![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
I think it was jenny shipley?
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)
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)
As Rice has been replaced by Pelosi and Thatcher was demoted with a "burn burn Thatcher" comment, it is obvious that the political wars have already begun.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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Dude wikipedia should be censored!!!!!! not nice to kiddies
The first sentence of the article (A woman is a female human), with a link to female, takes party against theses of social construction of gender, as shown below in the article. It should be fixed. 08:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Puffy Amiyumi isn't a woman. It's two women. 204.52.215.107 ( talk) 19:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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:
And going over what we *don't* have here, what is still clearly apparent is:
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)
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)
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)
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
I think this article is low on pictures. im adding some from wikimedia commons. EryZ ( talk) 02:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
“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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
cf. ( you could see ): at the section (Etymology), at the link: Older English language
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)
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)
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)
this picture of an ancient lilith sculpture shows the +O symbol with lilith holding one at each hand It predates the hand mirror narrative
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.132.73 ( talk) 03:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
NewYorkStyledCheesecakes! ( talk) 09:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.141.25.33 (
talk) 23:24, 25 October 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)
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)
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)
Viriditas ( talk) 21:23, 20 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)
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)
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)
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. Rodhull andemu 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)
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)
Why not just some image like this [2]?-- 72.190.38.84 ( talk) 11:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 request editing in order to add the Haitian creole equivalent to the list of languages in the left-side column. Rajkiandris Rajkiandris ( talk) 06:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
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 :
Please don't hesitate to add your suggested pictures. -- Grondilu ( talk) 17:50, 26 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)
(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)
My preferred images are :
-- Grondilu ( talk) 03:06, 27 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 :
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)
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)
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)
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)
Why on earth :
??? -- Grondilu ( talk) 05:19, 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 "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:
Gandydancer ( talk) 11:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
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:
![]() | Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article. |
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
I think it was jenny shipley?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Dude wikipedia should be censored!!!!!! not nice to kiddies
The first sentence of the article (A woman is a female human), with a link to female, takes party against theses of social construction of gender, as shown below in the article. It should be fixed. 08:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Puffy Amiyumi isn't a woman. It's two women. 204.52.215.107 ( talk) 19:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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:
And going over what we *don't* have here, what is still clearly apparent is:
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)
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)
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)
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
I think this article is low on pictures. im adding some from wikimedia commons. EryZ ( talk) 02:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
“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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
cf. ( you could see ): at the section (Etymology), at the link: Older English language
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)
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)
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)
this picture of an ancient lilith sculpture shows the +O symbol with lilith holding one at each hand It predates the hand mirror narrative
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.132.73 ( talk) 03:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
NewYorkStyledCheesecakes! ( talk) 09:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.141.25.33 (
talk) 23:24, 25 October 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)
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)
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)
Viriditas ( talk) 21:23, 20 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)
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)
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)
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. Rodhull andemu 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)
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)
Why not just some image like this [2]?-- 72.190.38.84 ( talk) 11:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 request editing in order to add the Haitian creole equivalent to the list of languages in the left-side column. Rajkiandris Rajkiandris ( talk) 06:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
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 :
Please don't hesitate to add your suggested pictures. -- Grondilu ( talk) 17:50, 26 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)
(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)
My preferred images are :
-- Grondilu ( talk) 03:06, 27 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 :
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)
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)
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)
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)
Why on earth :
??? -- Grondilu ( talk) 05:19, 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 "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:
Gandydancer ( talk) 11:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
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:
![]() | Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article. |
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)