Cannabis Ruderalis

Content deleted Content added
64.56.11.249 (talk)
Tag: Reverted
EvergreenFir (talk | contribs)
Tag: Reply
 
(648 intermediate revisions by 97 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header}}
{{Talk header}}
{{Vital article|level=3|topic=Life|class=C}}
{{censor}}
{{censor}}
{{Notice|[[File:Woman at Lover's Bridge Tanjung Sepat (cropped).jpg|thumb|upright=.5|Lead image]]
{{Notice|[[File:Woman at Lover's Bridge Tanjung Sepat (cropped).jpg|thumb|upright=.5|Lead image]]
'''Important Note:''' The most appropriate image to use at the top of this article has been a highly controversial issue with many valid viewpoints. The current lead image was chosen by [[Special:Diff/1025147250#RfC:_Lead_image|an RfC]] on 5/26/2021.
'''Important Note:''' The most appropriate image to use at the top of this article has been a highly controversial issue with many valid viewpoints. The current lead image was chosen by [[Special:Diff/1025147250#RfC:_Lead_image|an RfC]] on 5/26/2021.
[[Talk:Woman/sandbox|A '''gallery and discussion''' of potential lead images is also available here]]. New images may be added there.}}
[[Talk:Woman/sandbox|A '''gallery and discussion''' of potential lead images is also available here]]. New images may be added there.}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Anthropology|class=C|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=C|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Gender studies|class=C|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Feminism|class=C|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Women|class=c|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Women's History|class=c|importance=high}}
{{WP1.0|coresup=yes|v0.7=pass|class=C|category=Natsci|VA=yes|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Women's sport |class=C |importance=Low}}
}}

{{Ds/talk notice|topic=pa}}
{{Round in circles
{{Round in circles
| [[Talk:Woman/Archive 14#Proposed_edits_to_lede|Wording of lede]]
| [[Talk:Woman/Archive 14#Proposed_edits_to_lede|Wording of lede]]
Line 24: Line 11:
|topic= ''Wording of lede'', ''Definition of woman'' and ''Self contradiction in lede''
|topic= ''Wording of lede'', ''Definition of woman'' and ''Self contradiction in lede''
}}
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Anthropology|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Gender studies|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Feminism|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Women}}
{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Women's sport|importance=high}}
}}
{{pp|small=yes}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=pa}}
{{section sizes}}
{{section sizes}}
{{page views}}
{{page views}}
Line 29: Line 27:
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
|maxarchivesize = 70K
|maxarchivesize = 70K
|counter = 24
|counter = 28
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(14d)
|algo = old(14d)
Line 37: Line 35:
__TOC__
__TOC__


== Why was it edited from "adult human female" to "adult female human"? ==
COrey


Adult human female is better [[User:ShobanChiddarth|ShobanChiddarth]] ([[User talk:ShobanChiddarth|talk]]) 13:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
correy hey wyd

== What is this article supposed to be about? ==
{{atop
| status =
| result = This isn't going anywhere. ■&nbsp;∃&nbsp;[[User:Maddy from Celeste|<b style="color:#C64600">Madeline</b>]]&nbsp;⇔&nbsp;∃&nbsp;[[User talk:Maddy from Celeste|<b style="color:#613583">Part&nbsp;of&nbsp;me</b>]]&nbsp;''';''' 20:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
}}


:No such change has occurred that I'm aware of. Possibly a [[Mandela effect|Berenstein effect]]? The sources cited (and various others) tend to use use ''female'' as an adjective modifying ''human'' or ''person''. "Adult human female" is more common as a TERF/GC slogan. See also {{slink|wikt:female#Usage notes}}. –[[User:RoxySaunders|RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️]] ([[User talk:RoxySaunders|💬]] • [[Special:Contributions/RoxySaunders|📝]]) 13:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
::Yes, even if the other version wasn't in use as a [[Dog whistle (politics)|dog whistle]] the current version is more grammatically correct and there is no reason to prefer the Ferengi version. [[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 20:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


== Page edit request ==


Please let me remove a image from this article [[User:Mybirthday647|Mybirthday647]] ([[User talk:Mybirthday647|talk]]) 20:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
I apologise profusely if there's an answer to my question within the many talk pages for this article. I've scanned them but not found it.


:@[[User:Mybirthday647|Mybirthday647]], can you please tell us which image you would like removed. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 20:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
So what is the article supposed to be about? It seems to me that if consensus were reached on this question, some of the other controversies would go away.


== Ada Lovelace should be added to the science section of the article ==
For example, is the article supposed to be about "women" in the sense in which the majority of native English speakers use the word "women", namely to refer to adult humans of the female sex? If so, the first sentence of the article is fine as it is, but the paragraph about trans women is incongruous (if anything, it should be about trans men rather than trans women).


How is possible that Ada Lovelace is not mentioned in the science section of this article?
Alternatively, is the article supposed to be about "women" in every sense in which competent English speakers use the word "women", including fringe uses? If so, perhaps there should be more about trans women in the article, but the sections about biology will need to duplicate what's in [[Man]], since trans women are biologically male.


Ada Lovelace was the creator one of the first algorithms for modern computers, she had the intention to develop software for multipurpose tasks, not just the first woman, but one of the first humans if not the first in doing that.
Finally, I note that article is "part of a series on women in society". Is a sense of "woman" stipulated for the purposes of that series? I've searched the help pages but not found anything.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace#First_published_computer_program
Let me emphasise that I'm not trying to reignite discussions that have already been had, which should be clear enough from a careful reading of the paragraphs above. [[User:H Remster|H Remster]] ([[User talk:H Remster|talk]]) 17:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Note_G
:This discussion may be helpful to review: [[Talk:Woman#WP:NPOV and MOS:LEAD]]. Thank you, [[User:Beccaynr|Beccaynr]] ([[User talk:Beccaynr|talk]]) 18:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
::I've looked. What specifically are you directing me to? [[User:H Remster|H Remster]] ([[User talk:H Remster|talk]]) 19:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
:The [[WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS|implicit consensus]] is what you see in the article. That it is exclusively based on biological sex and that anything else is "fringe uses" is not supported by reliable sources. Presumably you would dislike it even more if someone tried to make the article exclusively about gender and not sex, so no reason to rock this boat. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 18:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
::Although it's important to remember that nothing is forever and that An edit has [[Wikipedia:Silence and consensus|presumed consensus]] until it is disputed or reverted. Should another editor revise that edit then the new edit will have presumed consensus until it meets with disagreement. In this way, the [[Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required|encyclopedia gradually improves over time]]. [[User:Lukewarmbeer|Lukewarmbeer]] ([[User talk:Lukewarmbeer|talk]]) 19:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
::I'm not sure how this is an answer to my question. I've asked what the article is supposed to be about, i.e. what its subject-matter is supposed to be. You've replied "The [[Wikipedia:IMPLICITCONSENSUS|implicit consensus]] is what you see in the article". The implicit consensus about what? [[User:H Remster|H Remster]] ([[User talk:H Remster|talk]]) 19:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
:::On another page, editors have used the creation of discussions like this to argue that the first sentence should explicitly define the topic as more so based on gender. Do you wish to enable this? <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 19:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
::::No, I wish to establish (here, on the talk page) what the article supposed to be about, i.e. what its subject-matter is supposed to be. [[User:H Remster|H Remster]] ([[User talk:H Remster|talk]]) 19:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::The subject matter is what reliable sources, as a whole and in proportion, have to say about the topic of "woman" or the plural, "women". <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 19:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
::::::Hmm, I think we understand the phrase "subject-matter" differently, so I'll rephrase. I wish to establish (here, on the talk page) what the article is supposed to be about, i.e. what the topic is supposed to be. [[User:H Remster|H Remster]] ([[User talk:H Remster|talk]]) 19:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::::If your response is simply that the topic of the article is the topic of "woman", my next (and also original) question is: "woman" in what sense of the word "woman"? [[User:H Remster|H Remster]] ([[User talk:H Remster|talk]]) 19:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
::::::::In the sense of how RS defines it, which includes trans women. [[User:Filiforme1312|Filiforme1312]] ([[User talk:Filiforme1312|talk]]) 11:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::@[[User:Filiforme1312|Filiforme1312]] Ah, the sainted RS. You'll be adding a section on female servants and personal attendants, then? No, I thought not. [[User:H Remster|H Remster]] ([[User talk:H Remster|talk]]) 20:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::Yes, we work based on RS. If you feel those are DUE go ahead and create a new talk section and myself and others would be happy to help. [[User:Filiforme1312|Filiforme1312]] ([[User talk:Filiforme1312|talk]]) 20:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::I was being flippant. I've just come back to respond properly.
:::::::::::If you read my original post (which I doubt), you'll know that I'm not trying to get the article changed. Rather, I'm suggesting a way of neutralising some of the controversies that have arisen in these talk pages, namely by clarifying or even stipulating what the topic is. If the topic is whatever-gender-studies-experts-mean-by-"woman", then so be it. Gender studies is hardly a credible academic discipline, but that's neither here nor there if the article is a gender studies article. [[User:H Remster|H Remster]] ([[User talk:H Remster|talk]]) 21:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::Lol I did read your post. Glad you read my user page and consider me an expert. [[User:Filiforme1312|Filiforme1312]] ([[User talk:Filiforme1312|talk]]) 21:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I've no idea what a user page is, but I took you to be an activist. [[User:H Remster|H Remster]] ([[User talk:H Remster|talk]]) 19:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::This article is about adult female humans. The contents of the body are that subject matter. We're having a similar discussion at [[Talk:Man]], which I think is at a similar place as here: folks are happy with what the body contains, though of course the quality and depth can be improved up to the [[WP:FA]] level yet. I'm not seeing any broad move to actually change what man or woman are about, though there is musing about how to best approach the definition. [[User:CaptainEek|<b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 19:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
::::::And is the article supposed to cover every sense of "female" or just the majority, biological sense? [[User:H Remster|H Remster]] ([[User talk:H Remster|talk]]) 19:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::::This article does cover multiple facets of female, though in keeping with [[WP:SUMMARY|summary style]], sub-categories like [[trans woman]] or [[mother]] are split out and only briefly mentioned here. The logic is straightforward: all mothers are women, but not all women are mothers. So it bears mentioning here, but not at great length. [[User:CaptainEek|<b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 20:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
::::::::I get that, but all mothers are also female (in the biological sense of "female"), whereas no (or hardly any) trans women are female. That makes the paragraph about trans women look like a change of subject [[Talk:Woman#WP:NPOV and MOS:LEAD|–]] on the assumption that the article is supposed to be about adult female (in the biological sense) humans. [[User:H Remster|H Remster]] ([[User talk:H Remster|talk]]) 20:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::I think you misunderstand the subject. Female in humans is about sex and gender, which is mentioned at the article about female. [[User:CaptainEek|<b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 20:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::What a curious response. Obviously I misunderstand the subject, or I wouldn't have needed to ask the question in the first place.
::::::::::So the correct response to my initial comment is that the article is supposed to be about both "women" in the sense of "adult humans of the female sex" (the majority sense) and "women" in the sense of "adult humans of the female gender" (as yet a fringe sense). Where I went wrong was in suggesting that "the sections about biology will need to duplicate what's in [[Man]], since trans women are biologically male". I can see now that additional information about the sex of adult humans of the female gender who aren't also adult humans of the female sex is irrelevant to the article.
::::::::::For what it's worth, I'd have thought that separate articles for the two sense of "woman" are called for, with a disambiguation page. But I'd be surprised if that idea hadn't been floated already. [[User:H Remster|H Remster]] ([[User talk:H Remster|talk]]) 21:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::I don't think that sources, or society for that matter, differentiates between those senses of woman, so neither would we. Nor do I think the female gender is a fringe concept. [[User:CaptainEek|<b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 21:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::I didn't say that it's a fringe concept. I said that it's a fringe sense of "woman". [https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/article/2/1/181 Here]'s a paper that illustrates the point. The hypothesis that people don't differentiate between the two senses can't explain the pattern of responses. [[User:H Remster|H Remster]] ([[User talk:H Remster|talk]]) 21:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
{{od}} Somehow a paper from the "Journal of Controversial Ideas" doesn't strike me as something we should be relying on heavily. [[User:CaptainEek|<b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 21:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


:What do you know about that journal? [[User:H Remster|H Remster]] ([[User talk:H Remster|talk]]) 21:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks.--[[User:Zchemic|Zchemic]] ([[User talk:Zchemic|talk]]) 16:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
::A journal, which by definition, publishes controversial ideas. Inherently, that is outside the mainstream, which means it is more likely to be [[WP:FRINGE]], and certainly a minority viewpoint. [[User:CaptainEek|<b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 22:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
:::Have you deduced that from the title, or looked into why it's called that? [[User:H Remster|H Remster]] ([[User talk:H Remster|talk]]) 22:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
:::In fact, you can find the answer in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the journal's homepage. It has nothing to do with being fringe. [[User:H Remster|H Remster]] ([[User talk:H Remster|talk]]) 22:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
::::"The Journal of Controversial Ideas offers a forum for careful, rigorous, unpolemical discussion of issues that are widely considered controversial, in the sense that ''certain views'' about them might be regarded by many people as ''morally, socially, or ideologically objectionable or offensive.''" (emphasis added) I don't think that makes for something that Wikipedia should be following. Regardless, that one paper alone is not cause for us to suddenly split our coverage of man/woman out into separate articles. This article is doing the trick just fine. [[User:CaptainEek|<b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 22:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::I wasn't saying it did (make for something that Wikipedia should be following). I was saying it explains the sense in which the ideas the journal contains are "controversial". And I cited the paper in the first place only as a response to your 21:27, 26 March 2023 post. It doesn't surprise me for a moment that you don't want to see the article split. [[User:H Remster|H Remster]] ([[User talk:H Remster|talk]]) 22:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
::::::There are many pages of archives on this talk page regarding your question and similar questions. There are even helpful links to important discussions at the top of the page. [[User:Theheezy|Theheezy]] ([[User talk:Theheezy|talk]]) 05:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Another contributor who hasn't read my original post. [[User:H Remster|H Remster]] ([[User talk:H Remster|talk]]) 20:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}


:The section {{slink|Women|Science, literature and art}} is meant to be a summary of the articles [[Women in science]], [[Women in literature]], and [[Women in art]]. To avoid becoming overly long and cluttered (it already contains 6 paras and 2 images), it cannot hope to include every notable woman in these fields, regardless of her contributions. The Countess of Lovelace is mentioned in {{slink|Women_in_science#Early_nineteenth_century}} and her portrait appears in an imagebox alongside Curie later in that article.
==Wiki Education assignment: Human Cognition SP23==
:It is for the best that the text of this summary section mostly avoids mentioning women by name, as this begets lots of {{tq|why does X get included, and not Y}}, which eventually expands into a [[WP:BLUESEA]] of links. For a particularly egregious example of the useless and unreadable text this kind of editing produces, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gay_icon&oldid=995370073#2010s%E2%80%93present old revisions of the article Gay icon]. –[[User:RoxySaunders|RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️]] ([[User talk:RoxySaunders|💬]] • [[Special:Contributions/RoxySaunders|📝]]) 17:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/CSULB/Human_Cognition_SP23_(Spring_23) | assignments = [[User:Shantalr00|Shantalr00]] | start_date = 2023-01-20 | end_date = 2023-05-15 }}


== On "wermann" ==
<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by [[User:Shantalr00|Shantalr00]] ([[User talk:Shantalr00|talk]]) 05:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)</span>


The page in its current form mentions without sources the supposed existence of the Old English word ''wermann''. This word is, unless I'm gravely mistaken, completely unattested (try finding it on Wiktionary, for example) and possibly fabricated. Unless a good source can be found for the existence of ''wermann'' as an OE word (and a cursory internet search reveals only discussions pondering where on earth it supposedly came from), its mention ought to be removed. [[User:AutisticCatnip|AutisticCatnip]] ([[User talk:AutisticCatnip|talk]]) 04:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
== "Woman" refers to gender or sex? ==


:You appear to be correct. For those interested, here are some such discussions [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4psymv/in_english_when_was_wereman_replaced_by_man_and/][https://www.reddit.com/r/OldEnglish/comments/sa3n2w/who_invented_the_word_werman/][https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26574747]. I've gone and made an edit ([[Special:Diff/1216741813]]) which replaces the specious ''wermann'' with ''wer'' (apparently the most common OE word for male/man) and {{wt|ang|wǣpnedmann}}, which is attested occasionally as the analogue to ''wifmann''. I hope this looks acceptable.
This article as it's currently written appears to be equating woman to female human, which means that it is only addressing the use of the word in relation to sex. However, according to other sources, in the last 10 years, "woman" has increasing come to refer to gender, not sex, whereas "female" still refers to sex. [[User:Bespeak|Bespeak]] ([[User talk:Bespeak|talk]]) 14:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
:I think the Dictionary.com link is rotten, as it no longer contains the information we're citing it for. If anyone has access to the OED or another source which verifies this etymology, please verify this text if possible. –[[User:RoxySaunders|RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️]] ([[User talk:RoxySaunders|💬]] • [[Special:Contributions/RoxySaunders|📝]]) 18:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


== Why does this page use [[extended confirmed protection]] even though [[Man]] uses semi-protection only? ==
:You may wish to review the discussion at [[Talk:Woman/Archive_24]]. From my view, the introduction of the article could be revised to better reflect the contents of the article. I considered developing a proposal to edit the lead, but creating a lead per [[MOS:LEAD]] and [[WP:NPOV]] policy may be a more appropriate issue for the [[WP:NPOVN|Neutral Point of View Noticeboard]] to consider, so more editors can participate. [[User:Beccaynr|Beccaynr]] ([[User talk:Beccaynr|talk]]) 14:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:Bespeak|Bespeak]], @[[User:Beccaynr|Beccaynr]] You may be interested in an ongoing discussion of the corresponding question on the [[Man]] article: [[Talk:Man#RfC_on_footnote_in_lede]]. [[User:Random person no 362478479|-- Random person no 362478479]] ([[User talk:Random person no 362478479|talk]]) 19:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
:The [[female]] article makes clear that at times it ''does'' refer to gender. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 13:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


... [[User:Usersnipedname|Usersnipedname]] ([[User talk:Usersnipedname|talk]]) 08:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
== Women ==


Women are cool [[Special:Contributions/64.56.11.249|64.56.11.249]] ([[User talk:64.56.11.249|talk]]) 18:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
:GENSEX enforcement vs. generic vandalism. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 12:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
:Also because trolls and bigots perseverate more on people [[assigned male at birth]] who are either gay/bi/pan or trans. Transwomen are targeted more than transmen and thus this article gets more trolls. Here's an article: [https://www.mprnews.org/story/2013/04/28/gays-vs-lesbians-acceptance] [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 16:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:03, 12 April 2024

Why was it edited from "adult human female" to "adult female human"?

Adult human female is better ShobanChiddarth (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No such change has occurred that I'm aware of. Possibly a Berenstein effect? The sources cited (and various others) tend to use use female as an adjective modifying human or person. "Adult human female" is more common as a TERF/GC slogan. See also wikt:female § Usage notes. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 13:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, even if the other version wasn't in use as a dog whistle the current version is more grammatically correct and there is no reason to prefer the Ferengi version. DanielRigal (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page edit request

Please let me remove a image from this article Mybirthday647 (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mybirthday647, can you please tell us which image you would like removed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ada Lovelace should be added to the science section of the article

How is possible that Ada Lovelace is not mentioned in the science section of this article?

Ada Lovelace was the creator one of the first algorithms for modern computers, she had the intention to develop software for multipurpose tasks, not just the first woman, but one of the first humans if not the first in doing that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace#First_published_computer_program

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Note_G

Thanks.--Zchemic (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The section Women § Science, literature and art is meant to be a summary of the articles Women in science, Women in literature, and Women in art. To avoid becoming overly long and cluttered (it already contains 6 paras and 2 images), it cannot hope to include every notable woman in these fields, regardless of her contributions. The Countess of Lovelace is mentioned in Women in science § Early nineteenth century and her portrait appears in an imagebox alongside Curie later in that article.
It is for the best that the text of this summary section mostly avoids mentioning women by name, as this begets lots of why does X get included, and not Y, which eventually expands into a WP:BLUESEA of links. For a particularly egregious example of the useless and unreadable text this kind of editing produces, see old revisions of the article Gay icon. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 17:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On "wermann"

The page in its current form mentions without sources the supposed existence of the Old English word wermann. This word is, unless I'm gravely mistaken, completely unattested (try finding it on Wiktionary, for example) and possibly fabricated. Unless a good source can be found for the existence of wermann as an OE word (and a cursory internet search reveals only discussions pondering where on earth it supposedly came from), its mention ought to be removed. AutisticCatnip (talk) 04:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be correct. For those interested, here are some such discussions [1][2][3]. I've gone and made an edit (Special:Diff/1216741813) which replaces the specious wermann with wer (apparently the most common OE word for male/man) and wǣpnedmann, which is attested occasionally as the analogue to wifmann. I hope this looks acceptable.
I think the Dictionary.com link is rotten, as it no longer contains the information we're citing it for. If anyone has access to the OED or another source which verifies this etymology, please verify this text if possible. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 18:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this page use extended confirmed protection even though Man uses semi-protection only?

... Usersnipedname (talk) 08:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GENSEX enforcement vs. generic vandalism. Dronebogus (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also because trolls and bigots perseverate more on people assigned male at birth who are either gay/bi/pan or trans. Transwomen are targeted more than transmen and thus this article gets more trolls. Here's an article: [4] EvergreenFir (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a Reply