Talk:Women's Institute

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2004 comment[edit]

Should this article be moved to National Federation of Women's Institutes? Or even just Women's Institute? Tom- 13:10, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes! Working on it. PamD 11:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Missing part of a sentence, and much of sense[edit]

From the History section:

In the circumstances of the First World War the Government of the United Kingdom's Board of Agriculture, with the belief that the WI could play an important role in the countryside, particularly in domestic science and the production and preserving of food.

There's a subject, a long secondary clause, then another, and then a full stop. I assume the missing predicate says something about the Board sponsoring the WI--but then the next paragraph has the Board of Trade (rather than Agriculture) withdrawing sponsorship, so maybe not.

Actually, I found most of this section (which makes up the bulk of the article) rather confusing. For example, after reading the extreme runon sentence at the end of the second paragraph a few times, I still have no clue what "their misleading stereotype" refers to. Then, after discussing the period from WWI to WWII, suddenly we jump back to 1919 to talk about WI Markets

The whole thing probably needs to be rewritten. However, I can't help much, as I can't make enough sense of the article to put something together, and about all I know about the WI beyond Mrs Alfred Watt is that all the stock footage of applauding women from Monty Python were them. -- 10:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Much of this article seems to be a copy-paste from the WI web site. I note that a Wikipedia editor named User:Anne stamper has edited this article. I also note that Anne Stamper is named on the WI web site as the WI Honorary Archivist. It could be that the content of this article has been copyright released by the WI. In any case, one such copy example ...

"The WI movement began at Stoney Creek in Canada in 1897 ..."

which is a copy-paste from the WI web site

"The WI movement began at Stoney Creek in Canada in 1897 ..."

If this article is an unauthorised copy, it needs a re-write and unfortuantely I am unable to provide the time to do it --Senra (Talk) 00:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I am the National Federation of Women's Institutes website administrator. I can confirm that the text that allegedly infringes copyright, which appears on the website and the wikipedia entry for the Women's Institute, was in both cases written by Anne Stamper, the Honorary Archivist of the NFWI. I can also confirm that Anne is happy for this information to appear in this form in both places. I hope this clears up the situation and will result in the entry for the National Federation of Women's Institutes, aka Women's Institute, aka the WI, aka NFWI to be restored ASAP. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrantNFWI (talkcontribs) 11:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello and I am sorry this issue has been raised. I am not able to help as I am not an expert in copyright problems. However, I suggest you carefully review Copyright owners and especially Copyright owners who submitted their own work to Wikipedia and carry out one of the suggestions there. The problem as I see it is that the Women's Institute web site specifically (NWFI Terms and conditions section 3.3) advises that you must ..."... not copy, store in a retrieval system or transmit in any form or by any means any part of the website to any third party without the written permission of the NFWI." and therefore you are advised to "Send an email from an address associated with the [Women's Insitute] to or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation, ideally using the email template at WP:CONSENT."
I hope this helps --Senra (Talk) 15:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I spoke to the NFWI GrantNFWI (talk · contribs) a few minutes ago and I believe they are going to follow the procedure I have outlined above --Senra (Talk) 11:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry for the delay, Senra, and thanks for your message on my talk page. Yes, the procedure outlined above is the proper one, but the address given is not (it should be permissions-en at wikimedia dot org, and not permissions-commons at wikimedia dot org). It will then be reviewed by an OTRS agent and the page may be restored if the agent is satisfied with the validity of the permission. Cheers - [[CharlieEchoTango]] 00:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pending verification of permission, I have reverted to the last prior to the influx of text. Ordinarily, we would delete the revisions between (starting here), but if permission is going to be provided there's no reason; it can be restored when that permission is logged. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, it's already here. It was sent to Commons after all. Duly logged. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you all above for your help during this issue. I have learned something here. I had not realised that an inadvertent copyvio such as this one, when reported, would result in the article being made unavailable until the issue was resolved. I do understand why that has to happen. My procedure in future in such cases will be to alert the copyright holder first before asking another Wikipedian if they think there is a copyright issue! That way, permission can be granted before the page gets blanked. Anyway, once again, thank you all --Senra (Talk) 16:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, a delay of publication of a few days doesn't substantially harm anything, but continued publication might; Wikipedia's articles are mirrored constantly. If it should turn out that permission can't be provided, by the time the copyright holder responds to you the material may already be published beyond their ability to remove, particularly when content is mirrored in print. This is generally just a procedural issue, and most of the copyright owners to whom I speak not only understand but appreciate our caution with their intellectual property. After all, it protects them as well as us. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Women's Institutes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Needs to be restructured[edit]

I've done a bit of work to update this article, but I think we need to have an article about the WI in the UK, rather than this one where the lead gives the impression that it's mainly in Canada. Not sure how to go about this, needs some more thought. Any thoughts, anyone? PamD 11:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree.Halfway through the history it says "Since then the organisation's aims have broadened and it is now the largest women's voluntary organisation in the UK.[citation needed] The organisation celebrated its 100th anniversary in 2015 and as of 2017 had approximately 220,000 members in 6,300 WIs.[1] Today it plays a unique role in enabling women to gain new skills, take part in wide-ranging activities, and campaign on issues that matter to them and their communities. The WI is a diverse organisation open to all women, and there are now WIs in towns and cities as well as villages." I moved it here. The text is mostly nice words but there are some good reffed facts there but tricky to see where they go. Victuallers (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ "Annual Review 2016-17" (PDF). National Federation of Women's Institutes. April 2018. Retrieved 17 December 2018.