text:
St Brelade

St Brelade (Jèrriais and Saint Brélade) is one of the twelve parishes of Jersey in the Channel Islands. It is around 7 km west of St Helier. Its population was 11,012 as of 2021.

The parish is the second-largest parish by surface area, covering 7,103 vergées (12.78 km2), which is 11% of the total land surface of the island and it occupies the southwestern part of the island. It is the only parish to border only one other parish, St. Peter.

The parish is largely a suburban commuter area for St Helier, with expansive low rise residential development, especially in the urban area of Les Quennevais. However, the parish also has a number of notable natural sites, such as the sand dunes of St Ouen's Bay.

History
Its name is derived from a 6th-century Celtic or Welsh "wandering saint" named Branwalator or St. Brelade (also Branwallder, Broladre, Brelodre, Brélade), who is said to have been the son of the Cornish king, Kenen. He is also said to have been a disciple of Samson of Dol, and worked with this churchman in Cornwall and the Channel Islands.

The village of St. Aubin is named for St. Aubin, Bishop of Angers in France.

The Jersey parish system has been in place for centuries. By Norman times, the parish boundaries were firmly fixed and remain largely unchanged since.

In 1180 Jersey was divided by the Normans into three ministeria for administrative purposes. St. Brelade was part of Crapoudoit: this likely refers to the stream running through St. Peter's Valley.

Towards the end of the 18th century, after the Battle of Jersey, trade with the New World from Jersey grew, as did Jersey's shipbuilding industry. Jersey has a long tradition of shipbuilding. In 1683, the Constable of St. Brelade fined four men living near St. Aubin for cluttering up the road from their houses to Le Boulevard.

A large section of the Jersey Railway linking La Corbière with Saint Helier ran through the parish between 1870 and 1936.

Governance
The parish is a first-level administrative division of the Bailiwick of Jersey, a British Crown dependency. The highest official in the parish is the Connétable of St. Brelade. The incumbent office holder is Michael Jackson, who has held the office since 2005. The parish administration is headquartered in the village of St. Aubin.

At present, the parish forms two electoral districts for States Assembly elections and elects three Deputies, as well as eight Senators in an islandwide constituency. The current Deputies for St. Brelade are listed below. Under the proposed electoral reform, St. Brelade will form a single constituency, electing four representatives alongside its Connétable.

Geography
St. Brelade is in the south-west of the island of Jersey, part of the Channel Islands archipelago. It is the only parish to border only one other parish, St. Peter. It is located 4.7 km west of St Helier. The parish has a number of popular bays, St. Brelade's Bay, Ouaisné, Portelet and parts of both St. Ouen's Bay and St. Aubin's Bay falling within the parish boundaries.

The parish is quite urbanised, with 29% of the land area being built environment. It is also the least agricultural, with only 24% of the parish dedicated to cultivation. However, 38% is dedicated to the natural environment, as the parish has notable natural coastal areas.

The parish's population is largely centred around three primary areas of development. The largest is the Les Quennevais built-up area, developed largely in incorporating St. Brelade's Bay. This area has a number of shops, a leisure centre and a secondary school. The other areas are the developments around Noirmont and Mont Nicolle and the village of St. Aubin, the historic centre of the parish – originally a fishing port facing St. Helier on the opposite side of St. Aubin's Bay.

Portelet Bay is found in the parish at the bottom of the Noirmont headland, between St. Brelade and St. Aubin's Bay. It features an islet named Île au Guerdain (named for a local family) on which stands a Martello tower. In the 1920s, one of the first holiday camps on Jersey opened overlooking the bay, at one point owned by Sir Billy Butlin, though the camp closed in 2000. The bay featured a controversy around 2010, with planning permission granted for a number of homes overlooking the bay.

Culture and community
The traditional nickname for St. Bréladaises (inhabitants of St. Brelade) is carpéleuses (caterpillars). The emblem or symbol of the parish is a fish, legendarily linked to the saint himself, and though the type of fish has been debated, a 2010 redesign, based on heraldic research, depicted it as a cod.

In 2009 the parish won a Britain in Bloom award in the small coastal resort category. Britain in Bloom awards too in 2012, 2014 & 2015.

The parish has a number of community facilities. The Sir Winston Churchill Memorial Park is located in St. Brelade's Bay and the Elephant Park is located near the Les Quennevais Precinct. There is a branch of the Jersey Library called the Les Quennevais Brach Library. It was formerly located within Les Quennevais school until that site was moved in 2020. It is now located in the Communicare Centre.

Les Quennevais leisure centre in St. Brelade will be redeveloped in two phases as part of the Government's Inspiring Active Places Strategy. First will be to provision of a new skate park and a four court netball facility as well as a 3G football pitch. The Jersey indoor netball facility is current at Les Ormes (also in St. Brelade), which is being closed and redeveloped by March 2023. The target date for this phase of development is 2024. By 2032, phase 2 will be complete: the existing sports centre buildings will be demolished and replaced with parking after the construction of a new leisure centre, incorporating an eight lane 25 m swimming pool, an eight court sports hall, a permanent recreational gymnastics facility and a large fitness suite. The site will also be the new home of the Jersey Library Les Quennevais Branch.

Twin towns
St. Brelade is twinned with:
 * 🇫🇷 Granville, Normandy

Transport
There are several main roads in the parish, including the western terminus of the A1 and the Five Mile Road.

The parish was formerly served by the Jersey Railway, which connected Corbière to St. Aubin, then on to St. Helier along the coast. In 1871, it was proposed that the Jersey Railway, which at the time only extended to St. Aubin, should be extended to La Moye to serve the granite quarry. The line was closed in 1936 after a fire in a station. The Germans re-used the track during the Occupation.

The old railway track has been converted into a shared-use countryside park and pathway known as the Railway Walk. As part of the Sustainable Transport Policy, there will be a toucan crossing installed at the junction of the Walk with La Rue du Pont Marquet, which is an accident black spot.

Landmarks
Jersey's prison is situated at La Moye, and the island's desalination plant is also sited in the parish. St Aubin's Fort is located on an islet in St Aubin's Bay. It was built at the command of Sir Henry Cornish in 1542. It became a fort in 1643, during the English Civil War. The islet was refortified during the Occupation.

The lighthouse at La Corbière features on the Jersey £5 note (see Jersey pound) and the Jersey 20-pence piece (see Coins of the Jersey pound). "La Corbière" means the place of ravens or crows. This corner of the island had a fearsome reputation amongst sailors and was the scene of many wrecks. The lighthouse was constructed in 1873, designed by Sir John Coode. A causeway connects the lighthouse to the mainland but is cut off for large parts of the day.

Religious sites
St. Brelade's Church is situated at the end of St. Brelade's Bay, an unusual situation being comparatively distant from historic centres of population. The small Fisherman's Chapel alongside contains mediaeval frescoes which survived the iconoclasm of the Reformation. According to folklore, the reason for the siting of the parish church is that originally the St. Bréladais intended to build the church inland, much nearer to the homes of the congregation. However, les p'tits faîtchieaux (the little people) who had their temple in a nearby dolmen were disturbed by the construction of the foundations and, every night, would undo the construction work and magically transport all the tools and materials down to the shoreline. Eventually the humans gave up and built the church where the fairies had indicated.

Another church is located close to the Parish Hall in St. Aubin. St Aubin on the Hill is an Anglican church in the Parish of St. Brelade dedicated to St. Aubin of Angers. The church that stands today was built in the 19th century and is a fine example of Victorian Gothic style, with beautiful stained glass windows. When this was built, the appointed minister of the Anglican church also supported the building of a local primary school just a short walk from the church. St. Brelade's School served the whole parish until it closed in 1984 and became St. Brelade's College, a school that teaches English to foreign pupils.

Notable people

 * Isaac LeVesconte (12 August 1822 – 26 October 1879), Nova Scotia businessman and political figure
 * Charles Robin
 * Robert Pipon Marett, of La Haule Manor
 * Claude Cahun
 * André Gide
 * Simon Laurens
 * Derek Warwick, British former Formula One driver
 * Ronald Price Hickman, car designer and inventor who designed the original Lotus Elan, the Lotus Elan +2 and the Lotus Europa, as well as the Black & Decker Workmate
 * Bob Murray, businessman and former chairman of Sunderland A.F.C.; an accountant by trade, he made his fortune through the growth and sale of the Spring Ram kitchen manufacturing company
 * Jack Higgins, pseudonym of British novelist Harry Patterson, author of The Eagle Has Landed

title: St Brelade


text:
Man-to-man defense

Man-to-man defense, or man defense, is a type of defensive system used in team sports such as American football, association football, basketball and netball, as in which each player is assigned to defend and follow the movements of a single player on offense. Often, a player guards his counterpart (e.g. center guarding center), but a player may be assigned to guard a different position. However, the strategy is not rigid, and a player might switch assignment if needed, or leave his own assignment for a moment to double team an offensive player. The term is commonly used in both men's and women's sports. The alternative to man-to-man defense is zone defense, a system of defense in which each player guards an assigned area rather than a specified opponent.

Advantages
The main reasons a team would want to play man-to-man are:

 * More aggressive than the zone defense.
 * It also allows a team's best defender to stay on a player who has to be guarded at all times. In special cases teams can play a Box-and-one defense which is specifically designed to deny one specific enemy player by having a defender never leave their side so that they cannot get the ball.
 * No middle penetration
 * Even if the attacker gets past his defender in a man-to-man defense they will get collapsed on by the rest of the defenders. They will either get the ball stolen from them, or forced to make a bad pass.
 * Denies passes to the left and right wings
 * Man-to-man not only puts pressure on the ball but on players that do not have the ball as well. The offense will usually have to do pick and rolls in order to pass it to a wing depending on the severity of the pressure.
 * A great defense to build trust within the team
 * When a dribbler gets past their defender it is not the worst thing that can happen, because the defender can rely on his team to back him up, or when defending against screens players have to communicate and trust each other. That is what man-to-man is all about.
 * Defenders stay in a balanced stance
 * Defenders need to always be on their toes so they can react as soon as possible. The defender should always stay in a position that allows him to be able to stick out their arm full length in front and be able to touch the players they are defending.

Disadvantages
Some risks and downsides of playing it:

 * The disadvantage is that it allows the offensive team to run screens more effectively.
 * Because the defenders are each guarding their own man setting a screen on a defender is very easy to execute, but extremely hard to defend against.
 * It leaves weaker or slower defenders more exposed. In a man-to-man defense, those defenders are generally teammates staying close to their own assigned offensive player, and thus are often not in a good position to offer help should a weaker defender be eluded by the offensive player he is trying to guard.
 * Communication is essential
 * Teams need to be constantly talking with each other to run an effective defense. For instance, when a dribbler gets past a defender the defender needs to tell his team a guy got past him so that they can collapse and stop the dribbler from getting to the hoop. When the offense is setting screens and doing pick and rolls, the defense needs to be talking with each other as to whether they should stay with their man or switch. Communication can be an advantage or disadvantage depending on how proficient they are at it.

History of man-to-man
Zone defenses were disallowed by the National Basketball Association in 1947. During this period, an illegal defense violation was called when a defender was either guarding an area instead of a specific offensive player or was double teaming an offensive player away from the ball. A rule change in 2001 eventually permitted zone defense but also specified that a defender who is standing inside the key is limited to not guarding an offensive player at arm's length for no more than three seconds. If the defender violates this rule, a technical foul is assessed against his team, and the opposing team is granted one free throw and subsequent possession of the basketball. This makes it difficult for NBA teams to play zone since such defenses usually position a player in the middle of the key to stop penetration.

Man-to-man defense is still the primary defensive scheme in the NBA, and some coaches use it exclusively.

Technique
When defending the ball (i.e. guarding the man with the basketball) away from the basket in basketball, players typically should use a version of the following technique: the defender stands and faces the opponent. He is positioned halfway between the ball and the basket and may be angled in one direction or another depending on the defensive scheme of that defender's team. He has his feet positioned beyond shoulder width with most of the weight distributed to the ball onto his feet. However, the defender's heels should not be off the floor as this will put him off balance. The defender's knees should be bent at roughly a ninety-degree angle with the bottom of his thighs parallel to the ground. This will place the defender's buttocks in a seated position. The defender's back should be straight with just a slight tilt forward. This will place the defender's head over the center of his body and maintain proper balance. Depending on the teachings of his coach, the defender should position his hands wide as if he were stretching his wingspan or place one hand high and one hand low. Keep at arm's length at all times. This allows the defender to be able to react quickly enough to anything that the attacker might do. It is ok to play a little farther back or even a little closer, it would just depend on how confident the player is in his abilities and the skill of the attacker. Keeping eyes on the opponent's chest is very helpful in reacting to their moves as well. It’s very easy for an offensive player to fake with their head, eyes, or body. The spot on a player that is most difficult to fake with is their chest.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Man-to-man defense


text:
User talk:Deltage

Welcome
Hello , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! You (Talk) 22:24, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Non-free use disputed for Image:FlyingStepsInDaArena.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:FlyingStepsInDaArena.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Highland Bella Stella.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Highland Bella Stella.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Music instructor feat dean-super fly (upper mc) s-1-.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Music instructor feat dean-super fly (upper mc) s-1-.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Deltage


text:
Lords of the Realm II

Lords of the Realm II (also known as Lords 2) is a computer game published by Sierra On-Line and developed by Impressions Games. It was first released for the PC in 1996, and is the second game in the Lords of the Realm series.

The game takes place in a medieval setting, with rulers of several counties warring for the right to be king of the land. Players grow crops, accumulate resources, manufacture weapons, manage armies, build and lay siege to castles, capture provinces, and ultimately attempt to conquer their enemies.

Gameplay
Lords of the Realm II is very different from many medieval strategy games. There is no magic, and unlike many strategy games, it has no technology tree. Players need to carefully manage food (cows, dairy, grain), population, and happiness levels whilst avoiding Malthusian population meltdowns or other players invading their counties. The game is a combination of a turn-based resource management game, in which players grow crops, accumulate resources, manufacture weapons, manage armies, and build and lay siege to castles; and a real-time strategy game with players controlling units individually or in group formations in battles or during sieges.

Compared to the original, Lords of the Realm II features updated graphics and an improved management system.

Development
Impressions Games general manager David Lester commented during development, "We wanted the game to be more multiplayer friendly, and one way to do that was by adding realtime combat. Besides, when you can bring a castle down by aiming a battering ram or a catapult at it in realtime, it's a lot more satisfying."

Sales
In the United States, Lords of the Realm II debuted in 16th place on PC Data's computer game sales rankings for December 1996. It rose to #9 in January, and it remained in the firm's top 20 for another two months, before dropping out in April. Returning to the top 20 in May and June, Lords of the Realm II became the 14th-best-selling computer game in the United States during 1997's first half. It exited PC Data's monthly top 20 after a placement of 19th in July. By November, global sales of Lords of the Realm II had surpassed 350,000 copies.

Lords of the Realm II went on to be the 19th-biggest computer game seller of 1998, with 245,324 in sales and $2.99 million in revenues. Its total sales ultimately reached 2.5 million copies worldwide.

Reviews
According to review aggregator website Metacritic, Lords of the Realm II received "generally favorable" reviews.

Sequels
Lords of the Realm II: Siege Pack (released June 13, 1997) is an expansion pack consisting of new combat scenarios and additional maps. It was followed by a spin-off, Lords of Magic, and a sequel, Lords of the Realm III.

title: Lords of the Realm II


text:
Talk:Latin honors

American-centred
The system of Latin honours has been in practice at European universities since the Middle Ages. There are five grades: Summa Cum Laude (I), Insigne Cum Laude (II), Magna Cum Laude (III), Cum Laude (IV) and Rite (V). Some universities only use four, others a completely different system. --194.230.122.67

 * Precisely! The article needs to discuss the topic from much wider angle. --The Merciful 18:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

 * 194.230.122.67, do you have any references showing the use of Latin honors at European universities in the Middle Ages? If so, put the information into the article.  The Merciful, Wikipedia is not a research team working at your behest.  If "the article needs to discuss the topic from a much wider angle," then get cracking.

 * BTW, I took off the NPOV note, since there's no (apparent) NPOV problem with in the article. -Rjyanco 15:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The POV problem is in that the article is far too focused on the American system, when in fact it used in other countries, and is more universal than the text makes it out. Lack of relevant facts is bias too. I personally don't have the expertise to fix the article, but I do know as a native that in Finland we have latin honors for graduation exams of our high-school equilevant and universtity graduation thesis, and university studies are divided into abropatur, cum laude and laudatur levels. Note also previous commentator's notes of history of latin honors dating back to Middle Ages - after all, Latin was the language of higher education at that time in Europe.

 * It may be that other template, like disputed - which is stronger than NPOV - might be more correct, but at least NPOV-notice informs readers that the article has severe problems. --The Merciful 17:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Since no one is stopping you from doing so, why don't you rewrite it to meet your concerns instead of just putting a POV template on the page? You say that you don't have the expertise to do so, but it sounds like you know something, at least, about the Finnish system which you could add. —Lowellian (talk) 00:28, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * Knowledge of Finnish system doesn't mean knowledge of the issue in general, and the article tittle is general. Besides, that "fix it or shut up" attitude isn't very productive in forming well working co-operative volunteer effort such as Wikipedia. After all, I did give some pointers that somebody, for example you, could use as a springboard to write a better article. --The Merciful 17:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

 * It specifies it's talking about the American system. Why not stick a paragraph saying sometihing like "Non-American countries also use latin honors, which may be in a different sense" and take off the tag? Michael Ralston 00:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The article title is "Latin honors", not "Latin honors in American academia". Content should match the title. --The Merciful 17:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Certainly the article should be expanded to discuss use of Latin honors in other countries, to the extent that this benefits the article. Furthermore, I would love to see evidence confirming the claims of our anonymous friend about Latin honors being in use in Europe during the Middle Ages.  The 1894 book quote (which I added to this article) is from a relatively contemporaneous book that doesn't otherwise overstate much, and if Amherst College merely borrowed the idea of Latin honors from Europe, I suspect that would have been noted in the book, rather than the book calling the system "original and peculiar".  Certainly many of the author's peers (college professors) studied abroad, and the supposed creator of the system at Amherst had studied at Halle, Germany.

 * Tracing the use of Latin honors seems like tracing the origins of baseball. If you want to claim that monks were playing baseball in Göttingen in 1528, maybe some evidence would be in order. -Rjyanco 18:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

 * What is it actually that is called original and peculiar? Quote: The new system of administration, of which the above is a part, is so original and peculiar that it is known as the Amherst System. I don't read it as it's the use of Latin that is original! So basically what we have here is two conflicting assertions:
 * 1. Latin honors were used in medieval Europe. This is supported by the well known fact that Latin was the language of higher education at the time.
 * 2. (Not explicitly stated, but implied) An American school started, out of blue, using Latin honors on the brink of the 20th centry.
 * Furthermore, I already noted the Finnish use of Latin, and given the historical ties between the two countries, I strongly suspect the same is or was true in Sweden.
 * So, please don't remove the NPOV-tag before the issue is proberly resolved. So far none of my or 194.230.122.67's conserns have been invalidated. --The Merciful 08:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

 * You've not noted the Finnish use of Latin at any time but in the present day. 194.230.122.67 has given no evidence to support his claim, which may simply be an assumption.  Regardless, NPOV is an inappropriate label and is going away... again.  You're welcome to add supported evidence to the article. -Rjyanco 15:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The modern ylioppilastutkinto was 150 years old in 2002 and use of academic latin honors in Finland dates at least to 1886 . The german wikipedia notes an Austrian system of Latin honors. The current article suggests the use of latin honors originated in america, but doesn't prove it. If NPOV is inappropriate, replace it with a better tag. And pleace don't make anymore insulting and condescending suggestions that I have an obligation to edit the article. --The Merciful 10:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I change History to History in America as to not conflict with the fact that Europe probably used it first. Don't take this personally The Merciful, but if you have a really problem with an article and it matters the most to you, you should take it upon yourself to fix it.  the research you presented on this Talk page is good...you should incorporate it into the article though.  I am suggesting you do so because you seem to be the most familiar with it.  having a revert war is not productive and it really does seem like you are outnumbered on this one.  i hope i came across as clear and not insulting, but persuasive.  -- Bubbachuck 19:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I added an "expand" tag. I don't care about the article enough to edit it, but I do care enough about the potential reader to inform her that the article may be lacking. Plus, it might get attention of someone who does care enough to research properly and to edit the article. Surely all these tags exist for a reason? --The Merciful 08:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Why not just list out the different honours in an nonparticulated order, and then discuss how the different systems rank them? Finish... Austrian... Canadian... Curran919 19:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Proportion of graduates receiving honors
So what proportion of graduates achieve summa, magna etc? It'd be nice to have more information in this article. ZephyrAnycon 21:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Each university has different standards. It varies (often a great deal) between different universities. —Lowellian (reply) 07:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Answers.com
Answers.com has this article almost word for word. Just figured I would point that out in case it is of concern. Answers.com article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.88.180.182 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 28 April 2006
 * Answers.com is a known wiki mirror. Their article is copied from here. Millancad 00:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Relation to the British system
Can any academic who has worked in both the US and UK explain the relation between Latin honours and the British system of 1st, 2:1, 2:2 and 3rd? Adambisset 11:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I have worked both at Ivy league and Oxbridge universities. The equivalents are those listed in the main body of the article, i.e., summa and magna cum laude = first class honors, cum laude a 2.1. The comment made below that a third-class honors degree is equivalent to graduating cum laude in the States and that taking an ordinary degree is "ordinary" in the ordinary sense is specious. Roughly 5-10 percent of students receive a third nowadays and an ordinary degree accounts for roughly 7-10 percent more. They comprise the bottom 20 percent, at most, of a graduating class. Hardly an honor, one might say.

I disagree very much with the comparison made between US and European Honours degree classifications in this article, and with the above statement as it too appears to be a bit under- stated and mis-informed. "Honours" means just that. Therefore, 3rd Class Honours is just what it states- Honours, if not it would be considered a "pass or ordinary" degree... Ask anyone who earned an Honours degree, if he would have liked to have earned a Passs or Ordinary degree, or a Pass earner, the reverse? I too have law degrees from the US, UK, and Switzerland, and I also have taught university in both Continents. Actually, it mostly depends upon the university and programme awarding the degree in the UK & EU. The US has summa cum laude, magna cum laude, and cum laude. Both the US and the UK have also ordinary and/or pass degrees. Although this is not an exact measurement, as the UK has a different grading & credit system than that of the US. Honours in Western Europe has more to do with the programme and the university attended and awarding the degree, and not strictly or only with GPA as it is the US. In most US/UK universities, it is usually measured thus, Summa = 1st, Magna = 2nd, and 3rd = Cum laude, which actually means "with honours,merit, or praise". Like the US,in the UK, the rest of the degrees are merely "Pass or Ordinary". —Preceding TEMPLEBARRISTER comment added by66.181.4.150 (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the rough comparison of summa cumm laude + magna cum laude = first class honours. Asserting an equivalence between a cum laude degree (which in the US is generally in the top 25-30% of the class) to a third is specious. A third class honours degree is no honours degree really, as anyone in the UK knows. An ordinary degree is what a basic passing graduating average in the US would be (a C-average). Currently 10% of students at UK universities receive a first, much less rigourous than a summa cum laude or, at top US universities, even a magna cum laude degree. Another measure: Oxford and Cambridge graduate divsions look for either a summa or a magna cum laude degree from an applicant from the US. They all but require a first (nowadays) from a UK applicant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.55.102 (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the notion that the U.S. system and the U.K. system are even comparable. In the U.K. people can graduate with First Class Honors with only a grade average of 70%, and can get a 2:1 with 60%, so unless the British education system is more rigorous than that of the U.S. they are definitely not comparable, because in the U.S., to graduate with the lowest form of honors (cum laude) in most schools you must graduate with roughly a 90% GPA, which is a lot more rigorous to do. I think the grading scales are totally different and cannot be compared. Having an honors degree in the U.K. is definitely easier than having one in America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.24.192 (talk) 07:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

 * It is more rigorous, actually. At least in many of the traditional universities. As a person who has marked papers at Newcastle University, I can tell you that the marking scheme in the UK is such that you mark upwards or downwards from 50%, and the scheme does not even go beyond 70-79%. i.e. in the British system 70%-79% is typically considered the highest grade if one has mastered all the relevant course material to perfection. Only exceptional students who seep originality out of every pore are typically given anything above. There are exceptions where some universities use a more American scheme. I am not sure, but I think Warwick does. In the US on the other hand a person gets marked down from 100%, so the full range of marks get used.

A First Class at a good university also means you're pretty much guaranteed any PhD at a top university. One engineering job posting I saw was particular telling. Intel asked for a microelectronics engineer with either a) a First Class Honours for a BEng(Honours) Electrical & Electronic Engineering with a strong Microelectronics component, OR b) PhD in Microelectronics. I doubt you'll find a similar offer for an American graduate where the standard engineering programmes do not have similar depth. The reason for the difference in the UK and USA is probably this: In the British education system we specialise early (through O Levels and A Levels). Then in university we intensely study a particular field. In the UK, non-honours degrees are 2 years, studying more general topics and they are no longer awarded in England. Honours degrees are 3 years. Only a student getting worse than 3rd class grades will end up with a non-honours degree. In the USA a 4 year degree is typically non-honours, however the top graduating class are said to 'graduate with honours'. Contrast this with the UK where the degree itself is an honours degree and only those who do very poorly are not awarded their honours (i.e. it becomes equivalent to a 2 year non-honours degree). Comparing the Oxbridge requirements for US students doesn't really help because UK universities typically have lower requirements (or more flexible requirements) for foreign students as opposed to students in the British education system, i.e. they are more lax with foreigners. I also know many students at good UK universities who got First Class degrees and had their pick when it came to fully-funded PhD programmes at the Ivy League or MIT, stateside. Consider also that a 2:1 is usually sufficient to get directly into most PhD programmes in the UK. Consider also that in the UK you don't mess around for a few years in the PhD - as soon as you enrol you're actively engaged in research and usually publish in 2-3 years. Usually a minimum of a 2:2 is required for a Master's. I am talking about the demanding courses like engineering, physics, mathematics as I don't have experience with the other fields. I think First = Summa Cum Laude, 2:1 = Magna cum Laude, 2:2 = cum Laude could be an accurate comparison. However, the systems are very different so making comparisons in the first place might be a mistake. Rlinfinity (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The UK first class honours degree starts at the level of cum laude (based on percentage of success for all subjects it would go up to summa cum laude), and all other comments are baseless conjecture. Second class honours and below are not honours in the US education scheme. Any statement such as: "I taught on both continents," is anecdotal, and cannot be confirmed nor yield relevant data. Further, a statement such as: "grading starts at 50%," indicates that the grading system is irrelevant and a farce, since there would be no grading scheme to evaluate a given population of students to perfection.

To add something anecdotal, discussions with UK graduates has yielded that they are not tested with the same rigour on each subject as their US counterparts, being that UK students are not tested per each subject area covered (each topic covered in a particular course for credit in the US), but on the module as a whole. Next, the UK education system has the feeling that any graduate is almost entitled to an honours diploma unless the student drastically fails. This indicates that the UK system is not statistically accurate with honours grading. Note, there would be a large number of normal (ordinary) students with a small percentage of top (honours) and bottom (pass) level students. In the US, only the top level students at an institution would be granted honours diplomas since they would stand out statistically from the expectation of completion. The systems are totally different since the UK system has economic class status built into its thought of an honour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.76.199.197 (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

unreferenced
I tagged the article because it doesn't feature a published source other than for the "History of usage in the US"-section, as far as I can see. Kncyu38 05:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

 * By that standard you could add an unreferenced tag to 95% of the articles in Wikipedia. When encyclopedias talk about things that are generally common knowledge, there is (in my opinion) no need to give a reference.  e.g., here's a line from the logarithm article:

 * The logarithm of a number x in base b is the number n such that x = bn.

 * No source is given. Is that an unreferenced article in your opinion?  Not in mine.

 * I know Wikipedia has problems with people intentionally slipping in false information, but unless the article being modified is obscure, there is a reasonableness line that needs to be considered. An article about something as common as college honors is not an obscure topic; most of what is in the article is either common knowledge or (in the case of the history, which is not common knowledge) it is cited.

 * Perhaps this is the test: "Is it the case that, if the article were incorrect, a randomly-selected reader of the article could notice that the information is incorrect?"  If not, then you definitely need references.  (If I assert that the Duchy of Kncyu38 existed in central Europe between 942 AD and 953 AD before being annexed by Hungary, then I would argue that a randomly-selected reader of Wikipedia has no way of verifying that assertion, which of course is false.  But if I assert that clementines are orange, a reference wouldn't be necessary.

 * Do you see what I mean? -Rjyanco 12:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Sorry for the delay. - OK, I see your point, but there are two problems I have with those self-evident commonsense facts: 1) Where do we draw the line between self-evident and not-quite self-evident? 2) Simple facts about e.g. Latin honors should be easy to back up with sources, and every article can and should set an example for all other articles. So if an article like this isn't thoroughly referenced, how can anyone expect the same from Cheating in counterstrike? Kncyu38 12:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

re-tagging the article as unreferenced
I re-tagged the article, hoping for more and better references to be introduced. We should work to avoid any "self-evident facts". —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Spam filters
The "Spam filters" section is interesting, but is it really relevant to Latin honors per se? Should a similar cautionary note be added to every other article with "cum" in the title? Decagon 05:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Also used by high schools
I don't know how many High Schools award graduates, but I just returned from the Niceville High School Commencement in Florida. Approx 20% of their graduates were awarded Summa Cum Laude, Magna Cum Laude, or Cum Laude, complete with differently colored "sashes?" over their gowns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.131.62 (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2007
 * At Niceville? I hafta admit, that is pretty nice! --Jerzy•t 02:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Spelling
Are "Sum Cum Laude" or "Suma Cum Laude" accepted alternate ways to spell the phrase? -kslays 18:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not how you spell the Latin word, so I would think not.

 * "sum cum laude" means "I am with praise". So I wouldn't accept this as a correct spelling.

What about the difference in spelling honors v honours 136.186.1.186 (talk) 06:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Mistranslation
I think, those grades are wrongly translated, and I wonder why everyone actually uses those misleading translations.

While "cum laude" indeed means "with praise", "magna cum laude" actually doesn't mean "with great praise". That would be "cum laude magni". "magna" is a Nominative and thus can't be an attribute to "laude", which is an Ablative. In Latin, substantive and attribute are in the same case. Thus "magna" is a solitude substantive, meaning "the great", or in this case "the great part of the work".

"magna cum laude" thus means "the great part with praise", indicating that only some smaller parts have some weaknesses, but for the most the work can be praised.

The same is valid for "summa cum laude", in this case meaning "the whole with praise", indicating, that all of the work can be praised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.38.230 (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly: the word 'laus' is feminine. Secondly: the feminine singular ablative of 'magnus' is 'magna', like the feminine singular ablative of 'summus' is 'summa'. Thirdly: 'magni' can only be either masculine singular genitive or masculine plural normative (and vocative of course) of 'magnus'. Forthly: wouldn't it be irrational that the wording of "magna cum laude" would give less praise to the work than "cum lade", while it is intended that more praise is given? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.50.144.60 (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * not at all, these grades are indeed wrongly translated, however this has been since decades, maybe centuries not only in the english speaking world. "cum laude" really has the meaning of "you did it, and you got some praise" (in the sense of here and there something was to praise). "magna cum laude" means "yeah, most of it deserves praise" while "summa cum laude" means "yeah, all of it deserves praise". Its just if you order some ice. you say "with extra cream" or "with much extra cream" or "with really really much extra cream" leaving the "lowest" amount of cream without any special extra wording (who would say "with a normal amount of extra cream"?)
 * I'm wondering whether you actually read what the other contributor has written above. I'm sorry to be blunt, but you are entirely wrong, and the grades are not mistranslated. Your whole sentence above saying magna/summa is nominative in this context, is wrong. It is ablative feminine singular, according with the ablative feminine singular 'laude', see here for reference: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/magnus, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/laus#Latin (the 'f' stands for 'feminine'). Simply because magna *can* be feminine nominative, does not mean it is here. Saying it should be 'cum laudi magni' to mean 'with great praise' shows that you do not grasp the cases, considering - as the contributor before me pointed out, and as you will see in the reference provided - magni would be a masculine/neuter genitive singular or a masculine nominative plural or a masculine vocative plural, while your laudi is a dative not an ablative. Your sentence 'cum laudi magni' would mean 'with to praise of the great' (and actually would just be nonsensical Latin, as for cum to mean 'with' it always needs to be + ablative, not your suggested dative, see here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cum#Latin) I suggest you increase your proficiency in Latin before claiming that centuries of scholars before you were mistaken. I hope you have not taken the fact that no one responded to this in ten years as a confirmation that you were right! --User54321012345 (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hysterical praise
One of Fordham University’s student newspapers translated this as “with hysterical praise,” and so the university dropped the distinction and awards such degrees with summa honors, and a notation In cursu honorum, “in the honors course.” This latter notation is used by some other schools as well.

Anyone have a source for this? All I can find are ones that seem to come from this article.--Insomniac By Choice (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong information on Germany
I just noticed that you write, that in Germany, "these degrees are mostly used when a doctorate is conferred, not for diplomas and the newly introduced bachelor and master degrees."

This is wrong, as it has in fact been used for diplomas. I just got mine, so I know this info first-hand ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.68.188.220 (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Organization
I find, as an example of bad organization,
 * The Finnish Matriculation Examinations at the end of high school equivalent lukio uses the grades of improbatur (I, failing; "not accepted"), approbatur (A; "accepted"), lubenter approbatur (B; "willingly accepted"), cum laude approbatur (C; "accepted with praise"), magna cum laude approbatur (M; "accepted with great praise"), eximia cum laude approbatur (E; "accepted with excellent praise") and laudatur (L; "praised"). Finnish universities, when grading Master's theses and Doctoral dissertations, use the same scale with the addition of the grade of non sine laude approbatur (N; "not without praise accepted") between lubenter and cum laude.

which is damn near unusable. I was interested in the ranking of the honors, but how could anyone be expected to use the material from the article without recasting it? E.g., so:
 * Finnish universities grade Master's theses and Doctoral dissertations as follows:
 * improbatur (I, failing; "not accepted")
 * approbatur (A; "accepted"),
 * lubenter approbatur (B; "willingly accepted"),
 * non sine laude approbatur (N; "not without praise accepted")
 * cum laude approbatur (C; "accepted with praise"),
 * magna cum laude approbatur (M; "accepted with great praise"),
 * eximia cum laude approbatur (E; "accepted with excellent praise") and
 * laudatur (L; "praised").
 * The Finnish Matriculation Examinations at the end of the lukio (equivalent to high school) use all of these, with the exception of N (italicized above).

This would be worthwhile, if only bcz it makes manifest the inconsistent style of translation, but in my case, it lets one count to find that third- and fourth-class honors are called magna cum laude and cum laude respectively. Hopefully those with more time for the subject than i will be inspired to use this style, or something a bit better, throughout the accompanying article. --Jerzy•t 06:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Honoris causae
Honoris causae redirects here, but "Honoris causa" redirects to the Wikipedia article Honorary degrees. There should be mention made of honoris causae, with a link to the proper article.BlueMesa171 (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Belgium numbers are incorrect
The named distinctions are correct, the percentages needed for those distinctions differ from university to university, within a university and even to a small extend from year to year (same for schools) and are for Leuven roughly 70%, 75%, 80% and 90%. Also important: the facuties do not only consider the grades but also take into account whether or not the grades have been earned on the ´first` (not attended) attempt or the second attempt of the examination since many students had the habit to deliberately not attend a few subject at the end of the academic year so they could get higher grades. For most subjects at universities it's not possible to get more than 90% (you need to show a greater knowledge and/or insight than can be obtained with the mandatory studymaterial, the philosophy behind this is that only the professor himself can get a perfect score) which is why only a very small percentage of students receive the highest distinction (felicitaties = congratulations; 1% is a good estimation) since you need to get the highest possible score for each examination. To receive the second highest distinction you need to score for the average examination 1/20th point lower than what is needed to earn the highest distinction since in Belgium they use a discrete scale from 1 to 20. For the other distinctions it strongly depends on the study and the faculty what percentages of the students get what distinctions. For medicine, which uses a somewhat challenging entrance exam, for example roughly 20% gets high distinction, for engineering (burgelijk ingenieur), for law school and applied economic studies also a large percentage of the students get high distinction (companies strongly select on those grades), for engineering that percentage is a lot lower. In conclusion: the percentages of student which receive a certain distinction should be deleted, the percentages which are needed to get one of those distinctions should be edited whith the notion that these apply to a specific university in a specific year. 82.170.40.166 (talk) 03:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

German grades were incorrect
insigni cum laude (with decorated honors) is not a German grade, but instead a SWISS grade. In Germany grades are instead summa cum laude, magna cum laude, cum laude and rite. While specific schools are free to divert from the rules, German statistical office ("Statistisches Bundesamt") has defined magna cum laude as "1.0", cum laude as "2.0" and rite as "3.0". The additional best grade summa cum laude, is considered to be better than "0.5". As normally students cannot exceed the 1.0 grade, this "0.5" is reserved asa special doctoral level grade for absolutely outstanding work.

In any case there is no insigni cum laude which is why I deleted from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.2.167.4 (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Maxima cum laude
At, it says:

 * A rarely used distinction, maxima cum laude, "with very great honor", is an intermediary honor between the summa and the magna honors. It is sometimes used when the summa honor is reserved only for students with a perfect academic record (4.0 / 4.0 GPA).

Maxima means "greatest", not "very great". I don't know if the description that follows it is correct, either, since it would seem that maxima should be higher than all others. Right? —[  Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 03:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

http://www.up.edu/registrar/default.aspx?cid=2912& how U of Portland does it: summa cum laude will be awarded to all students receiving a 4.00 GPA; maxima cum laude to the next 3%; magna cum laude to the next 7%; cum laude to the next 10%. maxima clearly is less than summa (as in summit - the top)

The Netherlands
In the section concerning the Netherlands, it is stated that three types of cum laude are used. This is in fact untrue for universities. Only cum laude is used, and it is somewhat equivalent to, as is correctly stated in the section, a US summa cum laude or magna cum laude, or a UK first. If one would disagree with me, please insert a citation in the section referring to the university in question that officially does make the distinction.

Wiki page duplication
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_Laude is a redirect to this page but it seems somebody has created another page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_laude, the other page is 3 small sentences and provides no information that isn't present here. I presume it should be deleted but I'm new to wiki and have no idea how to go about it. mycorrhizal.network (talk) 03:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Beligum: why translate into French and Dutch?
In the Belgium section, we are told the French and Dutch translations of the Latin honours. That's strange, because this is the English Wikipedia. If the French and Dutch phrases are used in Belgium, the article should say that. Buster79 (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Pronunciation Respelling?
Seriously? People who need Wikipedia Pronunciation Respelling will not come to this article or those of related subjects. ♆ CUSH ♆ 19:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Removed percentages from lead
As the entire article shows, the percentages and requirements for the different honours vary wildly from country to country. Therefore it was wrong and misleading to give "typical percentages" in the lead, as these would only be typical for certain countries, and far too high for many. EDIT: second section, not lead section. My bad. Fgf10 (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your edit! I think it was unnecessary to remove the percentages altogether, though--a quantitative referential point for each of the honors was extremely helpful, and I've added some qualifications to address your concerns. The North American standard, I think, is particularly notable because it is uniquely prevalent and uniformly used across almost all universities in Canada and the U.S. Ravenclaw0127 (talk) 02:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Latin honors. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170402165847/http://www.deped.gov.ph/sites/default/files/order/2016/DO_s2016_036.pdf to http://www.deped.gov.ph/sites/default/files/order/2016/DO_s2016_036.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Classification of Singapore
As a country where the lingua franca is English, shouldn't Singapore be grouped together with the English speaking countries on top of the article, i.e. North America and the UK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArticCynda (talk • contribs) 11:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

United States / Valedictorians?
Should the article stop at Summa cum laude, or should it mention, below Summa Cum Laude, the last step of being valedictorian

title: Talk:Latin honors


text:
Tressoir

A tressoir is a braid made of golden silk embroidered with metal and gems. It was worn by women in the 13th century.

title: Tressoir


text:
List of governors of Malta

The governor of Malta (Gvernatur ta' Malta) was an official who ruled Malta during the British colonial period between 1813 and 1964. This office replaced that of the civil commissioner. Upon the end of British rule and the creation of the State of Malta in 1964, this office was replaced by the governor-general, who represented the British monarch and not the government of the United Kingdom as did the governor. The office of Governor-General was itself abolished in 1974 and replaced by the post of president when Malta became a republic.

The governor
The governor, appointed by the British monarch (on the advice of the prime minister), maintained executive power in Malta throughout British rule. He was head of the executive council and the pre-independence government of Malta.

The governor was the most powerful official in Malta.

The governor was initially supported by a lieutenant-governor. For example, from ca. 1813 to ca. 1820, Major-General Sir William Hutchinson served as lieutenant governor. After the death of the Marquess of Hastings in 1826, the British government decided to downgrade the post of Governor to Lieutenant-Governor, with a reduced allowance. Sir Frederick Ponsonby was formally designated Lieutenant-Governor and Commander of the Malta Garrison.

Lieutenant governors of Malta

 * Public Secretary
 * Arthur Baynes 1801
 * Alexander Macauley 1801
 * Samuel Taylor Coleridge 1804–1805
 * E.F. Chapman 1805
 * Rev. Francis Laing 1811–1813

 * Chief Secretary
 * Rev. Francis Laing 1813–1815
 * Alexander Wood 1815–1817
 * Richard Plasket 1817–1824
 * Colonel Sir Frederick Hankey 1824–1837
 * Sir Hector Greig 1837–1847
 * Henry Lushington 1847–1855
 * Sir Victor Houlton 1855–1883
 * Sir Walter Hely-Hutchinson 1883–1884

 * Lieutenant Governor
 * Sir Walter Hely-Hutchinson 1884–1889 (as Lieutenant Governor)
 * Sir Gerald Strickland 1889–1902 (as Chief Secretary)
 * Sir Edward Marsh Merewether 1902–1910 (as Lieutenant Governor and Chief Secretary)

 * Chief Secretary
 * Major John Eugene Clauson 1911–1914
 * Horace Archer Byatt 1914–1916
 * Sir William C. F. Robertson 1917–1925
 * Sir Thomas Alexander Vans Best 1925–1930
 * Sir Harry Charles Luke 1930–1938
 * John Adams Hunter 1938–1940
 * Sir Edward St. John Jackson 1940–1943
 * Sir David Campbell 1943–1952
 * Trafford Smith 1952–1959
 * Archibald Campbell 1959–1962

title: List of governors of Malta


text:
Talk:List of female Nobel laureates

Why there are fewer women laureates
I looked through these comments and everyone seemed to be missing the blindingly obvious. Yes, you can probably make an arguement that there is discrimination going on, but, just as with the "gender wage gap", there are far more important factors in play here than just that. This is a matter of intelligence differences between the two sexes. That is not to say men are on average more intelligent than women, on the contrary, they have almost exactly the same average intelligence, although with different strengths of course. What makes the difference is that men have a higher standard deviation, as with many other aspects of human characteristics. This means that whilst they have the same average, there are more men on the fringes of the distribution curve, ie, you will find that the vast majority of the world's smartest, stupidest, tallest, shortest, skinniest, fattest, slowest, fastest, etc etc, people are men. And thus, it is because men have a higher standard of deviation in their intelligence distribution than women, that you find more men than women attain the highest academic achievements. --82.43.47.6 17:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We still suffer the effects of old discriminiations, it cannot be undone within one afternoon. One hundred years ago such banal opinions like yours were closing the way to universities for women just because they were women. Did you know that Marie Curie received finally her doctorat on Sorbonne AFTER she was granted with Nobel Price? "As the Swedes ridiculed themselves first for granting a woman, it would be not such a big shame for Sorbonne anymore to honour a woman with just a doctorate" that was the reasonning of French professors that time. "Women have a brain too weak for education", "Kinder, Küche, Kirche", and as I can see in your comment, such clichees are still alive.... Merewyn 21:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I understand if you feel emotionally incapable of viewing this arguement rationally, but please make an effort not to put ridiculous words (such as "Women have a brain too weak for education") in my mouth. You also need to be aware of the difference between judging individuals as individuals and using statistics to analyze a population.--82.43.47.6 12:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Women are not discriminated against in today's career world. Things such as the "gender wage gap" can be almost entirely explained by looking at the work habit differences between the sexes.  In fact, if anything, men are discriminated against in today's society and Feminism is looking set for a backlash. --129.31.204.169 11:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I took the liberty of renaming and redirecting from the Nobel page from "Women Nobel Prize laureates" to the more correct "Female Nobel Prize laureates". 6-14-2005

This article more than obviously builds an argument. Is it a true argument? Yes, of course. Is its place on wikipedia's pages? No, definitely not. ~cryout 10-22-2205

 * Yeah, this is an opinionated essay. I've added the POV tag accordingly. Fredrik | talk 15:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I have mixed feelings on this one. I'm not sure that Wikipedia should whitewash the truth just because it's uncomfortable or controversial.  On the other hand, the writing did appear a bit non-encyclopaedic.  I took a stab at editing the article to make the same point in a somewhat more restrained matter.  I won't be presumptuous by removing the POV tag, but if others think it's good enough now, then go for it. Michaelbluejay 18:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I also did some editing. I removed some of the statistics about female laureates, as they were both minor and confusingly presented, and changed one sentence to read less combatively. IronDuke 22:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Hmmmm, the figures seem to tell something that is at odds with what the Officials of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences are claiming. This being the case, the figures are the main evidence that have to be presented. These figures are objective statements of facts, not an opinion as in "minor and confusingly presented" which is subjective, LOL. What IronDuke has done is to replace facts with personal opinions when editing the article. If this is called justice, then all the best, mutilated this article as much as you want, LOL. — PM Poon 02:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I have to agree with PM Poon. The figures that were excised are central to the article's thesis, and removing them definitely make the article weaker, not stronger. I don't see the figures as "confusingly presented", but if so, the solution is to make the presentation clearer, not to throw the presentation out the window completely. Michaelbluejay 18:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Figures should definitely be there, but need to be presented neutrally and not argumentatively. The current revision seems fine to me, so I've removed the tag. Fredrik | talk 12:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

First off, let me apologize if my edits were abrupt or uncalled for. To that end, I am not going to revert or edit the article at this time, but present my case. To begin with, I have not, as PM Poon suggests, inserted my personal opinions into the article (I added no facts whatsoever to the article), nor have I suggested that the facts in question are anything but facts. But there are neverthless numerous problems with this article. Maybe the clearest way to express this is to take something Michaelbluejay wrote: "The figures that were excised are central to the article's thesis." This article ought not to have a thesis, and the fact that it does have a thesis (however correct that polemical thesis may be) is central to what makes it so problematic. I'll try to take this point by point.

 * 1. "Critics contend that the low number of female laureates is due more to male chauvinism and sexual discrimination than to a lack of qualified female candidates. They point out that no woman has been awarded the chemistry prize in the last 42 years..." This may be perfectly true, but who are the critics? Who are these people who are "pointing things out" and "contending?" Citation?

 * 2. "Officials of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, which selects the laureates in physics and chemistry, have countered that "the prizes reflect a long body of work, often dating back to times when women were rarely seen in laboratories"[1]." I do not know if this quote is true, but I see no refutation of it. Merely countering that "the percentage of female laureates has actually decreased" does not refute the Academy's contention. What it does do is insinuate that the Academy may be lying, or sexist, or both. Again, that may well be true, but being true does not mean that it conforms to wikipedia NPOV. It is, in fact, argumentative.

 * 3. "from 2.6 for 1901-1950, to 2.3 for 1951-2001." Why are the statistics broken down in this manner? And again, this is argumentative, not encyclopedic. Also, when did women begin to enter the sciences in substantially greater numbers? What percentage of Nobel-worthy scientists are women? Authors? Is it possible that they are in fact over-represented, that they have received more than their "share" of Nobels? I would tend to think this is not the case, but no evidence is presented to support the idea that is being (improperly) insinuated: that women in science are the victims of sexism and this is reflected in a low Nobel count.

 * 4. "Also, only ten out of 101 women have won the literature prize, which is non-scientific in nature." All right, perhaps I am just being dense here, but what does this mean? What does "101" refer to? Candidates? Runners-up? (See also point 3 above.)

 * 5. "There is an ingrained system whereby established researchers and scientists tend to recommend other men for positions, and not women." This quote tends to contradict the insinuation that the Swedes are sexist liars: it affirms the Swedes' contention that there are simply not enough female scientists out there (due to institutionalized sexism) and that men will therefore tend, by sheer dint of numbers, to overwhelm female candidates.

 * 6. "If this is called justice, then all the best, mutilated this article as much as you want, LOL." PM Poon First, I'm not really sure what the word "justice" means in this context. Does it mean that this article defends the rights and accomplishments of women and that I wish to undermine that? If so (and please, please correct me if I am wrong) then I would say that the purpose of an encyclopedia is not to defend the rights of anyone per se, and that I have no desire to see women fail or get anything less than their due in any way. As for use of the word "mutilate," I think that's a rather strong way of disagreeing with an edit that was made in good faith (even if I am wrong).

 * 7. Last point: the link at the end is dead. Mattias Karen. Among Nobel science prizes, women lose out, The Canadian Press, October 6 2005

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_Nobel_Prize_laureates" Category: Nobel  IronDuke 00:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Own research
This section represents partly own research by the editor. While the presentation of opinions on disputed issues is a legitimate encyclopedic topic, it has to be backed by sources. The presentation of statistics does not belong to this section, except if it is a citation from such a source. Moreover, if an opinion is only marginal, for example, appears only in very few editorials or other published texts, it does not belong here. Andreas 02:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Reply to IronDuke
First and foremost, I wish to declare that I have no intention to enter into a debate. What I will do here is just to present my views, without any intention to defend them. Just read it for what it is worth, and if you do not agree, just throw it away... just as you would, with any garbage, LOL.

I have practically left Wikipedia English and am now in another Wikipedia website. However, as I always think in English first, and therefore have to write out my articles in English before translating them (guess you can figure out the standard of my translated articles, LOL), I have two options: I decided on the first option, thus explaining why I am still around.
 * Post my English language draft in en-Wikipedia; or
 * Just throw the first draft away.

Given this brief background, you can understand why I do not have any strong opinions about this article (or any articles that I wrote after my decision to leave), and should anyone wants to delete my edit (even if unjustified), it is perfectly alright to me. Personally, what cheesed me off when I read this talk page were some of the arguments presented.

You mentioned: ..., I have not, as PM Poon suggests, inserted my personal opinions into the article (I added no facts whatsoever to the article)...

Had you made this statement in court, I have no doubt that you would be mauled by the defence attorney. You have made a grossly erroneous assumption that if you have not added any facts, then you have not inserted any personal opinions. The selection of which facts to present, and WHICH TO OMIT, is itself an opinion. Thus, your sentence: ''I also did some editing. I removed some of the statistics about female laureates, as they were both MINOR and CONFUSINGLY PRESENTED...'' (emphasis added) tantamounts to insertions of personal opinion.

Let me elaborate on this point:
 * I agree with Michaelbluejay when he said that if the figures are "confusingly presented", the solution is to make the presentation clearer, not to throw the presentation out the window completely. It seems to me that after you had identified what you think is the problem, you applied the wrong solution. In any case, CONFUSINGLY PRESENTED is a personal opinion and not a statement of fact. Michaelbluejay, for example, did not find the figures confusingly presented. Thus, by deleting the parts that you personally found to be "confusingly presented", you have thereby inserted your own personal opinions.

 * The word, MINOR, is again a subjective conclusion. How do you measure whether a point is major or minor, except by perception? Do you have a measuring instrument? A weighing machine or something? In any case, does one delete a sentence, merely because it is minor? I would think so only under circumstances where there is space constraint or where you have a word limit, in which case, you decide which points to keep and which to drop, RELATIVE to each other. If, as you contend, "minor points" ought to be deleted, a lot of stuff in Wikipedia would have to be deleted, LOL.

To me, I see that your main disagreement is that you did not like the article. This explains why your "reasons" come after you decided that you did not like it, not before. You mentioned: This article ought not to have a thesis, and the fact that it does have a thesis is central to what makes it so problematic.. This "thesis" argument seems to be an afterthought, after Michaelbluejay raised it. There was no hint of it at all in your post of 4 November, LOL. (This is the reason why I do not intend to go into any debate in a forum. When one argument falters, a new one is created, LOL.)

I ought to stop here before I get drawn into a long argument, but off the cuff, I will express my views on some of the points that you have raised:

 * Point No. 2 and 7:
 * Officials of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, which selects the laureates in physics and chemistry, have countered that "the prizes reflect a long body of work, often dating back to times when women were rarely seen in laboratories"[1]." I do not know if this quote is true...
 * Last point: the link at the end is dead.

 * The link was put in by Petaholmes after she edited my addition which merely quoted Associated Press (AP) without any link. You may like to read the same article (also the same one that Petaholmes was trying to link to) in: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Features/2005/10/06/1251150-ap.html.
 * It is very easy to search for articles in the internet. Just cut and paste a key phrase in the quotation into Google's search engine and presto!!! Don't just say: "I do not know if this quote is true", LOL.

 * (Note: I used the phrase, "Officials of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences the prizes reflect a long body of work", to search the article in Google. Verify it yourself, since you don't trust me, LOL. Actually, I didn't even read the internet article. I merely read the Associated Press report in a newspaper. Every word in the newspaper is exactly the same as in this web page.)

 * Point No. 4: Also, only ten out of 101 women have won the literature prize, which is non-scientific in nature. All right, perhaps I am just being dense here, but what does this mean? What does "101" refer to? Candidates? Runners-up?

 * My original edit reads: Out of 101 awards conferred as of 2005, women received only ten, amounting to a mere 9.9% of all literature awards conferred as of 2005.

 * Point No. 6: I'm not really sure what the word "justice" means in this context. Does it mean that this article defends the rights and accomplishments of women and that I wish to undermine that? If so (and please, please correct me if I am wrong) then I would say that the purpose of an encyclopedia is not to defend the rights of anyone per se...

 * No wonder you see so many problems, real and imagined, but more of the latter, LOL. Does it ever cross your mind that justice simply means "doing justice to an article?"

Lastly, I would like to apologize for the use of the word, "mutilate", for want of a better word. After my edit, I chanced to see this article again immediately after your edit, and my first response was "Oh dear!!! Look at what they have done to this article!" LOL. Please accept my sincere apologies. Honestly, I still can't think of another word that is more suitable, but I guess my edit ought to be deleted to if this is not the right place to post it.

While you were poking holes at this article, Cryout was more succinct when he said: ''This article more than obviously builds an argument. Is it a true argument? Yes, of course. Is its place on wikipedia's pages? No, definitely not.'' ~ cryout 10-22-2205

There is a vast difference between saying that the article is biased, and saying that this article is not suitable for a portal like Wikipedia. I have just reverted the article to the original version posted by Petaholmes, and I presumed there is no necessity to debate on my expansion of her article anymore. No hard feelings, okay? — PM Poon 05:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

 * No hard feelings at all. I might quibble with the way you interpreted some of my statements (e.g., when I wondered if the Swedish quote was "true," I was not questioning whether it had in fact been uttered, but rather whether the Swedes themselves were correct in their own assertion). I won't bore everyone with a point by point response to you detailing again everything I meant (unless people really, really want me to). I would also add that I completely support your reversion, and that it makes the article stronger. IronDuke 06:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I think the revert makes the article weaker. I think encyclopaedia readers will be interested to know more about female laureates -- such as their percentage compared to total laureates, and how and whether that figure has changed much over time.  A mere list seems grossly inadequate for an article that could be truly informative. Michaelbluejay 08:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi IronDuke, seems like we are always misinterpreting each other, LOL. Honestly, I did not understand the second part of your sentence: "I do not know if this quote is true, but I see no refutation of it." When you said, you "see no refutation", what do you mean by "see"? From the context of the sentence, it is not clear to me whether "see" should be interpreted literally or figuratively. In any case, it makes no sense to me either way as I will explain later.

But I thought the first part was pretty straight forward. "To quote" means "to repeat a passage". When you say, "I do not know if this QUOTE is true", you are actually asking whether "the repetition of the passage" is true. In other words, you are questioning the act of quoting, NOT its contents. Thus, if I say, "Hey, I wonder WHETHER HIS QUOTE IS TRUE. For all I know, he may just be pulling a fast one?" Was I referring to the act of quoting or its contents?

I believe most readers would construe what you had said as meaning that I might have misquoted the Swedish Academy. Had you wanted to know whether the Swedes themselves were correct in their own assertion, it would be more apt to say, "I do not know if the Swedish contention is true".

Yet, had you truly wonder, you didn't seem to have acted as if you did, LOL. What would a person normally do when he wonders? He tries to find out the truth, no? And that was exactly what I did when I read the newspapers. Andreas had contended that "this section represents partly own research by the editor".

Actually, I won't call it research. I just went into Wikipedia and search for the "List of Nobel laureates". I analysed the figures to see if the critics had any case, and I must regret to say this: "Yes, there seems to be a prima facie case against discrimination." Rather than throwing away my findings, which I should have done, I thought that I might as well share it as it does take time to work out the computation and trend analysis. I did not do any research at all, unless "studying the list of Nobel laureates" tantamounts to "research". If this is so, I would tend to think that Wikipedia is not against this kind of "research", but against those involving the collection of primary data.

The very fact that you did not want to look at those figures when presented, makes me wonder whether you were truly wondering. Aren't you interested in the truth? LOL.

Now, coming to your phrase, "I see no refutation of it". If the Swedish assertion is what you really meant, then "see" cannot be literal, because as you can "see", I am refuting it. And if it is figurative, I wonder how you "see" when you didn't even bother to find out the truth, LOL. — PM Poon 00:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Perhaps you and I are destined to continually misunderstand each other. But let me take a stab at clearing up some confusion. What I meant to say (and again, apologies if I phrased it in a sloppy manner) was that the statement made by the Swedes, indicating that a lack of female Nobels was due to an overall, historical lack of female scientists, was not refuted. To quote it one more time: "the prizes reflect a long body of work, often dating back to times when women were rarely seen in laboratories"[1]." What part of the preceding quote is untrue? The statistics that followed the quote (and I question whether it was necessary or desireable to make one's own computations to "counter" the quote) seemed to me to be implying (in an oblique and "confusing" way) that the Swedes were attempting to justify a sexist dearth of female Nobels by pointing to the historical lack of female scientists while ignoring the fact that women continue to receive a significantly smaller number of Nobels than men. I found the whole paragraph was essentially an excercise in POV (even if every single part of the section was "true"), which is contrary to wikipedia guidelines, as I understand them. If left to my own devices, I would simply have cut the whole section out (as you ended up doing) but I felt that perhaps a compromise on the section and a discussion of it, rather than a unilateral deletion, would be more useful. IronDuke 00:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi IronDuke, you mentioned: "... the prizes reflect a long body of work, often dating back to times when women were rarely seen in laboratories[1]. What part of the preceding quote is untrue?"

To determine the truth of the statement, we need to verify against known facts. Yet, in order to verify, we must first be very clear what "long" means. What does "long" means to you? How long is "long"? 50 years, 100 years? If you have not defined how long is "long", and then verify it against known facts, how do you know that the statement is true? On what basis did you arrive at your verdict? I truly wonder, LOL.

Yet, given the ambiguity to work with, I did try to make an attempt to determine its validity by relying upon circumstantial evidence. I wrote:

 * In the first half of the 20th century (1901-1950), 2.6% of the awards in the three science categories of physiology/medicine, chemistry, and physics were conferred upon women. Yet, in the second half of the 20th century (1951-2000), despite much progress being made by women since then, the figure had dropped to 2.3%, a diminution of almost 12%.

 * The words, "dating back to times when women were rarely seen in laboratories" are too ambiguous and ought to be defined. Notwithstanding, the argument put forth by academy officials is hardly defensible. In the past 20 years, from 1986 – 2005, male recipients under the age of 50 in the three science categories accounted for 13.6%, as compared to 2.4% for woman of all ages since 1901. Those aged under 50 entered the laboratories only towards 1980. If an apple-to-apple comparison were to be made, the answer would have been even more appalling: 13.6% for men, versus 0% for women.

From my findings, it does seem that 13.6% of Nobel prize winners in the last 20 years were men aged below 50 who had spent less than 30 years in the labs. Does "long" includes 30 years? What I am trying to infer is that if we take the most recent 20 years when women have made the most progress in all the ages, the score for winners under the age of 50 is 13.6% for men, versus 0% for women. — PM Poon 07:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Opinion by the guy that caused the discussion
First off, i am glad to see that my one-liner caused such a debate. But I am not quite sure that the ultimate result should be a total removal of anything but the names of the female laureates. I am a male, and I have been called a chauvinist indeed. Still, the fact that so few women are awarded the Nobel prize strikes me every time I think about it. And this, I believe, is among the few things that undermine the mythological status of the award. Hence, the existance of the debate about female winners should be stated in the article. The versoin that I read in the beginning, and then criticised, did teach me some facts and I would appreciate it if they are brought back in a suitable way (best by the original author).

Request for Comment
I have just had a look at the article and it looks fine to me. It currently just lists all the female winners for each prize, but it may be in the middle of an editing war and so I might have caught it at a minimalist moment. Speculation about why there are so many female laureates, or so few, is not a suitable subject for this article because there are so many other fields where a similar discussion could occur eg professions, sport and the arts. This shows that female achievement is not related to Nobel Prizes but is a separate topic in its own right. A fact-based Wiki article that analysed the reasons for and barriers to female achievement in all fields in each of the past ten or twenty decades would probably be difficult to write, though it may provide a topic for several tedious PhD theses. JMcC 18:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I disagree that speculation as to the low number of female laureates is inappropriate for this article. It might be inappropriate for an article about *nobel laureates* in general, but certainly not for an article about *female nobel laureates*.  Much good information has been excised from this article.  That makes it less useful, not more. Michaelbluejay 15:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with Michaelbluejay. A small section properly sourced discussing the low number of female laureates would be appropriate in this article. HGB 04:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I couldn't disagree more. A small section on why or how there are so few(?) female laureates has no place in this article. That is strictly an opinion on a larger debate.  An article about the female laureates should not be a place for an editor to make statements of a political nature. The article should contain a short bio on each laureate and the reason for the award. It is a tragedy that everyone feels they have to insert their preposterous opinions in everything they edit.  It is a sad day when one cannot restrain oneself pushing their beliefs onto others at every opportunity they can get.  The opinions about why their were not 35 as opposed to 34 female laureates is subject for discussion and debate and has no place in an article about these great women.  You degrade these great women and their achievements by inserting your meaningless and small opinions. You should have great same for dishonoring the memory of these persons who's achievements will be documented throughout history for rest of time.

Oh by the way a few edits are needed. The picture of Marie Curie is covering the table. Their is a logic error as well. If Bertha von Suttner was the first to win the award in 1905 then how is it that Marie Curie won the Physics award in 1903??

 * Hi, Mr Anonymous, I "agree" with your opinion that we should not have opinions. I also "agree" with your statements:

 * "It is a tragedy that everyone feels they have to insert their preposterous opinions in everything they edit. It is a sad day when one cannot restrain oneself pushing their beliefs onto others at every opportunity they can get."

 * The only one thing that I cannot agree is why you are doing the very thing that you object so strongly to. :) — PM Poon 05:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The current version of the article (just statistics and list of female Nobel winners) is far more NPOV than what I see in the history. event 03:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Franklin
I'm perplexed as to why this was added. Franklin was not a laureate. Perhaps it could be part of a new "Women who should have won the Nobel Prize" article. Also, I removed the dead link the graf referenced. IronDuke 00:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Original research?
According to Wikipolicy (see WP:OR), verifiable sources are required. Where are they to substantiate the information in this article and, in particular, the table? Truthanado (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The similar Black Nobel Prize laureates has been similarly tagged. Truthanado (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that the comparison table has been removed and this has been appropriately labeled as a list, it seems that it is no longer original research. Truthanado (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

List of male Nobel laureates
Is this list really encyclopedic? I wonder how long would List of male Nobel laureates survive... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

 * See Articles_for_deletion/List_of_atheist_Nobel_laureates_(2nd_nomination). Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The Nobel website has a list specifically for this, and it's an item of interest (notably since no woman has ever won the Prize in Economics). A male Nobel laureates list is unnecessary because 1) there's like 30 women as versus 750 men 2) it's a WP:NOT/WP:WEIGHT problem 3) it's not an item of interest for obvious reasons. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 00:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As an addendum, I would endorse the results of that AfD, as none of those lists have an official list from the Nobel website, and I doubt any of them are an item of interest or pass WP:NOT. For instance, if List of black Nobel laureates was brought to AfD, I would support the deletion of the list. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 00:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's lovely :) Where's the List of white Nobel laureates? :D --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that would be a useless list ;-) — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 00:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is an easy solution: make list of Nobel laureates a sortable table, and add categories for gender, ethnicity, nationality, and whatsnot.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't support that. Past the award and the country (I'm definitely not certain on the structure of the list, but ethnicity and gender certainly would not be one of them), I wouldn't include any of those items per WP:NOT. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 00:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, until we get semantic wiki, I see no other solution if we want to stop more "list of [insert a random adjective] Nobel laureates" from cropping up.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete/redirect the improper articles. We have WP:NOT/WP:WEIGHT to support us in this regard. I'm not going to include information that violates these aforementioned policies. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 01:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * AfD this one then? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * List of black Nobel laureates? Certainly. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 01:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And this one (females)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. As I illustrated above, this is appropriate given that it is verified by the list given at the official Nobel Foundation website, and is a notable item of study. None of these other lists (black, atheist, Asian, or whatever laureates) have this sort of recognition, and thus falls into the WP:V/WP:NOT/WP:WEIGHT problem. We mirror what our sources provide, and in this case, that is true. And on the practical matter of the AfD passing, I sincerely doubt you will have a chance of it passing given that this is going for FL status right now. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 02:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No list of female something or other (e.g. nobel laureate) shouls exist without a male list. To have female only is sexist. No black list should exist without white or asian lists. To do so is racist. What next a list of hetrosexual nobel laureates without a list of gay ones? There should be ONLY ONE list. All the lists at present show Wikipedia to be sexist, racist and not about equality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.97.132.44 (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed something
Some of these winners shared the award with other people, and in some cases the rationale still reflects this, for example, the first entry for Marie Curie says "in recognition of the extraordinary services they have rendered by their joint researches". There are three solutions to this (and this could also apply to the various affiliate lists too): I think #1 might be a good idea. There are several ways you could do this:
 * 1) List co-winners (might be a good idea)
 * 2) Simply change all lists of "for their" to "for [her]"
 * 3) Ignore it

OR

Or maybe something else. -- Scorpion 0422  17:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Did the first one. I'll get around to updating the affiliate lists sometime this afternoon. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 19:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference to this list on article of the individual laureates
I have now added a link to this list (under "See also") in each of the articles on the individual female laureates. Previously the list does not appear to have been cited in any of the articles. I suggest that such a link is added in connection with all future female Nobel laureates. Davshul (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Photos
The laureates of Aung San Suu Kyi, Leymah Gbowee and Tawakel Karman all have photos in their respective articles, but not on this list. If someone could improve this list by adding properly sized versions of their photos, that would be great IMO. Finding a photo of Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin would be swell as well. I would do this myself if I had the competence, but alas I have do not currently have that. G913 (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of female Nobel laureates. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081015013145/http://nobelprize.org/prize_awarders/ to http://nobelprize.org/prize_awarders/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Really? – A list of Nobel laureates based on gender?
How very un-encyclopedic. Mrloop (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Why not have a list of straight Nobel laureates and one of gay Nobel laureates as well? And maybe a list of left-handed Nobel laureates? One of black Nobel laureates? One of white Nobel laureates? One of latino Nobel laureates? Mrloop (talk) 11:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * A.Munro.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Vienna+25 Building Trust – Making Human Rights a Reality for All (28411548968) (cropped).jpg

title: Talk:List of female Nobel laureates


text:
Family economy

The term Family Economy can be used to describe the family as an economic unit. The early stages of development in many economies are characterized by family based production.

"In the early, pre-industrial stage, technology was limited and unchanging. Most economic activity took place within the household, and production and distribution were organized by custom and tradition. High mortality rates and low productivity meant that on the farms and in the towns life was short and living conditions were harsh – an existence which was accepted fatalistically. In this society the family played a central role, since economic and social status was defined by birth, family ties, and local custom. Most importantly, the family was a productive unit, and physical strength – typically a male attribute – was an essential element in survival."

The family economic unit has always been dependent on specialized labor done by family members. The family was a multi-generational producer with capital and land provided by older generations and labor provided by younger generations. Goods were produced not only for home consumption but to sell and trade in the market as well. Family production was not only limited to agricultural products but they also produced manufacturing goods and provided services.

In order to sustain a viable family economy during the pre-industrial era labor was needed. The labor needed to operate the farm and provide old-age support came from family members, fertility was high. High fertility and guaranteed employment on the family farm made education, beyond the basic literacy needed to read the Bible, expensive and unnecessary.

Around the time of the post industrial stage, the European family changed from a unit of production to a unit of consumption. The new era of industrialization that Europe now found itself in brought numerous change to Europe. Now farming could be done with less individuals, removing the need for children as economic assets and instead created a view in which they were seen as liabilities. In addition to this, new ideas and inventions that allowed for the Industrialization to take place further contributed to the demise of the family economy. The new social norms saw a capitalist market that encouraged production in large scale factories, farms and mines. Wage labor would become a staple of European society and saw family members no longer working together but instead using their wages they had earned to buy goods which they consumed as a family unit. The industrial revolution, starting in the nineteenth and going into the twentieth century, is seen as the force that changed the economic family and is basically responsible for the "modern family."

title: Family economy


text: Category:Bahá'í central figures

title: Category:Bahá'í central figures


text:
Category:Cell imaging

Cell imaging techniques are techniques of microscopy used in cell biology.

title: Category:Cell imaging


text:
User talk:Oxydrene

Welcome
Hello , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! You (Talk) 22:30, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:Oxydrene