Content deleted Content added
m Signing comment by 86.8.2.0 - "→info please: new section" |
EvergreenFir (talk | contribs) →Why does this page use extended confirmed protection even though Man uses semi-protection only?: Reply 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__ |
|||
A gallery of potential lead images is available [[Talk:Woman/sandbox|here]]. Please add new images there rather than on this talk page, although the image discussion is welcome here. |
|||
== Why was it edited from "adult human female" to "adult female human"? == |
|||
''Any image which has not shown support here will be removed.''}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Anthropology|class=B|importance=top}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=B|importance=top}} |
|||
{{WP1.0|coresup=yes|v0.7=pass|class=B|category=Natsci|VA=yes|importance=top}} |
|||
Adult human female is better [[User:ShobanChiddarth|ShobanChiddarth]] ([[User talk:ShobanChiddarth|talk]]) 13:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
{{talkheader}} |
|||
: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) |
|||
{{archive box| |
|||
::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) |
|||
*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]] |
|||
*December 2006- December 2007: |
|||
[[Talk:Woman/Archive 5]]}} |
|||
== Page edit request == |
|||
Please let me remove a image from this article [[User:Mybirthday647|Mybirthday647]] ([[User talk:Mybirthday647|talk]]) 20:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Why so much about veils? == |
|||
This article is not so big, but has lots of info about the history of veils. This feels malplaced. Will someone clean that up, I don't think there needs to be more than a sentence. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/83.249.23.112|83.249.23.112]] ([[User talk:83.249.23.112|talk]]) 15:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:@[[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) |
|||
I went ahead and cleaned that up. I agree, it feels awkward, too long for such a small aspect of the entire article, and we have an entire separate article on gender roles if anyone wants to delve into greater detail on specific aspects of how specific cultures define femininity. I also cleaned up a lot of that section, much of it doesn't have an encyclopedic tone, was redundant, there's been a "citations needed" banner on it for 2 years, and the little that has been cited seems to be pulling info out of an opinion piece and presenting it as fact. Perspectives on the history of women in labor are as numerous as the snowflakes in the Yukon, I think it best if we stick to the basics and use this as a portal to more detailed articles on feminism, gender roles, female studies, etc. [[User:CaptainManacles|CaptainManacles]] ([[User talk:CaptainManacles|talk]]) 08:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== |
== 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? |
|||
I think it was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenny_Shipley jenny shipley]? |
|||
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. |
|||
: you are correct [[User:Purdonkurt|Purdonkurt]] 07:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace#First_published_computer_program |
|||
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) |
|||
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Note_G |
|||
==National leaders and other very high status positions== |
|||
Thanks.--[[User:Zchemic|Zchemic]] ([[User talk:Zchemic|talk]]) 16:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
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) |
|||
: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. |
|||
::::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) |
|||
: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) |
|||
== On "wermann" == |
|||
:::::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) |
|||
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) |
|||
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) |
|||
: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. |
|||
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--> |
|||
: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? == |
|||
:It is a corrective to place a section on women aside from traditional (pre-20th Century) roles. The bulk of the article's images concerning work deal with women in traditional roles --weaver, food preparer. This is slanted. The alleged consensus is based on a small tally. I contest the consensus presumption. Secondly, as to the image of who is in the photos, I would be content with a rotating selection of premiers. In fact, before the list was struck down, there were a number on non-Americans and non-whites: Benazir Bhutto for one. [[User:Dogru144|Dogru144]] ([[User talk:Dogru144|talk]]) 00:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
... [[User:Usersnipedname|Usersnipedname]] ([[User talk:Usersnipedname|talk]]) 08:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== No point in a list of female leaders == |
|||
:GENSEX enforcement vs. generic vandalism. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 12:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
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) |
|||
: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) |
|||
: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) |
|||
:::::See (the above section) comments about presentation of women leaders. If we have weavers and food preparers, we ought to have political representatives for balance. [[User:Dogru144|Dogru144]] ([[User talk:Dogru144|talk]]) 00:36, 1 April 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) |
|||
i thought is was boy..... [[User:Cilstr|Cilstr]] ([[User talk:Cilstr|talk]]) 18:26, 21 June 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) |
|||
Dude wikipedia should be censored!!!!!! not nice to kiddies |
|||
== 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) |
|||
== Not necessarily irrelevant fact about women == |
|||
[[Hillary Clinton]] is a woman. This is playing a role in the dynamics of the [[2008 United States presidential election]]. [[Special:Contributions/204.52.215.107|204.52.215.107]] ([[User talk:204.52.215.107|talk]]) 19:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:[[common sense]] is useful, my friend. [[User:Earthere|Earthere]] ([[User talk:Earthere|talk]]) 20:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Archive 5 created == |
|||
FYI I created [[Talk:Woman/Archive 5|Archive 5]]. Also another change that I forgot to mention in my edit summary was a request to add new images to the [[Talk:Woman/sandbox|sandbox]] page rather than here, in the section at the top. [[User:Ciotog|Ciotog]] ([[User talk:Ciotog|talk]]) 16:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Pictures always from one perspective== |
|||
I think we ought to have a picture of a woman as seen from all four angles. Even mobile phone articles show back and front and I think we will all agree that women are more complex than mobile phones...--[[User:Cameron|Cameron]] ([[User Talk:Cameron|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Cameron|c]]) 17:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:There's nude pictures at [[Man]], but none at this article? Why? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Female wikipedians must be shier than males = ) --[[User:Cameron|Cameron]] ([[User Talk:Cameron|t]]|[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Commonwealth realms|p]]|[[Special:Contributions/Cameron|c]]) 16:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Hopefully, the possible 'double standard' here, will be fixed. Sexism on these articles can't be tolerated. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Let's fix it! [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] ([[User talk:Wrad|talk]]) 16:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:yes, it is rather wierd. But where to get the pic from. I really am an image noob...Besides, as mentioned..it is rather hard to get hold of a picture from more than one perspective.--[[User:Cameron|Cameron]] ([[User Talk:Cameron|t]]|[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Commonwealth realms|p]]|[[Special:Contributions/Cameron|c]]) 14:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I really don't like the main picture of this article because it's in black and white and only shows the torso and above. I find it very sexist that the man page has a statue of a naked man and there is no uproar about it unlike here. Women need to be proud that they are blessed with not only female minds and motherly intuition but are given glorious bodies that can have babies and breast feed them and give them motherly love after they are born. The fact that women's beautiful and nurturing bodies are actually what make them women should not be a shameful concept nor censored here.[[Special:Contributions/64.158.143.6|64.158.143.6]] ([[User talk:64.158.143.6|talk]]) 21:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I think a picture of a nude, grown up woman that isn't blatantly erotic should be used. People who complain should just deal with it. All encyclopedias have nude humans of both sexes in them. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] ([[User talk:Wrad|talk]]) 22:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Childrens biology books contain nude pics also. But i really would like one from all four perspectives (at the very least two). I posted the same comment on the man page.--[[User:Cameron|Cameron]] ([[User Talk:Cameron|t]]|[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Commonwealth realms|p]]|[[Special:Contributions/Cameron|c]]) 16:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::A selection of pictures being considered is '''[[Talk:Woman/sandbox|here]]'''. I think row 2 number 4 is the best by far.--[[User:Knulclunk|Knulclunk]] ([[User talk:Knulclunk|talk]]) 00:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::: If we want to be consistent with [[Man]], I'd vote for the [[:Image:William-Adolphe_Bouguereau_%281825-1905%29_-_The_Birth_of_Venus_%281879%29.jpg|Birth of Venus]] for the lead, then including the studio nude elsewhere in the article. <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<font color="#D47C14">itsJamie</font>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 15:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::A++ for your taste in classical art, but I have to disagree. Birth of Venus is too busy, with way too many figures milling about the central figure. It doesn't balance the photo of the David well, as David is presented alone, commanding the viewer's attention. I would vote for Bouguereau's [[:Image:William-Adolphe_Bouguereau_%281825-1905%29_-_After_the_Bath_%281875%29.jpg|After the Bath]] instead, not because it's a superior artwork (it isn't), but it displays a single woman, essentially nude, and especially because she is presented in a matter-of-fact, uneroticized, and dispassionate manner. In the tricky waters of picking a nude picture for an encyclopedia, these would be the highest priorities I would choose. What do you think, sirs? [[User:Kasreyn|Kasreyn]] ([[User talk:Kasreyn|talk]]) 08:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::For now I agree with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Women_montage%2C_black_borders%2C_darker_Frau_background.jpg this] that User:Knulclunk said.--[[User:Taranet|Taranet]] ([[User talk:Taranet|talk]]) 15:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I agree re: the need for suitable (not overtly erotic) frontal nudes (I would say one work of classical art and one modern photograph would be sufficient), but more is needed. Look at the article on [[man]] - most of the photographs of modern men are of men in positions of power: President Putin of Russia, Pope Benedict XVI. And in this article we have basket-weavers, etc. While it's true that in many places around the world today women still have no more options than they ever did, in some countries at least they have the ability to rise to positions of power, or to pursue highly demanding careers that were once open only to men. Ie., we should indicate both the traditional roles of many women around the world, as well as the changed roles that have arisen in more recent times. What is more annoying, this article once had such photos before a deletionist happened along. To balance the photos of figures of power and self-determination in the article on [[man]], photos of female professionals and politicians would be appropriate here. Perhaps Hillary Clinton would be too topical to do well in such a general article, but Margaret Thatcher could work well, or perhaps Indira Gandhi. And my vote for photo of a professional woman goes to one whose picture was once in this article, [[Mae Jemison|Dr. Mae Jemison]], who is an M.D. as well as an astronaut, both highly demanding professions. Are there any objections to the inclusion of these suggestions? [[User:Kasreyn|Kasreyn]] ([[User talk:Kasreyn|talk]]) 08:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Hmmm. The vast majority of males are ''not'' in positions of power. Wouldn't it make sense to limit such pictures to, say, one per article? [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] ([[User talk:Wrad|talk]]) 15:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Kill the lists == |
|||
A list of famous women is much less effective than a prose explanation of ''why'' they are famous and ''what'' they did to change things for women in the world. As it is, the list communicates almost nothing about the subject that can't be said by merely typing "There are lots of famous women in history who have held lots of important positions." I really come off wanting to know more. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] ([[User talk:Wrad|talk]]) 00:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I have removed the massively space consuming pointless lists. Was about as useful as putting a massive list on a country's page stating every single leader, politician, inventor, sports person, war hero, legendary figures, etc... that just puts people off reading the article because of huge chunk of the article required to write such lists and get on for being longer than the article itself. If people want to see specialised subjects they can go to the see also section or the numerous links throughout the article leading to relevent subjects. [[User:Signsolid|Signsolid]] ([[User talk:Signsolid|talk]]) 17:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Image needed badly == |
|||
Yes, I'm aware of [[Talk:Woman/sandbox]], but discussion is basically non-existent. We should get some image up in the lead, even if it's temporary until a clearer consensus develops. For now, we have an article on [[Woman]] where the only images of actual women are a profile shot of a basketweaver and a small, grainy group image from 1910. That's just blatantly inadequate. [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] <sup><small><small>[[User talk:LtPowers|T]]</small></small></sup> 12:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Well, I've said what I'm in favor of. I wouldn't object to having it put up. With so little discussion, two or three supports makes a consensus. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] ([[User talk:Wrad|talk]]) 20:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Aren't you the one who reverted someone else's addition on the grounds that it hadn't been discussed enough? [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] <sup><small><small>[[User talk:LtPowers|T]]</small></small></sup> 22:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== human -> human being == |
|||
I have not changed the text predisposed by religion. If you can propose an improvement, the way is yours. "Human" is not a word in common use; it is scientific or particular to the style of science fiction, neither of which befits a general encyclopedia. --[[User:VKokielov|VKokielov]] ([[User talk:VKokielov|talk]]) 17:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Why is it that you put a naked women image as your big picture?? ---- Dark_wizzie |
|||
==New images== |
|||
I think this article is low on pictures. im adding some from wikimedia commons.[[User:EryZ|EryZ]] ([[User talk:EryZ|talk]]) 02:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== info please == |
|||
is it true women have a narrow band of characters/traits as opposed to wide variations in men? I will avoid mentioning evil, trouble, avoid at all cost etc..ha..Also studying Anthropology they tried to say it was cultural that women were perceived as closer to nature than men, more animal and biological..and that there were more male scientist, philosophers, artists etc..because of cultural barriers..but is this really the case? Or is it that women are inherently biologically less 'developed' than men? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.8.2.0|86.8.2.0]] ([[User talk:86.8.2.0|talk]]) 02:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
Latest revision as of 16:03, 12 April 2024
 | This  level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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)
- 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)
- 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)
Page edit request
Please let me remove a image from this article Mybirthday647 (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Mybirthday647, can you please tell us which image you would like removed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
Why does this page use extended confirmed protection even though Man uses semi-protection only?
... Usersnipedname (talk) 08:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- GENSEX enforcement vs. generic vandalism. Dronebogus (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2024 (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: [4] EvergreenFir (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)