Cannabis Ruderalis

Content deleted Content added
EvergreenFir (talk | contribs)
Tag: Reply
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header}}
{{Talk header}}
{{censor}}
{{Old AfD multi| date = 1 April 2012 (UTC) | result = '''speedy keep''' | page = Woman }}
{{Notice|[[File:Woman at Lover's Bridge Tanjung Sepat (cropped).jpg|thumb|upright=.5|Lead image]]
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="text-align:center;"
'''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.}}
| width="0px" |
{{Round in circles
|| Before complaining about article content, please read: '''[[WP:NOT#CENSOR|Wikipedia is not censored]]'''.
| [[Talk:Woman/Archive 14#Proposed_edits_to_lede|Wording of lede]]
|}
| [[Talk:Woman/Archive 16|Definition of woman]]
{{Notice|'''Important Note:''' The most appropriate image to use at the top of this article is a highly controversial issue with many valid viewpoints. Polite discussion and negotiation of the viewpoints is welcome below as we continuously strive to find an image which best matches the current '''[[WP:CON|consensus]]'''.
| [[Talk:Woman/Archive 17#Self-contradiction_in_intro|Self contradiction in lede]]

|topic= ''Wording of lede'', ''Definition of woman'' and ''Self contradiction in lede''
A gallery of potential lead images is available [[Talk:Woman/sandbox|here]]. Please add new images there rather than on this talk page, although the image discussion is welcome here.
}}
''Any image which has not shown support here will be removed.''}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{Vital article|level=3|topic=Life|class=C}}
{{WikiProject Anthropology|importance=high}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Anthropology|class=C|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=C|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Gender studies|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Gender Studies|class=C|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Feminism|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Feminism|class=C|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Women}}
{{WikiProject Women's History|class=c|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=top}}
{{WP1.0|coresup=yes|v0.7=pass|class=C|category=Natsci|VA=yes|importance=top}}}}
{{WikiProject Women's sport|importance=high}}
}}
{{pp|small=yes}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=pa}}
{{section sizes}}
{{page views}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
|maxarchivesize = 70K
|maxarchivesize = 70K
|counter = 8
|counter = 28
|minthreadsleft = 2
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(180d)
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = Talk:Woman/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:Woman/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}


__TOC__
== I propose we add a picture of a transsexual woman ==

Transsexual women are woman even though they are not genetically or biologically a female. They are legally known as women and consider themselves as women. Gender is very fluid and we need some representation that does not automatically fit a stereotypical mold or definition. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.209.15.212|24.209.15.212]] ([[User talk:24.209.15.212|talk]]) 21:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: Transsexual women '''are''' female. [[User:Gelatinous cubism|Gelatinous cubism]] ([[User talk:Gelatinous cubism|talk]]) 02:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

:If you would like to add an image of a trans woman, then perhaps you should go and add one. [[User:Vis-a-visconti|Vis-a-visconti]] ([[User talk:Vis-a-visconti|talk]]) 03:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
::Go to [[Christine Jorgensen]]. Images of such a person can be found in their own article. [[User:Georgia guy|Georgia guy]] ([[User talk:Georgia guy|talk]]) 23:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
They are not female because they are biological male.--[[Special:Contributions/93.128.1.34|93.128.1.34]] ([[User talk:93.128.1.34|talk]]) 23:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

:Agree If you were born a man, you are a man. Changing your external features doesn't change that you're a man. [[Special:Contributions/71.60.35.185|71.60.35.185]] ([[User talk:71.60.35.185|talk]]) 00:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
::Somebody please watch the edits to this section of the talk page. [[User:Georgia guy|Georgia guy]] ([[User talk:Georgia guy|talk]]) 00:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a great suggestion, I also noticed that the head picture is sorely lacking women in STEM/Business. Considering this I would suggest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Conway
Her contributions to the field of computer science were key, as discussed here: http://www.engin.umich.edu/college/about/news/stories/2014/april/thank-lynn-conway-for-your-cell-phone <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.181.89.74|67.181.89.74]] ([[User talk:67.181.89.74|talk]]) 22:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

It's great to have a transgender woman included but we could really do with a more well known example than Laverne Cox. In the UK hardly anyone knows her and in less Americanised cultures I'm sure it's even worse. [[Chelsea Manning]] makes a lot more sense to me to include. [[User:Wikiditm|Wikiditm]] ([[User talk:Wikiditm|talk]]) 09:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

== New section for discussing the composite ==


== Why was it edited from "adult human female" to "adult female human"? ==
Here are all the women currently in the composite as of the timestamp on this signature:
*Laverne Cox
*Venus
*Joan of Arc
*Eva Perón
*Marie Curie
*Indira Gandhi
*Venus of Willendorf
*Wangari Maathai
*Mother Teresa
*Grace Hopper
*Mamechiho, a Geisha
*a Tibetan farmer
*Marilyn Monroe
*Oprah Winfrey
*Aung San Suu Kyi
*Josephine Baker
*Isis
*the Queen of Sheba
*Elizabeth I
*a Quechua mother
We have already discussed restoring Sappho to the image at the expense of Venus, with the argument being that she is a notable woman writer and a lesbian, while Venus is fictional. Are there any other changes that should be made at the same time in order to avoid putting the person making the change to the unnecessary trouble of repeated edits?
*I personally favor organizing the images chronologically.
*Are there any other image swaps that people would like to propose? Replacing Mother Teresa has been suggested due to her controversial status; is there someone else (eg. another religious figure or figure known for a relationship to religion) that it might be good to include instead?
*I'm also unfamiliar with the community consensus regarding how we decide which ordinary folks to include; do we consider these ones representative? Is there a case to be made for using a famous Japanese person instead of an ordinary one, for instance, or do we like having some ordinary people?
*Are there any demographics or careers we consider important and currently unrepresented?
–[[User:Roscelese|Roscelese]] ([[User talk:Roscelese|talk]] &sdot; [[Special:Contributions/Roscelese|contribs]]) 03:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


Adult human female is better [[User:ShobanChiddarth|ShobanChiddarth]] ([[User talk:ShobanChiddarth|talk]]) 13:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
::Well, I'm fine with restoring Sappho at the expense of an artist's conception of Venus. And if we are looking for replacements for Mother Teresa, I would suggest a religious icon of some aspect of the Virgin Mary. She was the face of women to the Church for centuries, taken to be an exemplar of Divine Wisdom/Sophia, and to philosophers the Eternal Feminine. Fictional, yes, and also any depiction would necessarily be an artist's conception rather than a depiction of an actual person, but she certainly has far more historical importance than Mother Teresa, who dressed to resemble her. - <span style="font-family: cursive">[[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]]</span> 05:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
:::I'd be behind that. {{ping|Little Miss Desu}}? –[[User:Roscelese|Roscelese]] ([[User talk:Roscelese|talk]] &sdot; [[Special:Contributions/Roscelese|contribs]]) 23:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
::I'd suggest replacing Laverne Cox with [[Lynn_Conway|Lynn Conway]] to bring in more STEM representation, although Cox is obviously a more recognizable figure. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.181.89.74|67.181.89.74]] ([[User talk:67.181.89.74|talk]]) 03:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::Works for me! –[[User:Roscelese|Roscelese]] ([[User talk:Roscelese|talk]] &sdot; [[Special:Contributions/Roscelese|contribs]]) 20:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


Heyo, Iiiiiii kind of forgot about this. Can we talk about the issue of representing "famous" vs. "ordinary" people? Is representing "ordinary" people actually a goal of the composite, or is it a byproduct of trying to cover bases of ethnicities and professions? And do we want to include another scientist and/or author. –[[User:Roscelese|Roscelese]] ([[User talk:Roscelese|talk]] &sdot; [[Special:Contributions/Roscelese|contribs]]) 04:27, 9 December 2014 (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 ==
[[File:WLANL - koopmanrob - Maat-ka-Re Hatsjepsoet (RMO Leiden).jpg|thumb|left|100px|Hatshepsut: sub for Isis, an ahistorical abstraction]] Golly. Looks like an inordinate amount of discussion has gone into this already. I'm just going to very gingerly submit that while Ms. Cox is an excellent subject for the montage, it's politically [[WP:activism|WP:activist]] to make her, literally, the prime example of womanhood. Ms. Cox's claim to fame is primarily her position as a television star and the highest-profile transgender activist in the world; I'm glad WP "takes her side" against those who would misgender her, but there are other women who have a more meaningful claim to the top spot. I think Ms. Cox's image should kept, but swapped with a) an "everywoman" like the Tibetan (rationale: resembles the "median human female") or b) a personage of less-[[WP:Recent]]ist significance, such as Ms. Curie or [[Hatshepsut]]. [[User:FourViolas|FourViolas]] ([[User talk:FourViolas|talk]]) 03:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
:I think it's just a result of a chronologically early image being swapped out for Cox's without the whole thing being rearranged. I'd also prefer having her closer to the bottom, but not so we can have a different photo of a contemporary person up top. –[[User:Roscelese|Roscelese]] ([[User talk:Roscelese|talk]] &sdot; [[Special:Contributions/Roscelese|contribs]]) 20:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


Please let me remove a image from this article [[User:Mybirthday647|Mybirthday647]] ([[User talk:Mybirthday647|talk]]) 20:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
It's great to have a transgender woman included but we could really do with a more well known example than Laverne Cox. In the UK hardly anyone knows her and in less Americanised cultures I'm sure it's even worse. [[Chelsea Manning]] makes a lot more sense to me to include. [[User:Wikiditm|Wikiditm]] ([[User talk:Wikiditm|talk]]) 10:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


:@[[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)
Just a random Wikipedia lurker's opinion, but to me it seems like both sides of the Laverne Cox argument are going against Wikipedia's stance on bias and activism. On one hand, leaving a transgender woman in the composite is blatantly LGBT activism. On the other hand, removing all mention of trans women from the article is blatantly anti-LGBT activism. I propose removing Cox (and replacing with a biological female), but adding a section devoted to trans women on the page. It seems like this solution would give the best coverage while being the least biased. --[[Special:Contributions/67.247.78.200|67.247.78.200]] ([[User talk:67.247.78.200|talk]]) 06:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
:Transgender women contrast with cisgender women, not with biological females. [[User:Georgia guy|Georgia guy]] ([[User talk:Georgia guy|talk]]) 12:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


== Ada Lovelace should be added to the science section of the article ==
== Please Add... ==


How is possible that Ada Lovelace is not mentioned in the science section of this article?
*{{t|Feminism}}
<small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:173.51.221.112|173.51.221.112]] ([[User talk:173.51.221.112|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/173.51.221.112|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:{{done}} [[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)]] <small>Please &#123;&#123;[[Template:re|re]]&#125;&#125;</small> 03:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


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.
== File:Woman Montage (1).jpg ==


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace#First_published_computer_program
Since the meaning of Woman is "human female" there is no way to make some images in the montage fit. "[[Isis]]" is a goddess not a human. We could also say the same about the two [[Venus (mythology)|Venus]]es, but that is less clear. Why not change Isis image to [[Cleopatra|Cleopatra VII]]? '''[[User:Tahc|tahc]]''' '''<sup>[[User talk:Tahc|chat]]</sup>''' 16:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
:I see no reason to make any change, because the female gods do represent the feminine and therefore symbolize the human female form in the myths. &ndash;&nbsp;'''''<small>[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="color:darkblue; font-family:Segoe Script">Paine Ellsworth</span>]]</small>'''''&nbsp;<sup><font size="1" color="blue">[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|'''''C<small>LIMAX</small>!''''']]</font></sup> 21:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
::Since this article is ''[[Woman]]'' and not ''[[Femininity]]'', I think your reasoning is misplaced. Are you just saying you don't want to do this yourself, or that there is any actual reason to avoid it at all? '''[[User:Tahc|tahc]]''' '''<sup>[[User talk:Tahc|chat]]</sup>''' 01:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Yes. I agree that there is reasoning misplacement here, but not mine. When one considers that as recently as August of this year, a [[:File:Bust Sappho Musei Capitolini MC1164.jpg|bust of Sappho]] was replaced with an image of [[Laverne Cox]], a notable and openly [[transgender]] person, then one might feel that "female" gods are appropriate inclusions in this montage. In my humble opinion, they are. &ndash;&nbsp;'''''<small>[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="color:darkblue; font-family:Segoe Script">Paine Ellsworth</span>]]</small>'''''&nbsp;<sup><font size="1" color="blue">[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|'''''C<small>LIMAX</small>!''''']]</font></sup> 02:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Note_G
I agree that Isis and Venus shouldn't be here. Instead I suggest:
*[[Queen Victoria]]
*[[George Sand]]
*[[Simone de Beauvoir]]
*[[Virginia Woolf]]
*[[Coco Chanel]]
*[[Rosa Parks]]
*[[Margaret Thatcher]]
*[[Katharine Hepburn]] <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1A:BA30|2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1A:BA30]] ([[User talk:2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1A:BA30|talk]]) 22:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Thanks.--[[User:Zchemic|Zchemic]] ([[User talk:Zchemic|talk]]) 16:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
The word "woman" is used for female deities when depicting them as humans, so I don't think it's inappropriate to have these. Nature itself is sometimes called a woman too, but that would be too abstract. I don't think the image should be restricted just to human women when the word is used outside that context.[[User:Wikiditm|Wikiditm]] ([[User talk:Wikiditm|talk]]) 10:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


: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.
== Cox first - really? ==
: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)


== On "wermann" ==
Don't get me wrong, I'm on board with gender and racial diversity, but is Laverne Cox really the ''first'' woman that comes to mind over Cleopatra, Joan of Arc, Venus, or Mother Theresa? I agree that Cox, a trans woman of color, has a place in the composite, but first on the woman article is a little overkill, dare I say - ''tokenistic?''


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)
Just the $0.02 of a random anon.


: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.
--[[Special:Contributions/75.68.111.172|75.68.111.172]] ([[User talk:75.68.111.172|talk]]) 09:58, 22 March 2015 (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? ==
== Why ==


... [[User:Usersnipedname|Usersnipedname]] ([[User talk:Usersnipedname|talk]]) 08:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Why put a transgender person among the other women and not, I don't know, a female midget? Or a woman with down syndrome?
Is it arbitrary, or is there a reason? --[[User:JimmyBroole|JimmyBroole]] ([[User talk:JimmyBroole|talk]]) 22:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


:GENSEX enforcement vs. generic vandalism. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 12:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
>muh feelings <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.249.118.64|69.249.118.64]] ([[User talk:69.249.118.64|talk]]) 13:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: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)
:Actually, there was a reason. Without a trans woman, the image is too kind to the point of view of ignorant people who think trans women aren't real women. [[User:Georgia guy|Georgia guy]] ([[User talk:Georgia guy|talk]]) 17:55, 30 March 2015 (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