Talk:Woman/Archive 2

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Legal hisory section

"The dependent position of women in early law is proved by the evidence of most ancient systems..."

This is deffinately language of arguing for a point, not meerly peresnting iformation. Also, are selected verses from the old testament really the most relevent thing to discuss in such a brief overview of millenia of legal history?...

7 Feb, 2005 - 03:00 GMT

Artistic nude women

¿What are people's opinions of the following images?:

Nude Maja -- Goya

Study For Aphrodite -- John Singer Sargent

Olympia -- Edouard Manet

Birth Of Venus -- William Adolphe Bouguereau

¿Would any of them do? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:19, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, we must assume that our readers have no idea that men and women have different genitals, which eliminates Olympia -- Edouard Manet. Secondly, Study For Aphrodite -- John Singer Sargent is to sketchy. Thirdly, Birth Of Venus -- William Adolphe Bouguereau. has too many objects like flying Cherubs, which the reader might mistake for a woman. This only leaves Nude Maja -- Goya. Ŭalabio 23:53, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

If the purpose is to contrast men and women, I much prefer:

Adam And Eve -- Mabuse

Are these free images? If so, what a great resource! - Nunh-huh 23:38, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Assuming that the reader does not know the difference between men and women, the foliage rules out this painting, but having one image with both a nude man and woman so that one can tell the difference between men and women and an image of a woman incase the reader is not certain who is who. Both the man and women should be intact because the reader should learn what the natural state is. -- Ŭalabio 03:20, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

Out of those, the first and fourth one are my favourite and would go great in the article. I've found a few myself as well. I went hunting on Deviant Art (the only place I really knew where to look; finding non-pornographic nude photographs on the internet is ridiculously difficult) and found an excellent gallery. I emailed the owner about using one of these two:

Erleuchtung -- ~Buecax

Reclining Nude -- ~Buecax

I prefer the first one, but I think the latter is still an improvement over the Frau image. Reene (リニ) 23:35, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

6298560 is good; it has the advantage of portraying fairly natural pubic hair, while 6934724 shows it heavily "edited", giving a misleading impression to our hypothetical naïf. Both are aesthetically more attractive photographs than Frau, to be sure. I think I would prefer the Goya, though, as being a painting it's less likely to cause problems for readers in silly-rules environments. (Of course, most PD paintings have unrealistic depictions of the public region...) —Tkinias 00:54, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Are those "deviant art" images public domain? Whats their status? I would be fine w 6298560. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 01:27, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, they're not PD, hence my saying I'd emailed the owner asking about permission to use them. I'll be sure to post their response here. In the meantime I believe we should go with one of the paintings. Seems the Goya image is suitable. Reene (リニ) 02:15, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

I like the Reclining Nude -- ~Buecax more. -- Ŭalabio 03:20, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

I have received word from Buecax and he says we may use the image(s) with an appropriate copyright notice and a link to his gallery. Huzzah! So pick one. :) Reene ^✎ 23:23, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

I think we need none more:

1. Nude Maja is a child

2. Aphrodite very simple black/white picture

3. Olympia a child with a Slave

4-5. Birth Of Venus ist not neutral with christian angels or adam and eva

6-7. and the Buecax Pics have tattoos or prayer.

and 3 pictures now is enough.

AshSert

I disagree. Whether or not Maja is a child is irrelevant, and even then as Theresa pointed out below the artist used several models, not just one. I don't know what "s/w" means so I guess I can't comment there. Again it matters not if the subject is a child (there are no legal issues here, and these "children" as you put it is fully sexually mature anyway, so what is the issue?). The religious context of the image doesn't matter either, and those are cherubs not angels, there is a huge difference. So what if the Buecax pictures have tattoos? And which one has prayer? I see none. That said I'm adding "Erleuchtung" by Buecax for the time being. If others wish to add their two pennies, I encourage you to do so here. Reene ^✎ 23:36, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Ashsert, Please do NOT remove or alter text in my comments no matter how justified you think you are. That's not kosher. Secondly, all of your "objections" to the paintings seem to be reaching at best and you've still done nothing to address the points others have brought up about them. Reene ^✎ 00:01, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Erleuchtung is german word for "Illuminating" technique/meditation, that is not the usual woman, the Picture imply religiose aspects and the unnatural colors that woman is a snowman or dead? we have now no material representation more, only Arts and Fiction and Fbi most wanted... :( AshSert

The use of the image does not in any relate to religion. We discussed using a painting of Venus; that was not an endorsement of Greco-Roman paganism, but a classical representation of femininity. Furthermore, meditation, as practiced in North America and Western Europe, is predominantly understood as a nonreligious activity; despite its origins in techniques used by Buddhists, many devout Christians (and atheists as well) practice it and do not consider it a form of religious expression.

And please, AshSert, respect the rules of the community. See Wikipedia:Three revert rule. You have reverted 5 times in less than one day. —Tkinias 04:52, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Art

Fisrt (and least important) my taste in art differs substantially from other editors on this page, it would appear. Second (and also quite unimportant), contrary to popular opinion, I do not find "huge breasts" a necessary component of this page. What I do find to be necessary is a female nude photo. It need not top the page, and it need not be the frau image, or anything similar. It would need to be at least equivelant in quality and utility, but I'd hope thats something we are all already aware of.

My suggestion is this : Place the painting you like best (out of what has been offered, I suggest Nude Maja -- Goya, but.. couldn't we get a Waterhouse, or something?...) at the top of the page. Find some images of women and girls of various ages, to portray the varieties of the human female. Place a nude photo lower in the article, in a properly puritanical format as is agreed to @ "Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images". If someone doesn't come up w a better image, I'll simply replace the frau image periodically, until a our revert happy "Nunh-huh" moves along to something more useful. If frau offends you, please find something better, but I frankly insist a photo is needed here, and one which portrays "Woman" in an unambiguous light. Oh, and I see no reason why the painting ought be a nude, since its only art anyhow. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 01:23, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah. Name-calling. How nice. - Nunh-huh 02:54, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Isn't the whole point of the nude to educate? That's why the painting should be a nude. You want a nude photo, but not nude art? What's the difference? - Vague | Rant 02:09, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

I've cropped and uploaded the Bouguereau; see Image:Bouguereau venus detail.jpg. Will that serve the purpose, at least until we can get a consensus on a photo? (The Goya, which I prefer, is of awkward orientation to lead the page...) If nobody objects, I'll make the change in a bit. —Tkinias 02:18, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I didn't see your message before I went ahead and edited the page. I'm really not sure which one we should go with. You can replace it if you like though. Reene (リニ) 02:27, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

For the time being I've removed the Frau image, placed the Goya painting into the article and swapped it with the Pioneer plaque image. I believe this is a good arrangement for the time being. Reene (リニ) 02:25, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

I like the Goya. Looks good, seems like a good compromise. Antandrus 02:34, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nice work, Reene. I was having a mentally-impaired moment and not considering putting Pioneer back where it belongs. I just moved Goya down a paragraph so it wouldn't disrupt the rendering as much (it was visually cutting the heading from the text). Thanks! —Tkinias 02:48, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An enormous improvement, Reene! - Nunh-huh 02:54, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

BTW: does anyhone have a comparable illustration that we could insert at "man"? - Nunh-huh 03:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

wacky reverts

Can we leave the article in peace for a bit, or at least discuss? The article is about women and girls, and the concensus is for allowing the painting. Even I agree w that. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 22:32, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would also like evidence that this is a 15 year old girl.

"Speculations about models for this work have been very numerous: nowadays it's believed
 that he used several women, ones for the face and others for the body."

from [1] seems to indicatwe that the painting isn't of any particular woman at all. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:50, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I request the article be protected to avoid this endless reversion. Discuss the merits of the relative images here first, and avoid reversion unless absolutely necessary. Dysprosia 04:59, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I thank Fennec for doing so. Dysprosia 05:00, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image:Erleuchtung.jpg

Reene, doesn't a no-distribution clause make the license on this image nonfree? Image:Erleuchtung.jpg is listed under nonfree images... :( We can't get a GFDL-compat. permission? —Tkinias 00:44, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is the exact text of his response to my email:

Sure, go ahead. But please include a copyright and link to my DA gallery.

Axel

Wasn't sure which tag to put on it. I'm extremely inexperienced with such things. Replace it with something more fitting if you can. Reene ^✎ 01:03, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

I changed it to {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}}. (See Image:Erleuchtung.jpg.) You might want to check that Mr. Bueckert is comfortable with that label. (Or, better yet, see if he'd GFDL it *grin*...) —Tkinias 01:29, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I removed the credit from the caption of Mr. Bueckert's image, and Walabio replaced it. Unfortunately, we can't guarantee that he's credited on any article this image is used on. Photographers aren't usually credited in the article text. He deserves our thanks and he's credited on the image page itself, but if he requires a credit on this article page, the image is non-free and unusable on Wikipedia articles. Rhobite 04:15, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

I imagine that's fine. He asked for credit and a copyright notice, both of which are given on the image page itself. I just didn't know what to use for the caption, so I went for the blatantly obvious. Though now that we have this, should we remove/replace the nude painting? It's not really necessary anymore. Reene ^✎ 07:01, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Consensus

I just want to amke clear that I fully agree w the concensus to use the Erleuchtung image. While its not perfect (again the face is at an unfortunate angle, and the colour is off) I too find it superior, or at least comparable, to the frau image. If Ashert would like to express some complaints here in talk, that would be fine, but reverting against such a broad concensus is clearly unaccpetable. I don't agree w certain changes to sections (such as removing separate sections for slang and vulgar slang), and the creation of a section specifically devoted to race, and we still need images of females of different ages (certainly a girl and an old woman, maybe in one photo?), but that can all wait until after the protection is lifted, and will likely be far less contentious. Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 11:56, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I could ask the owner if I can add a natural flesh tone to the image, but this takes away from it IMO. Perhaps I'm being too artsy, but right now as a black and white it's serving the purpose of not only displaying the female form but doing so without a specific race being associated with it. As for photos of women of varying ages, I can supply a few (clothed) images, but I'm not sure they'd be suitable (I have many professional shots of my toddler niece and my grandmother and great grandmother wouldn't be opposed to letting me put their pictures up). We also need to get a better collage...Not only the quality, but something about having fugitives on the page seems odd. :p Reene ^✎ 12:12, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

LOL, the older woman and young girl need not be nude... lol... One nude photo was all I ever asked for, people.. LMAO... As far as the color thing, you can't be serious that making the Erleuchtung image extra pale does anything to make it more racially inclusive? Its obvious the lady is of euro decent, w absolutely no possibility that she is eskimo or african, for example. Anyhow, asking the artist to change it strikes me as asking too much, and leaving it the way it is serves the purpose of making it les clear its a photo, and more clear its artistic, which helps keep the P.C. facists at bay ;) Otherwise, I completely agree w you, the collage is awful, and images of women and girls of various ages and races would be great, perhaps in a collage (I tend to detest collages generally, but I am aware of the value in this situation). Having criminal women...

HAZEL LEOTA HEAD, white female, wanted for murder and arson
PORTIA EUJEAN MITCHELL, black female, wanted for interferrence with child custody
MARTHA L. CANO PATLAN, white hispanic female, wanted for criminal homicide
YOLANDA TOLENTINO RICAFORTE, asian female, international fugitive for plunder

to be specific, strikes me as a bit distressing as well, but I added the image since it had been proposed, and was better than having no images other than a "white" lady, and a ... bangladeshian? Anjyhow, as I said, now that the debate about frau is over, we can move on to other things more amiably, I hope! Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 13:18, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Er, I think I would support not having a nude of anyone's great-grandmother... A thought: maybe we could use photos of Maggie^H^H^H^H^H^H Baronness Thatcher and, say, Aung San Suu Kyi, illustrating women in "nontraditional" rôles to go with the Bengali image... —Tkinias 16:51, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, but this article should be about what women are, not a PC attempt to make them what their not. A picture of a lady in a hardhat or business suit would be fine, but a cornocopia of non-traditionality would be an innaccurate portrayal. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 18:05, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Given that the current assortment of pictures would lead one to believe that women have three choices (they may be criminals, nude models, or weavers), I think we've already entered "inaccurate" territory. I don't think there's much "traditional" here to start with. - Nunh-huh 01:47, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Weaving is traditional. Nudity is a woman’s natural state (not to mention meditating, something done by an enormous % of the earths population). Criminality is also quite common, but I would like to see that image replaced w something more pleasant. Did you have any constructive ideas, or just snide criticism? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 11:42, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I had criticism, and you see criticism as snide. Thanks for sharing that. It should not be too difficult to see the way out: remove the criminals and all but one of the nudes, and replace them with women in everyday situations. Many women actually wear clothes (forsaking their "natural state" - which is not to be an artist's model), and it might not be a bad idea for our illustrations to demonstrate that fact. Many women are educators, scientists, executives, storekeepers, bookkeepers, physicians, and mothers, and perhaps the article should nod in that direction. If "nudity is a woman's natural state" then "nudity is a man's natural state" as well. Do you want no clothed humans in Wikipedia? - Nunh-huh 12:09, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article might get a little big if we include a photo of women doing all the things women can do. A photographic image of a naked woman is encyclopaedic and particularly relevant, in my opinion. A line drawing or stylised painting is a poor substitue. And yes, an image of a naked man would be similarly encyclopaedic and relevant at Man. --Khendon 12:28, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it would get quite large if we did so. Which makes it even more curious that we devote three (3) illustrations to women posing naked, and four (4) illustrations to women being criminals, while devoting one (1) to all other professions. There's something intrinsically imbalanced about that. - Nunh-huh 13:09, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's because this page is very much a work in progress.There is nothing curious about it. No one is suggesting that the images currently on the page have to stay or that no more should be added. What we all need to do is go out and find some more images of women. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 20:11, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I can see your point. Here are my opinions;

The Pioneer plaque picture should certainly stay.
I think there ought to be one good photographic nude - I thought the Frau picture was a good choice (what was wrong with it, exactly?); the Erleuchtung picture is much less clear.
There ought to be an image of artwork featuring women; probably not nude, to avoid overrepresentation of nudity; perhaps the Mona Lisa?
I like the weaving picture, it adds a splash of colour.
I don't particularly like the pictures of criminals. If nothing else, they're not very good pictures.

Are there any of those we have a consensus on? --Khendon 13:27, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The poineer picture should certainly stay.It's historically important.
I'm not sure we need a photographic nude at all although i don't personally have a problem with having one.
The art picture was suggested by me as a compromise to having a photographic nude. I don't honestly see the point in having a clothed art picture.We should either have a photo nude or art nude.
I like it too
I agree about the criminal pics - they have to go! We do need to show a variety of races, and ages though. I'd also like to see some more traditional role pics and some more "modern" or untraditional role pics too. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 14:24, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree w Khendon & Theresa, but will point out:

The pioneer plaque must stay, providing symmetry w the man article.
I think we need a photographic nude, and personally prefer the Erleuchtung image to the Frau image (not overwhelmingly however).
I don't really prefer that particular painting, and could care less if the painting is nude or not. I did like that painting better than the others proposed however, but there are plenty to choose from. I object to Mona Lisa because that might be a man ;)
The weaving picture needs to stay. It’s a positive image of a woman in a traditional occupation, and also a woman of a different age and ethnicity from the other images. We need more images like this one, not less (and yes, a picture of a lady in a hard hat or business suit would be o.k. too, so long as we don't focus excessively on non-traditional occupations).
I also agree the criminal pics should go, but only when we have images of women of various types to replace them... and don't forget an image of a girl, that links here too!

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 14:42, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've got a few shots of my niece. She's just under two years old. Would that be suitable for a girl/child, or should I go digging for ancient pictures of myself in the Big Box o' Photos? *g* Reene ^✎ 00:34, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Either way I think. Who could look at a two-year old and not go "awwwww...."? I'd look thorugh my ancient pictures, but they're all sepia-tone - none of the daguerrotypes have survived<g>. - Nunh-huh 02:18, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have a two-year-old niece. I could add the picture after the protection will end. -- Ŭalabio 04:22, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)

I added the picture about my Niece Haley. -- Ŭalabio 02:03, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

I removed my niece to let someone else have the honor. She had her week of fame. -- Ŭalabio 06:37, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

This looks to me like a consensus. Does anybody disagree with the following:

All the pictures apart from the criminals should stay as they are
The pictures of criminals should stay until we have good replacements
We should build a small collection of photos of varied ages/races to replace the criminals; perhaps they ought to be placed on the Talk page first and discussed?

--Khendon 08:54, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good. As the page was protected due to the actions of one user I expect it would be alright to get it unprotected ASAP so we can get back to improving the article. Reene ^✎ 08:56, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

I agree w Khendon, and the part about bringing photos to talk 1st sounds good, it seems we have alot of 2yr old neices, and prob only need one photo ;) And as bad as it is, I'd also like to leave the criminal photo up until we have something to replace it with. Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 11:18, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable consensus, so I've unprotected the page. --Khendon 14:17, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Gathering Images

D'ya know what I think would make a great traditional role picture? One of an ndebele woman decorating her house. They do these brightly coloured geometric designs freehand. The lines are straight, the proportions are correct - it's bloody amazing looking! I've had a quick look round the web, but the only decent quality pictures can find are commercial news pictures, which are unlikely to be released to use onder a free licence. Anyone going to South Africa on holiday? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 11:29, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We have some south african wikipedians actually, you might want to ask them. Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 11:47, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On another note, I pulled down the image of my niece. I intended to place a picture about my grandmother, but figure that Encyclopædia WikiPedia.Org is not just about me. I feel that someone else should have a crack at it. -- Ŭalabio 06:37, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

What would be best is for everybody to contribute / locate images, and then have us (editors in the talk page) reach consensus as to which are best suited for the article. If every image so selected just so happened to be a blood relative of yours, that would be a compliment to you, not an act of egoism on your part. Frankly, you’re the only person who thus far has been motivated to produce an image of a young girl, or an old woman, and so you might be genetically superior in representing womankind by default ;) In summary, until a better image is available, we should go w what we have, regardless of if it’s your family, FBI most wanted list, or what-have-you. Oh, and thanx for your contribution, btw! [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 12:04, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Following the advice of Sam Spade, I again placed pictures about my relatives in the article. This is the last time I shall do so -- This feels very egotistic to me. If people do not like the image, I shall not object to its removal. This is the last time I shall add pictures to the article. The Encyclopædia WikiPedia.Org is not about me. I added this picture:

File:Theme And Variation Of Related Women.Jpeg

Theme And Variation Of Related Women

--

Ŭalabio 07:54, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

Cool. Its not a perfect image, a bit of a wide angle, but its definitely worth having at the present time, thanks. We need more content tho, does anybody have some facts to add about women? I guess its up to me... Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 11:55, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Deletion of Race section

I removed the whole race section. Reasons:

The writing was weak.
It was very U.S. centric.
The collage of female criminals was awful.

I agree that it is very desirable to have pictures of women from around the globe in this article but they can simply be added in without needing a section of text waffling on about race. Oska 06:35, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Placement of nude

Hello all. Is there a reason why the nude woman is placed next to the slang section? Timbo 05:20, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why is walabio's family pic next to vulger slang? The article is now poc heavy, and content light. If only 1/2 the energy put towards arguing about images in the talk page was put towards contributing content to the article, it would be in much better shape ;) Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 11:53, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Full frontal discussion

Hi: Wikipedia is beginning to be peppered with photos that belong in "Playboy" etc. No moral person can accept the possible consequences of this development. Please express your views at: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Nudity (full frontal) pictures in an encyclopedia? [2] Thank you for giving this matter your serious attention! IZAK 11:51, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"No moral person can accept the possible consequences of this development." I'll decide for myself what is and is not moral, thank you. Timbo 01:47, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
100% agree - I would consider the consequence of pandering to such view and surpressing information far more harmful than a couple of nude pics. -- AlexR 17:04, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"Hey IZAK, im with ya, lez get these naked ladies out of our computer screens. Only the almighty knows whos gonna see em, and i know fa shizzle that i dont want my chillen ta be seein those nekkid leddies." --Jo Momma 19:05, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nude images controversy

Gee, I'm sorry I missed the fireworks... I just stumbled upon this debate and I have a few comments. First of all, I found the statement "we must assume that our readers have no idea that men and women have different genitals" amusing. By the same logic, should we assume that readers don't know that women and girls have different sexual characteristics and so provide them with a handy image illustrating the difference? (That was facetious.)

Seriously, though, if the assumption were true it seems the reader would likely be:

too young to understand the article, anyway; or
a child and from a family and/or in a society that would object to them seeing such a picture; or
an adult and in a society that would object to them seeing such a picture.

That's not to say that, in my opinion, any of these possibilities argue against including a nude image; it just struck me as odd that no one made the connection even when aspects of the last two points were raised.

More to the point, I wonder why the "assumption" should guide image selection for this particular article. To be sure, I think it's proper for the Biology section to contain relevant diagrams, but it seems to me that nude photographs might be more relevant in the articles Human, Human anatomy, or Secondary sexual characteristics, which could be (and in some cases are) pointed to from here. In any of these, images of a nude woman and man could justifiably be included, which would obviously more directly address the "assumption" being made.

Anyway, for the record, had the image controversy not arisen, I wouldn't have objected to any of the images talked about as serious contenders for inclusion, not even the allegedly "sexy", "offensive" and "sexist" Image:Frau.jpg -- but given a choice, the latter is actually the one I would prefer if the purpose is simply to show what a nude woman looks like (as far as art goes, I prefer Image:Bouguereau venus detail.jpg). On the other hand, it might be less controversial if we tried to find an image that contained nudity "for a good reason", such as a woman breastfeeding a child, for example. This would illustrate at least two or three differences between men and women without getting (as much) into "pornography" issues.

- dcljr 08:22, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

subpage Woman/1911 Britannica

Per Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Woman in 1911 Brittanica, I moved that article to Woman/1911 Britannica. Anyone is invited to merge anything useful to Woman. dbenbenn | talk 17:48, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I already tried that, see Legal_rights_of_women and Woman#Legal_rights_of_women_historically. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

"Biological factors are not the determinant of whether persons are considered (or considers themselves) women; some women can have abnormal hormonal or chromosomal differences (such as congenital adrenal hyperplasia or other intersex conditions), and there are women without typical female physiology (trans, transgendered or transsexual women). (See gender identity.)"

This is not NPOV. This seems slanted towards a homosexual\transsexual agenda, in my opinion of course. In fact, I would say that this snippet presents outright falsehoods. Take: "Biological factors are not the determinant of whether persons are considered (or considers themselves) women." First of all, that depends heavily on the culture and would vary from place to place. Secondly, it is false from a scientific standpoint. Biologically, women are persons with a set of XX chromosomes, which is an indisputable fact.

No, that's not an "indisputable fact". What is a scientific fact is that there are intersex conditions that can render completely "normal" anatomical males with XX chromosomes (or other variations) and vice versa. What is a fact is that transsexual women do consider themselves women, by definition, at least, so the sentence is not contradictory.

The truest identifier of womanhood or manhood for that matter is by virtue of their gender identity, since a man who has XX chromosomes and considers himself a man is not a woman because he considers himself a man, etc. This argument has been discussed at length elsewhere. Dysprosia 10:17, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Firstly it is clear that Biological factors aren't the determinant that influences how people consider themselves. Secondly "Biologically, women are persons with a set of XX chromosomes, which is an indisputable fact" biologically yes, but not legally and in many instances not socially either and that was the point of the sentance; "Biological factors are not the determinant". -Access

Portraiture and Biographies

This has been created as a separate article. As it stands it needs a lot of work (in terms both of wikification and of its personal-essay character), but if it could be slavaged, where might it best be merged? I've removed a 'speedy delete' template from it, but I can't add a 'merge' template until I know where (or even if it's worth merging). Any suggestions gratefully received. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:34, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)