Jump to content

Talk:Women in firefighting

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge proposal

[edit]

This page had a {{merge}} tag on it since September 2007. There has been no discussion or action on the proposal, so I have removed the tag. After all, the topic of women as firefighters seems notable and distinct enough from firefighting in general as to merit a separate article. If you still believe that the articles should be merged, please state your reasons here. Bry9000 (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no reason for a merge. It is a notable and distinct topic and deserves its own article. Gingermint (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lacks Balance

[edit]

What about the those that claim that standards are being lowered so that women can become firefighters?

This article seems to mainly be an argument for women as firefighters and a chastisement for those people that treat women poorly. As opposed to an well rounded discussion of the issues surrounding women as firefighters. Hoping To Help (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I agree with this, article needs to be completely revised (possibly merged with firefighting, unreferenced biased statements throughout. Heggyhomolit (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In December of 2010 it looked like a semi-literate misogynist had taken a knife to it. I fixed the balance so it was neutral and the grammar and style were not embarrassingly primitive. 75.48.22.62 (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As of late December 2010 the article looks good (not great) and seems to have lost its weird, almost leprechaun-inspired style. I don't think anyone outside of third-world countries would feel there has to be an "argument" for women as firefighters nor do I think that anyone (sane) believes that it is Okay to "treat women poorly." Gingermint (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still showing publicly in the article, there is an error with the reference to using gender-neutral terms such as "police officer and chair-person." "Chair-person" is an incorrect change for "chairman," because the man in chairman is not a gender based term, but is rooted in the Latin word for hand "manos." The chair would typically hold a gaval or other such instrument held by the hand in order to conduct parliamentary rulings, hence the term "hand of the chair," or in English, simply "chairman." This should be corrected in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.129.12 (talk) 07:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some Fixes

[edit]

Since there were some problems with balance, grammar and style I fixed some things here and there. I'm surprised that the article had stayed in the the condition it was for such a long time. Now all it needs is to be longer and better researched. 75.48.22.62 (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Globalize

[edit]

I put the {{Globalize}} tag on because it seems like the article deals about 97% with the U.S., with occasional mentions of Great Britain thrown in. Maybe info can be found from other parts of the world too? Pais (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have included some information about the UK and also Austria from a UK source. Chemical Engineer (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some more country information. This includes a reference to the German wikipedia for Austria because I do not have access to the original source cited therein. Chemical Engineer (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I think a section on women firefighters in popular media should be included in this article. TV shows centering on fire services often make the controversial role of women as firefighters a sub plot. For instance the 2000s US drama series Rescue Me. Also, watching the season 2 episode "Justice" og this series, the female team member mentions her early inspiration to become a woman firefighter was watching a show about a female firefighter when she was about 7 years old. I'm unsure whether this might refer to an actual movie or not. __meco (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firewoman listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Firewoman. Since you had some involvement with the Firewoman redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- 70.50.148.105 (talk) 11:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Women in firefighting. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 06:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The archiving worked, but the reference was spammy and not a reliable source, so it has been removed. --bonadea contributions talk 15:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Women_in_firefighting&oldid=1206070941"