Talk:Girl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review Girl has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Girl was the collaboration of the week for the week starting on September 4, 2005.

For details on improvements made to the article, see history of past collaborations.

NOTE: Due to a former redirect, some of the talk placed via Girl is now on Talk:Girl_(disambiguation).

Contents

[edit] image

The current image seems to be of a young woman, not of a girl. Tasks you can do 15:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I would have thought more of an adolescent age, but I've removed it anyway. It was only added as a stopgap for a copyvio. Personally I don't like the idea of having a single image represent an entire breadth of the population. This article is looking like a probable CotW anyway, so hopefully that won't be a problem soon. Sarge Baldy 21:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, being an avid photographer, I have lots of candidate photos that I can GFDL. Let me know on my talk page... --Janke | Talk 21:45:34, 2005-08-31 (UTC)

PS: I added a photo, not a very good one, but it's now GDFL, anyway... Better than nothing? --Janke | Talk 05:51:32, 2005-09-01 (UTC)

Well, she is certainly a girl, rather than possibly a young woman, which is a good start! Sam Spade 12:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Maybe this one is better? Still only a stopgap, though. --Janke | Talk 09:06:42, 2005-09-03 (UTC)
I'd sort of like to see a picture with various girls of different ethnicities represented, rather than a just a blonde white girl. --Mumblingmynah 06:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
You are absolutely right. I am looking through all my old 35mm slides, trying to find one! --Janke | Talk 08:06:59, 2005-09-05 (UTC) PS: Uploaded a new, multi-ethnic photo. Quality is low, let's wait for a better photo. --Janke | Talk 08:42:52, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

I've temporarily added a new section for photos at the bottom, just for somewhere to put them. This is the first time I've attempted doing anything with images on Wikipedia, so I'm hoping it's working out alright... anyway, first new photo's gone up, two more on the way!
Silverhelm 09:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Please add more photos to the gallery here: Talk:Girl/Images

Let's build a gallery from which an image or two could be chosen by consensus. But, I moved the photos so as not to clutter the article page. The archive is now here: Talk:Girl/Images. Feel free to exchange the photo on the article page, though! --Janke | Talk 11:20:24, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

That's an even better idea than mine! For some reason, though, the Afghan photo isn't displaying? I've even tried playing with it, changing the order around, and it still won't work?!
Incidentally, the picture of the girl in the red hood needs redoing by whoever posted it, there are very noticeable compression artifacts on her face.
Silverhelm 17:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC).
It is entirely intentional - it's supposed to look like a "painting" - check the file name... ;-) I do have the original slide, though, if it is later decided to use this particular photo! The Afghan photo loads OK in my browser. --Janke | Talk 17:43:44, 2005-09-05 (UTC)
Ah, then you need to use a posterize effect!
I've reloaded the gallery yet again, but the Afghan photo resolutely refuses to put in an appearance. Grrr!!
Silverhelm 17:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC).
  • I just placed an image - if required the same may be removed. --Bhadani 11:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I added two images to Talk:Girl/Images from Wikimedia Commons. Mamawrites 10:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

  • "Freundinnen" is sweet! In fact, I put it onto the page, and moved the painting down to the art section. --Janke | Talk 13:30:42, 2005-09-08 (UTC)

[edit] Former redirect

This page, with all its discussion and the the COTW tag, was moved by User:Sam Spade to Talk:Girl (disambiguation) Why? --Janke | Talk 18:12:43, 2005-08-31 (UTC)

Thats not what happened, check the page history again. Tasks you can do 20:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, it was done by User:The Anome. Sorry, Sam. Still, why? --Janke | Talk 20:26:21, 2005-08-31 (UTC)

Well, at one time the article redirected there, so I guess they wanted to be consistant. I tried to comment, and when I realised the talk page was a redirect I undid it, and moved my comment here. Tasks you can do 20:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

So that's why the COTW tag disappeared? --Janke | Talk 20:43:20, 2005-08-31 (UTC)

The COTW tag was never here, until you brought it here. This page was nothing but a redirect to Talk:Girl (disambiguation). I removed the redirect, and moved my comment here from there. Tasks you can do 20:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, I begin to understand. (Still a bit noobie... ;-) I never noticed it was a redirect (that's not something you really do, with such a small notice). But, originally going to Talk:Girl (diambiguation) from Talk:Girl, the COTW was there, right? And then the chain was broken, and suddenly, no tag? Is this correct? --Janke | Talk 20:55:14, 2005-08-31 (UTC)

Well, a few hours ago, when you clicked "talk" on the girl page, you ended up @ Talk:Girl (disambiguation), which is where the COTW tag was. When I removed the redirect, that changed. Now, when you click "talk" on the girl page, you end up here, a page that had no content other than #REDIRECT [[Talk:Girl (disambiguation)]] until recently, because it simply redirected you to Talk:Girl (disambiguation), instead of here. Hope that helps, I'm beginning to get confused myself ;) Tasks you can do 21:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Corrections

A "Girl" is not a female human it is a female form. A dog can be a girl. If it would apply to only a human it still wouldn't be a "female human" it would be a human female. Human is used before female because if it would apply to only humans then a "girl" is immediately a human then a female. The definition should start with what it immediately applies to first then whatever else makes it less general or more specific.

Edited by, Emmanuel J. Frutos —Preceding unsigned comment added by EmmanuelFrutos (talk • contribs) 02:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

The source given after "according to some sources" is Ghastly's Ghastly Comic. I think we need a better source than that, or we should remove the sentence.--Shanel 05:10, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Removed. PS: I'm surprised it was here so long! This surely needed the CotW. --Janke | Talk 05:47:04, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised by this sentence:

There is a parallel objection to use of the word "boy" to describe a male over the age of puberty.

I can't recall ever hearing "boy" used to describe someone over about the age of sixteen, other than in the narrow context of a member of domestic staff in southern Africa (with a rather obvious racial subtext). Silverhelm 18:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC).

Really? Let me assure you it's definitely used (albeit rarely) as an insult, or figuratively. Trust me, it's there. --Matt Yeager 23:01, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I stumbled over this

however, in most cultures it is typically applied to a female child from birth until the late teens.

Is this true? I would assume that most cultures use the term “girl”, or the equivalent term, for female children from birth until their first menstruation, at which time they enter ”womanhood”, or the equivalent term. That would not be the early, not the late teens. (I could easily be wrong.) In modern Western culture, that is of course not the case, but the quoted statement makes a statement about most cultures. Arbor 11:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Whether "girl" is properly applied to a young woman beyond the age of menarchy has flipped back and forth in the introduction for the past several weeks. I think Americans tend to use "girl" for older young women than other English speaking cultures. Since the focus of this article is international, I am sorry to see the two alternative uses taken out of the introduction, but I don't want to start a reversion war by putting them back. Can we arrive at a consesnus? Rick Norwood 14:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I also agree - the article should present an international perspective. --Bhadani 14:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Well I deffinately would like to stay international however I would love to see specific examples of usage in other cultures instead of a vague well we think they use it this way. Olleicua 23:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I feel this section is in danger of overwhelming the rest of the article. I have moved it lower down in the article for this reason. I would also like to split this section into etymology and a separate section on application of the word to women. -Acjelen 01:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

This is my first edit/talk entry, so pardon if I do it wrong... I noticed that this line 'A male child was called a "gay girl"; a female child was called a "knave girl".' under the Etymology section is directly contradicting the similar (but opposite) statement made earlier at the top of this article. Which is correct? Ksoares 16:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gender roles

The examples in the gender roles section have a marked Western and 20th century (if not late 20th century) bent to them. -Acjelen 06:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The caption of the figure of the little girl playing with dolls is strange. Human beings interact with their environments, not their genders. A caption such as "gender and behaviour are interrelated to the environment in ways not fully understood" sounds better. Dycotiles (talk)

The caption is, Biological gender interacts with environment in ways not fully understood. The caption does not in any way say human beings interact with their genders (which, true or not, would be far too vague to bother saying IMHO). Gwen Gale (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say that gender does not interact with the environment, it is human beings who interact with their environments. This is whay saying that "Biological gender interacts with environment ..." is a strange thing to say. The idea is more like behaviour and gender interact and are conditioned/modified by the environment. The current caption is equivalent to "Maleness and femaleness interact with environment in ways not fully understood" which is also strange. Also using the word biological in this context is irrelevant since it is clear we are not talking about grammar (i.e. gender in words, which do not apply to English anyway). Dycotiles (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't find it strange. Moreover, use of the term biological here is fitting because children are indeed swayed both by their biological gender and conditioning towards social/cultural notions of gender. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I can't really see how "gender" being a quality can be said to interact with the environment. I really feel this caption is much better suited "Gender and behaviour are interrelated to the environment in ways not fully understood". What do other people think? 194.80.106.135 (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it entirely makes sense. Or is it just me? best. 194.80.106.135 (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Think of how oxygen (a characteristic arrangement of sub-atomic particles) interacts with iron (another characteristic arrangement of sub-atomic particles) to form rust (a characteristic arrangement of atoms). The word is used in a similar sense here. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Gwen, thanks for the example, I think it can be used to illustrate what I'm trying to put through here. Lets analyze the sentence "Oxygen interacts with iron to form rust in ways not fully understood". This is perfectly fine. Oxygen is a chemical element and it is a well known fact that chemical elements interact with each other to form new substances (in this case, Iron oxide). A quality of gases (such as pure Oxygen), is their density. Now, at high pressures gases are found at higher densities. At higher densities (concentrations), the chemical interaction between Oxygen and Iron to form rust happens at a faster rate. Now, lets re-write the sentence above as "Physical oxygen density interacts with iron to form rust in ways not fully understood". This is simply not right. Density is a quality, it does not interact with iron. Oxygen atoms do. Furthermore, because we are talking about a physical system, the word physical in the sentence is not necessary (although not wrong itself). A quality of a human being (his/her gender) cannot be said to interact with the environment. Human beings themselves do. I don't think I can put this in a more crystal clear way. Cheers! Dycotiles (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes but "Oxygen at high density interacts with iron at a faster rate." Either way though, you find it strange, I don't find it strange, when I'm more alert (I'm so tired) I'll re-read all this and hopefully be clever enough to think of something that'll maybe spin for us both :) Cheers back! Gwen Gale (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


The article states "Gender differences emerge very early and have to do with underlying predispositions which are shaped by experience." Is there any citation for the "underlying predispositions"? Even young infants are treated differently by adults depending on their perceived sex. Unless the author can come up with evidence based findings on newborns, the assert that early childhood toy preferences are caused by "underlying"/biological factors is speculative. Even in newborns, in Western cultures, the first colour the baby is exposed to for any length of time is likely to be determined by the assigned birth sex.

Some starter cites: - <a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/t48p533t14u7470p/">"A comparison of observed and reported adult-infant interactions: Effects of perceived sex"</a>: an infant was dressed in stereotypically gendered clothing and put in a room with an adult and three toys, a duck, a doll, and a train. The adults tended to give the doll more to the "female" infant, they verbalised more with "female" infants and interacted more physically with "male" infants. They were unaware of their bias and denied a belief in child toy stereotyping based on sex.

- Another study: "Maternal behavior and perceived sex of infant: Revisited.", Child Development. Vol 49(4), Dec 1978., showed that adults encouraged more gross motor behaviour in six month old perceived "boys".

- There is another replication here, <a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/q606272535516712/">"Baby X revisited"</a>, showing highly stereotyped toy choice by adults. These are part of a body of work supporting the influence of perceived sex on adult-infant interaction. Lara (talk) 13:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)waawa

[edit] opening paragraph

The opening paragraph now reads:

"The definition and use of the term "girl" varies between different human societies. In English-speaking cultures, it is typically applied to a female child from about the age of one, and is used as the default term until her late teenage years. Beyond that age, the term is commonly used as an alternative for "woman" until some time in her twenties (or beyond, in the usage of some older speakers)."

Since the word "girl" is an English language word, it seems odd to talk about its meaning in "English-speaking cultures". Cultures that do not speak English use some other word, yes? Also, contra this paragraph, "girl" is universally applied to newborn babies, e.g. "It's a girl!"

How about the following:

"English-speaking peoples, at various times and in various places, have used the word "girl" with different meanings (see: etymology). In the Twenty-first Century, most English speakers would hesitate to use the word to describe a mature woman, and would limit the term to describing an unmarried woman younger than twenty-one. Some would insist on a limitation to a woman younger than thirteen."

I'll leave this here for comment and possible revision. If there are no objections, I'll put it in the article on Tuesday. Rick Norwood 15:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd originally attempted adding something about babies, but gave up! You're right, of course, but, I think, also wrong. Newborn babies are surely usually referred to as just babies; if one needs to explicitly refer to gender then, sure, "girl" or "baby girl" get used. To put it another way, if you're standing on a street and need to point out someone, you wouldn't use "girl" for an infant. But then, maybe I don't know enough babies! :-)
I've also never heard "woman" being used as a referrent for a thirteen-year-old girl. Additionally, there's also a problem with the phrasing "mature woman"; I can think of three different meanings for that term.
Still, you have pointed out the problem with the wording I put up...
Cheers, Silverhelm 17:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC).
"Call me Woman, hear me roar, in numbers too big too ignore..." Never mind. I've got five children and more grandkids than I can count and the only reason for not calling a baby a boy or a girl is because you've never changed its diaper. I'll fix the lead. Rick Norwood 00:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Synonyms

Shall we try to keep the list as short as possible? Señorita and mademoiselle are hardly English words... ;-) --Janke | Talk 05:49:06, 2005-09-06 (UTC)

Should that list be there at all? I thought that was more the kind of thing for WikiDictionary? And many of those are not synonyms. A debutante is a girl, but a girl is not a debutante. Fram 14:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I am also inclined to agree that such a list is perhaps not required. More comments are requested. --Bhadani 10:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
It could perhaps be replaced with just one sentence containing the most used synonyms? --Janke | Talk 11:04:06, 2005-09-07 (UTC)

_______________________________

[edit] The girl in literature (proposed section needs to be wikified)

(Rick Norwood's original draft has now all been wikified and incorporated into the article.

_______________

A few comments. Some of your remarks aren't NPOV (a 'sympathetic' portrait? 'inappropriately' sexualized?). You've missed 'Alice in Wonderland' somehow. 'Little house on the prairie' perhaps as well? And there are many important paintings of girls before Jan Steen, including 'Las Meniñas' from Velazquez or the portrait of Rubens' daughter. And of course 'The girl with the pearl earring' by Vermeer! But as most early paintings were religious and not many girls appear in the Bible or the lifes of early saints, not many girls were depicted.

The most famous Flemish comic strip is 'Spike and Suzy' (Suske and Wiske), and it's about the adventures of a boy and a girl (approx. 10 years old). Franco-Belgian comics with girls in a central role include 'Isabelle' (By Will) and 'Sophie' (By Jidéhem). I don't know off hand of any similar comics in the USA (there are a lot of girls in Peanuts e.a., but not the real protagonists). Fram 08:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

First, no, of course I don't mind it being moved here. I never intended it as a finished article, and I was aware that many obvious examples simply slipped my mind. How could I forget Alice! But we have to start somewhere. Please add your examples to the proto-article. I am going to move the section heading back to the main page, just to get other people thinking about this topic. As for NPOV, I don't think "sympathetic" is a problem -- but maybe "sentimental" would be a better description. As for "inappropriate", you are right, and I've taken it out. Everyone, please feel free to edit the proposed article above freely. I will. To set the proposed section off from comments on it, I've used horizontal lines. (Is there a better way?) Rick Norwood 12:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I've moved some of Rick Norwood's queries to other Wikipedians out of the original section draft and down here, to better separate the draft section from our comments on it so that we can continue to improve the draft itself. Mamawrites 09:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Are there any treatments of young girls in the art of non-Western cultures?

Shakespeare has many charming boys in his plays, but does not seem to have noticed little girls.

I've moved part of the proposed section back to the main article page, after I wikified it and added some thumbnail images. If anyone would like to continue this process with the remaining draft sentences at the beginning of this section, please feel free! Mamawrites 09:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I think your Wikification of the first half of the section is excellent. I hope work continues on the second half. I've made a few changes, but more needs to be done. Rick Norwood 14:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I've created a popular culture section, and moved the material from the talk page back to the main page. I agree with Rick -- more work needs to be done, so I hope others will continue to edit on the main page! Mamawrites 06:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm having some doubts of this section, the focus is so vague that the section would be intrinsically both huge and pointless... 惑乱 分からん 23:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sequence of sections

  • In my opinion, the section etymology should find a place just after the lead sentences. In the section etymology, some of the synonyms may also be mentioned. If agreed, this “maneuver” may be carried out by one of us. --Bhadani 12:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I did it... changed photo, also. Many more in the gallery... --Janke | Talk 15:04:45, 2005-09-07 (UTC)

Pictures of girls from other cultures would be a plus. Rick Norwood 21:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I have tried to get people to add photos to the gallery at Talk:Girl/Images, but not much there yet... My own "multi-culture" shot of three young girls isn't very good... --Janke | Talk 04:56:00, 2005-09-08 (UTC)
In a day or two I will try to upload an image of an Indian girl – after all India is a country of 100 billion people. --Bhadani 13:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A couple of small reverts. Discuss?

The idea that to call someone a "girly boy" is non-threatening goes against all my experience. I would say, rather, that the person called that name had better be ready to fight or get a beating.

As for the use of "girl" to mean a woman who is not emotionally mature -- I can't recall ever hearing that usage. Example? Rick Norwood 20:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't write either one of those sentences initially; I just tried to make them make a LITTLE more sense than the way they were first written. I'm actually not sure exactly what the authors meant. I do agree that neither one is really accurate. --Mumblingmynah 21:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] napalmed girl mention...

I think it was Rick Norwood who first added this sentence to the article:

"One of the most famous photographs of the Vietnam War shows a girl whose clothes have been burned off by napalm."

Is there any chance that we could track down the photo itself, in a copyright version that we could add to the Wikimedia Commons? Otherwise, it seems sort of incongruous to mention it.

The other possibility for expanding that into a paragraph is to add a few other sentences about famous photographs of girls, but I can't think of any. What was the name of the girl who got stuck in the well in Pennsylvania a few years back? Perhaps there is a photo of her... Mamawrites 15:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Note quite sure whch photo you are referring to, but the girl was Jessica McClure. However, there is also Afghan Girl by Steve McCurry - I'd dear say even more well known than Vietnam Napalm by Huynh Cong Ut as referenced above. --Frodet 21:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking in terms of photography as an art. Rick Norwood 23:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "All" vs. "many"

Counter-example, as requested: !Kung children. --Mumblingmynah 22:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Nice link -- I wish I wasn't such a skeptic, but from Margaret Mead on stories of idealic faraway cultures have often proved to be wishful thinking. In any case, "all" is a hard case to prove, so let it be "some", though I suspect "all" is closer to the truth.

P.S. All human cultures have laughter and tears, song and dance, family and religion.Rick Norwood 23:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Western bias

Despite the addition of two pictures and some UN statistics, this article still has an overwhelming Western bias. This is notable especially in the art, literature, and popular culture sections. Where is mention of Japanese anime (except for Kiki's Delivery Service, which is like an elephant figurine in a china shop). There is also no section on the historical conditions of female children (not the history of the word). -Acjelen 01:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Something about the reasons behind sex-selective abortion in different cultures would be good. (Economic, cultural, "bad luck"?) And maybe to balance it out, something about the view that girls are somehow inherently good-natured--"sugar and spice and everything nice." Would that go in its own section, and if so, what would you call it? --Mumblingmynah 01:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Certainly this article must have something about such customs as foot binding and female circumcision. Rick Norwood 16:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I am going to attempt to revert the most recent edit. (Attempt because wiki is slow this morning.) I have no objection to a paragraph that mentions that some people believe gender roles are genetic, but unless and until that is scientifically established, we should still be cautious about asserting that certain kinds of behavior are, by nature, appropriate for girls, and that expecting that behavior is a form of "encouragement". Also "behaviors ... are" is gramatically correct and should not have been changed. Rick Norwood 14:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I guess the disputed paragraph is this one

In such a heated debate, it often becomes conceivable that there are few middleground viewpoints. However, most scientists and feminists alike do not typically favor one extreme over the other. In most intellectual circles, it is held that gender-distinict behavior results from both biology and socialization.

There are at least two problems with it. (Not counting the fact that it doesn't add anything to the paragraphs that precede it.) (1) The paragraph makes a factual claim about "most intellectual circles". The claim must be removed because it isn't verified. Such a claim needs a citation, otherwise we cannot have it here. In fact, I suspect the claim is plain-out wrong, but that's not the point. It needs a source. (2) The paragraph sets up a compromise between two viewpoints where one extreme is held by almost nobody. I have never seen a serious claim that all behaviour is caused by biology, especially not in scientific circles. That extreme viewpoint doesn't exist. The two viewpoints are (a) socialisation is the only contributing factor and (b) genes, hormones, and other biology-stuff is a contributing factor as well. There is no (c), so (b) is not a “middleground” viewpoint. The paragraph is misleading in setting up this dichotomy and condescending, badly sourced, or plain-out wrong in its claim about what “most intellectual circles” think. But I am sure a little editing can improve it. Arbor 17:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

guess what. most the claims in this article are unmitigate/unproven. youre just focusing on this one cus it doesnt fit your POV. why focus on this before citing sources in all the pro-feminist assertions that have the same flaws? Im just balancing the article.Urthogie 17:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

  • for example:Girls are less often encouraged to pursue sports NOT CITED, with the exception of those such as dancing, figure skating, and gymnastics NOT CITED. Girls are generally taken to be less adventurous NOT CITED than boys with the exception of tomboys, so-called because they are thought to exhibit typically "boyish" traits. Conversely, the more feminine of girls are sometimes referred to as girlie girls. Sometimes boys are presumed to be more responsible than girls, except in the cases of caring for younger children, which is sometimes thought to be instinctual in girls. Girls, as a group, may be perceived as being more docile than boys, and as being less capable of rational decision making and more governed by emotional responses.
Urthogie, it's not clear whom you are addressing here. (I am not the one who reverted your edits, merely trying to explain what is wrong with the cited paragraph. Also, don't presume to guess other editor's POV, and always assume good faith. Finally, note that I am not in principle rejecting your paragraph. Just the current form, because it establishes a misleading dichotomy and makes a (possibly false) claim about what "intellectuals" think.) I completely agree that all the other claims you pointing to need to be sourced, and I would be happy to see this happen. By all means remove them if you think they are wrong (I have been tempted myself, though I suspect they are actually correct). Anyway, here are some concrete suggestion: (1) as you make clear, we ought to point out that (pretty much) nobody thinks that behaviour is completely determined by biology. The current article doesn't make this clear, so the paragraph that talks about sociobiology and Baron–Cohen could need a disclaimer. (2) You could provide wikilinks to articles like Nature versus nurture or Biological determinism, which (ideally) are good introductions to the issues you want to point out to the reader. Arbor 19:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't delete content out of hand just because it's not cited, or because you're trying to make a point. If you really disagree with someone's statements, it usually only takes a minute or two to google some evidence that either supports or contradicts it. --Mumblingmynah 23:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I haven't deleted anything. Arbor 07:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Not you. I was speaking mainly of Urthogie's edits, but also just generally. --Mumblingmynah 07:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

im approaching this the way my edits were..i removed em. seeing as to how i fixed my edits, why not fix theirs before putting them back. only makes logical sense.Urthogie 15:45, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] “Most” feminists, “extreme” feminists…

I don't think we can make any statements about what “reasonable” feminists think, or even their majority. Here's the current paragraph

Some extreme feminists deny this [i.e., the influence of biology], but most feminists agree that both biology and upbringing have an influence on gender roles,

We cannot write this. Wikipedia is not at liberty to define which feminist viewpoints are “extreme”. Here (for example) is the Swedish “equality” minister Jens Orback

The [Swedish] government considers male and female to be social constructions, which is to say gender roles that have been created from nurture, culture, economic frameworks, power structures, and political ideology.

You may think he's completely nuts (I do), but this is the official policy of whole country. There is no definition of the word “extreme” by which one can label this statement as “extreme feminism”, or that this is a minority viewpoint that most feminists reject. (Orback is not even a member of the Swedish feminist party either. He is a social democrat with something like 40% of the electorate behind him.) In short, I would be happy if we didn't make any value judgements (implicit or explicit) about which viewpoints are “feminism” and which are “extreme feminism”. I can't even see on what basis we should discuss this. (There might be studies of this, asking self-identified “feminists” what they believe. This would be exactly what we need.) Indeed even if we could ever find out (and it would be a monumental and worthy task) on this it belongs to Feminism not Girl. Arbor 10:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, of course. Thanks for setting me right. Rick Norwood 16:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Why on earth would you think girls are less adventerous? Thats not true at all. I was the only kid that would go into the forest behind the school. And most of my peers that want to be cryptozoologists, like me, are girls! Weaker maybe, but that doesn't mean less adventerous.

[edit] why were etymology and usage moved to the middle of the article?

I do not see the point of their current placement.

Also, we should have added more about girls in non-Western cultures before we asked for a peer review. I hesitate to do so, because I think people who actually live in non-Western cultures are better able to be NPOV. For example, I do not think I could maintain a NPOV writing about female circumcision. Rick Norwood 23:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

As I mentioned other places, the etymology section was overwhelming the rest of the article, which is about girls, being a girl, the condition of girlhood, etc., and not primarily about the word. -Acjelen 02:59, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Too many Pictures?

Perhaps the pictures at the bottom of this page are in excess, people get the idea of what a girl looks like and perhaps does clutter the page. A friend and I were discussing the other issues that so many pictures raises, it does look a bit dubious. I'm not in objection to the pictures, just; are there too many??.

  • It does seem to be degenerating into a "lets post pictures of our daughters/nieces/etc. on Wikipedia!" free-for-all. Is the gallery at the bottom really necessary? I notice that the Boy article doesn't have a gallery, while the Man article has a smaller gallery with a wide variety of men (different ages/races/ethnicities). The main body of the article already has a number of different ethnic girls (though more could be added). OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree -- the gallery is kind of silly. I say remove it and maybe move one or two pictures from it into the article. Hbackman 00:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I've commented it out for now. We'll see if there are any reasonable objections to it's removal (or alternative proposals). OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the current version of the article contains the right number of pictures to be aesthetically pleasing without making it needlessly large. GBrady 21:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Originally Posted by kchen 1) How do you approach a girl? Well, I basically came up to this one girl (who I later dated) after school, when no one was around. It's better if there's less people, so you won't be as nervous when you talk to her. Be your casual self. Don't do anything stupid, because that won't look attractive.

2) How do you do what a girl likes and something you like at the same time? Our first get-together thing was at Mickey D's. No joke. It wasn't a date though - I mean, dates shouldn't be in fast food restaurants in the first place. I got a cheeseburger, and she got a McFlurry. I paid for her, but you aren't obligated to.

3) How to avoid screwing up in front of a girl? Whenever she doubts your skill at anything, launch into a five-minute lecture about how you are right. Follow by raising your eyebrows and saying, "Know what I mean?"

4) How to get a girl's attention? This bra strap's made for snappin', and that's just what I'll do...

This is my experience with my first girlfriend. It didn't go too well in the end, but hey, everyone needs time to learn, right?

[edit] Etymology

What about the German word Gör (child/young girl)? Couldn't it be related (perhaps through a diminutive form *gör(V)l(V) )?

Yeah, it's possible.

From German Wikipedia: de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göre

Das Wort stammt aus dem Niederdeutschen und ist verwandt mit dem Mittelhochdeutschen gorec 
"klein, gering, armselig"; sprachliche Verwandtschaft mit dem Englischen girl 
(mittelengl.: gurle, gerl = Kind, junger Mensch) ist wahrscheinlich; die genauen Zusammenhänge
sind aber unklar, da die Herkunft von engl. girl wissenschaftlich umstritten ist. 

The word is derived from Low German, and is related to Middle High German gorec 
"small, trifling, paltry"; linguistic relationship to English girl 
(Middle English gurle, gerl = Child, young person) is probable, 
the exact connections are unclear, though, 
since the origin of English girl is scholarly disputed.

From Etymonline:

c.1290, gyrle "child" (of either sex), of unknown origin; current scholarship leans toward 
an unrecorded O.E. *gyrele, from P.Gmc. *gurwilon-, dim. of *gurwjoz 
(represented by Low Ger. gære "boy, girl"), from PIE *ghwrgh-, 
also found in Gk. parthenos "virgin." But this is highly conjectural. 
Another candidate is O.E. gierela "garment."

惑乱 分からん 11:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Too many pictures? (redux)

Do we really need nine photos in this article? I think it's sensible to have a few photos to represent different ages/ethnicities, but this is starting to get a bit excessive (especially considering that 7 out of the 10 girls represented are Caucasian). OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

the boys article has 11. i'd say the girl needs more. or at least more material.71.232.62.13 04:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the phrase...

In modern usage, "girl" is properly restricted to mean a human female who has not reached adulthood, and some would restrict the usage to prepubescent girls.

there has been an HTML comment about the word "prepubescent". I looked up the word in Wiktionary and I can't find any difference between the 2 definitions of "girl" present in the above sentence. Georgia guy 22:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New question

Any term for inclusive language when specifying a female person whose age cannot be determined?? (Please note that this subject is mentioned near the top of the Gender-neutral language in English article.) Georgia guy 00:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Most any dictionary would support use of the term female (the first definition of this word wontedly specifies that it refers to a person). Gwen Gale 01:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Usage

I deleted a sentence stating that in modern usage "girl" properly refers only to a child. This statement was clearly POV: the article already refers to the fact that some feminist consider this usage offensive; nonetheless, it is clearly a current usage, which is listed in dictionaries. E.g. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/girl. 24.199.119.162 05:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, hadn't noticed it before. Gwen Gale

[edit] Discussion of images!

A smiling Asian girl.

A smiling Iraqi girl.

Which one do you like better? (207.156.197.1 - Talk)

Only cuz you ask, the Iraqi girl is technically a more likeable photograph in terms of focus, lighting, saturation and gamma. Gwen Gale 12:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the Iraqi girl fits better into Wikipedia's quality standards, with the reasons by Gale-san Travis 06:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Popular culture section is an abomination

I did a little pruning, but the section needs a lot of work. Many of the references are trivial to lesser or greater degrees, and original research abounds. --Ashenai 10:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I wonder which cultures raise girls on tales of princesses? Do all of them, or only some of them? 204.52.215.107 14:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cooties

I noticed somebody added an internal link to 'cooties' and it was placed in the references section, so I move it to 'see also', but is this needed? The idea of 'cooties' are stupid, and more importantly maybe even irrelevant to this article (it is hardly used anymore, I work at an elementary school and nobody says it)

The addition of that link was just someone very poorly accusing girls of having cooties. I have removed it. Someguy1221 06:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Recently, User:Voortle created a re-direct from Girlhood here. Does this make sense?? This article talks almost exclusively about how girls differ from boys, not about how girls differ from adult women. Any discussion?? Georgia guy 20:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

  • First, I've restored two sections which were lost during a botched vandalism revert over 3 months ago. At the very least, these give much more context to the article.
  • Second, the header starts the article off by defining a girl as a female child, which I think for most readers clearly establishes the difference for most readers (and hence, the notability of the article topic and a redirect from girlhood if consensus supports it).
  • Third, while I do think the article still needs a lot of work, it might be helpful to ponder that both boys and girls are human beings with many similarities and describing the very many lesser differences (biological and social) is rather a handy way to describe what a girl is for the purposes of an encyclopedia article.
  • Lastly, I think a girlhood section would be helpful. I would also be ok with a separate girlhood article. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations, OR

I've redone the etymology section with citations. I rm'd the references to feminism as possible WP:OR (citations on this topic are welcome though).

The Gender section reads from beginning to end like an original research essay. It's an interesting and friendly read but I think it likely only shreds of this, as written, are supportable. There is a "nurture/nature" question but without support from references readers could be easily misled. I plan on getting to it when I have more time and hope other editors will put in some cited text (or find support for bits of what's already there). I don't want to rm this text because some of it does seem helpful, such as the higher test scores (over boys), which is highly supportable, I've read about this a lot. I took this article off my watch list months ago, guess I shouldn't have done. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] some sources

Gwen Gale (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I got stirred up to do something about this. I've changed the section title to Gender and environment, adapting to later published thinking on this topic and replaced the old uncited text with wholly cited new text. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement w/ Reader's Digest as a source

I've removed this sentence from the article: "The word's earliest meaning in English was a child of either sex. A female child was called a gay girl while a male child was called a knave girl.[1]". The source given is Reader's Digest, which does not have the most stringent policies to keep urban legends out of their articles. If someone can find a source from an etymological dictionary or similar, please restore it. Natalie (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I just realized this isn't super clear - my objection isn't to the claim that the word originally meant children of either sex, but is to the specific claims of "gay girl" and "knave girl" having meaning. Etymology Online does give the word as originally meaning children of either sex and cites the OED, but makes no mention of the "gay girl" and "knave girl" part. Natalie (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I hesitated over that when I was going over the article. Although I've heard it once or twice before, I've never known if it was meaningfully supported. I have no worries about keeping it out until a sturdy, verifiable source shows up. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "used by women only among themselves"

I take this to mean that women would not say, e.g. "I am going out with the girls" to a man (when 'girls' refers to adult women). Correct?JudahH (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No. You might want to let it go for a day or two and read it again. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Um, can you just tell me what it's meant to say? There's probably a way to rephrase it to take out the ambiguity. JudahH (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The clause begins with such as. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
OK. Well, can you tell me what the word "only" would add to the sentence as it stands now? To me, all it says is that women only use it among themselves.
For instance, I might say, "I like many foods, such as ice cream only when it's soft." "Such as" would imply that I like foods other than ice cream, but "only" would imply that I only like ice cream when it's soft. JudahH (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not a big deal. Only because you've asked (which is cool by me), your example has neither the same structure nor the same intended meaning, so I think it would more likely imply you didn't include the conjunction but ("such as ice cream but only when it's soft") to clarify that this trailing adjective describing an explicit preference (I like in the leading clause) puts a hard, wholly exclusive limit on the noun. A much simpler way to make your ending clause implicitly exclusive would be, "I like many foods, such as soft ice cream."

Likewise, the clause "...by women only among themselves" is not exclusive, but an example (such as) of an occasional action. The clause you chose, "such as by women among themselves" is another, different example. Both are ok.

Moreover, this example could be rm'd altogether and most readers would breeze through it with nary a stumble, as in...

"Although the word girl is sometimes used to describe a female of any age, when meant to describe a woman in professional or other adult contexts it might imply child or be otherwise misleading (as with the term boy when applied to an adult man), hence this meaning is often deprecated." Gwen Gale (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the example can be removed, but I don't think the rest of what you say addresses my point. I do know what the phrase "such as" means. "Such as" is not exclusive, but "only" is. In fact, that's precisely the word the dictionary I looked up used to define "only": "exclusively". Anyway, you're apparently fine with the sentence either way, so the point is moot. JudahH (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Only following up here, such as makes any clause which follows it non-exclusive (as to ...is sometimes used to describe a female of any age... meaning here, "some women might only use the word girl for woman among themselves"). However, it's but a single word in a single example given as an aside with no meaningful sway on the text so yes, I'm ok with it either way. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Years given

"Girl Reading a Letter at an Open Window, Jan Vermeer van Delft (1862)." is wrong! Vermeer lived in the 17th century. The painting in question was made between 1657-59. Check his own page on Wikipedia. Can the editing ban for the girl page be lifted, BTW? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.199.197 (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've fixed the date. This was my botch, the date of the prior image was carried through in the caption and I never caught it. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Definitions?

[moved from top to bottom of page]

A "Girl" is not a female human it is a female form. A dog can be a girl. If it would apply to only a human it still wouldn't be a "female human" it would be a human female. Human is used before female because if it would apply to only humans then a "girl" is immediately a human then a female. The definition should start with what it immediately applies to first then whatever else makes it less general or more specific. EmmanuelFrutos (talk) 02:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)EmmanuelFrutos

I think standard dictionary definitions would not agree with your take on this[1]. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)