could stand in for the author, such as the organization name, or publisher. So, I changed the |ref= in the full citation to '|ref={{harvid|WIDF|1953}}', and the sfnlink to '{{sfnlink|WIDF|1953}}', which results in 'WIDF (1953)' and links to the citation in the Bibliography, as it should. Good job, next time you'll get it for sure! Mathglot (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Mathglot, you are more optimistic about my technical skills than I am, but I did promise to try, so I did. I greatly appreciate your assistance and skill. SusunW (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

SusunW I just noticed that quite a few of the other 'ref's use italic markup (which is pretty non-standard, and I would avoid it), so maybe it was the exclamation point after all. In any case, I'd stick to the more conservative, alphanumeric plus hyphen and underscore, to be safe. You never know what special character is going to screw things up. Mathglot (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Mathglot, I've written hundreds (maybe thousands) of articles and typically if for example a newspaper does not have a bylined author, the paper name is used. That is fairly standard in citations for multiple media. It has literally never been a problem, except here on wikipedia. Coders and writers apparently don't speak the same language. What is standard for a writer is not necessarily the same as for a coder. Imagine my surprise to discover "postscript" on here isn't actually for a postscript (a note that explains a citation) at all but instead for some coding something. I need people like you to help me understand how to write code, because coding is a language I do not speak (and mostly don't understand). I enjoy your sense of humor, by the way. SusunW (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

SusunW, no that's fine, you can totally use the name of the paper, no problem! Just leave out any punctuation, to be sure it will work. It looks like the italic markup works (i.e., two apostrophes together) but there are coding aspects that are confusing, for sure, so being conservative with what characters you place there reduces the risk of problems. Coding can be a fragile business, there's no question about it. (I'll be sure to keep up the humor, then; did you hear the one about...) Mathglot (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

SusunW (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Women United for United Nations (WUUN)

 Courtesy link: Women United for United Nations

Susun, the article says Thirty women's groups came together to form Women United for United Nations and prepared a report criticizing the WIDF report. in reaction to the WIDF's 1951 Korea report. Hardvard Uni says WUUN was formed in Jan 1947 - [6] & [7]. Perhaps needs to be changed to something like Women United for United Nations, a group of 30 women's organisations established in 1947 to disseminate information about the activities of the U.N., prepared a report criticizing the WIDF report. and citing one or both of the URLs? --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Good find, Tagishsimon. That wording works well. I think that group was kind of fascinating in a negative way, and we should probably have an article on it. Reminds me that politics is always a nasty business. The descriptions of their work/tactics in Laville make one realize that the situations we are in now politically are nothing new. SusunW (talk) 13:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

WUUN do sound like the antipattern of WIDF. I fear I may not have access what might be a key source - Among Women across Worlds: North Korea in the Global Cold War - although I've not tried very hard yet. Agreed an article is in order. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, I cannot access it from Mexico anywhere. The OUP-academic from WP library wants a personal sign-in. SusunW (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I've asked for help at the Resource Exchange, and put a start article together - Women United for United Nations. Also, there's a new Category:Women's International Democratic Federation affiliates, fyi. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Very cool. Both sorely were needed. Honestly when I started trying to clean this article up, I had no idea where it would go. Clearly as scholarship improves, records of the organization are studied, and articles appear on the redlinks, we'll learn a lot more. SusunW (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I have the eBook checked out (and you can, too). What do you need? Mathglot (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh. Can I? Tell me more. Oh, I see; via Hoopla. I shall look into that. Thank you. So what I said on resource request was I'm wanting to know what it has to say about Women United for United Nations, a 1947 onwards body which opposed a 1951 report by the Women's International Democratic Federation. Ideally I'm looking to properly reference WUUN in the WIDF article, and then create a self-standing WUUN article, so it would be ideal to see pertinent text with enough detail to form citations. I'm especially interested in the google quote "... the Women United for United Nations (WUUN) waged a “patriotic” defense of “collective security,” standing against pacifist and peace groups that..." Basic supposition is that WIDF is anti-UN and WUUN has been formed to be the pro-UN pro-West women's voice very much in opposition to and as a reaction to WIDF, and predating the 1951 Korea report. Anything you can throw my way much appreciated.

Right now I'm mining a Helen Laville thesis - SusunW, you have one cite to Helen, but there's https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/13010/1/243635.pdf page 409 onwards which has WIDF stuff allied to the Committee of Correspondence, and to WUUN - with a view to improving the WUUN article tonight. The thesis gives a few pages on WUUC. So Mathglot, please feel free to add to the WUUC article, or put stuff here, or email screengrabs to me - tagishsimon@gmail.com ... t/y. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah. Hoopla does not seem to do the UK. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

So, get a VPN in the US? Here's an extract from Part 1 War and Peace, [chap.] 1 Women Against the Korean War:

Snippet from the book

Part 1 War and Peace 1 Women Against the Korean War Excerpt from pages 78-79; copy-paste disabled; this is the result of voice-to-text dictation into my phone, so there may be errors of transcription. There's about one footnote per sentence, not included below, but let me know if you need particular ones. The background is that they are talking about a report prepared by WIDF on atrocities in North Korea based on their investigation there, which had international political consequences. For the commissioners, whose investigation was limited to the north, it was clear who was most responsible for the atrocities. ... While the commission's diverse composition led at times to heated debate, the Cold War divide was already inscribed into the scope of its investigations limited to the north, thus affecting the reception of its work. Some members of the delegation, such as Monica Felton and Kate Fleron, proposed to visit the south, without success. ... Consequently the report makes no mention of possible crimes committed in the South, and was susceptible to charges that it was a one-sided propaganda ploy. As Felton argued however, "the fact that we still have to learn more about what has happened in the south does not – and cannot – invalidate the truth as we established it for ourselves in the North." She further noted that racism against "Asiatic peoples" by the west not only resulted in the use of the atom bomb against Japan but also lead to violations of the Geneva conventions, withholding the right of China and North Korea to claim their own prisoners of war. As armistice negotiations dragged on for two years over US demands for "voluntary repatriation" Felton pointed to the hypocrisy of holding their own soldiers hostage for political ends. Fearful of public opinion being swayed by such accusations, the US government tried to discredit the report by red-baiting its authors as communist agents in order to deflect charges of war crimes. The State Department and Women’s Bureau of the US Labor Department were particularly concerned about accusations of germ warfare. Concerns raised by the women's commission ---page 79--- had led to further investigation in March 1952 by the International Association of Democratic Lawyers regarding allegations of bacteriological and chemical warfare categorically denied by the west. In this Cold War information war, the CIA covertly funded US women's groups such as the Committee of Correspondence, which was "established as a direct response to the Soviet peace campaign and the activities of the WIDF". Moreover a coalition of over 30 US women's groups that formed the Women United for United Nations (WUUN) waged a "patriotic" defense of "collective security", standing against pacifist and peace groups that campaigned against war and armament.[88] References 88 ^ De Forest, Jennifer (2005). "Women United for the United Nations: US women advocating for collective security in the cold war". Women's History Review. 14 (1). Routledge: 61–74. doi:10.1080/09612020500200420. ISSN 0961-2025. OCLC 4901613407.

HTH, Mathglot (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

That's excellent, thank you, Mathglot, really first-class support. I'm very grateful b/c it bottoms out that publication so far as WUUN is concerned, and gives me a small handful of reference which speak to WUUC's notability. I've squeezed the juice of that into this edit, and note in passing that Kim is quoting from the Helen Laville thesis I have open before me (in "established as a direct response to the Soviet peace campaign and the activities of the WIDF"). I presume that quotes around "patriotic" and "collective security" also point to Laville, but I've not had time to track them down yet. (I'm also now on the trail of Rose Parsons, who set up WUUN and the Committee of Correspondence, and who was very well connected, her father, Endicott Peabody (educator) having taught Franklin D. Roosevelt when he was a child, and the Peabodys and Roosevelts having familial connections. Obvs, I'm clearly at the Pepe Silvia stage of my research: https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/022/524/pepe_silvia_meme_banner.jpg ) --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I went back and dug out footnote 88 just after the quotes you quoted, and merged it in above, with the citation converted to {{cite journal}} format. Lmk if you need anything else. Mathglot (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

That was very well worth your time; thank you. f.88 is a whole paper entirely on the subejct of WUUN, which I absolutely cannot face reading just now b/c zzzzz, but which should improve the WUUN and possibly the WIDF articles. But we also now have a bland Rose Parsons starter page, so, will it ever end? Probably not. I do hope your new paper outs the WUUN as a CIA front organization. That would be a treat. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

It's like following the breadcrumbs in a mystery; each new breadcrumb answers one old question, then raises two more... Mathglot (talk) 06:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Found one you can access via JStor; it's (Donert 2016). It's only a passing mention; so not WP:SIGCOV and nothing we haven't seen elsewhere, but at least it's WP:SECONDARY and it's WP:INDEPENDENT, so that counts a little bit towards WP:N on your new article. Mathglot (talk) 08:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I need to get untired enough to be able to write straight. A month or two ago, playing on OpenStreetMap, I came across a remarkable-looking structure in North Korea which I mapped & which turns out to be the Cemetery for Martyrs of the Chinese People's Volunteers; and which with little scratching about took me to the Bombing of North Korea#American assessments, that 100% of the nearest town, Sinanju, was destroyed in c.1951. The concerns of the women of WIDF had a very real basis, even if we can understand the Stalinisation concerns & the concerted demonisation of WIDF. And yes, papers such as Donert help very much. I'll make sure it & De Forest are used in the WUUN and WIDF articles, and anywhere else they might fit. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

This is excellent y'all! I note this "whose investigation was limited to the north" which we should probably say somewhere. What pray tell is hoopla? I am always looking for ways to access resources as there aren't public, only private libraries here. Makes it tough. Yes, "following the breadcrumbs in a mystery" ... I've always described research like that, it's as if you are completing a puzzle and some pieces are under others or have fallen on the floor. You cannot get it completed without finding the others, because there will be holes in the picture. SusunW (talk) 13:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Added the bit about in the North. The thesis is fascinating so far, Tagishsimon. On p 310 The "National Council of Negro Women affiliate[d] with the WIDF for the promotion of peace and freedom". SusunW (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Turns out my "finding" Donert-2016 was just reinventing the wheel; if I'd looked more closely, I would've noticed that SusunW already found it on Nov. 1. Mathglot (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Well yes & no. Susun used it extensively in the WIDF article, but it needed surfacing for WUUN & would not now be there but for your intervention. You cannot evade credit in this deplorable fashion ;) --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. Don't discount your help Mathglot, it is very much appreciated. SusunW (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Mathglot (talk) 06:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Refs (WUUN)

Show references

United Nations Messenger of Peace

Another rabbit hole. I found a photo of Peña and was looking for one of Campos. Apparently she was a senator, so I thought it might be easy. (What was I thinking?) At any rate, I ran across this article which contains this gem... "Por sua inestimável contribuição na luta pela paz e pelo desarmamento, Perez de Cuellar, secretario geral da ONU, atribui-lhe a insígnia de «Mensageira da Paz», no Congresso do Ano Internacional da Paz, que ocorreu em Copenhaga, em 1986". Cuellar was indeed secretary general of the UN in 1986 and they do give a United Nations Messenger of Peace award, but I cannot find a corroborating source. Anyone? SusunW (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be adequate confirmation here.--Ipigott (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

That story seems to be about an award to the International Association of Educators for World Peace? --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I am trying to see if there are any links between the two organizations. So far nada. SusunW (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there's no association. As the IAEWP is closely related to the UN, it's not surprising they were honoured with the Messenger of Peace.--Ipigott (talk) 08:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I've literally spent a day working on this. I think I shall take it out until we can confirm the designation. I don't know if like other honors that the award happened in one year for service in another, i.e. they got it in 1987 for 1986 work. I have searched google, newspapers.com (absolutely paltry coverage of WIDF after 1951), ASP Women in Social Movements. What I know is that the UN declared 1986 as the International Year of Peace, perhaps it was in regard to that? The Marques article is spot on for all the other dates, so I'm in a quandary. The UN site itself is pretty worthless as an archive. SusunW (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

We could leave it in as xxx asserts that WIDF was awarded... and then we could have another note explaining our doubts. Can't have enough notes on an article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Tagishsimon Sounds like a good solution. I'll put it back. I am with you on the notes thing. Lots of people hate them, but I think they give context. So, how do we feel about where we are with it overall? Ready for GA or not. Still conflicted about the lede image and I do wish we had an image of the other 3 presidents, but given the time frame they lived, it's likely any images would be "in copyright". 16:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC) SusunW (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure it meets the GA criteria b/c it's a very high quality, stable, neutral article; could be nominated any time you fancy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I think we've definitely improved it from where it started when I found it. Would love to be able to access that 2022 book by Gradskova, but I can't find a copy I can peruse. I think think overall, we've covered the highlights. I hope scholarship continues to improve on WDIF, and know that we'll learn more about it writing about the women involved in it. I see Tagishsimon that you wrote Acland Allen . I'm going to lose my computer today, it needs to go to the hospital, so I'll wait until it's back. Hopefully that will only be a day or so, but it will give us time to do final proof readings, etc. I have a couple of hours until then and I'm going to try to work on my Indonesian lady that sent me into this rabbit hole. SusunW (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I hope your computer makes quick full recovery. The article is immeasurably improved from its state prior to your intervention. Absolutely GA. I'm sure there is more to say on many aspects, and more nuance, before it gets to FA. Not having access to major sources is problematic, though. I'll try to keep plugging away, slowly. Lilly Wächter also got a brief article and I see Ian added a stub/start for the Luxembourg women's group, so your WIDF work has precipitated all manner of related improvements. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Me too. And yes, Ian's been working on several, Piotrus helped me with Polish names and then wrote one of the Polish affiliates, and others on the WiR page have turned some of the red links blue, so we are definitely seeing lots of positive results from the work on this. I am kind of panicked about losing my computer, but if he doesn't work on it, it may die altogether, so I am relenting to have it serviced. SusunW (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Bibliography order

We need to decide what the bibliography order is: author-name then title, or author-name then date. I favour the latter, since our citations are author-name, date. Susun, you've just made a change which seems to be author-name then title. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Tagishsimon I usually do alpha order, i.e. alpha by author then alpha by title. Makes no difference to me, but yes must be uniform. Also noted we'll get dinged for not having consistency on isbn's being segmented and publishing locations not being given. I always include locations as it is helpful for me since I cannot access things published in some places (like the UK is particularly bad about blocking Mexico from access, why is that?) 40 minutes until the computer guy arrives. SusunW (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

So I'll make the case for author-name then date again, because I've used this in practice a nuber of times in the last coupleof day: I want to steal a cite to put in another article, because haing read this article, I know it information Allen or WUUN or whatever. I know th cite is Bloggs 2020 because the body of the article tells me. There are 20 Bloggs papers. If they are in name then date order I can find Bloggs 2020 easily by scanning down through the list. If they are in name, title order, I need to look through each one in turn to find one which has a 2020 date. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Tagishsimon I'm back (verdict was I need a new computer, which is problematic because the adjustment to a new system is ugh.) That's a reasonable argument for name, date. Honestly, it makes no difference to me, as long as they are consistently cited. SusunW (talk) 13:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I was concerned that your computer might be terminal :(. But, maybe, after the adjusment, it'll all be faster & generally better? I hope so.

I will take responsibility for the ordering of the bibliography, and the affiliates; I'll specify in a comment in the source code what the basis of the ordering is, to satisfy enquiring GARs. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Tagishsimon Thanks! (I am a creature of habit. The entire right side of the keyboard hasn't functioned for years. No problem, I just use an external keyboard. 2 of the 4 USB outlets don't work. No problem, I just plug things in to the ones that work. The battery is dead. No problem, I just always have to have it plugged in to an outlet. But the issue it is having now, has to do with the operating system. I am positive having the technician look at it was my husband's gentle way of confirming that it is time to replace it. *sigh* I agreed to let them do it, reluctantly.) I'm going to try to finish my Indonesian woman today and finalize the final tweaks to this one. SusunW (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I added a hidden sort-prefix to items in the Bibliography. Assuming my two regexes didn't miss any of them or screw something up, you should be able to sort the bibliography now using an offline editor. This should also make it easier to add new citations more quickly and find the right spot for insertion.
For the record, in case I or someone needs to redo this, the regexes are:

• s!^\*\s*(.*?)\|\s*(last\d?)\s*=\s*([^|]+)(.*?)$!* <!--\3--> \1 |\2=\3\4!g
• s!^\*\s*(.*?)\|\s*ref\s*=\s*{{harvid\s*\|\s*('')?([^'|]+)(.*?)$!* <!--\3--> \1|ref={{harvid|\2\3\4!g

I had a quick look after and didn't see any citation problems, but if you see anything, feel free to revert. Nothing is sorted yet, everything is still in the same order it was before, but the hidden tokens allow you to sort in with one click; I wanted to give everyone a chance to look it over first before sorting, to see if you like it or not. If so, feel free to sort it, or if you don't have an off-line text editor, let me know and I'll do it, it's literally one click. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Note: I used 'ref' name for the sort token when there was no author, but I'm just noticing that the current sort seems to use report title when there is no author. To keep that order, I'd have to revert and redo one of the regexes; let me know. Mathglot (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)