Cannabis Ruderalis

Content deleted Content added
Someone else (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
EvergreenFir (talk | contribs)
Tag: Reply
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
Have we not more to say about these interesting people than what is written in this article?
{{Talk header}}
{{censor}}
{{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.
[[Talk:Woman/sandbox|A '''gallery and discussion''' of potential lead images is also available here]]. New images may be added there.}}
{{Round in circles
| [[Talk:Woman/Archive 14#Proposed_edits_to_lede|Wording of lede]]
| [[Talk:Woman/Archive 16|Definition of woman]]
| [[Talk:Woman/Archive 17#Self-contradiction_in_intro|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}}
{{page views}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
|maxarchivesize = 70K
|counter = 28
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = Talk:Woman/Archive %(counter)d
}}


__TOC__
--[[Juuitchan]]


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


Adult human female is better [[User:ShobanChiddarth|ShobanChiddarth]] ([[User talk:ShobanChiddarth|talk]]) 13:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Please keep content appropriate for an encyclopedia.


: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 ==
I am <i>not</i> advocating being inappropriate. I meant my comment at face value. Maybe we should have something about the differences between the genders, etc.


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


:@[[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)
----


== Ada Lovelace should be added to the science section of the article ==
I agree 'chan. Also, what is the actual spelling of 'gynecology'? I think there is a sp. difference between English and American English i.e. the English is gynaecology, like the paed/ped difference in encyclopaedia. --[[User:Wizzer|Wiz]]


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.
:As mothers they are often abusive, beating their children far more often than fathers do, and in much more cruel ways - the main source of domestic violence are mothers, a fact which is rarely mentioned. They often try to coerce a male into supporting them in their young age, and they are very skilled in this, as it is their main purpose in life. Women are generally selfish and unconsiderate, prone to hurt and causing more suicides among males than the overall murder rate and the war crime rate combined. However, law does not protect males from women's immorality any more in the western society, but instead penalizes men for failing to detect female tricks in time.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace#First_published_computer_program
I deleted this - if someone wants to attempt to rephrase... ;-) [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Note_G
The above is a clear violation of our [[NPOV]] policy since it states as fact a set of very controversial statements. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]]


Thanks.--[[User:Zchemic|Zchemic]] ([[User talk:Zchemic|talk]]) 16:31, 13 March 2024 (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.
:"long, fast growing hair"
: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" ==
I don't think so. Male hair can grow equally long (seen any hippies recently?) and I'm pretty sure rates of growth are equally fast for hair of equal length. Long hair '''is''' a difference in western [[gender role]]s, because men tend to cut their hair shorter - but that's gender not sex. If you want a sex difference, male hair is on average slightly thicker - IE, each strand is of a higher width - that's why female electric shavers don't work very well on male body hair. [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]]


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)
: Agreed, and removed. I've also altered "lack of facial hair". As stated by Kelly Osborne on telly, it's a myth thatl girls don't have moustaches ;-) -- [[User:Tarquin|Tarquin]] 14:35 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)


: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.
-----
: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 are you removing section with quotes about women?
[[User:DrFreud|DrFreud]]
Better add more quotes


... [[User:Usersnipedname|Usersnipedname]] ([[User talk:Usersnipedname|talk]]) 08:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
: Because it is hopelessly unscientific and adds nothing to the entry except iil-informed mysogony [[User:Tannin|Tannin]]


: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)
On the white slave paragraph, is "white" necessary? Does this never occur with anyone else or what? [[User:Tokerboy|Tokerboy]]

White slaves is the name used for prostitutes in this context - as opposed to ordinary slaves, which are mostly black kids sold in Sudan etc for as low as 15$-30$. Not all white slaves are white (a lot of Asians from Southeastern Asia are also called "white slaves" as far as I know - "white slaves" always denotes women)
[[User:DrFreud|DrFreued]]

:I deleted almost all of the paragraph. I'd love to see some documentation for it. -- [[User:Zoe|Zoe]]

Thats not nice - see freetheslaves.net for info - i have restored the paragraph.

DrFreud

WHy is everyone censoring abuse of women? It is shameful to look away!

Nobody said you can't have the article, we just said we'd like some documentation, and mav suggested you create a new article separate from this one. -- [[User:Zoe|Zoe]]
----
Moving a series of quotes, all negative, from male philosophers, that were the '''entire''' section headed "women in quotes". In this context, it's highly NPOV. (They might be plausible illustrations of an article on [[sexism]] [[User:Vicki Rosenzweig|Vicki Rosenzweig]] 03:45 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC):
"
== Women in quotes ==
Women, and their role in society have been studied by many philosophers thruought human history, who had different views about them.

''The slave has no deliberative faculty at all; the woman has, but it is without authority, and the child has, but it is immature. Clearly, then, moral virtue belongs to all of them; but the temperance of a man and of a woman, or the courage and justice of a man and of a woman, are not, as Socrates maintained, the same; the courage of a man is shown in commanding, of a woman in obeying.'' Aristotle


''Women can form a friendship with a man very well; but to preserve it - to that end a slight physical antipathy must probably help.''
F. Nietzsche

''The fundamental fault of the female character is that is has no sense of justice. This is mainly due to the fact, already mentioned, that women are defective in the powers of reasoning and deliberation; but it is also traceable to the position which Nature has assigned to them as the weaker sex. They are dependent, not upon strength, but upon craft; and hence their instinctive capacity for cunning, and their ineradicable tendency to say what is not true.''
A. Schopenhauer

''Thou goest to women? Do not forget thy whip!'' F. Nietzsche
"
----
moved the (at best) illiterate sentence : "Statistics show that image of a single women in the western society corresponds to the one suffering from the [[histrionic personality disorder]]. " here. Why does this one disorder merit mention? There might legitimately be a list of disease to which women are more prone than men, or less prone than men, but why this particular one? I suppose trolls ARE capable of becoming more subtle.... -- [[User:Someone else|Someone else]]

If a sentence is illiterate then you can edit the grammar. The gender roles are dicussed here, and a histrionic female has charateristics which correspond to western perception of a single women - so it is the reason to place it here.

Why is male clothing relevant?
[[User:DrFreued|DrF]]

If you'd prefer "Women are less likely to wear jockey shorts, pants, and cuff-links", go for it. -- [[User:Someone else|Someone else]] 04:19 Feb 11, 2003 (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