Talk:List of female scientists before the 20th century/Archive 1

Archive 1

General

• Confusing date information on this page was clarified.
• Sophie Germain and Barabara McClintock were added.
• Tarquinia Molza was removed because it seems her activity was mostly musical composition, although one source cited philosophical writings. Does anyone think that philosophy should be included here?
• An external link to 4000 Years of Women in Science at the University of Alabama's Department of Physics and Astronomy was added, which seems like a good resource for information mining on this topic. -- Robert Turner 19:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Removed "astronomer" as a descriptor for Lydia Maria Adams DeWitt. A four-page biography I just read made no mention of this activity. I suspect the entry is due to confusion with astronomer Maria Mitchell. Someone with a solid reference to support astronomer as a descriptor for DeWitt may change it. IGE 1 Feb 2007
• Removed a duplicate entry for Émilie du Châtelet. 68.183.53.71 (talk) 05:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Subjects for inclusion, non-duplication

I'd suggest removing Julia Morgan, a 20th C architect. Any objections?

I'd also suggest we assign people to a single period to avoid duplication, eg Emmy Noether. Should we go by date of birth, or date of main body of work? -- I'd suggest the latter. Espresso Addict 22:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• I was working though the list checking people were in the right place, I finished up to the 19th century before I got sidetracked, so there may be some werid inclusions or duplicates since I lifted some of the list from an online source of variable quality. I agree people should appear in the period where they would have been working.--Peta 00:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've now trawled quickly through the 19th & 20th Centuries, though there are so many red links and some may have existing pages under a name variant I didn't think to try. I've removed the duplicate Noether, and I'll comment out Morgan unless anyone objects in the next couple of days. Espresso Addict 02:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to create subheadings, inclusion criteria

The large input in the 19th C from 59.167.55.232 (thanks!) has had the unfortunate side effect of making the page rather unwieldy to read. I suggest dividing 19th and 20th centuries into subsections, based on subject, or possibly geographic location. Comments, anyone?

We probably also need to consider the inclusion criteria, especially for the 20th century, which has the potential to grow to unmanageable size unless we can agree some criteria. Espresso Addict 15:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• That was me, for some reason logged out. I think sorting the 19th and 20th centuries by field and using columns to fit multiple people across the page would be a good idea. Inclusion criteria would be hard to choose, since something that was an awesome achievement in the mid 20th century is often standard lab practice now (I'm thinking of biology, but the same applies to things achieved in other fields over time). I'm quite happy for any scientist that meets WP:BIO to appear on the list.--Peta 01:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Division by fields sounds good to me. Re inclusion, we could see how it goes. I suppose splitting the list up by century might be better than excluding people simply on size grounds. Columns would be great -- how do you do them? Espresso Addict 02:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Take a look in edit view to see the syntax, I don't think we'd want to go more that 3 people across the page, unless we take out the dates and description. More than 3 columns can mess up at low resolutions too I think.--Peta 03:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Two columns might work best, given some of the longer descriptions. Espresso Addict 02:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Physics

• items go here
• and here

• next column

• next column etc

I've implemented the two columns, as discussed last year; however, they look a bit messy as the column width varies per section -- does anyone know how to fix this? Espresso Addict 10:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sexism

Um, isn't creating an article titled "List of female scientists" and not having an article titled "List of male scientists" EXTREMELY sexist, as if it's incredibly surprising to see a woman be a scientist rather than a man? 65.27.211.52 22:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• For several reasons explained in the women in science article women were largely excluded from formal scientific studies until the late 19th century, and remain significantly underrepresented in some areas (eg maths, physics, engineering) (see refs in that article). There are also many controversies relating to contributions from female scientists not being fully recognised. Espresso Addict 23:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Just because sexism against female scientists has/does exist, that doesn't mean that having a page for only one gender isn't still positive discrimination.84.92.173.196
    • The scientists on this list, who are all independently notable in their own right as scientists, also deserve extra recognition for having succeeded at a time when women in science were often the target of widespread, overt and blatant discrimination. Hence the existence of this list. This list exists to stimulate the creation of articles for these pioneering pre-21st century scientists. This level of discrimination appears (hopefully) no longer to be commonplace, and women scientists are no longer uncommon; which is why this is a historical list. -- The Anome (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Empress Theodora

"Empress Theodora, (500-545), Turkish (Byzantine) philosopher and mathematician"

I can find no mention of philosophy or mathematics in the article linked. Is there a reference for this, or is some other Theodora intended? There seem to be several possibilities at the dab page Theodora, but none seem to fit the material added. Espresso Addict 16:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yvonne Choquet-Bruhat, the theoretical physicist

Feeling too tired - so will some regular wikipedian look up her year of birth etc and include her name please - ---- ex-wikipedian retired owing to poor health

I've added her to the list. -- The Anome 09:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Pythias of Assos

Pythias' article makes no mention of her having made any study of marine zoology: can someone please add a citation to confirm her interest in zoology, as otherwise this entry will probably need to be deleted. -- Karada 09:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've now added {{cn}} to three other entries from antiquity, where an article is lacking, or the article contains no citation. -- Karada 09:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Olive Ann Beech

I've removed Olive Ann Beech from this list: she was an aviation pioneer and highly successful businesswoman who ran a technology company, but not, as far as I can tell, a scientist. I've added a stub bio for her: she is definitely notable in her own right. -- Karada 09:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

21st century?

The latest addition, Fiona Wood, seems best known for contributions in the 21st century. Should we start a new section? Espresso Addict (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Also true of Margaret Chan, who I've just added. Any objections to starting a 21st century section? Espresso Addict (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Although women are still not equally represented in science, and there is still some covert discrimination against female scientists, I believe that the era of widespread, overt and blatant discrimination against women scientists is now over, and women scientists are no longer notable over and above their scientific achievements, just for surmounting these obstacles. (Please note that all the women in this list already independently pass the notability criteria on their own merits; just being female and working in science is not enough to be on this list.) Today's leading women scientists need no special treatment. -- The Anome (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Caroline Austin

Caroline Austin was added in August by 70.156.36.74. She appears to be a professor of molecular biology at Newcastle University with decent citation rates for some of her papers. I have corrected the ordering and provided a link to her Newcastle page, but am not sure whether or not she is sufficiently notable to deserve an article. Perhaps someone knowledgeable in her field could check?

I wonder if we should restrict scientists currently active to those with previously existing pages or extremely obvious notability (eg major prize), because of the very large numbers of women currently working as scientists? Espresso Addict (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Female scientist may still be more rare than male, but this are changing allt the time, and eventually they will be no difference, and the need for these lists will not be necessary. I, therefore, beleive that the list are very valuable and important up until the 20th- century, but in this century, the need for it grows smaller and smaller every year, in parallell with the growing equality. I therefore suggest, that the examples after the year of 2000, should be limited to exceptionally notable cases. --85.226.44.238 (talk) 13:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Red Link

Please add only those with wiki article. Accordance with wiki policy. (69.115.82.63 (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC))

Red links can be accepted on the condition that they have a reference. If you removed a red link with a reference, please put it back. --Aciram (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Red Links with references have been put back. Red Links WITHOUT references have been removed. (69.115.82.63 (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC))

split by discipline

I've split the 19th century by discipline though I'm also wondering whether inventors and medical professionals should be dropped as scientists unless they are also scientists or mathematicians (e.g., Florence Nightingale was a pioneering statistician as well as a nurse). If people have no complaints, I'll go ahead and do the 20th century. --Erp (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Probably makes sense to split the larger lists, the only problem will be the occasional woman that was known for more than one discipline. Yes, I'm not sure about engineers and inventors, I've never considered them to be research scientists either, but then I'm an artist, so what would I know! Sionk (talk) 10:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Health care professionals

It seems to me that most of the health care professionals should not be on this list because they did not do any research. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Well yes but it does require a bit of work to check whether they do or don't (or to be exact are they significant enough as scientists [or natural philosophers] to be included) and then dropping those that don't. I may start dropping the next time I decide to take a close look.--Erp (talk) 04:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Lawyers

I fail to see why female lawyers are included in a list of female scientists. By no stretch of syntax, grammar, etymology or logic, can lawyers be considered scientists. Pip of Dug Road (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

FWIW I agree. I'm not sure how philosophers can be described as scientists either. Sionk (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Prior to the early 1800s the term 'scientist' didn't exist but 'natural philosopher' did. So the question is whether each philosopher in question was doing natural philosophy. Lawyers can sometimes do work in science especially in the days when science was a hobby not a paying profession (see Edward Fry and for that matter I know a female lawyer who has a PhD in chemistry from Berkeley so she did science even though she no longer does) --Erp (talk) 04:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I guessed 'natural philosopher' may mean something scientificky. Generally this list article should include women who were notable for their work and achievements in the sciences, so if they are notable only for something else e.g. being a lawyer, then I don't think they should be included. Sionk (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree so let us list the dubious

• Bettina and Novella d'Andrea, sisters, lawyers, one is listed as a philosopher (but not a natural philosopher), both as lawyers. Nothing in their wiki articles to indicate they did natural philosophy. Very dubious
• Bettisia Gozzadini, lawyer, nothing to indicate she did natural philosophy
• Maria Pellegrina Amoretti, lawyer, nothing to indicate she did natural philosophy

I've removed them. I note there may be some confusion by non-fluent English speakers in that the cognate for the English word 'science' in some other European languages means something more like 'scholarship'. These women as professors were 'scholars' but not 'scientists'/'natural philosophers'— Preceding unsigned comment added by Erp (talk • contribs) 03:47, 4 August 2013

Archive 1