Talk:Female bodybuilding

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2021 and 21 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Goughenourt.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sexism, Discrimination, and Standards[edit]

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)[reply]

If this article is titled "Female bodybuilding," why is "bodybuilding" not titled "Male bodybuilding"? It's almost all male except for a small section. Either combine them into one bodybuilding article or make one male and one female. Punstress (talk) 07:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sexism and discrimination[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Training methods[edit]

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)[reply]
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).[reply]
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)[reply]

Introduction Header[edit]

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)[reply]

POV[edit]

Reads like an essay about why female body building should be accepted into the mainstream. Whether or not that's true (which it no doubt is), Wikipedia is not a soap box, and this article is good example of people using articles as platforms. --Yossarian 06:16, September 12, 2005 (UTC)


I do agree. It will change.

External links[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Various editing thoughts[edit]

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)[reply]

External Links for private benefit of non official commercial Webs[edit]

Gentlemen:

Again we strongly urge you FBB-Fan to avoid external links to most offending commercial web pages providing links to or containing sexual content, which has not anything to do with the sport of bodybuilding and further has to be legally clearly identifiable not to be suitable for minors.

Thanks, The Community

A few points:
1. There is nothing inappropriate for minors on any of the pages in the external links section.
2. The sites listed are quite obviously female bodybuilding web sites, so how anyone can claim they have nothing to do with the sport of bodybuilding is beyond me.
3. Since 193.5.216.100 posted a similar warning on both my user page and my talk page, I apparently am being singled out by "the community" for adding these links. If "the community" would take the time to check the edit history, he/she would find that in fact, I have never added a single external link to the page. Nonetheless, I agree with the other editors that these links are quite appropriate.
4. People might take your comments slightly more seriously if you logged in with a user name, rather than remaining anonymous. Also, it is considered good form to sign your posts with four tildes.
All of the links in the external links section have being removed repeatedly by anon 217.20.195.48, and now more recently by 193.5.216.100. Removing content from Wikipedia is considered vandalism - please refrain from doing so in the future. fbb_fan 01:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editors:

We have some external links constantly reentered to commercial websites here, which have no official character and do not represent the sport nor any official organizations like the IFBB, NPC or national bodybuilding organizations. This people are trying to make financial benefit for themself through publishing their external links. There are much better websites, which are non commercial and are not listed or permanently deleted. We have here a clear try to self privilege and block other mutch better publications and officials out. This activities cannot be tolerated for a public Encyclopedia about the sport of female bodybuilding. (For further details please check out the history)

Thanks, The community

Once again, a few points:
1. As far as I know, there is no Wikipedia policy that requires external links on the Female Bodybuilding page to be official bodybuilding organizations. If you disagree, please cite the appropriate policy.
2. There are currently seven external links on the page. Only two (GeneX Magazine and Women's Physique World) have a commercial component - the other five are entirely free. The two commercial sites are listed because they have a significant amount of free, informative material. GeneX provides free coverage of all major amateur and professional contests. WPW has a large number of free photos, including most of the significant competitors since this became an organized sport - essentially, it's a free, on-line "who's who".
3. To my knowledge, the people who posted the links to the two commercial sites have no affiliation with GeneX or WPW. Therefore, your allegation that this is an attempt to achieve financial gain is baseless. If you have evidence to the contrary, please produce it here on the discussion page.
4. Most importantly, the proper procedure is to discuss the matter here. When a consensus is reached, appropriate action may be taken. Until then, removing content as you are doing is VANDALISM. This is the second time you have done this; please refrain from doing so again.
fbb_fan 23:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The links to the commerical sites have been removed. Both sites contain objectionable amounts of advertising and primarily exist to sell products or services. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. I've left the links that were considered 'objectionable' by 193.5.216.100, as Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, and those sites appear to be non-commerical and NPOV. 193.5.216.100, please stop vandalising user pages regarding this - and if you are going to post a warning, please use one of the necessary templates. (Template:TestTemplates) Signing your "warnings" with 'The Community' is not acceptable. Yankees76 16:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd agree that the WPW web site exists primarily to sell products (even though there is some useful free content) - I don't have a major objection there. However, I think you're underestimating the free content on the GeneX site. In particular, it's as good as any site I know of for contest coverage - click "Contest Report" on the main page (if you know of a comparable, non-commercial resource, please add a link to it. The statement about containing an "objectionable" amount of advertising is a bit of a judgement call on your part, and apparently one that other editors (not just me) have not agreed with. I think it's a bit heavy-handed on your part to remove it without a little more discussion here first. So far, we have you, me, and an anonymous user weighing in in this - hardly a consensus. In the meantime, until there's a clear consensus, I'm putting it back in. fbb_fan 02:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote for Removal of link to GeneX Magazine Website[edit]

My edits were not heavy handed. You don't have a NPOV - I'm merely following protocol. I vote remove. My reasoning is that it is a blatant commercial website. Regardless of 'free' content, the site still generates revenue through advertising (linking from Wikipedia will increase this), a members section, and this site also sells videos. http://www.ftvideo.com/videos/VIDEO_FRONT.htm

Wikipedia:External_links policy discourages this. It also discourages links to any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose.. This article once complete, accurate and neutral should contain enough information to make this link useless. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. Note that Wikipedia may see print or DVD publication, so we want more content, not more web links. Yankees76 05:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I vote keep. And I have put the link back - no action should be taken on the article until AFTER this is resolved (among other things, keeping the link there makes it convenient for others to see what is being voted on). In the policy you cited, Wikipedia:External_links, I call your attention in particular to this point in the section "What should be linked to":
5. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference.
The content on the GeneX site is dynamic (the contest review section is updated as contests occur). Also, the site has significantly more detail than is appropriate to include in the article. And I think it meets the requirements of "neutral and accurate". I don't see how the site's content could ever reasonably be incorporated in the article, and there is a considerable amount of content that would be of interest to someone reading the article. This is precisely why it is a "unique resource beyond what the article here would have...". Keep in mind that Wikipedia policy does *not* strictly prohibit linking to commercial sites (if you disagree, please cite the relevant policy).
Incidentally, it seems inappropriate for you to claim that I do not have a NPOV, presumably because you don't agree with me. I have given the reasons for my stance on including the link, and I have no association of any kind with GeneX (I am not even a member of the site). fbb_fan 15:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll concede for now (it's more trouble than it's worth), and it's not worth getting into an RV war over it. Though I don't believe you have a NPOV - you've reverted every instance where someone has removed this link -even though the orginal editor who placed the link was a vandal and has since left Wikipedia. I realize also that you've been the primary contributor to this article, which does give you a bias when other editors begin to make changes to it (I've seen it happen before on other articles). The link stays until other editors post here with votes. Good job on the article though - it's a good read! (but where is Kim Chizevsky?)Yankees76 16:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm certainly open to discussing it further; I'm just suggesting that we continue the discussion before taking action. As far as the reverts go, the previous removals have been (apparently) a series of acts of vandalism. One is the anon identifying himself here as "The Community" (seems to have had two different IP's, 217.20.195.48 and 193.5.216.100, or a friend with the same interest - they seem to have related edit histories), who posted a series of objections that didn't really hold water. If you examine his edit history, he appears to be user Walliser operating anonymously to promote his own pay site. The other, all anons with IP's starting with 172 (looks like one guy with a dynamic IP) appears to be the user formerly known as Babecorp, who has a history of removing content (not just links), never with any explanation. For what it's worth, I'm not the only one who has restored these links - look back in late January and you'll see several other people doing the same restoration. I never actually checked to see who added the link in the first place, except I know it wasn't me.
As far as the article goes, I'm certainly not trying to "take over" authorship or anything - I really would prefer if others got involved. Though I do admit to a bias in the sense that I don't like seeing things removed if they seem like worthwhile parts of the article. There's certainly plenty more that could be added; I've just been adding material in spurts when I have time and motivation. In particular, I think someone else could really contribute in the area of fitness & figure, which is an area where I'm not particularly knowledgeable. I started a separate article there recently, but it could use a lot of work. There are other things that could be added, some of which I proposed a while ago under "further editing thoughts" on this talk page.
Thanks for the complement on the article. As far as Kim Chizevsky goes, I should be getting to her soon. I've been trying to add to it in chronological order, and the late 90s (her reign as Ms. O) is coming up. fbb_fan 17:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note - Babecorp added the link on Sept 18. from what I can tell. His/her user contributions aren't labeled correctly.

  • Regardless of who originally added the link to GeneX and why he did it, the website itself is notable enough (Alexa ranking: 33,000), and in addition to commercial material, contains enough useful information to justify leaving it on the External links list, especially with it being the last item. Owen× ☎ 00:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion Regarding Spam Links[edit]

This is my first entry here. I have no idea if I'm doing this right. However, I feel the need to post parts of an email I sent to someone who removed my links and the links of Bill Dobbins.

"I asked why links that were there months ago have been removed. I also asked about why Bill Dobbins's link was removed as the very image that appears on the female bodybuilding page belongs to him and he owns the (c) for that image.

I don't believe adding links to Bill's site or my own should be considered spam or vandalism related. My website is free, kid-safe, and not for profit. The ONLY advertisement you will see on my website are for event dates. I don't sell anything, I don't charge a fee for entry. Both Bill's sites and mine have been a mainstay for the women athletes. My log indicates that I receive 21MILLION hits per month. Again, I don't sell anything nor charge a fee for access. What we do however is support the sport of female bodybuilding by providing access to images of the women competitors and supply support by providing sponsorship monies not only directly to the women athletes themselves, but to promoters of shows in order that the sport can continue.

The links to the website's that are listed there now DON'T do that. One is merely a portal/directory to other sites, one is a fan site, and the third charges a fee for webcam...How appropriate is that? If that's not spam then I'd like to know your definition of spam. I will concede that the current listed sites may be well known in the "bodybuilding community". But the fact that I've tried to add external links and they continue to be removed as vandalism...I take issue with.

Bill Dobbins and myself have been supporters of the sport for a very long time. Bill is one of the foremost and sought after photographers for the athletes and is a published photojournalist. Just as Arnold is famous as a bodybuilder...so is Bill Dobbins as a photojournalist. All that is needed is to merely ask any Pro or Amateur Female bodybuilder about us. I'm sure you'd only need to google either of our names to determine who we are.

Additionally, and relative to the article, it very much appears slanted as there is no mention of the other prominent federations which exist. While the NPC and the IFBB are the most well known in the US, they are by NO means the only federations.

As far as I'm concerned, what I do think is inappropriate is for you to assume our links were spam/vandalism and for you to block my IP address for no legitimate reason. That is unless you are the person who recently sent me an email accusing me of removing his website link which I did not do."

This was what I sent nishkid after I was banned. He reconsidered, and removed the ban and in another email told me he would intervene should it happen again. My link as well as Bill Dobbins link has been again removed. The very article "female bodybuilding" in Wiki uses Bill Dobbins' copyrighted image. Don't you think it's a bit shortsighted to remove a link of the person whose images you are using in the article. I would hope that after you read this you reconsider who's ever decision it was to remove the 2 links mentioned above. As I am new to this, if you would like to discuss this with me further my email address is glegeros@femuscle.org ====glegeros 12/6/06

See WP:EL. Familiarize yourself with what sites should be linked to and more importantly links to normally avoid. - in particular note item #13. The two links are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the articles subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website. For example, the officially sanctioned online sites of female bodybuilding federations or magainzes have a direct and symmetric relationship to female bodybuilding, and thus should be linked to from this Wikipedia article. An alternative site run by fans is not symmetrically related to the female bodybuilding, as official entities have only indirect connections with that site. In other words, links to sites of a photographer who merely takes pictures of female bodybuilders, or displays pictures isn't required on this page. This is an encyclopedia - not a link farm. The second site, femalemuscle.org is littered with advertising, and doesn't provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain once it becomes a Featured article. It's not an official site, and does not contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into this Wikipedia article. Also, Bill Dobbins has his own Wikipedia entry, where his official site is already (properly) linked. These links have been removed by numerous Wikipedia editors for these very reasons. Yankees76 16:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have referenced a site above femalemuscle.org. It has nothing to do with femuscle.org. I believe there is in fact a femalemuscle.org site but I've never seen a link for it in wiki. As such, I can only conclude you've mistakenly refered to my site femuscle.org as "littered with advertising". Femuscle.org has NO advertising except direct links to female/health related sites i.e. breast cancer and/or that which may be found on a links page. I continue to take issue with the premise that only extentions of the federations websites or magazines which are extensions of the federation's websites are symmetrically related. What is the intent of wiki? I thought it was to provide RELEVANT information and links to provide other RELEVANT information on the subject. It appears to me in my opinion that you've not actually seen the federations website. Most fan sites have more current and relevant information than the "official" sites. This is not a swipe at those "official" sites...but keeping websites current is not really their core compentancy. The truth be known...the only reason federations exist is to make money. They are strictly "commercial". They do not exist nor do they operate on behalf of the athletes. They are sanctioning organizations that receive monies from promoters to allow them to put on events under their name. Again not a swipe at any particular federations....but let's be real when discussing what is relevant and what isn't. As this is an encyclopedia, would you not want the readers to be able to link to the most current and relevant information relating to female bodybuilding? If not, why not just tell your readers to subscribe to the Britanica or Colliers as the information in some federations websites are just as outdated. ===glegeros 16:02 6 Dec 2006

The website I was referring to was the one that is being continually added by your account to the article - wether or not I made a typo doesn't change the fact that your misrepresenting the amount of advertising on the site. Upon quick review I see ads for Fitnesssingles.com, Todd Sweeney's Elite Image Nutrition, Legeros Photography, and "Muscle Angels" (need I continue?). Again I direct you to read WP:EL and even this. If you have an issue with any of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines - discuss it there. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. If you have a source to contribute, first contribute some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source. Don't simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add useful facts to the article, then cite the site where you found them. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto some other site, right? (though judging from your contributions to Wikipedia it wouldn't appear that way). Yankees76 22:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert on this matter at all, but I'm here because I was the one that blocked Glegeros for linkspamming in the first place. I realized my mistake and unblocked him, as it appeared that his links were actually legitimate. Some people were removing the links again, and he consulted me since I said I would deal with the problem if people removed the links in the future. The links Glegeros added seem to be very useful and in my eyes, they comply with WP:EL. Although the Alexa ranking for femuscle.org isn't that great (240,000ish), I don't think adding one or two more external links to such a broad-termed article is that bad. That's my opinion, and I'm not saying I'm right. I don't know enough about the subject to make this type of judgment, but I wanted to just put my opinion out there in the open. Nishkid64 22:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duly noted, and respected, however I fail to see how the site complies with WP:EL - the site contains a large amount of advertising (from banner ads as listed above - along numerous others that I didn't list, to text link ads/advertorials that link to commercial sites, to Google adwords if you scroll all the way down to the bottom); it's obviously a personal website that isn't clearly allowed by WP:V; and it does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain once it becomes a Featured Article - unless we're looking to direct Wikipedians to learn more about "Internet Message Boards and Forums - Where unfortunately in some places Hate Rules" As I mentioned above, I think that any notable material on this site could easily be included in the article and then if necessary, linked - rather than simply linking to the site for no real reason. We're not linking to an established industry magazine or federation here, we're linking to a fansite. I think other admins opinions (Glen comes to mind) are needed here. Yankees76 22:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one of th current external links is filled with ads and such. I believe it's the first one (Dee something) IIRC. Nishkid64 23:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right - I hadn't seen that one. It has zero info at all! It clearly doesn't belong either. Yankees76 23:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from the criteria you site as well as what you've included above I would have to say that none of the links either currently there or there before meet it. You would be very hard pressed to find sites with no advertising such as google ads. You mention Legeros photography? That's the same kind of advertising as "A Wikimedia project" and the mediawiki buttons you have on the bottom. They are related just as I am the primary photographer for femuscle.org. Muscle Angles is connected to the link that is already on wiki...amg lite? So just who's misrepresenting what? That fact that Wiki is probably one of the few if not the only one with zero ads EXCEPT FOR "WIKI SISTER ADS" seems a little disengeneous.

My purpose is not to have links removed but rather to include links that would benefit the reader. As an example, you've stated that you don't believe I provide a resource. I beg to differ with you. Wiki does not have images of the athletes except for one image of Lenda Murray. My site has images from many of the different federation contests and many athletes. I offer a diversity and they are free. No fee. That to me seems like a valuable resource for your readers.

As far as Alexa is concerned if you knew ANYTHING about the Internet you'd know that the information provided by them is bogus. There is no scientific evidence or emperical data that would suggest their statistics are meaningful. Anyone can by listings. One only needs to examine raw logs for a month to see that the Alexa rankings are bogus. If you don't have the Alexa "tracker" code on your site....the site is not included and therefore no meaningful, scientific, and/or verifiable statistics can be produced to rank any site on the information hiway...there are simply too many sites for this to be realistic...Alexa in and of itself is a marketing ploy....that they want to sell....period.

I won't belabor the issue. You've already made up your mind who you want on this site and who you don't. IMO your critera it's pretty narrow minded and stifles the ability for your readers to gain other knowledge not on wiki. Wiki is a great tool...but it's not the end all to be all of information banking. again..just my opinion.

I will attempt to escalate my issue farther up the chain. If at that time I'm convinced that wiki or it's "censors" have preconceived notions...I will cease further involvement. ====glegeros 18:57 Dec 6, 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.254.130.64 (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Your purpose should be improving Wikipedia by adding content here - not links. Again no one individual has made up his or her mind on this issue or is "censoring you", it's a community consensus - not a personal vendetta against your website. You're not the first person who has tried to insert their own site in for personal gain, and you won't be the last. And like these other individuals, chances are your "improvements" to Wikipedia will consist of only inserting your link, and your arguing/debating with others after they remove it. And once again (and I know you haven't bothered to read these based on your posts), but please read and comprehend WP:EL and How not to be a spammer. In all honesty, I think you're more upset that you won't be generating the extra revenue from your CD operation [1] and improved search ranking that a couple of links from Wikipedia will provide, than you're concerned about actually improving this encyclopedia. Though if it's any consolation, I'll be sure though to spread the word on your site, just in case someone wants to know a about "Internet Message Boards and Forums - Where unfortunately in some places Hate Rules" or if anyone missed the ad for "Dr. Joe".
P.S If you knew anything about the internet, you'd know that people stopped measuring "hits" back in the 90's. Hits is antiquated and an unreliable method of measuring website traffic. Hits count individual files served up - not the number of unique visitors you have. A single Web page can account for a dozen or more "hits" especially if it has a lot of photos - without having more than one actual visitor. I'd trust Alexa over you and your 24 million "hits" a month as a reliable statistic anyday. Yankees76 04:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to femuscle.org & any other noncommercial sites[edit]

Here's the problem. We are getting more and more of these requests every week accross every subject, including all related to bodybuilding. And, almost all the users who add these links cry fowl with the argument "but my site in non-commercial". However, if you read WP:EL and WP:SPAM:

"Review your intentions Wikipedia is not a space for personal promotion or the promotion of products, services, Web sites, fandoms, ideologies, or other memes. If you're here to tell readers how great something is, or to get exposure for an idea or product that nobody's heard of yet, you're in the wrong place. Likewise, if you're here to make sure that the famous Wikipedia cites you as the authority on something (and possibly pull up your sagging PageRank) you'll probably be disappointed." and

Advertising and conflicts of interest Due to the rising profile of Wikipedia and the amount of extra traffic it can bring a site, there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote links. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. Use of Wikipedia to link to a website that you own, maintain or are acting as an agent for is strongly recommended against, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked to."

I have looked at the site, and in my opinon as both a Wikipedia administrator, and bodybuilder for the last ten years; it is most certain not appropriate for this article.  Glen  07:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's ok that you don't know me or what I stand for....unless you're in the "trenches" that the Me women athletes are in...you wouldn't. However to suggest that my motives for posting my link are for selfpromotion couldn't be farther from the truth. Additionaly, what I think you're saying is that even though the guidlines don't clearly state self owned sites are prohibited...you/someone decides subjectively to delete the ref link...and yet the other links, which are clearly more commercial remain? As far as adding text, info, I've already attempted to do that several months ago. Unfortunatly, it was removed and just as unfortunate, I didn't do a cut and paste into a word doc to keep. My edit was relative to how the women augment their income and sustain their ability to participate/compete thru income derived from personal websites...and additionaly comments relative to the "floating" judging criteria as it related to the 20% reduction in muscularity mandate.

And for the person who made the comment about selling CD's. Just so you know....I only sell CD's AS A SERVICE to the athletes who compete at the events I cover. I defy you to find any other photographer or other entity who will provide HUNDREDS...yes HUNDREDS of full size, high resolution images on a CD for $40.00. If you think I'm doing this for $$ you really need your head examined. THIS WAS NOT A SALES PITCH...IT'S TELLING IT LIKE IT IS....And as for the sagging rank comment....again...I could care less about Alexa....I've been around longer than Alexa....I don't have or need their script on my pages.....All I need are my raw logs and the logs generated by StatCounter...which by the way DOES count unique visitors and not webpage hits....

As far as I'm concerned... It's really a loss for your readers...not me...you see...I don't need anymore advertising....I don't sell anything...and my site is free....and the only people who ever purchase CD's are the athletes who already know of me because I'm at the contest photographing it...and for the person who remarked that "he" has been a bodybuilder for the last 10 yrs.... is obviously out of touch with the womens side of the sport because if he had a clue about the state of women's bodybuilding...and/or cared about it...he'd be looking for ways to promote it, advertise it, bring attention to it, in any way shape or form....but sadly...it appears that he has the same mentality as most male bodybuilders....they care about nothing but themselves and/or how it will help them competitively....I on the other hand do this out of a love for the sport....and I defy you to prove otherwise....in fact...As a bodybuilder...I defy you to ask any pro woman bodybuilder about me....let them tell you their own thoughts...or perhaps an easier route would be to check the pages of Ironman, Muscle and Fitness, Oxygen, Fitness and Physique, Physique Competitor, Natural Muscle and numerous other mags for my images of female AND male bodybuilders...have a nice day.....===glegeros 13:18 Dec 7

I think that maybe you're missing the point entirely when it comes to Wikipedia. It isn't our agenda to promote, sell or cater to women's bodybuilding. Personally I don't give a rats ass about it. I won't lose sleep if it fails or not. But I feel the same way about a number of articles I've edited here. It's every Wikipedia editors job, to provide a verifiable encyclopedia entry on Female Bodybuilding, one where all the information is referenced and of a neutral point of view. We don't care about you, have probably never even heard of you nor care who you claim to be in the world of bodybuilding (as a side note, if you're a big as you claim - why does your website still look like it was designed in 1995?)
What we care about is ensuring the integrity of the article is not compromised and we do this by following the policies and guidelines for editing established by the Wikipedia community. That's it. If your material was removed, chances are it was not referenced or not of a neutral point of view. But I don't see a discussion about it here, so it was probably swiftly removed and potentially seen as vandalism. And once again - READ WP:EL. I know you haven't because you keep making the same tired arguments over and over again - and they're all addressed there already. How about showing us some respect and take some time to learn about this encyclopedia, and why so many people have removed your link/material - instead of making baseless accusations?
(BTW - the line "I only sell CD's AS A SERVICE" - that comment just made my day. I guess McDonald's is only selling burgers "as a service" to it's fat customers. LOL! I'll remember that the next time someone asks me to pay for something. That and the terrible truth that Internet message boards and forums are places where unfortuneately hate rules. Oh, and lastly, you do realize that claiming to have 24 million unique visitors a month would rank your site in the top 40 most visited websites in the United States? Pretty incredible for a niche website with a dot.org address (and also pretty unlikely considering ebay pulls about 57 million [2]). You might want to reconsider the service you're using to measure your web traffic. Yankees76 22:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well well...itn't that interesting that you'd comment on how old my site looks...You used the same line in an email to me didn't you....Additionally....you have a habit of twisting words...nowhere did I say I get 21million unique visitors...that's your inability to comprehend what is written. Please re read and perhaps you'll have a better understanding mr. h....I fully understand now why the pushback from you...a leopard can't change his spots...neither can he change his writing style or the phrases he uses....also...you should get over the fact that the msg board you moderate IS the board in question. They are without a doubt the most disrespectful message board on the Internet relative to the treatment of women....and so my Editorial stands on its own merit...something you would know if you actually had contact with any Pro women bodybuilders====glegeros (yes my real name) Dec 7 20:46

It doesn't take someone who doesn't like you to see that your website employs about as much style and design talent as some personal websites from the mid 90's - all you need is a dancing Jesus. But in all seriousness, I've never emailed you, and I've never even heard of you before the other day (which is surprising because I've heard of pretty much every reputable bodybuilding photographer - and your name has never come up). I have no idea what message board you're talking about, and I'm certainly not a moderator of any message board on the internet. And unless the offical Buffalo Sabres message board is suddenly talking about female bodybuilders, I doubt you've seen any posts by me before talking about them. So before you make more unfounded accusations, I would suggest you show a little more evidence other than "writing style".
Oh and by the way your first post said "My log indicates that I receive 21MILLION hits per month." and after I debunked hits as an outdated and useless statistic you backpedaled stating "All I need are my raw logs and the logs generated by StatCounter...which by the way DOES count unique visitors and not webpage hits". So which is it, 21 million hits or 21 million visitors? Yankees76 02:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be so late to jump in here (haven't had time for Wikipedia lately). To me, the questions that Mr. Legeros needs to answer are:
  1. Does the site provide information (not just pictures) above and beyond what is already in the article, and that could not reasonably be incorporated in the article?
  2. Does the site serve as a referenceable source for information in the article?
  3. Does the site have an official affiliation with the sport, and is there not a separate Wikipedia article where it would be better placed?
The link to Bill Dobbins' site has been removed repeatedly for the reason in the second half of the last question. There should be a positive response to one of these questions if the site is to be listed, and in my opinion, this is not the case. This is nothing personal - I haven't met him, but I'm well aware of Mr. Legeros, and I've never heard anything bad about him - but that's not a criteria for inclusion. I am a bit puzzled by his insistence on having his site listed, however. Mr. Legeros should also note that proper Wikipedia etiquette is not to list your own site, but to let someone else who recognizes it's significance do it. fbb_fan 23:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will attempt to answer the questions posed to me.
  1. It's obvious that my site is primarily an image site. Where I thought it would qualify would be if your readers wanted to actually see images of the competitors in competion. Images are something that Wiki does not have many of. This is not a swipe. It probably should not have thousands of images such as some of the sites that were listed and removed. However, I feel it would enhance the readers understanding and enjoyment if they actually saw images of the competitors in competition and not simply one-on-one/photoshoot images.
  2. Again, relative to references it would be germane by providing images of competitors in competiton.
  3. I have NO official affiliation with the IFBB or NPC federations other than the fact that I am invited every year to the Arnold Classic as official press as well as the Europa. Additionally, I've been invited to be the official photographer for several local NPC contests and I am the official photographer for several other federations and their members are directed to my site for images of their competitions.

I would also say that the links that are present today also have no "official" affiliation to the federations. As far as if there is a better article to be placed with? I don't have the answer but I don't think so. As far as etiquette, I won't debate whether it's better to tell/ask someone to post my link or to just do it myself. Again and relative to the etiquette comment, I don't think the response made by someone about "not giving a rats ass who I am" is a sterling example of Wiki etiquette, especially since it appeard to be by a so called administrator. As far as to my "instistence", it's not really a matter of insistence. It's a matter of trying to understand why some links and not others when clearly the current links don't meet the above criteria relative to affiliation, advertising, and minors. One may, but clearly one is a membership/webcam site. It may or may not meet the critera of "kid-safe" however, Femuscle.org clearly meets the kid-safe criteria. Again, this is not a swipe at any one site, but rather pointing out the obvious. glegeros 12/18/06 20:15

A couple of quick points. First, I don't believe Yankees76 is an administrator, though he obviously could have chosen his words more carefully and still made the same point. The links that are present satisfy at least one of the criteria I listed. For example, GeneX, as I'm sure you are aware, provides contest reviews and results. This has been already been discussed at length elsewhere on this page (despite what some people may think, a site with a members section is not automatically inappropriate). It's great that your site is "kid safe", but I don't believe Wikipedia has an official policy requiring that, and besides, I don't agree with your claim that either of the sites listed is inappropriate for minors. fbb_fan 02:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an admin, nor do I pretend to be or want to be one - but thanks for assuming that I was. However, that disturbs me, as I was under the impression you knew I wasn't an admin, which I figured was why you didn't bother comprehending anything I had to say, or bother reading through the links I posted to help you learn. Your responses indicated you merely skimmed though the posts, eager to quickly post repost your own arguement. The fact that you Mr. Legeros, thought I was an admin, and still acted in such a fasion shows a lack of respect for this community. Glen S (talk · contribs) who is the user you accused of being out of touch with women's bodybuilding, is an admin though.
To address the other concern, Wikipedia is not censored for minors, take a look at the page for Jenna Jameson - her official site is not "kid safe". So a site linking to naked female bodybuilders or female bodybuilders in compromising situations would not be pulled simply for that reason alone (at least I don't think it would).
And to you correct you, I said I didn't give a rats ass about women's bodybuilding. Which I don't. I don't hate it, discriminate against it or make fun of it; but I'm not fan, and won't pay to attend a show (even though I've had VIP tickets for the last 7 Olympia weekends that I didn't pay for)This is why your point about being "obviously out of touch with the womens side of the sport because if he had a clue about the state of women's bodybuilding and/or cared about it...he'd be looking for ways to promote it, advertise it, bring attention to it, in any way shape or form", had zero affect on me and holds no merit in this discussion. I appreciate your passion and ethusiasm for the sport and your career, but you should try directing that passion into adding valuable content to Wikipedia instead of just links. Yankees76 04:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More on external links[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

I just went through and looked at all the external links. I found two that might merit inclusion. i have deleted fan sites personal web sites and those that are of a low quality. Sorry to wave the hatchet so severely but wikipedia should not be a link farm for everybodies favourite web site. External links should really be to very relevant or high quality sites. One that seems to be missing is a federation type site. Is there no governing body or such for womens body building? David D. (Talk) 08:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Sounds like good reasoning to me. David D. (Talk) 03:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Training section[edit]

An anon added a section on training, with a bunch of headers but no content. I have removed this for the following reasons:

  1. Sections should not be added until there is content.
  2. 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)[reply]

Standards and sex discrimination section[edit]

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:

  1. The claim that this is the "primary issue" is questionable.
  2. Even if the claim is true, Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
  3. In its present form, the section is borderline on POV. It doesn't seem like a good idea to start the article this way.
  4. Someone unfamiliar with the subject is unlikely to want to read about this first.

fbb_fan 01:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

PED's?[edit]

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)[reply]

How to content "Popular performance enhancing drugs"[edit]

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)[reply]

I could condense the popular performance enhancing drugs part and remove the instructional parts.

Also why did you remove "Side effects"? I just didn't see what was wrong with that.

Female bodybuilder enthusiast (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

US centric article[edit]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

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

Unflattering photo of Dayana Cadeau[edit]

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)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160B[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2022 and 15 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emmakent (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Xinyue Hu (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Female_bodybuilding&oldid=1201966546"