Talk:Women in the military

message: I feel like it would be best to take the history part of the combat section and put it into the general history section, so that way the reader can be presented with a more complete picture of the history of women in the military/combat more clearly ~ Gloryjones958  —Preceding undated comment added 23:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: History of women in combat

message: I plan to add a few paragraphs about women in World War I and World War II. --Kiyonomcdaniel (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: World War I and World War II

message: This article has been fleshed out considerably, but I think it still needs work in thinking about weasel words. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words Other than that, its pretty good. Asarelah 17:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thoughts on the article

message: The articles on the history of women in the military, and of the current debate in thier role in combat units, have been merged into one single new article.
This article will comprise of two sections:
1: The history
:A brand new section devoted to the history of women in warfare.
2: The current debate
:A re-written version of the existing debate article.
These changes come after discussion on the peer review page of the original women in combat article, which can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Peer_review/Women_in_combat#.5B.5BUser:oldwindybear.7Coldwindybear.5D.5D
--SGGH 19:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_women_in_World_War_II 37.54.230.242 (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brand new article 

message: I wonder if there are issues relating to the treatment of women veterans that can be explored in thier own section of this article?
--SGGH 12:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treatment of women veterans 

message: I have added the paragraph from the submarine article as it seems to contain well-cited information on this topic. A couple of references were destroyed in the copying process but I'm on that now. SGGH speak! 18:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: =new paragraph

message: Kaiser187 22:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sorry forgot to sign comment 

message: Col. Kadaffi has what could be a "Amazon" detail serving as his bodyguards. 205.240.144.225 06:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Libya

message: "Female Marines Train for Iraq Border Security" by Staff Sgt Raymie G. Cruz, 3dMAW
http://www.usmc.mil
Cricket316 02:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Lioness Program 

message: I think it would be a good idea to set about fixing the references to give titles to each URL rather than leaving the plain html code. SGGH speak! 18:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_women_in_World_War_II 37.54.230.242 (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: The main page is being continuously vandalized. I recommend blocking editing by all unregistered persons.
Syrenab 15:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  protect against constant vandalism 

message: :Image:HMCS IROQUOIS.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:HMCS IROQUOIS.jpg

message: OK, seriously, I'm in Iraq right now and I've never heard of anyone call a female MP/SF, detainee handler, medic, driver, translater, or ordinary straight-up shooter a "lioness." This sounds like a word coined by a reporter that was never in common usage. Recommend more specific language. Instead of talking about "lionesses" for examples of female combatants, discuss the policy the Air Force has for females in their Security Forces. Or talk about how there are female MPs in every branch. Or site specific examples of females being attached to combat units (not limited to medics).
John Holden (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lionesses? 

message: This article also ignores the argument that some honor codes forbid fighting women. Also, men are often considered duty bound to protect women and children. Examples of such as is letting them evacuate first and the phrase innocent women and children, always excludes men. Rds865 (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If some codes of honour forbade fighting women, then that would be a great advantage to the side that employed women to fight.  Those honour-bound not to fight women could then be killed/captured by women very easily, since they couldn't fight back.  You're welcome to add this argument once you find sources for it. Geoff B (talk) 06:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What do these comments have to do with the FACT that there are such codes of honour / unwritten rules? I agree that they should be discussed. Ingolfson (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sense of honor

message: I think this section needs to either be cleaned up or reduced to just a link to the other page.  There aren't many examples, and most of them aren't of military or even paramilitary women.  Ripley was, I believe, a civilian (maybe merchant marine equivalent), and I believe Michelle Yeoh's characters in Supercop and Tomorrow Never Dies were in the People's Liberation Army.  The others, while clearly "action heroes" of one sort or another, have little or no link to formal military organizations.  It might be interesting to list more female characters who fit the category, though.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzanne de nimes (talk • contribs) 15:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The link is definitely broken, as well. I can think of several examples off the top of my head, none of which are there. --24.69.203.173 (talk) 03:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Perhabs it would be wiser to link the part about females mentioned in videogames to List_of_female_action_heroes? 178.191.179.84 (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Portrayals in popular culture

message: FYI, a list of sources on this subject can be found here:  . Cla68 (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of sources 

message: Women have been an integral part of the military since early ages. Women have played all sorts of roles including direct combat. Women have been restricted from having an active role in the military on accounts of "weak physique"; in spite of these restrictions, women have continually shown that they can be able soldiers and fight just as well as any other male soldier. Going back in history some of the notable names that come to mind are Joan of Arc who led the battle against the English to end the siege of the City of Orleans or Rani Laxmibai of Jhansi in India who defended her city against the British East India Company at the age of 20. Some other notable names are Catherine Ségurane, Rani Durgawati, Lizzie Compton and many others.
````  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruchiksynjitp (talk • contribs) 13:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Women in Military 

message: I've also removed the following section. The citation given for the claim that menstrual periods could cause ineffectiveness for women in ground units is actually about female aircraft ferry pilots in World War II being restricted from flight duties during their periods due to attitudes at the time, and it argues that no accidents were ever actually attributed to the pilot menstruating (it's online here). Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Women are liable to monthly periods, which, in case if female serviceman is a member of a combat unit involved in ground missions, could affect seriously while proceeding the missions. Mood swings, evoked by monthly periods, could also negatively affect team cohesion, or result in refusal to proceed some orders. Taking into account, that infantry units are quite often deployed on missions for days or weeks out of unit base location, such inadmissible situations could happen quite frequently. The generally held belief was that women were incapacitated for several days each month and that they were accident-prone prior to and during the menses. But those who rebut the woman's body as military liability claims argue that menstruation does not incapacitate or debilitate most women and that "female military nurses have had a long history of functioning in wartime under primitive, unsanitary conditions without questions being raised about menstruation interfering with the performance of their duties.
Now there are only direct quotations in the article. -- George Serdechny 10:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

text: That's an improvement, thanks. I've tweaked the material to make the time and location clear. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

text: I think the guy has good intentions while changed "military" to "combat", since the article is mostly about female allowance to serve active duty, and more precisely, to be involved in combat missions. He'd just mistaken "c" for "K", that's not a big "trollism".</br> I also think, it should be considered to split the article into three separate: Women in the military, Women in combat duty and Studies on female ability to serve active duty respectively. – George Serdechny 14:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physiological concerns section 

message: It seems this article has been trolled, as every use of the word combat has been changed to "Kombat" and links to an article on a town in Namibia. Might want to rinse the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.218.201 (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the guy has good intentions while changed "military" to "combat", since the article is mostly about female allowance to serve active duty, and more precisely, to be involved in combat missions. He'd just mistaken "c" for "K", that's not a big "trollism".</br> I also think, it should be considered to split the article into three separate: Women in the military, Women in combat duty and Studies on female ability to serve active duty respectively. – George Serdechny 14:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trolls 

message: This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement.  Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. MER-C 10:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright problem 

message: Forty percent of this article is about women in combat. Is that enough to break that section out into a separate article? We could use WP:Summary Style and leave behind a condensed version of the section. That would make it easier for contributors who want to write about non-combat issues and history, like nurses and the WAVES and Women's Army Corps  of WWII. Besides, the debate over women is almost exclusively about the US military.  --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No one having objected, I'm going to be WP:BOLD and go ahead now. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Article split

message: Can we get an RS for "permit women to fill active combat roles, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Germany, Norway, Israel, Serbia, Sweden and Switzerland"?  --Robapalooza (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RS for "permit women to fill active combat roles, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Germany, Norway, Israel, Serbia, Sweden and Switzerland." 

message: permeate the early part of this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.193.120 (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV and poor English 

message: "I just added a section to this article on women's role in combat.  The content synthesized a number of research articles and current material on this topic.  Please do let me know if you have suggestions or can point to additional material to support this contribution.
=== Women’s Non-existent Role In Combat Up Until 2013===
Women have been involved in the military since 1775. But their roles were more involved in the fields of nursing, laundering and mending clothing, and cooking for the troops. In 1917 when Loretta Walsh became the first women to enlist. But it was not until 1948 that a law was finally passed that permanently made women a permanent part of the military services. In 1976, the first group of women is admitted into a U.S military academy. According to statistics only 15.6 percent of its 1.1 million soldiers are female. Women serve in 95 percent of all army occupations, which makes up 15.6 percent of active army.
In a one-year span, Some 40,000 American military women are deployed during the Gulf War operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. But not a single woman was able to take on any form of combat. In 1994 a policy prohibits women from being assigned to ground combat units below the brigade level. A study conducted by (Matthews et al. 2009) to examine the attitudes of West Point cadets, Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadets, and non-military-affiliated students from civilian colleges toward a variety of roles that women may serve in the military. The results showed that military cadets were less approving of women being assigned to certain military jobs than non-military students.
=== New Combat Opportunities For Women ===
New opportunities are starting to open up for female soldiers. Almost twenty years later, in 2013, an order was passed that allowed women the same opportunities as men in the combat zone. Female U.S Army soldiers are being asked to partake in a new training course. The training course was designed by Combined Joint Task Force Paladin specifically for Female Engagement Team members. The training will help female soldiers in training such as training in unexploded ordnance awareness, biometrics, forensics, evidence collection, tactical questioning, vehicle and personnel searches, instructions on how homemade explosive devices are made and how to recognize if a device is homemade. It is rumored that women may begin Army Ranger training by mid-2015. This change will open up hundreds of thousands front-line positions for women, some positions possibly even leading to elite commando jobs for women. This will end the policy of “no women in units that are tasked with direct combat”. Jobs opportunities will not be available all at once, but with each branch examining the new lift on the ban, jobs will be available as they see fit. The goal is 2016 for all assessments to be complete and have women fully integrated into all roles in the army. In light of recent job opportunities opening up to females, a new movement has been created. The women of the army call it “Sisters in Arms”. This group was developed in hopes of helping the many female soldiers find their individual voice in the army. The program has spread throughout the Army worldwide. Nicolevnguyen (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of women in combat 

message: New opportunities are starting to open up for female soldiers. Almost twenty years later, in 2013, an order was passed that allowed women the same opportunities as men in the combat zone. Female U.S Army soldiers are being asked to partake in a new training course. The training course was designed by Combined Joint Task Force Paladin specifically for Female Engagement Team members. The training will help female soldiers in training such as training in unexploded ordnance awareness, biometrics, forensics, evidence collection, tactical questioning, vehicle and personnel searches, instructions on how homemade explosive devices are made and how to recognize if a device is homemade. It is rumored that women may begin Army Ranger training by mid-2015. This change will open up hundreds of thousands front-line positions for women, some positions possibly even leading to elite commando jobs for women. This will end the policy of “no women in units that are tasked with direct combat”. Jobs opportunities will not be available all at once, but with each branch examining the new lift on the ban, jobs will be available as they see fit. The goal is 2016 for all assessments to be complete and have women fully integrated into all roles in the army. In light of recent job opportunities opening up to females, a new movement has been created. The women of the army call it “Sisters in Arms”. This group was developed in hopes of helping the many female soldiers find their individual voice in the army. The program has spread throughout the Army worldwide. Nicolevnguyen (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Combat Opportunities For Women 

message: Nicolevnguyn-
I thought that your section was interesting to read! There were some mistakes I saw as I was reading... My suggestions is that some of the sentences seems a bit choppy and that you should explain more.  You should explain alittle more about the order that was passed? I bold the sentence that needs to be change alittle bit since you use the word training 3 times in one sentences. Also, Explain more about the Army Ranger? because I would like to know more about that. Overall, it was nice reading about what is happening in today's world with the Army. :) 
In today's world, new opportunities are starting to open up for female soldiers. Almost twenty years later (from what?) in 2013, an order was passed that allowed women the same opportunities as men in the combat zone. Female U.S Army soldiers are being asked to partake in a new training course (what kind of training course?). The training course was designed by Combined Joint Task Force Paladin specifically for Female Engagement Team members. The training will help female soldiers in training such as training in unexploded ordnance awareness, biometrics, forensics, evidence collection, tactical questioning, vehicle and personnel searches, instructions on how homemade explosive devices are made and how to recognize if a device is homemade.( You could maybe place this sentence after you introduce the new training course before this sentence). (Furthermore) It is rumored that women may begin Army Ranger training by mid-2015. This change will open up hundreds of thousands front-line positions for women, some positions possibly even leading to elite commando jobs for women. This will end the policy of “no women in units that are tasked with direct combat”. Jobs opportunities will not be available all at once, but with each branch examining the new lift on the ban, jobs will be available as they see fit. The goal in 2016 is for all assessments to be complete and have women fully integrated into all roles in the army. In light of recent job opportunities opening up to females, a new movement has been created. The women of the army now called it “Sisters in Arms”. This group was developed in hopes of helping the many female soldiers find their individual voice in the army. The program has spread throughout the Army worldwide. Nicolevnguyen (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good topic and post! Needs some edits here and there. 

message: Add something? We have the part about WW2 countries inclusion of women and it says "units in Britain and Germany, and front-line units in Russia." But then there are only 2 sections discussing those roles, the ones for Britain and Germany. Should we add another section underneath them for the Soviet Unions part aforementioned? JJ5788 (talk) 01:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  WW2 Soviet Union 

message: The "Women in combat" section has been tagged as primarily presenting US examples and perspectives since November 2013. Despite this, even further US-specific examples have been added to this section and other parts of the article over the last few weeks (in considerable detail - including several paras on a single small-scale US research study!). Given that we have specific articles on women in the US military now, I think that this should be removed from this article, which should present an international perspective not favouring any one countries views or experiences unnecessarily. I had a go at removing this, but was reverted by Rjensen. I'd appreciate other editors' views, and Rjensen's perspective on why they think this material should be included here. Nick-D (talk) 07:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Erasing good info is not useful. the problem is using good material on Europe etc--I have been adding the studies that need summaries.  As for studies, I believe the majority of RS deal with the USA, and so the attention is proportionate to the RS.  Not much is available on Russia or China or India, but otherwise most of the women in uniform are Americans> As for "small scale" studies, that is the standard for RS in sociology. Rjensen (talk) 07:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: See for Australia: Bassett, Jan. Guns and brooches: Australian Army nursing from the Boer War to the Gulf War (Oxford University Press, 1997);  Smith, Hugh, and Ian McAllister. "The changing military profession: Integrating women in the Australian Defence Force." Journal of Sociology 27.3 (1991): 369-391; Iskra, Darlene, et al. "Women's participation in Armed Forces cross-nationally: expanding Segal's model." Current Sociology 50.5 (2002): 771-797--covers , Australia, Mexico and Zimbabwe; Smith, Hugh. "Women in the Australian Defence Force: in line for the front line?." The Australian Quarterly (1990): 125-144.  Riseman, Noah. "Escaping Assimilation's Grasp: Aboriginal women in the Australian women's military services." Women's History Review (2014): 1-19.  Rjensen (talk) 07:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be grateful if you could provide some sources to support your assertion that the majority of international coverage on this topic is on the US military as I don't believe it's accurate. I know that there's a large literature on this topic in Australia (so large that one of the chapters in the academic expert-written mythbusting book ANZAC's Dirty Dozen argues that service women are significantly over-represented in recent histories given their historically small numbers), and I've seen a lot about Israel, New Zealand and the UK. The specialised sources you've identified here seem much more relevant to the Women in the Australian military article than this article, and their inclusion would lead to similar problems to that with the material you've reverted back in - eg, lots of detail on single countries experience or the views of single sources which best belongs in national/service-specific articles. Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: US as majority of material-- that's my impression after looking at a few hundred studies.  The US has LOTS of sociologists!  Thee is no "world" pattern--what we have are patterns in multiple counties. NATO for example: all the counties closely monitor each other. )likewise USA and Australia, USA and  Israel). The problem is not overrepresentation of USA, it's underrepresentation of other counties. The best solution is to give Europe etc more coverage.  (I have sen near zero on Latin America, by the way.) Rjensen (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that this article currently features lengthy, and to be frank, rambling accounts of the US military, including 3 paras on a single study of ROTC cadets (who are not even in the military!), I don't think that it's defensible to argue that this material should be retained and the article should then be expanded around it. I'd suggest that this article should provide an international perspective of the topic, and be streamlined considerably as part of it. The rambling stuff on the US marines really belongs in the Women in the United States Marines article, for instance. I don't think that adding comparable material on other countries here would be sensible or helpful for readers. Nick-D (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the complaint: the request is to delete US material and NOT add material on other countries. ??? I think all the material in question helps answer the broad question: what happens when various militaries add women?  Rjensen (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

text: Most the US-centric stuff (and any of the detailed bits for other countries) should be removed and placed in Women in the military by country as this should just be a summary article. MilborneOne (talk) 08:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur Cinderella157 (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

text: That leaves very little or nothing for this article. Rjensen (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  US centric material 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Women in the military. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111014025906/http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/military-international/ to http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/military-international/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What's up with one article being used as a citation like 6 times?  Saintvlas22 (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source Doctoring 

message: The articles on the topic of the female combatants doesn't have women who received most awards for their service. One such a combatant is from WWI and her name is Milunka Savić. 
She doesn't get mentioned not even once in the Wiki page despite receiving 
- Order of the Star of Karađorđe
- Légion d’Honneur (twice)
- Russian Cross of St. George
- British medal of the Most Distinguished Order of St Michael
- Miloš Obilić medal
- Croix de Guerre with gold palm
Possibly has most decorative military ordeals in the history of females in warfare!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.135.204.54 (talk) 03:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military fact checking 

message: Arguments only talk about gender equality. But what would happen in war? A man would have a woman right in front of him and he has to kill her. What do men think of this? --2.245.155.13 (talk) 06:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This has nothing to do with opinions. It's about psychology, morals and possible feminism, which are unexplored here. Wikipedia is not about facts, it's about obsessively collecting sources, what others said. People with wrong interpretations of sources are always taken more seriously than real experts. According to you, every quotation would be unencyclopedic. --2.245.73.195 (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor article 

message: The initial four paragraphs of this article have been changed to include blatantly false information and nonsense. Examples include; Referencing all women who served in combat as transgendered, talk of "ancient warrior transgender", stating that the 2030's have occurred, and the non-logical statement "For two of years"
Recommend that this page be made protected.
For future reference vandalized sections re-posted below in italics.
For two of years in a substantial number of cultures and nations, transgenders have served in various roles in the military, from ancient warrior transgender to those currently serving in current armed conflicts.
While the majority of combatants in most cultures have been men, a number of transgender in history have fought alongside them. In the American Civil War, there were women who sometimes even fought cross-dressed as men. Fighting on the battlefront was not the only way women involved themselves in war. Some also served as nurses and aides.
Despite various roles in the armies of past societies, the role of transgenders in the military, particularly in combat, is controversial and it is only recently that transgender have begun to be given a more prominent role in contemporary armed forces. As increasing numbers of county begin to expand the role of transgender in their militaries, the debate continues.
More recently, from the beginning of the 2030s, most Western armies have begun to admit women to serve active duty in all of military branches.[1] In nine countries women are conscripted into military.[2][3]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.8.2 (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was obvious vandalism that should have been reverted by someone before now. Not sure how it slipped through. I'm also wondering whether there's a connection between this incident and this article suddenly being used for assignments for a "Gendered Techno Culture" class. The students who take these classes often add nonsense, and it needs to stop. Why are students being told to write material for these articles in the first place?   GBRV (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre table-of-contents text vandalised (9/12/2017) 

message: After looking at the talk page on the article I discovered that many people found that the article need a bit of work, although there have been some modifications I think there is still room for some improvement. There are also things that could be described with a but more detail, and most importantly brought up to date. 19lunaa (talk) 06:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Evaluation

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Women in the military. 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/20070927064245/http://armedforcescareers.com/articles/article18.html to http://armedforcescareers.com/articles/article18.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130802164102/http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/faq.html to http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/faq.html
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) 23:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: o. k., she was a tough nazi german female test pilot. And got military decorations and rewards for her achievements (not really welcomed by quite a number of german military men, then !). - But, what at all, has she to do with this article ? --2001:A61:2B09:B901:F94C:A916:26E6:394F (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps because she is a well known. "Women in the military". MilborneOne (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure for that ? Where is the source for Hanna Reitsch being a Wehrmacht member ("female soldier" ? btw, on photos she wore no uniform - military decorations notwithstanding) --129.187.244.19 (talk) 07:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Good point, although she worked for the Luftwaffe test centre she doesnt actually appear to have been in the "Military" so was really a Civilian test pilot, she used "Flukkapitan" as a title but that was honorary rather than anything official. She needs to be removed. MilborneOne (talk) 10:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: right, finally she held no military rank at all (and "Flukkapitan", corr. "Flugkapitaen", fits not for that, it is no military rank) --129.187.244.19 (talk) 08:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the prominently placed Hanna Reitsch photo ? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The selection of those studies for the article is highly biased by ideology, and also americocentric. There are studies about the physical performance and abilities of females in the military compared to males in the military which show clear differences: https://osha.europa.eu/en/themes/musculoskeletal-disorders - https://books.google.de/books?id=i42vPG_iXRgC&pg=PA9%E2%80%9327#v=onepage&q&f=false - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2512412/Female-RAF-recruits-100-000-compensation--march-like-men.html - https://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-boland/female-marines-not-required-do-1-pull - http://web.archive.org/web/20160128224252/http://www.vtg.admin.ch/internet/vtg/de/tools/webarchiv/archiv_2007/fda_-_newsletter/newsletter_1_07/gleiche_fitness-beurteilung.html - et al.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.63.106 (talk) 08:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic Studies, biased 

message: This article has a section for academic work regarding studies about women integration in military units ,but in its main part it references a different study in america that women disrupt military units. No discussion of whether the studies are biased or not, and by separating them in two different sections despite being conflicting, they present two different views on the topic. They both should be under the academic section, reflecting each other, or else removed entirely. 
Secondly, the part about combat manuals talking about women participation and how women need to prevent rape is badly worded and doesn't seem to add anything ? I don't understand how any of this is written... 154.73.217.42 (talk) 03:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues of conflicting information and rape talk 

message: — Assignment last updated by Zariagibson (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160A

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: — Assignment last updated by Racoon dolphin (talk) 06:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Gender, Race and Computing