Talk:Woman/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Woman. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Analysis of Culture and Gender Roles

In many prehistoric cultures, women assumed a particular cultural role.

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.

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.

It sounds correct but needs a citation

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. Thehalfone 22:41, 21 January 2007 (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.--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. 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. 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"? 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.

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. 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. Thehalfone 22:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Photo

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

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

fertilization forms a new individual edit

User:2nd Piston Honda made 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)? -- 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. 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. -- 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). --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. -- Siobhan Hansa

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 Dogru144 18:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

please add io:muliero

Thanks.

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. --Margrave1206 05:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Right, because three naked pictures in one article is pornographic, and when dealing with anatomical features there are no examples of even more than three pictures of naked bodies, nothing at all, 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? --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. 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. 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. --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?!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 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.

--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:

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.

I think it wouldn't be too difficult to mock up.

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.

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. --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 OR and 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). -- 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? -- 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. 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. 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. --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. 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. 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. -- 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 caliphs or sultans. 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. 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. 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. 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. --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. --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??? 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? --Puellanivis 07:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

What happened to a real nude woman?

There was a 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 Domai or METART....DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT Renegadeviking

Well, that image has a bunch of content on it beyond the picture of the female. --Puellanivis 17:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

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/... Cilstr 06:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.170.51.2 (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The Venus

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. LordFenix 02:23, 16 February 2007 (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. Dogru144 03:02, 22 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 . 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. 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. 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. --popefauvexxiii 04:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Natural woman

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. --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 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. --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. 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 disturbing in the first place. As a compromise, I suggest cutting Image:Human.svg into two separate pictures. 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. --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 and 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 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? --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? 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...--Homunq 18:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

How about another straw poll? This time, with plenty of options, and some rules.

This is a straw poll to determine what kind of illustration to use as the lead illustration of this article, at the level of the article header. Illustrations in the subsections are not affected by this poll.

Options: (Vote for/against in as many as you must, but as few as you can. Keep your arguments very brief - preferably one short sentence, referencing the common arguments below. Edit or add to the arguments below if, and only if, your view is not represented there at all. NO counterarguments here please.)

Please understand that anyone who votes an "objection" here (ideally) has a serious issue, not merely a personal opposition. On the other hand, please try to take this issue as much on-its-own-merits as possible, not making any connections to external issues that you do not see as absolutely fundamental here.

Finally, this is an attempt to find consensus, not a vote. Any one of the options below could be considered untenable on the basis of a few firm, well-reasoned objections, even if it has broad support. (Say "weakly object" if you don't want this to happen.) Conversely, an option with only tepid support may "win" just because it lacks firm, well-reasoned objections.

The options on this poll, in no particular order, are: Nude Photo, Montage, Nude art, Nude line drawing, No lead illustration, and Other. For some possible, non-definitive examples of the first four options, see here.

Objections directly to the poll

Object to this whole poll. Your "options" are not specific. It's like asking "Should we have a coal power plant, or an oil power plant?" There's not enough specificity to make any meaningful objections or affirmations about anything. You could easily have a dirty coal plant than an oil plant, or even vice versa. I would possibly agree to virtually any of these choices rather than what is already there... but I need a specific criteria to judge it against. Blanketly saying "I want a nude photo" is... what? It's entirely useless! WHICH nude photo do you want to replace it with? --Puellanivis 20:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Nude photo
- Support (no more than short one-sentence reasons please):

support--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 19:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Support Dionyseus 19:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Support - It's our birthday suit. Wear it with pride. Gillyweed 21:32, 28
Strongly Support - per reason 5: nudity is not pornographic. I support reversion to Image:Frau-2.jpg. --popefauvexxiii 22:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

- Object (brief reason please - see arguments below for common arguments):

weakly object, for reason 5 --Homunq 17:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Montage, including nudes and non-nudes
- Support (no more than short one-sentence reasons please):

--Homunq 17:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

- Object (brief reason please - see arguments below for common arguments):

object because some of the images in the montage are too culturally point of view, and the montage is a very poor lead-in image --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 19:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Object per reason 3; also, this is the english wikipedia, the vast majority of native english speakers are caucasian, i have no problem with solitary caucasian representations in this context --popefauvexxiii 20:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Nude Art
- Support (no more than short one-sentence reasons please):

support--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 19:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

- Object (brief reason please - see arguments below for common arguments):

weakly object, for reason 5 --Homunq 17:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Object, its midsection is completely covered, it is not informative enough. -- Dionyseus 20:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Object, for reasons cited in Natural woman section of this page --popefauvexxiii 07:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Nude Line drawing
- Support (no more than short one-sentence reasons please):

Support - its accurate and not grotesque, like venus. (Image:Human.svg) --popefauvexxiii 11:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

- Object (brief reason please - see arguments below for common arguments):

Object - looks like we are offended by our natural condition Gillyweed

21:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No lead illustration
- Support (no more than short one-sentence reasons please):

Support only until consensus is reached --popefauvexxiii 07:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

- Object (brief reason please - see arguments below for common arguments):

Other
- Propose a substantially different solution (Be brief. The goal is to reach consensus, not to show creativity.):

Common arguments, with consensus explanation and counterargument for each common argument above (no more than one paragraph each, edit in place rather than responding, only edit those you agree with. ):

1. It is pornographic.

Pro: "We do not want to have this page turned into a pronographic center for men to get their jollies"
Contra: "Wikipedia is not censored" is a core policy.

2. It is too culturally/racially specific.

Pro: The picture does not represent the natural state of women, as such it could be exclusionary of other cultures.
Contra: Anything would be.

3. It is ugly.

Pro: The picture looks entirely unprofessional, and inappropriate for a serious argument about this topic.
Contra: That's your opinion.

4. It is not informative enough.

Pro: This image alone does not give any reasonable information as to the anatomy or anything about the female form.
Pro: The Venus de Milo is covered, and does not show the genital region of the female.
Contra: The article has several illustrations, we're only talking about the lead one, and trying to reach consensus means compromising.
Contra: There is a wide range of genitalia in females, and presenting a specific single one as the archetypal generic representation of a female is not necessarily appropriate.

5. It demeans women.

Pro: It helps to imply that women's bodies are all that matter. This implication is a widespread pattern, and no one image can ever be blamed, yet the very definition of "woman" is an appropriate place to insist on a higher standard.
Contra: Censorship demeans women too.

6. Not enough information

Pro: There's not enough specificity to make any meaningful objections or affirmations about anything.
Contra: A large fraction of the arguments on this matter have been general, not specific. If we're going to get a consensus, we have to start somewhere. If that consensus is to last as new images/versions appear, it should be based on general arguments. It is fine to state conditional objections: "I would object to any image that....".
- Right, so they would object to any pronographic representations of a female. Yet the Venus de Milo is semi-nude, yet not pornographic. All arguments should be in regards to specific material. --Puellanivis 00:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

There's absolutely no reason for a poll. It has been amply demonstrated that there is no concensus to have "Frau" in the article. - Nunh-huh 18:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It has been amply demonstrated that there is not yet a consensus for any solution to this problem. This poll is intended as a way to reach consensus, since endlessly arguing back and forth and edit-warring seems not to work. I believe that a poll in this form is different enough from any movement towards solution tried so far, as to be worth trying. Please, either participate, or propose another way to reach consensus. --Homunq 18:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The only "solution" is for those dissatisfied with the current status of the article's illustrations to find one they like better and see if concensus for its use can be obtained. You need something concrete to discuss, a specific "instance": you can't discuss a picture abstractly. And it's not at all clear that there's a "problem" now: the problem was "Frau". - Nunh-huh 18:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You cannot can arguments just because you don't like them. 1 is a given, but 2 is opposed by wikipedian policies regrading POV, which, while I agree that nothing is completely non-cultural, showing a image with, for example, of a religiously clothed woman is very clearing showing a cultural POV.

also, I'm confused to why exactly we can't make arguments in the support category.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 19:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm also confused as to why I'm not allowed to make an argument in the support category. Dionyseus 19:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess that "canned" (in the non-pejorative sense of "pre-prepared) was unclear on my part. I meant no prejudice, I've changed the wording to "common" arguments.

As to the "no pro arguments" rule, I just think that this has been argued to death already. Arguments in favor are either "I like this" or arguments against the other options. By making people only argue in regards to serious (albeit perhaps weak) objections, we cut down on the amount of hot air. But OK, I'll change the wording to allow one-sentence pro arguments. --Homunq 19:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

sigh* I must agree... these polls are essentially useless, Homonq's filling my watchlist with edits trying to get this talk page looking right, etc... If you're going to start a poll, why not do it on an under page like Talk:Woman/poll_2007_february or something like that, so we don't fill up our watchlists everytime someone wants to express their opinion? --Puellanivis 20:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Kollontai

Kollontai was not a Russian ambassador but a Soviet ambassador to Norway... [Kollontai article] 88.227.59.108 06:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Another Image suggestion

Representation of a female human from the Pioneer 11 plaque

Representation of a male human from the Pioneer 11 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.

--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.--BMF81 05:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

But using the classical sculpture of Venus, complements the use of David in the male article.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 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. No, I'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

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).

--popefauvexxiii 04:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

A nude female human being
[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.--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. --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.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 00:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Honeymane, we should restore the Frau photo. 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. - Nunh-huh 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.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 19:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The Frau image is the one that had most support, there has never been consensus to remove it.--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. - Nunh-huh 17:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Which was? the Venus wasn't a consensus image, it was a neutral third part image--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 19:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

no image had consensus (vast majority), but frau is the one that had most support.--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.--Homunq 21:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Like I stated before, a Montage is a poor lead image. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 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. -- 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. --Homunq 12:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 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. 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". 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! ;) 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.
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! 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. -- 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, 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. -- 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. 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. -- 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.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 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. CWPappas 06:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

*applause* Joie de Vivre ^T 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. -- SiobhanHansa 05:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have uploaded a new image for consideration in the "sandbox": nude1.jpg. Just FYI. 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. 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. No, I'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. 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 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. Esseh 05:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, missed Queen Beatrix. My apologies (and to other Monarchs, as well). 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. Ciotog 21:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This list should be at List of female political leaders, with a see-also here.

--Homunq 17:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds eminently reasonable. 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.--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? The Behnam 22:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont appreciate your sly 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.--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. 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?--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. 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.--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". 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".--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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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! --Ginkgo100^talk 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 ? Dogru144 22:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It's just a template which is available here 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. 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.

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. 72.1.217.146 04:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Women are not men

Seems obvious, but apparently it's news!LeadSongDog (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)