Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
204.52.215.107 (talk)
EvergreenFir (talk | contribs)
Autopatrolled, Administrators
126,592 edits
Tag: Reply
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="text-align:center;"
{{Talk header}}
|-
{{censor}}
| width="0px" |
{{Notice|[[File:Woman at Lover's Bridge Tanjung Sepat (cropped).jpg|thumb|upright=.5|Lead image]]
|| Before complaining about article content, please read: '''[[WP:NOT#CENSOR|Wikipedia is not censored]]'''.
'''Important Note:''' The most appropriate image to use at the top of this article has been a highly controversial issue with many valid viewpoints. The current lead image was chosen by [[Special:Diff/1025147250#RfC:_Lead_image|an RfC]] on 5/26/2021.
|}
[[Talk:Woman/sandbox|A '''gallery and discussion''' of potential lead images is also available here]]. New images may be added there.}}
{{Notice|'''Important Note:''' The most appropriate image to use at the top of this article is highly controversial issue with many valid viewpoints. Polite discussion and negotiation of these viewpoints is welcome below as we continuously strive to find an image which best matches the current '''[[WP:CON|consensus]]'''.
{{Round in circles
| [[Talk:Woman/Archive 14#Proposed_edits_to_lede|Wording of lede]]
| [[Talk:Woman/Archive 16|Definition of woman]]
| [[Talk:Woman/Archive 17#Self-contradiction_in_intro|Self contradiction in lede]]
|topic= ''Wording of lede'', ''Definition of woman'' and ''Self contradiction in lede''
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Anthropology|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Gender studies|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Feminism|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Women}}
{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Women's sport|importance=high}}
}}
{{pp|small=yes}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=pa}}
{{section sizes}}
{{page views}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
|maxarchivesize = 70K
|counter = 28
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = Talk:Woman/Archive %(counter)d
}}


__TOC__
''Any image which has not shown support here will be removed.''}}
{{WikiProject Anthropology|class=B}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=B}}
{{WP1.0|coresup=yes|v0.7=pass|class=B|category=Natsci|VA=yes}}


== Why was it edited from "adult human female" to "adult female human"? ==
{{talkheader}}


Adult human female is better [[User:ShobanChiddarth|ShobanChiddarth]] ([[User talk:ShobanChiddarth|talk]]) 13:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
{{archive box|
*December – June 2005:
[[Talk:Woman/Archive 1]]
*April 2005 - February 2005:
[[Talk:Woman/Archive 2]]
*April 2005 – January 2006:
[[Talk:Woman/Archive 3]]
*February 2006 – December 2006, including first image straw poll (large):
[[Talk:Woman/Archive 4]]}}


:No such change has occurred that I'm aware of. Possibly a [[Mandela effect|Berenstein effect]]? The sources cited (and various others) tend to use use ''female'' as an adjective modifying ''human'' or ''person''. "Adult human female" is more common as a TERF/GC slogan. See also {{slink|wikt:female#Usage notes}}. –[[User:RoxySaunders|RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️]] ([[User talk:RoxySaunders|💬]] • [[Special:Contributions/RoxySaunders|📝]]) 13:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
== Helen clack first female prime minister of NZ ? ==
::Yes, even if the other version wasn't in use as a [[Dog whistle (politics)|dog whistle]] the current version is more grammatically correct and there is no reason to prefer the Ferengi version. [[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 20:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


== Page edit request ==
I think it was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenny_Shipley jenny shipley]?


Please let me remove a image from this article [[User:Mybirthday647|Mybirthday647]] ([[User talk:Mybirthday647|talk]]) 20:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
: you are correct [[User:Purdonkurt|Purdonkurt]] 07:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


:@[[User:Mybirthday647|Mybirthday647]], can you please tell us which image you would like removed. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 20:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Jenny Shipley was the first female PM in New Zealand by overthrowing Jim Bolger, she was never elected as PM.
Helen Clark was(and is) the first elected PM in New Zealand, although the list down the page is incorrect in saying it was Shipley.[[User:Trumpy|Trumpy]] 09:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


== Ada Lovelace should be added to the science section of the article ==
== What happened to a real nude woman? ==


How is possible that Ada Lovelace is not mentioned in the science section of this article?
There was a [http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?cd9827eae0.jpg real nude woman] near the top 2 months ago. Are you afraid that some high school teen will get horny over a nude picture? We all have sex ed! Show a nice looking dame with big tits (check [http://domai.com/ Domai] or [http://www.met-art.com/ METART]....DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT [[User:renegadeviking|Renegadeviking]]


Ada Lovelace was the creator one of the first algorithms for modern computers, she had the intention to develop software for multipurpose tasks, not just the first woman, but one of the first humans if not the first in doing that.
:Well, that image has a bunch of content on it beyond the picture of the female. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 17:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace#First_published_computer_program
well thats a bit contradictory!! "afraid of some high school teen will get horny"..... "Show a nice looking dame with big tits " Why would you want that then??? the ida is to show woman not a "nice" one and breasts are HardLy THE defining feature. DO it. The man page has -and has had for ages an ART shot as the lead. I wouldn't mind a female version of the vetrivan man/... [[User:Cilstr|Cilstr]] 06:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Note_G
Well, I want to express my fears that people could misunderstand the pictures on the webpage: There seems to be not a single photo of a beautiful woman, only ones who are not very feminine.... I think that is no good advertising for us women!
What do you think? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/193.170.51.2|193.170.51.2]] ([[User talk:193.170.51.2|talk]]) 20:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Thanks.--[[User:Zchemic|Zchemic]] ([[User talk:Zchemic|talk]]) 16:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
== The Venus ==


:The section {{slink|Women|Science, literature and art}} is meant to be a summary of the articles [[Women in science]], [[Women in literature]], and [[Women in art]]. To avoid becoming overly long and cluttered (it already contains 6 paras and 2 images), it cannot hope to include every notable woman in these fields, regardless of her contributions. The Countess of Lovelace is mentioned in {{slink|Women_in_science#Early_nineteenth_century}} and her portrait appears in an imagebox alongside Curie later in that article.
Honestly the amount of discussion about the Frau is getting a bit ridiculous, i'm suprised its been going quite this long without any hint of resolution. I for one would say that the Venus is a very apt compromise, whilst it is not fully nude it does show the female form, and its status as a famous classical art work does make it hard to object to on prudish moral grounds. [[User:LordFenix|LordFenix]] 02:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
:It is for the best that the text of this summary section mostly avoids mentioning women by name, as this begets lots of {{tq|why does X get included, and not Y}}, which eventually expands into a [[WP:BLUESEA]] of links. For a particularly egregious example of the useless and unreadable text this kind of editing produces, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gay_icon&oldid=995370073#2010s%E2%80%93present old revisions of the article Gay icon]. –[[User:RoxySaunders|RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️]] ([[User talk:RoxySaunders|💬]] • [[Special:Contributions/RoxySaunders|📝]]) 17:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
:Should we not run this by [[Attorney General]] Gonzalez?? After all, his predecessor (Ashcroft) declared that we should have [[shame]] and embarassment in response to ''artistic'' nude representations of women. [[User:Dogru144|Dogru144]] 03:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


== On "wermann" ==
==Analysis of Culture and Gender Roles==


The page in its current form mentions without sources the supposed existence of the Old English word ''wermann''. This word is, unless I'm gravely mistaken, completely unattested (try finding it on Wiktionary, for example) and possibly fabricated. Unless a good source can be found for the existence of ''wermann'' as an OE word (and a cursory internet search reveals only discussions pondering where on earth it supposedly came from), its mention ought to be removed. [[User:AutisticCatnip|AutisticCatnip]] ([[User talk:AutisticCatnip|talk]]) 04:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
In many prehistoric cultures, women assumed a particular cultural role.


:You appear to be correct. For those interested, here are some such discussions [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4psymv/in_english_when_was_wereman_replaced_by_man_and/][https://www.reddit.com/r/OldEnglish/comments/sa3n2w/who_invented_the_word_werman/][https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26574747]. I've gone and made an edit ([[Special:Diff/1216741813]]) which replaces the specious ''wermann'' with ''wer'' (apparently the most common OE word for male/man) and {{wt|ang|wǣpnedmann}}, which is attested occasionally as the analogue to ''wifmann''. I hope this looks acceptable.
''I don't see what this sentence adds. If women participate in culture, it is natural to assume they have some role, as do men. I think it needs expansion or clarification.''
:I think the Dictionary.com link is rotten, as it no longer contains the information we're citing it for. If anyone has access to the OED or another source which verifies this etymology, please verify this text if possible. –[[User:RoxySaunders|RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️]] ([[User talk:RoxySaunders|💬]] • [[Special:Contributions/RoxySaunders|📝]]) 18:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


== Why does this page use [[extended confirmed protection]] even though [[Man]] uses semi-protection only? ==
In hunter-gatherer societies, women were generally the gatherers of plant foods, small animal foods, fish, and learned to use dairy products, while men hunted meat from large animals.


... [[User:Usersnipedname|Usersnipedname]] ([[User talk:Usersnipedname|talk]]) 08:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
''It sounds correct but needs a citation''


:GENSEX enforcement vs. generic vandalism. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 12:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
: A citation would be good. As I understand it, meat obatined from large animals may not have been as important in the diet of prehistoric hunter gatherers as previous generations of anthropologists. [[User:Thehalfone|Thehalfone]] 22:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:Also because trolls and bigots perseverate more on people [[assigned male at birth]] who are either gay/bi/pan or trans. Transwomen are targeted more than transmen and thus this article gets more trolls. Here's an article: [https://www.mprnews.org/story/2013/04/28/gays-vs-lesbians-acceptance] [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 16:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Because of their intimate knowledge of plant life, most anthropologists assert that it was women who led the Neolithic Revolution and became history's first pioneers of agriculture.

''The prepositional phrase "because of..." can be associated with either "anthropologists" or "women", although "women" is the most logical choice. The idea should be stated more clearly. Also, the sentence makes a sweeping assertion, attributing it to the weaselish "most anthropolists". There needs to be a credible citation for it.''

In more recent history, the gender roles of women have changed greatly.

''I am confused. I should assume gender roles describes both men and women, and the phrase is only meaningful when it is related to both men and women. Describing the gender roles of women only seems very odd.''

Traditional gender roles for middle-class women typically involved domestic tasks emphasizing child care, and did not involve entering employment for wages.

''For the entire world? For western countries? Wage employment is only recent in human history. This sentence needs clarification. The verb "emphasising" is too vague.''

For poorer women, especially among the working classes, this often remained an ideal, for economic necessity has long compelled them to seek employment outside the home, although the occupations traditionally open to working-class women were lower in prestige and pay than those open to men.

''Ideal? How? There is little explanation. Clarity would help.''

Eventually, restricting women from wage labor came to be a mark of wealth and prestige in a family, while the presence of working women came to mark a household as being lower-class.

''Needs a citation. There are two unverified assertions.''

The women's movement is in part a struggle for the recognition of equality of opportunity with men, and for equal rights irrespective of gender, even if special relations and conditions are willingly incurred under the form of partnership involved in marriage.

''Everything following "even if" should be stated more clearly. Very little is said about what the women's movement actually is; only what it fights for is described.''

The difficulties of obtaining this recognition are due to historical factors combined with the habits and customs history has produced.

''POV and vague.''

Through a combination of economic changes and the efforts of the feminist movement in recent decades women in most societies now have access to careers beyond the traditional one of "homemaker".

''Which recent decades?''

Despite these advances, modern women in Western society still face challenges in the workplace as well as with the topics of education, violence, health care, politics, and motherhood, and others.

''Vague. Suspiciously like a promotion of feminism.''

:These are alleged facts, and, if true, relevant. "Sounds like something POV people say" is not the same as POV.--[[User:201.216.138.111|201.216.138.111]] 00:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

::Wikipedia is not an intellectual charity. If the information is well sourced, accurate, and stated clearly, objections will sound unreasonable. The vagueness is what I object to; I am not saying there is a clear point of view here, but vague sentences leave open the possibility of non-neutral sentiments without clearly stated propositions. Other editors have taken issue with this section above. We cannot give additions the benefit of the doubt that they satisfy editorial principles if the sentences are not written clearly. To encapsulate my criticism, I would say it is simply bad writing. Anyway, I don't think anyone is defending the lack of citations — which is another objection I have. The section, as it stands, belongs to a first-year university essay. This article should not be about flaunting intellectual pretensions and indulgent writing. [[User:Rintrah|Rintrah]] 06:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

::: Furthermore, the sentence is just badly written. Anyone who doesn't face challenges in the workplace will be very bored! One can assume that the author meant "extra" challenges. If so, then these should be specified, and a citation given. [[User:Thehalfone|Thehalfone]] 22:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sexism can be a main concern and barrier for woman almost anywhere, though its forms, perception, and gravity varies between societies and social classes.

''Also Vague.''

(Sexism affects men as well, though the roles it leaves open for men are most commonly equal- or higher-status.)

''Confusing''

: And gramatically incorrect. I suggest "of equal or higher status than those left open to women". This would really need a good citation however, and might still be vague. Is "soldier" a high status role, or "teacher"? [[User:Thehalfone|Thehalfone]] 22:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

These changes and struggles are among the foci of the academic field of women's studies.

''"foci" makes it pretensious. It should be stated in better language.''

[[User:Rintrah|Rintrah]] 04:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

:: The sections "Culture and Gender Roles" do little to describe women in greater detail, are overly focused on women in first world countries and their revolutions (which make up a small fraction of the world population of women) and is essentially a section on the womens rights movement masquerading as cultural information. It needs to be removed and replaced with a concise information and a redirect, or significantly rewritten (as suggested by rintrah). It significantly degrades the quality of the article the way it is now. [[User:C00kiemnstr|C00kiemnstr]] 18:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

::: I agree. I would also add that economics is only a part of what one should include in a "culture and gender roles" section. Perhaps some mention of art, sport et cetera might be useful. Also something about religion other than a cursory mention in a sentence about veils. [[User:Thehalfone|Thehalfone]] 22:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

==National leaders and other very high status positions==
Taking a cue/ or inspiration from the Polish version of this page
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobieta
, I added well-known (women) national leaders and Dr. Condoleezza Rice, and as on their page, a photo of her. (Photo is directly from her English wikipedia bio)[[User:Dogru144|Dogru144]] 02:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
:Doesn't adding a picture of Condoleeza Rice unavoidably add a political element to this article? What would happen if someone also added Che or Bill Clinton to the man article? [[User:Rintrah|Rintrah]] 22:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
::The photo was not added in a political context; it was added in a civics class manner. If this were 1997 I'd upload Madeline Albright's photo instead. The point is this: in 2007 women are not always, everywhere, bound to traditional roles. This section was added to provide balance to the more traditional, more limiting, roles implied by the photos and discussion in much of the remainder of the article.[[User:Dogru144|Dogru144]] 00:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Who knows how to put a caption under these photos, without making them giant?[[User:Dogru144|Dogru144]] 00:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
:::<tt><nowiki>[[Image:name of image|thumb|220px|here is a caption]]</nowiki></tt>
:::Replace 220px with the width in pixels you want. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 02:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
As Rice has been replaced by Pelosi and Thatcher was demoted with a "burn burn Thatcher" comment, it is obvious that the political wars have already begun. I'd actually say that the whole last two sections should be moved to another article, meriting about a paragraph here and a '''much''' deeper treatment somewhere else. If there's a page for [[Status of women in Pakistan]], why not a page for [[Modern status of women]]? Please comment if you can find a better title for such an article, or an existing article that covers this subject matter. --[[User:Homunq|Homunq]] 19:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

::::Great idea to have status of women article. Let's keep the order of premiers alphabetical. Why not keep Thatcher? Like her or not, she was the ''first'' premier of a European nation; this is an encyclopedia not a [partisan or an ideological] fan club.[[User:Dogru144|Dogru144]] 00:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::I like the chrono order Dogru44 put it into. A separate article is a nice aim if there are editors who could expand it. But at the moment, with the current content (i.e. just a list) I think both this article and any separate one would be poorer for the split. This article isn't that big and the premiers adds some current perspective to the status of women as it's talked about in the article. The daughter article would be a short list on its own (which tends to be less informative than one in context). Could we try adding detail here until there's something more substantial? (Also agreed that partisan comments and edits are entirely inappropriate). -- [[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|Siobhan Hansa]] 01:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

As a Canadian, I request that the Rt Hon Kim Campbell's, the former prime minister of Canada, picture be displayed on this page. What about the Queen of England (and Canada), Queen Elizabeth II? Aside from being the head of state for the commonwealth countries, she is the wealthiest woman on the planet (I believe). Surely she is worth having her photo up. I would do it myself but I'm a wiki-newbie and haven't figured out how to do it or whether it would be polite of me to stomp in and just add pictures of people without obtaining permission or consensus. [[User:CWPappas|CWPappas]] 07:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

MUST ADD: A listing of the percentage of women in governance positions with at least national legislatures and also heads of state like kings, premiers, prime ministers or presidents (wherever the power may reside). Along with this listing should be historical numbers which should include a table or graph of the changing percentage figures. Also included should be a listing of all of the separate governments in the United Nations (and without, separately) with their respective figures as mentioned previously. Besides displaying the progress of women over the years what I think we will see is that those with the lower or no women numbers tend to be more violent. What rising percentages may mean toward more peaceful international relations or standard of living will be quite interesting. [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Pugetkid|Pugetkid]] 04:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


===expansion of status of women===
Here is a source (from Human Rights Watch) that discusses the legal status of women:
http://hrw.org/women/status.html
It has sub-pages on the rights of women in specific regions (but not [[OECD]] ones):
http://hrw.org/women/overview-mena.html

http://hrw.org/women/overview-lac.html

http://hrw.org/women/overview-asia.html[[User:Dogru144|Dogru144]] 18:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

==please add io:muliero==
Thanks.

== Photo ==

I like the photo with the nude fat woman. :] [[User:The Fat Guy|The Fat Guy]] 14:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

what fat woman?? i dont rememeber there ever being a photo of a fat woman. [[User:Cilstr|Cilstr]] 07:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

== ''fertilization forms a new individual'' edit==
[[User:2nd Piston Honda]] made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woman&diff=98567019&oldid=98277307 this edit] which I reverted seeing it as POV (supporting a life begins at fertilization view). However I can also see that the less definite statement is itself not totally neutral. Is there better wording we can come up with that stays away from the issue of when new life is formed (which isn't a necessary subject for this article to tackle)? -- [[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|Siobhan Hansa]] 03:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

== Fertilization "maturing into" a new individual? ==

In the Bio section, i changed this:

''The [[ovaries]], in addition to their regulatory function producing hormones, produce female gametes called eggs which, when combined with male gametes ([[sperm]]), can mature into new individuals.''

into this

''The [[ovaries]], in addition to their regulatory function producing hormones, produce female gametes called eggs which, when fertilized by male gametes ([[sperm]]), form a new individual human. (See [[Human Reproduction]])''

I was reverted and told to come to Talk.

It is factually and scientifically accurate to say that fertilization forms a new individual (ie Reproduction). If you want to make a claim about its '''legal''' standing in various countries, that's fine, but it's for another section or article. The section is about biology, and biologically it's a new individual of the human species at fertilization. [[User:2nd Piston Honda|2nd Piston Honda]] 03:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

:What it forms is a [[zygote]]. There are few scientists who recognize a zygot as an ''individual human''. We could stick to the more scientific and just state ''forms a zygote'' but I think the point of the sentence might be muted. -- [[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|Siobhan Hansa]] 13:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

::This is obviously a controversial point, I think both of the versions above take an unnecessary stand. (As an aside, "fertilized" is uncontroversially better better than "combined".) A possible compromise - "form a new biological individual". On the one hand: if even a (probably nonviable) zygote is an individual human, than how many individual humans are in the one-cell stage of identical twins, or in a person with (genetically distinct) cancer cells or transplants? On the other hand, if individuality is not present at the zygote stage, then when? I'd say "humanity" is POV but biological individuality is clear. I've put the article thus. (note: I was the author of the original text; I now see that by trying to dodge the issue I was in fact taking a POV stand). --[[User:Homunq|Homunq]] 18:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

:::I was under the impression that ''individuality'' of a zygote was controversial because of the possibility of twinning and also the sharing of essential biological systems with the mother. A zygote is a biological entity, but not necessarily an individual. Nevertheless I think the new edit is the best so far and addresses my concerns about NPOV. It may be that this area is too unclear to allow a concise but pedantically accurate sentence, and anything more than concise would be inappropriate. Thanks Homunq. -- [[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|Siobhan Hansa]]

== Need more images! ==

This article needs images of women from Europe in traditional costumes. Also the article needs one more or several images of the female nude in action, sports etc.
--[[User:Margrave1206|Margrave1206]] 05:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a porn provider. [[User:Ariel.|Ariel.]] 04:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

:Right, because [[Man|three naked pictures in one article is pornographic]], and when dealing with anatomical features [[Breast|there are no examples of even more than three pictures of naked bodies]], [[Vagina | nothing at all]], [[Penis|absolutely none]]. Of course if we were to talk about policy, there's a link at the bottom to disclaimers, among them [[Wikipedia:Content disclaimer]], which specifically states in part: "WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS SPOILERS AND CONTENT YOU MAY FIND OBJECTIONABLE In its ambitious mission of documenting all human knowledge, Wikipedia contains many thousands of articles on a vast array of topics." ... "Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or depictions of human anatomy."

:The question isn't if pictures or paintings of females in the nude is something that wikipedia should provide, but rather are they a realistic representation of the human female? Should we shy away from presentation of potentially fetishistic, or arrousing material in articles merely because the topic is a common target for such? (A good explanation for why this article is discussing what amount of nudity is considered appropriate, and de-emphasising a realistic nude model by placing her in a collage, while at the same time the article for [[Man]] has three pictures all visible at the very loading of the page if your browser window is sufficiently large enough, and virtually no debate at all about it.) I don't think that's reasonable. Avoiding a topic/image just to avoid controversy? I don't see that in the expectations or actions of this community. And saying that this article does not deserve the same treatment as the article [[Man]] just because men may eroticise this article... I seem to recall that the idea behind wearing ankle length skirts, bonnets, face scarves, etc was to hide the female from the ravaging looks of males, who are unable to control themselves. Are we to remain ever slaves to the lustful actions of men? --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 05:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

::Why don't we just do away with all contentious pictures to end this stupid controversy? Yes, this action might be inconsistent with other articles, but the question of images has wasted too much editor/contributor time already. Pictures of naked women, even accurate representations of them, can be found elsewhere. Too many editors have gone silly over this question, and it hinders progress on a more pertinent question: content. Let's not politicise this question anymore; wikipedia should not be an arena for a clash of ideologies. [[User:Rintrah|Rintrah]] 06:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

:::Woah! Relax, the OP asked for more "female nude in action, sports etc" - which is clearly just a request for porn rather then of any use in the article, and I replied as such. And to reply to the debate: Personally I don't think the article should start with a nude since that is not how women typically walk down the street, however in an anatomy type section a nude could be appropriate. [[User:Ariel.|Ariel.]] 14:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

::::One idea could be that in line with the article on Man, where it has a picture of Michelangelo's David, with the caption, "Micheangel's David is widely considered the finest artistic portrayals of a man." And parallel this with the [[Venus de Milo]], which is widely considered the finest artistic portrayal of a woman. While photographic representations of the female nude fall into a lovely area of "is it art, or is it porn?" the photographic representation of a form popularly, and internationally recognized as a fine artistic representation of the female form doesn't deal with such issues. As far as the request for "female nude in action, sports etc" while I grant that it is unusual, does not necessarily equate to a request for pornographic material. Artistic representation of nude figures engaging in physical activities is not by default pornographic, as best represented by the classical representation of the struggle, and combat of mankind by two naked males wrestling. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 19:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

ACtually i thought the venus would be good- but she really only shows breasts as the defining deference b/w men. ( and some ppl mite thing woman have no arms ;) ) NOt such a great example. There must be better statues. Frau was ok. BUt there is a vitrivan woman we mite b able to have?![[User:Cilstr|Cilstr]] 07:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

== Reworking of the start of "womanhood"? ==

I see many references throughout the article referencing that "womanhood" starts at [[menarche]], while this is typically and undeniably the most common case, some women never enter menarche, such as those with a form of [[Amenorrhoea|Primary Amenorrhoea]], who would undeniably have entered "womanhood" even though they are completely unable to have a menstrual cycle.

The only reason I haven't made this change yet myself, is that I'm not sure what would better suit it.

== Probs with this page ==

# Section "Education and employment" is only about the OECD countries. Full of PoV.
# THE IS NO BIOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION AND COMPARISON TO MAN. (hair, hight, weight, brain, voice and etc.)
# No picture of a pregnant woman.

--[[User:TRFA|TRFA]] 16:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

:So, you would like to see a biological description and compaison to man, analgous to the following section:
<blockquote>Some examples of male secondary sexual characteristics in humans, those acquired as boys become men or even later in life, are:
* deeper voice
* taller height
* facial hair or beard
* diamond shape pubic hair pattern
* increased body size overall
* less subcutaneous fat
* increase in overall body hair
* male pattern baldness
* coarser skin
* darker skin tone
* A higher level of androgenic hormones such as [[testosterone]], making it easier for most men than most women to develop their muscles. </blockquote>

I think it wouldn't be too difficult to mock up.
<blockquote>Some examples of male secondary sexual characteristics in humans, those acquired as girls become women or even later in life, are:
* breast development
* wider hips
* more triangle-shaped pubic hair pattern
* more subcutaneous fat
* softer skin
* lighter skin tone
* shorter height when comparied to males generally due to earlier onset of puberty
* A lower level of androgenic hormones such as [[testosterone]], making it harder for most women than most men to develop their muscles. </blockquote>

Most of the other things mentioned in the male article don't have any analogy in females. Female voices don't get higher from their childhood, they just don't drop, and change. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 19:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

::I disagree about the benefit of developing a bulleted list of "differences". The list in the Man article has been an [[WP:OR|OR]] and [[WP:NPOV|POV]] mess for most of its history, and the actual value of a statement like "more subcutaneous fat" is limited. Something with a bit more narrative could be very valuable, but finding good sources would be essential in developing a reasonable section like that (and the lack of decent sources supporting assertions is the main problem with this whole article). -- [[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|Siobhan Hansa]] 14:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


:TRFA, You explain the "globalize" tag in the education and employment section (and I agree with you). But you haven't explained the "cleanup" tag. What are the specific cleanup issues you have with it? -- [[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|Siobhan Hansa]] 14:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

:Why not create a new section to describe these differences. I also agree you need a reliable source to justify the addition. [[User:Rintrah|Rintrah]] 15:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
===TRFA, Monroe, women in prestigious positions===

TRFA is stripping out section on women in presitigious positions; and he is replacing this section with a photo of Marilyn Monroe. TRFA apparently has a problem with uploading section on reality of women leaders; he instead is uploading Monroe piture.
TRFA said see Talk section for explanation of stripping out women premiers. However, he has actually given no rationale for this stripping out the section. [[User:Dogru144|Dogru144]] 18:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

:The photo of Marylin Monroe is in the section "Culture and gender roles". Please, correct me if I'm mistaken, but culturally in the West some women have become recognized as sex symbols, and it has become such an expectation that women conform to this sex symbol ideal that annorexia, and bullemia are incredibly common in women.� As far as sex symbols, Marylin Monroe is perhaps the most notable sex symbol in the United States, and is a reasonable picture to have in that section. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 18:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
:TRFA isn't the first. Someone removed an image I added of Dr. Mae Jemison some time ago, without ever giving a reasonable explanation for doing so. As it stands, the article seems to spend most of its images showing women in menial and/or drudgery positions (albeit, sadly, historical ones) such as weaving, gathering, etc. The addition of modern female leaders is a good first step, but two improvements immediately come to mind:
:*Middle ground - Let's show that women also exist in the middle class ''between'' the weavers and the presidents. So how about making note of women in highly skilled professional and/or technical careers in science, business, aeronautics, etc.?
:*Historicity - While in most cases, female rule has been vanishingly rare throughout history, modern times are not the only ones which have seen sovereign females. How about replacing a couple of the modern presidents with Elizabeth I of England, or Catherine the Great of Russia, or any of the various Byzantine empresses Theodora, most of whom displayed striking drive and determination and accomplished great things for women in their day.
:All I'm saying is it's not very realistic to portray women as spending 10,000 years weaving baskets, picking fruit, and carrying babies, and suddenly becoming presidents in the past 50 years. There were many intervening steps as well. Of course, there's a limit to how many images a good article should have, so we may have to remove some of the overkill images to fit the balancing ones in. [[User:Kasreyn|Kasreyn]] 21:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
::Not to contest with the valid points above, but in the era of representative government there have only been women national leaders since World War II.
:::While it's certainly true that representative government is more to my taste and seems more appropriate, throughout most of recorded history, most governments have been autocratic monarchies. That fact should be kept in mind. Just because they weren't elected didn't mean female monarchs were not important to history. [[User:Kasreyn|Kasreyn]] 05:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
::::I think the point about representative government is that during that time we've seen a change in the status of women (which is what the section covers). As far as I'm aware, female monarchs tended to come about as a standard part of hereditary rule rather than because of a change in the general status of women. Not that that makes covering them a bad idea, but it's not what that section was about. I do like your point about the need to cover the middle ground though. -- [[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|Siobhan Hansa]] 11:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::Yes, the presence of female monarchs did owe something to the hereditary-monarchical system. Yet, the fact that these political systems did allow women monarchs is a testament as to the greater gender latitude of the system. While Britain and Russia had women monarchs, most other monarchies, such as Poland and France, did not have women monarchs. The [[caliphate]] and [[sultanate]] systems of rule in Muslim countries do not include women [[caliph]]s or [[sultan]]s. [[User:Dogru144|Dogru144]] 16:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
And the vast majority of the other (i.e., unelected) leaders have been male. So, the patriarchy argument about male rule over time holds. [[User:Dogru144|Dogru144]] 00:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Again, TRFA is upset at photos of important, powerful women. Photos of important women have been restored. Women are not mere objects for men. [[User:Dogru144|Dogru144]] 05:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

===Wikipedia clean-up tag===
I find nothing faulty in the women-in-modern-society section.

Pending formidable rationalizations for the tag's preservation, I shall remove it soon. [[User:Dogru144|Dogru144]] 02:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

==All species have females?==
Removed the following:
:(in species with a male gender; all species have females but many have no males)
I did sleep through a couple of biology classes, but there are a lot of species that reproduce asexually without egg cells. And since we're defining [[female]] as "the sex of an organism, or a part of an organism, which produces ova (egg cells)," the above statement isn't true. --[[User:Ben Applegate|Ben Applegate]] 11:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

:I took the assertion to refer to animals such as lizards, where there are many lizards that have actual females, and some even copulate with males of different lizard species, but their sperm plays no actual part in the reproductive process except inducing the female to procreate. But I do agree, there are organisms that do not have either sex, and are "assexual". The trivial example being one-celled animals and plants. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 17:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
===Silliness of this tangential point===
Woman means adult female homo sapiens (human).
This above discussion is way, way too broad. Why are we talking about other mammals, or about females of non-mammal species??? [[User:Dogru144|Dogru144]] 00:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

:Due to the context that the point was removed from: "''The symbol for the planet Venus is the sign also used in biology for the female gender. It is a stylized representation of the goddess Venus's hand mirror or an abstract symbol for the goddess: a circle with a small equilateral cross underneath (Unicode: ♀). The Venus symbol also represented femininity, and in ancient alchemy stood for copper. Alchemists constructed the symbol from a circle (representing spirit) above an equilateral cross (representing matter).''"

:Within context, the discussion is about females in biology, which I believes covers more than simply homo-sapiens. If you feel that this argument is tangential (which it is) then please feel free to remove the context, after all... what does Alchemy have to do with homo-sapien females either? --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 07:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

== Image suggestion ==

If you want a convenient epitome of roles womanhood in traditional eruopean or European-influenced civilization, there's [[:Image:11-stages-womanhood-1840s.jpg]] . [[User:Churchh|Churchh]] 16:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
:This a US illustration from the 1840s, illustrating what were the then standard roles for middle class women. Working class women were involved in various kinds of labor. This is a sheerly historical piece. I suspect that this would be tangential from the concerns of this present article. [[User:Dogru144|Dogru144]] 04:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)



==The all-important picture==
I just read through the rabble above and realised how much storm pixels depicting a woman, either clothed or no, creates. I suggest there be no picture for the following reasons:
*Most involved cannot think maturely: they either believe something as trifling as a non-pornographic picture harms wikipedia or is absolutely needed to guide the reader through the article. All kinds of ideologies are thrown into the arena to pretend at the issue's importance. At the very least, the picture's absence will clear this talk page of annoying ideological dispute.
*Most involved cannot act maturely: they willingly choose to drag this into an extremely long debate that has effectively been in stalemate.
*Most readers do not care. The only reason there is so much discussion is due to editors.
*The issue makes the article unstable, and hence artifically belong to a lower class.
*If a picture is deemed necessary, editors have the impossible task of making it representative. Any editor with an axe to grind can find some objection to any possible, plausible picture.
*The issue of the picture wastes so much time; see above for evidence.
It is not wise to assume good-faith here because I would have to deny the obvious. Please decide whether you want this talk page to be a debate forum, with a fulcrum on the question of pictures, or a page for discussing improvement of the article. At the very least, remind yourself that encyclopediae are supposed to be intellectual works, not pretty picture galleries. [[User:Meeeeep|Meeeeep]] 08:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

:Pictures can be just as important to communicating ideas (and the subtleties of social attitudes, such as in articles like this) as text... sometimes even more so. Articles without pictures are vastly less interesting and engaging than articles with well-chosen illustrations, regardless of how well-written they are. --[[User:Popefauvexxiii|popefauvexxiii]] 04:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

==Natural woman==
[[Image:Wenuszmf.jpg|thumb|150px|The [[Venus de Milo]] is one of the most widely recognized depictions of a female in Western cultures, despite being damaged such that the arms are no longer present.]]
We should restore the Frau.jpg picture at the top of the page. At the moment we have a bizarre "stone with no arms" to illustrate a woman. --[[User:BMF81|BMF81]] 12:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

:We do not have a "bizarre" stone with no arms picture. We have the [[Venus de Milo]], and the page [[Man]] has [[David (Michelangelo)|Michelangelo's David]]. Both of these images are strongly present in Western Culture, and more recognizably represent the female and male form respectively than any such random images of a nude female. Like it or not, there are some people here who feel that the nude picture is inappropriate, and the critics debate the encyclopedic value of having a nude picture of a random female. The Venus de Milo is inarguably appropriate as a representation of females, no different than the venus symbol. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 18:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
::I strongly disagree. The current image, the "stone with no arms", is a horrible representation of women. Not only does it not have arms, its midsection is completely covered. The only way someone could argue that the statue is a woman is the large breasts. In comparison, the Michelangelo statue is completely nude and with no appendages missing. [[User:Dionyseus|Dionyseus]] 20:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Yea to replacing venus with something (anything) else. Representing all femalekind as double amputee with gentials covered is bordering on oppressive. The ''only'' context in which this makes ''any'' sense at all is as a compliment to david in the [[man]] article, and I find the idea of using marble in place of flesh-and-blood to be [[prude|disturbing]] in the first place. As a compromise, I suggest cutting [[:Image:Human.svg]] into two separate pictures. [[User:Popefauvexxiii|popefauvexxiii]] 11:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

::::OMG, I can hardly make any sense out of the misinformation that you're propagating here. She is *NOT* an amputee. The statue of Venus de Milo was done of a woman with both arms, and was later discovered, and her arms had been damaged and lost. Calling a statue an amputee just because it's damaged is... uninformed. And having her genitals covered? Take a look at the frau picture on the right (If it's still there). Ok, so compared with Venus, she's totally nude... but you can't see her sexual organs in the picture. You know, disregard the point that most female sexual organs are internal, but even the external genitalia of a female isn't shown in the Frau pic. It's not about being "prudish" or anything like that... it's a practical ''recognizable'' depiction of a female. If she were nude, I'd still put it up there... There are other artistic representations of [[Venus]] as well. [[Venus Anadyomene (Titian)]] (who is totally nude, standing in thigh-high water). Using the particular part of [[The Birth of Venus (Botticelli)]] which depicts Venus is perhaps just as recognizable as the Venus de Milo, and represents her full nude, except that she's holding her hair over her genitalia, so people are likely to complain about that. [[The Birth of Venus (Bouguereau)]] seems much more likely to please everyone, as she's fully nude, it's a classical piece, and her genitalia are showing just as much as Frau. But the picture doesn't seem unnatural or inappropriate like some would say of Frau. Wikipedia doesn't work on telling people that they should fix blah blah blah, you should either suggest alternatives, or rework the text/images and present it as an alternative. We don't deal well with absract "Let's just replace this picture, because I don't like it", we do however deal with constructive propositions, and alternatives, where the value of each can actually be measured and weighed. You say yourself, "replace with something (anything) else," but would you agree to use a picture from a hardcore porn webpage? I mean, she's nude and is displaying her genitalia more clearly than many other forms of artwork. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 08:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::Whether her arms are ''missing'' or ''amputated'' is not the point, ''her arms are gone''. To represent human femaleness with a picture of a woman with no arms is grotesque, IMO. As for her sexual organs, let me point back to the [[Men]] article. The reason [[David (Michelangelo)|David]] and [[Pioneer plaque|the man from the Pioneer plaque]] work as illustrations, ultimately, is because you can see between their legs. There is a penis there. It is, ultimately, basically, definitively what makes him a male human, ''i.e.'', a man. I'm not saying that there's necessarily much to see outwardly between a woman's legs in a standing position, but the reason the [[Venus de Milo]] and [[:Image:Botticelli Venus.jpg|The Birth of Venus]] are not suitable is because what ''is'' there is the basic biological difference that makes her a female human rather than a male--and it is hidden. Because VdM is covered from the waist down, for all we know, theres a penis under there... and before you laugh at that (which you obviously neglected to do for my main image caption) keep in mind, that while editors like you and i looked up this article out of curiosity, the people who are actually going to look up this article for informational reasons may very well ''not'' know the difference. Do you really want to send young children the message that penises should be displayed proudly, while vaginas are shameful and must be hidden? --[[User:Popefauvexxiii|popefauvexxiii]] 09:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::: I think the 'woman' for the starting picture should probably have arms. How about a lucian freud nude? [[User:Mentes|Mentes]] ([[User talk:Mentes|talk]]) 23:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

==AAAARGH! Here we go again.==

For 112Kb of this stuff, go see [[Talk:Woman/Archive 4]]. I'm as much to blame as anyone...--[[User:Homunq|Homunq]] 18:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

{{Talk:Woman/poll02.2007}}

== Kollontai ==

Kollontai was not a '''Russian''' ambassador but a '''Soviet''' ambassador to Norway...
[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kollontai Kollontai article]] [[User:88.227.59.108|88.227.59.108]] 06:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

you are turning wikipedia in to a porn site , damn you!


== Another Image suggestion ==

[[Image:Pioneer11-female.png|left|thumb|150px|Representation of a female human from the [[Pioneer 11]] [[Pioneer plaque|plaque]]]]
[[Image:Pioneer11-male.png|right|thumb|150px|Representation of a male human from the [[Pioneer 11]] [[Pioneer plaque|plaque]]]]I suggest using these as the main images for the [[Woman]] and [[Man]] articles, for the following reasons:
*The image they are derived from is free
*The images are complimentary
*The images are recognizable
*The images are professional quality
*The images are non-photographic nudes with genitalia clearly visible
*The images are intentionally generic and intended to educate an audience with an assumed knowledge of zero

The captions also link to the full image for scale comparison. I believe a picture is absolutely necessary for this article, and I think this is the best option given the concerns cited so far.

--[[User:Popefauvexxiii|popefauvexxiii]] 21:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The image on the left is a poor choice since it is "non-photographic" while there are photographic nudes available.--[[User:BMF81|BMF81]] 05:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

:But using the classical sculpture of Venus, complements the use of David in the male article.--[[User:Honeymane|<font color="red" face="Old English Text MT, Papyrus">Honeymane</font>]]<sub>[[User_talk:Honeymane|<font face="Klingon, QuigleyWiggly">Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam</font>]]</sub> 00:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

::Definitely not! Where's the pubic hair? And especially definitely not if you're proposing using both images: we've got the old sexual stereotyping of the man active/communicating/taking the lead while the woman is passive/non-communicative/letting the man get on with the important business of talking with the aliens. Just the sort of thing we want to get away from. [[User:No, I'm Spartacus|No, I&#39;m Spartacus]] 13:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
















=== No consensus = No photo ===
alright, i've removed the main image altogether, and i suggest it remain that way until consensus is reached. the top of the page clearly states that ''any image which has not shown support here will be removed'' and since '''no image''' has clearly shown itself to be the frontrunner, then '''no image''' it should be until something else takes its place. On that note, i submit:


=== Yet another Image suggestion ===
[[Image:Vintage nude photograph 3.jpg|thumb|200px|left|Photograph of a [[nudity|nude]] woman, ca. 1890.]][[Image:Gloeden1895.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Photograph of a [[nudity|nude]] man by [[Wilhelm von Gloeden]], ca. 1895.]]
For the consideration of anybody who thinks symmetry between the [[man]] and [[woman]] articles is worth maintaining: the picture of a nude man on the right is already featured in the [[man]] article (they could probably be convinced to move it to the top), and it was suggested on the talk page there that the woman on the left would make a good compliment.

i like the aesthetic of this pair. it is both ''photographic'' '''and''' ''art'', classy yet uncensored, while remaining natural. additionally, it is less contemporary (for people who feel the frau is a little too close in hue to internet porn, and are looking for a degree of separation).

--[[User:Popefauvexxiii|popefauvexxiii]] 04:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


[[Image:Frau-2.jpg|thumb|200px|left|A nude female human being <BR>[this image is also known as "frau", the german word for "woman"]]]
:I'm in favor for the "vintage" woman image (left), but my first preference is the frau image (left-down) because it is clearly better quality.--[[User:BMF81|BMF81]] 05:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
::It was just pointed out to me that Frau's pubic hair is shaved, and as such is not precisely a representation of a natural female state. In light of this, i withdraw my support for frau in favor of the vintage nude. --[[User:Popefauvexxiii|popefauvexxiii]] 06:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
:I disagree, both photographs are of poor quality compared to modern images. We should seek out a good, modern image, with little or no 'extras' (like the background flowers) for the lead. Frau, whether, you agree with the figure or not, represents the ideal type of photo we should look for: clean, well done, no red eye, or such, and that shows the figure very well. And seeing as we lack any other replacement for the image which shows a female in all her unaltered glory, this is our best bet. Feel free to ask your girlfriends and such if they'd like to help wikipedia out and donate an image for the lead.--[[User:Honeymane|<font color="red" face="Old English Text MT, Papyrus">Honeymane</font>]]<sub>[[User_talk:Honeymane|<font face="Klingon, QuigleyWiggly">Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam</font>]]</sub> 00:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
::I agree with Honeymane, we should restore the Frau photo. [[User:Dionyseus|Dionyseus]] 06:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

:That's not exactly what Honeymane said; Frau was removed by consensus as unsuitable. Honeymane suggested finding a similar picture. I on the other hand, think a nude stripped of context (i.e., bare background) is less useful and more objectifying. - <span style="font-family: cursive">[[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]]</span> 07:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
::What I'm saying is that the Frau picture represents what we should be looking for in a lead image for the article, but, in the mean time, we should restore at a lead picture until a suitable replacement can be found.

::I fail to see how representing the woman without context objectifies woman; wikipedia attempts to go for NPOV, and, as far as I can see, almost all leads should be represented in a neutral context. Of course, that's rarely possible.--[[User:Honeymane|<font color="red" face="Old English Text MT, Papyrus">Honeymane</font>]]<sub>[[User_talk:Honeymane|<font face="Klingon, QuigleyWiggly">Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam</font>]]</sub> 19:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

::The Frau image is the one that had most support, there has never been consensus to remove it.--[[User:BMF81|BMF81]] 07:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC) PS. those that claim that showing a woman naked is "objectifying" her, in fact are those that think in a "patriarchal framework" that wants to conculcate sexuality.
:::There was never concensus to add Frau, which is why it was removed and replaced with an image that had consensus. - <span style="font-family: cursive">[[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]]</span> 17:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Which was? the Venus wasn't a consensus image, it was a neutral third part image--[[User:Honeymane|<font color="red" face="Old English Text MT, Papyrus">Honeymane</font>]]<sub>[[User_talk:Honeymane|<font face="Klingon, QuigleyWiggly">Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam</font>]]</sub> 19:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

::::no image had consensus (vast majority), but frau is the one that had most support.--[[User:BMF81|BMF81]] 17:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


:I created the poll above because I believe that we have to decide what '''would''' be best before anyone will commit to doing a significant amount of work getting one option (such as nude photo) "perfect". As far as I can see, the ''only'' option up there that has any strong, categorical (as opposed to specific) objections is "nude line drawing". Please, participate in the poll (this means you, Nunh-huh), and try to imagine the best possible such image in each case, rather than reacting to flaws in the available options (ie, imagine a non-shaved photo, not Frau; a non-exoticized montage; and a complete non-covered art piece such as a clip of the Bouguereau birth-of-Venus, rather than the de Milo.) If we could come to a consensus on what would be best, I am confident that we could acheive it; meanwhile, asking your girlfriends or photographer friends for help is beside the point.
:Personally, I think an improved montage, with one nude and some variety of clothed women (3-4 cultures, without the exoticism of the current montage; a few different body types, ages, and activities), and a total of 4-6 images, would be the best option. As the article itself makes clear, the definition of what a woman is does not rest purely on breasts and vulva, nor does the day-to-day usage of the term bring these aspects particularly to mind, and so the lead image should not IMO imply that it does. But I'd be willing to live with any of the options as presented - though in many cases I think that the current "best" option has some serious problems.--[[User:Homunq|Homunq]] 21:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Like I stated before, a Montage is a poor lead image. --[[User:Honeymane|<font color="red" face="Old English Text MT, Papyrus">Honeymane</font>]]<sub>[[User_talk:Honeymane|<font face="Klingon, QuigleyWiggly">Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam</font>]]</sub> 01:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

:I've been staying out of this conversation because I didn't get involved at the start, but it's dragging out so I thought one more opinion might be helpful. I do think the article needs a lead image. I agree with Honeymane on the montage - it's poor as the lead. It lacks impact and clarity. Ideally the lead image should be unmistakably a picture of '''a''' woman, it should be a high quality and contemporary. I think a nude is appropriate, but not necessary. The Frau photo is quite good, and I think the best of the images that have been proposed. I dislike the tilt of her head, and the dreamy look on her face - I'd prefer a more engaged expression and good eye contact but that's getting quite picky. I actually like the lack of background - the less contextual stuff we have for an image that's supposed to be representative, the better. I also quite like the line drawing because it's clear and simple, but I do think a photo is better. I'm surprised the old nude photo is being used at all - it's a poor quality image and doesn't seem to be illustrating any particular point the article is making - I definitely don't think it should be the lead. I really object to the use of images of statues or other pieces of art. Seems like tokenism, objectification and coyness rolled into one, and doesn't provide a bold clear message that the article is about Woman, not some piece of art. -- [[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|Siobhan Hansa]] 03:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

::I find that comment quite helpful - even the part about the expression. Since my semi-objection to solo nudity is that it reduces women to a body, I think that an "engaged expression" and eye contact could go a long way to counteract that. Really, any expression that doesn't look like some kind of fashion model...
::I continue to object to Frau, and be open to Pioneer 11, but I withdraw my advocacy (though not my support) of montage. Really, if Nunh-huh (the other main anti-Frau voice) expresses openness to an improved image, we could move on to requesting an improved photo, and I'm sure we'd get one. The requirements as I see them:
::*Naked (Any clothes are open to whole sets of objections on concealment and cultural specificity)
::*No background (cultural specificity)
::*aged ~ 22-55 - neither especially youthful nor old, I think this range is loose enough
::*No particular body modifications - tatoos, piercings, shaved genitals, or prominent scars are all asking for objections
::*Any racial characteristics OK - obviously, otherwise we'd immediately be in a silly debate over who would be more representative on en.
::*Standing, leaning, or walking.
::*Any relatively generic hair - Something that doesn't date her too much. Cornrows or natural on a black woman would be OK, for instance, but not shaved-head or giant afro. No beehive or Princess-Leia.
::*Engaged, neutral expression - humor, challenge, or concentration OK, but not particularly happy or sad.
::*Normal body - physically female, neither anorexic nor morbidly obese, 10 fingers and toes. As should go without saying, none of this implies that women who do not meet these criteria are any less women, just that this serves best for purposes of definition.
::That sounds like a lot of criteria, but I think over half of the adult women in the world would fit, which is as it should be. --[[User:Homunq|Homunq]] 12:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
:::I agree--[[User:Honeymane|<font color="red" face="Old English Text MT, Papyrus">Honeymane</font>]]<sub>[[User_talk:Honeymane|<font face="Klingon, QuigleyWiggly">Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam</font>]]</sub> 20:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

== Image gallery for potential lead ==

FYI I have created an gallery of potential lead images here: [[Talk:Woman/sandbox]]. I think this will help keep this talk page from being cluttered with images, and help focus the discussion. The idea for this was the [[Talk:Breast/sandbox]] page, as the [[Breast]] article has similar discussions periodically. [[User:Ciotog|Ciotog]] 08:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused, why is Frau-2 not in the gallery as displayed on the page? For all the image's flaws it's a lot more approriate than "Israeli woman in a bikini throwing the horns". [[User:24.21.143.244|24.21.143.244]] 13:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

== Quick solution (?!) ==

Hello all. Homunq drew my attention to the discussion about images here. (Frankly, I think it's silly, since Frau-2 seems to fit almost all of the criteria you want.) I have a suggestion for a "quick fix" that will undoubtedly be controversial. I, too, am seeking several photos of a woman (and a man) in ''standard anatomical position'' for use in the article [[Anatomical terms of location]]. By definition, the pose is neutral (non-suggestive), and shows the whole body in anatomical detail.

My suggestion is, if you are a woman and object to the other images here, find a friend with a digital camera, assume the standard anatomical position against a neutral background, take the pic and submit it to the Commons for all to use. My suggestion for men who object to the image is the same! Then they can be used here, on the [[man]] site, and in my article as well. (And yes, I would, but I can't assume the position, and so am seeking volunteers.) So, anyone out there gutsy enough to replace Frau-2? She doesn't have the false "ideal" body, and you don't need to, either. Race doesn't matter - just no tattoos, piercings and shavings... Let the storm begin! ;) [[User:Esseh|Esseh]] 03:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

== Image (2 or more...) ==

Hello all. Quiet aroud here, isn't it....? I have noticed a profound dearth of commentary on my last post, and notably also on [[Talk:Woman/sandbox]]. Whassup? Everyone had an objection/comment/solution to the lead image for this article, but when someone goes to the trouble of adding a talk page to discuss it.... nobody responds. Similarly, when I suggested a "simple solution"... nobody is there. What's up, people? Surely everyone interested in this article isn't gutless. (Is your [[dander]] up yet?) Reply here, and maybe nobody will suggest you supply the image ;) (or not), but let's have some discussion on this, OK? Or at least write me and let me know if the problem is with me. Honestly, I'm not trying to stifle discussion.
<br />In case I am the problem, I'll start a thread on my Talk page. Better still, if the discussion in my talk page is relevant, I'll pe-post your comments here, without signature, and delete them from my discussion page (so you can be a bit more anonymous). OK, yes, it can be traced, but it might make some feel more comfortable. Sound fair? Speak up, people! Let ''[[vox populi]]'' be heard! [[User:Esseh|Esseh]] 06:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
:I don't think your suggestion was a particularly useful in terms of actually being likely to result in more good pictures, though it does highlight the need to be pragmatic and focus on what we have or can get. I find a lot of the objections are appropriate if we're talking about commissioning a photo. But I'm not sure what the point of saying no tattoos, shaved pubic hair, or piercings, must be in a certain pose, can't be an old image, etc. is when we have limited choice. The choice on the sandbox is depressingly small but the lack of an image on the article right now is worse than several of the photos that we have available. We need to make a choice between what we have. If we can set criteria that will help us find a better image to replace it with later that would be great. -- [[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|Siobhan Hansa]] 18:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

::Hi Sioban, and thanks for at least replying. I rather thought my suggestion was more useful in stopping pointless arguing; I really didn't think anyone would step forward to replace the pic themselves. I do admit to hoping. Frankly, I still think the "Frau-2" image is the best available for this article, especially the version in the montage with the darkened background. (Frankly, I don't see the problem with Frau's expression, either - she looks pensive, rather than submissive, to me. Very appropriate to this article, I would think.)
::I do admit to having ulterior motives in hoping someone would be as courageous as "Frau-2" and step forward to make an alternative pic. The requirements for here need not be that stringent. For my purposes ("[[Anatomical terms of location]]"), unfortunately, they are (though pubic hair is probably optional). And if such a neutral image were produced, it would certainly serve as a replacement here, and/or for [[Man]], as a bonus. Also, on the talk page set up to discuss which image to use, NOBODY has said anything, despite the vehement objections voiced earlier. Rather ironic, no? So, we have images, choose one for now. If I find the one(s) I'm looking for (with all their criteria), I'll post them here. (And I have posted on the "photos requested" pages here and on the Commons, and have tried to contact individual Wikipedian photographers - alas so far with no success.) Hope that explains my rationale. Cheers, [[User:Esseh|Esseh]] 20:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Yeah, the arguing in terms of an ideal image instead of choosing between the images we have does not seem to be particularly useful. With the sandbox you may have had more impact than you think, I have been referring to the sandbox, but making my comments here. When I saw the choice I went looking for other free nudes, but found nothing that was a full body frontal that wasn't posed suggestively. Quite depressing really (but then I have no intention of posing to improve that selection!). For [[Anatomical terms of location]] wouldn't you be almost as well off with diagrams? I've always found diagrams easier to get to grips with than photos for that sort of thing. -- [[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|Siobhan Hansa]] 03:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

:Hi Sioban, thanks for the reply - already you've got more guts than most! As for your points:
#Arguing for the "ideal" is useful IF we can get someone to supply it. Otherwise, you're right. Better we get on using what's available.
#I agree. I've searched the Commons ''ad nauseam'', and found nothing more suitable, either for here, or my article. It is depressing. I'm not looking for porn; a quick Google could get me that.
#For [[Anatomical terms of location]], I've used real photos for ''everything'' else, and I do feel they are better. (How do they look - noting that I've only completed part of the article so far?) I'm not opposed to diagrams, but I think photos (both male and female) would be better. (Just to give you an idea, see [[glans]] which I recently re-worked, and for which I made my own diagrams, where appropriate). Nothing beats a photo for this. In particular (though not relevant here), I hope to be able to crop out body regions to show specific landmarks.
#So, why won't you pose? No pressure, just curious. (Honestly, I would if I could, and I'm no fashion plate.) All the best. [[User:Esseh|Esseh]] 04:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

::I don't even use my real name on Wikipedia - I'm not putting up a photo of me! Plus - a nude photo on Wikipedia could affect my chances of getting a job. A nude photo could impact my ability to run for office one day. A nude photo could end up being altered and used in ways I found distasteful. Given Wikipedia's popularity I'd be concerned about being recognized and receiving attention I have no desire for. And probably a bunch of other things I haven't even considered yet!
::On my comments about looking for an ideal, I should have read previous comments more carefully - I'd skimmed over the fact that a) most of the requirements were from you and b) you had another article with a slightly different need. With that in mind the tone of my previous post seems a bit accusatory and aggressive, and that wasn't the intention. I'll respond to the [[Anatomical terms of location]] questions on your talk page rather than digress on this one. -- [[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|Siobhan Hansa]] 22:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

:I guess the logical course of action would be to put the frau-2 image back up. We all seem to agree that it is currently the only image that best fits the 'ideal image concept' we've created.--[[User:Honeymane|<font color="red" face="Old English Text MT, Papyrus">Honeymane</font>]]<sub>[[User_talk:Honeymane|<font face="Klingon, QuigleyWiggly">Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam</font>]]</sub> 19:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This whole discussion on whether to include an image of a nude woman is silly, and here is my thinking on it.

First of all, to include a nude to illustrate reproductive function is pointless unless the image is a medical photo of the internal organs, i.e. taken during surgery or autopsy, and drawings are far less messy and more clearly show the organs in isolation. I studied human anatomy and physiology in college 20 years ago and the most instructional images in the texts were drawings, while the lab provided the opportunity to learn what it is like "in the real world".

Second, how do you arrive at a female body type to present as typical of all women? Voluptuous, slender, athletic, black, white, Asian,...?

Having a gallery of images of women wearing national costumes would better illustrate a world-wide sense of how women are seen and how they want to present themselves. Having a series of photos like "Here is a Vietnamese woman wearing the traditional ao dai, and here she is not wearing it; Here is a Korean woman wearing a han bok, here she is not wearing it; Here is an American woman wearing business attire, and here she is naked" would do nothing to inform.

There are two types of readers potentially viewing Wikipedia articles... those who know what a woman looks like nude (so any photo displayed will not be very informative) and the very young (whose parents and/or teachers would probably ban them from using Wikipedia as an educational resource if nudity contained herein is viewed as being gratuitous, especially in articles likely expected to be non-medical). Yes, we as editors and contributors have the duty to be comprehensive in the information we post but we also have a responsibility to not unnecessarily offend.

I personally have no problem looking at photos of nude women, but is a general topic article on Wikipedia the place for it? The vast majority of my experience with women was when they were fully clothed and I think that this is fairly typical.

Look at the Wikipedia article on [[pornography]]...there is not a single image of a nude woman in spite of nude photographs being the bread and butter of that industry. The [[Human anatomy]], article has a single graphic that labels male and female anatomical features. If there is a need to expand articles on anatomy and physiology with better illustrations then it should be done, but this is a general article on women.

Why are people so hell-bent on having a nude photo here? Having a well-illustrated anatomy article is one thing but it just doesn't seem necessary here. [[User:CWPappas|CWPappas]] 06:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:<nowiki>*applause*</nowiki> [[User:Joie de Vivre|Joie de Vivre]] <sup><small><small>[[User talk:Joie de Vivre|T]]</small></small></sup> 15:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

:While I'm in no way "hell bent" on having a nude image, I don't think it would be gratuitous in this article. I would expect to find a full-body nude in a general encyclopedia article titled "Woman", so I expect to see one here. An article that provides such an image isn't unnecessarily offending - it's simply providing appropriate coverage. As for what information it provides - at what point do those young readers of ours who don't know what a nude woman looks like become the well informed readers who do? An encyclopedia would be one of the better places for them to become informed. However I also don't think it is necessary for the first image to be nude. Most high quality, clear images in a reasonably neutral pose would be good. I really dislike the idea of a gallery as the first image - it lacks the impact a good image of an individual woman has. I think one of our biggest issues is that there are so few good images - nude or otherwise - that have been proposed. -- [[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|SiobhanHansa]] 05:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have uploaded a new image for consideration in the "sandbox": nude1.jpg. Just FYI. [[User:Kym777|Kym777]] 07:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

:: I don't think it would qualify, because the picture cuts off your face and legs—it's more of an artistic pose, and this is more of a general article on women, rather than an article of female nudes in photography. If you were to do a standing pose with hands by your side against a plain background (and show all of your face and legs), I believe it would have a better chance of being considered. From an artistic point of view though, it is very nice. [[User:Michael2|Michael2]] 03:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

==Can't edit==
as the page is semi-protected. I wanted to add [[Sirimavo Bandaranaike]] of Sri Lanka and [[Indira Gandhi]] of India to the list of Prime Ministers, as they were, respectively, the first and second ever female PMs and therfore really ought to be in the list, if Golda Meir is in as the third! I think year of first taking office would be useful too as a representation of how shamefully late women have been elected to these positions. [[User:No, I'm Spartacus|No, I&#39;m Spartacus]] 13:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
:Indira Gandhi is already in the list, but Bandaranaike ought to be included - except for the usual objections to open-ended lists. [[User:Ciotog|Ciotog]] 04:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

A couple of comments: Yes, this could end up being an open-ended list, but so what? Female leaders are unfortnately rare enough (so far). My questions are four-fold:
#How long does a leader have to serve to be listed? No offence, but Kim Campbell (Canada) was a brief election-time hiccup, and was never elected (as were some male election-time leaders - see [[John Turner]].)
#No matter the response to #1, shouldn't we list the dates served after each leader?
#Are we listing only heads-of-government (HoGs), or should we be listing Heads-of-State as well? For example, for Canada, [[Jeanne Sauvé]], [[Adrienne Clarkson]], and the current [[Michaëlle Jean]] should be listed. Admittedly, they are theoretically vice-regal, representing [[Queen Elizabeth II]], but female presidential HoSs would be excluded, too.
#If we're going to list [[Queen Elizabeth II|QE II]], shouldn't we list other female monarchs as well? [[Queen Juliana]] of Holland springs to mind. (So does [[Cleopatra]].)
Just a few questions. [[User:Esseh|Esseh]] 05:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

:Sorry, missed [[Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands|Queen Beatrix]]. My apologies (and to other Monarchs, as well). [[User:Esseh|Esseh]] 05:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
::If the list is going to be comprehensive, then it should be in its own article. Open-ended lists within articles are generally bad, regardless of the subject matter. [[User:Ciotog|Ciotog]] 21:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Agreed. This list should be at [[List of female political leaders]], with a see-also here.
--[[User:Homunq|Homunq]] 17:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

::::Sounds eminently reasonable. [[User:Esseh|Esseh]] 21:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

==Major article about women being deleted==
Someone is deleting a major article about Iranian women [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iranian women]]. Please have expert editors in this issue address this problem. Such articles are very important. Thanks.--[[User:Zereshk|Zereshk]] 20:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
:Hmm, this post may have been canvassing Zereshk. You know better than that. Anyway, I do hope people will look objectively and address the concerns on the AFD. I'm also interested in how the issue is "major" and "very important," so please show up and address the matter there. How important can a topic lacking a definition be? [[User:The Behnam|The Behnam]] 22:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


::I dont appreciate your sly [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AZereshk&diff=141950090&oldid=141836242 undertone] one bit. Surely you agree that calling for other editors that are ''actual'' experts on women's issues is encouraged by WP, as per for example [[WP:EA]]. You dont have any type of expertise on issues of Iranian women, and yet you put it up for deletion despite similar articles like [[Women in India]], [[Arab women]], [[women in Japan]], etc.--[[User:Zereshk|Zereshk]] 06:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Again, [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]]. Maybe I'll get to those eventually. It doesn't really matter now. The aspect of this post that makes it canvassing rather than simple notification is your description of the article as "very important" and "major." This kind of pleading favors the article - it is not 'notification', which would be a neutral message instead. [[User:The Behnam|The Behnam]] 06:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
::::So youre saying that [[Iranian women]] is ''not'' a major and important article? I strogly disagree. And rest assured that votes dont determine the fate of that article anyway. Debate does. And the more debate, the better. And my above post was meant to call in exactly just that: DEBATE. Surely that's what you want as well. Am I correct?--[[User:Zereshk|Zereshk]] 06:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::Yes, I prefer debate; that is why I (in essence) encouraged it in my first response to your canvassing on this page. But the point is that I don't appreciate the canvassing, and I know that you know that you shouldn't canvass. [[User:The Behnam|The Behnam]] 06:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::Do you know of a better talk page to ask for experts on this particular subject? Please share. I'll post my request there.--[[User:Zereshk|Zereshk]] 06:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I can look around, but you seem to be missing the point. I'm not so concerned that you asked for input but that you didn't do so in a neutral fashion. See the table at [[WP:CANVASS#Types of canvassing]] - your message was unacceptable because the "Message" was "Biased", constituting "Campaigning". [[User:The Behnam|The Behnam]] 06:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Youre misinterpreting [[WP:Canvassing]]. You cant have any debate if there are no experts called to attention to give their opinions on the deletion and ways to improve the article. The very same [[WP:Canvassing]] says: ''"a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not...Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article."'' And considering that I have not even posted one user -- not even one--, your accusation doesnt hold. One post on a general talk page where dozens of expert editors are bound to drop by is not "canvassing".--[[User:Zereshk|Zereshk]] 07:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::Your response doesn't address my statement regarding [[WP:CANVASS]] at all. Yours address "Scale" and "Audience", two parts which you did not violate and I have never claimed that you violated. But you didn't address "Biased", despite the fact that it was the very part I called you on. Again, it wasn't so much about posting here as about the way you presented the issue, and I've already explained why your presentation was biased in favor of 'keep'. I don't think I should have to keep repeating myself. [[User:The Behnam|The Behnam]] 07:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If the debate about canvassing is over the very first entry in this "Major article about women being deleted" section, then I don't see Zereshk's notifying people here as being excessive or propaganda. Certainly anyone motivated enough to ask for experts' opinions would think of the article in question as being important and of major concern. Zereshk did not plead a case here for why it is important, thus remaining as neutral as possible while bringing attention to the debate. [[User:CWPappas|CWPappas]] 06:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

==Images are Euro/White/West centric==
85% of women in the world are women of color in developing countries, yet they're represented in only 2 of 7 images in the article. A bit of math should convince anyone that the women of China, Africa, India, South-East Asia and indigenous women worldwide comprise the overwhelming majority of female humans. [[User:Commutator|Commutator]] 08:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

== Social leaders ==

I do not like the phrasing of the "social leaders" section. It is essentially a list, and a list that seems very short. I think it gives the impression that women who are social leaders are exceptional. There are lots of people we could add, however, I do not think we should be filling the article with lists. Perhaps the list could be replaced by a prose section, which includes some important examples. Comments? [[User:Thehalfone|Thehalfone]] 18:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)



== Political Stuff...Perhaps This Needs To Be Fixed? ==

On a small part of the article with a picture of Michelle Bachelet, the caption simply reads "President of [[Chile]]." Shouldn't that read 'current' president of Chile? "President of Chile" is like saying she's the first and only one there's ever been. [[User:81.145.241.123|81.145.241.123]] 13:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

== Proposed WikiProject ==

A WikiProject for pregnancy and [[childbirth]] related articles has been proposed. For more information and to express interest, please visit [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Pregnancy_and_childbirth]]. Thanks! --[[User:Ginkgo100|Ginkgo100]]<sup>[[User talk:Ginkgo100|''talk'']]</sup> 23:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

==Great table of current Women heads of state==
Who is savvy enough with wikipedia tables to copy the table of current "[[Heads of State]]" and "[[Heads of Government]]" which currently appears in the French "[[Woman]]" article at:

*fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/femme/#Femmes et politique ? [[User:Dogru144|Dogru144]] 22:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
:It's just a template which is available [http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod%C3%A8le:PolitiqueFemmes_pr%C3%A9sidentes_ou_chefs_de_gouvernement here] [[User:Ciotog|Ciotog]] 02:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

== Does the painting give the wrong idea? ==

The painting of a nude woman that is currently on the site representing a woman is inaccurate due to the painting's subject's complete lack of genitals. I don't think it's nitpicking to think a more accurate representation is called for. [[User:Losteem|Losteem]] 00:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


== about the list of Monarchial leaders ==

I have switched the entry of Empress Wu Zetian in "Political, monarchial and social leaders" -> "Monarchial" women from "In the modern era:" to the "In ancient history:" category because Theodora is also listed under Ancient.

[[User:Nsae Comp|Nsae Comp]] 18:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

== What about Suffrage? ==

It would be nice for there to be a section on suffrage for women in this article, it being a rather significant event. There is a link to it at the bottom of the page, but little else mentioning it. [[User:72.1.217.146|72.1.217.146]] 04:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

== Women are not men ==
Seems obvious, but apparently it's [http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-11/nu-wam111907.php news]![[User:LeadSongDog|LeadSongDog]] ([[User talk:LeadSongDog|talk]]) 17:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

==No point in a list of female leaders==
Is there any point in a long list of all the female leaders there have ever been? it just takes up a long amount of article space and is just as pointless as a long list of all the male leaders there have been. Lists of politicians belong on political articles not articles on gender. [[Special:Contributions/212.139.85.56|212.139.85.56]] ([[User talk:212.139.85.56|talk]]) 04:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

:It does seem a bit arbitrary. We ''do'' have [[:Category:Lists of women]], but that category doesn't seem to have a main article that would serve as a perfect "See also" link in place of the current list here. [[User:Someguy1221|Someguy1221]] ([[User talk:Someguy1221|talk]]) 04:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

::I do think a ''See Also'' link would serve better than a long written out list on the article. [[Special:Contributions/212.139.85.56|212.139.85.56]] ([[User talk:212.139.85.56|talk]]) 04:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
::The list on this page is a good corrective to the idea women have no role in public life and that their importance is only or mainly just in the domestic sphere. Women are not merely the reproducing fraction of humanity.[[User:Dogru144|Dogru144]] ([[User talk:Dogru144|talk]]) 16:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

:::I remind you this is not a forum of discussion on ''women's issues'' but a place to discuss the content of this article. Your edit contravened consensus and has been reverted. [[User:Signsolid|Signsolid]] ([[User talk:Signsolid|talk]]) 23:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

::::I agree with the current consensus. If anyone wants to re-add pertinent information relating to female leaders, they should write it in prose. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] ([[User talk:Wrad|talk]]) 00:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

==Girl as used to describe adult women==

The article said that there was no male analogue of this sense of the word girl in [[American English]]; however this is certainly not true: ''guy'' is the male parallel to ''girl'' in this sense of youthful adult.[http://www.answers.com/guy&r=67] Accordingly, I removed that phrase. [[User:JudahH|JudahH]] ([[User talk:JudahH|talk]]) 15:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
==For the lead Image. How about a morph==

You know where several different images are averaged together. Why not do that and create an image of a sort of world wide woman?--[[User:Hfarmer|Hfarmer]] ([[User talk:Hfarmer|talk]]) 01:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Something made up would not be more true.
--[[User:Flyingember|Flyingember]] ([[User talk:Flyingember|talk]]) 03:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
*Original research! [[User:Funkynusayri|Funkynusayri]] ([[User talk:Funkynusayri|talk]]) 03:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

== First sentence ==

The first sentence of the article (A woman is a female human), with a link to [[female]], takes party against theses of social construction of gender, as shown below in the article. It should be fixed. 08:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

==Irrelevant fact about women==
[[Puffy Amiyumi]] isn't a woman. It's ''two'' women. [[Special:Contributions/204.52.215.107|204.52.215.107]] ([[User talk:204.52.215.107|talk]]) 19:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:03, 12 April 2024

Why was it edited from "adult human female" to "adult female human"?

Adult human female is better ShobanChiddarth (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No such change has occurred that I'm aware of. Possibly a Berenstein effect? The sources cited (and various others) tend to use use female as an adjective modifying human or person. "Adult human female" is more common as a TERF/GC slogan. See also wikt:female § Usage notes. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 13:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, even if the other version wasn't in use as a dog whistle the current version is more grammatically correct and there is no reason to prefer the Ferengi version. DanielRigal (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page edit request

Please let me remove a image from this article Mybirthday647 (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mybirthday647, can you please tell us which image you would like removed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ada Lovelace should be added to the science section of the article

How is possible that Ada Lovelace is not mentioned in the science section of this article?

Ada Lovelace was the creator one of the first algorithms for modern computers, she had the intention to develop software for multipurpose tasks, not just the first woman, but one of the first humans if not the first in doing that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace#First_published_computer_program

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Note_G

Thanks.--Zchemic (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The section Women § Science, literature and art is meant to be a summary of the articles Women in science, Women in literature, and Women in art. To avoid becoming overly long and cluttered (it already contains 6 paras and 2 images), it cannot hope to include every notable woman in these fields, regardless of her contributions. The Countess of Lovelace is mentioned in Women in science § Early nineteenth century and her portrait appears in an imagebox alongside Curie later in that article.
It is for the best that the text of this summary section mostly avoids mentioning women by name, as this begets lots of why does X get included, and not Y, which eventually expands into a WP:BLUESEA of links. For a particularly egregious example of the useless and unreadable text this kind of editing produces, see old revisions of the article Gay icon. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 17:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On "wermann"

The page in its current form mentions without sources the supposed existence of the Old English word wermann. This word is, unless I'm gravely mistaken, completely unattested (try finding it on Wiktionary, for example) and possibly fabricated. Unless a good source can be found for the existence of wermann as an OE word (and a cursory internet search reveals only discussions pondering where on earth it supposedly came from), its mention ought to be removed. AutisticCatnip (talk) 04:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be correct. For those interested, here are some such discussions [1][2][3]. I've gone and made an edit (Special:Diff/1216741813) which replaces the specious wermann with wer (apparently the most common OE word for male/man) and wǣpnedmann, which is attested occasionally as the analogue to wifmann. I hope this looks acceptable.
I think the Dictionary.com link is rotten, as it no longer contains the information we're citing it for. If anyone has access to the OED or another source which verifies this etymology, please verify this text if possible. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 18:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this page use extended confirmed protection even though Man uses semi-protection only?

... Usersnipedname (talk) 08:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GENSEX enforcement vs. generic vandalism. Dronebogus (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also because trolls and bigots perseverate more on people assigned male at birth who are either gay/bi/pan or trans. Transwomen are targeted more than transmen and thus this article gets more trolls. Here's an article: [4] EvergreenFir (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Woman&diff=1218585531&oldid=196348075

Leave a Reply