Talk:Participation of women in the Olympics

Lead
Hi! What do you suggest that we include in the lead? I'm thinking something like "Women have been participating in the Olympics since 1900. The views of the IOC regarding the participation of women has varied over it's history." Do you think that will fit or does it sound too essay like? Regards, Jith12 (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it. Please many any changes or include you own lead if you can. Regards, Jith12 (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I've been fairly busy in real life and haven't had the time to make the extensive edits that will be required for the merger. However, I will try my best to help out when necessary and will do more editing when I have the time. Hopefully you can get a start on the page and I can contribute later. Let me know if you need anything further. FuriouslySerene (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I completely understand. I will do as much as I can on my own. Regards, Jith12 (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This article is a great idea! I'll try to help in the future. Knope7 (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks! We would really appreciate it if you could help out! Regards, Jith12 (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work on what looks like a great draft. Following up on some talk over on Talk:Women at the Olympics, I've been having a look at the lead. I suppose the lead has to summarize the article without being too vague and imprecise - my concern is that "the views of the IOC regarding the participation of women has varied over it's history" is rather imprecise and doesn't really match the contents of the IOC section, which focuses (rightly) more on the actions of the IOC rather than what their actual views might be. So, I think that the lead should focus on the actions of the IOC, and also summarize other parts of the page. Here's an alternative for consideration:

"The rate of participation of women has been increasing since their first participation in 1900. Some sports are uniquely for women, other are contested by both sexes, while some older sports remain for men only. Studies of media coverage of the olympics consistently show differences in the ways in which women and men are described and the ways in which their performances are discussed. The representation of women on the IOC has run well behind the rate of female participation, and it continues to miss its target of a 20% minimum presence of women on their committee."
 * The only other change I suggest is that in the heading "Gender anomalies by Olympic sport", the term anomalies could be replaced with 'differences' in order to give a more neutral tone. Klbrain (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the kind words and input. I have changed the lead to the one that you recommended, it is much more effective than the original. I also changed "Gender anomalies by Olympic sport" to "Gender differences". I still plan to expand the "Gender equality" section. When that is finished, I will complete the merge. I sincerely appreciate your input and consideration for this article. Regards, Jith12 (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've somewhat boldly moved the article into mainspace, redirecting the daughter articles there. It seems more than strong enough to stand there and will get the eyes of more editors who might be able to help build the gender equality section. Klbrain (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * This is an old thread i know. But, i'm trying to figure out if there is a source for the 20%. This source from 2020 says it is much closer to equal now. So, i am wondering if this should be moved out of the lede, and maybe move it to the 'gender differences' section. https://olympics.com/ioc/news/female-membership-of-ioc-commissions-reaches-an-all-time-high-of-47-7-per-cent-two-new-female-chairs

I also find the repetition of 'of' in the lede a little excessive. It could be "The participation rate of women in the Olympic Games has been increasing since their first participation in 1900." no? Somegenerichandle (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Useful rescources

 * https://stillmed.olympic.org/Documents/Reference_documents_Factsheets/Women_in_Olympic_Movement.pdf
 * https://thinkprogress.org/ongoing-sexism-olympics-boxing-949ae1944e0a/
 * https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-08-17/see-120-years-struggle-gender-equality-olympics

Women's Ancient Olympic gamed
This edit has been made multiple times

It's redundant to say "Only men were allowed to attend the men's Ancient Olympic Games" when we already say that only men were allowed to attend.

Yes there were the Heraean Games for women, but the cited source does not support the claim that "women held their own Ancient Olympic Games which were known as the Heraean Games". For that matter, the source is a weebly web page for womenshistorylost.com. Based on the content at https://womenshistorylost.weebly.com/index.html this is a personal webpage, and thus not a reliable source. The IP making the edits has also provided (on the IP's talk page) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbaDq8yBVkg in support of this edit   The Youtube video is on a personal channel and thus is not a reliable source, and it does not say that the Heraean Games were the women's Olympics. The IP also claims that Heraean Games supports the claim that the Women's Ancient Olympic Games were known as the Heraean Games", but the article does not. The lead simply says "The Heraea was an ancient Greek festival in which young girls competed in a footrace. The race was held every four years at Olympia, and probably took place around the same time as the ancient Olympic Games." Meters (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)