Talk:Women in the art history field

Why this page?

I'm trying to understand the decision to make this page with what seems to be an arbitrary distinction, the gender of the historian... particularly when there is no comparative list of male art historians that I can find here, nor a list of historians in general. I can understand the use of gender differential in fields where a distinction is commonly made (male and female athletes rarely compete against one another, male actors get different roles than female actors) or where there is some study made of them (the existence of Womens Literature studies might justify lists of female authors), but I would assume that female art historians don't inherently study different materials or get articles in different journals or anything. I can see separating out art historians by their specialty (i.e., historians focused on the renaissance artists might make a list, say, or those focused on Greek art), but this one is eluding me. Admittedly, art historians are not a specialty of mine, but I'd appreciate it if someone could explain what I'm missing here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The page in its entirety lacks a clear ‘raison d’être’.

The lede does not summarise the article, as well as failing to mention that it appears to be restricted to the American art world, confusing us about which century we’re talking about, and whether ‘authors of high-school texbooks’ are one of the two groups specified, or a third group, and what is meant by ‘in the first place’. The main article shows similar signs of opacity. I feel that the subject might be covered adequately in the page for the Women's Caucus for Art. Valetude (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Valetude: or alternatively we could have someone like yourself improve the article, with bringing in non-American references and more context? A lot of women on this list are not American (you can see that by visiting the "Nationality" column). The Women's Caucus for Art does not much relevance with the current context of this article topic. I don't think that suggestion makes sense. Jooojay (talk) 05:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Because, well, patriarchy in academia, and because there are so few of us

It is not widely appreciated how incredibly small and vulnerable the discipline of art history is, not even among art historians. In the US there are about 3500 registered art historians, who belong to the College Art Association, and 700 more grad students. We know there are more (the great unregistered), we just have no idea how many more because there are no statistics. Compare those numbers to the largest professional organization for the humanities in the US, the Modern Language Association, which has a membership of around 30,000. Humanities grads count for just 12% of recent grads, of which art history grads count for just .2% (If we doubled the numbers it would be .4%!).

The names on this list, the first 200 or so that were added, came from the online Dictionary of Art Historians. It is a wonderful resource (http://www.dictionaryofarthistorians.org/index.htm). In fact I feel terribly guilty that I have not put in all the footnotes yet. I will get to it shortly I hope. The names on that list include all the great art historians in art history history, and you know how many people are on that list? *2475*. Of which, *only 200 are women*. Art historians are, as we say, a rare breed. Women art historians, even rarer! I wanted to start the list to acknowledge their work, their role in the protection and stewardship of le patrimoine mondial, and just to make them known to new younger art historians (and older indifferent ones, who don't really care but should!). I want to begin to build art history up, by starting with one of its most important subgroups.

Your point about specialty is well taken though. I actually think I am going to rebuild the list as a searchable spreadsheet just so I can address those issues specifically.

Oh and, there used to be a list of art historians on Wikipedia, I just don't know what happened to it. It was super pathetic, that is for sure.

Note: I have refactored a reference that was used in the above section as an inline link instead, because reference sections can cause problems on talk pages; they don't always end up archived in the same files as the section they are used in. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

First off, let me make it clear that I'm not saying that such a list should not exist, merely that Wikipedia seems likely not the right place for it. Even the original name that you gave the article - List of art historians who happen to be women - suggests that womanhood is incidental rather than a defining role of their work as art historians. If there is some solid base of academic articles discussing the role of women in art history, that might make the basis for an article Women in art history, I suppose, but if this topic isn't something that is being discussed... well, as aggravating as it can be sometimes, Wikipedia is not here to start the discussions, it's here to document things that are already being discussed.

I appreciate that you culled the original batch from a respectable reference work, and thus found women historians that were of note. If this list continues to exist, it basically has to be limited to notable women historians (although they don't all have to be noted by the same source.) I suppose the guidelines at WP:NACADEMICS would be the ones that apply. Otherwise... well, women art historians may not be a large portion of the population, but assuming that there has been some reasonable increase in percentage of women in the field as there has been in most fields requiring education, there are probably at least a thousand US-based art historians that are registered. Take away those two qualifications, and you've got thousands? Tens of thousands? It would be a huge list, ungainly, and would seem to be serving more as a directory than something encyclopedic in nature.

I can't find any history of a general art historian list article on here, although it may have had some odd name I cannot find. However, you may be thinking of our our category on art historians, which is more meant as a form of index of what's on Wikipedia. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

On Counting: the Joy and Sorrow

Finally...I want to add the numbers back in, because I think it is important to keep count, but I am open to discussing why they should be left out if someone has a strong opinion on the matter.

(Vhfs (talk) 10:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC))

If there is need to keep a count, a single count can be put on the page... but in this case, the count is near meaningless, as we are not claiming that this is a listing of all the women art historians, so at best it tells us that there are or have been at least X, which is the expression of the limits of our knowledge rather than an expression of the truth. The individual number applied to each historian signifies nothing about the historian, and would change whenever a new historian was added higher on the alphabetic list. Wikipedia has guidelines on when to use numbered list, as part of MOS:LIST, where it says Use numbers rather than bullets only if: a need to refer to the elements by number may arise; the sequence of the items is critical; or the numbering has some independent meaning, for example in a listing of musical tracks. I cannot see where any of those are met. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It signifies nothing about the art historian, for sure, but it does underline what a rare breed we are. I think it is important. You can change it to a single count if you want. I don't know what that is. As long as we keep a tally of the numbers.

(Vhfs (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC))

By single count, I mean something like "There are 278 women art historians." Except we have no way of actually saying that, we can only say "there are 278 women art historians on this list", which doesn't tell anyone how rare they are but merely how many we've put on the list so far. If we have some outside source saying how many female art historians there actually are, then it might be good to cite that... but I'm dubious that anyone has that number in a meaningful way. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I would that there are only 2000 or so living art historians (notable and non-notable, though I tend to think they are all notable for being crazy enough to want to become art historians) who happen to be women, in the US, on the very outside, and that number includes grad students. This is connected to another project of mine which is about building a database, so the number is not being pulled completely out of thin air.

Regarding whether or not art historians should be listed at all...I think of it like sports teams...art history departments are kind of like sports teams. They have rosters, stars, their line-ups change season to season. There are the notable players, and the non-notable ones, but Wikipedia has pages for all of them. I don't see why it should be any different for the humanities, and especially art history.

(Vhfs (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC))

Wikipedia has standards for what level one has to achieve in professional sports to qualify as notable on that basis; your typical bush league player does not make it. Similarly, we have standards for what qualifies an academic as notable, and while those standards can be changed (as almost everything on Wikipedia can be), changing those standards should be achieved by reaching consensus at the appropriate guideline page, not by merely ignoring it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not ignoring it. Yet. It is just that in my book, especially in America, all academics are notable. And this is a very very special category of academics. Moreover, I don't mean to sound silly here but arguably art historians are more important than football players. After all, they, you know, contribute to society and stuff.

(Vhfs (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC))

Regarding the numbering, as you may now note in the article, once the list broken into subsection, the numbering gets restarted with each section anyway. So we end up with the vital information of how many women art historians we've bothered to list have a last name starting with Y. Plus, we count as two people anyone who changed their name. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't do it! I want to make a spreadsheet, as I said. You need to talk to whomever did it.

Forza! (Vhfs (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC))

This is an important topic and should be included

Those of us who work in art history, in both universities and art museums, are only too aware of the dominance of male voices, while the substantial scholarship of many women tends to be subsumed. Despite many great feminist art historians, women art historians are too often sidelined, even though the overwhelming majority of art history students are women. It makes sense to have somewhere, and Wikipedia seems to be the right place, where the contributions of women art historians can be publicly recorded. The long term value of this is to both disseminate knowledge of what women art historians do, and change the climate so that others can see that the interests of women art historians range over all kinds of art history — many countries, and many theoretical approaches. Old lilipili (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want to help assure that this page does not get deleted, you'd do better joining the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of women art historians, where the deletion or lack thereof will be decided. Your arguments will carry more weight if you express them in terms of Wikipedia policy. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Counting, counting, counting

I would like to put the numbers back in there, now I have got it in spreadsheet form. Does anyone have any tips? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vhfs (talk • contribs) 03:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

References on Top

I tried to fix this yesterday but no luck. Can someone help to get this sorted out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vhfs (talk • contribs) 09:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Statistics Page

Also I think something is wonky about the statistics page for the list. If someone could check on that, that would be awesome. - Preceding unsigned comment added by Vhfs (talk · contribs) at 09:41, 23 May 2014‎ (UTC) It's not clear which statistics page you're speaking of. this one? --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe she's referring to the page information. All the info can be found from there, anyway. G S Palmer (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything wonky there; I was wondering whether she thought that the sharp drop in viewers by day was wonky. A bit more precision about the nature of the wonkiness would help us address it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Profession

Isn't it a bit redundant to include a "Profession" column, since this list is a list of people solely in this profession? Also, I wasn't aware that being "African" was a profession. (See the entry on Anderson, Martha). G S Palmer (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Ha ha haaa. The African thing was my mistake, and it is fixed now. Art historians have all kinds of jobs: they are curators, museum directors, professors, artists, art critics...sometimes all of the above, it is important to specify to acknowledge the diversity of the kinds of careers art historians have, and the multiplicity--the depth and breadth--of the field. It is not just one thing, it is all kinds of things. (Vhfs (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC))

Deletion of Data-free names

Can you PLEASE undo the deletion of everybody who has no data?? I cannot add data unless I know who was here. I just started adding data and between when I began and when I saved (at the end of the letter B) 3/4 of the entries disappeared! In fact, all the data I had spent 45 minutes adding is now gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.158.161 (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

This is obviously a special page. I think we need to get it some special protections. It is ridiculous. Incredible. (Vhfs (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC))

With certain specific exceptions, Wikipedia keeps available all the old revisions of articles. You can find all the pre-deletion listings here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Could someone reinstate the version that was vandalized? It was not even done consistently... And how come it is impossible to see who did it? (Vhfs (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC))

No version was "vandalized"; it was edited by someone whose goal was to improve the article. There seems to be a consensus emerging in the Articles For Deletion discussion that the list should be limited to those for whom there are articles or at least solid references. It is not impossible to see how did it; the large edit was done by Drmies, as can be seen by clicking the article's View History tab (make sure you're not still on the talk page, which has its own history.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The edit which removed most of the unlinked names was this one, by the way. G S Palmer (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

http://en.utrace.de/ip-address/128.32.158.161 (Vhfs (talk) 01:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC))

I'm not sure why you're doing a trace on that user. If you think that's the person who did a major culling of the names, no, that user only did a single edit to the article itself, this one. If you are somehow trying to get some identifying information on a user who has chosen to remain anonymous, you may wish to read our WP:OUTING policy first. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

That is not true. The edit to which you linked was my trial one and I had thereafter added data to about half the entries on art historians whose names began with A and B. I want to say that it is ridiculous to remove anybody who, basically, is not already in the online Dictionary of Art Historians -- then we really ARE repeating information available from another source. Not every woman art historian has a link to an online article. Most American academic art historians have a profile on their department's website but not all European ones do, and even very important curators do not have a web presence like that. So are we not going to be permitted to put on the list people who are, say, the Curator of European Paintings at the London National Gallery, because there is no article or page about her on the web? This is absurd. If you will restore the original full list, I can provide institutional affiliations/ professional positions for at least half the names. By the way, I was not signed in for my last edits because I was trying to get the password to my old account so you would see that I have made edits to other articles before -- I just created this account to edit this article because I cannot remember my old password. Although I requested that previous password it was not sent to me. Eahonig (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

(Please see Wikipedia:FAQ/Technical. Drmies (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC))

I understand what you're saying, Eahonig, but all content on Wikipedia must be verifiable. We can't just take your word that this person is the Curator of European Paintings at the London National Gallery if no independent sources exist by which we can see that it is true. G S Palmer (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Seriously stop reverting data while people are actively creating new articles to complete this list. It's rude, and YES we can all see which user is doing it without having to out them. Jooojay (talk) 03:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The Introduction

User:Drmies I love the introduction. Thank you for writing it. I have one small point of contention...my idea of feminist scholarship is, I think, a little different than the standard line. I am not so much interested in producing an army of feminist art historians, but rather establishing the kinds of conditions that will ensure that young art historians, who happen to be women, can study whatever they goddamn well want to. To get there, we need a better sense of, and/or we need to take stock of where we are now. That is what motivated the creation of the list, because, while there are no hard statistics we all know that women do most of the teaching in the discipline, while dudes get the sweet research gigs. I think feminism is extremely relevant, above all in terms of labor conditions. I guess I am wondering how to include that angle in the introduction. What I am trying to say, is I don't care whether or not said student identifies as a feminist, really I don't. I am much more interested in ensuring her right to study whatever she wants...intellectual curiosity is the most fragile thing in the world, and it is *that thing*, particularly in relation to emerging scholars, who happen to be women, that I want to protect, and encourage. For me there is no "should" in scholarship, maybe even and especially for feminist scholarship and/or scholarship that just happens to be done by women (depending on what side of the bed they got up on that day...).

I also loved your inclusion of statistics. Shouldn't there be some kind of comment about how there is a real lack of statistics on these questions since the 70s, and perhaps even some speculation on what has lead to our current situation? Like an explanation of why there are no statistics now. (Vhfs (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC))

There should only be a comment about the lack of statistics if we have a source that says that there is a lack of statistics (if you have one, that would be great), and Wikipedia articles are not the place for our speculation, although we might be able to include some sourced speculation from reliable sources. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Drmies The other part of the history is when *exactly* did the women's caucus and CAA part ways? 1977? (I am no where near a library). Could you include that history as well? I am absolutely *fascinated* and want to know more.

Thank you again! Forza! (Vhfs (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC))

• OK. The thing is, as I indicated, much of the material about the subject matter of "women art historians" is directly and intricately tied to feminism. That should not surprise us, of course, and neither should it surprise us that there's more talk in academic articles (and maybe, to some extent, books) of feminist art history than of art history done by women scholars. So I tried to stick in only that content that pertains to this topic, and I have probably not done a very good job--but you have to understand that I'm doing this also to indicate to naysayers that the topic "women art historians" has some meat on its bones. As a matter of fact, and Randykitty, DGG, and maybe NatGertler might have to say something on this, "Women art historians" may well be a viable topic in its own right, which solves the problem of the list, since one could simply introduce a subsection, "Notable women art historians".

  A while ago I wrote a few biographies of women printers in the 18th century, and found that the very existence of women in that business was notable. But, dear Vhfs, when I say "notable" I mean "relevant for Wikipedia", not necessarily relevant in a broader sense, although in the case of printers I am convinced that it's relevant in a broader sense as well, and that's where Wikipedia can be an aid to any study of women's history. On-wiki, I'm a Wikipedian first and a feminist second. So, "notable" here means "the topic is being discussed in-depth in reliable sources". For those printers, those articles exist. For women art historians, I have to dig a little deeper.

  I would expect that the Chronicle (that is, The Chronicle of Higher Education) has some useful stuff for us, but I don't subscribe to it. A search on their website suggests as much but I can't read those articles. The article I found, the one with the CAA material, is indeed fascinating but, as I said in an edit summary, I believe, I haven't had that much time to look into it and plow through the whole article: I just picked a few salient factoids to, again, indicate the notability of womanness in the profession. I am sure, though, that there are more such articles, and we'll get to them, after the AfD closes as keep, which I hope will be the case. I've been around the block, and DGG, Randykitty, and I are all in academia, so one hopes that a. we know what we're talking about and b. others know that we know what we're talking about. We're also all three admins, which doesn't give us a bigger stick in such discussions, but it does suggest that we have some experience in how Wikipedia treats (and likes) such articles. Look, Randykitty is a hard-ass, and if he says "keep", that counts for something. The three of us have participated in hundreds if not thousands of such discussions. Besides, other editors have helped improve the article: let's not forget that a list always needs a lead to establish a rationale--but maybe that's just my opinion.

  Now, if anyone is still reading this, there is another article waiting to be written, and it will come from the same sources I cited in the lead, and a million more: the topic of how women (models, characters, artists, benefactors, etc.) have been treated in art history. One or two of the books I cited have positively fascinating material on that topic, and the suggestion--I couldn't yet put it in, since it smacked too much of WP:SYNTH; remember, we're encyclopedic, not academic writers here--is that women were treated as secondary subjects by art historians, and that "therefore" (those are ironic air quotes) women art historians, also treated secondarily in the profession, dealt with those secondary women artists. That's the fault of sexist history, of course, and it's a valid topic, and it's written about: I saw in one of those books a statement about how women artists were often trained in their father's or husband's workshops, and for someone like Artemisia Gentileschi that's obviously true. But, Vhfs, that also is treated as subject matter relevant to the subject of "women in the business"--so it can be difficult, and I know this first-hand now, to separate things out. A real feminist might say that such categorical separations are masculine anyway, though Obiwankenobi will probably call that bullocks.

  In sum. Per Wikipedia's guidelines, this list/article should never be a directory, and so redlinks are to be avoided at all cost: one is simply not notable just because one is a woman art historian (or woman Anglo-Saxonist, or male tenured professor, etc.). In other words, we should not reformat that dictionary and paste it in. Blue links only. Once that is done (and it is done), the only argument against the list is "well, eh, it simply doesn't matter that one is a woman, and to that I say, well, that's wrong--and I can only hope that the lead, which I know needs more work, will prove that. Randykitty, for instance, who is a certified deletionist and has a penis to boot (I think), knows that the presence of women in his profession is still somewhat of an anomaly (Randy, I'd love for you to tell me I'm wrong; it will somewhat restore my faith in humanity), but as a Wikipedian, and an admin, he'll want to see that proven by reference to reliable sources. So that's where the burden, and article development, is. Reliable sources about women in the profession. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, in my field it isn't all that bad any more, compared to when I was a student. Women nowadays are heads of departments, presidents of major societies, etc. Students are at least equally divided between males and females, probably even a majority of the latter, so I expect things to change even more in the future. Most of my grad students (and those of my colleagues) are women, too, and have been for a long time now. There still are more males in the very top positions, though, so we still have a way to go. But overt sexism I haven't encountered in about 15 years, I think (although that was a bad case, it was actually the chair of the commission that was supposed to look into sexual harassment allegations at my then university...) Anyway, there aren't that many articles on women scientists in my field, I think. I don't have too much time, but I'll see whether at least I cannot create some stubs on the more notable ones in the near future. And one final remark: correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we'll only have achieved real equality when articles like "male such and such" or "female such and such" can be abandoned in favor of "people such and such", because gender doesn't matter any more... --Randykitty (talk) 09:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I quite agree with the that last sentence, both because even in a state of equal opportunity and empowerment, we shouldn't lose our history (so the lists may be Women flomtowists of the 20th century); and because those sorts of equality does not mean that there will not be differences arising from biology and biological experiences of interest; that while individual men and women may do anything, that there may not be discernable differences on aggregate (that male and female writers may tend to write differently, or female and male politicians tend to govern differently, say), and that those differences would still be worth understanding. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Getting off of the generalist discussion, I did want to bring up the first sentence: "The role of women in the academic discipline of art history is, as feminist scholars have argued, connected to the role of the study of women by art historians." We are simultaneously saying:

1. A is true (in Wikipedia voice)
2. Feminist scholars say A is true

Now, without access to the reference, I can't say which of these is accurate, but we shouldn't be saying both. If we have down A as a truth, reliably sourced and not the subject of any known debate, then we should stick with #1 by getting rid of the whole "as feminist scholars argue" clause; it detracts, particularly in the first sentence, as what feminist scholars argue about women in art history is secondary to the topic of women in art history itself, and it weakens the assertion of A's truth. If, on the other hand, we're merely trying to state #2, then we should get rid of the "as" from the clause. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I think A is true, and I am fearful of the notion that everything is an opinion and some are just better argued than others, but I have no objection to a removal of "as" (haha) from that sentence. As I said here and elsewhere, I am not happy at all with this lead but it's the best I could do, and I encourage rewrites and tweaks. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Mies plz be wary of synth here. It seems we are stretching the sources a bit to make a case and this should not turn into a coatrack upon which we hang all sources that discuss women + the history of art.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Changing consensus on inclusion

A consensus was emerging in the Articles For Deletion discussion that this list should be limited to notable women art historians (in some statements limited to "blue links", which means that they have existing biographical articles in Wikipedia.) I understand that some folks want to revisit this consensus.

Listing every woman who happens to be an art historian would run both into practical problems of article size (given that there would appear to be thousands of qualifying folk around the world, including those no longer with us) and would run into our guideline that Wikipedia is not a directory. So if people want to support some more expansive list beyond just folks who have their own page, we should come up and reach consensus on what qualifies for inclusion. I'd certainly argue that any woman art historian who can be sourced as meeting the criteria for notability among academics, or who are otherwise notable for reasons related to their art history work, should qualify, so long as that notability is sourced (which would also mean that we could have an encouraging red-link entry with a link to the basic data that would be needed for someone else to go and create an article on that historian.) In the AFD discussion, I mentioned inclusion in the Dictionary Of Art Historians as sufficient suggestion that such notability might be achieved, but at that time I had only seen full biographical entries in that dictionary; since then, I've seen some entries that only have one piece of data, so at the very least I would qualify that inclusion.

But that's how I see it, and I'd be interested in hearing other views how we should set the bar for inclusion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, If there are thousands of notable women art historians , then there are thousands of them. Three are thousands of notable people in many fields, and, if the meet the standard, we include articles on every one of them, and list them on the appropriate lists. (Personally, I think we're much more likely to be able to make articles on a few hundred using our current standards) The larger the number, the greater reason there is to include them. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

If there are thousands of notable ones, then we run into WP:LENGTH problems and may wish to break it down into sublist (by specialty, nationality, era?) The creator of this article was putting forth a belief that all women art historians should be included, which is why I raised the "thousands" concern. (Can you point to an article-space list that has multiple thousands?) --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC) Added: I just checked List of mathematicians and see that, in addition to lists by specialty and background, they have separated lists by subsection of the alphabet, which keeps the individual pages down.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Personally, and this may sound odd given my defense of the article at the AfD, I think, or used to think, that category searching would be more useful than looking at a list article. I probably said so in more than one list AfD: "Delete, prefer categorization" or some such thing. But our category system is fraught with difficulty even before gender is added (never mind that gender isn't binary, anymore), and I certainly don't see the harm (anymore) in a list of blue links. And if it's thousands, well, you saw how we can handle it. It may not be elegant or simple, but neither is the world, and that's what we're aiming to index/encyclopedize here. Also, Nat, I appreciate your inquisitiveness and I'm sure DGG does too. (Between you and me, DGG taught me all the important things I know. The rest is just acronyms and sweet talk.) Drmies (talk) 02:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The whole category system is so 1970s in its sense of data organization anyway, particularly for the classification of humans. If we ever get a proper set of flags for subjects and proper interface, so that one can do a search for all notable Jewish basketball players born in Oklahoma, then the interested would have access to a gender-based list on whatever topic they want, without anyone having to have considered that topic important enough for an article list. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

My experience (after many edits on List of people by Erdős number and List of cosmologists among others) is that, while in an ideal world listing all plausibly-notable people sounds like a good idea, in this world, such lists tend to become hard-to-maintain spam magnets. Every random amateur researcher or new graduate student in the subject thinks they and all their friends should be listed despite having done nothing of significance yet, and if you don't spend a lot of attention filtering those people out they end up making the list too long and filled with junk to be useful for the actual readers (remember them?) who might be trying to find a fit subject for a term paper or whatever. Restricting the list to bluelinks makes it much easier to maintain — you will still get people thinking it's a directory and adding their own names to it, but fewer of them, and it can be quickly reverted rather than requiring much time and energy distinguishing those ones from the ones that really should be listed. And it also provides some motivation for improving the encyclopedia by writing articles about the people who should be on the list but aren't yet. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• What David Eppstein says. A list of blue links has enormous practical advantages, besides a good rationale. Drmies (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• Hokay, I am fine with that. I was mostly trying to make sure that a voice the concerns of several inexperienced editors who wanted to see the list more inclusive than that but might not know to properly express that in the Talk page. We will judge these people not by the content of their character, but by the color of their links. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Getting ahead of myself: moving this article

I am thinking more and more that it would be a good idea to change the title and the topic to something like "Women art historians", to better cover what I think needs to be covered: the history and importance of such women scholars. The list itself then becomes a sub-section of the article (oh wait, I already kind of did that). The more I read up on the topic, the more I find in JSTOR, the more I am convinced that this is a valid topic in its own right. For instance, I'm seeing all these things about women art historians in Victorian times, and notes about the education of contemporary women art historians--this is material we need to cover. The lead of a list article, well, that's not the best place. Drmies (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

At this point, neither the list nor the primary body text is so long that it requires a split, and the text is not longer trivial... so yeah, I support that move. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I would also put a small lean on making it Female art historians; not that I know of any examples that would qualify for the list that have either failed to make the age of majority or the age of pubescence, nor even that I feel it likely, but that it would feel rather silly to exclude such a person should they exist. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Plus it sounds better. G S Palmer (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

"emphatically corporeal visual subject"???

What the hell does that mean?

It is so weird to me that if we discuss women scholars, who happen to be art historians, we have to discuss women artists, feminism, and activism all of a sudden...for me this is simply not the case. These are all separate things. As I tried to explain...this list is about raising the profile and status of art historians who happen to women, globally. It was first and foremost an effort to put them on the map. The fact that they happen to be women should be, and is, in fact, completely irrelevant to, and separate from what they are or are not interested in studying, including, or, as the case may be, excluding feminism. If you are going to respect academic freedoms, you have to respect women scholars who are emphatically uninterested in feminism. It is their right. But they are left out of your essay, which now I really do not understand at all anyway.

The Women's Caucus is primarily interested in raising the status of women artists, not women art historians. I talked to them in February. Do you see the difference? I am interested first and foremost in women *art historians*. The status of women artists is not relevant here.

There are so many sloppily articulated ideas in that opening essay. Art education is something different from art history dontcha know...art departments are something different from art history departments etc...and so it goes. If we cannot get those basic ideas straight, the essay is not going to be useful to anyone anyway.

Not that I expect you to address any of these concerns.

(Vhfs (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC))

If the presence of women art historians has had in aggregate some impact on the field of art history, as indicated by reliable sources, then that is indeed something we should be including in an article on women art historians. Whether coverage of that impact is in line with your politics or desires should not have a direct impact on the editing of the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Nat Gertler Show me the impact and I am with you. Sounds like a tricky thing to prove though.

On another subject completely, do you mean that my kind of feminism is "politics" whereas other types of feminism is, I dunno, "real" feminism or something? Sigh. (Vhfs (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC))

Showing the impact is why we rely on sourced statements, with references you will find in the article. As for the straw man you invent for and sigh about, you may file that with the other things you invent about editors. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• The sources I cited indicate clearly enough that, for better or for worse, all these matters are connected, and anyone who's read This Sex which is not One will know that for a feminist that's hardly a surprising statement. For instance, lots of women art historians are also artists. Maybe someone can write up "Why Are There No Great Women Artists?" and that can partly answer the questions. It's women art historians who discovered women artists and women in art, so to say that the activism has nothing to do with the "basic" profession is really kind of ludicrous, and does neither women nor art nor historians any service. Let alone history. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Problem raised by the existence of this list

The obvious problem (that has already been touched on a few times), is that there is no corresponding List of men art historians or List of art historians. I can see a few possible ways to deal with this:

• Create a List of men art historians.

• Create a separate List of art histrians, which would in part duplicate the contents of this list.

• Move this page to List of art historians and expand it to include men.

Any thoughts? G S Palmer (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The existence of this list does not preclude the creation of a list of art historians. As this page is quickly becoming an article specifically on women art historians and their impact as women art historians, it would be improper to merge it into a larger list. And unless we have specific sourcing dealing specifically with male art historians as a separate group, a list specifically of male art historians would be improper, for the very reasons discussed in the AFD discussion for this list. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

That's why I was leaning toward the possibility of just a "list of art historians". G S Palmer (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The clear leaning of the AFD at this point is that women art historians as a specific topic have sufficient notability for this article to exist. That argues against a merge. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, let me clarify: I meant a "list of art historians" in addition to this. G S Palmer (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason I know of for that list not to exist; feel free to create it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Not really my area of interest, but I suppose I could give it a shot if no one else does. G S Palmer (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I was exchanging views on another topic with SamX, and he suggested making a category. Isn't that what is in order here? In addition to the other lists? I guess several different kinds of categories possibly?

Forza! (Vhfs (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC))

 Done: Category:Female art historians. G S Palmer (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Gender-based categories can be problematic and should be populated with caution, as anyone who went through the foofraw over Women American Novelists may recall. -Nat Gertler (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

You can CfD it if you want: I'm not particularly attached to it and just created it on an impulse. G S Palmer (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course, I note that the category you mention still exists, and now contains over 2,000 pages. G S Palmer (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and it gets non-standard treatment as a subcategory, due to this discussion --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

For the record, the category was moved to Category:Women art historians following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 11. Note that there was a much longer discussion of the parent Category:Women historians at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 13. – Fayenatic London 07:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't find "but what about the men?" to be a particularly helpful point to make about an article centered around the consistent marginalization that women in this field have encountered (and likely still encounter). —David Eppstein (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, it was more of a "but what about art historians in general? G S Palmer (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Title

This is not a list any more but a full article. I am moving it to Women art historians. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Someone moved it again, to Women in art history, which is a poorer name; it sounds as if we're talking about the place of women within the history of art, rather than within the field of art history. The "Women art historians" name was better, and the move should be reverted. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Nat. Indeed I did not wait for a discussion because I only removed the word list from the name for it is no more a list. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done. G S Palmer (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Disagree, but I won't revert - but Women art historians sounds like a category name, not a topic. We still need a better name. suggestions welcome.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• ok, better name found - I found Women_in_science, Women_in_dance, Women_in_computing, Women_in_medicine, Women_in_architecture, Women_in_government, Women_in_engineering, Women_in_journalism_and_media_professions, Women_in_photography, Women_in_business, etc. The best model is Women_in_journalism_and_media_professions which adds the word professions, to distinguish from representations of women in media.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
• [ec] Thanks to all you for your interest. I don't want to add to the fight. Obi has a point about the sound of it; "Women in art history" sounds about right given the subject matter (see my musings above) but suffers perhaps from lack of (masculine!) precision. Either way, I don't care much, but I will tell you all that I am relieved the AfD is closed. There is a LOT more to do; I still have screens full of PDFs, and I just wrote up Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?. But now it's time to go. Thanks all, Drmies (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

How about we stop moving the article about until we can come to some consensus on the name? The use of the term "professions" concerns me; might there be amateurs who have nonetheless been notable for their work in the field? --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

You can start a broader RM to have formal input, if you have a specific suggestion, but the current title is much more in line with dozens of other examples of similar women + topic area articles.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

In the future, you may want to consider a page having moved three times already in a given day as a sign that there is not easy agreement on what to name it, and that you should achieve consensus or at least wait more than 20 minutes before bouncing it around further. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

We shall see if my boldness paid off. My guess is, we have landed on something good. But, if you don't like the current name, please propose a new one, or even be bold yourself. But consider, that the current name matches dozens of other articles.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

No, actually, it doesn't match "dozens" of other articles. I find one article and one redirect that use the "Women in ... professions" format. That's it. Women art historians, Female art historians, or Women in the art history field would be better than the assumption-of-profession that you have now shifted it to. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been thinking about it, and I think I actually liked your original title (Women in art history) better, and Women art historians best. But that's just my two cents. G S Palmer (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think y'all have been bold enough. If anyone wants it changed, RM is the better way to go, if only because of more outside input. I do like G S Palmer's choice, but part of the awkwardness of the current title is purely grammatical--it's the treatment of "art history", already a compound noun, as an adjective but without the adjectival declension ("-ical"), since compound nouns typically don't do that. "Art-historical professions" is a no-go, I think. Drmies (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• options So here are the options on the table for now (feel free to add more). If we come to rough local consensus on one or two, we can then start a formal RM around it to get broader input:

1. Women in the art history field
2. Women in art history professions
3. Women in art history
4. Women art historians
5. Female art historians

Discussion

• Prefer Women in art history professions or Women in art history, or lastly Women in the art history field, as this is now a topic article, and not a list (side note: the list now comes at the end, and may end up being split out - which may be an argument for splitting the article now actually and keeping the history with the list, and moving the exposition to a new article, but, that can probably wait.) Women art historians seems more like a category name or a list name, as the topic is not just about specific women who were or are art historians, but rather the engagement of the female gender with the field of art history, how they came to join it, what their experience was within, etc. Additionally, as noted before, the "Women in (topic)" convention is broadly used in many articles across the wiki. I'm not convinced that the simple Women in art history is that problematic, since it can be distinguished from Depiction of women artists in art history and Women_artists. Nate doesn't like the "profession" aspect, but I think this is important - profession here interpreted broadly, in the same way "mathematician" and "women in mathematics" certainly includes women who weren't professional mathematicians - "professions" should be read to mean that the topic of the article is about women working in the field of art history, which in most cases can be termed their profession or job. (I think Women in art history jobs just sounds lame however.)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

You are the one who said you wouldn't revert Women art historians, the title that I corrected, only by omitting the "list" from the original title, because it was no more a list, right? Yes, technically you did not revert it. Let us discuss more and work less. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I changed my mind, alas. But anyway, which of the options do you prefer, and why?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• My leaning at this point is to stick with Women art historians, as its accurate to what we're actually discussing in the article and doesn't run into the in-history or profession problems. Despite the theoretical age advantage of the Female art historians possibility, I think it's fuzzy simply because due to leading with an adjective, it can be read as "historians of female art". Women in art history I maintain as something to avoid, in particular because the topic is legitimately related to the-history-of-women-in-art, as sources indicate that women art historians helped secure greater recognition for the historic contributions of women in art, leading to the very real possibility that a reader will look at the article and still not be clear which interpretation the title refers to. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

This can be easily fixed with a disambiguator at the top, which points people to any articles we have on Women in the history of art for example. I think y'all are overplaying the confusion card here, the lede can clear that up rather quickly as well. Women art historians sounds like we're talking about individual women art historians, but we aren't. we're talking about the experience of a whole gender in this field.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm with Nat (Women art historians), but Women in the art history field would be a viable second option. G S Palmer (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Quite a bit of time having passed, I've mulled it over and decided that Women in the art history field would be the best option. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Andreas Philopater's odd comment on the AfD discussion page

I am only anonymous to Wikipedians. I am not an entirely unknown quantity in the world of art history. I am most definitely an academic (my other hobbies include telling jokes and calling people names on the Internet), and if anyone is curious about my work you can check out my publications on academia.edu here: (https://independent.academia.edu/VictoriaHFScott). And/or you can follow me on Twitter @vhfscott Andreas. Using my initials is sheer caprice, and makes me anonymous only to those who do not know me, while preserving my authorship on Wikipedia articles that I think are important, for those who do. This page for instance (which I made with my students at Alfred University): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_university_art_museums_and_galleries_in_New_York_State If you scroll down to the bottom of my sandbox page you will see another article I wrote with my students was prematurely deleted on false grounds, and is currently being considered for reinstatement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vhfs/sandbox Boy that shouldn't have happened...

As for the goodly Joan Evans, I had no idea that she even existed! But she sounds fascinating! I am sure there are other amazing women art historians out there that I have yet to learn about...but that was the whole point of making the list! As for the "the horde of black-text nonentities" (!!!????) could we please bring them back here to this page so people can start to sift through them and write articles for...*every single* one of them!? Because they are not really a "horde of black-text nonentities" they are just great art historians, who happen to be women, that do not have the Wikipedia articles they truly deserve yet.

I am sorry about posting the IP address, I take online privacy very seriously. I just wrote on essay on the subject actually, in relation to academic freedom. I am new to Wikipedia, and really was very angry and had no idea there was a rule against that. I wanted to know, above all, who had vandalized the article. As it turned out, the IP address was the wrong one anyway. It is very unlikely that I will do it again.

Finally: I don't think I discredited feminist editing. I strongly and emphatically disagreed with some editing done by a person who describes themselves as a feminist. I also describe myself as a feminist, but as an art historian and scholar first. I think there is nothing extreme about my conduct actually, but I think the times we live in are extreme.

But I am so happy it is a keeper! Forza! (Vhfs (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC))

p.s. I still think the intro essay is totally bogus and that the list needs to be much longer and with numbers somehow. p.p.s. I think the new titles works.

You don't go around calling people "motherfuckers" unless you're first properly introduced to them. I don't know how you were raised, but it's not acceptable here. To say that "the times we live in are extreme" is a bit, well, lazy and self-serving. Maybe if you're living in a Syrian refugee camp, or if you couldn't get a job as a museum curator in the 1970s because you were a woman and instead you were relegated to making coffee and licking stamps, maybe then you can say it with some validity. These times, for most of us editors here, are not extreme: that your article was nominated for deletion does not mean you are being repressed and, now that it's being kept, you're welcome. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Vhfs, if you don't like the intro essay, this is your opportunity to change/edit it... that's how it works here. Many articles start off as crap, get crappier, have more crap inserted, and only over time get polished into shiny turds (or, perhaps, gold). None of us has all the answers, and it sometimes takes many diff editors looking at the issue from many diff points of view to get it right. As for the list of black-text non-entities, as mentioned before lists with oodles of red-links are generally discouraged, for one since it encourages other people to add themselves to the list. The vast majority of art historians, like the vast majority of academics, are NOT notable per wikipedia standards for academics or creatives, which are rather high (you do have one point, which is that the standards for inclusion of football players is much lower than the standard for inclusion of academics, but attempts to change this have not been met with consensus - it is probably a reflection of the culture we live in, where every newspaper has a sports section, but very few have an "art history" section. I would personally rather restrict and have fewer articles about football players, than do the opposite and expand notability requirements for academics which would add MORE biographies of marginally notable academics to the wiki, but I digress) The old list is still in the history, and if you'd like to make a subpage here, like Talk:Women in art history professions/Articles to create you can add them all there, and then remove them once articles are created - but consensus was pretty firmly against having a list of mostly red-links in mainspace. You need to create the articles, and have the articles survive, before adding them here. The only exceptions are for people who are so obviously notable but someone just hasn't gotten around to creating them, so a very FEW redlinks could be added if you know of such examples. I'd suggest starting by looking at who the italians and french list in their wiki, and translating those articles.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want to use the old list as a source/jumping off point for creating new articles, here it is: Revision as of 15:13, 23 May 2014, as edited by 128.32.158.161 (talk). Good luck! G S Palmer (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

You may want to reflect on the fact that nobody vandalized the page. Someone did do some edits in good faith trying to improve the encyclopedia, which is exactly what editors are supposed to be doing here. That you didn't agree with the edits is simply part of the process here. You may want to reflect that others here are living during these times as well, and have not been cussing folks out as part of this process (whether they do offline is another matter.) I'm glad that you've reviewed WP:OUTING; that's an easy one to make missteps about along the way, many of us have, but with folks having been faced with offline retribution for their work here, privacy is a real legitimate concern for some. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, User:Vhfs, I can only apologise for worrying that a real-life professedly feminist academic art historian would be unlikely to be going around swearing at random strangers on the internet for not acknowledging her privilege. I clearly have unrealistic expectations of academia. I would add, in light of your reference to "preserving my authorship on Wikipedia articles", that having a read of WP:OWN might have saved you some grief. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

User: Andreas Philopater Indeed, as you admit yourself, your ideas about academia are somewhat unrealistic, dated, and misinformed. The academic "privileges" you mention are purely a figment of your own imagination and do not exist for the 80% of us who work as adjuncts in the US. There is a crisis happening in higher education everywhere, in case you didn't know. And guess who is getting the shortest end of the stick? Humanities scholars are the lowest paid scholars at every university, and among humanities scholars guess who gets the lowest pay? Art historians. And, of course, male art historians get paid more, because they are male. Even fancy adjuncts like myself make less than high school teachers, and often work without healthcare, without offices, without regular library access, and without job stability. I have lived in 14 cities in as many years, if you can believe it. Certainly, I can hardly believe it myself, and wonder exactly when I will just completely lose it. It is true I do not own the article, thank god, but nevertheless since it was I who proposed it, and I who initially fought for it, in a way, I do. As for swearing at random strangers on the internet, well, I would say I am sorry, but I would just be pretending, because I really do not think very highly of you, and all of the assumptions you have made about who I am and what I stand for. Especially when, exactly by proposing and fighting for this article, with all my passion and commitment, I have made who I am and what I stand for **perfectly obvious**. That I did so in a way that was neither palatable or acceptable to the likes of you is, I am delighted to say, completely irrelevant.

(Vhfs (talk) 07:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC))

It must be very hard to be a victim of your own educational attainment. I don't quite see how swearing at strangers on the internet makes it better, but in any case glad to be of service. You're very welcome. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we can stop this unprodutive line of discussion? It doesn't seem to have much to do with the purpose of this talk page, which is improvement to the corresponding article. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Trina Robbins

I'm going to suggest the addition of Trina Robbins to this list. Robbins has done extensive work specifically on women in the comics field, done much to gain additional attention to them. I will not make the addition myself, because I have a substantial conflict of interest here. I publish some of Robbins creative work (not her art history material), hope to publish more, and publish some of her husband's work as well.

The two possible objections I see here:

• She is not an academic art historian. She has not to my knowledge (which is hardly all-seeing) gotten a PhD in art history, nor taught art history classes, and her books are published primarily by comics specialty presses, rather than academic presses. However, she has some pieces that may qualify, and her works get a reasonable number of citations, though I haven't waded through them all to judge the academic quality of where she's being cited.
• She is clearly notable and an art historian, but it may be argued that she is not notable for being an art historian. She does get coverage on the basis of her art history work.

I leave it to others to judge. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good addition to me. G S Palmer (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. I'm not sure how the art history field defines itself and its practitioners - are historians of dance, music, film, literature all within the realm of art history, or is it confined to the beaux arts, or Fine art, or something else? to what extent are comic books popular culture vs art? Ugh I'm not sure I even want to start that "what is art" debate.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Short answer: yes, comic books are art. But that's just my opinion. G S Palmer (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Page statistics, um, page

They seem a bit wonky, and also, maybe not so accurate. Is there a way to fix that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vhfs (talk • contribs) 06:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Vhfs: not sure exactly what you mean by "page statistics". If you mean this, I really don't think there is, short of contacting the WMF or whoever it is that compiles it. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 12:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Links from individual pages of all the art historians listed here, back to this page

Wouldn't that be nice?

(Vhfs (talk) 10:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC))

• Do it then! G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 12:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
• Such links might be appropriate in the "See also" link sections; it probably only lends itself to direct linking in the article body if there is specific discussion of the subject's gender. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
• I would if I had time. But I don't. I think there should be links whether the article discusses gender or not. But that is just me. And I am just a woman. So why would you take my word for it? :) (Vhfs (talk) 04:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC))

• Which is why there are "See also" sections, to include links that are relevant but not naturally referred to in the body of the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The French! Where are the French Ladies of Art history!???

Someone please add some French ladies, I would do it myself, but I already added them originally and they got removed. AND I AM STILL BITTER ABOUT IT FOR SOME CRAZY REASON. But really it is so ridiculous that there is not one French woman there. Please fix it. (194.199.7.36 (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC))

Please do feel free to add some of these female French art historians yourself too 194.199.7.36! Lots of women are missing from this list and any help is welcome. Jooojay (talk) 01:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Red linked additions

An IP editor has repeatedly been inserted additional names on the ilst, ones without extant Wikipedia articles ("red links"). Please see the discussion above titled "Changing consensus on inclusion" to see that general agreement has been reached on not including such names. If the editor wants an exception for these cases, or to change consensus, they should do so in discussion here rather than repeatedly trying to add the same material (and delete Sister Wendy). --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Lots of red links are still being added, please note they will be removed - until a Wikipedia article is created for this person. Jooojay (talk) 09:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Red link lists to work off of for article creation

Originally there was a master list of all the women art historians that needed WP articles (red links), and should be on this list. Does anyone know where I can find this list now? Jooojay (talk) 03:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure which list you have in mind, but there's an automatically generated listing of women art historians on other language Wikipedias that are missing from the English Wikipedia, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Art historians. There are 845 names on the list currently. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you David Eppstein! This works perfectly! Jooojay (talk) 06:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Here are some other, older lists of red links that may also need work/addition (and there might be overlap between all these lists), Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Dsp13 List/24 and List of feminist art critics. Jooojay (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Updating this list with the Category page

The category page now has about double the number of entries than this page. It would be nice if someone could add the missing ones here. I might start myself, but I just thought I would let people know, in case they are interested. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Women_art_historians Vhfs (talk) 07:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I have added a Russian-American art historian: Julia Friedman -- does that count?

Hello, I would like to bring to your attention that I have just created a page for a woman in the field of art history. Needless to say, this page Julia Friedman could use your assistance! Many of her own accomplishments are being discounted, and in one particular instance it is assumed that her merit rests upon an older male. I would appreciate any assistance you could offer. Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Julia Friedman (or Yulia Friedman, Russian: Юлия Фри́дман; born 14 July 1971) is a Russian-born art historian, critic and curator. She received her Ph.D. in Art History from Brown University in 2005 under Kermit S. Champa, and B.A. from University of Wisconsin–Madison in 1994. Friedman has researched and taught at Waseda University, University of Tokyo, Durham University, Syracuse University, Brown University, Rhode Island School of Design, University of California, Irvine, Arizona State University, California State University, Long Beach, and Temple University.

New page for Julia Friedman

Hello, I would like to bring to your attention that I have just created a page for a woman in the field of art history. The page is for Julia Friedman, a Russian born Los Angeles art historian. Needless to say, this page Julia Friedman could use your assistance! I hope you can read the wonderful review that inspired my efforts in The Times Literary Supplement published May 27. I would appreciate any contribution you could make or offer. Despite this mid-career woman's notable talent and scholarship, the past few hours since its launch have been very difficult. Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Julia Friedman (or Yulia Friedman, Russian: Юлия Фри́дман; born 14 July 1971) is a Russian-born art historian, critic and curator. She received her Ph.D. in Art History from Brown University in 2005 under Kermit S. Champa, and B.A. from University of Wisconsin–Madison in 1994. Friedman has researched and taught at Waseda University, University of Tokyo, Durham University, Syracuse University, Brown University, Rhode Island School of Design, University of California, Irvine, Arizona State University, California State University, Long Beach, and Temple University.

Note that this article was deleted and redirected later in 2016 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Friedman. However, the decision was in large part affected by the discovery of sockpuppetry on the part of its creator (the author of the above comment). The closing decision left open the possibility that the article could be created again, if it were done in a more neutral and COI-free way. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for adding a note here about this, it's very helpful. Jooojay (talk) 01:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Coagula Art Journal #113, May 2016

Might this be of interest to any editors/readers? The 113th issue of ‘’Coagula Art Journal’’, May 2016, is the largest ever printed in the magazine’s 24 year history at 88 pages. This issue highlights Eric Minh Swenson's documentary photographs of Art Stars – 160 women artists, dealers, and writers in the art scene from New York to California – with an introduction by Mat Gleason. Cecily Brown, Catherine Opie, Alexis Smith (artist), Casey Jane Ellison, Edythe Broad, Hunter Drohojowska-Philip, Julia Friedman, Helen Molesworth, Michele Maccarone, and other notable "art stars" are featured. --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

List sorting and name issue

Hi! I noticed that the Jodie Evans and Helen Gardner article titles on WP have (art historian) after them (because they have common names), and I don't know how to make this list sort and properly link to the article still. Can anyone help? Thanks Jooojay (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent deletion of 3 notable art historians

I have recently added 3 notable art historians to the list; they were all deleted for different reasons. This is why they are important for the field:

• Hilde Zaloscer has an English wikipedia entry, she is the first and most important voice on Coptic Art in the first half of the twentieth century. She has been a professor in Canada and Alexandria, a lecturer in Vienna, and has been a refugee twice which made her career tremendously difficult yet she has been a truly prolific and significant scholar for our field.
• Ellen Beer has no English wikipedia entry, but has received several obituaries from fellow art historians and was the most significant female medieval art historian of the 20th century in the German speaking context. It would be absurd not to include her on this list just because she has no wikipedia article yet. I am happy to add footnotes to these obituaries, which got published in all major (German) art historian journals.[1]
• Lottlisa Behling, has been an equally important voice for the history of art in the first half of the 20th century, she was pioneering ecoart history with her study of plants in art and history. There are over 40 entries in kubikat to her monographs and articles.[2]

I have only started to look into missing female Austrian, German, and Swiss art historians on this list. I have started with these three because their scholarship has been recognized by the anglosaxon world although they are usually not represented on the English wikipedia or the Dictionary of Art Historians. --272syrius (talk) 09:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I have restored Hilde Zaloscer, as it was deleted under the claim of being a red link, which she was not (I can see how it might have been mis-read; the link was formed to appear only on her last name, so ((ping|Joojay}} may have assumed it was just linking to a page about the surname, but it was linking to a proper page.

I haven't the time at the moment to investigate the other two, but am going to suggest that you create stub articles for them, at least enough to give name, position, a claim of notability, and enough references to establish their notability, and then add them here. A no-red-links policy not only makes this page more maintainable and keeps notability discussions in places better built for just that, it also encourages folks to create pages for these people. If they're notable, we want a page on them, even if it's only a stubby thing to start! And with that stub in place, they can't be deleted for red-link reasons... unless that stub gets deleted. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, I had missed the Hilde Zaloscer article based on the improper linking. I agree with Nat Gertler re: let's make these historians (at minimum) a stub in English WP. Jooojay (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Funny relevant article about the recognition of women scientists on Dickipedia

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.06310.pdf ( Vhfs (talk) 09:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC) )

Why is the Schellekens et al. study relevant to this talk page? It helps if you add a reason instead of just a link and insulting with name calling (ie. Dickipedia). Trolling isn't helping anyone and ironically it adds to the stereotypes. Jooojay (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)