Jump to content

Talk:Woman/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

New section for discussing the composite

Here are all the women currently in the composite as of the timestamp on this signature:

  • Laverne Cox
  • Venus
  • Joan of Arc
  • Eva Perón
  • Marie Curie
  • Indira Gandhi
  • Venus of Willendorf
  • Wangari Maathai
  • Mother Teresa
  • Grace Hopper
  • Mamechiho, a Geisha
  • a Tibetan farmer
  • Marilyn Monroe
  • Oprah Winfrey
  • Aung San Suu Kyi
  • Josephine Baker
  • Isis
  • the Queen of Sheba
  • Elizabeth I
  • a Quechua mother

We have already discussed restoring Sappho to the image at the expense of Venus, with the argument being that she is a notable woman writer and a lesbian, while Venus is fictional. Are there any other changes that should be made at the same time in order to avoid putting the person making the change to the unnecessary trouble of repeated edits?

  • I personally favor organizing the images chronologically.
  • Are there any other image swaps that people would like to propose? Replacing Mother Teresa has been suggested due to her controversial status; is there someone else (eg. another religious figure or figure known for a relationship to religion) that it might be good to include instead?
  • I'm also unfamiliar with the community consensus regarding how we decide which ordinary folks to include; do we consider these ones representative? Is there a case to be made for using a famous Japanese person instead of an ordinary one, for instance, or do we like having some ordinary people?
  • Are there any demographics or careers we consider important and currently unrepresented?

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm fine with restoring Sappho at the expense of an artist's conception of Venus. And if we are looking for replacements for Mother Teresa, I would suggest a religious icon of some aspect of the Virgin Mary. She was the face of women to the Church for centuries, taken to be an exemplar of Divine Wisdom/Sophia, and to philosophers the Eternal Feminine. Fictional, yes, and also any depiction would necessarily be an artist's conception rather than a depiction of an actual person, but she certainly has far more historical importance than Mother Teresa, who dressed to resemble her. - Nunh-huh 05:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd be behind that. @Little Miss Desu:? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd suggest replacing Laverne Cox with Lynn Conway to bring in more STEM representation, although Cox is obviously a more recognizable figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.89.74 (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Works for me! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Heyo, Iiiiiii kind of forgot about this. Can we talk about the issue of representing "famous" vs. "ordinary" people? Is representing "ordinary" people actually a goal of the composite, or is it a byproduct of trying to cover bases of ethnicities and professions? And do we want to include another scientist and/or author. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hatshepsut: sub for Isis, an ahistorical abstraction

Golly. Looks like an inordinate amount of discussion has gone into this already. I'm just going to very gingerly submit that while Ms. Cox is an excellent subject for the montage, it's politically WP:activist to make her, literally, the prime example of womanhood. Ms. Cox's claim to fame is primarily her position as a television star and the highest-profile transgender activist in the world; I'm glad WP "takes her side" against those who would misgender her, but there are other women who have a more meaningful claim to the top spot. I think Ms. Cox's image should kept, but swapped with a) an "everywoman" like the Tibetan (rationale: resembles the "median human female") or b) a personage of less-WP:Recentist significance, such as Ms. Curie or Hatshepsut. FourViolas (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's just a result of a chronologically early image being swapped out for Cox's without the whole thing being rearranged. I'd also prefer having her closer to the bottom, but not so we can have a different photo of a contemporary person up top. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It's great to have a transgender woman included but we could really do with a more well known example than Laverne Cox. In the UK hardly anyone knows her and in less Americanised cultures I'm sure it's even worse. Chelsea Manning makes a lot more sense to me to include. Wikiditm (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a random Wikipedia lurker's opinion, but to me it seems like both sides of the Laverne Cox argument are going against Wikipedia's stance on bias and activism. On one hand, leaving a transgender woman in the composite is blatantly LGBT activism. On the other hand, removing all mention of trans women from the article is blatantly anti-LGBT activism. I propose removing Cox (and replacing with a biological female), but adding a section devoted to trans women on the page. It seems like this solution would give the best coverage while being the least biased. --67.247.78.200 (talk) 06:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Transgender women contrast with cisgender women, not with biological females. Georgia guy (talk) 12:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Aren't they the same thing? By biologically I mean essentially "no Y chromosome" or "born in a female body". I wouldn't call trans women biologically women, as the biological structure of a woman includes a uterus, ovaries, no Y chromosome, etc. Regardless, it's not important to my point. My point is that including a trans woman in the collage is blatantly LGBT activism, and removing all mention of trans women is blatantly anti-LGBT activism. We shouldn't cater to either side, especially not on such a controversial issue like transgenderism. --67.247.78.200 (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
A trans woman has always had her female brain structure, and you brain structure is biologically a very important part of who you are because it's what actually makes you who you are. And as for the "no Y-chromosome" thing, trans women are not the only kind of woman who has a Y-chromosome; there's also androgen insensitivity syndrome women. Georgia guy (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
That still doesn't refute the actual point of my argument, only (what is in your eyes) a misuse of a word. --67.247.78.200 (talk) 02:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Somebody besides 67.247.78.200, please study this discussion and check to see how logical I'm being. For clarification, the subject here is whether transgender women contrast with cisgender women or with biological females. Georgia guy (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
GG you are fine. IP editor is conflating gender and sex and somehow feels including any woman outside of the traditional (and antiquated) Western understanding of the term is "activism". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Including a person that isn't considered a woman in many circles in a collage of women is blatantly activism, it makes a statement. Many people do not consider transgender individuals to actually be the gender they identify with. This isn't to say all mention of trans women should be omitted from the page, but it certainly shouldn't be in the collage of womanhood. It's the equivalent of making a collage of people who practice Islam and putting an ISIS member in there. It turns into Wikipedia taking a stance on a very controversial issue. To deny this being activism you must deny that the issue is controversial, or that putting a trans woman in the collage does not show bias towards either side of the controversial issue. Think about it from the other side of the fence, if you didn't accept transgender individuals as the gender they identify with, how would you feel seeing a trans woman being on a collage showing "womanhood" on a supposedly unbiased wiki? And in line with your beliefs, it's the equivalent of the collage saying "By the way, trans women are not real women and this is an undisputed fact!" Essentially that is the exact opposite of having a trans woman in a collage, which is saying "By the way, trans women are real women and this is an undisputed fact!" The fact that it is heavily disputed urges Wikipedia to not take a stance on the issue, which it is currently doing. --67.247.78.200 (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Please do research on transgenderism and realize that the statement that trans women are not real women is just a myth accepted without proof by ignorant people. Georgia guy (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
How exactly can a cultural belief be a myth? --67.247.78.200 (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
It's just a belief that ignorant people accept without proof. People who understand transgenderism well consider trans women real women. Georgia guy (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
That's an opinion though, and Wikipedia is supposed to be objective. Can you at least acknowledge that your viewpoint is an opinion? --67.247.78.200 (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
What kind of opinion?? The answer is the point of view of people who understand transgenderism well and how it works. Your viewpoint (which is that transgender people are people who arbitrarily fake their gender) is just an idea that ignorant people accept without proof. Georgia guy (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
That's not my opinion though. I believe that we should accept transgender individuals as the gender they identify themselves with. But I certainly don't believe that should be forced upon anyone. So, in other words, you do acknowledge it is an opinion though? --67.247.78.200 (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
This is turning into a discussion of each other's opinions and not about the article itself. Please stop. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Please do what you can to 67.247.78.200 to make sure they can stop. Georgia guy (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Complying with EvergreenFir, starting a new section of discussion. No one has refuted my claim that a trans woman in the collage is Wikipedia taking a stance on a controversial issue. --67.247.78.200 (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The article discusses trans women quite a bit. Adding a trans woman to the image college would be in line with WP:WEIGHT. Whether or not it's "controversial" is not an issue. The collage is in line with WP:LEADIMAGE. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Please semi-protect this talk page

Too many users are showing how much they disagree with the inclusion of a trans woman in the lead image. Please semi-protect this talk page. Georgia guy (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

That's not called for. Even if a serious problem were going on, such as sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, it would be detrimental and un-wiki-ful to forbid new users from commenting. As it is, the discussion is not a sterling example of a reasoned exchange of policy-based arguments, but it's hardly pure WP:Disruption. FourViolas (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
This page needs an admin to watch over the comments here. Just deleted some hate speech. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
We're here, though not quick enough to catch the comment you deleted. The argument itself is a content dispute over whether this article is about concepts or biology. People should feel free to argue either side without feeling the need to denigrate transgender people and/or other editors. Per FourViolas, so far there's insufficient cause to warrant page protection. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I would think it clear that the article is about the social construct given the lead of the article, its content, the sources in the article, and the wording of female. Especially given the existence of articles like sex and gender distinction. Perhaps an FAQ is in order?
On a related note, I hope the change to the collage will assuage some folk re: the transgender issue. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Why

Why put a transgender person among the other women and not, I don't know, a female midget? Or a woman with down syndrome? Is it arbitrary, or is there a reason? --JimmyBroole (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

>muh feelings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.118.64 (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there was a reason. Without a trans woman, the image is too kind to the point of view of ignorant people who think trans women aren't real women. Georgia guy (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Woman refers to the female of the human species. This is determined by XY_sex-determination_system. Trans_woman is an entirely different article and outside the scope of the article Woman. This has nothing to do with trans rights, this has nothing to do with your feelings, this has everything to do with the article being about woman as it relates to XY sex determination of the human species and transwoman is far outside the scope. A redirect + trimming of the article of the topic or consolidation with a link towards Trans_woman would help this article.65.29.77.61 (talk) 10:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
You mean, trans women are just pseudo-women?? Georgia guy (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
They are not FEMALE by the definition of XY_sex-determination_system, which is what the entry Woman refers to. If there was no difference on any level why would you be calling them trans women? You obviously concede that via there is something different about them by your very label for them. Please do not take a snarky attitude when you want to discuss topics either, it's rude and uncalled for. This goes for the person below this entry as well, please do not fall do crappy attacks on a person even when they are wrong. 65.29.77.61 (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
They're not women at all. If you're XY, you're male.
Is there a reason why your definition of woman should be considered more highly than others, or for that matter trascend basic biology in supporting social causes? I'm not expecting you to be familiar with the concept of immorality, nor with aesthetics (poor Venus), but surely a person with your knowledge - confident enough to call others ignorant - would know what a bias is, and why a public encyclopedia should not be used for visibility, as a means for divulging your beliefs. But of course, it takes integrity and thoughtfulness for that knowledge to actually find expression. --JimmyBroole (talk) 08:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
It's the definition used by people who understand transgenderism properly. Georgia guy (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, maybe I wasn't explicit enough: are you able to articulate an actual, sensible argumentation in response to what I wrote above? If you want adult talk, act like an adult. --JimmyBroole (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not acting in any particular way. Just read Wikipedia:Gender identity and it will make more sense to you that trans women are real women. Georgia guy (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
This is getting extremely insulting, both as personal attacks and in terms of discussion about trans people. Please stop and focus on the article. The article discusses trans women a fair amount. Having a trans woman in the image collage is reflects that. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
EvergreenFir, please note that (common to both this discussion and a higher one in this talk page) the one I'm arguing with is the one whose fault it is. Please put some kind of banner on the talk page. Georgia guy (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind notice on my page, EvergreenFir. Would you be kind enough to respond to my second edit? And by the way, what is insulting about all this, exactly? --JimmyBroole (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome for the notice. I try to let all folks know about such discretionary sanctions as a courtesy.
This page is for discussing the article, so I will keep the answer to your question brief. You are insulting a fellow user, say that calling a trans woman a woman transcend[s] basic biology, and mention immorality in apparent reference to trans folks. Further discussion about individuals should be done on user talk pages, not here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
So, being discretionary sanctions active in transgenderism-related pages does not allow for actual discussion, is that correct?
Nevertheless, you have absolutely no basis for calling simple statements "insults", not for what is common biological knowledge, nor for what you call an "apparent reference". And, needless to say, this is not a discussion about individuals. --JimmyBroole (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Discussion is allowed. Disparagement is not. Again, your comments on "basic biology" and "immorality" were uncalled for and insulting. If you meant either of them in a manner different than what I said, please specify so so that I may correct myself. That said, this is not the place to "debate" the womanness of trans women. We have plenty of sources that discuss it and are cited in the article. Personal opinions of editors on the topic are not notable.
Please see WP:PA. Calling other users names or implying lack of intelligence is a personal attack.
Your comments are insulting to me. And I'm sure I'm not alone. Please stop. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Of course, let me just reformulate my original question, hoping to not accidentally insult you this time, and that you will be kind enough to answer: considering the obviously controversial and complex subject that is transgenderism and the sociological and psychological implications and what not that come along with it, and considering the neutral stance that Wikipedia should naturally take on such controversial topics, what was the process for this page to actually decide to go with the nonchalant implication that a transexual woman is a woman, following the addition of Laverne Cox in the picture, right next to Venus? --JimmyBroole (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I fail to see how the 'neutral' stance on transgenderism is that people are the gender they were assigned at birth and nothing else ever, which is a rather fringe stance to take. Wikipedia reflects what respectable, reliable sources say, and those echo the sentiment that a persons gender is more than the innie and/or outie they were born with. Laverne Cox is a woman, and a very notable one whose inclusion in the montage reflects the content of the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

/* Why */ I think the person in the first image is biologically male, according to wikipedias own pages on male/female of the species.31.49.123.45 (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Arguing with anyone about what a "real" woman is will be ultimately fruitless. Suffice it to say that for any purposes on this page someone will be regarded as a woman if reliable sources say they are a woman. WP:ABOUTSELF sources apply. Rhoark (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Woman refers to the female of the human species on a genetic level. Sources do not refer to Cox as a woman in this regard ever. No one will ever try to proclaim that Cox has a genetic structure matching a human female. Trans_Woman exists because the definition and connotation of the word woman has included transgenders as women in a social and legal way(Which full disclosure: I am fine with and accept). This article is for Woman as in human female, which requires specific genetics and biological structures. I think trans women is just outside the scope of the article but worthy of linking towards. There are a myriad of other entries that trans-woman=woman is very acceptable, but this entry I would disagree with it. 65.29.77.61 (talk) 04:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome to that definition ("female at a genetic level") if you like it, but we won't accept it unless you can find enough reliable supporting sources to rebut all those which refer to trans women as a subcategory of women. FourViolas (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Compare this article with female. Also see sex and gender distinction. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I propose we take a vote on the inclusion of Cox in the collage.

Wikipedia decides things by discussion, not majority. For example: what do people think of the idea that Ms. Cox, while a woman according to reliable sources, is not the most important human female in history and ought to trade places with another image? FourViolas (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with discussing a possible replacement image, but if the collage is to give due weight to the article's content, at least one trans woman should be in the collage. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Clarification: I was suggesting Cox swap positions with another image currently in the montage, so that the prime example of womanhood is not a recently-popular celebrity. I agree that it's of encyclopedic value to illustrate many kinds of women, including a trans woman. FourViolas (talk) 05:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I had indeed misunderstood. I can fairly easily and quickly change the order of the collage around if that will make folks happy. Before Cox was added, it was in quasi-historical order, so a rearrangement would make sense. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I think that would at least cut down on the number of people dropping in to argue about the validity of transgender identity. FourViolas (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Regarding what FourViolas stated (the "05:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)" post), including the mention of WP:Due weight, I've wondered why no one has simply moved the Cox image. Editors have repeatedly complained about Cox being the first image in the collage. Flyer22 (talk) 05:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
That's because those editors are people who don't understand that trans women are women. They look at transgenderism the easy way; that is, as people who arbitrarily fake/lie about their gender. Can you correct what I'm saying about what they think?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Not all of the editors who stated, or rather suggested, that Cox shouldn't be first have made it a case of not believing that Cox is a woman; that includes the IP in the #Cox first - really? section above. Flyer22 (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh! I thought you were merely talking about people who think Cox shouldn't be in the image at all because they don't think trans women are women. Georgia guy (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I have rearranged the collage. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
And here is the link for documentation on this talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 05:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, @EvergreenFir:, I didn't realize it was that simple. FourViolas (talk) 07:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Biblical etymology

Doesn't the term woman appear in the first book of the Holy Bible and wouldn't that predate the etymology described here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.148.172 (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The book of Genesis does predate the English word "woman," even though it references women. This is because it was originally written in Ancient Hebrew. FourViolas (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Transexuals

What citations are there to prove that people born with XX chromosomes but identify as female are female? I see none from reputable sources but I do see a fair few CN tags that have yet to be answered despite a significant amount of time passing. The references to transsexuals should be taken out and put into the the page on transsexuals. Cacra (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

People born with XX chromosomes who identify as female are female. People born with XY chromosomes who identify as male are male. Surely this is tautologically true, as no one claims otherwise. - Nunh-huh 04:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Wait, what? XX chromosomes and identifies as female is cisgender... not trans. But what's the problem with including trans women here? There are plenty of sources about trans women being women... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
EvergreenFir, I know that that's the (essentially) unanimous consensus of gender studies, but my quick look for a definitive quote in a respected introductory textbook found nothing on Google Books. Do you happen to know of something that would fit the bill? FourViolas (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Motion for the elimination of the montage of "notable women" from the infobox

Procedural close as requested at WP:AN, with a pointer to the more general RfC on this subject at WT:MOS. Sunrise (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There was already a consensus that articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a gallery of images of group members, because selecting them is normally original research, and often contentious (see the corresponding discussion).

I suggest the removal of collage from the infobox, because of lacking objective criteria; it is original research to determine who should be featured in the gallery. Who is for? Who is against? 64.62.219.165 (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose - It is not original research to show that Indira Gandhi was a woman. No one has ever suggested that she was a man in disguise, and Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. The selections are necessarily arbitrary and there will be disagreement as to who to include. That's what discussion and WP:CONSENSUS are for, and we don't eliminate things because they are contentious (that's why we have so much contention). Leave the box and treat it like any other content: any contested change should stay out until consensus for it is reached here. Onward and upward! ―Mandruss ☎ 17:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
    • You're missing the point. The OR isn't in the (easily documented) fact that these are women (ignoring the issue of whether female deities count as women); it's in the choice of these particular women as somehow being representative. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Removal. The original research, User:Mandruss is who to choose and who to leave out. It's all original research, improper synthesis, and POV in deciding who to put in and who to leave out. And the Queen of Sheba, Venus, and Isis? Really? Three fictitious women without a shred of hard evidence that they were more than legendary/mythological figures. Who decided that? If that doesn't demonstrate how worthless these galleries are... --Taivo (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
    • You confuse original research, synth, and POV with editorial judgment, something we do all the time. If you don't think it should include fictitious women, propose that they be removed and replaced with actual women. If the consensus is to remove them, they will be removed. Removing the box because it contains elements you disagree with is not the correct path. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
This proposal is not to remove the infobox. Perhaps you're confused? It is to remove the gallery because the selection of whom to include is always subject to POV based on OR and SYNTH. This has already been debated with respect to ethnicity/nationality articles and a Wikipedia-wide consensus is already in place to remove the galleries. Applying it to all articles related to groups of humans is simply common sense because the same issues are relevant to all these articles. --Taivo (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I am referring to File:Woman Montage (1).jpg, and I disagree that a consensus on ethnicity/nationality automatically extends to this case. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
The collage breaches WP:NOR, Mandruss. It's SYNTH compiled at 'editor discretion' and flies in the face of where editors should use their discretion. Someone putting together a collage of artists' renditions of 'women' in one medium or another, and head-shots of notable women (fictitious and real) is PPOV and distracts the reader from the article. Per WP:TITLE, the article is not about a gratuitous collection of images. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion, with which I disagree. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Then you wouldn't object if I were to rejig the collage to include Jiang Qing? I dislike the current collage and am willing to create a collage (of equal or better quality) using images of completely different women. Once I've completed it, should we hold an RfC and see whose gallery gets the most !votes... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Why would I object? That would be a legitimate use of standard Wikipedia process. Frankly I think this discussion should be an RfC, this is a large enough question to warrant wider participation, but I'll leave that decision to others. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
You're confusing WP:PPOV as = standard editorial practice. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
This whole issue of galleries in infoboxes has already been the subject of an extensive RfC that was further confirmed by an ANI ruling. There is nothing for you to discuss at an RfC, Mandruss. The only question left is the precise extent of what constitutes a human group. The ruling, which originally concerned only articles about ethnicity has already extended to include all human groups. There really isn't anything further to work through--the issues are very plain and as the applicability of the ruling expands, the consensus hasn't changed, despite a few lone voices trying to fight the consensus. The overall consensus is standing firm that these POV galleries simply don't belong in articles about groups of humans. --Taivo (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Even without the extension of the ruling, such a collage usurping the infoboxes/templates is nonsensical per WP:PERTINENCE. The WP:TITLE and WP:LEAD are not complex concepts in need of concrete examples, and a random selection of images does nothing to enhance the understanding of the subject of the article. I think we can safely assume that the reader is not another species trying to establish what a female homo sapien is, and will not confuse a woman for a ewe or a doe. There is no justification for this form of image clutter, particularly where other editors are using their discretion to tell you that it is an obstruction. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm offended by the politicization of Wikipedia content, which is the real POV. I avoid LGBT areas here for that reason, and I would have stayed out of this had I understood the context. I'm now leaving this discussion with my argument unchanged. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Here's the real problem, Paine, these galleries do absolutely nothing to improve this article. What do they add to this article? Do they illustrate what women look like for the benefit of someone who just arrived from Mars and doesn't know what a woman looks like? That's what images are for in articles--to illustrate what something looks like that a significant number of our readers wouldn't recognize otherwise. Do you honestly think that a significant number of our readers don't know what a woman looks like? And if the point is to show that women exist in all cultures, are you convinced that a significant number of our readers don't know that there are women among the Quechua? Or fictional women among the fictional gods? Seriously? This gallery adds nothing whatsoever to this article other than a gratuitous selection of pictures selected according to someone's POV without any objective selection criteria that illustrate something that everyone already knows. A medical chart illustrating a naked woman to demonstrate why women are not men would be more informative than just a random selection of head shots. --Taivo (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Such a medical chart would not indicate why women are not men, and certainly would not indicate why women are women. However, Taivo is quite right in explaining that these montages serve no purpose. They illustrate nothing to the reader. What they do do, however, is require editors to engage in original research based on their own definition of what a "woman" is, selecting those they think are ideal "specimens" to serve as representative of the category. There is no way to do this in a manner that is neutral, and neutral presentation of facts without original research is indeed the goal of this encylopaedia. If there were only one woman, or if all woman were exactly alike in every respect, only then could an image be placed here to represent "woman" within Wikipedia guidelines and policies. RGloucester — ☎ 06:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
If hypothetical space aliens came to our article in its current state and tried to use the gallery to understand what women look like, they would come to the conclusion that (except for stone figurines) women all lack lower bodies. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. The selection of images in an article has somehow gotten connected with WP:OR, which is a mistake to anyone who has read the lead of that policy. What if I were to add to this article a photo of FDR, or George Washington, you know, just so readers can see the difference between men and women? Nobody would consider that original research, would they? Inappropriate, maybe, but then is it inappropriate because they are men? or inappropriate because other men would be more suitable? You see, any – any – uploading and usage of an image is subject to the image use policy, which is specific about montages and galleries in general. Nowhere in any policy is a montage of this type barred from usage. That is the bottom line for me. No policy nor guideline bars the usage of this montage, which is why this discussion even exists. As for the "real problem", whether or not this montage is an article improvement is a matter of opinion. In my opinion the montage is a definite improvement. This article isn't just about what a woman is – it is about what women have done, do and will do. It is about where they have been, where they are now and where they may be in the future. We cannot possibly illustrate all facets of women in this article; however, "a picture is worth a thousand words" and can say so much more than can be written into the article content. Over time editors have chosen what image files should be in this article, to include the montage. It is wrong to wipe out all that deliberation and consensus, all that tremendous pictorial information, just because a few people are myopic about how it improves this article. No, the montage should stay, should remain in this article in the ibox – not just to show how women appear, but also to show how, in so many ways, women are also different – and not just from men, but also from each other. If a picture is worth a thousand words, that montage is an entire encyclopedic volume. We shouldn't even consider tossing it!  Paine  12:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
You fail to understand what part of the montage creation process violates WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:NPOV: it is the process of choosing whom to illustrate and whom to leave out. There are no valid, objective selection criteria, so the creation of the montage itself is an exercise in OR. And that is the point of the OR argument. The second part of the argument against using this montage you make yourself as you wax poetic about women and what the montage illustrates in your mind about women, "where they have been, where they are now and where they may be in the future". Can a person get any more emotional about a topic than that? This is an encyclopedia, not a paean to womanhood. And you are wrong that "nowhere in policy is a montage of this type barred from usage". That is precisely what the new Wikipedia-wide policy against photo galleries in articles about groups of people does. While the original policy only applied to articles about ethnic groups, the consensus to remove them from all articles about "large groups of people" is growing and will soon be in force. So no matter how much "deliberation and consensus" went into the creation of the "Woman montage" in the past, it will be removed once the new consensus takes affect. The same argument can (and was) made about montages throughout Wikipedia at ethnic group and nationality articles, but was unsuccessful. I get it, you love and respect women. But that's not the issue. --Taivo (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
You take far too many liberties with my words, friend Taivo. I think it is you who fails to understand the concept of what OR actually is. That includes SYNTH and NPOV as well. Read the policies and you will find that they have absolutely nothing to do with how images are chosen or not chosen in articles – absolutely nothing. Neither I nor anybody else has ever seen a reliable source cited to support the choice of any image in any article. The only policy that may be applied here is the Image use policy, and there is nothing in that policy that bars the inclusion of the montage in this article's ibox – nothing. Also, I do not wax poetic, I simply state facts about the contents of this article. While I shall continue to AGF where your faulty and false-prophetic (there is nada on the WT:Image use policy page) agenda is concerned, I cannot help but think that you yourself are far too emotional about this issue, which casts doubt on your ability to be objective.  Paine  16:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
You have apparently missed this binding consensus and the pending consensus to expand it to all large groups of humans here. The only reason that final text has not been added to the policy page is that we are finishing up the discussion on how extensive to make the policy (but it's looking like it will affect all articles dealing with large groups of humans including this page). And your interpretation of OR is not shared by the majority of editors who have participated in both of those discussions, nor is it shared by the majority of editors who are participating in this discussion. --Taivo (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
The first consensus was for ethnic group montages, which I weakly support; however, I see only a weak pending consensus to alter the MOS guideline, and editors should exercise care that they don't change the guideline in a way that goes against the Image use policy. They should also get the policy changed. If there is ever consensus for that, which I doubt, then I would be compelled to be ruled by it. Until then, I fully support the montage in this article and will continue to strongly oppose its removal!  Paine  16:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you didn't notice that the discussion (the second link above) to expand the ethnic group consensus to all large groups of humans is occurring on the Talk Page for the Images policy, so that consensus will, indeed, change the Images policy. And your definition of "weak pending consensus" is certainly strange--currently it's 13-3 in favor of eliminating galleries. That consensus will, indeed, require the elimination of the gallery in this article no matter what the result of this RfC here is. --Taivo (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually that discussion is taking place at WT:Manual of Style/Images#"Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a gallery of images of group members", a "guideline", not a "policy". Oh, and just so we're clear, Wikipedia is not a democracy (that's a policy).  Paine  18:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but 13-4 is a consensus. 5-4 is questionable, but 13-4 is not. And the discussion happening at the Manual of Style for Images will affect the Images policy. --Taivo (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
You could be right, and yet, that discussion is not over no more than this one is. And I suggest that either this discussion or the MOS talk page discussion be officially ended with a procedural close, because we seem to be in violation of WP:MULTI.  Paine  21:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Whatever happens over there will make this discussion, whatever its result, irrelevant since the other decision will supersede this one. --Taivo (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Then we agree that this discussion should be procedurally closed and this thread should be merged with the thread on the guideline talk page?  Paine  22:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Cheers, Paine Ellsworth, for the suggestion, but I don't think merging is either necessary or desirable even if it were collapsed. The main RfC is already lengthy and hasn't come close to running its course, and all that would be accomplished is the duplication of arguments and !votes in light of the fact that the majority of editors who are represented here have already voted and commented at the centralised RfC. The closer of that RfC will have a massive amount to evaluate as it stands.
I have compared the editors represented and the only editors who haven't participated in that RfC are EvergreenFir, Mandruss, and PeterTheFourth, therefore I'm pinging them as a heads up should they wish to voice their opposition there. Would you be amenable to this RfC being closed off as it stands, directing editors to the primary RfC? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy: thank you. I've voiced my opinion (specifically that it too vague). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 09:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
That will do quite well. Thank you very much! Happy New Year! Paine  17:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2016

105.106.133.181 (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The lead section

The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. There are several sections of the article body that aren't at all summarized in the lead section. 123Steller (talk) 08:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Photos

First, the photos in 'Science, literature and art' include Sappho plus two American singers in African American popular music genres. Surely this is not quite balanced - the world is not exactly one third Ancient Greece and two thirds 20th century USA. It would be better to put there someone from a random non-Western country. Not to mention that female participation in 'Science, literature and art' isn't limited to singing and songwriting.

Second, the caption of the nude photo states that 'both models have partially shaved body hair." I fail to see what the point of 'partially' is here, as far as the female is concerned - I don't think it gets much more shaved than that. Such a description would be more appropriate for the male. In fact, I suppose that this difference is more or less representative of the social expectations of the culture and time period reflected in the photos. --Anonymous44 (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Woman

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Woman's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ReferenceB":

  • From Gender: Cagatay, Nilufer. "Trade, Gender and Poverty." pp. 4–8. United Nations.
  • From Women in music: Rosina Ncube. "Sounding Off: Rosina Ncube [:] Why So Few Women in Audio?" in Sound on Sound. September 2013

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The correct reference is used in this article from the Women in music article.  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  05:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Women are not necessarily female because gender is not the same as sex. Cis-gender women are currently more likely to have female anatomies but even then it's not guaranteed. MarleyWha (talk) 10:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Woman/Archive_9&oldid=1073898130"