Archive 135 ← Archive 140 Archive 141 Archive 142

Draft: Michèle Hayeur Smith

I'm not sure I'm in the right place so kindly re-direct me if necessary.

I have been trying to submit an article (my very first from scratch!) about Michèle Hayeur Smith, a Canadian archeologist. I submitted a draft last September & it was immediately declined for 'lack of notability'. I have since tried to add more references etc. but I am nervous about submitting it again. Would one of you more seasoned editors be willing to look it over & suggest improvements?

I was a bit surprised that this researcher was considered 'not notable enough'. When I compare the work of M. Hayeur Smith to that of another archeologist (e.g. Kirsten Bos) or of a male athlete (e.g. Ivan Belfiore), Hayeur Smith seems at least as worthy of a WP article.

Thanks for any help or advice you can provide. Redwidgeon (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Her status as an independent scholar should not be problematic: notability comes from recognition of accomplishments, not so much from job titles. I wasn't able to find enough citations to her work (for instance by searching for her name as an author on Google Scholar and looking at the citation counts in the search results) to pass WP:PROF#C1, and the other WP:PROF criteria look out of reach. For WP:GNG notability, you would need multiple in-depth published works by other people about Smith herself, published by other organizations than her employers, and I didn't see anything like that in the references of the draft. Grants are not prizes that can generate notability. So the likeliest option for notability seems to me to be WP:AUTHOR, and multiple published reviews each of multiple books. I did find two books by her, but only with reviews of one of them:
  • Draupnir's Sweat and Mardöll's Tears: An Archaeology of Jewellery, Gender and Identity in Viking Age Iceland (BAR International, 2004): No reviews found.
  • The Valkyries’ Loom: The Archaeology of Cloth Production and Female Power in the North Atlantic (University Press of Florida, 2020). Reviews: Douglas J. Bolender, American Antiquity, doi:10.1017/aaq.2021.75; Shannon Lewis-Simpson, Antiquity, doi:10.15184/aqy.2021.139
So if there is a third book I am missing, with multiple reviews, or if you can find multiple reliably published reviews of Draupnir's Sweat and Mardöll's Tears where I failed to do so, then I think there might be a good case for notability that way.
When comparing to others, it might not be obvious to you why those others are considered notable, but in the case of Kirsten Bos, her Google Scholar profile shows heavy citations to her work [1], a couple dozen publications with triple-digit citation counts and an h-index of 40. Smith doesn't have that, and should not be expected to have that, because she works in a field where book publication is more important than journal publications and citations. So comparing one to the other is like apples and oranges. For sportspeople the comparison is even more strained. The people you should be comparing to are book-publishing archaeologists. Usually the notable ones have multiple books with multiple reviews of each book, and their notability is supported by WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Many thanks, David Eppstein; this is very helpful & informative. Redwidgeon (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Here's what I was able to dig up, Redwidgeon, David Eppstein. For her first book, I agree that there seems to be no reviews to find, but I did find some coverage and usage of the book.
As for the second book, in addition to the two reviews you found, I found these.
And finally there's just coverage of Smith herself and her work.
No idea on if any of this is enough to pass notability requirements, since it still seems on the line. But you can at least buff up the draft with these sources. SilverserenC 01:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks so much, Silverseren, this information definitely gives me more to work with. Maybe the article still won't get published but no doubt I will learn a lot along the way. Redwidgeon (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
I do think, Redwidgeon, that if you add the sources I and David Eppstein found to the article and re-submit to AfC, there's a much better likelihood of it being accepted. SilverserenC 23:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Dodi Leal - page for Gender Studies

Hello! I tidied this draft up, which had been started and then deleted. Would someone mind accepting it through? Lajmmoore (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

There is a longer Portuguese article at pt:Dodi Leal, written by the same editor who started the en draft. TSventon (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Lajmmoore: Thanks for bringing this up to standard. Now in mainspace, added to #303 and to List of women's and gender studies academics. As already noted, it could be significantly expanded from the Portuguese biography.--Ipigott (talk) 11:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks both - I agree, but I didn't have the energy! Lajmmoore (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Shakers in America: Wikipedia Edit-a-thon

Something a little bit different, but I'd like to mention it now so that people who are interested can have a little time to prepare.

My choir, the Capitol Hill Chorale, has a particular interest in various strands of American folk music; to that end, our last concert of this season will be featuring works by, and inspired by, the Shakers, especially Shaker women. 2024 marks the 250th anniversary of the arrival of Shakers to the United States, and our concert will be dedicated especially to the memory of Mother Ann Lee, their founder.

We'll be hosting an edit-a-thon on the subject of Shaker women on Saturday, May 11. It's just gone live today, and I don't yet have a link to anything other than the Eventbrite registration, which is here. I have a list of thirty or forty notable Shaker women that I've developed over the years, and we'll be looking to create articles on a number of them, plus updating a number of other articles.

I will be crossposting this with Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Religion; it would be nice if some folks would be able to join virtually. Or live, even, if you're in the DC area.--Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this, Ser Amantio di Nicolao. Marvelous to hear what your choir will be doing! I registered for the event, but there wasn't a way to indicate that I would be a virtual attendee (and no Zoom link was provided). If the registration is supposed to be only for people who will be attending in person, would you please cancel my registration as I don't want to reserve a seat and be a no-show. That said, I'm looking forward to participating remotely! --Rosiestep (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: Thanks for letting me know about that. We do want to make virtual attendance possible, so I'm glad to know that there wasn't a way to indicate. I'll raise it with Wikimedia DC and make sure it's rectified if need be. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
@Ser Amantio di Nicolao yes, thanks for the cross post at WiR. I'll get the word out, too, during our monthly planning zoom session next Thursday. If I'm available, I'd like to jump in virtually, too. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
@Figureskatingfan: Excellent - the more the merrier, as far as I'm concerned. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Dr. Catherine Emihovich

Hello everyone! I recently have been slowly editing the page Catherine Emihovich by myself. I have a conflict of interest however so if someone could help by suggesting or making changes it would be greatly appreciated. I also am fairly new to editing as well. Thank you for any help you could do! Shane emihovich (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Shane emihovich I've replied on your talk page and done quite a bit of work on the article. PamD 15:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Note to other editors: the article concerned was created in 2008, so although the current editor has a COI, as declared, the article has established notability - Dean of a college. PamD 15:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Dean of a college is not a notability criterion. Looking at it more, only ne source is independent and secondary, so the article currently violates WP:PRIMARY and fails WP:N. She could potentially meet NAUTHOR if multiple of her books have had multiple academic reviews, or GNG if there are more SIGCOV profiles of her in different, non-local newspapers from different times. But she does not appear to meet NPROF unless she's been cited enough for C1. JoelleJay (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The position of dean should meet the requirements of WP:NACADEMIC#6 ("highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution"). —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
No it would not. That criterion refers to the position of president of the university, not dean of a particular school in the university. JoelleJay (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Feminism page deleted

I notice that somebody has wiped out the entire Feminism page. Could somebody with the right skills deal with that? Thanks if you can! Balance person (talk) 07:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

It's been done - surprisingly it took 22 minutes for someone to notice and revert the edit (changed at 8:51, reverted at 09:13)
@Balance person Another time you see vandalism like this, you can revert the edit yourself if you look at the "diff" or open the "page history" and click "Undo". PamD 08:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Ah! Okay. Thanks! Will do. Balance person (talk) 08:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

WiR template

Despite many requests for restoring the template we have used over the years for navigating past meetups, etc., nothing has been done. I have therefore restored an earlier version myself. It looks OK to me but might need to be updated for anything included over the past few weeks. You can view the template at the foot of our main WiR page. (Or go to Template:Women in Red navigation and click on Show.) I for one make frequent use of the template but was unable to find anything in the version recently reworked by MSGJ in good faith but without prior consultation. In connection with the preparation of events for April and beyond, we need to be able to review past events which are similar or relevant.--Ipigott (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can see, this module is behind the various new presentations of our events. By returning to our traditional navigation template, I appear to have caused our two new events for March to disappear from our Events page. I have now added them "manually" but the heading "Ongoing initiatives" now appears twice. We have called on the assistance of MSGJ to help with these problems but as yet there has been no response. I'm not sure how we should proceed at this stage. It seems to me we are increasingly near to re-adopting the approach we have used for years without major problems. Perhaps WomenArtistUpdates who has given support to some of the new features would like to respond.--Ipigott (talk) 08:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Ipigott, I think you should rollback your changes and give MSGJ time to fix the problem. Also remember to Help:Purge the pages to check on updates to cascading templates. I wish we could all work together to make WiR the best it can be rather than fighting. That means both sides. WiRers couldn't code their way out of a paper bag, and the coders really need to get a consensus before making changes. MSGJ is really good at documenting the changes and assisting with directions and fixes. Can't we all just get along? Meanwhile, can someone please respond to the request for an update on the "One biography a week articles" on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/293. Who's doing the tallying? Also, anyone want to work on proofing the pages for April? Best, --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
WomenArtistUpdates: Thank you for responding so quickly. I'm really surprised you believe I have been involved in some kind of fighting. Quite the opposite: I've been looking for solutions. I've followed your advice and restored MSGJ's navigation template. I see he's already resolved the Events page. As for the "One biography a week" issue, I had not seen the query you refer to but I was prepared to handle this myself unless you would like to handle it in your usual expert way.--Ipigott (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Ipigott, I am referring to the discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas#Firming_up_for_April. I can't remember who started the "One biography a week articles" challenge back in January. Could they take ownership? Do they want an announcement in the invite. etc... --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
  • WomenArtistsUpdate: Thanks for alerting me on this. I've responded on the Ideas page and edited #293. As for recognition, I had simply intended to send out suitable barnstars but you might be able to come up with a more suitable one, for example combining a WiR barnstar with #1women1week or something similar. Are you interested or should I take care of everything myself?--Ipigott (talk) 08:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
How do I edit the Events page? Why has this been hidden from me? I have edited that page for a number of years and am deeply unhappy with recent changes. For example, a number of Events occur over several months and would appear in the old template correctly. Now, the new-look template and changes to the Events page no longer reflect what we have done accurately. For example, Women who died in 2023 is not shown as a January Event. There is also the issue that past event pages no longer show the events happening at that time, just the future, current and most recent ones. This was pointed out by @Rosiestep in an earlier post. Why are we allowing one editor to change the way we work? Oronsay (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Oronsay, The page Events is generated automatically from the main events template, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/events. Instructions for updating that are at Template:WikiProject Women in Red/doc. I believe "Women who died in 2023" is not showing up in January because it spanned 2 months beginning in December 2023, which is where the event shows up in the archive. Hope that helps. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Why only one month when it's a two-month event? It didn't used to be like that in the old template, so why the change? Oronsay (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I think the code can only grab one month. When we hand-coded everything we could list things once, twice, or three times. That said, we chose to only list #1day1woman only once, the same with the year-long initiative. When content for the pages is "managed" centrally it saves time creating new pages and updating existing pages. If an error occurs it only need be corrected once and it is correct on all the WiR pages. Taking the really long view, after you and I are gone, the next editors should be able to pick up where we left off. Also taking the long view, if the English Wikipedia continues to grow, the server space required to house it all will just keep warming up the planet, so I think the idea is to find space saving for the good of the encyclopedia. And, as I understand it the server fees are in the multi-mullions annually. Money and resources. That's my understanding anyway. Best, --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
@Oronsay, many events are identified as spanning multiple months, so it can be done. I didn't realise we had any that spanned more than 1 year, so I will need to do some further work to support this. I agree it is really important that these are represented accurately. Are there any other events that span more than one year, do you know? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
In December each year, WIR starts a two-month event for women who have died that year. The most recent event was named "Women who died in 2023" and should appear under December 2023 and January 2024. However, I notice that the event pages have been re-named to "Women who died", which implies that articles about any woman who has died should be added to that event. The invitation for December and January show the event correctly. So the event pages for "Women who died" need to be correctly titled with the year added AND the template should reflect the two-month duration in each case. I know that @Rosiestep is keen to retain the history of the WIR project via the template. Oronsay (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Oronsay, indeed, that's a type of event we repeat every December/January. Don't know how the name got altered, but would someone please correct it? Thanks --Rosiestep (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/291. I have rewritten the code so it can now display dates which span more than one year. I will do likewise for the other "Women that died" events. In terms of including the event in lists, I need further guidance. I don't think you want to list it in each month that it spans, because then the same event will be listed multiple times. A 3-month event would appear three different times, etc. and this could be impractical for long events (such as the annual initiatives). So instead should they be listed according to the start of the event, or perhaps they can be listed separately to the monthly events. What do you think? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
That's better. But rather than "Women who died: in 2023" I think it would be better "Women who died: 2023". The year-long events are listed separately as such and don't need to be repeated. Oronsay (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
@Oronsay I think I have finished all the code changes to fully support flexible start and end dates. Can you please check that everything looks correct and let me know if any other changes are required? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your work. I regret I am not able to do the checking that you request. In any case, it is not a one-person job. I hope that @Rosiestep, @Chocmilk03, @Lajmmoore, @WomenArtistUpdates, @Ipigott and other WIR editors will help with this. Oronsay (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Oronsay, I don't feel comfortable in checking code changes at this point. What I suggested several days ago was that a process be instituted describing tech changes that affect WiR pages/subpages, and that discussion ensues, and that consensus occurs within WiR membership before changes are implemented. I don't know who wants to draft that process, but as MSGJ want to make changes, maybe they're working on it. If not, my preference is to leave things the way they were as they worked well for us. Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for pinging me, Oronsay, but I don't feel comfortable about commenting further on this and don't want to upset WomenArtistUpdates who still seems to be a strong supporter of the new approach. What I do regret though is that we used to be able to make changes to the template ourselves. I also admire the skill with which Rosiestep was able to maintain the template over the years and ensure that it provided an effective record of progress on the project. It seems to me that this will no longer be possible and that we are now fully in the hands of MSGJ (unless other participants feel they are ale to deal with this level of coding). The only consolation is that if things prove difficult to manage as they so often did with Project X, we can always revert to our old approach which most of us seem to prefer. I support Rosie's idea of initiating a more formal decision-making process but am not happy about taking it on myself. We really need someone with more experience of such things.--Ipigott (talk) 06:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
I have moved this request for feedback to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas#Technical --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Circling back to comments addressed by @Oronsay and WomenArtistUpdates regarding server space, event duration, etc. I want to address the factual depiction of the duration of a WiR event as it is an important element of our work. It is something that researchers are and/or will study in years to come because what we do and how we do it is unique. MSGJ, WiR members have been meticulous in documenting event duration (1 month, 2 months, 1 quarter, half a year, 1 year) in the "green template". If you have an automated method to factually document WiR event duration (green template, event pages, and/or elsewhere) please explain on this page what you think is a good way forward. The level of frustration by some contributing editors, evidenced on this page and mentioned elsewhere, is high because there's a feeling that you don't adhere to a basic principal of Women in Red: we do things by consensus. This takes time. WiR has never curbed enthusiasm or de-valued automation. For example, and you may not be aware of this, WiR was an early adopter of WP:WikiProject X, and used it as our starting page management system in July 2015. When it no longer worked for us, it took us months of discussions and hours of work to change to a different style. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I think what is in order is to develop some simple guidelines/processes for addressing potential changes to WiR templates and/or other structural changes. This idea is influenced by Ipigott's comment in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Archive it! section regarding a recommendation for simple guidelines in other areas where we work. Curious to know: how do people suggest changes in technical spaces? Hoping our tech-inclined editors can get some guidelines started. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
We have a section on the Ideas page Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas#General ideas for improving Women in Red. Ideas for changes can be presented there. If they are for a beta version of a template the creator can point to that and users can respond. That way the conversations wont be sprinkled throughout the main talk pages
I used up a lot of time arguing (persuading?) to get the data preserved (itemized tags on talk pages ). I am not so concerned as to how that data is presented in templates as long as the underlying data is preserved.
Thanks for the background on project X! --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Preservation is of course extremely important. I spent the last 12 years of my career with the European Commission working with libraries and museums across Europe in projects designed to help them preserve cultural heritage by means of digital collaboration. Librarians in particular are expert at devising methods for ensuring a systematic approach to cataloguing and exchange of digital data. But at the same time, they recognize the importance of facilitating the practical requirements of users. In our case, we need an easy means of reviewing past events, especially when dealing with similar but not identical proposals for the future. You may be right, WomenArtistUpdates, that this entire discussion should have been handled on our Ideas page but as it has been such an important item here, it seems logical to continue discussion. I would therefore simply like to suggest that we support two "navigation templates", one in the interests of preservation and saving computer resources, the other to give an accessible and uncomplicated overview of everything we have accomplished over the years. As Rosiestep mentioned Project X earlier, I must say when I saw MSGJ¨s Module:Women in Red event/sandbox it reminded me of the problems we had with Project X when those involved moved on and no one was able to correct things when they went wrong. One of the major advantages of the old template is that we can all edit it without any special technical experience. If there are problems with the new one - or even the event pages displays - there's only one person able to put things right. This does not appear to me to be a sound basis for further development. I really appreciate MSGJ's enthusiasm for trying to resolve WIR problems triggered by the introduction of the banner shell environment - and some of these now seem to be working well. But I really think we should be wary of introducing changes which could lead to future difficulties. Finally, I agree with Rosie that before any major developments are undertaken, they should be discussed here, based on a definition of the problem, explaining why the current approach is causing difficulties and needs to be changed, assessing the amount of development work required, and explaining the expected advantages/improvements when work is completed. As far as I can recall, no one was experiencing problems with the navigation template and it was therefore quite a surprise for most of us that it was suddenly replaced with what we might call a technology-driven approach. Sorry to have given such a lengthy reply on this but I can assure you all that I am not trying to fight anyone but am sincerely trying to ensure our project can proceed on the best available basis. That surely must be in everyone's interest.--Ipigott (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Earlier this week, I noticed for the first time that there's a section on the WiR "Ideas" page that includes Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas#General ideas for improving Women in Red (mentioned above by WomenArtistUpdates). I only came upon it by chance. Mostly, I only go to the "Ideas" page to participate in conversations regarding next month's events; I imagine this is common with other WiR editors. Conversely, this talkpage gets thousands of monthly pageviews -- from WiR members and from civil society. I suppose that our talkpage archive gets its share of searching, too. So if we want to socialize a "request for comment" regarding coordinating our work (tech, templates, etc.), there's a benefit to keeping the conversation here, vs. splintering onto a WiR subpage, or a user talkpage, etc.
What's been missing, though, is a defined "process". Things have worked okay till now without it. But now it's time to develop it. There are on-wiki talkpage models for these sorts of discussions (Request for Comment pages, Articles for Deletion, Administrators Noticeboard, etc.). What can we take from them and apply to us? I agree with Ipigott regarding a "request for comment" for coordination-related work should incorporate several project-management-style elements, e.g., "... definition of the problem ... ". Maybe a KEYWORD in the header? Maybe an icon at the top-right, as a visual? Let's open a discussion and develop a process in a new section. Ipigott, as you have professional experience in this area (broadly-construed), would you be comfortable in getting this started? Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, Rosie, for your confidence in my abilities and for agreeing with the approach I suggested. While I would be happy to contribute to any discussions, I would feel happier if the initiative could be launched by an administrator.--Ipigott (talk) 05:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Potential subject to write about

Came across an interesting subject that may or may not warrant an article: Cissie Watson (sometimes spelled Cassie Watson). She was apparently the first female boxing referee ever -- in 1934. A woman officiating important sporting events that far back seems like something significant - although surprisingly I only find coverage exclusively from a span of a few months in 1934 and 1935 (making me hesitant on whether she is notable considering WP:1E). Here's some sources I located: Green Bay Press-Gazette, Western Daily Press, The Daily Telegraph, Liverpool Echo, Daily Mirror, The Expositor, Edmonton Journal. Wondering what the folks here thought about this, and whether I should start an article on her? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can see, BeanieFan11, no one has yet attempted to create an article on Cissie Watson. I suggest you go ahead and let us know if you run into any difficulties. Thanks for your continuing work on covering women in sport. It's really impressive.--Ipigott (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
@Ipigott: I'm aware no one has tried to start Watson an article. I certainly can start it, but I guess I'm just a bit concerned about whether it will stand if, e.g., brought to AFD. There does seem to be a fair argument that this could potentially fail WP:SUSTAINED, considering that the only coverage is from August 1934 to February 1935 (even if international). As such, I brought it here as I'd like a few opinions on whether she's notable or not. Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
This question sent me down a rabbit hole. I found a few more clippings on Watson that I am happy to share. I also found Belle Martell who was a referee in California in 1940.[2],[3],[4],[5]. I think both of them are interesting candidates for articles, and I would be happy to add to articles on them. DaffodilOcean (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think WP:SUSTAINED is a problem for Watson based on the attached clippings. They all seem to be about her first day of refereeing in August 1934, five published in the UK in the next couple of days, then two reports published months later in Canada, which don't mention when she refereed. That possibly says more about how Canadian newspapers filled space in 1934 than about the importance of the event. The British Boxing Board of Control said she was not licensed. TSventon (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
This got me thinking: could I find any other women referees in sports that early? I was actually able to locate a good number of them. Here's ones I've found (not sure if any are notable, just listing if anyone wants to research further): Barbara Scott (boxing, 1931, [6]); Norah Lattey (tennis, 1909, [7]); Mrs. Butler (association football, 1919, [8]); Helen Clark (association football, 1920, also coach, [9] [10]); Ruth Harrison (billiards, 1932, [11] - this Ruth Harrison?); Lillian Merrell (gridiron football / basketball, 1908, [12]); Sophie Henry (gridiron football, 1908, [13]); Betty Bushey (wrestling, 1931, also "world's champion woman wrestler", [14]); Mademoiselle Curabet (rugby, 1926, [15]). BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
More