Jump to content

Talk:Jill Freedman

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

Other permanent collections

[edit]

Often described as possessing prints by JF:

-- Hoary (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One item above has been struck out by Lopifalko. If an article lists a "collection" that has just one print, it ought to list others that have three or four. The fact that a museum has a single print may be helpful for somebody hoping to curate a show somewhere, but I think it's of minimal interest to the great majority of Wikipedia readers and so I'd tend not to mention it; I've no strong feelings either way about possession of three or four prints. What do you think? -- Hoary (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No response to that, so I've removed: *[[Smithsonian American Art Museum]], Washington, D.C.: 1 print<ref>{{cite web|accessdate=May 20, 2023 | title=Artist: Jill Freedman: born Pittsburgh, PA 1939 |url=https://americanart.si.edu/artist/jill-freedman-1656 | website=Smithsonian American Art Museum}}</ref>. Six is rather an arbitrary number, but anyway the article now doesn't list any collection of fewer than six prints. -- Hoary (talk) 06:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Magnum

[edit]

This Magnum page says that JF became a "Named Photographer" at Magnum Photos in 1975 and a "Nominee" in 1976; however, for the latter it refers the reader to this page, where I (mis)understand that "Jill Freedman is invited and accepted as Nominee" was something entered here "By Anonymous (not verified)". Now, "Anonymous (not verified)" has been responsible for a lot of additions to that website (e.g. for the years of ascension of Mary Ellen Mark, so there's nothing particularly fishy about the info for JF. Chances are, it was posted by somebody who'd been conscientious. But I'm reluctant to cite it. -- Hoary (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Going on a date format

[edit]
An assortment of dates

The dates in this article are currently a mishmash of D-M-Y and M-D-Y. This is not good.

MOS:DATERET says that:

The date format chosen in the first major contribution in the early stages of an article (i.e., the first non-stub version) should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.

This is the first edit; and this is the latest edit made before a second editor stepped in. Both versions consistently (I think) use D-M-Y.

But Freedman was American, and MOS:DATETIES says:

For any given article, the choice of date format and the choice of national variety of English [...] are independent issues. / Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the date format most commonly used in that nation. For the United States this is (for example) July 4, 1976; for most other English-speaking countries it is 4 July 1976. [my emphasis]

If it matters at all, this shows that I'm responsible for 61.3% of the bulk of the article ("bulk" of course including mere flab); MootsieOrangeville for 26.3% of it; the third is InternetArchiveBot, which I don't suppose would have any opinion; and then we get to Lopifalko, Bus stop, and Sunshineisles2. Perhaps one or two of you, or of course other editors, would care to comment on my suggestion, that this article will be allowed to employ the loophole provided by "generally" above, and to use the D-M-Y convention.

If this suggestion seems palatable, then I'm willing to do the tiresome job of converting examples of M-D-Y (other of course than any that might be within quotations, titles, etc) into D-M-Y. -- Hoary (talk) 11:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion one way or the other, but if there is a consensus at some point, I can just run the WP:MOSNUMscript and quickly change the dates to whatever everyone agrees upon. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the offer, Sunshineisles2. Funny: It's only today that I notice that (i) your contribution to this article was to convert several examples of D-M-Y to M-D-Y, and (ii) two of the other editors I named above won't be responding any time soon. -- Hoary (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the concern is that much of the article uses DMY, it would be easy to use the script to convert everything to MDY, and we wouldn't need consensus for an exception per MOS:DATETIES. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mine is that it mixes DMY and MDY; but on the side, personally I have a mild but distinct dislike of MDY, and it was me who created the thing and did so using DMY. The dislike is because of the quite unnecessary change of direction and need for a comma (I'm happy with YMD as well). It's not because of any anti-American-ness: I'm perfectly happy with US wording and spelling; and if anyone notices any Briticisms, I hope that they fix them. -- Hoary (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the actual technical issue is on the point of the article of using DMY and MDY. However, I'm not sure if I would support a wholesale change of an article to DMY in this case. I probably have a personal preference for DMY as well, but I'm not sure preference is strong enough to meet the "generally" exception of MOS:DATETIES, particularly in a biographical article about someone from a country where MDY is by far the preferred way to spell dates. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 04:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sunshineisles2, here's what I think. (i) There are two (or more) commonly used ways of presenting dates, and articles that wobble between/among them with no good reason look a bit off. (ii) MDY is a bit silly. (iii) A good reason for MOS to exist is to prevent disputes among editors whose habits/prejudices/tastes differ. (iv) Though MOS wouldn't absolutely proscribe DMY here, it would normally prescribe MDY. (v) One thing sillier than MDY is disputing MDY versus DMY. ¶ From all of which I ratiocinate: OK then, MDY for this article, if you wouldn't mind using the script for such a transformation. (I lack the script and have no appetite for executing this "manually".) -- Hoary (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary: I have used WP:MOSNUMscript to switch the article to MDY. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't pretend I much like the change, Sunshineisles2; but thank you for making it! -- Hoary (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also "have a mild but distinct dislike of MDY ... The dislike is because of the quite unnecessary change of direction and need for a comma". I was not aware of MOS:DATERET. And I agree with Hoary's "Though MOS wouldn't absolutely proscribe DMY here, it would normally prescribe MDY. ... One thing sillier than MDY is disputing MDY versus DMY." -Lopifalko (talk) 05:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Trim dates"

[edit]

Lopifalko, on this edit (no doubt well intended): is there now some MOS guideline or similar saying that months are trivia?

To me, they don't seem to be trivia. (For one thing, "March–June" suggests something more substantial than does plain "March".) Also, if, for some reason I can't divine, "September 2007 – January 2008" really is inappropriate, then is "2007/08" optimum? To me, it's ambiguous (interpretable as "perhaps 2007 but perhaps 2008; the information we're basing this on is vague or contradictory"). I'd have "2007–08" (or rather, since bytes are cheap, "2007–2008"). -- Hoary (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One place where it might be mentioned, but is not, is MoS/Visual arts (with which, as it happens, I warmly disagree). -- Hoary (talk) 05:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I took it upon myself to trim dates wherever I see them in lists of exhitibions, back to the year. I was of the opinion that too much detailed superfluous information made the lists more cumbersome to read. I agree that an exhibition for a single day (which we do see listed from time to time) in this format, appears as notable as one that lasted multiple months, and this aspect has felt like a down-side to what I was doing. Albeit not enough to prevent me blithely marching forward. I should have asked for advice. I am happy to refrain from this if you think it detrimental. On the use of "2007/08", I thought that I was following MOS:DATERANGE but on re-reading, it looks as though I was misaken, so thank you for pointing it out. -Lopifalko (talk) 05:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I really don't think it adds, more than very trivially, to ... let's call it the cumber. Similarly, I've tended to avoid days of the month; but when writing "October–November" for a show that actually ran from the 30th to the 2nd, I've regretted my own practice. Anyway, thank you for okaying the provision of months. I'll reinstate these: doing so shouldn't take me long. -- Hoary (talk) 06:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Creative Photography

[edit]

Although the CCP's domain name used to be creativephotography.org, this been taken over by some wedding outfit that very obviously is unrelated. Instead, it's currently at ccp.arizona.edu. Unfortunately, this is a mess. Searching the collection for Freedman brings ccp.arizona.edu/artists/jill-freedman, a page that currently provides no information whatever.

The page "Fine art photographs" tells us:

The Center for Creative Photography is pausing acquisitions as we engage in the search for our next executive director and implement exciting upgrades to our digital infrastructure. We look forward to resuming this important work in the near future. [...] CCP is undergoing an assessment of acquisition criteria, staffing, process, and capacity. During this time, the acceptance of donations will be greatly reduced.

Well, let's try again in "the near future". -- Hoary (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced assertions of awards

[edit]

I've removed

  • 1983: National Endowment for the Arts, group photography grant for Lower Manhattan

from the grants and awards section. It has never been referenced.

Tim Greyhavens' paper "Beyond the Boundaries: Why the NEA Matters to Photographers" (part 2) says:

Photographic historian Merry Foresta has said that, “photography came of age in America in the 1970s”, and the NEA surveys played a vital part in the development. Over the next five years a group of now major names in photography took part in one or more surveys [...]. Some examples include:
[...] Jill Freedman, 1981, Lower Manhattan Survey
[...] I’m now compiling a database of all of the surveys and the participating photographers [...]

Clicking on his link to his database returns 404, but I imagine that this file is what's meant. However, within this PDF the only entry I find is "Jill Freedman New York NY 1973 $5,000". -- Hoary (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've also removed

none of which was referenced. -- Hoary (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jill_Freedman&oldid=1207297293"