From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Tomboy:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Today's articles for improvement
WikiProject iconThis article was selected as Today's article for improvement for a period of one week.
The collaboration began with this version and improved the article to this state (difference).
WikiProject icon

Picture Please?[edit]

Hello. In my quest to improve the articles for improvement in the Community portal, I could'nt help but notice that this article lacks a picture. Surely, a photograph of an adult woman dressed in what everyone could agree on is tomboyish attire would certainly help a visitor to this page educate them on what a tomboy would actually look like. I've taken a trip to the commons, but there doesn't seem to be any quality, usable pictures. If somebody might upload a few pictures, we can discuss its possible addition to the article. I'd do it myself, but, alas, I'm too new to know how to do that technical stuff. Thank you in advance, RememberThisAccountName (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

One of the problems with providing a picture for this article is some of what was stated in the Image removed section. Flyer22 (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
found some historical adults who fit the description. added images. cheers.Cramyourspam (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe that simply showing a picture is going to identify what a "Tomboy is". I am 54 years old and have recently been called a Tomboy by my family. I felt very insulted. I was raised in an enviroment where dresses are inappropriate for the climate and hunting and fishing,camping, athleticism were a way of life. I feel very femiate and I am very much monogimist. The traditional "Tomboy" title is very much out of date for todays standards from 1592. Women/ladies today are encouraged to be stronger, smarter, leaders, and athletes with respect to being Ladies! Dresses have no meaning here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Refs to gallery[edit]

Cramyourspam added the following inline comment:

re refimprove box: people pictured as of 6 nov 2013 fit the term's existing description in the article; "res ipsa" --articles specifically saying "this person is a tomboy" not necessary.

I beg to disagree with the colleague. There are multiple reasons why a woman may look or behave like a man. Not all of them are described as tomboy. You yourself removed personal impersonators, right? Therefore it is not "res ipsa", it is an opinion of a wikipedian, which does not count in articles, as you surely know.

Therefore please provide references that gallery items are in fact tomboys.

For example I have never thought that Rosie the Riveter is a tomboy. In fact the article says something rather opposite: she is an icon of feminism. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Rosie the Riveter clearly was a female who, as this article says, "exhibits characteristics or behaviors considered typical of the gender role of a boy,[1][2] including wearing masculine clothing and engaging in games and activities that are physical in nature and are considered in many cultures to be the domain of boys." so, yes, it is a "res ipsa" case. there is no *need* to find a source which also spells out the word tomboy describing her. i think we'd both agree if i were to say: we sure could use some usable specimens picturing actual girls showing tomboy style. Cramyourspam (talk) 22:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Update: Noting here that the Gallery section was removed by Some guy; I've already expressed in this edit and in the #Muddled & incoherent section below that I didn't agree with the galley addition, so I'm not going to oppose the removal. Flyer22 (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

redirect tomgirl?[edit]

Why does tomgirl redirect here, instead of having its own page? I understand that tomgirl is used in place of tomboy occasionally, but usually (at least where I'm from) a "tomgirl" is boy that acts like a girl.-- (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed! Georgia guy (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
No, what you're describing is a "Nancy" or a "Nancy-boy". "Tomgirl" is the recent invention of denizens of a few anime porn boards, who were ignorant of the historical terminology. I take it that that's where you're "from". (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Pictures of child tomboys[edit]

It's ridiculous that we can't have pictures of tomboy little girls. It's perfectly possible to decide your identity when young ... take Tara Huff. "the last time anyone remembers her wearing a dress... she was 3". Huff also managed to stop her mother making her wear a dress on the first day of kindergarten Paul Austin (talk) 07:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Paul Austin, no one stated that we can't have pictures of little girls who identify as tomboys. The discussion that I pointed to in the #Picture Please? section is about the image not having been clear that the girl identifies as a tomboy or even that she is a girl. If an image comes with verification that the child identifies as a tomboy, then I see no problem with us including that image in this article (unless there are too many images already). However, calling a child a tomboy simply based on how she is dressed (meaning without verification that the child identifies that way) can be considered WP:Original research. Flyer22 (talk) 10:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Muddled & incoherent[edit]

I came to this page by accident, but find it muddled and incoherent ... Since by definition a tomboy is a female child, why 8 photographs of adults, who may or may not have once been tomboys many years earlier? I've never heard of anyone in my life making an association between lesbianity and tomboy-ishness, nor am I able to think of any examples in literature or film. I do not doubt that the writers cited may claim that such associations exist, and so long as it is clear that these are the opinions of these writers (which at times it is not), then yes they do have a valid place in this article, though even so, there does seem to be an emphasis on the negative.Pincrete (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. In the Philippines, one of the uses of the word "tomboy" is to refer to lesbian women, but I see no reference of that in the article. In the United States I have heard of no connection between the label "tomboy" and sexual orientation beyond general connection of female masculinity with same-gender attraction, which is normally applied beyond the age of which I have seen the term "tomboy" applied in the US. Equivamp - talk 15:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Pincrete and Equivamp, the pictures matter is addressed above; I'm not a fan of the gallery, and, per WP:Gallery, Wikipedia articles generally should not have them. The word tomboy can sometimes refer to adults, though the article does not make that too clear, except for what it states about the lesbian association, and its showcase of pictures, and it should make that clearer. The lesbian association has also been addressed on this talk page before (now in the archives, though I was not as experienced with editing Wikipedia as I am now and used poor sources to support my argument during that matter). Like the article states, "Throughout history, there has been a perceived correlation between tomboyishness and lesbianism." The article then goes on to elaborate on this, in what I believe is a very clear, non-muddled, non-incoherent and WP:Reliably sourced way. To sum up, the lesbian association is fact, not opinion, and it is supported by various WP:Reliable sources on regular Google, Google Books and Google Scholar, as seen here, here and here. I'm surprised that you have never heard of such an association, Pincrete, considering that girls who are tomboys, especially teenage girls, are sometimes faced with people implying or outright stating that they are lesbians simply because they generally behave in ways that are considered behaviors typical of boys, and considering that the lesbian/tomboy connection is often mentioned in gender studies...such as with regard to gender variance (gender nonconformity)/childhood gender nonconformity. Such associations are quite common here in the United States. And such associations are why this article is tagged within the WP:LGBT scope. If there is an "emphasis on the negative" with regard to such associations, then it is because society generally sees it as negative that a girl who is a tomboy might be a lesbian; the "Oh, she is a tomboy. So she's likely to be a lesbian." or "Oh, she is a tomboy. So she's likely to be a lesbian. Oh no." notions are common.
Perhaps EvergreenFir, who is a graduate student in sociology and focuses on gender and criminology with regard to sociology, has something to state on this matter? Flyer22 (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Adults CAN BE and often are described as 'babies', but I wouldn't expect an article on babies to show me pictures of 8 adults displaying (possibly) infantile behaviour, and devoting a large part of its text to adult-infantilism. I take your word for it that there are groups who use the word tomboy negatively, and seek to imply a sexual orientation or lifestyle/appearance that they would also (probably) have a negative view of, but the article seems to be suggesting that such a view is the normal usage of the word. Even the quote from the OED, I wonder about. I don't know which version of the OED is being cited, (the fullest version attempts to record every distinct usage of a word, not simply its principal meanings and would therefore probably record the use of the word 'baby' both as an insult and also as a term of endearment and many other usages).
My 'gripe' is, firstly a lack of clarity within the article (including being unsure about whether it is writing about childhood or adult behaviour), secondly undue weight being given to a valid, but particular set of opinions on the use of the word and preconceptions about the word, which are sometimes presented as though they are not opinions, but objective facts. I would not wish to argue with you about whether the word is used negatively or sometimes causes distress (I simply don't know and have no reason to doubt you or the authors), but it IS an opinion as to how 'normal' that usage is.
As I said, I came to this article by accident (coming from His Dark Materials), the central character of which is characterised as a tomboy within the article, I wondered what Wikipedia said a tomboy was. Actually the heroine of HDM is as vivid, lively, courageous and as dismissive of the adult world (inc. baths and combing one's hair etc.) as a Tom Sawyer or Huck Finn, and I hope she becomes as long-lastingly-famous as they both are! I have only ever heard the word used of children in the UK, or sometimes affectionately of adult women. However the article contradicts itself by defining a tomboy as a girl (pre-adult female), then showing and writing about (perceived) 'masculine' adult women.
Apart from being adult, the photos seem random, a women in military uniform has little opportunity to either affirm or deny her 'femininity', anymore than a woman surgeon in full surgical garb can choose to express or deny hers, she is simply wearing the clothes of her chosen trade at her work. Whether these individual women have some good reason to be included, I don't know, but the article doesn't enlighten me at all as to why they are here I'm afraid.
I do realise that there probably are reasons of 'sensitivity/respect', why photos of children cannot be included, besides 'tomboy-ishness' is probably as much about manner and attitude as it is about appearance.
Upon re-reading, the section on representations in fiction seem quite good, though incomplete as I imagine there are many other examples (inc. Lyra in HDM), and much else that has been written about them.Pincrete (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Pincrete, with regard to this article, I don't care much about whether or not a tomboy can be described as an adult female who generally (or non-generally) behaves in ways that are considered behaviors typical of men, or the photographs. Per WP:Due weight, if it is not too much of a minority view that adult females can also be tomboys, then it is not necessarily wrong to include that view in this article...with due weight. Since it is a minority view, it should not be given as much weight as the majority view (tomboy meaning girls who generally behave in ways that are considered behaviors typical of boys). WP:Verifiability specifically states: "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." And I've already stated that I don't agree with having the gallery in the article; you should discuss the existence of that gallery with Cramyourspam and Staszek Lem, who debated the matter with each other, as shown in the article's edit history and above on the talk page. But one of the things that I do care a lot about with regard to this article is that the lesbian topic is mentioned, and I care about that for the reasons I've already gone over above...pointing to the existence of various WP:Reliable sources on the topic that quite clearly show it as something that is not simply an opinion. It's not as though the fact that the association of lesbian with tomboy is a theory; if it were, we would present it as a theory. It is an association that is given appropriate WP:Due weight and has WP:Intext-attribution where appropriate; that latter part means that the comments that are simply views instead of being views in addition to being facts are made out to be opinions because they are clearly attributed to the authors in the article's text.
I'll alert WP:LGBT to this discussion; if you think that any of the other WikiProjects (shown at the top of this talk page) that this article is tagged with should be alerted to this discussion as well, of course feel free to alert them. Flyer22 (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Flyer22, would it be inappropriate for mention of the term "tomboy" in the Philippines in this article? Equivamp - talk 15:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
You mean the Philippines text you mentioned above? Inclusion of that is fine if it's WP:Reliably sourced and if not given WP:Undue weight; by WP:Undue weight in that case, I mean that we already note that the term tomboy is associated with lesbianism, so it's best that you only add a sentence or two about the Philippines matter and place it with the other lesbian material already in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't object in the slightest to the tomboy-sexuality association being made, I object to the inference that the association is mainstream or inherent in the word, many words can and are sometimes used negatively. If you don't care much about tomboys being generally child/generally adult/equally both, then you contradict the opening definition of the article and every mainstream definition of the word. I don't want to get into an argument, because I have other subjects which interest me more, but I still think the article is muddled and unsure about its purpose.Pincrete (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Pincrete (pinging you again because this article likely is not on your WP:Watchlist), we're going to have to agree to disagree on the lesbian portion because, while I do think the association is common and mainstream, and I know there are various WP:Reliable sources stating that it's common, I don't see the current wording for it in quite the same way that you do. As for the word tomboy sometimes referring to adults, for me to state significantly more on that, I'd just be reiterating what I already stated about that above (just like the lesbian topic)...but I will state that the lead is not always for mentioning every definition of a term; this is especially because of the WP:Not a dictionary policy. The lead is for summarizing the most significant parts of an article. Certain minority views or minor aspects, such as the term tomboy sometimes referring to an adult female who behaves in ways that are considered behaviors typical of men, is not something that needs to go in the lead; these types of aspects are often something that should not go in the lead. This is why you can find a Definitions section in some Wikipedia articles, to elaborate on and/or address other definitions. Where there is a lead that gives the impression that there is only one definition of a term, editors will sometimes add "generally" in "A tomboy is generally," and then move on from there; other editors point out that "is" does not have to mean "only," and they don't add any qualifier such as "generally." I'm one of those editors who points out that "is" does not have to mean "only," but I still add qualifiers such as "generally" sometimes because I know how strictly people can interpret the first sentence of a lead. Flyer22 (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Agree to disagree would probably be a good way to leave things. Something which we might well be able to agree on, would be that defining, or, more correctly identifying what is or is not a tomboy is virtually impossible - beyond the general statement (girl perceived as adopting boy-ish behaviour/attire/manner/interests) - precisely how that is interpreted and whether it is seen as positive or not, is going to vary from family-to-family, as well as from country to country and from age to age.
Something else which we might agree on is that 'tomboy-ishness' is not the smallest indicator of sexual orientation (or lack of), the twelve year old who prefers throwing mud to playing with her Barbie or the young woman who prefers stripping diesel engines to polishing her nails is no more and no less likely to be gay than anyone else.
I also don't doubt that the word tomboy can be used disparagingly, though I cannot remember (in the UK), ever hearing the word used in this way (of course there are other terms, 'lesbo','dyke', 'bull-dyke' etc. which are sometimes used for perceived 'deviance from normal behaviour' - especially by adolescents - and which are, almost always, intended insultingly). I take on-board everything you say but still feel the article is focusing on one aspect of the use of the word at the expense of the most frequent use (and even there is unclear whether it is talking about girl, adult or transitional behaviour, though it itself recognises that the 'motives' for each may be different, as might social reaction to that behaviour). I cannot think of a fully appropriate analogy, but 'boy', when used of an adult man can be a compliment or can be an insult, neither however constitutes the most common usage or understanding of the word.
I am grateful for this discussion - even if I haven't improved the article - for focusing my own mind on some of these issues.Pincrete (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
The lesbian portion only has one paragraph (currently anyway), just like the initial paragraph in the History and society section, but the article definitely needs some expansion. And I agree that it needs expansion on the most common use of the term, of it applying to girls who are considered to behave like boys, and why the term is used that way. I appreciate your commentary on these matters; it has helped add another perspective. Flyer22 (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22, either a) this page has improved greatly - possibly by losing the gallery OR 2) I was being unfairly grumpy and reactionary back in February! This is just a 'flying visit', but two things which I remember noting in Feb. were 1) the Online Et Dictionary (cited on the page) says "1550s, "rude, boisterous boy," from Tom + boy; meaning "wild, romping girl, girl who acts like a spirited boy" is first recorded 1590s. It also could mean "strumpet, bold or immodest woman" (1570s). Compare tomrig "rude, wild girl." Related: Tomboyish." ie the word first meant a wild boy, later a 'loose' woman, then bizzarely acquired its approx. modern meaning (wild, 'boyish' girl) 2) possibly connected the, other OED (Ox Eng Dict) is referred to in the intro, but referred to '2nd hand', ie someone's interpretation of what the OxED says ... I don't currently have access to an OxED, but did mean to check out what IT said. I mention these only because the bizarre history (and who knows how many other turns & twists in usage), might ITSELF be interesting.Pincrete (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Tom Grel[edit]

c'est un super copain — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Russian version[edit]

I tried to make a Russian version of Tomboy - but I'm not good at Wiki at all... Please, help me! I also don't know how to write Roland or smb elese. Thank you. Pałanieja (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Palanieja

Adding Academic Research[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians! I added the banner above because I have chosen to work on this page as a class assignment. I have done a good amount of research on the topic of tomboys, and I feel that including the research here on this page will greatly improve it. For example, I want to expand on the evolution of tomboyism, its depiction in literature, and its current reception. I will cite scholars such as Michelle Ann Abate (a professor whose research on tomboys has really reinvigorated academic research and discussion), and I plan on expanding the existing section about Judith Halberstam (because she does have a more inept discussion of tomboyism in her book Female Masculinity). I am welcome to any ideas/feedback, so I'll keep checking this talk page in case you reply :) Beachmirage (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Beachmirage. I see that you are with a class as part of a WP:Class assignment. While I'm not a fan of WP:Student editing, I am interested to see how you expand this article. If there are problems with your editing, whether it's referencing problems, MOS:HEAD problems, WP:Due weight problems, or something else, I am likely to revert and note why in a WP:Edit summary and on this talk page. Either that, or I will note the problem(s) here on this talk page first to give you a chance to fix the matter before I revert.
On a side note: I moved your post down because, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout, newer sections go at the bottom. Flyer22 (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Flyer22. I would like to invite you to look at my sandbox to see what I plan to add to the article. I added a second paragraph to the "History and society" section in order to provide some information about the evolution of the idea of tomboyism in the United States (because the societal perception of tomboys changed from nineteenth century into the twentieth century). I saw there was a gap from usage from the 1500s until Judith Halberstam's discussion, and I hope that my paragraph adds some historical context to address the gap. I have more scholarship that I would like to add into the page later, but I wanted to try this one paragraph first to see if my contribution fits well with the current community on this page. On June 4, my class plans on transitioning what we wrote in our sandboxes into the articles we have chosen.
Judith Halberstam includes more discussion of tomboys in her book "Female Masculinity", which I could add to augment the current mention of her in this page. In addition, there is recent scholarship about tomboys in the academic journal entitled Journal of Lesbian Studies, which came out in 2011. I realize you have reservations about letting a student edit this article, but I am a PhD student who has done research on this topic and would want to maintain the upmost professionalism in joining the Wikipedia community. I would welcome your feedback and the feedback of others who are interested in this page. Thank you, Beachmirage (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Beachmirage. The content you've proposed so far, as shown in your sandbox, looks okay. But regarding the order of the History and society section there, I think that the "In nineteenth century American culture" paragraph should be combined with the initial sentence; this is because, per MOS:Paragraphs, "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, paragraphs that exceed a certain length become hard to read." I also think that the last paragraph should come immediately after the "In nineteenth century American culture" paragraph; this is because the "In nineteenth century American culture" paragraph ends with talk of lesbianism, and the final paragraph is about lesbianism and sexual orientation in general. So, for the order of that section, it makes more sense to me to go ahead and address all of that material, instead of touching on it, skipping it, and then going back to it. Also, "lesbianism" should be linked at the first occurrence and de-linked on the second occurrence; see WP:Overlinking.
On a side note: Since this article/talk page is on my WP:Watchlist, there is no need to WP:Ping me to it. If you would rather I not WP:Ping you to this talk page, let me know here in this section. Flyer22 (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Flyer22, thanks for your suggestions! I had written something earlier on this talk page, but it was a misinterpretation on my part (which I deleted), so just read this. I added what was in my sandbox, and included additional citations and links. If you would like to make any further changes, I will still be adding to this page, so let me know if you want to discuss some ideas ahead of time. I don't mind you using WP:Ping to reply on this page. Have a wonderful day! Beachmirage (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Tomboyism - Childhood Gender Nonconformity[edit]

I think this page and talk discussion should take on more of an academic standpoint and less on the fact whether or not a representational picture be posted because of the lack of universality. "Tomboyism refers to the extended childhood period of female masculinity".[1] There is a societal difference between how we view the masculinity of young boys versus the masculinity of young girls.The female gender is more flexible and tolerated at a young age in comparison to the male gender. When a young girl is seen as exhibiting "tomboyish" behavior it is commonly excused as the girl wanting to experience the freedom and mobility and independence that young boys usually feel feel during childhood. It is typically more acceptable for a young girls to dress more gender nonconforming, or in commonly known boy attire and play outside, than for a young boy to dress in traditional girl attire and wanting to play with dolls. Being a tomboy is seen more a phase from society, while the gender fluidity in a boy is deemed as alerting factors of sexuality. Because "Tombyism" is thought of as as phase, once that phase has surpassed an acceptable age, that is when society is no longer as accepting as the nonconforming gesture.

I find it important to acknowledge the acceptance at a young age, and parental responses to young children and the enforcing of gender conformity. [2] utilizes her article, [3] .Family dynamic and policing affect the freedom of expression of a child, which can alter the overall definition of what it means to be a tomboy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlopoke42 (talkcontribs) 15:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


  1. ^ Judith Halberstam
  2. ^ Emily W. Kane
  3. ^ Kane, Emily. W. "No Way My Boys Are Going to Be like That!" Parents Responses to Children's Gender Nonconformity. Bates College, n.d. Web.

Proposed merge with Tomgirl[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Moot; redirected.

Lacks enough content to warrant individual article and lacks citations. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please, I don't watch pages) 22:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Classicwiki, it's true that it doesn't have enough to be its own article. It also is not WP:Notable. But it should not be merged with this article. It's a different topic that currently redirects to the Sissy article because the Sissy article covers this topic. Being a tomboy is far acceptable to society than being a tomgirl; being a tomgirl is significantly taboo/is often considered in a negative light. So, yes, it is appropriate that it redirects to the Sissy article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I also see what I stated with this edit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose merger. They are two different topics. Kaldari (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose merger. While related ideas, there is no benefit to combining the two articles. - SummerPhDv2.0 21:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose merger, per Flyer.Mathglot (talk) 11:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Comment: @Classicwiki, Flyer22 Reborn, Kaldari, and SummerPhDv2.0: consensus seems clear, and per WP:RfCl any editor can close, so if there is no objection, I'm suggesting that one of us do so. Mathglot (talk) 11:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment: Just to clarify, at the time, I based the merger request based solely on the article Tomgirl (which was only a few sentences long) before it was redirected to Sissy. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please) 18:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
A-ha, that makes sense, then. Mathglot (talk) 06:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Recent removal of sourced material[edit]

As seen here and here, I twice reverted DrVentureWasRight on the removal of material. The first time, DrVentureWasRight claimed that the source does not cite the dictionary. Once I challenged DrVentureWasRight on this, DrVentureWasRight then stated that the dictionary source needs to be used to cite something the dictionary stated. As I explained, that is not how WP:Verifiability works.

That stated, I don't think that the sentence in question should be in the lead. Per WP:Lead, the lead is meant to summarize the article. So this sentence should be moved lower. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Classicalfan626, it's interesting that you came out of nowhere and removed the OED material. But, as you can see, I reverted you and moved the material lower because you have given no valid reason for the removal. The OED is a WP:Reliable source and its commentary clearly belongs in this article. Unless you can show why it does not belong, your "disputed" commentary, which is seemingly based on the DrVentureWasRight account having similarly removed the material without a valid rationale, is irrelevant. And as for your category removals, seen here and here, if WP:Reliable sources in the article support any of the categories, such as "pejorative," they can remain. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Pinging SummerPhDv2.0, Grayfell, David Edgar and Equivamp, who also watch the article, for their opinions on all of this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The OED is certainly a reliable source and its first recorded use of the terms seems relevant. I agree it probably doesn't belong in the lede and makes sense further down.
Classicalfan626 seems to have removed the material because DrVenture removed it. I think this is a bit backwards. DrV boldly edited and Flyer22 reverted. Per WP:BRD, the ball was then in DrV's court to discuss the issue if they disagreed with the revert. DrV did not discuss. In fact, Flyer22 went the extra step of starting this discussion. Flyer22's is certainly correct on procedure (and then some). Whether or not to include the material (and, if so, where) is a separate question.
I see DrVentureWasRight disputing the inclusion apparently because we are citing a secondary source for the OED's statements. The secondary source seems to be reliable and use of the secondary source is, IMO, preferable to pulling a quote directly from the OED as there are a lot of things we could pull from various primary sources that are trivial, irrelevant, etc. Assuming I correctly understand what they are saying, I do not agree. I feel the statement should remain and Flyer 22's placement makes sense. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
The objection to the removed statement was based on the belief it wasn't sourced correctly. Because it actually was sourced correctly, the statement and the removed categories should remain. --Equivamp - talk 17:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest edits[edit]

As seen with this, I reverted SHINETODAY and Doingender. When it comes to the first part, the Adrienne Rich piece is not needed. No more needs to be stated about lesbian identity in this article. When it comes to the study text, some of it was essay-like (see WP:NOT#ESSAY) and it was too detailed. Needs to be tweaked and trimmed. SHINETODAY and Doingender, I don't know if you two are WP:Student editors, but I ask that you discuss this content here on the talk page instead of immediately reinserting it. See WP:Bold, revert, discuss cycle and WP:Edit warring. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with F22 that the Rich piece on lesbian identity does not belong here. From what was added, it seems to be off topic, discussing lesbian in an article about tomboys. Yes, some tomboys are lesbians and some lesbians are tomboys. The piece does not seem to discuss the intersection of the terms.
The study should be used with caution. As the paper is the only report of the study results, it is a primary source. Anything we present from the study should be attributed in-line (e.g. "According to a study published in the Journal of Today's Weather, it is cold outside." as opposed to "It is cold outside.") and involve no interpretation of the source (i.e. we cannot craft our own summary of what it says).
Weight is also an issue. One study of 60 participants based on first person reports is tiny and weak. It scarcely merits more than mention.
If anything at all is included from it, I'd be expecting a brief piece pulled from the abstract. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Reverted SHINETODAY yet again. Too detailed for the lead, and the following is too restrictive and confusing a definition: "Main criterion to shape the traits of tomboys is that they [...] are attracted to people of same sex to strengthen their gender identity." Eh? A main criterion is that they are lesbian and that they are lesbian to strengthen their gender identity? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
The 2008 "AsiaPacifiQueer: Rethinking Genders and Sexualities" source, from University of Illinois Press, page 118, states, "However, same-sex attraction is another major criterion for one to be considered a tomboy in Hong Kong." The sentence is specifically about Hong Kong. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't look like SHINETODAY and Doingender have been pinged yet. This note is to make sure they are aware the conversation is here. - SummerPhDv2.0 02:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I pinged them both above. Simply wikilinking their usernames with a fresh signature works as pinging. I also left a messages at User talk:SHINETODAY. And I just reverted another account. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Dhy1234 and Unbiasedpanda, do stop adding all of this content without discussion. Pass the message on to your class too. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Requested page protection here. And queried the matter at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard. Mathglot, you got any thoughts on these additions? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Comic book illustrations[edit]

CrossPlains, I reverted you because the comic book illustrations are WP:Undue weight. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


There should be a photo of a real life tomboy. Benjamin (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

And what options do we have? Picking out an image of a girl and calling her a tomboy will not do. I also disagree that we need a real-life image. The long-standing File:John George Brown - The Tomboy.jpg is also less prone to edit warring. Real-life images are prone to edit warring due to people thinking that their image is best or simply wanting their face or their child's face in a Wikipedia article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)