female body builders

Sexism and discrimination

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?

Training methods

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)

Introduction Header

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)

POV

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

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)

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)

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)

Various editing thoughts

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)

External Links for private benefit of non official commercial Webs

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)

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)

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)

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)

Vote for Removal of link to GeneX Magazine Website

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

More on external links

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)

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)

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)

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)

Training section

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)

Standards and sex discrimination section

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)