Anthropology B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Sociology B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

Archives

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

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.23.112 (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. CaptainManacles (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was jenny shipley?

you are correct Purdonkurt 07:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.Trumpy 09:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)Dogru144 02:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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? Rintrah 22:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.Dogru144 00:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows how to put a caption under these photos, without making them giant?Dogru144 00:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[[Image:name of image|thumb|220px|here is a caption]]

Replace 220px with the width in pixels you want. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Homunq 19:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.Dogru144 00:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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). -- Siobhan Hansa 01:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. CWPappas 07:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. unsigned comment added by Pugetkid 04:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Dogru144 (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. 212.139.85.56 (talk) 04:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do think a See Also link would serve better than a long written out list on the article. 212.139.85.56 (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.Dogru144 (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Signsolid (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Dogru144 (talk) 00:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.[1] Accordingly, I removed that phrase. JudahH (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i thought is was boy..... Cilstr (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think it's a good idea. EryZ (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Something made up would not be more true. --Flyingember (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Original research! Funkynusayri (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude wikipedia should be censored!!!!!! not nice to kiddies

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)

Puffy Amiyumi isn't a woman. It's two women. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Clinton is a woman. This is playing a role in the dynamics of the 2008 United States presidential election. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

common sense is useful, my friend. Earthere (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I created Archive 5. Also another change that I forgot to mention in my edit summary was a request to add new images to the sandbox page rather than here, in the section at the top. Ciotog (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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...--Cameron (t/c) 17:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nude pictures at Man, but none at this article? Why? GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Female wikipedians must be shier than males = ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 16:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, the possible 'double standard' here, will be fixed. Sexism on these articles can't be tolerated. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's fix it! Wrad (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.--Cameron (t|p|c) 14:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.64.158.143.6 (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Wrad (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.--Cameron (t|p|c) 16:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A selection of pictures being considered is here. I think row 2 number 4 is the best by far.--Knulclunk (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we want to be consistent with Man, I'd vote for the Birth of Venus for the lead, then including the studio nude elsewhere in the article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 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? Kasreyn (talk) 08:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For now I agree with this that User:Knulclunk said.--Taranet (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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, 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? Kasreyn (talk) 08:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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? Wrad (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Wrad (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Signsolid (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Powers ^T 12:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Wrad (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you the one who reverted someone else's addition on the grounds that it hadn't been discussed enough? Powers ^T 22:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. --VKokielov (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that you put a naked women image as your big picture?? ---- Dark_wizzie

is it true all women have essentially the same character trarits as opposed to wide variations in men? I will refrain from talking about manipulation, evil, trouble, avoid at all costs etc etc..hee hee :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.2.0 (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is low on pictures. im adding some from wikimedia commons.EryZ (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]