This is an archive of past discussions about Woman. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The article is a bit Eurocentric, especially in its discussion of women in science and contemporary politics, as well as the images it shows. Greater diversity of women represented, as well as discussion of the intersections between ethnicity/class/religion and gender, would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.107.125 (talk) 10:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
To be fair, there was concern after MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES was implemented that it was too broad and might be used to keep out such lead image collages in articles that are not about ethnicity. It's why a part of the section was changed soon after being implemented. The "or similarly large human populations" part was disputed as applying to all articles that deal with different types of people. It was felt that MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES is specifically about "articles about ethnic groups" or articles in a similar vein. This article is not about ethnic groups. This is probably something that needs more clarification at the guideline talk page, especially since the Girl article currently does use a collage or montage (whatever one wants to call it) for its lead presentation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Per Jytdog (in the #Lead image section below) pointing to the followup RfC, I refreshed my memory on all the debate. The "or similarly large human populations" aspect was seen as vague and needing clarification by me and EvergreenFir, and some opposed the broad application of MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES, but the "or similarly large human populations" aspect was upheld. The "WP:OR" part of the wording was, however, removed. More stated below in the "Lead image" section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Framing
I've reached this article to read about how hormonal differences between women and men lead to differences in world-view between the sexes. But again, found nothing. Why all articles about sex are totally framed in anatomy + politics? I need objective information, from the Biological and Psychological Sciences, not feminist propaganda.--MisterSanderson (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
"As in cases without two sexes, such as species that reproduce asexually, the gender-neutral appearance is closer to female than to male".
Shouldn't it be "such as species that *can* reproduce asexually"? If a species reproduces asexually then ostensibly it has no sex, in which case there's no male/female to which the embryo (appearing a sentence before that) can be similar. --178.8.24.240 (talk) 11:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Don’t really understand the question. Homo sapiens is a species that *can* reproduce sexually, but not every individual does so. But you don’t have to include the ′′can′′. One simply says, homo sapiens is a species which reproduces sexually (as opposed to some other way). If you still have a question, perhaps you can state it some other way? Mathglot (talk) 05:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This edit request to Woman has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Gender stereotyping
According to the United Nations of Human Rights, they mentioned that the states are required to defend women’s rights against any gender stereotypes discrimination. Also, the United Nation of Human Rights are obligated to protect women’s public and private life against any stereotype that women may encounter. [1]
The United Nations of Human Rights mentioned the following, “A gender stereotype is a generalized view or preconception about attributes or characteristics, or the roles that are or ought to be possessed by, or performed by women and men. A gender stereotype is harmful when it limits women’s and men’s capacity to develop their personal abilities, pursue their professional careers and make choices about their lives. [2] In addition, the articles explains that a gender stereotype is caused by a general idea or thought that has to do with women’s qualities, characteristics or roles that are achieved by women in this case. Also, such gender stereotype can be damaging when it decreases a women’s ability to make progress in either personal or professional setting. [3]
The United Nations of Human Rights also explain that, “Harmful stereotypes can be both hostile/negative (e.g., women are irrational) or seemingly benign (e.g., women are nurturing). For example, the fact that child care responsibilities often fall exclusively on women is based on the latter stereotype. [4]
“Gender stereotyping refers to the practice of ascribing to an individual woman or man specific attributes, characteristics, or roles by reason only of her or his membership in the social group of women or men. Gender stereotyping is wrongful when it results in a violation or violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms.” [5]
“Example of wrongful gender stereotyping are the failure to criminalize marital rape based on societal perception of women as the sexual property of men, and the failure to effectively investigate, prosecute and sentence sexual violence against women based on, e.g., the stereotype that women should protect themselves from sexual violence by dressing and behaving modestly” [6]
“Gender stereotypes compounded and intersecting with other stereotypes have a disproportionate negative impact on certain groups of women, such as women from minority or indigenous groups, women with disabilities, women from lower caste groups or with lower economic status, migrant women, etc.” [7]
“Wrongful gender stereotyping is a frequent cause of discrimination against women and a contributing factor in violations of a vast array of rights such as the right to health, adequate standard of living, education, marriage and family relations, work, freedom of expression, freedom of movement, political participation and representation, effective remedy, and freedom from gender-based violence. “[8]Violence against women
“The Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women defines “violence against women” as “any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or private life.” “ [9]
“It has taken decades of struggle by the women’s rights movement to persuade the international community to view gender-based violence against women as a human rights concern and not just as a private matter in which the State should not interfere. In 1992, the CEDAW Committee in its General Recommendation No. 19, asserted that violence against women is a form of discrimination, directed towards a woman because she is a woman or that affects women disproportionately. This violence seriously inhibits women’s ability to enjoy rights and freedoms on a basis of equality with men. In December 1993, the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women, recognized that violence against women violates women's rights and fundamental freedoms and called on states and the international community to work toward the eradication of violence against women. The same year, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action recognized that the elimination of violence against women in public and private life is a human rights obligation. The then Commission on Human Rights condemned gender-based violence for the first time in 1994 and the same year appointed a Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences. The 1995 UN World Conference on Women held in Beijing reaffirmed the conclusions of the Vienna Conference, listing violence against women as one of the critical areas of concern. In 2017, the CEDAW Committee, marking 25th anniversary of its General Recommendation No. 19, further elaborated international standards on gender-based violence against women in its General Recommendation No. 35. In General Recommendation No. 35, the CEDAW Committee recognized that the prohibition of gender-based violence against women has evolved into a principle of customary international law, binding all States.” [10]
“Framing gender-based violence against women as a human rights violation implies an important conceptual shift. It means recognizing that women are not exposed to violence by accident, or because of an in-born vulnerability. Instead, violence is the result of structural, deep-rooted discrimination which the state has an obligation to address. Preventing and addressing gender-based violence against women is therefore not a charitable act. It is a legal and moral obligation requiring legislative, administrative and institutional measures and reforms and the eradication of gender stereotypes which condone or perpetuate gender-based violence against women and underpin the structural inequality of women with men.”
“The Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women and the CEDAW General Recommendation No. 35 provide for the concept of due diligence obligation of States. Under this obligation, States have a duty to take positive action to prevent and protect women from violence, punish perpetrators of violent acts and compensate victims of violence. The principle of due diligence is crucial as it provides the missing link between human rights obligations and acts of private persons.” [11]
“Considerable progress has been made in many countries of the world. Comprehensive legal frameworks and specific institutions and policies have been put in place to promote women’s rights, prevent and protect women from violence. There is growing awareness of the nature and impact of violence against women around the world. Innovative and promising practices are reported every year to the General Assembly, the Human Rights Council and the Commission on the Status of Women, including in the areas of investigations, prosecution and provision of services.” [12]
“Yet, the figures on prevalence of violence against women are alarming. According to data by the World Health Organization, one third of women globally experience violence at least once in their lifetime. There are still obstacles to women’s access to justice, resulting into widespread impunity for violence. Considerable efforts are still required to promote women’s and girls’ autonomy and choice and to ensure the realization of the right of women and girls to a life free from violence.” [13]Avasqu71 (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).Why hasn't this page been fixed yet? With such a topic as huge as "woman" there shouldn't be so much jargon, politics and new age "ideas" while being written at a high school level. The article should be neutral and devoid of bias. The opening to the article should not have anything that is not about a female human being. I have read through pretty much all the comments on the talk page and I don't understand why this is not resolved. Transgendered individuals make up less than .05% of the population, not to mention transwomen making up even less from that number. Why is the entire side of the page is covered in "women in society", "feminism" and "feminist philosophy" page links? Come on, what is this? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a political rally. The first thing when you think about women is not feminism and feminist philosophy, get them out of here.
"A woman is a female human being. The term woman is usually reserved for an adult, with girl being the usual term for a female child or adolescent. The term woman is also sometimes used to identify a female human, regardless of age, as in phrases such as "women's rights"."
Why is this phrase "women's rights" here? Is this all women are about? Meanwhile the men's page says "men's basketball." This can be changed to "women's health", "women's volleyball", "women's section", I mean, literally ANYTHING else.
"Women with typical genetic development are usually capable of giving birth from puberty until menopause."
This is poorly written. Is it necessary to insinuate about infertility in the first intro to the page? Infertility/difficulty carrying to term effect 10% of women ages 15-44. This stat does not include the top reason why women become infertile which is that they wait too long and their egg reserves diminishes severely after age 32. Again... WHY is this in the introduction to this article? I think everyone knows that not every single woman on the planet is capable of getting pregnant and giving birth, there is no need to handle this with kid gloves.
"There are also trans women (those who have a male sex assignment that does not align with their gender identity),[1] and intersex women (those born with sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female)."
Why are transwomen being mentioned in the intro to this article? A woman is a female human by wikipedia's own admission--why are transwomen who are biologically male mentioned in an article about biologically female humans? Trans and intersex individuals make up such a tiny, minute portion of the population and should not be mentioned here. They do not hold equal validity in an article that is about female humans. This sentence should not be here at all and the wording of it uses lingo and buzzwords a la Vox or Slate. Transwomen are not "assigned" male; the doctor visually observes a baby's genitalia and uses the word corresponding to said genitalia. In essence, if you have a penis you are male and if you have a vagina you are female. Sure, there are anomaly's... but this doesn't belong here. The word "Assign" makes it seem like the doctor gives the baby it's sex because of his or her own personal choice or feelings, like "Hmmm, having assigned female in a while, let's do that!" If the baby chooses to transition later in life that has absolutely nothing to do with what the doctor, all the nurses and the parents saw with their own eyeballs at the birth. It's as simple as that. This line needs to be removed completely. It's inaccurate and personal feelings do not belong in an encyclopedia. AikaNikolas (talk) 08:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
First, you aren't new to Wikipedia despite your new account. So I felt I should go ahead and point that out. Second, you are complaining about a gendered topic such as this being too ideological and political. What???? What would anyone expect, given the gendered issues that come with being a woman, such as violence against women, women's rights, sexism, etc.? This is not the Female article. The topic of men's rights is commonly associated with unsavory and WP:Fringe aspects. So, of course, it wouldn't get as much weight in the Man article as women's rights gets in the Woman article. The Woman article addresses stuff like science, literature and art. If you want to expand that, or sports, then expand it, but make no mistake about it...the literature on "woman" mostly concerns what you currently see in the article. It matters not that you probably first think of the female body when you hear the word woman. Third, transgender and intersex women are currently not mentioned a lot in the article. Regardless of what you think, they should have their WP:Due weight in the article. A Wikipedia article on "Woman" should not exclude mention of trans women and intersex women. I'm not going to address the rest of your statements, except to state that the lead should summarize the article. When there is content in the lead that is not covered lower, an argument for removing content from the lead can be made. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I know people are probably sick of talking about this element of the blurb, but I feel like the following quoted segment should be made more clear:
There are also trans women (those who have a male sex assignment that does not align with their gender identity),[1] and intersex women (those born with sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female).
Specfically, the second half (regarding "intersex women") seems to be using "women" to refer to self-identified gender, not sex, although the parenthetical does not indicate this in any direct way (you could argue it indicates it indirectly since it mentions a deviation in sexual characteristics). Looking through the intersex article, I can't find any instance of the word "woman" that isn't referring to sex, so I don't think there's some 3rd usage I'm overlooking. Simply put, the parenthetical is simply defining what an intersex person is, not an intersex woman, which does not match the first half of the sentence (corresponding to trans women).
If the mention of "intersex women" is simply an additional nod to the usage of the term "woman" to refer to self-identified gender instead of sex, then I feel like there is a clearer way to present that, possibly simply by adding some kind of preface, like so:
This makes the purpose of the sentence (inclusion of the use of the word as a gender identity) more immediately clear, keeps the two topics of the sentence in agreement in terms of format, and makes the last parenthetical directly relevant to the article (current version is not). That said, what I proposed here still needs some obvious work. Notably, the version of the preface I've provided is somewhat weasel-wordy in its use of "sometimes".
Honestly, I think the answer is that the exact wording I'm providing for the preface is wholly undesirable, but the general structure is something that should probably be used. However, I don't know what specific wording would actually be good for this first portion. Whatever wording is used, it should be specific and supported by reliable sources. Even the current wording ("There are also[...]") is honestly awful.
Perhaps the most concrete claim possible looks something like this (very rough):
Within some social sciences, the term "woman" is [...]. This usage has also been adopted by ___a group you can reliably make this claim about___ (new source goes here).
Thoughts? First, on whether or not we can agree that the current sentence is poorly done in the ways I've mentioned, and second, on what I've proposed to replace it. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 02:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
References
^Sexual Orientation and Gender Expression in Social Work Practice, edited by Deana F. Morrow and Lori Messinger (2006, ISBN0-231-50186-2), p. 8: "Gender identity refers to an individual's personal sense of identity as [man] or [woman], or some combination thereof."
Is there, or should there be, some sub article? Perhaps something like "Differences between men and women" or "Women and technology"? Benjamin (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Hm, yes, perhaps, but that seems more strictly academic. But I'll give it a try. But at any rate, I do think there should be some mention here, perhaps not of this particular point, but that there are differences, in general. Benjamin (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I do still think there should be one article summarizing all the differences between men and women. Here's another example: In women, the index and ring finger tend to be the same length, whereas men's ring finger tends to be longer.[2]Benjamin (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for that! So, I guess that about covers it, the physical, and the psychological. But perhaps there could be social, cultural, political, economic, etc... Benjamin (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Levivich: I've edited your above comment to not insert the template onto the talk page as it causes undesirable identation issues for sections below your comment. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 02:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Lead image
Botticelli's The Birth of Venus is a very poor lead image for this page.
I see that there used to be a gallery that was removed in Feb 2016 following this RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images about galleries of large groups of people (which arose from an RfC here, now in the archives here), which arose from a prior RfC about ethnic groups" that led to MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. There was an effort to repeal MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES here in June 2016 that failed.
So OK, no gallery. There has been no discussion here since then.
In the article, we've had:
gallery removed in Feb 2016, leaving the infobox symbol at the top
here women runners was replaced by Lee Remick 23 January 2017 by User:Zhyboo then replaced by Zhyboo with Salma Hayek.
here the Salma Hayek image was replaced with a fitness model 10 February 2017 by User:Js20030
here on 15 February 2017 both images were removed by User:Flyer22 Reborn, leaving the infobox symbol image at the top.
here on 12 March 2017 a drawing "of a woman's bust" was added by User:HeliumPearl
here on 28 April 2017 image removed by User:Coltsfan, leaving the infobox symbol image at the top.
here on 18 May 2017 the drawing "of a woman's bust" was restored by HeliumPearl, reverted a few hours later by Flyer22; here a different image of "a woman's bust" was added by HeliumPearl, immediately reverted by User:EvergreenFir
here on 2 August 2017 the current image of Botticelli's The Birth of Venus was added by User:Gunkarta; reverted by User:Cleaner880 3 days later with no reason given. Immediately restored by Gunkarta.
So the Venus is just a "classier" version of the "bust", "fitness model", and actress pictures, emphasizing sexuality/beauty ideals, and this is not a good thing. I'm removing the image, leaving the infobox symbol image at the top. I very much doubt that an RfC would provide consensus for Venus or the similar images as the lead image on this page. Jytdog (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
something "not Euro-centric" so you propose a European artifact found in Europe instead. More of a comment on wikipedians than anything 71.246.152.225 (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
On Botticelli's The Birth of Venus image, I just love visuals and would prefer the art to represent the subject, that's all. There is no ill intention on my behalf for the installment of the image. What I did not expect was all this sensitivity; and the fact that people do read into things; like diversity and objectification issues, also the question of Eurocentric beauty ideals, I'm not a European myself. So.., if the main picture is posing a problem, go ahead remove it, I do not mind if the article has none. Cheers..!Gunkartatalk05:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't/didn't mind the Venus image as the lead image because it's an artistic expression that shows the female form. It's not WP:GRATUITOUS. There is currently a similar image (of a man) at the Man article. But, sure, if it's preferred that the lead images at both of these articles be of people with clothes on, so be it. Here at the aforementioned RfC, I stated in part, "if this RfC closes with consensus for the broad interpretation of the gallery aspect, we should work out the wording for the content since a number editors, including ones who do support the broad interpretation of the guideline, clearly do not agree that the matter is WP:OR, and also have significant disagreement about the 'similarly large human populations' wording. And there is also the matter of having the gallery lower in the article. How is it any more of a problem for the lead than if it's placed lower in the article?" The "OR" piece was removed from the wording, but the "similarly large human populations" piece is still there, and we see that it hasn't stopped the gallery that is currently at the bottom of in Child article. Furthermore, the Girl article still currently has various images as the lead presentation. It also had it at the time of the aforementioned RfC. It's working for that article, but that's likely because the images are not of celebrities or other notables. As the aforementioned RfC shows, a main problem with such a presentation at articles was including celebrities or other notables. For this article, the debate was mostly over including trans woman Laverne Cox. If we were to do a "variety" presentation again, the trans debate would start up again, but if we included a trans woman or trans women who weren't known as trans, I doubt we'd get fuss over the inclusion(s). People objected because they knew Cox was transgender. Maybe having a gallery at the bottom of the article would work. In that case, not noting who is trans could be seen as trans invisibility; so noting who is trans might be the better option despite the occasional anti-trans comments we'd get. Anyway, a single image for an article like this doesn't come anywhere close to being representative. At least a collage/gallery of different types of women has a significantly longer reach representative-wise. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me that the new image (woman mechanic) is the same problem as was identified with the original image, just in a different way. If the original image emphasized outdated and west-centric ideals of female beauty, then this new image emphasizes (also west-centric) ideals of modern feminism, which is not necessarily a point of view that I disagree with, but it is still a specific conceptualization of "woman" and not a universally applicable representation, and Wikipedia should aim for neutrality. Since the article for "man" uses the image from the Sistine Chapel of "The Birth of Adam", then why not use for this article the image from the Sistine Chapel of "The Creation of Eve"? (The image could potentially be cropped to show only Eve.) That seems the most logical option, to me. Or, alternatively, perhaps keeping the "woman mechanic" image, but along with a couple other images showing other conceptualizations of "women", such as one more traditional western conceptualization, a non-western woman, maybe even a trans-woman? (unless that would be perceived as violating "no ethnic galleries") Or, as a third alternative, one single photograph of a woman who is portrayed in a way that is neither, in traditional conceptualizations of the terms, feminine nor masculine? Vontheri (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
@Vontheri: I agree with you that the current lead image is non-neutral in that it emphasizes ideals of western modern feminism. I do not support using a collage or an image from the Sistine Chapel. I have been (slowly) working on a gallery for lead image options for the Man and Woman articles. This is what I have so far, with my preferences being the sitting Brazilian woman and the small photo of the sitting Brazilian man, but cropped: Man and Woman galleryKolya Butternut (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Kolya Butternut: I think the Brazilian image you found would be a good choice. Out of curiosity, is there any certain reason you don't think the Sistine Chapel image would be a good fit? Vontheri (talk) 04:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Vontheri: I thought this was discussed here but I can't seem to find it. Basically I think the image should be representative of an actual man, not a piece of art. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Kolya Butternut: Okay. Well, I think the Brazilian images that you found would be good. I think it's best that the images should be just of a woman/man in a neutral way, and not in a way that suggests a certain role or occupation or activity etc., since the article is just called "woman", and not "women who are mechanics" or "women who are artists", etc. Thus the Brazilian image is a fitting choice. Vontheri (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Apologies for bringing up the issue of lead image again, as I see it was discussed above a few months ago. But the lead image is kind of important because it's the image that pops up in previews and some aggregators and such. I was reading something that wikilinked "Man and Woman" and I moused over the links to see the WP:Tools/Navigation popups, and the lead image for Man is a picture of a man, specifically Michelangelo's The Creation of Adam. The lead image for Woman is a diagram of the female reproductive system. These two pictures communicated to me that "man" is a male (complete) human being, and "woman" is a vagina. I didn't want to change it unilaterally (specifically, I didn't want to revert this edit without asking first). Is it just me? Levivich23:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Even though the image in question is not in an infobox or at the top of the article, but instead several screens down and below two other images (which are in the infoboxes), it is indeed very awkward that it's the "top" image that various on- and off-site scripts grab. A very slight tweak would be to swap the order of that image and File:Human anatomy.jpg, which are very close to each other in the same section. This would not involve introducing any new images or changing what section or "screen" any of the images were on, so it would hopefully not be controversial; does anyone object? -sche (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
No objection to that change, as I think it would be an improvement over the current situation. However, I think that change creates a new problem: the lead image for Woman would be a picture of a man and a woman. I think articles like Man, Woman, Horse, Pig, Fish, Tree, etc., should have a lead image that depicts a typical example of the subject. What about swapping it with File:Weaving profile.jpg or File:WomanFactory1940s.jpg (both currently in the article), or adding a new picture altogether? Levivich03:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Definitely an issue that File:Scheme female reproductive system-en.svg currently presents as the main image. And it wouldn't be much better to have the main image be of both male and female anatomy. Given what I stated about the Girl article in the #Lead image discussion above, I think it's time we revisit the "similarly large human populations" matter with a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images. A lead image (collage or otherwise) that shows a variety of different types of women would work best -- meaning it would be better than an image of a single woman for this article. But if the Man article can get away with using a single artistic image for its lead image, so can the Woman article. This is regardless of the transgender topic repeatedly being more of an issue for this article than it has been for the Man article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
If we can't find a suitable lead image for this article, maybe we should change the lead image on Man instead? In general, I agree that the Man and Woman articles should focus less on anatomy than the Male and Female articles. feminist (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Changing the lead image on the Man article won't fix the aforementioned issue with this one. And what would we change the lead image of that article to? We should be more focused on this article unless we want to have a discussion about both articles and leave a note there that, per WP:TALKCENT, the discussion is centralized here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I was going to suggest a painting by Frida Kahlo - if the lead image on Man is a well known painting of and by a man, why not make the lead image on Woman a well known painting of and by a woman? But, unfortunately, it seems her work is still under copyright, and I can't think of another female portrait painter who is iconic in the same way. Someone who is more versed in art than me should make suggestions, but here are a few ideas:
Per what I noted in the Lead image discussion, I don't mind File:Sandro Botticelli 046.jpg (the Birth of Venus image) being the lead image. I think that File:Serebryakova Bath house study 1912.jpg would be a poor choice because it's focused on women bathing. I think that File:Self-portrait in a Straw Hat by Elisabeth-Louise Vigée-Lebrun.jpg would be a poor choice because of her dated clothing and the fact that she is a notable woman from the past. I think that File:Shoen Uemura - Firefly.jpg would be a poor choice because it's too tied to a specific culture. I think that File:Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, from C2RMF retouched.jpg would be a poor choice because of just how famous the image is and that it is sometimes mocked. I'm not sure about File:Meisje met de parel.jpg, but I know I don't prefer it. I think File:Venus von Willendorf 01.jpg would be a poor choice (the poorest choice) because it's a statue without clear facial features and doesn't represent what is typically thought of as the female form. Yes, female forms differ, but WP:LEADIMAGE is about trying to find a representative image. Sometimes a traditional or stereotypical image is more representative to the masses. For example, a red apple as opposed to a green apple, as the lead image for the Apple article. I'm not stating that we need to go with a white woman as the lead image, though, of course. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh brother, must we go through this again? I'd think we had best left well enough alone. But if we must, it would be best to use the first woman rather than the last, in other words a black woman should be used. Gandydancer (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Flyer, that's the point - which black woman? Seems to me we're between a rock and a hard place when we think we can find a woman to represent "woman". Look above at all the pure, virginal, sparkling white photos. A black woman in Africa with a nursing child in a sling as she works in a field might as well be from Mars compared to the above photos. I don't want to choose a woman but if we must at least a poor Asian woman better represents woman of today since they are at least half of our world population (I think). BTW, at one point we had a composite and that didn't work out either due to squabbles about the choices. Gandydancer (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh come on, there is no need to bring race into this. Just select the most suitable image that represents a female human, and that means a traditional or stereotypical image that resonates with readers. And I'm not even white. feminist (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Gandy, yeah, in the Lead image discussion, I noted the "various display of women" aspect and that the "various display" route has been working for the Girl article for years. The main issue with using a collage or composite at this article? It was the people who kept complaining about having a trans woman -- Laverne Cox -- in the collage or composite. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Yup, you can have countless trans women saying that they knew something was wrong when they were three years old and yet there are those that say they know better than what these people knew for a fact because they lived it. All the more reason to not use a photo of some illusion of what is considered to be a woman. Gandydancer (talk) 03:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh, that reminds me (because this was also a criticism of at least one of the figures in the collage) of one of the criticisms of the Birth of Venus: it's not a depiction of a woman, it's a depiction of a deity. -sche (talk) 03:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Who made that argument? Was it it a common argument? Whatever the case, I think that's a weak argument, -sche, since the imagery is clearly of the female human form. Editors could also use an image of Eve to contrast the image of Adam at the Man article, but then we'd have to worry about "Wikipedia is going with a religious viewpoint" arguments. In the case of Venus, it's Greek mythology and so we don't have to worry about "Wikipedia is going with a religious viewpoint" arguments. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
OK, looking at it again I understand why this comment may easily be misinterpreted. But I want an image that resonates with the majority of readers. According to a visualization created by the WMF, almost 50% of English Wikipedia readers come from the US or UK. An absolute majority of readers come from the Global North. We should cater to them. feminist (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't object to switching to some completely different image (and I would be fine with either the birth of Venus or a black woman, as proposed above), but another "least change" idea that might side-step debate over a new image: is there a way to cause the image which is currently the first image in the article, File:Symbol_venus.svg, to be parsed as the top/thumbnail image? -sche (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I assume one way to do this would be: instead of including Template:Women_in_society_sidebar, copy and paste the entire contents of the sidebar into the article. Of course, this wouldn't be ideal because any changes updates to the sidebar would have to be added to the article manually and they'd likely fall out of sync. WanderingWanda (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
How about this? A beautiful work of art that's 1. Stylized enough to feel somewhat universal 2. Not depicting anyone specific. 3. From a culture that's not over-represented on Wikipedia (it's a fresco from a Minoan palace.) 4. Not sexy or male-gazey.
If it feels ambiguous gender-wise I'd argue that's a good thing - it means it's presenting a broad and non-stereotypical view of women. Plus the title of the piece - Ladies of the Minoan Court - will clear up any confusion. I'm going to be bold and throw it up there - I think a piece of art is better for such a broad concept as 'woman' than a photograph of one specific person, and after looking at various pieces of art this feels like the best candidate that I've found. In any case it's definitely better than the various photos of conventionally attractive young white women that people keep putting up. But I know this is a controversial subject so 100% feel free to revert or put forward other candidates. (I'd be perfectly happy if we could find a good piece of art where the subjects happened to be black, per discussion above, for example.) WanderingWanda (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Reverted. As a lead image for the topic, it is poor. Clearly, it does not adhere to what WP:LEADIMAGE states about the lead image being something the reader expects to see. You apparently want to use an image that readers won't expect to see...all for the sake of ambiguity or a "non-stereotypical view of women." Our job is to go with an image that readers will expect to see or one that will otherwise resonate with them, or use no image at all. After all, WP:LEADIMAGE also talks about it sometimes not being possible to have a representative image or any lead image. I fail to see how that image you added will resonate with readers in terms of what a woman is. "Conventionally attractive young white women" might be stereotypical, but they resonate with people. This is not an article about gender ambiguity. And the lead having the Woman article use such an image as the lead image is not an improvement. It is also silly for this article to go by such a standard while the Man article does not. Some people might not expect a black woman as the lead image, but a black woman as the lead image would clearly be of a woman to readers and is an image they (many anyway) can easily resonate with. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Considering how debatable this topic (what lead image to use or to use a collage or composite) has been, it would be best to form consensus on an image or images before another lead image attempt is made. We can, of course, also take the WP:RfC route. For how an RfC on images can look, see Talk:Scarlett Johansson/Archive 6#Request for comment on lead image and this one that was had at Talk:Blond. But like I stated in the discussion before that RfC about what blond hair image to use, too many options can overwhelm participants. In other words, the more options there are, the more overwhelmed editors are and less likely they are to vote. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, it's a painting of women. That seems like something a reader might expect to see in an article about women. :) I'll add that my goal was not specifically to pick an androgynous image, even if I question why that would be a bad thing. Instead I picked it for the criteria I outlined above. You could probably make the image I picked feel less androgynous by cropping it differently, though, if that was the goal. In any case I'm not married to the choice.
...Out of Levivich's choices I'm personally drawn to 3, 6, and 8. The construction images - 3 and 8 - in particular feel bold, empowering, dynamic, well composed, and well lit. WanderingWanda (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Thoughts in no particular order: 1. For my part, just about any of the images proposed so far are better than the current lead image, and I always appreciate boldness, so I think the Minoan painting was an improvement, but it's still not my favorite choice for a permanent replacement. 2. I prefer a photograph of a "typical" example(s) of an actual woman (a female human), rather than something abstract (including any symbol or painting) that shows someone's idea of a woman or womanhood or femininity, etc., for the same reasons as Tree, Horse, etc., shows a picture of a typical example of the subject rather than something more philosophical or esoteric (and for this reason I don't like the lead image at Man, either, but that's for another day). 3. I really like the idea of a collage, as is done in Girl, because it demonstrates that "woman" is actually diverse; there is no typical woman; they come in many different appearances. However, it may take some time to create a collage that everyone is happy with; I understand there were some difficulties with the last one, although consensus may change, and perhaps the last collage would gain consensus now even if it didn't before. 4. I do believe/hope we can resolve this on the talk page without having to do something more involved like an RfC. 5. Perhaps we can agree on an interim image to replace the current one, until such time as a collage (or something else) can be created/presented/discussed/consented-to? Levivich16:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree this thread has too many suggestions and would overwhelm many people attempting to pick, and we should winnow things down to the few options with the most support. In whatever informal !vote or formal RfC we hold, we should also employ ranking of choices. I like File:Rosie_the_Riveter_(Vultee)_DS.jpg best among the single-person non-painting photographs. What about, as a tentative suggestion for options: the aforementioned riveter photo (or another woman of colour), the birth of Venus, a collage like was used previously, or "none of the above"? In the last case, we would still be left to decide what non-lead image to put first in the article body and hence set as the "thumbnail" image, or to have another !vote with other options. -sche (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
WanderingWanda, of course, readers would expect to see an image of a woman or women. But that image you added does not cut it, and I'm certain most or all others would state the same. It's also better to have a lead image that doesn't only show a woman's face or just about only her face. Out of Levivich's latest choices, I really like image 8. Will readers expect to see a lead image of a woman working the way she is working in that image? Probably not. But before they click on the article, they will be expecting an image of a woman standing still doing nothing or doing something. So in that sense, that the woman is doing something will be expected. Readers can only guess what the woman might be doing before they click on the image. I considered image 3 as well, and wouldn't mind it as the lead image. We can also try for two or three lead images in a vertical way as long as it doesn't result in mobile (phone) issues or editors stacking more and more in a row. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Out of these choices, I prefer image 8 the most. It's more contemporary and shows the woman more clearly than image 3. A crop may be beneficial. feminist (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Regarding which woman, what about the panracial line drawing of a woman that is etched onto a gold plaque being carried by the Pioneer 10 spacecraft, and which is the first object constructed by humans to leave the solar system? This image, along with the companion image of a man and some technical information about its origin, was the first explicit, concrete interstellar communication attempt by humans, and is intended to convey information about all humankind to other beings, in case it is ever intercepted by extraterrestrial life. Mathglot (talk) 09:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not for the line drawing image, which is focused on anatomy (because it's showing what a female human's body is likely to look like). Compare File:Human.png (a line drawing image with the one you suggested included) to File:Human anatomy.jpg. Pretty much the same thing, except the latter is more detailed. Even in the Human article, the lead image currently isn't focused on showing what the human body looks like. And diversity-wise, we can see that the image isn't of white people. The Venus image does show a nude woman, obviously, and it's informative to show a typical anatomy of a woman in the Woman article, but that image doesn't have the same "this is all about anatomy" feel to it. And as others have mentioned, this isn't the Female article. When it comes to anatomy, we already have anatomy images in the "Biology and sex" section. And this discussion started because of a concern that an anatomy image presents as the lead image (although that image is only of the reproductive system and doesn't show the overall body of a woman). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Levivich (Leviv), regarding this, the image isn't really in the lead. It currently shows as (mainly) being in the Biology and sex section, at least on my computer screen. And it's misplaced there. Moving the image to the top, ahead of the templates, will make it so that it's the lead image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@Levivich: Sorry to say this but I hate that picture. I feel like it is defining a woman by her form of wage labor, and suggesting that a woman has more value when she performs traditionally male roles. I understand we didn't have much to work with, and I appreciate all your effort. I would like something like this as an example(it says all rights reserved): [3] I discussed criteria I felt was important for this lead image in the Man article here: [4]Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@Levivich: I found this creative commons image that I cropped:
We've come to a consensus on this. Per all of the points made by me and others above, I see no need to discuss this so soon after achieving consensus. We cannot please everyone. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I understand there was just a consensus; my intention was to just add this information for consideration. The concerns I have don't seem to have been addressed. When more users who had not participated in the recent discussion get involved maybe that would be the time to open it up again? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
@Kolya Butternut: For my part, I don't draw the same conclusions as you from the current lead image. I think people spend most of their time working, so a picture of a person working makes sense. A picture of a human interacting with technology (in this case, a woman working on an engine) makes sense: it depicts a typical "modern" human as opposed to one from a thousand years ago. That's just my opinion, though, and it's not up to me. I only added the current lead image because it was chosen by consensus here on the talk page. It's up to the consensus of editors what the lead image should be. Levivich01:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Leviv, less than half of the population in the United states perform wage labor, and those that do spend most of their time doing other activities. I feel like humans are over-identified with wage labor, especially in the US. I feel like the image to the right is modern and timeless, depicting the universal (abled) human activity of dancing. So, if more folks would like to open this up for discussion again in the future hopefully my concerns here can be addressed too. Thank you. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
@Netoholic: This thread shows consensus for that lead image. What your edit has done is to make the reproductive system diagram the lead image again, which is how we started this, months ago. Self-revert and join the talk page discussion. Levivich12:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Pretty sure I read the opposite above, and I concur with them. It is not illustrative of the concept of "woman" to show one performing a traditionally-male job covered in protective clothing and a helmet that shows almost no part of their form which would make them discernibly a woman from a man. Its otherwise a brave, empowering picture. -- Netoholic@13:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
"Love the new image!" "Yeah! Good job!" "We've come to a consensus on this." means the opposite of consensus? WTF are you reading, Net? Levivich13:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
A "quiet consensus" based on a few kudos... but a consensus that cannot last once people notice that you've made it. If you look further down on this page its clear there is no consensus presently. Also, you've failed to address my point about how this lead image for "woman" is doing a job typically done by, and dressed looking like, a man. Wikipedia:Image use policy#Image content says the purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter - something yours does not do since I can barely tell its a woman except for the caption. I thought about moving the "Pregnant woman" image up to the lead, as it at least is a clear representation of the vast majority of women in the world, showing their form and indicating an important role to society, but until people on this talk page hash out their opinions (and ultimately reject the activists who want to redefine this topic rather than document it fairly), then its pointless to even have a lead image at all. -- Netoholic@13:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
The current lead image at Man
The current lead image at Woman
Human anatomy.jpg
Weaving profile.jpg
WomanFactory1940s.jpg
female artist
female artist
female artist
male artist
male artist
male artist
ancient
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 (Wikipedia editor reading this thread)
_DS.jpg)
.jpg)
Qzekrom (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
