Talk:Female bodybuilding

message: What will be necessary to keep this section from being removed the page? I've written a rough draft of the section that I feel adheres to referencing, and linkage necessities, but also refrains from being POV.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phorner30 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Sexism, Discrimination, and Standards

message: It is important that the standards and discrimination section is in this article.  But isnt this the most important issue in female bodybuilding currently?  Should this be the first section of the article?
:Verily. The History section is massive and not exactly a page-turner. Fbb_fan wrote "In its present form, the section is borderline on POV. It doesn't seem like a good idea to start the article this way." I think that shoving it after 6 pages of history has the same effect. How about creating a "History of female bodybuilding" article, compressing the history section in this article to a paragraph or two, and giving other sections some room to breathe... To say that "standards and sex discrimination" being important issues is POV is bogus! One has only to read the history section or watch a few documentaries on the subject to see that. Even two subject headings in the history section are titled "controversy" and the controversies are about standards and what most reasonable persons would consider sexism in the industry.
:Anyway, I vote for creating separate history article.--Lionelbrits 23:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You apparently misinterpreted what I said in my earlier comments below.  I did not say that "standards and sex discrimination being important issues is POV"; I said that the way that section was written was bordering on POV (I felt this was true at the time, over a year ago).  I assume you're familiar with Wikipedia's policies on POV statements - basically, this should be avoided unless it can be backed up with reliable sources.  As far as splitting the history section off into a separate article, I don't see the need.  The article isn't even close to being excessively long by WP standards (there are certainly plenty of more "massive" articles around), and there's no need to fragment things. fbb_fan 02:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sexism and discrimination

message: This article would benefit from a section on training methods for female bodybuilders.
:It's the same as for men. Dan100 (Talk) 23:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not entirely true.  The females were judged very differently from the men, and besides, the female body operates differently.  I know, because my mom was a trophy bodybuilder who helped develop the criteria for female competitors.  I agree that a short section on the differences between female and male training methods could be useful and interesting ~ Zipp —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zipp Dementia (talk • contribs) 04:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  The judging may be different, but there's no significant difference in training methods.  I have seen a national level female bodybuilder train up close, and there's definitely no difference in the way she trains.  Besides, I'm not sure Wikipedia is intended as a guide on weight training methodology. fbb_fan 02:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Training methods

message: Don't want to get in a revert war over this but the article should start with an introduction sentence before any headers.  An anon keeps adding == Introduction == to the top of the article.  This is not in accordance with wikipedia style - look at any other article on wikipedia or see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Sections and Wikipedia:Lead section. johnSLADE (talk) 10:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction Header 

message: I think links to individual female bodybuilder home pages would be better placed on individual pages for each woman.  If we try to make a comprehensive list of these pages here, the list of links will be a mile long.  I propose limiting external links on this page to general female bodybuilding pages.  Maybe even add something under "external links" like "see individual bodybuilder pages for more links". fbb_fan 03:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice that you added your own page to the list of external links. Is this not a slight conflict of interest? -- Jalabi99 15:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should look more carefully at the edit history.  That link was added on October 15, 2005 by User:Babecorp.  In any case, if others feel that the link should be removed, I have no objections.  You might also note that my site is entirely non-commercial, so I have nothing to gain or lose one way or the other. fbb_fan 01:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I have a number of ideas I'd like to get feedback on:
1. Subheaders in the history section.  There were two subheaders, but they were removed by Babecorp with no reason given.  Hopefully, the history I added is just a start of a much more substantial section, and subheaders would provide some structure as the section gets larger.  I'd like to put these subheaders back in.
2. I restored the sentences indicating the relative prestige of the NPC Nationals and the Ms. Olympia (again, removed by Babecorp with no reason given).  These things may seem obvious to most of us contributing to this page, but someone unfamiliar with the sport would not know which  contests are for amateurs, which are for pros, and which are the most important.
3. Maybe this is nitpicky, but the current paragraph structure of the history section seems like overkill.  Perhaps the 1979 contests should be summarized in a bulleted list, but I don't see why we need so many one sentence paragraphs.
4. The whole business of female muscle erotica (which is not on the page at the moment) seems like it might be a good topic for a separate page.  I don't see this as an integral part of the sport proper - though it's certainly a related topic, and I think someone might be able to make it into a substantial article of its own.
5. I object to the statement "Most female body builders are not happy with having to participate in commercial erotica."  The notion that they "have" to do this is seriously misguided.  Most of them see an opportunity to make good money and take it while they can get it.  But quite a few women (I'd dare to say the majority) have nothing to do with this stuff.  There are plenty of female bodybuilders who make a living through personal training or running a gym; some even have real jobs.  Furthermore, is there any proof that women like Denise Masino (for example) are unhappy in their line of work?
6. An explanation of the differences between bodybuilding, fitness, and figure competitions might be useful.
7. What about results of major contests?  There's a separate page for the Ms. Olympia, but I'm not aware of any other contests with their own pages.  Should we include a list of winners of the major pro and amateur shows?
8. Other sections / topics that might be of interest:  female bodybuilders in the movies or on TV; lists of magazines (either currently published or not) and books; an explanation of how a competitor earns a "pro card".
fbb_fan 01:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various editing thoughts 

message: I removed a few links added by Mothergodchurch:  Bill Dobbins (commercial, and already linked on the Wikipedia Bill Dobbins page), Diana the Valkyrie (almost completely commercial - free content not significant or informative), and Kellie Everts (specific women linked on their own pages).  Also, I added back the GeneX link as per previous discussion. fbb_fan 03:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that even if the link to her site is removed, information about her (entirely verifiable) claims of being a pioneer in women's bodybuilding should be added to the article. -- Jalabi99 15:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In what way, exactly, is she a pioneer?  Aside from the inflated claims on her own web site, what "entirely verifiable" evidence is there that Kellie is a noteworthy pioneer (other than finishing last in the first Ms. Olympia contest)?  Mentioning every women who has ever taken the stage in a contest is well beyond the scope of the article.  fbb_fan 01:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  I agree. Competing in the first Ms. Olympia is far from pioneering anything. The fact that she placed last and is for all intents and purposes forgotten in the bodybuilding industry suggest that she is more of a sideshow or novelty - not a pioneer. Yankees76 15:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I certainly agree that this should not be a link farm, and some of the listed sites were not good general resources.  However, I've put back the link to "Muscles of Dee Kay".  Whether or not it's a so-called "personal" site is irrelevant (and there's no policy prohibiting these) - it's the best web directory for female bodybuilding that I'm aware of.  The article is not exactly top-heavy with external links right now.  As far as a governing federation, see the entry for IFBB.  The link to the IFBB web site is there, where it belongs, so there's no need to repeat it here. fbb_fan 22:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like good reasoning to me. David D. (Talk) 03:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More on external links

message: An anon added a section on training, with a bunch of headers but no content.  I have removed this for the following reasons:
#Sections should not be added until there is content.
#Training is already covered in the main article on bodybuilding.  There is no substantial difference in areas like "preventing injury" to warrant separate discussion for women.
fbb_fan 01:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Training section

message: An anon moved this section to the top, claiming "this is the primary issue in female bodybuilding today".  I have moved this back near the bottom for several reasons:
#The claim that this is the "primary issue" is questionable.
#Even if the claim is true, Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
#In its present form, the section is borderline on POV.  It doesn't seem like a good idea to start the article this way.
#Someone unfamiliar with the subject is unlikely to want to read about this first.
fbb_fan 01:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Standards and sex discrimination section

message: Can the user who keeps moving this page PLEASE discuss it first. Such sweeping changes should not be made without some sort of consensus. Glen 04:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should stay as is (as "Female bodybuilding").  As I mentioned at User_talk:Joie_de_Vivre, a Google search for "women in bodybuilding" returned 859 matches, while a search for "female bodybuilding" returned approximately 480,000.  So "female bodybuilding" is clearly a much more commonly used term than "women in bodybuilding" (which strikes me as a rather awkwardly constructed phrase), and thus is what a user would be likely to search for.  There was even a magazine called Female Bodybuilding that was published for quite a few years.  Bottom line - don't fix what isn't broken. fbb_fan 04:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page moves

message: I think it's not coincidental that, as in professional bodybuilding, there's no mention of Performance-Enhancing Drugs in the article or the talk page.  Is Bud Selig running Wikipedia too.
Obviously there have been/are confirmed cases of people using steroids, HGH or other PED's sanctioned by the competitive bodies, and the public perception is still mostly that a majority of those who participate are probably juicing.  So why not some mention in the article, with verifiable sources to back it up?  Mentioning it will only bring it out in the open.  Probably improving the veracity of this article.
I'm just opening up this topic to see what people think.  Any suggestions?--Feddx (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  PED's? 

message: This section either needs total overhaul or removal entirely. It's instructional, but it's not even encyclopaedic: "Deca-Durabolin (nandrolone decanoate) is ananabolics drug. It may cause androgenic side effects in women. Again, side effects are often dose-related. Recommended dose for women: start off small, say 50 milligrams, and go from there. Deca should be used only if Primabolan depot isn't available."
In my opinion, the whole thing should go, the "performance enhancing drugs" section is enough.
Silenceisgod (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to content "Popular performance enhancing drugs" 

message: This article is very US centric. Perhaps it should be renamed to "Female bodybuilding in the US"? LetsBeFriends (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  US centric article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Female bodybuilding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.billdobbins.com/PUBLIC/pages/coolfree/Kimbest.html=info
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140108094607/http://thinksteroids.com/news/iris-kyle-discusses-ms-international-results-with-pro-bodybuilding-weekly/ to http://thinksteroids.com/news/iris-kyle-discusses-ms-international-results-with-pro-bodybuilding-weekly/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151208121649/http://timgardnerproductions.com/?page_id=186 to http://timgardnerproductions.com/?page_id=186
*Added  tag to http://www.tasvirafghanistan.com/sports-media/627-afghan-womens-strength-on-display-in-gyms
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Female bodybuilding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150905093005/http://www.wingsofstrength.net/assets/Site_18/files/Press%20Releases/RisingPhoenixPressRelease.pdf to http://www.wingsofstrength.net/assets/Site_18/files/Press%20Releases/RisingPhoenixPressRelease.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121006151942/http://www.ifbbpro.com/hall-of-fame-welcome-message/ to http://www.ifbbpro.com/hall-of-fame-welcome-message/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why is this article called “female bodybuilding”, but the main article is not called “male bodybuilding”? Alexdawrant (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Perhaps its just me but the photo of Dayana Cadeau seems really un-flattering, partly because it was posed with Iris Kyle but Kyle is cropped out.  Is there any reason why this particular photo was chosen?  I understand that copyright considerations limit which photos can be used but there are many better photos of her available, or a better photo of someone else could be used.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.94.109.201 (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unflattering photo of Dayana Cadeau 

message: — Assignment last updated by Xinyue Hu (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160B