Talk:Women in combat

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Women in combat article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: National / Technology

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	National militaries task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

Women's History High‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Gender studies High‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
Cleanup : edit to see
Collaborate : see /Collaboration
Copyedit : edit to see
Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender
Expand : edit to see
Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes
Merge : edit to see
Notability : edit to see
NPOV : edit to see
Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia
Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies
Split : History of feminism
Stubs : see Gender studies stubs
Translate : see /translation
Update : edit to see
Verify : Riot grrrl
Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention

Feminism High‑importance

	Feminism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Collinwoods12.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 23 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SVonW.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2019 and 4 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DelaneyJanosek, Mhoulihan34.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2019 and 10 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yuunamiz.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 9 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HaleyHam.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries that permit women to serve in combat roles

In the related article [Women in the military], though lacking an RS (I've asked for one in Talk), a statement is made that some countries "permit women to fill active combat roles, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Germany, Norway, Israel, Serbia, Sweden and Switzerland." I think this article would benefit from such analysis, provided RSs can be found for each country. Just a thought. --Robapalooza (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very politically correct

I see ZERO mention of the fact (AFAIK) that women have to pass DIFFERENT (and less stringent) physical tests to graduate basic in US Army. I see zero mention of sex, sex drives, sexual competition, birth control, prostitution, sexual favors, preferential treatment, and sex based conflicts. I see zero mention of the increased complexity of team management. Pregnancy. Health issues. Logistical and economic issues. Family & parenting issues. Sexual abuse. Last I heard we are an extremely sex obsessed species. It is biology I refer to. Ignoring the elephant in the room is not objective.71.31.146.16 (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming political correctness and non-objection, is not going to shield you from anyone stating the obvious, that you have an agenda, one that is based in misogyny. That being said, why aren't you contributing to the article with unbiased sourced information rather than just sitting and whining about what the article supposedly does and doesn't feature? Partyclams (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned a lot of bullshit there. Just take one of the most bullshit examples: "I see zero mention of ... prostitution." WTF does prostitution have to do with women serving in the military? This page isn't about prostitution. It's about women in the military. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.198.145.41 (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What a polemical and exaggerated post. Just because he disagrees with you that doesn't make him a misogynist. 86.43.164.17 (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he made a lot of misogynistic comments does make him a misogynist. For example, he raised "sex" and "prostitution" as topics related to women in the military. He is equating women with prostitution--in an article that has nothing to do with prostitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.198.145.41 (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Add the "non-PC" difering testing requirements then, and we will support you. Zezen (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Partyclams, please refrain from ad hominem attacts in the future just because you do not agree with someone. Casting a doubt on someone's character and personal attributes and calling them misogynistic will not discredit their argument. 147.129.141.12 (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too Negative & Biased

This article focuses entirely on arguments as to why women shouldn't serve in combat, disregarding the historical fact that many women HAVE successfully served in combat throughout the history of time, sometimes in disguise as men, sometimes as Queens leading troops, even in modern times as ground troops, etc. It presents the arguments against women's presence in combat without really properly examining the counter-arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.7.205 (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to contribute to the article. Partyclams (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think one of the problems is the lack of evidence of a direct benefit that overwhelms the logistical and managerial costs of such a change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.53.208.18 (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

relevant?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2221475/Our-women-war-Portraits-Afghan-frontline-female-troops-winning-hearts-minds-Afghanistan.html

Phd8511 (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) 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. Diannaa (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Women in combat. 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/20110718115751/http://www.votelouise.com/news/248/remarks-on-women-in-combat to http://www.votelouise.com/news/248/remarks-on-women-in-combat

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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} 19:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

I suggest we give this page a level of protection from editing since it's been vandalized more than once. I know then I won't be able to edit it myself since I'm an anon myself but this page needs to stop being vandalized. 73.166.80.63 (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan

There are literal "source brackets" ([1][2] and such) in the Pakistan section that aren't actually sources. So this entire section has no sources. Phiarc (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV source

so.. the center for readiness is explicitly POV source- which is okay but you gotta note that- they are a group solely motivated to stop women and LGBT people from being able to enroll in the american army. I cite your own page on it: The Center for Military Readiness is a tax-exempt, non-profit organization founded by Elaine Donnelly, which !opposes the service of gay and transgender people and favors limiting the positions open to women in the United States military!.

It has been described as a right-wing organisation by the SPLC and other sources.

So their "study" is clearly one that not very good science, after all it was made with the intent to prove the foregone conclusion that women shouldn't be part of active military. its reasonable to assume, that said "study" would exclude and ignore any results that would run opposite to their own goals. there also are two people who accuse her of intentionally misrepresenting a report- one was a lawyer btw- sadly the validity of that isn't really verifiable.. So.. I think using her org as a source? sure, but note that they arent neutral, but openly ideologically motivated as well as homophobe & transphobes closely corraborating with other well known right wingers like the schlafly's — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.135.99.9 (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Submarines

"... in more depth below." I don't know who you are, but I see what you did there, and it made me smile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassandratoday (talk • contribs) 18:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Pakistan Army women soldiers.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Composition I - Writing Wikipedia, section 2

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 1 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hanpearce (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Carloslittle885.

— Assignment last updated by DarthVetter (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence needs rewording

In the section "[h]istory", there's this sentence:

During the First World War, first ever woman officer was enlisted for military service – Olena Stepaniv.

I think "Ukraine's" should come before "first". Could anyone please tell me if it should? Thylacine24 (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of women soldiers in combat troops

Details about the topic 2409:4051:2E0D:B525:0:0:1249:470B (talk) 06:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now Please be more specific about the changes that you wish to see done. Also, providing citations would help. Peaceray (talk) 06:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sabiha Gökçen

Sabiha Gökçen is the first female fighter pilot, not first Turkish woman to fly a fighter plane. + correct me if I'm wrong but Women personnel and women officers doesn't sound grammatically correct. shouldn't it be "female officer/personnel"? 109.42.242.178 (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]