Talk:Women at the Olympics

Netball

This article is a bit netball focused. It was stubbed out using the netball article and could use a fair amount of improvement. --LauraHale (talk) 10:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

In actual fact there nothing at all in this article that does not appear in the netball article. As it stands the two should really be merged into a single article - Basement12 (T.C) 13:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I admit that the article as it is now may look like the subjects should be merged. However, there is a lot more to women's sport in the Olympics than just netball. I was encouraged by other editors I talked to to create this stub using the Netball article as a way of getting content to it initially. I just haven't had time to write it yet. Would you be okay with giving me a week to try and expand the article before going further with any merge proposal? After that, we can further explore the issue. --LauraHale (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree there is a lot more to women's sport at the Olympics than just netball. However I've already expressed a large number of concerns with the text that has been copied here at Talk:Netball and the Olympic Movement. By all means take a week to improve both articles but as it stands I intend to WP:GAR the original netball article and nominate this one for merging. Additionally I intend to nominate Template:Women at the Olympics and Paralympics for deletion as it is cleary a cherry picked selection of articles that have no need to be in a template - Basement12 (T.C) 00:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't particularly care about the template. If you want to delete it, please feel free. And I would ask, given the ArbCom case where Netball and the Olympic Movement features heavily, that you wait until AFTER that has been resolved to do that. In the mean time, I will work on improving both articles to make sure that they stand well alone and there isn't that much in total volume that is shared between both. I will work towards addressing the issues raised in the peer review for the Netball and the Olympic Movement in the mean time. --LauraHale (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

As I say i'll allow you time to work on both articles but as the ArbCom case seems focused on the interactions between you and another user and not the content of any particular article, I see no need to let that prevent a reassessment - I see from your own talkpage that another article with links to the case is already undergoing a new assessment. Looking at the edits currently happening on this article I should point out that I personally don't believe rehashing the results of every women's event ("Sports" and "Around the world" sections) into this page constitutes a worthwhile article. There is certainly scope for procucing an article dealing with the history and development of female participation in both the Olympic and Paralympic Games and if that's what you try and work towards then I'm sure you'd find users willing to assist (myself included) at WP:OLY - Basement12 (T.C) 00:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Laura, thanks for getting this article started.

Basement12, this is a notable subject, and trying to merge it away because it's initial version doesn't meet your personal standards is silly. Wikipedia needs an article on this subject. Wikipedia should have had an article on this subject five years ago. This one is currently a bit out of balance—but that problem is solved by people like you rolling up their sleeves and adding information, not by wiping out the little bit of progress we've finally made. WP:There is no deadline. This is as good a starting point as any we're likely to have. If you don't like the article's current shape, then WP:SOFIXIT. Nobody's stopping you from looking up information about some other Olympic-recognized sport that women are involved in and adding information about that.

For the record, I oppose merging away this article on a clearly notable subject. Note that if you decide to pursue this idea of a merger, I'll expect you to list it at Wikipedia:Proposed merges#Requests_for_assistance_and_feedback. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Having this article as an exact copy of Netball and the Olympic Movement, as it was when I came across it, is in no way useful or encyclopaedic and is extremely silly. Per WP:M "Reasons to merge a page include: unnecessary duplication of content, significant overlap with the topic of another page, and minimal content that could be covered in or requires the context of a page on a broader topic". I'd say two articles that are identical fit those criteria, though perhaps, as there was not any any different content to merge, a redirect from one to the other would have been more appropriate. My suggestions above for improving the article (do you have any idea what a full list of all women's results at the Olympics would look like?), my offer to help and where to get further assistance would seem to most observers to be an attempt at fixing it. But your constructive input is greatly appreciated - Basement12 (T.C) 02:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree: Having it start that way is totally useful and very common practice: Many good articles start as splits from related articles. It's only silly if the article stays that way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for the table from the Olympics

The table found at the Olympic website containing information about the qualifications for becoming an Olympic recognised found in the Netball and the Olympic Movement#Olympic_recognition is included based on the following fair use rational:

• Description: A table that contains conditions for sports in order for them to be included in the Olympic Games
• Portion used: The text covers less than half a page on a seven page document.
• Source: http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_1135.pdf
• Articles: Netball and the Olympic Movement, Women's sport at the Olympics
• Purpose to use: The purpose of using this extended quote is to reflect as accurately as possible information about the Olympic's policy on what it takes to get included in the games, to avoid changing meaning that could accidentally happen if rewording or trying to paraphrase in prose form may result in. The purpose is also to help allay any potential controversy regarding whether the Olympics recognises sport or federations.
• Replacable: No. May need to be replaced if the Olympics change their policies.

--LauraHale (talk) 06:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Olympic Recognition Unbalanced Tag / Article Format in General

Note: doing it this way rather than tearing apart the article and causing controversy. Also leaves a note of things to work on in future.

I have placed an unbalanced tag on the Olympic Recognition section as I believe there are some major issues there that need addressing. Firstly, I have to contend the line "Throughout the history of the Olympics, sports popular exclusively with women or that have been very popular with women have been excluded." There are several problems with this. Firstly, what sports and according to who is not mentioned. Secondly, what about softball, rhythmic gymnastics and synchronized swimming? Those are all sports (or events, depending on how you look at it) that are exclusively played, at an olympic level, by women. Additionally, the only reference to this claim is a book published in 1982. A lot has happened since then in the olympic movement (i.e. all the above were added) so the information is ridiculously out of date. Further, I have to question that source as whole, though to be fair I don't have access to it, as it seems to be an argument for the inclusion of netball in the Olympics, and to be used as, essentially, the only reference that sports popular with women were intentionally, as is implied, left out of the Olympics is ridiculous. Additionally, I would remove: "The issues facing netball are part of a larger problem involving female participation in the Olympics.[2]", otherwise it reads too much like a coatrack for netball again. Finally, the section is far too Austrialian-centric. So what if it netball is more popular with women and girls in Australia, Olympic sports are included based on worldwide popularity/competition, etc, not based on popularity in a single, or even a handful, of countries. There are dozens of sports that are very popular in a geographic region, but not popular enough on a worldwide basis to be included in the Olympics. That was part of the reason why baseball was dropped as an Olympic sport. Sports such as American Football, Wushu, cricket, are other examples. I am absolutely positive that on a global scale netball is well back of many sports in terms of popularity amongst women and girls. That whole statistical section, minus "The selection of women's teams sport in the Olympics may not match with interest levels in a country.[9]" should be moved to the netball subsection and removed from this one.

Finally, as an issue with the article as a whole, the listing of results for a random selection of women's sports should be removed. The specifics of when and who won medals should be covered on the respective X at the Olympic Games article. This article should highlight certain, notable, sports and events. Examples of this would be softball, but also things like the push and legal challenge to have women's ski jumping included in 2010, the netball movement, and movements for equality of events (such as the one in cycling). Also the question of/threat of excluding women's hockey because it was/is uncompetitive. Further aspects of team sizes, equal or unequal media coverage and funding should be expanded and with a worldwide point of view. Additionally, it should look at issues like women not being allowed to compete in certain events, i.e. the marathon until 1984, because they were viewed as too delicate. This article has a potential encyclopedia value, but in its current format it is far from it. Ravendrop 22:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with removing the listing of results for a few apparently arbitrarily-chosen sports. I thought the same the first time I looked at the article. So I'll remove them, and anyone wishing to argue for their reinstatement can do so here. Qwfp (talk) 11:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Women's sports at the Olympics → Women at the Olympics – Article is more than just the sports; it is also about funding, media coverage, participation, etc. Also puts it in line with articles such Canada at the Olympics and Mixed team at the Olympics. Ravendrop 22:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Support - the proposed title is simpler and the article covers a lot of ground. Interplanet Janet (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support for consistency. Also agree with nomination. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 22:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reference

Wikipedia is, above all, a tool of reference. Yet this meandering rant (which is presented as a genuine Wiki article) provides no tables, no statistics, no mention of historical firsts, no medal counts, and generally no substance.

We regret that your sport isn't recognized by the IOC. But this article belongs in a section, not as a main thesis on women at the Olympics. More references are needed as well. The whole argument claims that popular women sports are ignored, but where is the statistical support? How much popularity do they really have? Is this a US survey? Or a world wide questionnaire? Or just the author's opinion?

Besides, one could make the argument that many sports are unfairly discluded, regardless of popularity, internationality, and participation by gender. Baseball comes to mind. So does bowling. One could spend days debating why table tennis, curling, and rhythmic gymnastics are allowed, but not darts or softball.

The history of the games mentions one Olympic cycle. In 1960. And the brief discription is an opinion. Ridiculous.

I was hoping for an unbiased reference. I got a rant on how the IOC has a conspiracy to keep women down. Disappointing. Especially considering the true Olympic feats that women of many nations have accomplished. All of which are not listed. Except a side rant on Australia. In the wake of the most international Olumpics at London, no mention is even made that London's hosting existed. Ridiculous.

Rename he article "a conspiracy by the IOC to exclude women." How dare this author claim that this manifesto is a true reflection of international women's Olympic history? When did women first participate? Who was the first women to win gold? What country had more women medals? Are there economic and political ties that influence Olympic performance? This is what we look for when we type "women at the Olympics." Not whatever this is.

More reference and less bias!

~Napoleon at Waterloo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.144.189 (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

This article is fairly new. Please WP:Be bold and help improve it! You have some sensible ideas on what it could include, so please go ahead and include these, not forgetting to cite your sources. Qwfp (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Historical perspective

This article needs more historical perspective. It could start by discussing the place of women in the early modern Olympics, e.g. Stamata Revithi. --Macrakis (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Merger Discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to perform a selective paste merger of both articles and put the contents into an article that will be located at Participation of women in the Olympics. Jith12 (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

---

I'm proposing a merger of International Olympic Committee and gender equality in sports and Women at the Olympics. There seems to be broad overlap of the two topics, but the articles cover both very differently. Wonder if it makes sense to merge or move or something similar. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@FuriouslySerene: Hi! Is it possible for us to merge both of the aforementioned articles into a new article called "Gender equality at the Olympics"? I think that that would be the most efficient solution. What do you think? Regards, Jith12 (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Hey Jith12 - that's an interesting idea. The problem is that that title might be a bit narrower than this article, which discusses women's participation in various sports, and not just efforts in favor of equality at the Olympics. How about "Participation of Women in the Olympics"? That could certainly touch on gender equality issues. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@FuriouslySerene: Hi! Sorry for not replying earlier. I didn't get the notification. I do like the "Participation of Women in the Olympics" idea. Where should we start writing the draft for the new article? Also, what contents of both articles should we add to the new one? Regards, Jith12 (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jith12: I started a draft page here: Draft:Participation_of_women_in_the_Olympics. We can work on the draft there before it goes live. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@FuriouslySerene: Looks like a great draft article ready to move into article space and complete the merge. There don't seem to have been any objections over the last 10months, so I'd say that you were safe to proceed. Klbrain (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Klbrain: Wow! Thanks for the compliment, I was working on the article a few months ago and it is mostly finished. I've been busy in real life for a little while so I haven't gotten around to finishing the draft. I plan to do a little more work on it in the coming days. I am still in the process of writing the "Gender equality" section and the lead. The lead will be the last part because it is easier to create a summary of the body once the body is actually finished. I'd appreciate any advice or recommendations for the draft. Once the lead is finished I will complete the merge. Thanks, Jith12 (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Women at the Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080725120417/http://www.singapore2005ioc.org.sg/ to http://www.singapore2005ioc.org.sg/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

First woman IOC member

I am looking for this information. Hektor (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Hektor: Hi! This might be more than a year late and I'm not sure if you are still looking for this, but I have the answer for you if you still want it. Pirjo Haggman of Finland and Flor Isava-Fonseca of Venezuela were both appointed as IOC members at the same time in 1981. Apologies for not being able to get this information to you sooner. Also, the best place for you to ask questions like this one is at the reference desk. It is monitored more than talk pages and there are many editors who will probably be able to answer your question quickly. Regards, Jith12 (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)