Talk:Woman/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Why so much about veils?

This article is not so big, but has lots of info about the history of veils. This feels malplaced. Will someone clean that up, I don't think there needs to be more than a sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.23.112 (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and cleaned that up. I agree, it feels awkward, too long for such a small aspect of the entire article, and we have an entire separate article on gender roles if anyone wants to delve into greater detail on specific aspects of how specific cultures define femininity. I also cleaned up a lot of that section, much of it doesn't have an encyclopedic tone, was redundant, there's been a "citations needed" banner on it for 2 years, and the little that has been cited seems to be pulling info out of an opinion piece and presenting it as fact. Perspectives on the history of women in labor are as numerous as the snowflakes in the Yukon, I think it best if we stick to the basics and use this as a portal to more detailed articles on feminism, gender roles, female studies, etc. CaptainManacles (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Helen clack first female prime minister of NZ ?

I think it was jenny shipley?

you are correct Qnif201 07:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Jenny Shipley was the first female PM in New Zealand by overthrowing Jim Bolger, she was never elected as PM. Helen Clark was(and is) the first elected PM in New Zealand, although the list down the page is incorrect in saying it was Shipley.Trumpy 09:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

National leaders and other very high status positions

Taking a cue/ or inspiration from the Polish version of this page http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobieta , I added well-known (women) national leaders and Dr. Condoleezza Rice, and as on their page, a photo of her. (Photo is directly from her English wikipedia bio)Dogru144 02:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't adding a picture of Condoleeza Rice unavoidably add a political element to this article? What would happen if someone also added Che or Bill Clinton to the man article? Rintrah 22:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The photo was not added in a political context; it was added in a civics class manner. If this were 1997 I'd upload Madeline Albright's photo instead. The point is this: in 2007 women are not always, everywhere, bound to traditional roles. This section was added to provide balance to the more traditional, more limiting, roles implied by the photos and discussion in much of the remainder of the article.Dogru144 00:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

As Rice has been replaced by Pelosi and Thatcher was demoted with a "burn burn Thatcher" comment, it is obvious that the political wars have already begun. I'd actually say that the whole last two sections should be moved to another article, meriting about a paragraph here and a much deeper treatment somewhere else. If there's a page for Status of women in Pakistan, why not a page for Modern status of women? Please comment if you can find a better title for such an article, or an existing article that covers this subject matter. --Homunq 19:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

It is a corrective to place a section on women aside from traditional (pre-20th Century) roles. The bulk of the article's images concerning work deal with women in traditional roles --weaver, food preparer. This is slanted. The alleged consensus is based on a small tally. I contest the consensus presumption. Secondly, as to the image of who is in the photos, I would be content with a rotating selection of premiers. In fact, before the list was struck down, there were a number on non-Americans and non-whites: Benazir Bhutto for one. Dogru144 (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No point in a list of female leaders

Is there any point in a long list of all the female leaders there have ever been? it just takes up a long amount of article space and is just as pointless as a long list of all the male leaders there have been. Lists of politicians belong on political articles not articles on gender. 212.139.85.56 (talk) 04:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list on this page is a good corrective to the idea women have no role in public life and that their importance is only or mainly just in the domestic sphere. Women are not merely the reproducing fraction of humanity.Dogru144 (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

See (the above section) comments about presentation of women leaders. If we have weavers and food preparers, we ought to have political representatives for balance. Dogru144 (talk) 00:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Girl as used to describe adult women

The article said that there was no male analogue of this sense of the word girl in American English; however this is certainly not true: guy is the male parallel to girl in this sense of youthful adult.[1] Accordingly, I removed that phrase. JudahH (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

For the lead Image. How about a morph

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

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

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

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

First sentence

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

Irrelevant fact about women

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

Not necessarily irrelevant fact about women

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

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

Archive 5 created

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

Pictures always from one perspective

I think we ought to have a picture of a woman as seen from all four angles. Even mobile phone articles show back and front and I think we will all agree that women are more complex than mobile phones...--Cameron (t/c) 17:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

yes, it is rather wierd. But where to get the pic from. I really am an image noob...Besides, as mentioned..it is rather hard to get hold of a picture from more than one perspective.--Cameron (t|p|c) 14:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't like the main picture of this article because it's in black and white and only shows the torso and above. I find it very sexist that the man page has a statue of a naked man and there is no uproar about it unlike here. Women need to be proud that they are blessed with not only female minds and motherly intuition but are given glorious bodies that can have babies and breast feed them and give them motherly love after they are born. The fact that women's beautiful and nurturing bodies are actually what make them women should not be a shameful concept nor censored here.64.158.143.6 (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a picture of a nude, grown up woman that isn't blatantly erotic should be used. People who complain should just deal with it. All encyclopedias have nude humans of both sexes in them. Wrad (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Childrens biology books contain nude pics also. But i really would like one from all four perspectives (at the very least two). I posted the same comment on the man page.--Cameron (t|p|c) 16:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

A++ for your taste in classical art, but I have to disagree. Birth of Venus is too busy, with way too many figures milling about the central figure. It doesn't balance the photo of the David well, as David is presented alone, commanding the viewer's attention. I would vote for Bouguereau's After the Bath instead, not because it's a superior artwork (it isn't), but it displays a single woman, essentially nude, and especially because she is presented in a matter-of-fact, uneroticized, and dispassionate manner. In the tricky waters of picking a nude picture for an encyclopedia, these would be the highest priorities I would choose. What do you think, sirs? Kasreyn (talk) 08:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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

I agree re: the need for suitable (not overtly erotic) frontal nudes (I would say one work of classical art and one modern photograph would be sufficient), but more is needed. Look at the article on man - most of the photographs of modern men are of men in positions of power: President Putin of Russia, Pope Benedict XVI. And in this article we have basket-weavers, etc. While it's true that in many places around the world today women still have no more options than they ever did, in some countries at least they have the ability to rise to positions of power, or to pursue highly demanding careers that were once open only to men. Ie., we should indicate both the traditional roles of many women around the world, as well as the changed roles that have arisen in more recent times. What is more annoying, this article once had such photos before a deletionist happened along. To balance the photos of figures of power and self-determination in the article on man, photos of female professionals and politicians would be appropriate here. Perhaps Hillary Clinton would be too topical to do well in such a general article, but Margaret Thatcher could work well, or perhaps Indira Gandhi. And my vote for photo of a professional woman goes to one whose picture was once in this article, Dr. Mae Jemison, who is an M.D. as well as an astronaut, both highly demanding professions. Are there any objections to the inclusion of these suggestions? Kasreyn (talk) 08:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. The vast majority of males are not in positions of power. Wouldn't it make sense to limit such pictures to, say, one per article? Wrad (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, having returned after a long Wikibreak, it appears there has been little attention paid to my proposal. I disagree with Wrad's argument, which would effectively lead us rather to delete photos of powerful men from man rather than to make any substantial change here. The larger the wikiservers become and the greater the average reader's bandwidth with the march of time and technology, the fewer legs the deletionists have to stand on, in my opinion. I feel adding content is entirely justifiable, and deleting for the purpose of parity makes little sense.

To be more specific, let's go down a list of the photos we currently have:

• Birth of Venus. This one isn't my ideal, but if support for it were strong I could be talked into supporting it. It has the advantages of being a full frontal nude to match David on Man, as well as being demonstrably a timeless work of art (dodging claims of trashiness or prurience), and is not highly eroticized, though I still feel that After the Bath is ideally unerotic. (But perhaps David balances this with an erotic aspect all its own? I must confess my own perspective renders me unable to judge. Opinions from those attracted to males would be helpful to me here.)
• Feminine symbol. Balances masculine symbol in Man. Great.
• "A young woman". Well... the caption isn't the problem, it's the fact that the photo is prominently placed across from the header, Womanhood. So, it appears to me, the article is making an implicit statement that womanhood == that (I will admit, quite attractive) young lady in the tank top and miniskirt. I imagine the original reasoning for this was that the section was intended to describe the significance, in the female experience, of the transition from girlhood into womanhood by representing the "flower" of that state. For one thing, this lends itself to a reader's mistaken interpretation (which I can easily understand since this was my 'first' interpretation) that womanhood means being a sexual symbol rather than a complete person. Additionally, aesthetics vary and that woman is by no means universally attractive; no woman could be. Therefore, it would be a mistake to use a single image to somehow try to transmit an idealized image of feminine attractiveness. A See Also linking to the paragraph on Waist-Hip Ratio in Female body shape is far more illuminative than any such groping attempt here.
• Diagram of female sexual anatomy. No problems here, matches Man.
• Karotype of XX chromosomes. Cool science stuff, nothing to worry about.
• Weaver woman. She's been on WP longer than me, and I've been here for some years now. I suppose it's true that she does aptly display a historical, and in many places modern, traditional female social role. Sure. So, we can consider her to be matching the construction worker image in Man.
• Turkish women with hookah. This would be an interesting image if it were possible to see clearly exactly what we're looking at. Unfortunately, the image is horribly grainy and poor quality. Is it possible to find a painting or artwork which is along similar lines and which we can display cleanly and clearly, so no squinting is required? From a feminist perspective, this one seems o.k., since it shows women engaging in a leisure activity that, unlike most other depictions, doesn't seem to be occurring for the ultimate benefit of a man. A photo of a girl's night out at a bar-n-grill would serve the same purpose and would be visually easier to comprehend. I like the concept of this picture, just not the poor physical quality of it.
• Roundhouse wipers - this image required me to read an article in order to understand what a "roundhouse wiper" is, and I won't explain it here because it would do a disservice to others. Go, read, and learn! And I thank whoever caused me to need to do that. But, if we want to clearly demonstrate the historical transition of women into the world of previously male-only jobs, wouldn't this iconic lady do a much clearer job?

And going over what we *don't* have here, what is still clearly apparent is:

• We still don't have an image of a woman employed in a profession requiring higher education, scientific or mathematic capability, or artistic talent. A well-known scientist, professor, artist, or teacher would work well here. Some of my favorite suggestions for this position would be Mae Jemison, Joyce Carol Oates, Nichelle Nichols, or Maya Angelou. (If I seem to be adding a lot of African-American names here, I suggest the reason may lie in my frustration at the lily-whiteness of the photos existing in this article, which seem to focus almost solely on western european / caucasian women, with our long-serving Bangladeshi weaver photo still trucking along by herself.)
• We still don't have an image of a woman who is in a position of political authority, ie., a woman who could at least theoretically hold power over a male. This would balance Man's ongoing flirtation with photos of male political figures, currently whittled down, confusingly, to simply the Pope (possibly due to the defining and prerequisite maleness of the position?). A photo of a well-known and recognizable female politician would suffice here. Some suggestions could include Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, Condoleezza Rice, Margaret Thatcher, or Indira Gandhi.

In fact, given her scientific pedigree, Dr. Rice could conceivably serve both roles. Ideally I would prefer to have two photos - both a scientist and a politician. Bandwidth is cheap, servers are large, and it seems pointlessly miserly and petty to set some arbitrary limit on the number of pictures we can add. The argument that it forces too many pictures on readers who don't like pictures is ludicrous, as any browser can be set to display no pictures. I would still prefer to reverse this article's trend towards poverty of information.

Inclusionism solves problems, while deletionism ignores them. Deletionism says, "It's not our fault that the rarity of photos leads to high granularity of content and thus edges out photos of notable minorities". Of course it's the deletionist's fault, since nothing is preventing us from adding more photos except ourselves. The same can be said of every other issue I've raised here. If you look at WP's competition, such as a modern Britannica (or even, heaven help us, Encarta), you'll find that multimedia including pictures and videos have been embraced and litter their articles, while WP, partially due to the difficulty in finding free content, but also partially due to a stubborn insistence on minimalism, lags behind in making the best use of the internet as a medium.

OK, ending inclusionist rant. Comments are eagerly awaited. -Kasreyn (talk) 11:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Kill the lists

A list of famous women is much less effective than a prose explanation of why they are famous and what they did to change things for women in the world. As it is, the list communicates almost nothing about the subject that can't be said by merely typing "There are lots of famous women in history who have held lots of important positions." I really come off wanting to know more. Wrad (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the massively space consuming pointless lists. Was about as useful as putting a massive list on a country's page stating every single leader, politician, inventor, sports person, war hero, legendary figures, etc... that just puts people off reading the article because of huge chunk of the article required to write such lists and get on for being longer than the article itself. If people want to see specialised subjects they can go to the see also section or the numerous links throughout the article leading to relevent subjects. Signsolid (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Image needed badly

Yes, I'm aware of Talk:Woman/sandbox, but discussion is basically non-existent. We should get some image up in the lead, even if it's temporary until a clearer consensus develops. For now, we have an article on Woman where the only images of actual women are a profile shot of a basketweaver and a small, grainy group image from 1910. That's just blatantly inadequate. Powers ^T 12:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've said what I'm in favor of. I wouldn't object to having it put up. With so little discussion, two or three supports makes a consensus. Wrad (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

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

human -> human being

I have not changed the text predisposed by religion. If you can propose an improvement, the way is yours. "Human" is not a word in common use; it is scientific or particular to the style of science fiction, neither of which befits a general encyclopedia. --VKokielov (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

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

New images

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

Gender and Feminism

“This question of being a woman is more difficult that it perhaps originally appeared, for we refer not only to women as a social category but also as a felt sense of self, a culturally conditioned or constructed subjective identity.” (Butler, 1990)The term "woman" has chronically been used as a reference to and for the female body; however there is much controversy to the usage and refinement of "woman." What we fail to do is see the qualitative analysis that explores and presents the representations of gender; what feminists challenge is the dominant ideologies concerning gender roles and sex. Social identity refers to the common identification with a collectivity or social category which creates a common culture among participants concerned (Snow and Oliver, 1995). According to social identity theory (Tajfel 1981; Tajfel and Turner, 1979, 1986), an important component of the self-concept is derived from memberships in social groups and categories and it postulates that group processes and inter-group relationships impact significantly on individuals' self perception and behaviors. The groups to which people belong will therefore provide their members with the definition of who they are and how they should behave (Hogg, Terry, & White, 1995) in the social sphere. The problem with categorizing is that it creates binaries, in which an individual has to be on one end of the linear spectrum, one must be male or female, thus implying that they have to identify themselves as man or woman. Globally, communities interpret biological differences between women and men to create a set of social expectations that define the behaviors that are appropriate for women and men and that determine women’s and men’s differential access to rights, resources, and power in society. Although the specific nature and degree of these differences vary from one society to the next, they typically favor men, creating an imbalance in power and gender inequalities in all countries. (Byanyima, 2004) Western philosopher Michel Foucault claimed that as sexual subjects, we are the object of power, which is not a institution or structure, rather it is signifier or name we attribute to “complex strategical situation.”(Tong, 2009) Thus, because “power” is what determines our attributes, behaviors, etc. we are a part of an ontologically and epistemologically constructed set of names and labels. Such as, being female characterizes one as a woman, and that this “women” is weak, emotional, and irrational, thus she is incapable of actions attributed to a “man.” Gender and sex, said Butler, are more like verbs than nouns. But my actions are limited. I am not permitted to construct my gender and sex willy-nilly, according to Butler; this is so because gender is politically and therefore socially controlled. Rather than woman being something one is, it is something one does… —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivera (talk • contribs)

Welcome to Wikipedia! This appears to be a short essay reflecting your personal opinion which is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article so I have removed the edit request tag for now. It also seems to be more on the subject of Gender (of which there is much overlap with this article obviously, but we generally try to keep concepts separate to help with things like ease of reading and upkeep). If you could suggest some wording or exact change more in keeping with our neutral point of view policy that fits in with the current article might be more useful. For instance if there is a particular point backed up by citations from your essay that is missing from the article could you succinctly suggest that? -- SiobhanHansa 12:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ancient gender roles

Newer research among the worlds most prominent experts in ancient history (I'm aiming at hunter/gatherer ancient) has shown that it is untrue that women generally "only" hunted for small animals and gathered berries and fruit, while men hunted for large animals. In a small group, it is imperative that all able individuals have the knowledge and skill to survive independently in case one "key" member dies. This can be seen still in inuit culture, where both genders have knowledge and skill to replace the other, should one individual die, either from illness or animal. 81.191.146.33 (talk) 02:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

So that's what a young woman looks like...

Why is there a picture of a woman in a short skirt and high heels standing in a country road?

There's nothing particularly wrong with it except the arguably sexualized nature of it, but it seems pretty out of place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.68.234 (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This. It's a nice picture to look at, but there's no need to have a picture of "a young woman". Wait till I've saved it to my desktop before removing though please.

213.68.15.100 (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

How about changing the picture every once and while, to show all types of women. gioto (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I do object to the image of the women, I don't think it's relevant or necessary, and is too sexual for the article. Any women care to offer their input, as I feel in this instance it's reasonable to ask the subject of this article for their input!--82.32.57.173 (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I would welcome a real image of a young woman, i.e. unobscured by clothes, rather than a clothes-rack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.127.36.229 (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing about the fact that they start to be more "intelligent" earlier than boys ?

I missed it, or it's an urban legend, but if so, something like "contrary to common belief, they don't..." should be added. But I don't think it's one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rex4 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Older English, Older English language, or Older English : to correct this red link

cf. ( you could see ): at the section (Etymology), at the link: Older English language

• Older English language --- Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name

I think is better this way ( a solution ): older English language / Old English. I've just done it. Ciao! --PLA y Grande Covián (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Use of the word Woman

In the UK the word woman has traditionally been used to refer to females of the middle and working classes, with the term lady being used for those in society's higher echelons. I know many ladies who would be greatly offended to be described as a woman. I think the article should reflect the fact that the term woman does not universally apply to all adult females. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.139.130 (talk) 10:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Culture and Gender Roles section too U.S. oriented

It's not supposed to be about U.S. culture only. This section really needs to be fleshed out more in general and with more mention of other cultures.24.74.1.139 (talk) 11:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

venus handmirror is actually Liliths energy

this picture of an ancient lilith sculpture shows the +O symbol with lilith holding one at each hand It predates the hand mirror narrative

File:Lilith a few milennia ago.PNG

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.132.73 (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

New Lead Image

I honestly think we should use an anatomy picture for the lead. It would serve to educate much better than a picture of a nude women or a drawing. I certainly would appreciate finding a good one. YVNP (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Before we continue, note that I'm assuming you're talking about some sort of anatomical diagram or illustration, rather than a photo of a dissected woman, which would be needlessly shocking. For such a diagram or illustration to vary from a drawing of a nude woman, it would have to either display only part of the body, or else display internal anatomy typically hidden by the skin.

That being the case, I disagree. The articles on other physical objects have a lead image which shows an external view of the thing under discussion. Ie., in the article on Skyscraper, one wouldn't expect the lead image to be a floorplan, a fire escape route drawing, or a diagram explaining how a tuned mass damper works. Those, after all, aren't the most important and immediately obvious visible details of a skyscraper. One would instead expect an exterior photo of a skyscraper, preferably with other objects to provide scale since a defining feature of a skyscraper is its size and height. Similarly with an "object" like a human being, such as a Woman or Man, the relevant lead image is one of that specific thing, preferably showing it to scale, but also - and this is the important thing for this article - showing its significant or defining features. Since for Man and Woman the defining features would be those aspects of the body which display sexual dimorphism, a nude is required in order to be fully informative. The lead image of any article referring to a commonly encountered object should show that object as it may appear if/when encountered.

Now, whether the lead image should be a work of art, a photo, or a photo of a work of art, or even a diagram, is open for debate, and each of these two articles has varied over the past 3-4 years between those types of image, iirc. At one point each article was using the Voyager probe diagrams of man and woman. But what seems settled is that the lead image for each should display a full body nude. The internal anatomy is important, and does have its image - but internal anatomy is not sufficiently descriptive of the differences between the two most common human sexes, as the reader is likely to encounter them. -Kasreyn (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Note, however, that the object in question here (woman) is normally NOT nude when encountered in the world. As the reader is likely to encounter "man" and "woman," they are likely to be clothed. Furthermore, I'm curious where it is "settled" that the images need to be fully nude? There are at least as many comments on the talk pages complaining about the nude images as there are supporting them. Is there some other discussion elsewhere where this issue was "settled?" Dunncon13 (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we definitely need a new image. Imagine a school child opening up the "woman" page at school, and then seeing this image. In many places it would be "not safe for work". I'm not arguing for censorship or anything, but at the very least, this picture could be moved down, and a picture of a woman wearing clothes could be added. This is one of the articles where you wouldn't expect to find such an image, especially at the front, and there are many more suitable images. This image doesn't add anything to the article that another might not. Can we get some kind of discussion or consensus on this? If not, I will go ahead and replace it if it's apparently no one cares. (npcserver) (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Why should it be a scientific picture? The idea of "woman" is so much more than a scientific idea. A diagram would be the worst thing I would want to see. 129.67.138.111 (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Could someone find a picture where the genitals aren't shaved? If this is supposed to represent a typical woman (I don't even want to start the race debate) then shouldn't the picture be free of obvious alterations like tattoos, piercings, and obvious shaving? Pescofish (talk) 08:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought the old image "Birth of Venus 1862 by Eugène Emmanuel Amaury-Duval" was fine.

NewYorkStyledCheesecakes! (talk) 09:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.25.33 (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC) 

I agree. Shaved genitals? Give me a break!71.134.42.129 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC).

The "Frau" image has repeatedly failed to gain consensus on this page. It should not have been added to the article in the absence of that consensus. When was "Birth of Venus" removed? - Nunh-huh 19:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

We need to get rid of that silly symbol as the lead image. i'm sure the romans found it very obviously to be a women but it's not really very helpful for illustration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.147.147.237 (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I love this picture. This is perfect. Please don't change it. Gandydancer (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Please, please, please change this image. If a picture of a nude woman is absolutely necessary, make it an image which shows the female body in its natural state. Shaved genitals should be a lead picture on a page about warped body image, not one that supposedly represents Woman. Auntiecomstock (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh! I agree! Thanks so much for your post, Auntie. I'm afraid I did not look closely enough. I thought that they had just used shadow...I should have enlarged the image. I do prefer nude. BTW, I am a 67 year old granny... Gandydancer (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This page is protected and so I can't modify it myself but please consider using a picture of a dressed woman ! An image of a naked woman is justified only if we want to stress on the anatomic and biological aspect. Clothes are part of human beings and human are usualy not naked in their normal environnement. From an anthropological point of view, humans must be pictured as we see them.

I propose this picture :

--Grondilu (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Why that photo and not this one?

Viriditas (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Because we just have to pick one. Plus the picture you've given is scenarized : I believe very few woman dress like this casualy. On the contrary, the blonde girl is photographed in the street, as if the photographer hasn't been there. A photograph of a chinese woman walking in a Bejing street would be fine. Moreover, we could also criticize the naked photograph in the same way, and ask for a chinese or black woman. Diversity does exist and when you have to use a photograph to represent the general case, you just have to pick one particular item. I didn't choose this photo because she was european, but mainly because :

• she is walking in a street, which is a very common and trivial situation for any human being ;
• the picture is a rather good framing : we see her from the feet to the head and she occupies the all frame ;
• she isn't striking a pose : not looking at the camera or anything like that, which suggests that she is in aquite natural posture.

Honnestly please don't use a naked woman for this article. I'm not the kind of person that usually gets offended easily but seriously, nudity here is not justified because it's an article about woman, not just about woman anatomy.

Anyway if you want to use this photograph of a chinese woman in traditional clothes, please do so. It would be certainly better than the naked image.

--Grondilu (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Please consider also the choice that has been made for homo sapiens. One male and one female, both dressed. Sure they had to make some ethnical choice. But there's is no other way than making this choice. You just can't represent the whole human diversity with only one picture. So they just picked one.

So please, do the same for this article. Choose an african, a european or a chinese woman, whatever you want, but please use a photo that will picture her as we could see her in normal situations. There is no need for nudity here.

--Grondilu (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a difficult topic to approach with much in the way of neutrality, as exemplified by previous comments above. My thought is that no image is likely to achieve consensus, because there are so many differing perspectives. The alternative is to have no image at all, or resort to a classical, and as far as I am concerned, unrepresentative image such as File:La nascita di Venere (Botticelli).jpg. Whereas that image may represent one view of "woman", I don't see it being that relevant in a modern context. The lyrical, "otherliness" of such depictions has long gone, as outmoded. However, in the article "Man", we have an image of a naked male, without complaint. I see no practical difference between that and having such an image here as illustrating the topic, and equality of treatment should suggest that such a image is not only valid, but also necessary. Would you prefer to see an image of a man in that article wearing a bowler hat or working as a lumberjack, since that is "what they do"? I don't think so. So we have to resort to basics, and report them. Rodhullandemu 00:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed achieving a consensus will be difficult here, but we have to keep trying to find it. Please also consider that at least, a picture of a dressed woman will not offend anyone, unlike the naked one. Concerning the article man, I haven't complained yet but obviously the argument is exactly the same. A better image should be found. There is no reason to focus on anatomy like that, and to intentionaly ignore the fact that most human beings, most of the time and in most cultures, wear clothes.

I want to add that, after more thinking, the chinese woman in traditionnal clothes is a very good photo, considering that China is the most populated country. I would still prefer a chinese woman walking in street or working on a field as in homo sapiens, but still, it is a good picture. Please use it.

--Grondilu (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty here is that although Wikipedia is an English language encyclopedia, we should be not only sensitive to cultural differences, but also, to a large extent, ignore them and strive to provide a source of information that is as, far as we can manage, objectively neutral. That's a high barrier to climb, and it's not just limited to articles such as this. As for the images listed above, it's difficult to argue that they are typical of womanhood as opposed to to representing a generality. This might be well dealt with by having a link to Commons images, but that still begs the question of what image, if any, is appropriate in this article. Rodhullandemu

Let's say I take my spaceship and go on a trip to Mars. There, I take many pictures with my camera and have a lot of fun. When I come back, you ask me how it was and if I've seen any martian people. I tell you that I have seen many of them and that I took a lot of pictures. You ask me to see one, but I tell you : « No I can't show you any pictures, because all those martians were so different that if I show you just one, you will get a false idea about how they look like. » Obviously you would say : « I don't care if they are all different. Just show me one. »

If you make an article about women, just show a woman. Don't worry if she can't represent exactly all women. She will represent them because she is one of them, and that's all what we ask her for.

--Grondilu (talk) 01:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is an other way to see this. Say you want to explain to someone what a playing card is. You might consider taking the time to show him every single one of the existing kinds of cards. But the most reasonable way to do this is to show him just one, while precising that this is a particular type. So in the same way, to illustrate the concept of woman, it is ok to show a particular one, as long as you precise in the legend which type she is. So for instance for the chinese woman above, the legend for the picture might be: « joung woman, in this case of asiatic type, dressed with traditionnal clothes ». An illustration is nothing but an illustration. It doesn't have to be exhaustively representative, otherwise the illustration would be self-sufficient, and no article, no text, would be necessary. --Grondilu (talk) 04:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

First, I want to say that anyone that would even suggest the two photos above as representative of Woman is not even on the same page I'm on! The blonde represents a small segment of women since blonde/blue eyed people represent only a small percentage of the human race. And the Asian woman shows only a face wearing a ceremonial gown, once again this does not even represent most Asian women.

I still remember my first impression when I read the "woman" article a few months ago and saw the picture for the first time - I loved it! Dark hair and eyes and an olive complexion, and well filled out, but certainly not fat! Someone pointed out that her pubic area seems to be shaved and they did not like that, and I do agree - I had not noticed it thinking her pubic area was shaded, not shaved.

And lastly, should she be nude? Yes. If the article were "American Women", or "Asian Women", etc., it would be appropriate to show them dressed. But this article is about all women and what they have in common that is different from men: Breasts, curves, and of course a difference in their pubic area. Gandydancer (talk) 13:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether we talk about american, asian, european or any kind of woman doesn't matter. There is no country where women just walk around in the street completely naked. Wearing clothes is part of human behavior, whatever those clothes are. So, if you picture a woman naked, you will be more wrong than if you pictured her with any kind of clothes.

« And the Asian woman shows only a face wearing a ceremonial gown, once again this does not even represent most Asian women. » I'm pretty sure that if very few chinese women wear traditionnal clothes every day, they don't either go out completely naked every day ! LOL

« But this article is about all women and what they have in common that is different from men: Breasts, curves, and of course a difference in their pubic area. » I don't understand why you want to focus on those anatomical parts like that. What about a photo of dissected vagina, then ? There is no reason to show more than what women usually show.

If you allow me to keep my playing cards analogy, I would say that using the photo of a naked woman here would be equivalent to using a photo of a blank card. Sure, the card with no picture on it is what is common to all cards, but it is not representative.

The "Frau" image can be used, but only in an article or a subsection dedicated to anatomy. Please don't use it here. It is offensive.

--Grondilu (talk) 14:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, why is this offensive? It is a real photograph, not a picture. And it doesn’t have a distractive and non-relevant background. And it shows a normal standard woman with normal features created by god or nature whatever, all that makes her a woman. Why does the showing of a picture of a normal woman have a negative impact on you? That would be quite offensive to a lot of women in the world. Is it because she is European? That would be quite offensive to a lot of Europeans Demophon (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Offensive is perhaps too a strong world. Let's just say that nudity is inappropriate here, both for this page and for the article man. Please think about children who consult wikipedia. You wouldn't like to see a naked man in the street start talking to one of your kids. If your kid is curious enough to see a page dedicated to human body, be it. But if he just wants to consult a generic page dedicated to man ou woman, there is no reason why he should see this first. Every day when he sees people, he sees them with clothes on. Why should it be different on Wikipedia ?

You say this is a picture of a "normal" woman, but precisely : it is not. Unless you are a naturist, a "normal" woman is a dressed woman.

--Grondilu (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I just don't see how one would find this photo offensive. As for being inappropriate for children, good heavens even very young children are learning about their bodies in school these days - they know very well what a naked woman looks like. To insist that our woman must wear clothes suggests that there is something nasty about a naked female body. Gandydancer (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I never said nor suggested that a naked body is nasty. I just say that there is no reason to show it when it's not necessary. If people do not go out naked every day, there is a reason. I'm quite an open minded person and I don't like the excess of modesty (I don't know the english for the french world pudeur), but on an other hand, people should not fall into the opposite excess. People usualy wear clothes and therefore there is really, really, no reason not to show a picture of someone wearing some. Unless you try to attract attention, or try to appear smart, there is no point using such a picture. You wouldn't go out naked in the street, so please don't try to pretend you don't see why nudity can be offensive.

And again, this page is not dedicated to the woman body, but to the woman, as a human being. There is no reason to focus on her body like that. Again, the use of the frau image for the page human body is fine. But not in this article, and not in the introduction. Put it in the biology section if you really want to, but use a dressed woman for the intro.

--Grondilu (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

If I stand naked in front of your house, and if I knock on your door, saying hello to your kid who opens the door to me, wouldn't you punch me in the face ? Though according to you, my naked body is absolutely not offensive. Yet, you would certainly punch me, as would any father. Please use an other picture. Please.

--Grondilu (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just realised there is a Talk:Woman/sandbox page. I've just added the photo of the english blonde girl into the gallery. To me the picture of the girls of the 70s is very good and should be used. --Grondilu (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Circularity

This debate seems to be going nowhere fast, and seems largely driven by differing cultural values. That doesn't surprise me, because we are a diverse community of contributors each driven by our personal histories, which in turn are driven by our parental and other influences. However, when it comes to choosing one image to represent "woman", we are doomed to failure because in my opinion, as is exemplified by the preceding discussion, no one image can be possibly capable of fulfilling that purpose. So we have to reach some compromise somehow. My preference would be a classical representation which would be largely value-free, such as Michaelangelo's "David" to illustrate Man, and Botticelli's Birth of Venus to illustrate this article. Very little in the way of modern cultural baggage in either, and no contention about nudity/offence/sexism or anything else. But this really does need to come to a conclusion, one way or another. Rodhullandemu 00:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is that much a matter of cultural values. Those who defend the use of clothes argue that a woman is much more than just her body : to me this seems to be much more than just a cultural opinion. But anyway, I'd be ok with the birth of venus, or a Bouguereau's painting, as a compromise.--Grondilu (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It's clearly a loaded topic. My instinct here is to follow the line of least resistance and try to find the compromise position without pandering to extremes on either side of the argument. That way, we can all get on with the other serious work that remains to be done here. Rodhullandemu 00:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Following the line of least resistance is a good idea, and considering the number of complaint I've seen here regarding the Frau.jpg image, I'm pretty sure this image is not this least resistance path.

What about using the File:1970sgirls.jpg and see how many complains you get ?

--Grondilu (talk) 00:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Why on earth would you want to use a picture of three college girls from the 70's to represent woman? I note that at your French site you have replaced the lead with your photo and have also included pictures of women shopping and putting makeup on. Perhaps in France they feel this is what they want on their Woman page, however as a longtime contributor to the English site, this is not what I want for this page. Furthermore, do not assume that there is a great deal of controversy over this picture - remember that many have looked at or edited this page and have not made any complaints re the photo. I suggest that we let it ride for a few days and see if there is further input before we decide. If there is more disagreement, I would be willing to settle on a classical painting or statue. Gandydancer (talk) 09:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Unlike the english page, the french page is not protected. So the very fact that these images have not been suppressed yet, tends to proove that they are less controversials than the images on the english page.

Plus it's less a matter of representation than a matter of illustration. It is different. The 1970sgirls picture could be used just because it's a good picture, good looking and quite neutral since the girls are anonymous. That's all. If you find a contemporary photo with equal quality (framing, light, and so on), then it would be fine.--Grondilu (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said in Talk:Woman/sandbox, nudity is not the way we are used to see women and it's not necessary. The point is that a homemade photo of a nude woman is not the best image to represent whole concept of "woman". There is nothing wrong in a photo about the superficial anatomy of woman, but is important to note that Woman article is not about the very same topic of Human anatomy#Superficial anatomy. I suggest a nice idealized image of woman like Bouguereau venus detail.jpg or a realistic image of women like 1970sgirls.jpg. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 11:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course I completely agree with User:Basilicofresco. Woman concept is much larger than just a body, and clothes are part of that. If we have to resort to classical painting, I also agree with the choice of Bouguereau's version of the birth of Venus instead of Boticelli's.--Grondilu (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Why not just some image like this[2]?--72.190.38.84 (talk) 11:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's worth trying. I also think, in reference to the drawn-out discussion above, it's silly to illustrate the concept with a clothed woman. Of course nudity is our natural state, and near nudity seems to have been our social state. The articles for men and women should be illustrated with images, preferably photographs, that give some sense of what the subjects actually look like, with minimal interference by culture-specific features (clothing, body modification). DavidOaks (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Karyotype

The Kayotype picture mentions the XX-pattern to be formed in the 23rd week of gestation. As far as I know it is there at the conception, or isn't it?

--DrJos (talk) 11:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Blanked talk page (with archives?)

In December of 2009, someone blanked this talk page which removed all the links to the archives. How is this supposed to be correctly restored? The last page with links to archives is: Revision 329259167. Jeff Carr (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I reinserted {{Talk header}}. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 12:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Getting ridiculous

Is Wikipedia looking for attention or what the hell are these new nude photos for? And don't give me crap about not censored.. No need to censor but cmon.. Children use this site! Imagine your kid going to Wikipedia from school and his/her teacher showing up.. Way to get Wikipedia banned! --79.13.175.167 (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"cmon" is such good logic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the concept of "woman" is larger than "the woman body". There are better images than Frau-2.jpg to represent it. Please insert your thought in Talk:Woman/sandbox. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 11:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is so offensive about nudity? Who cares if a kid sees it; shame at nudity is the just the product of a perverse, bizarre society. I think a picture of a human without clothes on is no more offense than a picture of a dog without clothes on. The offiical line is 'Wikipedia is not censored', this is a critical element of wikipedia - stop trying to tear this down with puritanical Christo-fascism.BodvarBjarki (talk) 11:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, the woman in Frau2 is not in any way overweight. That's a perfectly natural and healthy weight, if anything I'd say it perfectly demonstrates the natural distribution of fat in women. I do think it would be better that she was facing head on, rather than posing at a side-angle.BodvarBjarki (talk) 11:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Covering the body with clothes, is not the result of a perverse nor bizarre society. It has been part of human behavior for thousands of years. Why would you like to ignore this unique aspect of human ethology ? Frau2 is ok on human body, so don't worry about censorship.--Grondilu (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Missing language

I request editing in order to add the Haitian creole equivalent to the list of languages in the left-side column. RajkiandrisRajkiandris (talk) 06:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Present. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 12:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Please give your opinion about the picture

I really think that the gallery should be here instead of on the Talk:Woman/sandbox page, so that all people who disagree with the picture could easyly see the alternatives :

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• File:Izabela.JPG
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• File:IngridBergmanportrait.jpg
• File:Marilyn Monroe in The Prince and the Showgirl trailer cropped.jpg
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Please don't hesitate to add your suggested pictures. --Grondilu (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Why are we only choosing one? Have you looked a the image layout for basic ethnicity articles? We can stack multiple images, like they do in Han Chinese or Norwegians. That's the solution. I like the image layout in Swedes and Native Americans in the United States. Image order by chronology. I will put something together for review. Viriditas (talk) 08:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

A layout is a good idea, indeed. An interesting question would be the framing. Some people might argue that the picture has to get the whole body in the frame. I would say it hasn't. For the same reason that we wouldn't use a photograph taken from behind (showing the back instead of the front), I don't see why we couldn't get only the upper part of the body. If people consider that only the front is relevant, we might also give greater importance to the face and the upper body. Again, a human being is more than his body, and it's only in an article such as human body that the whole body has to be rendered. Therefore, a layout of several pictures of women from different ethnic origin might be possible and relevant. Please do so.--Grondilu (talk) 08:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

However, I very much doubt ethnicity is an issue here. As long as the photo is of good quality, any woman who is not too far from her ethnical « standard », whatever this ethnical origin is, is legitim to represent woman, I guess. A chinese woman is as much a woman as a french or an african woman. It doesn't really matter. Once again, this is an illustration, not a description nor a representation. There is no hope of representing the whole human diversity in one picture. So just pick one, a good one. And be done with it.--Grondilu (talk) 08:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Personnaly I very much like File:Jessie Liu 0908.jpg. This girl is just sooo cute... --Grondilu (talk) 08:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It's best to avoid anything you choose because you find it attractive. That's not what we are going after here. For example this is one of the oldest depictions of the female form. Do you find it attractive? Viriditas (talk) 09:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes, I think it's a really good choice. It is outside of contemporary aesthetics and issues, ethnic and cultural concerns, and people can bring to it whatever they like. It's a rich work of art, and has the dignity of age, frank in its physicality and yet immune to charges of salaciousness. A neolithic Venus figurine would serve as well. DavidOaks (talk) 03:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I wonder if the emergence of beauty is not precisely the result of a search for representativity. You know, you see many many pictures of women, and finally the one that, according to you, best represents the others, is finally the most beautiful. Some kind of statistical mean data computing. But I confess this is way off topic, and should be put in the sandbox, after all.--Grondilu (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It's on topic and belongs here. Please don't move it just beacause it's not going the way you like it. Viriditas (talk) 11:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Even if try not to consider the fact that she's very cute, my vote still goes for File:Jessie Liu 0908.jpg. The image is just plain and simple : no background, wich mean no distraction from the subject, a very clean and franc smile, a simple pose. Just a clean and nice simple portrait. I used this picture for the french page and I like the result. Plain, simple and... not offensive.--Grondilu (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You're thinking with the wrong head (as my father used to say to me). Picking and choosing photographs of women for this article has nothing to do with physical beauty. Remember the line, "sometimes there's so much beauty in the world I feel like I can't take it." That was from the film, American Beauty. The beauty, in this scene, refers to a piece of trash floating in the wind. Beauty is not what you seem to think it is, and I encourage you to think about it beyond the surface of mere sexual attraction. It's much, much more than that. One of the most beautiful photographs I've ever seen on Wikipedia was a photograph of a dirty, ragged homeless man sleeping on a bench. Viriditas (talk) 11:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Which photograph was that ? Can you give us a link ? Anyway, what you say about beauty does make sense, but I've also heard that some scientists had shown that, given a set of faces of photographs, they could compute the ones that would be described as attractive or beautiful. They just had to compute the gap between those images and the statistical mean of these pictures. The closest it was to the mean, the more beautiful it would be.--Grondilu (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I could find it if I bothered to look. It's on commons. What you say about proportion is true, but again, that's in terms of attraction. Why do you think we should pick images of women for this article simply because we find them attractive, based on our own personal set of preferences, influenced by our cultural and perceptual filters? That's the last thing we should be doing. Viriditas (talk) 11:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Because if it is true that beauty is related to some statistical mean, then attraction is related to frequency, and therefore representativity. For instance if we were to illustrate the notion of rectangle, we would have to choose some lengh ratio. Which one should we take ? 2 ? 10 ? 1.01 ? Experiments show that when people are instructed to draw a rectangle, statitically they choose a ratio close to the famous golden ratio. This is very much related to the notion of harmony and beauty. My guess is that, concerning the representation of humans, something quite similar occurs : the humans that are considered as the most beautifuls are also the most representatives. So basically when chosing a photo of a woman, we can follow our instinct.--Grondilu (talk) 12:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Read female body shape. Defining women by what men find attractive is way off. They aren't toys. Viriditas (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL. I never said that. And I'm pretty sure that defining women by picturing them naked is not very good either. They pretty much always wear clothes.--Grondilu (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, I think you exagerate when you say that I chose File:Jessie Liu 0908.jpg because I found the girl cute. I mentioned that the picture was good, also because the picture was good : good framing, no background, simple pose, and so on. So the aesthetics arguments were not only about the subject (the girl), but also about the picture (the photograph).--Grondilu (talk) 12:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read what you wrote. "Following our instinct" means choosing photographs of women that the average man would want to have sex with. And, that's exactly what your argument boils down to here. Viriditas (talk) 12:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL you're getting funny here. So you can't say a girl is cute without meaning that you want to have sex with her ? Come on. And even so. So what ? Beauty and aesthetic is certainly one part of the difference between men and women. There is nothing absurd to want a illustration for woman to have some aesthetics aspects. Don't deny it. The Frau.jpg picture is not a photo of an ugly old woman either.--Grondilu (talk) 12:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Read the experimental studies yourself. I have. It boils down to sexual attraction. And there's nothing wrong with that. But do we really want to use that criteria for an article on women? I don't think so. Look at the images I added above. There's multiple levels of notability going on, from history to religion, from art to politics. Why do we even need to use sexual attractiveness as a guide? Of course, we don't. Think about this for a moment. Viriditas (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Honnestly Ingrid Bergman or Marylyn Monroe are at least as attractives are the chinese girl. So this is, as I said, not the main reason why I picked it.--Grondilu (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Bergman and Monroe are notable female actors. You picked a photo based solely on your personal sexual attraction? How does that help? Viriditas (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. Would it help more to chose a woman who would have some political engagement ? or some historical or scientifical importance ? Who's to decide which skill does represent women best ?--Grondilu (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Now you are getting down to brass tacks. There isn't just one criteria. We could choose a complete unknown like the Tibetan farm girl if the photograph is aesthetically pleasing. Quite different from sexual attraction now, isn't it? Viriditas (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't, after all, the difference between men and women, basically sexual, by definition ? Isn't sexual attraction the most legitimate aspect, considering this ?--Grondilu (talk) 12:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No, not at all. Aesthetics and attraction are not the same. Viriditas (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh I misred you then, honnestly. Sorry.--Grondilu (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying your view is wrong. Some people might argue that a photograph which is not sexually attractive cannot be aesthetically pleasing, but what I'm saying is it should not be our sole criterion. Do I find Jessie Liu attractive or aesthetically pleasing? I suppose so, but I prefer this headshot. Viriditas (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, to me the photograph must be aesthetics, because we want quality. And the subject, the woman, must be at least a little attractive. Why ? Because we're talking about woman. So we're talking about sex. Because the difference between men and women is sex. On the man page, I think it would be normal to get a picture of a manish man. Because this is the difference between those articles, man and woman on one side, and human on the other side. The formers are focusing on sex. Not the latter.--Grondilu (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by attractive. I find koi fish ponds and mandelbrot sets attractive. Outside the sterile laboratory, where clinicians in white coats measure an instinctive sexual response, attraction cannot be quantified. We need to judge inclusion based on other factors. Viriditas (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

My preferred images are :

• 
  A pretty pornographic actress
• 
  A woman breast feeding

--Grondilu (talk) 03:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The 1970s girls image is ridiculous. Freshman college girls could barely be called "women" and it imparts no useful information. The Jessie Liu image is again, too girlish for me. I much prefer the mature, "womanly" headshot found here. I think we should stick to important, unique, and historical images of adult women, rather than photos of young girls who have barely graduated high school. Let's keep some perspective here, please. Viriditas (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This is true. Using too a young woman is not very good. But it is far better than using a picture of a nude woman. At least, it won't offend anyone, and those girls are not that young. Jesse Liu is born in 1981, and was therefore 21 in 2002. I don't see why you think she's too girly.--Grondilu (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, Jessie Liu has some legitimacy for representing women, as a winner of a beauty pageant contest. After all, representing women is all what those contests are about. I don't say this is a definitive argument, but this should not be ignored. I tried to find better photos of winners of beauty pageant contests, but this one is one of the best I found.--Grondilu (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, you can use File:Carla Garapedian.jpg. To me this portrait is fine.--Grondilu (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where you get the idea that the only thing women have to contribute to civilization is their beauty. I don't think beauty pageant winners are a good fit here. Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the term beauty in beauty pageant is not much accurate. I don't know why you call these contests like this in english. In french, those contests are not called like that, they were initially designed as contests of modelling, and called this way. Obviously nowadays those contest have acquired a symbolic value that goes far beyond modelling or beauty. They are pretty much designed to try to achieve what is searched here : a good representant of a type of human beings : women.--Grondilu (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

PS: sorry, the term beauty is indeed used also in french for these contests. My mistake. But the fact is that those contests go much beyond just physical appereance.--Grondilu (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, why denying that beauty is part of what women bring to contribute to humanity ?? Say, for instance, that a woman contributes to humanity as a scientific, or a politician. Good for her, good for us. But there is nothing specific to womanhood in that. A woman who is involved in science or politic, is involved in this as any human being. There is no reason why this should be in an article specificaly dedicated to women. You want to make a page dedicated to woman ? Fine, but that means that you have to talk about what is specific to woman, as opposed to man. And physical appearance is a big part of that.--Grondilu (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the current image clearly shows we are dealing with a woman. Is there a problem with it? Viriditas (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least, she wears clothes, so that's way much better than the naked woman.--Grondilu (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that Jeanne d'Arc has been proposed. This is a quite interesting proposition. I did almost put it directly, but I don't want to start any edition war, and risk that someone swith back to frau.jpg. But if I had to put it, I would use it with this legend :

In the whole history, Jeanne d'Arc is the only woman known for her military leadership.

Suggesting Jeanne d'Arc as an illustration is funny. To me it seems to be a desperate attempt to demonstrate the equality of men and women. But it does the opposite : Jeanne d'Arc is the exception that confirms the rule. In the same way, someone who would like to illustrate the fact that women contribute to science, would very likely mention Marie Curie. This predictability is amusing.--Grondilu (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if that is true. There's several historical warrior queens, including Queen Boudica. There are a lot of women listed at List of women warriors in folklore and Timeline of women in early modern warfare. Viriditas (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

So that's a very surprising coïncidence that you mentioned the very only one that I know of, then, isn't it ?--Grondilu (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

And here she is ! Marie Curie has been added in the list, just as predicted. I want to repeat something : if one trully believes in equality of men and women, there is no need to use a photograph of a woman scientist. A woman embraces the carrier of scientist just as any human can. There is nothing specificaly feminine in this. And since most women are not scientists, just as most men are not scientists, a photo of a scientist is not the best to represent nor women, nor men. --Grondilu (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with the current image? The shot shows a biologist weighing a turtle. She just so happens to be a woman. As for "feminine" features, we see long hair and breasts and that suffices. Anything else is determined by culture, and cannot be considered a valid criterion. Viriditas (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't blame the current image, I was talking about the proposition of the Nobel Prize Marie Curie. The current image is ok. To me, best would be not to give any indication of the profession, since profession is not supposed to be related to sex. But it doesn't worth risking edition war by changing it.--Grondilu (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

For instance, if the photo you suggested for man is good, it's also because we don't know what this guy does for a living. So we keep quite general.--Grondilu (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Please stop it! It seems that you have come to this article to make controversy, and that alone. You have argued that children should not see a picture of a nude woman, and now you have replaced the nude woman with a picture of a prostitute. You frequently call women "girls", have said we need a "cute girl" for the lead and have suggested a winner of a beauty contest in a scanty bathing suit because beauty contests are what women are all about. I could point out numerous other times you have argued on both sides of the issue just to suit your ideas on what best represents a woman. Perhaps at the French woman site there is no problem with adding the picture of a street walker, as you have done, without going to the man site and adding pictures of a pimp and a john, but that will not work at this site. Revert your recent change to the previous picture. Gandydancer (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL--Grondilu (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The photo of the woman with a baby is fine and I hope you quit changing the picture and wasteing other people's time here. Wikipedia is not your plaything. Gandydancer (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it. It's just another image added because the user finds the image "attractive". That's not the only criterion for inclusion. User appears to be trolling and needs to stop. Viriditas (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It is just the same for you. You've put an image of a physicyst because in your mind, it is attractive to show a woman with a respectful profession, intellectually oriented. It is obviously a way to impose your anti-sexist thoughts. This is against neutrality. Using an image of a pornographic actress, was, indeed, some kind of provocation. I should not have done that. But using a photograph of a woman physicist is not neutral either. You have not chosen any partiular job for the man page. You should not do it for the woman page either. The photo of a woman breast feeding was almost perfect. Pretty much exactly parallel to the photo of the man page. Plus, breast feeding, unlike the property of being a doctor, is something that is exclusively feminine. It is therefore relevant here.--Grondilu (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Enough. Your account was created and used for one reason and one reason only: to promote and convey the archaic and offensive POV that a woman is only an object reduced to a pretty face and a set of tits. You are clearly a troll, and it is time for you to go away. You aren't here to improve the encyclopedia in any way. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This is just not fair. I'm one of the people that insisted that women is more than her flesh, and that there is no reason to picture her naked, and now you accuse me of saying that she's just a face and a set of tits. This is not coherent.--Grondilu (talk) 05:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It's an accurate description of all of the arguments you've offered above. Nobody cares if you are sexually attracted to a woman in a photo and that's not how we choose images. Why don't you do some basic research on what this article is about? Otherwise I'm going to start reporting you. Viriditas (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't need to do any research on this topic. Homo sum, humani nil a me alienum puto.--Grondilu (talk) 05:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Long hair isn't determined by culture??? Nil Einne (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If you take an evolutionary biological approach, one could argue that the quality of hair on the head of a female indicates her fertility to potential male mates. Nancy Etcoff (Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty) argues along these lines, as do others. Long hair in females is one form of sexual signaling. According to the good genes model discussed by Mesko & Bereczkei (2003), "males prefer long hair in women" as they "considered the longer-haired female subjects' health status better, especially if the subjects were less attractive women." From their abstract: "According to this theory, individuals who can afford the high costs of long hair are those who have good phenotypic and genetic quality." The researchers also found a possible relationship between facial attractiveness and hair.[3] Viriditas (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, in order to avoid unnecessary discussions, we have to look for a "neutral" picture without any additional strong connotation. In a such picture woman should not do anything and should not look "odd". It has to be as "generic" as possible and a full body picuture seems better than a face-portrait. For example:

• 
• 
• 

Basilicofresco (msg) 13:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not unhappy with the present photo. We already have one classic full-nude. I do not care for the blonde since most women, world-wide, are not blondes. I do not care for the woman with the umbrella. Gandydancer (talk) 13:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Basilicofresco, you say that the woman chosen for the image "should not do anything and should not look 'odd'", yet I feel you have chosen three of the "oddest" images available. No offense. Viriditas (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Not needed picture

Recently, the picture for the article Man was changed from a naked person to someone who is clothed, and it seems to have been resolved. I think that a new picture could also be put up for a woman. Either someone who is clothed or a sketch of a woman such as ones you would find in an Anatomy book for school. The users who mostly use wikipedia are children that are still in High School who don't need to see this stuff. Even I am still in High School and almost got in trouble for being on this article because a teacher thought I was looking at pornography. A new picture is strongly needed. Creation7689 (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Pick one from the dozens in the above section, and then wait and see what happens. Viriditas (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

it would be difficult for User:Creation7689 to pick one of the picture and to put it instead of the naked Frau.jpg. Because the woman page has been protected. This is pretty much a way for people in favor of nudity here, to protect their Point of view. This doesn't seem fair, considering the amount of complaints that have been raised.--Grondilu (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The middle one of the three I think would work, but I don't know how to change the picture so, I really cant do much there. Creation7689 (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no nudity, and it is just a plain and simple portrait of a woman. Perfectly appropriate for both children and adults. Creation7689 (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. That's a girl, not a woman. The woman is the third from the left. Viriditas (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize that this female is under 18. Then I can agree with you on the third photo. Creation7689 (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know her age. I'm saying she doesn't look like a woman in that photo. Now, the same female does have another photo where she appears more mature. Viriditas (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I see now that after looking at her closely, even in the other photo, I can still agree with the third picture that I agreed with you on before as an appropriate photo for this page. Creation7689 (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. Just remember there are many more images above to choose from. Viriditas (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I will keep that in mind. Creation7689 (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the law of unintended consequences? Removing the current photograph could bring on the end of the world. We might have already caused it by changing the photograph on the Man page. Viriditas (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how this fits with the article Woman or Man. Can you please explain this to me? Creation7689 (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. I'll be on Talk:Ragnarök if you need me. Viriditas (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to offer a reason for including a nude picture. It doesn't seem unlikely that a girl entering puberty might look at this article to see what exactly a woman is supposed to look like. While this may not be a terribly common use for the article, it does seem like one that Wikipedia should anticipate. I know that there are many places one could go to see a photo of a nude woman but I suspect that few of them are non-sexualized. I objected earlier to the Frau photo on the grounds that the genitals were shaved. As for the picture causing problems in school, I think it's a mistake to adjust Wikipedia to the hyper-nervous public schools, who are notoriously terrified of angry parents. If we did that, we might have to scrub the site clean of every photograph of tuxedo-wearing women. Pescofish (talk)

Let me add that I don't think the nude photo would need to be the lead photo. Pescofish (talk)

Assymetry man / woman

Why on earth :

• this photo should be accepted
  this photo should be accepted
• 
  and not this one ?

??? --Grondilu (talk) 05:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Read and understand it. This article stands on its own merits. Now, please stop trolling this talk page. Viriditas (talk) 05:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok this seems pertinent indeed, but there was no reason for these personnal attacks. Troll or not, I leave, so don't worry.--Grondilu (talk) 05:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I think File:Lactancia bebe aire libre.jpg would be a good choice for the lead image. The primary function of both a man and a woman is to protect a child; all other aspects are cultural. A significant difference between a man and a woman is the ability to breastfeed. Why do you oppose it, Viriditas? liquidluck✽talk 23:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

A teleological argument is not helpful for choosing an image in an encyclopedia. If we cannot decide on a single image, I will make an effort to add multiple images to the lead section. 10 million children under the age of 5 die on average every year from starvation and disease. Perhaps this could be avoided if the primary purpose of men and women was to create a better world for their children before having them. To survive, children need not only loving parents, but healthy food, shelter, fresh water, and clean air. They also require a stable and safe society whose primary value is the promotion and protection of human health; They need good physicians to guarantee the safety of the mother and improve their immunity to childhood disease. I think the photograph of female doctors examining a female patient exemplified this position. In order to protect children, you must first protect the mother and their living environment. Viriditas (talk) 03:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the biological purpose of humans (and all animals), which I believe this image demonstrates, but you are correct that modern human children require care beyond what a single person can typically provide. Because of this, I would definitely support an image comprised of multiple women as you suggested. It would enable us to show women as mothers, teachers, scientists, and other occupations and women of multiple cultures and ethnicities. In fact, I think that would be best. liquidluck✽talk 03:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that's the way forward. Could you help choose some images for review? If you can't, perhaps you can make some good recommendations? Either way, I'm glad someone is showing interest. Viriditas (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to help, but I haven't looked into possible images beyond what's on the talk page. I'll take a look soon, though. liquidluck✽talk 03:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, I am not unhappy with the present photo. However, the woman nursing her child is my favorite - I would love to see this photo for the lead! Gandydancer (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

All thats really needed for both the Man article and the Woman article is just a picture that shows at least one human being, and thats it. It doesn't need to be any specific or special type of picture. Creation7689 (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, there's no requirement they match, but I still think the picture is a good choice for the lead image. Are you opposing it, or just giving us a reminder? liquidluck✽talk 13:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Since (I believe) there have been no opposes, I've re-added Lactancia_bebe_aire_libre. liquidluck✽talk 22:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't notified of this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. Since you had participated in several conversations all over this talk page, I presumed you had it watchlisted, and when you didn't reply after four days, I went ahead and added it. liquidluck✽talk 03:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this seems a good choice. Looking back over the history of this article, editing wars re the lead picture have been frequent. I liked the pic of the 3 women docs, I like the current biologist, I like the current mother with babe, and I like one that has been deleted that showed women doing "man's work" during the WWII war years in the US. I looked over what the other "woman" sites have done and found that Finland has a grouping that you all may want to take a look at - I feel it looks very good! Gandydancer (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps this photo that I saw at the Finnish site to represent woman doings "men's work": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WomanFactory1940s.jpg Gandydancer (talk) 12:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying to your earlier message liquidluck. I had some issues with my computer for a while and wasn't able to log on to wikipedia. And Im not opposing at all. Im just putting up a reminder. (Also I can't figure out how to add some pictures for some suggestions. I have some stored on my computer. Is there a page that can help me with this?) Creation7689 (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggesting a photo of a woman doing a man's work seems to be a way to promote feminist ideas. The very existence of the concept of a man's work proves that those jobs are not done by a significative fraction of women's population. Using File:WomanFactory1940s.jpg would be just about as weird as using a photo of a flying fish to illustrate the concept of fish. To propose such a photo despite these statistical considerations is counter-intuitive and is, I would say by definition, a WP:POV. Whether or not a POV is politicaly correct doesn't prevent it from being a POV. As I already said, if one believes in social men/women symetry, and sincerly thinks that professional skills are not related to sex, then better is to use a photo that doesn't give any indication concerning the profession of the subject. Therefore, the File:Lactancia_bebe_aire_libre.jpg picture should be prefered.--Grondilu (talk) 06:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Grondilu, you said you weren't going to troll this talk page anymore. So, why are you still doing it? There isn't a single photo of a woman doing "man's work" under discussion here, because science and medicine are not "man's work". You may be happy with living in a dank, 18th century cave, but we're in the 21st century over here. You're welcome to join us at any time. However, if you persist with these ignorant comments intended only to disrupt the talk page and elicit reactions, I'll start removing them. Viriditas (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

My comment was only a response to Gabydancer's proposal of File:WomanFactory1940s.jpg, and let me remind you that it is this user who mentionned this expression man's work regarding this picture. My answer was therefore not a troll, but just a very legitimate answer to a proposal. Anyway I said that troll or not, I would leave, but I didn't mean for good. If you write something, I don't see why I wouldn't have the right to write back. As far as your personnal attacks are concerned, I won't comment them.--Grondilu (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to miss the fact that I put quotation marks around man's work, which changes the meaning completely! Gandydancer (talk) 12:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

A "Rosie the Riviter" photo would be very appropriate for the woman article. Please read that article before you suggest that I am merely trying to promote feminist ideas. We have decided on a grouping for this site. Gandydancer (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

They are having a problem with Grondilu at the French site as well. From the French talk page:

Thanks for reading and I hope it translated well... Gandydancer 12.148.235.4 (d) 27 mars 2010 à 15:26 (CET)

No, the translation is horrible. But I inderstand that you are a problems with Grondilu, like us. He makes some PoV in Homo sapiens, Homme, Femme, and others articles. Agrafian (me parler) 27 mars 2010 à 15:52 (CET)

Gandydancer (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

Plural

I'm not sure we can call "regular" the plural form of woman: it is widely accounted [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] as irregular. Is there any source that accounts it as "regular"? -- Basilicofresco (msg) 06:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"irregular" means "not governed by rules." Consult some handbooks of the history of the English language. This is a perfectly regular i-mutated noun, like man/men, goose/geese, foot/feet, etc. I grant that we will find sources that call it "irregular," but sorry, that's extremely sloppy usage. Clearly, non-linguists call "woman" an "irregular" plural. But they're no more valid than the many (many, many many) sources that say "the sun rises in the east" which is good enough for most functional purposes, but quite meaningless from a cosmological point of view. If you want to call it "irregular," find a certified textbook in linguistics that calls it that.DavidOaks (talk) 07:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Oprah

First, I find the sheer volume of discussion here on what the appropriate image is for Woman pretty funny. I haven't looked but I would hazard to guess that the Man page has nothing analogous to it. Prior comment aside, I don't think Oprah should be in the image (yes, I am adding to the discussion.) Actually, I don't think any well known figure should be put forward as the image of a woman. It just so happens that Oprah is the only black woman included at present which is a good reason to keep her there but she brings a lot of additional baggage (not to imply that it's good or bad baggage) above and beyond being an image. I'm sure we can find another black woman who will not conjure up any additional presumptions or inferences above and beyond being an example of the female form. If my point is being lost here, consider using pictures of Sara Palin or Hillary Clinton -- although that example is mostly only relevant to US editors.--Cybermud (talk) 03:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to get a clear understanding, your concern is that Oprah has too much "baggage"? And that the situation would be improved by swapping her for Sarah Palin or Hilary Clinton? Well, OK. I don't really think there's a problem -- surely the image of woman should include a few with baggage. Anybody who does anything is likely to carry some baggage. DavidOaks (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The article "Woman" is not and should not be merely about "the female form". Also, please leave well enough alone - do not add Palin or Clinton in place of Winfrey. Gandydancer (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

David, it seems I have, somehow, been unclear to you and GandyDancer has followed your confusion. My point is that the image doesn't need to be someone that has done something. It doesn't need to have extraneous baggage. Sara Palin and Hillary Clinton were both extreme politicizing examples of women whose images attract all sorts of extraneous inferences that are distracting. Conservatives would take offense at the use of Clinton and liberals would object to the use of Palin. It was an analogy not a recommendation for woman swapping. To you Gandy, you are right, the article is not about the form of a woman, but the PICTURE we use should be at least somehow tied to a woman's form -- if not we could just put a picture of a moon made of green cheese. Holding up any woman with an easily recognizable ethos, philosophy or brand has connotations about what a "correct" or proper women should be (which, admittedly hearkens back to the comments of some that one image "looked fat") and should be avoided. Oprah is widely recognizable and while her picture is appropriate for the very noteworthy article on her it is distracting in this article. That said, I do very much like the montage effect of using many pictures since any one single picture would have similar problems tied directly to, not the proper type of woman, but the proper looking one.--Cybermud (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I misunderstood you. And now that I understand, I'm going to disagree. Seems to me that at least some of the people in the montage should be recognizeable -- it's v much part of the idea of woman that women have different roles in the world -- some v much in the public eye, some less recognizable but highly influential, some in entirely private roles -- all of which are represented here. And if a woman accomplishes something, she will inevitably alienate people -- some who disagree w what she's done, others who are troubled by the idea of women having influence at all. On these grounds, Palin actually wouldn't be a bad choice (except that she really hasn't done all that much so far; check back in a couple years?), but I think Oprah's race is a strong argument in her favor -- multiple categories covered at once. DavidOaks (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Just started to respond to myself and got an "edit conflict." But actually, I agree with you now and have changed my mind. I just went and looked at Man and it has a picture of Mao Tse Tung (sp?) and Albert Einstein (amongst others.) Not really a fan of using Mao or Einstein either but it seems that the use of popular or noteworthy individuals from both sexes is pretty consistent. I also actually glanced at the Oprah Winfrey article and read more about her. Things like "She is also, according to some assessments, the most influential woman in the world.[7][8]," which, if true (and I'm no Oprah expert) make her a good candidate if we are going to put the picture of famous and easily recognizable men and women up as examples.--Cybermud (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Men's Longevity

The article puts the fact that Men live shorter lives because of suicide, use of drugs and alcohol. While this could be a factor, I'd add longer working hours and the fact that men work in more dangerous workplaces than women, as adding to this fact. Trumpy (talk) 06:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

User Manual

Is there one? Sorry, I'm in software R&D and I found this article overly general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.176.194 (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Articles like this are meant as entry points to a subject, from which a reader clicks to more specific (or otherwise related) articles. This article is well within the length limit, so that's not an issue at the moment. Go ahead and edit or propose edits. This article is semiprotected, so you may need to create an account and not just use an IP address to edit it yourself, but you can propose on the talk page anytime and from an IP. However, specific subtopics may be better placed into more focused articles.

A guide to editing is available from the left navigation bar on the screen: under "Interaction", click on "Help". Or click here for the new contributors' help page.

Freely post on the talk page any questions about editing. When you do, click "New section" at the top of the page. As your post was entered as a subtopic of another, it looks like you wanted to discuss Oprah, and I don't think you meant that.

Thanks and best wishes. Nick Levinson (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

More on collage - female athlete?

Not to hit up the debate once more, but the mens collage has two athletes in-dress, stereotypical in a sense. But really, especially as today's Western body aesthetic encourages athleticism (beyond razor-thin models, we regularly have athletes in SI Swimsuit Issues), there should be an athlete in sports dress on there. And as specimens of human pinnacles, women compete equally well with men in fencing, marathon+ distance running (almost), gymnastics (different events mutually equally inaccessible), tennis (Billie Jean King), netball, shooting, ski jumping, etc etc etc. SamuelRiv (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Do you have a photo? Gandydancer (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)