A very simple solution to this naked woman picture debate[edit]
The essence of all the arguments against the Frua being placed there, critically, is due to the fact that some people personally do not want to see it there. I do not perceive the frau dissidents as wanting to prevent others from seeing the picture. We can satisfy both camps here. We can give people fair warning that there is a picture of a naked frua here; or we can simply dress up frau in clothes and declothe her when people click on her picture, if they want to see her naked. This is not censorship, because the naked frau is on wikipedia and is easily accessible to those who want to see it (by simply clicking on the frua and instantly declothing her) yet we can cater to those people who do not want the frau there, because she is naked etc. with a simple 'declothing option'
THis is just one solution i made up off the top of my head. In essence, the solution should give an option or warn people about the naked frau, and give them choice as to whether or not they want her naked. This would satisfy both camps, and would at the same time not censor wikipedia, because the naked frua would still be very accessible.
This idea is in direct conflict with the basic Wikipedian principle that Wikipedia is not censored. Also, it would not resolve the issue for many people on both sides of the debate, since the issue is how best to illustrate the term, that is one of definition not aesthetics. Also, most do not share your particular aesthetics.--Homunq 14:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding this section to help people keep track of the edit wars about the picture. I'm trying to address the "posession is 9 points of the law" issue - that is, it is very hard for the average editor to track the history of the which image is the lead on the page itself, and so whatever they see there when they load it seems appears to be the presumptive consensus. This keeps newcomers from understanding the real situation, and thus dooms the page to an eternal slow-grinding edit war between the partisans who, though we have good faith, are not getting anywhere (without prejudice, I'd include Nunh-huh, Haham hanuka, Kasreyn, and myself Homunq 20:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC) as the ones I've noticed, I'm sure there are others)[reply]
If this does not work, I will consider creating a template that simply contains whatever image is being used this week. I'd put a comment explaining how to edit the template in the wikitext of the page, and if someone removed the template I would say the right response would be to remove the image from the template and replace the template and . This would serve to create a separate edit history just for the image issue, on a page also subject to above-average vandalism and actual progress. --Homunq 20:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So here's the good-faith history over the last 250 edits as I see it. If you change the image please note it here. Homunq claims that the following sentence should read "Changes to the lead photo which are not accompanied by some edit to the talk page under the same name (here or elsewhere) are subject to reversion." but be bold and edit it if you think you have a better standard.
Changes to the lead photo which are not accompanied by some edit to the talk page under the same name (here or elsewhere) are subject to reversion. Changes which are accompanied by a comment elsewhere should be noted here by their originator or the next person who comes along. This is not the place for argument (there's plenty of room just below), it's just a history so people can see how it got where it is.
Current status: Montage
07:59, 12 November 2006 Homunq (Talk | contribs) (adding montage for the 4th and last time)
(cur) (last) 18:20, 10 November 2006 Jossi (Talk | contribs) (Motage is super ugly)
(cur) (last) 00:07, 3 November 2006 The pink panther (Talk | contribs) (if the mens article doesnt have a nkaed pic the womens article shouldnt) | No image
(cur) (last) 15:38, 1 November 2006 24.240.64.126 (Talk) | Frau
(cur) (last) 20:17, 21 October 2006 Nunh-huh (Talk | contribs) (no, that's not the concensus.) | No image
(cur) (last) 19:44, 21 October 2006 Haham hanuka (Talk | contribs) (consensus reached on talkpage) | Frau
(cur) (last) 17:17, 21 October 2006 Nunh-huh (Talk | contribs) (last good version) | No image
(cur) (last) 13:18, 21 October 2006 Haham hanuka (Talk | contribs) (last good version) | frau
(cur) (last) 19:11, 20 October 2006 The pink panther (Talk | contribs) (if we dont have a nude pic on the mens article we shouldnt on the womens article) | No image
(cur) (last) 20:46, 16 October 2006 Haham hanuka (Talk | contribs) (originel image - per talkpage) | Frau
(cur) (last) 09:36, 15 October 2006 Homunq (Talk | contribs) (Restoring image after Haham hanuka changed it with a false claim of "consensus". Please no offense Haham hanuka but if you revert please explain on talk page.) | Montage
(cur) (last) 14:12, 14 October 2006 Haham hanuka (Talk | contribs) (restore photo - per consensus at talkpage) | Frau
(cur) (last) 00:42, 11 October 2006 Homunq (Talk | contribs) (Changing photo. If you revert, please say why in the talk section "Until the issue is resolved...") | montage
(cur) (last) 06:38, 10 October 2006 SuperJumbo (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 80473684 dated 2006-10-09 20:11:19 by Ck lostsword using popups) | Frau
(cur) (last) 23:00, 9 October 2006 Cunado19 (Talk | contribs) (moving image to top) | Bather painting#
(cur) (last) 12:12, 30 September 2006 Gwernol (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by Konstable (talk) to last version by Wiki alf) | Frau
(cur) (last) 12:08, 30 September 2006 Konstable (Talk | contribs) (moved image. wikipedia is not censored, but this is just ridiculous.) | No lead image
Status as of sep 2006, 250 edits ago as I write: frau
There's no actual real photograph on this page that shows a woman. We have a drawing of one, but that's kind of, uh, pointless. We need to do what the SETI people did and put these silly human body shame issues to rest and find the most representative photograph we can find, and use it. --Cyde Weys 06:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! What exactly is the most representative? There is so much variation that any "representative" photograph is likely to be biased or, even worse, more representative of a particular race or ethnic group.
And who precisely determines which issues are "silly"? What is the criteria? This is an encyclopedia...let us maintain a certain air of dignity, shall we? NetK 00:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After my edit [1] that removed the Apollo image (Image:Human-woman.png) and moved the frau image (Image:Frau-2.jpg) up to replace it, User:Netkinetic swapped the Frau image for the old Apollo one. I am of the opinion that the Frau photo is a much better representation and much more appropriate for an encyclopedia than the Apollo line drawing. I think the line drawing is a horrible image and has too much association with the Apollo missions. What image do the other editors here think is the most best one to complete the article, and is anyone going to object if I change the images back again?--Clawed 07:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note on the "Apollo" image (Image:Human-woman.png): it is not from the Apollo missions, but from the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 space probes to Jupiter and Saturn, the first two man-made objects to leave the Solar System. The woman and man were drawn to be as pan-racial as possible and according to the conventions of classic Greek sculpture. Also, since the probes were publicly funded.
they could not fly in the face of American mores of the time (the early 1970s). -- Stefano KALB 01:51, 16 Jul 2006 (UTC)
The German, the Spanish and the Dutch Wiki's have this pic as a main one. Also in the article man we have a nude photo. We can found a better nude photo, but It seems the best right now --Haham hanuka 17:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the germans have added their pic successfully to those articles. They really seem to love it. Here, we don't seem so intent on objectifying women, or in insisting that the most important thing about women is that they can be nude. "Frau" is still there, she's just not at the top. - Nunh-huh 17:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
see my comment above. --Haham hanuka 17:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, by including anything other than a nude woman in the picture, you are tacitly endorsing their adornment in whatever fashion is shown. A nude photo is appropriate. If you find the woman's current state offensive, I would say (seriously) find a more representative nude photo (somewhat snidely) grow up. Stop assuming your cultural conditioning is representative of anything more than your cultural conditioning. There is nothing offensive about representing an organism in it's natural state. The objections you are voicing are social constructs, and really only indicate your inability to separate sexuality from biology.
Well over half nearly 70% of other woman articles have the (simple and effective) drawing. Cilstr 05:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think we should put her at the top, but not the current image (Frau-2.jpg), a different photo:
An encyclopædia should also be able to give the browser their first ever introduction to something new. These are my opinions based on this.
I reckon a lot of people want to put a fat, ugly mature woman as the main picture because they're scared of being accused of stereotyping/putting pressure on women/trying to please men's sexual desires/idealistic. Why not put a really beautiful woman as the main picture? This encyclopædia's entry for 'flower' has several really beautiful, striking flowers at the top, and the entry for Peacock/Peafowl is of the male of the species showing off its amazing tail-feathers, not of the dull brown female.
In my opinion:
- The picture at the top should be a naked woman, the most clear way to depict the difference between the male and female of our species. The genitals should ideally be more visible (this does help if the area is shaved, even though this is a habitual modification) but not a close-up or pose that could be classified obscene, though this is a very subjective matter I know.
I don't think we should use a nude woman. There are some people that I see using Wikipedia that are younger than the appropriate viewing age for that picture. I agree with a woman in a bikini, but not this.
A clothed person might be used under the 'human being' entry but serves little purpose here, especially in this day and age when clothed men and women sometimes look very similar, and considering cultural differences in clothing.
- Should be a photograph, not a drawing or diagram as just like every other entry in the encyclopædia of anything with visible mass this is the most accurate and easiest to understand.
- Should be a young woman, at the peak of fertility (eg. aged 18-30). Older woman have beauty in their own right, but most people in the world, regardless of culture, find her most attractive at a young age, thus the most famous artists have depicted her since the beginning.
+ Should be a fit and healthy woman, NOT like the one in the current photograph (Frau-2.jpg).
-A fit and healthy woman will naturally have a greater muscle:fat ratio, therefore a slimmer waist than Frau-2.jpg, but still with curvacious hips (healthy females deposit fat on their hips more than on their bellies).
Obviously you've never seen many naked women. Fat deposits are highly induvidual and it would depend the person. A woman has fat on her stomach and hips.
-A fit and healthy woman is NOT anorexic or overly skinny, but has a healthy fleshy covering.
-I realise the average western woman (and man!) is not so healthy, but here we should be giving an example of women world-wide, and it would be a shame to present an unhealthy image as if it were natural.
How is the woman in the picture not fit and healthy? There are many different versions of a healthy body and hers looks perfectly fine. Just because she may not fit your standards of beauty does not mean she's unhealthy. Softshoe 00:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No make-up, tattoes or other modifications - these vary greatly depending on culture.
Would be nice to photograph a mixed-race woman to cover the race issue. - OXFORD, UK
WHy do you "OXFORD, UK" ( if the above comment is all from one person) feel we need to have an attractive woman??? No such image is on the man page for example. Are you really saying frau is fat? and ugly? she is neither. I find her heathy looking. with a healthy fleshy covering (unliike bikini girl). HAving said that, i dont really like frau, the drawing simplifies the whole situation to me. Or move frau down the page a little.
What about nat krate's vitruvian woman.?
I dont understand your little - and + . are these points you are against and for? Cilstr 05:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Answers for OXFORD, UK in order:
Why not put a really beautiful woman as the main picture?
Because "beauty" is even more subjective than the other subjective nonsense already involved in this discussion. Please, no. There are already too many editors trying to read the minds of our readers in order to forestall offense. Don't make it worse.
There are some people that I see using Wikipedia that are younger than the appropriate viewing age for that picture.
Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Children have parents for a reason. If nude images are harmful, it's the job of parents to guard children from that harm, not ours.
A clothed person might be used under the 'human being' entry but serves little purpose here...
Strongly agree. There's really only one thing an image can show, and that is the visible - ie., gross and external - differences between male and female sex. It is altogether subjective and unpredictable to attempt to use an image to show the "intangible" qualities that make women such an excellent half of our species. Better to explain all that with text and use an image to illustrate the anatomy.
Should be a photograph...
Definitely. Diagrams are only useful either for things that you can't adequately photograph, or for things you can't really understand just by eyeballing them. Basic sexual dimorphism is neither.
Should be a fit and healthy woman, NOT like the one in the current photograph...
Funny, she looks pretty healthy to me!
...a slimmer waist than Frau-2.jpg
Umm, from what I have seen, she's slightly on the slim side of average. Perhaps as an American, my observations have been skewed slightly by the obesity epidemic surrounding me. Nevertheless, I certainly don't think a case could be made that Frau is overweight.
No make-up, tattoes or other modifications...
Well, the fewer the better, but it's actually pretty hard to find someone who hasn't altered their body (or had it done to them) in some way. Think of all your friends. Then cross off from the list everyone who has a tattoo, a piercing, wears makeup, depilates their hair, paints their nails... How many are left?
In fact, there was a huge uproar on this talk page over Frau's apparently depilated legs, but if it was a discussion over an image of a male, I doubt a shaven-faced model would have raised a single eyebrow... Apparently some patches of hair are more important than others! :P
Would be nice to photograph a mixed-race woman to cover the race issue.
First off: which of the several races would you mix? Just two? Perhaps four, one for each grandparent? What about a person who is of equal African, Asian, Hispanic, and Indian descent but mostly looks like just one of them? How will that person's appearance "cover" the issue? Won't you have to subjectively judge whether the person looks "mixed enough"? This is an all-around bad idea. Kasreyn 23:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I think Erleuthung is much better than Frau, because it is much farther from promoting somebody's standard of nice cosy femininity or absolute, perfect womanhood. But, while I would hardly engage in an edit war about it, I don't think that even having a nude picture in the top is necessary. In talk:Man, User:Angr's main argument for having a nude picture is that "The top picture needs to be nude because this is first and foremost a biology article, and the entire male body needs to be shown.". In fact, that doesn't hold true of the article Man and even less of this article, because both are not only about the biological, but also about the social and cultural (even linguistic) aspects of the concept - actually, these latter ones occupy more space than the first one. Putting only the nude picture on top seems to imply that the biological aspect is the most important one, as it is in animals. This is, at best, a POV. In fact, it's clear that society and culture are at least as important as biology in determining the "being" of men and women.
Another thing is that this topic is just too sensitive. Whether we like it or not, each illustration in the heading of such an article will tend to imply that this or that is what the typical, absolute woman, the essence of femininity looks like. So one good solution would be a collage, and another one would be an image like "women of Egypt" (see also the Arabic and the Danish versions, silly as they are), which overtly and with a measure of irony refuses to even attempt to portray "the essence of femininity". --85.187.44.131 22:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because we can, doesn't mean we should show a nude photo on top. It is unclassy and tacky. Cuñado - Talk 07:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having a nude picture does not detract from the sociological and cultural aspects, but having a nonnude picture does detract from the biological aspects. It is in no way "unclassy and tacky"; what's unclassy and tacky is fear and loathing of a nude picture of a human being. Angr (talk) 11:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's unclassy and tacky to suggest, by undue prominence, that the most important thing about "woman" is how she looks naked. It's what would be expected in an encyclopedia written mostly by teenage Internet-addicted geek adolescent boys, rather than a serious work. Please pay attention to the fact that "having" a nude picture is not in issue, and stop attacking that straw man: what has been discussed is "which", and "where". There's no "fear and loathing" in evidence. - Nunh-huh 21:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nunh-huh, how do you feel about the argument that man and woman should be consistent in whether or not they have nude pictures on top? --Allen 23:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While equal treatment for men and women is a good thing, that doesn't mean you can ignored long-established cultural biases. Woman have long been demeaned by being reduced to their body parts, and otherwise objectified, and there is good reason for an encyclopedia that values its neutrality not to likewise do so. There is no such cultural tendency to objectify men by reducing them to their bodies, or body parts, and so placement in the "men" article isn't as tendentious. Maintaining that "man" and "woman" must be identical is to argue for a foolish consistency. - Nunh-huh 01:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see a reson for deleting an image of a nude woman from the article. The image selected is not demeaning. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one has discussed "deleting" the image. Please review the prior discussion: it is about placement. The image not selected ("Frau") is the demeaning one. - Nunh-huh 01:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is demeaning about the "Frau" image? She's certainly not some airbrushed anorexic underwear model. What's the problem? Kasreyn 18:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "Frau" can't be called exactly "demeaning". . The problem is that the image reflects (and by its placement in the lead, propagates) a certain standard of feminine beauty, and that's what it shouldn't do, for obvious reasons. First of all, the body is heavily "edited" (total epilation, significant makeup, nail polish etc.), the implication being that that condition is "the" only one and even the natural one, and that these things are constitutive and required for femininity. Unlike a dressed image, which doesn't pretend to show you "the natural woman", this one does pretend to do it, but in fact shows you another kind of "clothing", telling you that it's "the real one". Another thing is that while she isn't a model, she does reflect another, more homely ideal (breasts bigger than her head etc.) that few women actually meet. I agree that in terms of body shape, she is a fine, beatiful specimen of some typically feminine traits. With an illustration for cow, that would be okay; with a representative of homo sapiens, it smacks of a Nazi-like "biological" approach to humans ("a strong well-shaped German woman of fine breed, ready to give birth to many children for the Fuehrer"). A general problem with having Frau at the top is the same as with having a non-nude Western woman, dressed according to the latest Western fashion (that's probably the reason why there are so many images of "exotic" Third World women in the article, and almost no European types): using as a lead illustration something that obviously isn't "the norm" is okay; using as a lead illustration something that the prevailing cultural bias would lead us to regard as "the norm" is harmful. --85.187.44.131 11:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, I think Frau's breasts are average size for some-one slightly over-weight like her, which brings me to my next point - she may be average figure for a western woman, because we are the most unhealthy race - we should put a healthy example of a woman here instead.
"Westerners" are not a race. She doesn't look overweight from a health standpoint, just from a supermodel standpoint.CerealBabyMilk 21:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The nude photo doesn't interest me, but I want to reply to this (I know it's off-topic). Frau is neither "overweight" (by today's standards) nor the most healthy weight. Western countries have such a population of overweight people now that the "normal" weight has increased, quite significantly. Someone who seems normal by today's standards would seem quite overweight a century ago. The supermodel standpoint, however, is extreme; it looks upon a different world altogether. The increased obesity that has overtaken western countries has generally shifted people's implicit bias to health. The supermodel obsession, on the other hand, is an unnatural counterpoint to this. From a health perspective, we should neither endorse anorexia, nor the default view on what is healthy. Rintrah 03:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if she had a lot of hair around the area in question it would defeat the point of putting a nude picture because it'd be more difficult to tell the difference - I hope you follow.
Umm, 85.187.44.131, I think you may be reading a bit too much into it with the "Nazi" stuff. "Frau" is the word for "woman" in German, if I remember correctly, and the image was uploaded by a German-speaker. Perhaps we could assume good faith and not make such assumptions about the character of those who uploaded and added the image? It seems to me like you're assuming a lot more about the uploader and photographer's intentions than is warranted. Honestly, I wasn't even considering the eyeshadow and nail polish, they're not particularly extreme and they don't distract from the more important aspects of the image. I can't tell if you think the model is good-looking or not (at one point you call her homely and compare her to a cow, at another point you refer to her makeup and nails as being part of a standard of beauty). I think you're splitting hairs. You're never going to find an image of a nude woman that is perfectly average and completely au naturale. Something will always be wrong with it, either the pose, or the facial expression, or the makeup, or the bodily hair, or the breast size, or the body fat content, and on and on. Honestly, we need a quality nude more than we need it to conform to some absolutely impossible ideal of being the ideal "average" woman - she doesn't exist any more than the stereotyped ideal "perfect woman" you mention does. Kasreyn 15:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But that's 85.187.44.131's point, right - because we can't find a picture of the "average" woman, we should be careful about using an image which might be taken to be our understanding of an "average" woman. Using a woman dressed in clothes we specifically identify as from a certain place and time makes it very clear that it is not an image of "woman" as such. But using a picture of a nude woman, particularly if we aren't explicit about what time and place she comes from, risks suggesting that we aren't aware of how culturally specific the image is. That's the problem with using any image of a nude woman: it implies a generality it can't actually embody. As a nude woman is no more or less suitable than a clothed woman as an image of women as such, why is it so important that the lead image be nude? VoluntarySlave 18:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't fundamentally disagree with your logic. I just feel that if we follow it to its end, we will wind up with an article which does not have any images, because we have too high a standard for what sort of image can represent the term "woman". Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. As to nudity, it's not in itself specifically important to me, but I felt that by doing away with clothing we could shed most cultural preconditioning and specificity, which I feel is about all we can hope for. To be honest, I didn't even notice the makeup and nail polish on the "Frau" model until it was pointed out to me; I'm not a big appreciator of fashion and such things don't immediately attract my attention. Mostly I was pleased with the image because it was a full frontal nude with good lighting and no distracting or culture-specific backgrounds; because the woman was adult, of average weight and height, and appeared to be in good health; because the woman's facial expression was not lascivious or sultry (typical in images lifted from porn sites) nor did she appear shamed or abashed by her nudity, and most importantly because the woman wasn't the sort of airbrushed, overly made-up anorexic bottle blonde that has sadly become a Western ideal of "beauty". I think these points in its favor make the image a very good choice, and many images of women with, perhaps, more common body-types would fail one or more of these tests. Sure, her breasts are probably a bit larger than average, but not by that much, and I don't see why it matters. I think you made the same points as the anon, but in a less offensive way. And sure, I see no reason why we shouldn't point out that the model is a contemporary German woman. There's no particular reason not to that I can see. But I do still feel that a nude model is more appropriate. Kasreyn 19:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to be "offensive", and I didn't want to imply that the uploaders' national affiliation had anything to do with this. I used the Nazi example as an extreme (you certainly don't need to be Nazi to have the ideas that I "read into" it). I didn't want to insult the model either (in fact, I personally think she looks quite nice, but that has nothing to do with the issue), and I certainly didn't call her a cow; the context in which I used the word "cow" was pretty clear. --85.187.44.131 12:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
La Maja Desnuda c. 1799-1800. Oil on canvas. 97 x 190 cm. Museo del Prado (Madrid, Goya. I agree, See this famous painting by Goya, for example: Not much difference from Mrs Frau, is it? I would argue that the Frau image is as good as any other image. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see what is so "unclassy" or "tacky" about the nude female body. Mind explaining it to me? To my mind, a nude photo is the most informative and appropriate to have at the top of the article. Kasreyn 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest reading the talk page. Again, while I don't think that expressions like "unclassy and tacky" are very adequate or meaningful here, the idea that a nude female body shows the essential things about being a woman is, in fact, a POV, a point I tried to make at the top of this section. And the abstract Apollo drawing (ambiguous regarding race etc.) is informative enough, reflecting a typically female shape of the body without making any further suggestions. --85.187.44.131 11:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the Apollo drawing is any better: it's still culturally specific (e.g long hair, amount of body fat), and it maintains the idea of a nude woman as "natural" (i.e., non-cultural) woman. Perhaps a montage of images of woman from different places and times (and wearing different amounts of clothes, I guess) would be the best bet. But using the "Frau" image, but explicitly mentioning it's cultural specificity in the caption, doesn't strike me as too terrible. VoluntarySlave 18:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the image of a nude woman to the top of the article, and added a pointer in the caption to the similar image at man, and vice versa. Logically, either both should stay, or both should go. Can you tell me why you consider an image of a nude woman unacceptable, whilst a nude man is OK? -- The Anome 23:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This "consistency" thing isn't an argument at all.
1. We aren't dealing with man now. Each article should be considered in its own right.
2. If we did have to deal with this question at all (which we don't) it should be obvious to anyone that men have never been targets of objectifying in the way women have.
3. If it's just consistency y'all wanted, why didn't you remove the picture in man instead?
4. If you look at the talk page of man, you'll see that they put a nude photo following woman's example. According to the "consistency" logic, somebody should have stopped the change to a nude photo in woman, because there was no nude photo in man back then!
Anyway, since I doubt that I'm going to convince anybody of that, at least I'm putting back the compromise meditating nude at the top, this being my humble contribution to the edit war. --85.187.44.131 01:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The meditating woman drawing is not relevant to this article. There is absoultely nothing wrong with a picture of a nude woman. If there are editors that are see this image as prurient, please note that it is not, as it is a photo taken obviosuly without that intention. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a drawing, it's just as relevant as Frau, and while Frau isn't prurient, she advances certain stereotypes, as has been argued earlier. Nobody is against pictures of nude women in principle. --85.187.44.131 01:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop deleting images. Thanks. Discuss first. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop adding images. Thanks. Discuss first. And read previous discussion before geting involved. Thanks.- Nunh-huh 01:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Nunh-huh, but this image has been there for a long time, unchallenged. The burden is on you to discuss and gain consensus for its removal. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stored version
Line 99: Line 99:
Please stop adding images. Thanks. Discuss first. And read previous discussion before getiing involved. Thanks.- Nunh-huh 01:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC) :Please stop adding images. Thanks. Discuss first. And read previous discussion before getiing involved. Thanks.- Nunh-huh 01:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Nunh-huh, but this image has been there for a long time, unchallenged. The burden is on you to discuss and gain consensus for its removal. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC) :[reply]
It was discussed before the change. The fact is that you simply didn't bother to read or participate in that discussion before or after your fourth revert. - Nunh-huh 01:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jossi, I don't think that's a fair characterization of Nunh-huh's edits. The image hadn't been there that long -- there was a line drawing there a few weeks ago -- and it doesn't seem to me like any stable consensus has existed for at least a year and a half. Further, until you made it clear you preferred Frau to Erleuthung, it was starting to look as though, while there wasn't a consensus for very much, there was at least wide agreement that Erleuthung was at least as appropriate as Frau. --Allen 01:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not involved in this content dispute. I just reverted what I considered to be vandalism, e.g. the removal of an image that was placed a while back, as I have this article on my watch list to combat vandalism. I added a gallery of images from commons a few weeks ago, that may be suitable to illustrate this article. I will let these that are into editing this article find a suitable image to replace the previous image, providig this is done not based on puritanism or other POV. Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that everything in Wikipedia is copyrighted. The pertinent question is whether the copyright holder releases his exclusive rights, so that we can use is. This particular copyright holder has done so, and has done so under a licence which is even less restrictive than the GFDL.. - Nunh-huh 02:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not so, Nunh. I am a deviantArt artist (see http://jossif.deviantart.com/) and I can assure you that the policy of deviantArt is that material posted by artists is copyrighted. The uploader had no rights released by that artists. Anyone can such make a disclaimer. See the uploader's upload log and you will see what I mean [2]. That image is now in IFD. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll let the mavens there straighten it out, but it seems to be that the cophyright holder has released it for free use with attribution. - Nunh-huh 02:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader is a kid, and no longer contributing. Most certainly he uploaded the image (his edit summary was "image taken from") and then added a spurious tag. It will be most certainly deteled. There are many suitable images in commons that can be used. See commons:Category:Woman≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Text of copyright notice: This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that copyright statement and link to http://buecax.deviantart.com/ are maintained.
Image has been deleted. If the author uploads the image himself with a release about his agreement to use within the GFDL, it can be un-deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am amused that there is this outcry against a nude woman image at the top of the page, and then there are pictures of nude women throughout the article. I think that the outcry comes from a strange combination of 21st century feminist weirdness and 19th century Victorian prudishness. If these images offend all of you so much, why don't you spin them off on to their own article with a title like "Naked Chicks Through the Ages".--Drvanthorp 21:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no problem with nudity. I have no problem with nudity on Wikipedia. However, I do have a problem with people putting things in articles for the wrong reasons. Having three nude pictures of women in the article about women is silly. There's no reason for even one, as far as I can see. We don't put 500 pictures of erect penises in the homosexuality article, just to show off how Uncensored and Open-minded we are.
Wikipedia is not a mission for evangelizing the unwashed masses to our superior Western mores. Our purpose is not to proselytize to the prudes of the world, converting their primitive minds to our free, uninhibited ways. It's to provide information. Please, just write good articles; stop wasting our time making articles controversial just for the sake of being controversial. — Omegatron 23:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Drop the Nazi invocation when bringing up the 'Frau.' Re 'Frau' as a word, just click on the left for 'Deutsch' (that's German): you'll see that Frau is 'woman' in German. As to the model's weight, I doubt that she'd consent to being photographed if people would exaggerate her weight (which is perfectly fine). Accusations of being overweight are part of American attitudes that fuel bulimia, anorexia and other eating disorders.Dogru144 16:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can we move the nude picture down on the article, so its not immediately available? Then we could paste a warning at the top of the page for those who don't want to see a woman naked. Single guy 00:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with a photo of a woman naked. See Man, see Breast, Vagina, Penis etc. This is an encyclopedia. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jossi is right. Wikipedia is not censored for such reasons. Kasreyn 02:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Frau"'s presense here is the result of a campaign by those who are friends of the model. Many people have expressed concern with the editorial consequences of leading off the "Woman" article with this particular photo, and their concerns are dismissed by those who so resolutely campaign for making this photo the most prominent part of the article. So it's probably not worth wasting a lot of time urging people to adopt a more mature position: they prefer to conceptualize it as winning for "their" photo, or as a blow against censorship, and run roughshod over the suggestion that perhaps Wikipedia might find something more important to say about "woman" than "a man with tits." - Nunh-huh 03:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I do not know of the model. If you can find alternative images to illustrate the article, it would be excellent to know what these could be. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know "Frau" either, but think it is the best image to use for the article. If there were a better image (nude or otherwise) then I would support that image as being the first image on the page. --Clawed 09:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you're talking about, Nunh-huh. I've already outlined the reasons I support the image above in excruciating detail. Mind detailing who here precisely are friends of the model, and what your evidence is that they're allowing that friendship to sway their decisions? Kasreyn 11:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can look through the archive for Frau's German friends. A bad illustration is worse than no illustration. And several preferable photos have been used in this article as the lead photo, some placed by those just above, and nonetheless, the pubescent urge to have Frau first seems to prevail. - Nunh-huh 15:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's explore otehr altrnatives, shall we? If we find something more suitable, I would have no problems in replacing it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Describing those who argue for the Frau image as "pubescent" goes against Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and clearly misrepresents the arguments put forward for the image. Proponents of the "Frau" image have argued that an image of a woman without clothes is the most appropriate way to present women in general, that is, the concept of woman absent any specific cultural factors. I think that's a mistake, as the body is culturally produced just as a specific dress or activity are; but it's a perfectly reasonable argument. If you want to remove the Frau image from the top of the article, you should address that argument. VoluntarySlave 23:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, your "refutation" of the reasoning for including the photo is nonsense. What you seem to be arguing is that, in removing one kind of cultural bias, you are left with a different kind of cultural bias. That of, body type. Ignoring the idea that this is inaccurate, you seem to be saying not that you have a problem with the nude, but that you have a problem with that particular nude, as it represents a different kind of cultural bias. So find a better one, I suggest something like Betty Crocker. And frankly, your assertion that body type is as dependent on culture as dress or activity is patently ridiculous. The differences in varities of dress and activity are so clearly more dependent on culture that I have to wonder if you genuinely believe your argument, or were simply thrashing about in a vain effort to refute something you didn't agree with. 70.115.211.122 05:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)You're wrong[reply]
If you don't like pubescent, puerile will do. And it is neither a representation nor a misrepresentation of "arguments", it's my assessment of motivation. As you point out, the argument that a "woman sans clothes" is culturally neutral is specious; besides your refutation, I'd add that the presentation of a nude woman as the first and foremost image says "woman belongs naked", and flips the figurative bird to all cultures that don't think so - and in the process reduces women to an image pandering to the notion that her most important function is to visually (and otherwise) satisfy men. - Nunh-huh 00:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sort of curious: what is the difference, if any, between "assessment of motivation" and an argument ad hominem? Please focus on other editors' actual arguments and comments as such, and leave your speculation and guesswork about their motives out of it. Kasreyn 09:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When the actual argument don't reflect actual motivation, it's counterproductive to focus on them. Please focus on my actual argument and not your guesswork about it. - Nunh-huh 15:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pfft. Excuse me, but you were the one who started calling people's arguments "pubescent" and "peurile" and assuming you knew their underlying motives. I was pointing out that your arguments were ad hominem, which means that I, unlike you, was commenting about an argument rather than a person. Please get it straight. Kasreyn 18:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, "pfft" and "please get it straight", then, would be the model on which I should base future interaction? I'll be continuing to characterize attitudes (not arguments) as such when necessary. - Nunh-huh 18:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make a deal with you: if you assume good faith and stop describing people's motives as "pubescent" and "peurile", I'll stop pointing out that your remarks are ad hominem (because I won't have to any more). Kasreyn 22:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure I've never described any specific person's motives as pubescent or peurile (or even puerile). As far as I'm concerned, you can voice your opinion about whatever you like. - Nunh-huh 23:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"...and nonetheless, the pubescent urge to have Frau first seems to prevail." Q.E.D. Kasreyn 00:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And the specific person named by me in that quotation is?... - Nunh-huh 00:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so you changed the terms of the debate to specific people and I didn't notice. That doesn't mean anything except that I should pay better attention to your replies. I never claimed you had targeted a specific person, I said you were referring to people, plural. Ad hominem remarks against groups are still ad hominem remarks. Kasreyn 00:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well, then, we've finally managed to characterize our basic dispute. Pointing out that a group of people who share a motive are a group of people who share a motive is not an ad hominem argument in my book. You think it is. So we disagree. - Nunh-huh 01:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To Nunh-huh: I'm having trouble contextualizing your statement "Wikipedia might find something more important to say about "woman" than "a man with tits"." Is this what a woman is to you? A man with tits? Please explain, because I find it difficult to agree that someone with this viewpoint should be editing the Woman article at all. romarin[talk ] 16:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read more carefully. That's my characterization of the (present) article that thinks "Frau" is the most important illustration we can have for "Woman". It is most decidedly not my attitude. - Nunh-huh 17:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, and I apologize if I came across as assuming bad faith; I just couldn't think of another way to understand what you had said, not having been a part of previous discussions on this topic. romarin[talk ] 20:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I'm very happy to welcome the participation of those who might have ideas about fixing the current article. - Nunh-huh 00:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who said it was the most important? I merely feel that it's a good compromise, consensus image. It's certainly not ideal, but it's (in my opinion) better than every other image that has been proposed for the first spot. I have no problems with having plenty of photos showing the great diversity of appearance of women. But one image has to be first, simply by the nature of the web. I feel that first image should be a nude. And I've already detailed my reasons for feeling the "Frau" image superior to the other nudes we have available (or, I should say, that have been proposed for this article). Kasreyn 09:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the first image (which is also now the largest, though it shouldn't be) is "the most important". If it's not, it shouldn't be first. - Nunh-huh 15:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is it the "largest"? It's taller than most, but narrower than some. If its height were reduced much more, the corresponding reduction in width would make it rather hard to make out the details. And of course it wouldn't be appropriate to sacrifice the image proportions and turn the image into a funhouse mirror to make it fit.
As to the most imporant, I don't see why that follows from its position, or even why it should. I would say a better description would be "most broadly representational", which there is already a section for the discussion of, above. Kasreyn 22:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very basic precept of page layout. The first picture is the most prominent, the most influential, the most important. Surely you are familiar with the idea of an "above-the-fold" photograph. - Nunh-huh 23:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a copy of my discussion with user:Gwernol, which should also serve as an explanation as to why I'm re-inserting my edit. --85.187.44.131 11:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask why you reverted my edit on Woman without any comment? Did you regard it as vandalism or what? --85.187.44.131 14:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't regard it as vandalism, but it seemed unnecessary and contentious. Given the already heated debate on the page contents and that image in particular, calling attention to her pubic area (why not comment on other aspects of the model?) seemed like throwing gasoline on the fire. I should have mentioned that in the edit summary however, sorry. Gwernol 14:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I see, but I think that it is as relevant as writing that she is European and modern (also obvious things, but the point of mentioning them is to stress that they aren't "default"). Omitting to mention her depilation (not only in the pubic area) suggests that that's how women look normally (whatever that means). One of the main arguments of the pro-Frau side is that it shows "biological reality", so according to this logic such a noticeable deviation from "biological reality" should be mentioned. Makeup and nail polish could also be mentioned, of course, but they aren't so noticeable.--85.187.44.131 14:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you think that it's necessary to add "modern" and "European"? If yes, why? --85.187.44.131 17:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Modern and European are two things we know. Depilated is not. I have indicated this in the article. Kasreyn 10:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A line is going to have to be drawn at some point. Sure, she looks depilated. But would you think that a woman who doesn't remove any hair on her body is the most representative? Some women choose to remove all of their body hair, and others choose to let it all stay. Some remove parts of it. Women treat their bodies differently, and unless you have actual statistics, there is no way to know what categorizes the "majority", thereby rendering "depilated" worth mention.
Personally I feel torn here, because while I agree that removal of the pubic hair could be significant enough to mention, as it is not the "natural" state of a woman's body, I also think that this is being taken too far, and that we are starting to make presumptions based on mere observation. What if she is naturally hairless? Or her hair is so fine and sparce that it doesn't show up in the photo? Surely women like that exist. Kasreyn is right; we don't know for sure. Besides, there are so many factors that make this woman a cultural and individual being. Are we going to end up naming them all in the photo caption? romarin[talk ] 15:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with romarin and Kasreyn. Aren't we splitting hairs here? (pun not intended). Let's assume some kind of basic intelligence on the part of our readers, OK? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I obviously have the majority against me, but I must say I'm not convinced at all.
Concerning the "we don't know for sure" bit (Kasreyn's and Romarine's argument) - maybe I'm just an ignoramus, but I've never heard of any adult being naturally completely hairless, could you please give me some sources about that? As for "fine hair", I just don't think it can be as fine as to be completely invisible, in the pubic region at any rate.
As for "representativeness" (Romarine's argument), we shouldn't be trying to have a "representative" woman, because it's impossible. She can't be some kind of a Frankenstein-like reflection of "the average human female" (40% Asian, 30% African, 30% fat, 20% blond and so on), nor can we mention every single characterisitic in the caption, e.g. that she is young, long-haired etc. etc.. The point is that the photo is supposed to show us the natural, biological woman (that's why we have a nude photo there, right?), and then something close to her "natural" state should be shown, or at least striking deviations from it should be mentioned. If we are going to show the culturally determined part (including depilation), then we might as well have a picture of a dressed woman (which was what I advocated in the first place).
As for "basic intelligence" (Jossi's argument) - yes, of course most viewers know that women naturally grow some hair. Also, most viewers know what a nude woman looks like, so once again, the whole "nudity" thing becomes unnecessary. However, our premise, and the premise of any similar illustration in an encyclopedia, is that there is an odd viewer who doesn't know these things and comes to Wikipedia to learn more.
IMO, not even mentioning depilation would imply that any normal modern European woman depilates herself by default, that depilation is something self-evident. Which is, of course, a POV. --194.145.161.227 01:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the painting by Goya La maja desnuda, in this page above. Is Goya's model depilated or not? Can you tell? Would you add a caption, "painting by Goya of a depilated Spaniard woman circa 1797? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Pubic_hair#Pubic_hair_in_art, stating explicitly: "Francisco Goya's The Nude Maja was probably the first European painting to show woman's pubic hair, though others had hinted at it. The painting was considered quite pornographic at the time." It's true that the hair is barely hinted at by today's standards, but pubic hair, especially in females, was considered a taboo until then (see that article). Also, exactly because Goya has only hinted at it, the picture isn't a good illustration for the "biological" woman. --194.145.161.227 11:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
227 (can we call you 227?), I completely understand your uncomfort with this photo. It is extremely hard to find a good representation of what "woman" looks like, probably even impossible, as there are so many different women with different physical characteristics, whether due to genetics or culture. Personally, I would rather support a photo of a woman who was not depilated, as I see removal of pubic hair as a potentially sexist custom (woman trying to look like young girl for man's pleasure, etc.). I'm sure that there are plenty of other reasons why some women choose to do this, but I'm just pointing this out to show you that my reasoning is not that I think a depilated woman is the best representation. I do think, however, as I mentioned before, that we have to draw the line somewhere, and we can't list everything in the photo caption that makes this woman a product of her society and/or her own individuality. Maybe someone will come up with another photo that we all can agree is better here, but until then, I support this photo, and I don't think it is necessary to mention her depilation. I think that jossi is right too; people will know, if they notice at all. And for now, if readers really want to see pubic hair, they can visit Pubic hair. romarin[talk ] 02:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being friendly, but I don't think you've responded to any of my arguments, and in fact you have ignored them completely. Mentioning depilation is exactly what would urge readers to visit pubic, or rather, body hair and remind them that this is not the way a woman looks, biologically. As for drawing the line, I'd draw the line after depilation and not before it, because depilation (unlike, say, nail polish) is a rather striking deviation from usual biological appearance. So far, none of you has explained why the line must be drawn before depilation (but after modern and European) - apart from Kasreyn's "natural hairlessness" hypothesis, which I have neither heard of nor read on Wikipedia, in sexological books or elsewhere. The first description I came across actually started with female pubic hair as the most striking sexual characteristic - without mentioning, as usual in such cases, something like "some women don't have visible pubic hair, don't worry, it's normal". --194.145.161.227 11:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are exaggerating my point. I did not claim the woman is hairless. I claimed that it is possible she has very fine or sparse hair which wouldn't show up in a photograph. After all, we're not standing next to her, we're looking at a photograph a couple of inches tall. A certain amount of resolution is inevitably sacrificed. I was also under the impression that a dark line at the woman's crotch was a trimmed patch of pubic hair. On closer examination, it appears to be the woman's genitals, so I certainly agree she's depilated. I still disagree that it's really important to point it out, but I don't think it's important enough to argue about. Kasreyn 21:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone tell me why someone put a nude woman picture on this article. We will not accept this on wikipedia.--67.34.212.66 13:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not censored, nudity to illustrate an article (as it does in this case) is perfectly acceptable. You can find out who made any edit by looking in the History tab. Thanks, Gwernol 13:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that this photo should be removed and replaced with something a little more decent (and possibly more appealing). If I understand correctly, Wikipaedia is meant to be a repository of human knowledge, not a pornography free-for-all. Let us also consider that minors have as much access to this web site as anyone else. It follows that I do not feel a nude photo is even necessary, as there are medical diagrams to illustrate the genitals more accurately. Stovetopcookies 01:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you feel the photo is pornographic? I'm very puzzled. I asked that question of a user above and never received an answer. I'm very curious. To me, it looks like a nude woman, standing still, and doing nothing particularly sex-related. She does not have a lascivious expression on her face, she is not wearing any lingerie, she is not posing with any sexual paraphernalia, she is not engaged in any sexual activity. What is pornographic about the image?
Human knowledge includes the appearance of a naked woman.
It is clearly indicated in Wikipedia's general disclaimer that material some may find offensive can be found here. See WP:NOT; Wikipedia is not censored for minors. Images should not be removed for this reason.
As far as I can tell, the current consensus among editors is that a photo of a nude woman does a fairly decent job of removing as many culture-specific identifiers (typically garments) from the woman while maintaining a high degree of information content. Clothing is a covering; one of its intended purposes is to reduce information content about the body, and the body is a legitimate topic for this article.
I strongly feel the image should remain. Cheers, Kasreyn 02:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, there is no reason whatsoever why the female body in its naked form should be banned from an encyclopedia. It is all about objective facts, and what better way to display these facts than to display them in their fullness? The montage picture is not sexual in any way, and as such, does not display anything more than scientific fact. Anaythea 10:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I returned here a few weeks later specifically to delete that picture. Thankfully, someone beat me to it? What is wrong with that picture? ------------> I don't feel comfortable showing it to my mother. I don't feel comfortable reading that article at school, when a teacher could easily suspend me for it. That is the test as to whether something is acceptible or not. Readers, don't you agree?
May I suggest that you read the previous discussion before complaining. As long as there are no new arguments, all this discussion is likely fruitless, and it hardly imaginable that any arguments exist that have not been presented on this and related pages. Keep that picture on the page, it's as neutral as a picture could possibly be, and it shows an average, if rather attractive, young woman, i.e. it is perfectly suitable. 87.122.38.75 10:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there are clear conclusions to be made from the above discussion, and I don't know what the consensus is, it's been changing a lot. I've always been opposed to using a single nude picture at the top of the article: the female body is culturally or racially specific, just like clothes. Furthermore, I simply feel kinda offended (don't take me wrong, I'm male), when I see a cute, nude, slightly plump woman displayed as the absolute representative of the female part of humanity. It's difficult to even explain why I am, but I am. Even though I don't mind plumpness, or nudity, or cuteness, or the photo per se. I just hate the idea of their being presented as the ideal Woman with a capital W, and placing a single nude picture at the top of the article sort of implies an ideal. (which is why I think there should be a clearly non-ideal illustration).
Now criteria of encyclopedicness should be a little better defined than your aversion obviously is. There are good arguments against models that are in some respect extreme (extremely beautiful etc.), but that lady is close enough to average to be suitable. Good looking, but not perfect, what else do you want? If you found a picture showing more than one nude woman (aesthetically acceptable, that is, non-pornographic, plus with an acceptable license), that would be even better to disarm the anti-discrimination lobbyists (and ditto trolls), but such a picture may be difficult to find. 87.122.54.229 17:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, I agree that she is average and quite fine as an individual. That's not the problem. As for encyclopedicness, let's be frank, what we are doing in this case is just "playing encyclopedicness" anyway. Other encyclopedias don't even have such an article. And where in heaven's name have you met an "anti-discrimination troll"? --194.145.161.227 22:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look into this page's archives to find out. Every conceivable argument and many more there, including extensive discussions of fingernails, the sexism of taking a photograph of a woman exemplified by her posture, and the cultural biases inherent in showing (or rather not showing) pubic hair. If the feminists of this world have nothing better to do than lead such discussions, little wonder their cause is foundering. 87.122.26.166 06:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I may have confused some such discussions with the analog talk page in German. Great fun reading, if you have some German. 87.122.26.166 06:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that we devise a survey with the question "Should the top illustration in the woman article be nude?", and publish it at Current surveys. --194.145.161.227 14:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with a nude woman at the top of the article. The article is about woman obviously we need a picture of a woman, obviously that woman should be nude. However i do see that it is difficult to represent "woman" by displaying a photo of just one woman. Ideally I would like to see a collection of women - all nude - of different ages, races and weights, standing or sitting in a naturally posed group. That would be my ideal photo, however until a photo like that becomes available I'm happy to settle for the one we have at the top of the article. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually a really good idea... unfortunately I suspect it may be hard to find free photos of that! If you do find one, please upload it! :) Kasreyn 16:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is that even necessary though? Everyone knows what a woman looks like. Stovetopcookies 20:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel best practise at an encyclopedia is to a.) assume the readers know literally nothing except how to read the basic language, and b.) to include all information that seems notable and pertinent. What people look like - their entire bodies - is surely notable. Kasreyn 21:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. The question is rather whether it is the most notable thing and whether it should be placed at the top. Never mind, I'm letting this be for the time being. But if more people come and feel uncomfortable about the photo (there have already been quite a few on both sides), I think a survey should be conducted. --194.145.161.227 22:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how this is "porn" in any way. It's like saying the statue of the Spirit of Justicewith an exposed breast is porn. --mboverload@ 22:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Poor argument, as cultures in which it is the norm for women to live their lives nude are far and few between. So a nude is culturally inaccurate as well. It also seems to have escaped your notice that the arguements are not that the picture is porn (it would be bad porn, if it were porn) but that its placement as the most prominent photograph here implies that the essense of womanhood is nudeness - and, given the cultural baggage attached, sexual availability. It denigrates the actual accomplishments of women when you reduce them to tits and ass. - Nunh-huh 05:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However this is not about cultural aspects alone, but about women in general, and in that context such a picture is clearly needed. And by the same token you could argue a lot about man. If we can show a nude man in man, why should we not show a nude woman in woman? I may be not too versed in the intricacies of antidiscriminatory pettifoggery, however, so the finer arguments may have escaped me... 87.122.26.166 06:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Though you breezily dismiss attention to the historical status of women as a class, I think it is appropriate that cultural context be taken into account rather than pretending that showing a nude man requires showing a nude woman, and vice versa, as though the two things were culturally equivalent. - Nunh-huh 18:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is not that one requires the othe, but that one is just as harmless as the other. It worries me that this simple and harmless picture incites such amounts of debate. A simple picture of an average woman to illustrate woman, what the hell could be more normal? I just don't get it.87.122.21.129 06:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How many cultures exise where NO women are EVER nude? What is the only state that is, at some time or another universally shared by women? Yup, nudity. Point to me.
Only if they are giving out points for misunderstanding arguments, or exhibiting logical flaws, I fear.
Oh god, please shut the hell up. Unless you plan to actually READ what the hell you are responding to, the you have no business commenting. And if you plan to CLAIM there are logicl flaws, then you'd better be able to elaborate, not just CLAIM like you did. The truth is you know I'm right, and your arguments are unable to refute me, so you resort to vagaries of speech to support yourself. You've been outed as a troll and you hate it.70.115.211.122 08:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)You hate that I'm right, but I'm still right.[reply]
Also, it seems to have escaped YOUR notice that Stovetopcookies posted the following
"I do agree that this photo should be removed and replaced with something a little more decent (and possibly more appealing). If I understand correctly, Wikipaedia is meant to be a repository of human knowledge, not a pornography free-for-all."
One arguement that our Wikipedian friend Frau, so vigorously promoted by her close friends, is porn, doesn't represent any large proportion of the actual argumentation here.
Perhaps not, but is the THE argument I Was addressing. Perhaps in the future, instead of runnig off at the mouth in anticipation of an argument, you should exercise due diligence and attempt to find out what you are responding to.70.115.211.122 08:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Tired of know it alls like YOU[reply]
" - but apparently not so tired that you'll actually deliver on your "done with you" promise.:70.115.211.122 08:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)- Nunh-huh 08:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm still done with YOU, unles you plan to actually read what I post and not respond with your typical taliing points. And if you plan to reply, don't be such a scumbag and do it so we can see it was YOU.70.115.211.122 08:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)I'm still right, and you're still pissed about it (unsigned)"[reply]
- ah, then you're done as long as you have the last word. Goody. - Nunh-huh 08:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NO, I don't have to have the last word, I just ask for an honest discussion, not a ridicuolous repetition of talking points, sans logic. Since you are incapable of providing said arguments (and have demnonstrated such with your failure to support your exceedingly weak and silly assertations) what's the point of enagingg you in discussion?70.115.211.122 08:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)How sad are you thast you follow others around responding to their tags? The answer is, you are so sad that suicide is a viable option.[reply]
So, I accept your apology in advance.70.115.211.122 06:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Frankly, I think you're nuts, your silly assertions about "objectification" in a PHOTOGRAPH that shows an OBJECT which actually IS AN OBJECT, and that somepart of womanhood other that what is visible can somehow be represented in a PHOTOGRAPH are ridiculous, and you're a troll, and I'm done with you![reply]
Well, that's good news, in anycase. So I am relieved of the need to enlighten you, or object to your undeserved insult. Ta ta. - Nunh-huh 06:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Funny though, how you chatise me for not following the argument, and then after demonstrating that it was in fact YOU who did not follow, you say nothing. You were wrong, you were thinking of a separate discussion, and instead of owning up, you troll on. Undeserved my rear, you earned it by doing things such as that. Also, you have repeatedly resorted to childish, confrontational attacks on those who disagree with you. You sound pretty funny trying to take the high road NOW.70.115.211.122 06:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)You lose. Again. For like, the thirtieth time. I bet that gets old huh?[reply]
Nunh-huh, 70.115, just lay off. It's clear you're not going to agree. Quit wasting so much talk page space on something so futile.
Oh, and 70.115, don't think I didn't see your attempts to make it look like Nunh-huh called you a "Douchebag" [4] and a troll [5]. You inserted that. If you try to put words in someone else's mouth again, you will be reported to an administrator. Have a wonderful day, Kasreyn 09:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, preferably adding a brief comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.
Question: Should the main image at the top of the article be a nude photo?
Yes
Yeah there should be as long as there is one for a man aswell (The Bread 01:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Absolutely, Wikipedia is not censored and this is an appropriate image for this article. Gwernol 19:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. I've explained my reasons for such above many times. Kasreyn 20:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. It seems blatently obvious to me that the photo should show a nude woman. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. That is a pretty normal picture that represents the normal looks of a normal woman, it does not mean anyone is reducing women to just their looks, one simply cannot portray a woman's psyche or the like User:AndresDominguez 5:30, 3 August 2006
Support per above. Dionyseus 06:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Gwernol - Draeco 15:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support -- the image (or a similar one) is certainly appropriate for the article. I don't have a strong opinion about having it at the top of the article vs. lower down, but I'd sooner keep the status quo than shake things up without fuly understanding. CRGreathouse 17:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Good enough for the pioneer spacecraft, good enough for us. Alecmconroy 05:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What spacecraft? Are you perchance confusing it with the (rather abstract) Apollo drawings? The question was about a photo, not about the Pioneer drawings. --194.145.161.227 10:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: in fact, the pioneer spacecraft drawing was the status quo ante, before "Frau" was substituted. - Nunh-huh 23:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. The problem with leading with a nude image is that it might suggest that the picture is of a "natural" woman which is somehow not culturally specific. However, I haven't seen any convincing proposals for alternative lead pictures. VoluntarySlave 08:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Illustrative picture concerning anatomy and human form. As mentioned earlier, nude pictures of men and women were inscribed on those spacecraft plaques. --Joffeloff 17:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment on Alecmonroy's vote.--194.145.161.227 10:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support — current image is ideal. --jwandersTalk 09:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Added discussion belowCaptainManacles 07:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Lead photograph should be tasteful nude to eliminate cultural bias of clothing and to demonstrate broad differences from male figure. --Jumbo 09:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support - Please see Pioneer Image below. (Sorry ... it's been muddied by a sockpuppet troll since I posted it.) --Dennette 05:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --70.137.169.2 12:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Cannot permit dark age prudishness to impede scientific impartiality. Change is progress. Let's step forward, not back. Say you're the leader of an expedition to the first known inhabited alien world. But you're a few centuries too late, an atomic war has decimated the population. Luckily, they were advanced enough to have extra-somatic knowledge stores like us; libraries, universities. With a little luck you decipher their language and come upon an Encyclopedia. You look up Male, you look up Female. But they're of no use. The images have been manipulated and censored, obfuscated by ephemeral cultural mores. Can you imagine the tragedy?[reply]
Support This is an encylopedic article, if some are worried about how others may view it, ie woman as an object, then that is not a problem of Wikipedia. The article should be of a nature where a parent can take a young child to explain what the difference including the physical differences between men and women. I think the comment above by the anonymous poster sums up alot of the objections I am reading here The objections you are voicing are social constructs, and really only indicate your inability to separate sexuality from biology. I don't how ever believe that this is the best photo to use. Khukri(talk . contribs) 13:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well said!! Kasreyn 19:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not all of us voting "no" are unable to separate sexuality from biology. The image is still inappropriate, though, since this is not a biology article. — Omegatron 19:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Wikipedia is not censored. As stated above, several articles in the encyclopedia have explicit images. -- benzo? ♠♠ 23:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per Jumbo's comment above. I agree with others that a non-depilated woman without makeup would be a better choice, but until one is volunteered, the current image should stay. Lamont A Cranston 11:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support The definition of 'woman' is anatomical. Other aspects of woman can be discussed later, and may well be the bulk of the article, but one must start with a picture illustrating the definition. User:thehalfone 3 October 2006
Strong Support I think the image is appropriate but I also think the man page should use the same standard.
Strong Support The "Frau" image was just fine and serves the purpose of the article ideally right where it was at the start of the article. JayMan 18:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support This is an encyclopedia article that strives for scientific accuracy. Clothes are an obstruction that decrease that accuracy. --Lebha 18:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support You never know when you'll be away from home and find you need to beat off, only to have no porn local on the hard drive and some kind of net filter blocking your usual smut train. But those filters probably won't filter out wikipedia/Woman! Once again, the internet saves your testicles, and blue balls will have to strike another day. --KeiNagase 07:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support I feel that the article needs several more images of the female nude. --Margrave1206 05:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, that's how we naturaly are --BMF81 12:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No
Reject - seems like this is just a way to start unneeded controversy. An appropriate pic to include? Sure, just not for the lead. -- MrDolomite | Talk 15:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MrDolomite. The nude picture is only generating controversy. Maybe something a little more "decent" would be more appropriate for the lead, but an unclothed picture should be included elsewhere in the article. Lawilkin 16:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No — The article is not about female anatomy. A naked female body in the lead does not well represent the article as a whole. And, from a balanced WP:NPOV, a similar actual photo of an unclothed male does not lead off the article on man. (The illustration is the Michelangelo statue of David, which perhaps the analogous female image would be Venus de Milo.)— ERcheck (talk) 05:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no objection to the Venus de Milo being the lead image on this page. Kasreyn 08:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly object to the Venus de Milo being the lead image. It's an image of the ancient Greek idealization of woman; it's extraordinarily culturally specific and, worse, specific to the European culture which might mistakenly pass as universal among editors of the English language Wikipedia. VoluntarySlave 08:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reject per MrDolomite. --Morlark 06:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but shouldn't be on the top. Similarly to Lawilkin position, i agree the picture is ok, but not for the top. It's more for a woman anatomy section, not for the heading, appearing the first on a casual overview. Platonides 21:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. (I'm the anon who's been arguing against a nude photo all along). In short, I think that nudity doesn't deserve to be at the top; a nude picture is neither the most informative, nor the most beautiful possible image; and the (appearance of) a nude body is neither the most important, nor the most "non-discriminatory" characteristic of women. The worst thing is that it pretends to be so. --Anonymous44 22:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. A lousy picture, displayed in the wrong place. - Nunh-huh 21:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. I think readers already know what a naked woman looks like, and we don't need to show it here. In fact what is the usefullness of showing this? Are you worried that someone might not know what a woman is? Show a woman in a typical pose, not in an unusual one. (At least where I live I don't see naked women walking down the street, and even if you do, it's not a common occurance is it?) 71.199.123.24 09:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Using this logic, readers already know what a woman is and we might as well just blow away the whole article, maybe have a mention in Man that humanity comes in two sorts.
No. This compromise image is neither comprehensive enough (you understand what is meant), nor "polite" to readers. And the article even isn't about anatomy. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 20:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. The non-nude montage is far superior in descriptiveness and diversity, and won't get Jimbo asked if he's just recapitulating Bomis the next time he's on CNN. I'm going to be bold about this one. Publicola 06:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. If the man page doesn't have its nude photo on top, why should the woman? There needs to be a medium... the nude photo further down is less objectionable. 69.151.135.49 16:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Kathleen[reply]
No. A typical picture of a woman would contain clothes of some kind. Arguing that the clothing style violates NPOV is similar to arguing that the woman's ethnicity does. Anonymous 21:45, 9 August 2006
No. Agree generally with the "no" arguments, but really I think language refers to subjects and objects as we relate to them most normally, I suspect most women would picture themselves clothed and I certainly relate more often to clothed women. But then I'd put a person's arm in the Atlatl picture, too. Further down. Homunq 21:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. Move nude pictures to "Anatomy" articles. --Vsion 21:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. The woman in the picture should have clothes on. BookLover 05:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. A non-photographic pictorial of a woman should be substituted for an actual picture of a naked woman. This is necessitated both by neutrality of presentation (a scientific picture can accomplish this far better than an actual picture can) as well as decency. Whereas we do not have to "censor" information, we needn't present graphic depictions, either, specifically when they aren't necessary. In the sex articles there is at least a reason to show pictures (even photographs) of sex acts, whereas there is none here. 69.22.252.216 04:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Anonymous[reply]
No. The photo probably should remain on the page, but I see no reason not to put it lower on the page. Heimstern Läufer 07:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NO I can't believe that this is even an issue - isn't it so obvious to you that it shouldn't be on there.......I feel like I'm trying to explain the wrongness of paedophilia to someone who just doesn't seem to undersstand, someone who comes back with arguments like "what's wrong with it?". What IS wrong with you all who are voting YES??? TheGrandMaster 02:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So within the span of a few minutes you've gone from being a teenager looking at Playboys and Penthouses without parental permission, to a moral crusader who equates nudity to pedophilia - and knows how to spell it in the British manner? After the Publicgirluk flap, my AGF glands are practically dry. I'm calling troll. Kasreyn 02:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a polling area, not a place for you to make comments which add nothing to the discussion. Therefore your comments have been struck through. (read above if you have any doubt as to what you have added Peace. TheGrandMaster 05:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but you do not have the right to strike through or remove my comments from this or any other talk page. Do not vandalize this talk page again. I have left your comment struck through, as you seem to have wanted it that way. Kasreyn 07:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. Nudity is not the definitive image of a woman in today's culture, and it could distract from the main focus of the article. This isn't an article on woman's sexuality, and it simply isn't the best picture to have.BigCow 18:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, but conditional No. As stated before, the article is not about female anatomy or sexual functions. To those who have said "yes", this is not about censorship (which I am very much opposed to), but rather relevancy. Most European women (as the photo depicts a European) do not walk around buck naked. This isn't about being a prude, but rather relevancy. Put nude pictures like that in the female anatomy sections and most certainly not at the beginning of an article like this one. It is unwelcome and distracting from an otherwise solid article.--Saintlink 05:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. The nudity of the woman in the photo is inappropriate. She does not seem to originate from a culture where nudity is the societal norm. Depilation, nail polish, makeup; the cultures where these are popular are cultures where, often, public nudity is illegal. I am a woman, 25, and I am offended by the implication that our primary global concept of Woman is young, light-skinned, made-up, and hairless. 141.154.75.23 10:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC) Erika[reply]
I'm curious. What precisely are you offended by: the specific image used, or the entire concept of having a nude image as the lead image? Because only the latter is under discussion in this poll; specific details of the model in the image are irrelevant, as you could always upload or suggest another image. What is under debate is whether the first image should be nude. Cheers, Kasreyn 01:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No - Wikipedia is not and should not be censored, but these pictures are not in the article for informative purposes; they're there for the sake of controversy, as evidenced by all of the "What are you prudes so offended by??" comments on this talk page. These images are perfectly appropriate in an article about nudists or nudity in art or female reproductive system or secondary sex characteristics, but not in a general interest article about women. The first image in the article should be representative. The vast majority of women are clothed, so a representative image should also be. If you must show a naked woman on this page, she should not be the first image, and the image should be an informative one, like a woman from a culture where clothes are not normally worn, or a sterile biological diagram. We aren't censored, but that doesn't mean we should put naked people on every page and try to offend as many "prudes" as we can. — Omegatron 19:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't care
Don't care This discussion wastes time. Why do more people care about the pictures than the content? *Sigh* Rintrah 06:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except that we're omitting her entrails, which aren't normally visible either. In fact, what makes a woman a woman is not her appearance on the outside (transsexuals can have it too), but her reproductive system (on the inside). Ergo, we should place Image:Female_anatomy_frontal.png at the top. --194.145.161.227 21:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A nice attempt at reductio ad absurdum but it misses the point. The illustration is not intended to define what a woman is, but to illustrate it. This image does a good enough job of that. Adding clothing would make the already complex question of which is an illustrative/representative image much thornier since clothing is so culturally specific. Gwernol 21:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand how you define an illustration and, consequently, why it's clear that an illustration should strip the clothes and not the skin. If an illustration is supposed to show how you normally look, then there should be clothes. If it is supposed to show the essential things (shared by all women in all cultures, as the other anon argued), then there should be no skin. And, any image will inevitable be - and is - specific, both culturally and biologically. Rather, it should at least not pretend to be something other than specific.--194.145.161.227 08:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict) I started typing pretty much the same thing, but Gwernol said it better than me. No matter how we try, we cannot show a whole woman, so we must try to show as much as it's possible for one illustration (and that means no clothes). Female anatomy picture is an important one to have further down in the article, but it is just unsuitable at the top as a picture of a dressed woman is—it shows (a lot) less than it's possible.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not very clear for me what is "more" and what is "less" in terms of, err, quantity, I suppose it's subjective. To me, the question is what is more relevant.----
In any case, my old enemy Common Sense seems to be winning a new victory. It seems that puritan Wikipedians don't read Current Surveys, and I don't feel like going about and posting messages to the people that have posted comments against the nude photo at some moment or other. Fine, at least now the discussion of this article can be limited to other issues for some time. I guess the poll should remain open for another couple of days. --194.145.161.227 08:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Except that we're omitting her entrails, which aren't normally visible either."
Even worse, we're not showing her backside either! Darned two-dimensional imaging technology! Clearly, the solution is to remove all images from Wikipedia until three-dimensional holography is added to the project! (or in other words: ridiculous) Kasreyn 20:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you are calling Ezhiki's stance ridiculous, not mine as you seem to think. --194.145.161.227 20:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I think I know whose arguments I consider ridiculous better than you do. I was satirizing your reductio ad absurdum re: entrails not being visible. The point being that of course a photo is incapable of conveying all possible information; the point is, it can be meaningfully and usefully illustrative. The reason you're not following is probably because you are misinterpreting which sense the word "illustration" is being used in. Definitions 2 and 3 here may prove... illustrative. Kasreyn 03:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then your satire missed the point, because I never said we should give up images, and all I suggested in this case was that the "show the hidden parts of a woman" argument doesn't make sense. The definition you provided a link to ("visual matter that clarifies or decorates a text") doesn't change anything. A picture of a dressed woman is probably better as a decoration, and a picture of the reproductive system is better as a meaningful clarification. I suppose you were trying to repeat Gwernol's argument that an illustration is not a definition, but that doesn't explain why one should prefer a certain form/condition of the subject (in this case, nude) for the lead illustration. One possible basis for such a preference, a basis that was implied earlier by the other anon, could be how unique or constituent features the given form of the subject has - hence my jocular conclusion that we should use the female reproductive system as a lead picture. --194.145.161.227 10:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re: the comments of MrDolomite and Lawilkin. I agree that a nude photo is controversial. Unfortunately I think the proposed solution (picture of a clothed woman) would be at least as controversial and likely more so. Clothes are so culturally specific that you will just have endless debate about what is a good photo to use. Trying to create more "decency" (not really sure what that means as its a totally subjective term) closes down one source of debate but opens up another huge one, so doesn't seem to address your concerns. Best, Gwernol 18:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re: the comments of Gwernol and others above. I never thought about culturally specific clothes being an issue, ty. But then that leads me to a new, related issue. What race should the (nude or clothed) lead picture be for an article about (woman or man)? -- MrDolomite | Talk 18:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the solution is to choose both clothes and race that obviously can't be regarded as "privileged" in any way. Actually, the only possible mistake would be to use a Western woman in Western clothes. If we were to use, say, an Eskimo woman, nobody would think that we are trying to impose an Eskimo POV or anything. --194.145.161.227 20:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there even a discussion about race here? The current picture is fine, and no the woman should not be clothed. The main photo's purpose is to demonstrate the body of a woman, not her culture. Dionyseus 08:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? But why? What makes you think that the body of a woman is more important for this article than her culture is? I can't agree with that. Maybe it's because the body is the decisive factor that causes a woman to be a woman, while all the social factors, decisive as they are for the actual "being" of a woman, come afterwards. But, as some people argued above, an illustration is not a definition and needn't be guided by that; or, if it should be a definition and if it should be guided by that, then a picture of the female reproductive system would be the best solution, since a photo of external appearance includes many irrelevant characterisitics, and since a transsexual can also look like a woman on the outside. --194.145.161.227 12:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You yourself explained why the body of a woman is more important for the main photo of this article than her culture. As for your idea of replacing the current main photo with a picture (I guess you meant an illustration) of the female reproductive system, that is even worse than the idea to use a photo of a clothed woman. Are you claiming that a woman's reproductive system is more important than the woman herself? That's kind of how the Tleilaxu view women. The current main photo is fine. Dionyseus 21:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not claiming it, that was a reductio ad absurdum. But, if we are following the "intuitive implications" argument - are you claiming that a woman's nude body is more important than her entire personality (which is expressed in her normal, everyday, clothed appearance)? Does a woman live nude, work nude, think nude? --194.145.161.227 10:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the big problem with using a nude picture as the main picture of the article. Woman is not solely a biological category, it's also, and primarily, a social one. However, given the massive cultural diversity of women, how can we illustrate the social concept of "woman"? The nude picture at least avoids attributing too many specific cultural features to woman as a concept, even if it also falsely implies that there is some non-cultural substrate underlying the concept. If anyone has any better suggestions, I'd love to hear them, but so far, as far as I can tell, those who oppose the current picture have not argued for any specific alternative. VoluntarySlave 08:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a question of principle. If the majority turned out to think that a nude photo wasn't good for the lead, then we would look for specific alternatives. But as I said - a non-Western clothed photo doesn't attribute anything to woman as a concept, because nobody takes clothes seriously, especially non-Western clothes. If we were to place a picture of an Eskimo woman there, nobody would dream of thinking that we are attributing the Eskimo cultural ideas of a woman to the general concept of a woman. It is only the simplest way to say that everything is relative. IMO, even a Western woman isn't necessarily a problem - the picture on the Danish wikipedia is simply a joke (an obvious model, and a slim one, too, posing in the most fashionable Western clothes) - and exactly because it's so obviously particular and transient, it's pretty harmless. Nobody would imagine that this is what women in general look or should look like. --194.145.161.227 10:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Harmless? I'm beginning to think that there's no such thing as an image that could go on the top of this page without someone finding something objectionable about it. Good grief, think of how much real work could have been done on this article if people weren't so all fired-up over gasp an average-looking naked woman at the top! -_- Kasreyn 19:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or so het up about it that they insist no other place on the page is good enough for it, despite other's reasonable objections... - Nunh-huh 20:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the relevent points have been made. I don't find the arguement that a nude woman puts too much focus on biology convincing, I think it's splitting hairs. Biology IS still an important part of gender, and the page goes into enough detail on the importance of gender as a social construct. I can't imagine anyone falling out of their chairs confused just because there's a nude woman on the top of the page. I find the POV issue with clothed women more realistic. As suggested by another editor, something like a picture of an Eskimo may eliviate accusations of bad faith and pushing our own agenda, but something doesn't have to be our own POV to lack NPOV. A picture of an Eskimo just wouldn't reflect a broad enough view of what makes a woman a woman, and given that is basically the complaint about the current picture, it's a rather invalid solution. CaptainManacles 07:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Using a nude woman is not confusing, it's just symbolic and signals our espousal of a POV (an elementary and ignorant one, too). Basically, you're saying that it's better to espouse a good ole broad majority POV ("a broad enough view of what makes a woman a woman"), no matter how stupid it is, rather than the POV that gender is above all a social construct (which an Eskimo picture would suggest). The majority of Wikipedians apparently think the same as you. Well, it's a pity. --194.145.161.227 09:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to be rude just because someone disagrees with you. Look, calm down, read my post, try again, and this time respond to the points I made.CaptainManacles 04:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have responded to your points: a photo is symbolic of a POV, and a "broad view" is worse than a "narrow-to-nobody's" view. I didn't want to break up your paragraph by inserting my objections into your text, but I think you can see which of my statements addresses which of yours. --194.145.161.227 11:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, then I'll enumerate the points you missed for you, make it real easy.
The article more then covers the idea that gender is more about society then biology. You focused on the word confused, but that's not really relevent to my arguement. I don't think anyone is going to get the impression that we're espousing that specific POV.
As I mentioned above I think that the lead image has a great symbolic significance, regardless of what the article says later on. --194.145.161.227 00:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Biology IS an important part of someone's sex. It's arguable that it is the defining characteristic of sex more then anything else. If an eskimo man put on women's garb, I doubt the response would be "look, a woman with a penis". Getting pregnant, having a period, nursing - far more important to defining a woman's experience as a woman then say, culturally defined roles such as cooking and doing laundry.
Nope, I don't agree with that last sentence. Being a woman is so much more than actually getting pregnant etc. It is in every second of your life, in the way you understand and feel your own identity, in the way you interact with other humans, in what you do etc., while all the physiological things you mentioned actually might occupy a much smaller part of your time. And no, I don't agree that all these things are determined by biology. Biology *is* there, but the way you interpret it and the conclusions you draw from it *aren't* there. Even the physiological things you mentioned constitute entirely different experiences depending on the way society regards them. (to take an obvious example, having a period is regarded as "a state of impurity" in many a traditional society, and *this* is defining for one's experience of it). --194.145.161.227 00:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The biological aspects of gender are more objective. You want to characterize it as a good ole broad stupid majority POV, but the reality is that biology is the only aspect of gender that will definately be the same regardless who you are or what society you are in. That is what is known as a neutral point of view.
No, that's not really how the policy defines NPOV. It's true that biology is a unifying thing, but there remains an implication that it determines everything else, and there remains a vast "subjective", narrow POV element nonetheless: race, culture, various forms of body "decoration" etc (and, worst of all, unlike the Eskimo outfit, these are "subjective" things that we don't notice, because we find them self-evident). Also, as I mentioned earlier, if an illustration is supposed to be a definition, then it should be an image of the female reproductive system (a woman and a transwoman could look pretty similar on the outside). If it shouldn't be a definition, then it needn't be nude at all.--194.145.161.227 00:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's splitting hairs. Okay, it's arguable that biology is secondary to society in terms of womanhood, but it's not negligible.
No, of course nothing is negligible. One has to choose, I suppose. --194.145.161.227 00:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An eskimo outfit or something similar lacks NPOV. I think it's more realistic to say an eskimo outfit conveys the message that being a woman is about being an eskimo more then a naked woman conveys the message that being a woman is about biology.
No, it's not more realistic, because only an idiot reader could think that we are trying to say such a thing. An eskimo outfut implies cultural relativity. And of course the second option, nudity, has a message as clear as the first one. The difference is that you don't mind that second message, because you, personally, agree with it (as you more or less stated above). Even if you are inclined to admit theoretically that it's not really 100% true, you still feel that, whatever we say, it remains a self-evident truth. --194.145.161.227 00:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"are you claiming that a woman's nude body is more important than her entire personality (which is expressed in her normal, everyday, clothed appearance)? Does a woman live nude, work nude, think nude?" What a colossally stupid attempt at an argumnet. WOuld you care to explain how one could embody the totality of a woman's PERSONALITY in a PHOTOGRAPH?
No, one can't. The problem is that using a nude photo implies that nudity embodies the totality or at least the most important aspect of a woman, and that's a view that a lot of people espouse, consciously or unconsciously. A similar problem as with using a pregnant woman, a woman washing dishes or whatever. Other photos don't imply that. As I've repeated a thousand times, Eskimo clothes do not imply that they embody the totality of a woman, because it's a view that nobody espouses. --194.145.161.227 16:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right... More to the point, the photograph represents the only state the is verifiably universal to ALL women. You're wrong, in the minorty, and frankly, making a fool of yourself with your poorly thought out attempts at argument. Every time someone refutes you (for example, like I have) your argument changes. I imagine it will change again, in a vain attempt to refute the fact that women all share the depicted state.
That was a lot of anger. Why not try boxing instead? --194.145.161.227 16:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"And of course the second option, nudity, has a message as clear as the first one. And what is that? There is nothing culturally specific about nudity. N-O-T-H-I-N-G. So, what "message" are you reading into a 2 dimensional representation of the outward physical characteristics of a woman? NO, the truth is, you just don't like it, but can't espouse an intelligent reason why, so you rely on logical fallcies and rhetorical tricks.70.115.211.122 21:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Nunya[reply]
First, the idea that "outward physical characteristics" are the most important thing about a woman is POV, and culturally specific. Second, of course such things as shaved pubic hair are rather culturally specific, too. And please don't force me to repeat the same arguments again, it's tiresome. --194.145.161.227 16:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And you're still wrong. You could restate your arguments, and they would still be ridiculous. Specifically, THERE IS NO ONE CLAIMING THAT THE PHOTO REPRESENTS THE "MOST IMPORTANT" THINGS ABOUT A WOMAN" except you. It ONLY represents those things which are A) UNIVERSAL to women B) OUTWARDLY VISIBLE, AND THEREFORE ABLE TO BE SHOWN IN A PHOTOGRAPH. YOU keep adding the "most important" qualifier, but it is a fallacy, as has been stated, REPEATEDLY. Your arguments are vacuous, contrived, and meaningless.
There is an argument to be made that "universal" is both false (Are there more women without any given characteristic of the photo, such as two notable breasts, wide hips, pubic hair, long hair, or pink skin, or more women who don't regularly clothe themselves in something for most public/social interaction? I don't know, but you could easily find examples on both sides, even within the narrow definition of woman as adult.)and a stand-in for important (since you insist on it so much). Please, try to respect each other. (I've edited out the more personal attacks in the last comment)--Homunq 16:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The is absolutely no way to represent all women (all three billion of them) with any one photograph. But for the purposes of exemplifying a woman, the Frau is ideal. This woman is pretty average is most every respect, and having no clothes removes almost all cultural connotations. We could split hairs and go on about her make up, depilation, etc…, but again, nothing is going to be perfect, but for purpose of illustrating the topic of the article, it works well. JayMan 18:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The pro- arguments are essentially saying either 1) that nudity is the best illustration of the most universal part of the definition of the term or 2) that anything else would be culturally biased. The anti- arguments say A) that nudity is offensive B) that nudity privileges a reductionist viewpoint of women (direct counterargument to 1) and C) that you can't escape some cultural specificity so you shouldn't try. Personally I'd say that the 2/C debate is irresolvable and thus to be avoided. A) seems directly counter to WP:NOT. So we're down to 1 vs. B. Obviously there are partisans on both sides, but really I can't see how proponents of 1 ("we have the best option out of several") should be as offended by losing the argument as proponents of B ("your option, considered as part of a larger pattern, does concrete harm"). I personally am more sympathetic to B than to 1, but even if I weren't I think I'd accept that a "further down" compromise worth it to reduce conflict. --Homunq 21:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I realized I missed one basic pro-nude argument. 3)Anti-nudity censorship privileges a viewpoint of women's sexuality as something needing to be hidden. This is a direct counterargument to A) (which was non-wikipedian anyway), but more importantly a direct counterPART to B). But I think that it's harder to claim that "Anything but a nude picture is part of a pattern of censorship" than it is to claim that "A nude picture is part of a pattern of objectification" - just because of the "anything but" part, and especially if the nude is still present further down. So I'd still argue that, respecting the validity of all the arguments involved, the least-conflictive solution is no (lead, solo) nude. --Homunq 16:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The ongoing reversion is absolutely ridiculous. Decide what you will, but stop flipping between versions until a consensus decision is made. Dysprosia 08:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The current pic of the nude woman is totally unacceptable in such an article....it must be either deleted or replaced.
Kshatriya knight 21:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why? I find it totally acceptable, and it must be kept at any cost. There, now that we've espoused our totally irrelevant personal opinions, how about you exercise some logical thought instead of forcing your views down other people's throats. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.115.211.122 (talk • contribs) .
Whether the picture is appropriate or not is not the issue. You achieve consensus before acting, not the other way around. Dysprosia 05:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there needs to be consensus on the image. There is none, so I've removed it. Hopefully this will speed agreement on an appropriate image. I'd suggest the Pioneer image that existed here for so long with no dispute, but there are certainly other alternates. - Nunh-huh 14:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again: "Any image which has not reached consensus here will be removed." This is the only way forward. - Nunh-huh 15:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The straw poll above indicates that the current consensus is for the Frau image. When another proposed image achieves a stronger consensus, we'll of course change it. Until then, though, the current image should stay. --jwandersTalk 20:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the straw poll reveals a majority, not a consensus. Images without consensus should be removed. Wikipedia content is not decided by votes, or by majorities, or by vigilence of partisans. At least it is not supposed to be. - Nunh-huh 20:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I am happy with the current image, I'm aware that the ~70% consensus it received in the poll above is not great by Wikipedia standards (see WP:NOT). I've been trying to think of workable compromises, like maybe some sort of time share arrangement between clothed/unclothed images (which seems to me to be the crux of the disagreement). I then remembered that hearing that the main image on flower cycles through various flower images (see right); I suppose choosing one image of a flower to lead that page was a similar challenge to choosing a woman of one age/ethnicity/culture to head ours!
So, I thought we might perhaps do something similar here. The technology is pretty straight-forward: just an animated gif slide show of a bunch of images. All we'd need do you is decide which images to use, crop them to the same proportions, and run them through an animated gif maker. This would allow us to display both clothed and unclothed women from as many different backgrounds as we can find, all effectively at the same time.
The questions we need to answer first, though, are:
Would this address the concerns users have regarding clothes implying a cultural POV? and,
Would users unhappy with an unclothed image be able to accept the compromise of having images of both clothed and unclothed women included in the slide show?
You mischaracterize the objections. Some object to any nude; others object to its position; and still more object to this specific picture being displayed at that position. And there is no consensus for the Frau picture. - Nunh-huh 21:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think it's a very good proposal. During the history of this discussion, several people have advocated the use of some kind of a gallery, showing female diversity, as a lead image; but nobody saw how this could be done in practice. Now this seems possible. Several races and cultures, with and without clothes - that would be great. The only problem is that Nunh-huh is right - I suppose that it won't satisfy those who have been against just for puritanic reasons, and those who simply hate Frau in any context. The latter are very few, I think, but I'm not sure about the former. --194.145.161.227 00:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's also unclear if it would appease the Frau partisans: they have resolutely resisted all compromise to date, refusing to reduce the picture from its enormous size, refusing all proposed substitutes, and refusing to move it from its position of prime importance. - Nunh-huh 00:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's be fair - the only proposed nude substitute, which was actually accepted at the time, turned out to be of, hmm, slightly uncertain copyright status and got deleted for this reason (I even mailed the author to get things straight, but he never answered). I suppose they'll be happy as long as there's some nudity at the top. --194.145.161.227 00:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, there have been other nude substitutes, including the picture that was there before, and the Frau partisans have not come up with a nude substitute they'd agree to. It's the German potato dumpling or nothing. Die Frau andernfalls das Tau. - Nunh-huh 00:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Pioneer image wasn't a photo, and it was rather abstract, too. I suppose people might be partly motivated by their fondness for Frau's pretty-homely-and-trivial appearance, but for the time being, it's been mostly an argument about nudity in general. --194.145.161.227 01:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think nudity's a straw man. Some have complained (mostly in all capitals and semi-coherently) about it, and they are easy to dismiss. They were not the main thrust of the dispute, which has been over prominence and positioning, though some have found it easier to answer the objections about nudity and pretended that that's what this is about. - Nunh-huh 02:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Wasn't it both about nudity and positioning/prominence - namely, whether we should position a nude at the top (i.e. prominently). I mean - if you have some other arguments apart from nudity, what are they? --194.145.161.227 02:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very nicely shifted, but the issue is not whether there is nudity, but whether it is urgent that the most prominent picture be [1] nude and/or [2] Frau. - Nunh-huh 02:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think it's pretty clear that there is a 2/3 majority here who want a nude to be the most prominent. And since we've got no other nude, it's going to be Frau for the time being. So I think it would be a good thing if at least a nude picture and/or Frau isn't the only most prominent image. Which is what JWanders' proposal is about.--194.145.161.227 02:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have no others because Frau's partisans rejected non-photos, and made it their business to delete the other photos we did have. By all means, let's see what others can be found, and what JWanders can come up with. The 2/3 "majority" isn't really, as some of the "yes" votes indicate that they are voting on the presence of a nude rather than its position. - Nunh-huh 03
17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I know I'm new to this discussion, but Nunh-huh I find the off-handedness of your remarks above imply that you've given up any chance of reaching a compromise here—I hope I'm misinterpreting. This is not the place to rehash the history of this debate, that only fills up the talk page and makes it more difficult for other uses to follow the current discussion. Instead, I'd appreciate it if you would respond specifically concerning the proposal I made above, i.e. whether you agree with an animated slide show in general and whether you would accept the inclusion of unclothed women in such a slide show. --jwandersTalk 10:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a proposal beneath, which I think, if tastefully done, could be entirely satisfactory. My problem with the animated solution is that while it may work with flowers, which desite being sexual in the extreme are not seen as such, is that an animated cavalcade of nude women is going to be even more of a shock to the unwary than "Frau", especially if they cycle as rapidly as the flower example. Technically it is an excellent solution, but having a stream of nude women appear on my screen seems to be asking for trouble. and then the women will be asking for ewqual time with a parade of nude men on the Man article, and heaven knows where it will all end! --Jumbo 11:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the proposal was for a montage of women, including nudes, but not for a montage made up entirely of nude women. - Nunh-huh 17:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having clad and unclad women posing in the same photograph raises all sorts of questions. I would prefer that all be clad (preferably in a diversity of garments) or all unclad. My weak preference is for unclad so as to display a diversity of body shapes and ages and that the female body is different to the male. Tasteful nude group photographs are a staple of widely available "health and education" texts. A group portrait would also reduce the size of each figure. I think Frau is a little too large in her current pixels. --Jumbo 20:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What sorts of questions does a mixed group raise? As for group portraits - I think we should restrict ourselves to what we have or to what we can produce easily. The group portrait thing has been proposed, as have a number of other things, but we just don't have them. Alas - from the very beginning, this debate has suffered a surplus of ideas and discussion and a shortage of actual available material. --194.145.161.227 10:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find this discussion quite facinating. This article, will be read by humans that know what a woman is and look like. Those people that either because of age or culture have never been exposed to a naked human body, will have the benefit from seeing a female body. That is consistent with the aims of this encyclopedia. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re the rotating animated picture: OpposedAnimation?!?! Give me a break! This is an encyclopedia, not youtube. As to the montage: Keep it? As to diversity of women: the women in the montage are representing different cultures. But we still get no sense of expanding work and societal roles, as made apparent in the West since the last 100 of so years. Dogru144 00:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was a little startled to see a nude woman as the lead photograph. It is certainly not a "work-safe" article. I would support moving it down the page a little to protect the sensibilities of readers who come across the article unexpectedly (such as by clicking a wikilink). Either that or make it a little smaller.
However we then get into the "what are you ashamed about" question, and I can see a lot of merit in that. If we have a nude photograph, then why be partially ashamed of it?
Personally, I like Frau. She's not overtly sexual, she seems proud of herself, she's reasonably representative, and I find the small touches such as nail polish to be entirely consistent with my view of a woman, as women tend to be more likely to decorate their bodies than men.
However, the article needs a lead picture, and given the impossibility of finding a clad image that is absolutely free of cultural specifics, then we should have a nude for that reason and to illustrate (or at least hint at) the biological differences.
But though we can eliminate clothing, we can't remove other factors such as ethnicity, and in this instance, Frau is in a minority position, being white and Western. Of course, you could make the same argument for any woman.
We are also limited in the sort of photographs we can use, as they must have an appropriate license.
I wonder if we can get a group of appropriately diverse female editors to pose at Wikimania 2006? --Jumbo 03:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One of your main arguments is that the photo is not "work-safe." Why exactly would anyone be searching for an encyclopedia article about women, or men, at work? One of your other main arguments is that the model is a white westerner, and thus she does not represent women of other cultures. Well if we started adding other models, I'm sure there will still be a complainer complaining that this and that culture isn't included. It is impossible to satisfy everyone, and thus Frau should remain. Dionyseus 19:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed both points. In a hypertext environment such as WP, readers do not necessarily navigate to articles by searching for them - often they follow one of the numerous context-based wikilinks inserted into an article. But in any case, why should a reader at work (or at school) not search for the Woman article? I can think of any number of jobs where such an article would be a useful and legitimate reference. However, this is not one of my "main arguments", I was merely a little startled to see a nude as the lead picture, and doubtless many other users would be likewise startled, especially if they were in a work or study environment open to other people. But I support the use of a nude image for the reasons already given.
I have also noted that the model is a minority exemplar of womanhood, being white and Western, but any women is going to be in this position, because no one ethnic type predominates in humanity. An Asian woman would be closest, with a 40% representation in womankind, but again, that is a minority. It is impossible to satisfy everybody, I agree, but that is not a reason why Frau should remain. There may well be more appropriate images, and I have suggested one solution. --Jumbo 20:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The likelihood of a number of Wikipedians, especially of different races and cultures, getting their wives to pose nude seems extremely small to me. And, BTW, you said that you "find the small touches such as nail polish to be entirely consistent with my view of a woman, as women tend to be more likely to decorate their bodies than men", but I thin that your - or anyone else's - view of women is exactly what we are trying to avoid, and I think we should at least be consistent - consistent with the nude and "naturist" stance if unavoidable - when choosing which group of women to underrepresent. - --194.145.161.227 10:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No offence, but I'm wondering how you get from my "a group of appropriately diverse female editors" to your "a number of Wikipedians getting their wives to pose nude".
Sorry, I was partly confusing this with another, similar discussion, and partly under the influence of a sexist way of thinking assuming that there are no female Wikipedians.--194.145.161.227 11:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for getting the perfect picture, representative of all womankind, freely licenced, in good taste and acceptable to all, well I think we've got Buckleys of that happening. But the notion of having a bunch of diverse and enthusiastic Wikipedians represent Woman and Man respectively according to sex, well, this seems entirely appropriate to me. Probably not much chance of getting them to pose nude, not in Massachussets. Frankfurt would have been more likely. --Jumbo 11:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it would have been appropriate and very nice, showing diversity etc. It's just that I don't really see it happening in practice; I think it requires too much enthusiasm. --194.145.161.227 11:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's no reason for Jumbo not to give it a shot; I'm curious to see what he comes up with. As someone said above, it seems we've lots of ideas but few concrete options, so there's nothing wrong with getting a new (batch of) image(s?) to consider ;-) --jwandersTalk 13:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At time of speaking, I have only seen one other Wikipedian in the flesh (as it were). I won't be attending Wikimania 2006, so it's up to the attendees there (or any other gathering) to come up with something. A long shot of a suggestion, but you never know - the lengths to which Wikipedians will go to get a good free licence shot are remarkable! --Jumbo 22:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about we do what we did for World War II - a montage of photos of women, different races, young, old, pregnant, differing degrees of clothed. DJ Clayworth 19:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopeid Britannica and National Geographic both depict nudity. Are you attempting to claim they are not safe for school (please do, I think it would be fun to watch you try). Obviously different people react differently to nudity, but your argument, when examined at any length, is quite obviously without merit.
Next, you have ASSUMED that the model is both White and Western. What leads you to believe this? I see nothing that would allow me to verify in any way the ethnicity and origin of the model (of course, we do know who she is so her background is known to us) so I have to ask what you see. Skin tone? Hair style? Facial characteristics? What do you see that makes you so certain you are not looking at a mixed race, asian/hispanic woman born in Japan? Nothing of course, so this argument too, is baseless. And frankly, more than a little racist to assume that visible characterisitics allow us to determine ethnicity. You do realize you did that right, claim that you can determine an individual's ethinicity and origin by looking at them?
Per Clayworth's suggestion above, I threw this image together. I like the compromise of being able to have both clothed and unclothed women and have women from a variety of backgrounds. Thoughts? --jwandersTalk 23:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A definite improvement, but Frau still "sticks out" like a sore thumb. Perhaps it's the fact that it is the only one with a light background, or perhaps it is because she is the only one so obviously posed. Could you substitute a darker background with PhotoShop (or your tool of choice)? - Nunh-huh 23:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I should be able to; my image manipulation skills are spotty at best ;-) What colour do you think would work best? --jwandersTalk 23:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Much as I like the thought of some of WP's prominent female editors posing in the buff, this could be a good solution. However, I make the point that we need to keep a record of the images used in a montage. --Jumbo 00:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I've linked to them all from the image's page --jwandersTalk 00:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, but I'd still say yet darker was better. The idea is to match the other backgrounds in average color - so close to the color of the dirt in the picture on the lower left. - 01:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Better? It's very poorly put together if you look at it closely; If we decide to use one of these, I suggest we find someone with actual image skills to put it together ;-) But these should suffice for the present discussion, methinks. --jwandersTalk 10:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! I think all the results are surprisingly beautiful. I agree that a dark background is better, so that Frau doesn't seem to be the absolute, context-less one. BTW, I wonder if one couldn't include the chess-playing Slovene from the gallery as an example of a woman who is doing something else but being nude or selling fruits? The Japanese and the Mozambique woman make a similar impression (posture, colourful national dress), so I suppose one of them could be removed without diversity suffering. I'm not sure if it would be as pleasing aesthetically, though. --194.145.161.227 16:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like to have something of this sort replace the current main image on the page; can I get some idea if people would support or oppose that? (This isn't a formal poll, just a quick test to see where the consensus is and how best to proceed.) --jwandersTalk 07:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, particularly "Original with black borders and a brown backdrop for Frau." Thanks for taking the time and effort to put together a montage, which strikes me as the best solution for the article. I like the idea of including the chess-playing image and/or an image of a woman in "modern" business attire or something similar. VoluntarySlave 18:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as voluntaryslave. --Homunq 21:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really like the Frau with brown background. And in case someone else doesn't say it, thanks for the hard work, I think you did a very good job.70.115.211.122 11:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Nunya[reply]
Strongly Oppose, As has been discussed over and over before, a montage wouldn't work for this article. You cannot possibly add every single race and culture. For example, in the montages that you are proposing, I don't see a Chinese, or an Indian, or a Puerto Rican, or an Iranian, just to name a few. In fact, the Japanese and the Mozambique woman in your montages are covered with a mask, is this an article about women or their masks? This montage is wholly inappropiate, I strongly oppose it. Dionyseus 09:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the argument. It would appear you're arguing that the concept cannot possibly be illustrated. To me, a suggestion of diversity can't be criticized for lack of diversity when the alternative is no diversity. If you think that a montage is a poor choice aesthetically, say so, but don't argue that it's not diverse enough. --Homunq 21:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Though it is a very nice montage, as noted above, there's no real way to capture diversity, so really, why bother? And the single image played the role fine. However, the montage would be appropriate further down in the article, but not at the start. JayMan 18:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The montage on the talk page has a caption that unwittingly suggests western women walk around naked. Would it not be more appropriate to have a photo of women of different ethnicities standing together? If a nude photo is too offensive or controversial, could not an illustration of a naked woman be used instead? I think there should be either a nude photo or illustration because the details of a woman's body distinguish the female sex more fundamentally than the clothes women wear. Rintrah 05:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, go ahead and edit the caption, it is only a first attempt at something succinct and appropriate. Do you feel that the montage photo does not illustrate the details of a woman's body? If so, why? --201.151.76.224 14:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The pictures within the montage are too small (even on my screen, which has high-resolution). I think a single picture (or illustration) illustrates the details of a woman's body better, and serves as a useful cue for the reader. However, unlike other editors, I do not think a picture essential; so it is not a great issue for me. If a nude photo is too provocative, a good illustration is probably an adequate substitute. But I have difficulty understanding why this is so contentious. Surely there are bigger issues than whether a picture of a nude woman should be included, even for those highly averse to suggested prurience and those who cry blasphemy when something is censored. Rintrah 08:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed This is a horrble image, it's too small, and there are too much cultural stuff in it. This article is about woman, the nude image shows an average woman with out a bunch of cultural stuff added in. --HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 14:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The "Montage" would be completely innapropriate. The Woman article is first and foremost about the gender, and as such a naked woman is the most apropriate. The best place to display the diversite of woman and the female form would be a gallery at the bottom as in the Man page. Overall the montage has considerably less dignity. LordFenix 15:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
why two of the same photograph of Frau in the article[edit]
Seems pretty redundant to me....
_________________________________________________
Also that the upper and lower images are so similar in that they depict, with a similar position and background, a woman of childbearing age in her undraped muliebrity.
To eliminate the issue of racial appearance altogether, I suggest a monochrome, outlined illustration of a woman, devoid of "features" that may bear any indication to race, as that seems to be such a touchy issue. Stovetopcookies 00:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is a brilliant idea, but I do not think we would need to be so nuetral as to consider the ethnicity of the woman - afterall, the ESSENTIAL features of the woman are the same. If you wish to do that, still, perhaps you could provide links to different ethnicities of women? Just a rough idea. --ToyotaPanasonic 05:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that would work, unfortunately. First, because racial, ethnic, cultural, class, etc, differences are manifested in body shape, which would presumably show up in the outline. Second, because a monochrome outline would remove detail that might be relevant; I know some editors have expressed a strong preference for a photo, rather than an illustration. VoluntarySlave 06:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"First, because racial, ethnic, cultural, class, etc, differences are manifested in body shape I've seen this claim before, and thought it was bunk then. Nothing has changed. This is a vacuous assertion made for no reason other than removing the possibility of using a nude. The fact is that body shape (and WTF does "body shape" mean? Are you trying to say FAT? THIN? Then stop dancing and say it, "body shape" sounds like exactly what it is, a lame attempt at avoiding concrete statements while still making the argument that being fat/thin is somehow representative of anything other than being fat/thin) is variable enough across all categories. More importantly, please tell me what a rich person looks like body shape-wise? A poor person? You can't. Every example you give will be neither universal nor consistent, even in the same culture. You're just flat wrong about this. And you sound silly.
I don't just mean fat or thin, I mean how body fat is distributed about the body. Of course, there is significant variation between people of the same race, but that doesn't stop certain body shapes being perceived as more typical of certain racial groups (whether this is due to biological differences or stereotyping isn't relevant here: in either case, certain body shapes will suggest certain races to the reader). As to class differences, obesity is correlated with low income in the West, but with high-income in some other cultures; again, this isn't universal, but it's a genuine trend.
And I certainly don't want to remove the possibility of using a nude, on the contrary, I think a nude image should be included in the article. I just don't think using a nude, or a nude outline, avoids the problem of an image that is culturally specific (leaving aside body shape, what about hair length, or posture). I don't think any image can avoid being culturally specific, which is why the montage seems like such a good idea. VoluntarySlave 17:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're trying to assert that the LOCATION of fat deposits, and general shape is determined by social, ethnic, and cultural factors? Wow, just wow. I've never had the unique experience of encountering someone who discounts reality to further their ideology. Well, apart from religous types... Genetics, look it up, then stop making ridiculous, unsupported assertions that have no basis in reality. By the way, thanks for the laugh, I had no idea Luddism was alive and well, you made my day. And this
Now, to the relevant point. Please state EXPLICITLY which "body types" are specific to which "racial" groups. Then explain what "race" is, and how one can categorize individuals based on their "race", which according to you, also allows one to categorize them based on their "body type". Then of course, we can extend that idea to "hook nosed" jews etc. Jesus, do you realize how racist and ignorant you are claiming "race", which is a made up non scientific category, is directly related to body type?
As to "hair length and posture" those are not "body shape" so please stop changing the subject when you're refuted. Here's the truth, you WANT there to be something about a naked woman that is culturally specific, but there isn't anything. So you reach, and flail, and manufacture things, but that doesn't make them any less ridiculous.70.115.211.122 08:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Nunya[reply]
A Harvard professor says "By looking at your genes, we can tell how fat you are and how your body fat will be distributed": [6]. The British Office of National Statistics says "obesity is linked to social class": [7]. I don't think I'm the one who's "discounting reality."
Obesity isn't "body type". Trying to imply otherwise is disingenuous. Second, why would you include evidence that gentics determine "body type" then act as though you've proven something? You;ve supported my point.
I agree, of course, that race is a non-scientific category. But that doesn't mean there aren't biological features which have some correlation with race: for example, black people are more likely to suffer from sickle-cell anemia than people of other races. The reason race isn't a scientific concept is because none of these correlations serve to differentiate races (there are well-defined groups of black people who aren't especially likely to suffer from sickle-cell anemia, and well-defined groups of non-black people who are, for instance). Likewise with body shape: there are correlations, but they don't serve to unambiguously define races. As the historian Jared Diamond writes [8]:
In the United States, it's a familiar observation that African Americans are disproportionately represented among professional basketball players. Of course, a contributing reason has to do with their lack of socioeconomic opportunities. But part of the reason probably has to do with the prevalent body shapes of some black African groups as well. However, this example also illustrates the dangers in facile racial stereotyping. One can't make the sweeping generalization that "whites can't jump," or that "blacks' anatomy makes them better basketball players." Only certain African peoples are notably tall and long-limbed; even those exceptional peoples are tall and long-limbed only on the average and vary individually
Please, find some actual references that body shape has no correlation with ethnic, racial, or class differences, before you accuse other people of "flailing" VoluntarySlave 08:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I didn't make the original, ridiculous, unsupported claim, so it's not up to me to provide sources. Second, take a research class so you can understand why your request is silly on its face. Now you're REALLY flailing, and it's sad to watch.
Why should it matter what race, ethnicity, etc.? It's an example picture of a woman, so that in case someone does not know what a woman looks like, they will recognize one next time they see one. It's like showing a picture of a car. Does it matter if it is a Ford, Chevy, etc? A car is going to be more or less the same. It's a demo picture of a pregnant(?) woman, nothing more. I don't see why this has to be made into such an issue because she is caucasian. I cannot help but wonder, would we be receiving this much talk over it if the original photo had been of a woman of another race? Stovetopcookies 02:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me for putting words in other people's mouths, but I think that for many of the people using it, the racial argument is not the main point. I think the point is that there is no one ideal of womanhood, and so a single image can never be truly representative. The response generally suggested by this line of thinking is not to try: either show a (limited) variety of images, or show one image that, while clearly within the normal range, explicitly does not pretend to be representative. To such a point of view, attempts, such as replacing a photo with a line drawing, to make the picture more representative are wrongheaded and doomed to failure. This anti-platonic vs. platonic argument will not be resolved here.
I think that the "body fat distribution" argument is also subject to this misunderstanding: the anti-line-drawing people are using body fat as a concrete example of a philosophical position that it is impossible to find a single ideal, and will happily switch arguments to maintain their philosophical position, while the pro-line-drawers are ignoring the philosophy and focusing on the details and find that infuriating. Obviously both are valid but I think there would be more progress if both sides were more explicit: "For instance body fat differs and different cultures have different ranges of normal." vs. "I understand your philosophical position but it is in fact possible to draw an average woman who would be regarded as having a more-or-less normal body shape within most different cultures." --Homunq 15:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Must the picture be of a "contemporary" white European woman who is depilated?
The picture ive proposed is of Indira Varma that exhibits the body of a woman in its natural state (undepilated)....note the picture was uploaded by someone else.
Freakkk
See the comment at the top of this discussion page. Any changes to the lead image can only be via consensus. --Jumbo 12:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK...so lets discuss this image...
pro you cant tell what specific race...she is not black nor white
she is "undepilated"...her hair is not neatly in place...this is the "natural" woman...the biological woman
con she is wearing some jewelery like a waist band so may turn it into a beauty subject
feet not shown
not as "clinical" as Frau since frau was neatly placed on a white background
still we should be open to suggestion
Freakkk 07:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The image is copyrighted and used under fair use, so policy dictates that we do not use it as there are equitable free images available--Clawed 08:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately so. It's a nice image, but too culture-specific for my tastes (background, specific style of jewelry). The image is also poorly focused (or at least overexposed). I agree that we should be open to suggestion, and this was a good one; but I would prefer an image that's more informative than Frau, not less. Kasreyn 22:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear all, I have removed the picture of the naked woman. I am in agreement that whether the picture stays or goes depends on common consensus. But because of its controversial nature, the picture should be removed UNTIL we have consensus enough; until we are absolutely sure on our positions. Till then, after extensive polling and after coming to a consensus on the picture it should remain down. Right now, because it is so controversial, it should remain off till we have a meaningful consensus happening.
The onus lies with it off the web, till enough evidence is there to prove it should go back on. The GrandMaster has spoken.TheGrandMaster 00:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, until you have generated consensus to remove or replace it, you should stop trying to impose your point of view on the article. Gwernol 00:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the poll numbers. Do we not have consensus enough?? TheGrandMaster 05:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You do appear to be in an all-fired hurry. The image has been there for months. I fail to see how taking a few days to round up all the many editors of this article should matter, compared to months.
Also, it should be noted that many of the older votes in the poll might have changed their mind; it has been nearly a month since some of them were cast. Kasreyn 07:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the many issues raised (particulary viewing this page from classrooms) and the whole Adult Conspiracy thing, using Image:Human-woman.png seems to be the Right Way to go, especially if it includes a link to the Pioneer plaque in its caption to show where it came from. (It's obvious from the discussion—search this page for "Pioneer"—that most people are unaware of it's origin, or the correct link reference to use ... even the page for the image fails to identify it!) To make them match, the article for Man could use the companion image, Image:Human-man.png. Just my 2¢ worth. --Dennette 01:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there have been a lot of people who've felt that way, but that's really not an important issue here. This is an encyclopedia for adults. As for children, that is what parents are for. It's not our job to censor this encyclopedia because some people can't bother to supervise their kids. A photograph carries more information than a line drawing, so I would stick with a photo. Cheers, Kasreyn 02:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Parents are not in the classroom, and schools are increasingly putting PCs with high-speed connections in them. We cannot rely on censor-bots to block content, because they just are not smart enough, and most schools stopped using them a few years ago after the Sky & Telescope magazine site got blocked when their lead article (preceding a prominent meteor shower) was about "Naked-eye Astronomy". If there were a way to put content warnings on the pages, that would be a different matter. The reality is that this is the 21st Century, and educators in primary and secondary schools are having students do research on the 'Net, with Wikipedia being recommended more often than Google. --Dennette 05:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply not our concern. I personally don't feel there's such a thing as bad information. If others feel differently and wish to shield their children from information they perceive as "bad", they can figure out how to do it on their own. They can live with the fallibilities of censorware, or they can put their money where their ideals are and hire a human censor, or they can have Ronald McDonald come to the school and do a song and dance about how looking at dirty things online will make Timmy go blind. It really doesn't carry any weight here. Content warnings have been discussed many times on WP and such articles as Nudity. Every time, the consensus has been that Wikipedia's Content Disclaimer covers the entire situation. Cheers, Kasreyn 23:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's none of my concern, or Wikipedia's. But I must say it's odd that after all your Playboys, you would remove the lead image from this article... Kasreyn 02:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Kasreyn 07:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You dont want kids to know the truth? The real thing? Its fairly honest photo in the whole scheme of things. ( could be better)Cilstr 08:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it should be up to the parents to decide when their children are mature enough to see such depictions. A seven-year-old has just as much access to this page as an adult, and should not be subjected to such images. This obscenity appears without any sort of warning to the viewer. At the very least, there should something like a mouseover applet that can black out the image until the user moves over it. That way, he or she at least has some control over what he or she is viewing. Stovetopcookies 00:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, a seven-year-old only has access to this page because an adult, either their parent or a teacher or whoever is in loco parentis, has allowed it. Responsibility for that child's experience rests squarely on that adult. It is also purely subjective that images of nudity are "obscene", and subjective definitions of this sort would constitute original research, adding yet another policy violated to the list. WP does not have the mission of being a "family-friendly" encyclopedia. Its mission is to record all human knowledge. This includes the knowledge of what a nude person looks like. The images must remain. Kasreyn 05:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth noting, en passant, that many other images of nudity, usually far more explicit than this one, have been removed from Wikipedia, because they were inappropriate. This image of a nude woman is about as good as it gets here, so no, we aren't in the business of providing smut to kiddies. I might also point out that in an educational context, tasteful nude images are generally seen as appropriate. --Jumbo 06:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Witness the one recently added by Nnixon to replace Frau2; it makes my hair stand on end to contemplate what those editors who described Frau as demeaning to women would say about that one! I keep imagining birds falling stone dead off of the telephone lines conveying their outrage to the wikiservers... Kasreyn 07:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
laughs* Yeah. I guess some people haven't yet worked out how Wikipedia operates. Sometimes this place infuriates and frustrates me, but mostly I love the way that people of diverse views can work together to find common ground and produce a work that is educational and informative. Frau might not be perfect, but she is definitely feminine, and I particularly like the way she evokes Venus on the Half Shell. If someone can find a better free image, they are welcome to try. I just wish they'd run it through here first. --Jumbo 07:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth semi-protecting the page for a while. An Anon user continually removes the first image of the nude woman. On Omicronpersei8's talk page the user gave the reason that the picture was offensive to Muslims. As this user has no account, it could be a good idea to semi-protect the page. -Neural 23:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've semi-protected it (and blocked the AOL IP user again). However, please do not add the {{sprotected}} tag to an article that you haven't yourself semi-protected as this is misleading. Thanks, Gwernol 00:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I misunderstood the use of the tag. I thought that itself protected it. Thanks for the help. -Neural 00:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the above post. I have not been removing the picture. I only did it now. Since this is causing so much controversy, I think we should keep it off until the issue is resolved. Perhaps have a better picture instead. But please consider that children have as much right and access to the page as anyone else, and they don't deserve to have that thrown in their faces. Stovetopcookies 23:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is it about the human body that is so offensive "to the children"? They have bodies too, so I don't think it will come as too much of a surprise to them. Please don't take it upon yourself to censor Wikipedia. Thanks, Gwernol 00:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stovetopcookies, this matter has been discussed extensively. Despite the depth of your feelings, I doubt that you can come up with any arguments that have not been heard here befoe. perhaps you would like to look back through this discussion page, and the archives and see what steps have been taken by others. To those of us who have been here for a while, you are just rehashing old material. Wikipedia operates on consensus, and despite numerous experiments, the current image is the one that most editors feel happy with. I do appreciate your concerns, but unless you can come up with some new wrinkle, you are better off working on other areas of the project. --Jumbo 00:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not censored for minors; this is explained dozens of times on this talk page. I don't see "so much controversy" over the images; I see a very firm consensus of long-time editors of this page to keep the images, and every so often a single editor who argues for removal, who then leaves and is quickly replaced by another single editor in favor of removal. That isn't controversy. The image has strong consensus and will remain until there's some sign the consensus has changed. Kasreyn 05:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone considered that Wikipedia should be accessible in libraries and at homes for youths looking to do research through the Internet? Ergo, yes, let's keep the semi-protected status. Dogru144 00:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...the image should be removed temporarily. Stovetopcookies 23:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You need consensus first. --Jumbo 00:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, removing the image because it personally offends you is not acceptable. Wikipedia is not censored for minors or anyone else. Thanks, Gwernol 00:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stovetopcookies, please remember that Wikipedia is not censored in any way. If the human body offends Islamic values or other religious values, that is Islam's problem or religion's problem. It is not an issue for Wikipedia. I fail to see why the human body should be considered offensive to anybody. I suspect that the only children likely to get upset seeing the human body are children who have been brainwashed with strange ideologies. The advocacy of censorship is what is really offensive here. Please stop removing the image. There is a simple solution to all this: if you find the image of the human body offensive, don't look at the article. -Neural 15:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between "Wikipedia articles may contain objectional material" and "Wikipedia articles should contain objectionable material when available". Remember that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an adult website. In addition, the file Image:Frau.jpg was previously deleted due to concerns about its copyright status and model's agreement - was this resolved? Even if this is the case, I believe that the file should be left remain as a link to the Commons for those who want to see it. (Personally I don't find nudity objectionable, but this is not the proper place for it.) - Mike Rosoft 21:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reading this page, the only possible conclusion is that there is no consensus, and not much possibility of consensus on either extreme (Frau or no-nudity). The clearest compromises available are the montages (temporal or spatial) including both clothed and naked women. I personally prefer the spatial montage for portability to other media. I know that I'm going to be reverted, but I'm going to take a stand here by putting it in there. Please, whoever reverts me, give your argument for keeping an image that, while it does have a simple majority support, is contentiously non-consensus.--Homunq 00:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The montages have license problems, don't they? --Jumbo 00:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good fast reaction :) but the montage I used says "Compiled from images on commons, should therefore be free-use." and has a GDL as-a-montage.
does she have to be naked?
cant it just be like a photo of some non-naked woman? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.116.93.68 (talk • contribs) .
There has been a lot of debate over this subject. If you would read the rest of the talk page, you would find where the discussion is ongoing on the issue, which would be a more appropriate place to reply than to add a new section. Cheers, Kasreyn 20:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention to read the long pages of discussions that took place in June to August. I have had a skim through it all and it tends to be just Wiki-politics over the line betwene censorship/pornography or whatever. I want to point out a practical side which made me immediately remove the image earlier without attempting to discuss it. I was on a public computer at my university which has a strict policy of banning students from computer labs for viewing images containing nudity. And as I clicked on the page woman from some other article, this came up spanning a full screen height! Has it been considered that a reader who might be in presence of other people might not want to be seen as viewing a full screen image of a naked woman? This is why I moved it down the page when I did - I think the image should stay, but why does it have to be at the top and why does it have to be so large?--Konst.able 22:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With so much talk about it on this page I didn't realise that it has already been changed through consensus and replaced (someone reverted it apparently). I was referring to this version I have no objections against the current image ([9]).--Konst.able 11:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the interests of honesty: it has been changed, yes; and I hope that a consensus can develop (and is starting to develop with comments like the above) around the change, which I see as a compromise; but it was the clear LACK of a consensus here, along with me being bold, that led to the change. --201.151.76.224 14:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any image has consensus, quite frankly. The consensus is that the image should not be changed without first gaining consensus. Personal prejudices (or workplace requirements, or religious rules, or whatever other excuse editors use) should play no part. For my part, I don't have the comfort of knowing absolutely what is best for the article, so most other editors have a leg up on me. I prefer Frau, because she is a tasteful nude representation of womanhood, in about as pure a form as we can get with a free license. However, I realise that a specific image isn't going to exemplify every woman, or even a majority. In addition, the "workplace-shock" of having a nude woman as the lead image is going to cause problems for some readers. There's nothing in Frau that you won't see in an art gallery, and if you want more, there's a vast amount freely available on the net, but still, there she is in all her glory, bouncing out of your computer and into your library/school/church/workplace.
The montage is a solution, as per the Flower article, which is a parallel that charms me, sexist lover of female beauty that I am, but it ain't elegant, d'ye see? However, I won't revert it to Frau, because it is a solution we've tried before and it seems to work pretty well. Frau is still in the image, but she doesn't get up and go gallooping around your computer room in quite the same in-your-face manner. She's just one of the crowd. --Jumbo 16:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frau should go if only because it has caused so much wasted time on this talk page. There is clearly no consensus if there's still this much debate going on here. The collage is a good stopgap solution, I think, until real consensus can be reached (if that's even possible). In my opinion, however, the best image we have is the Pioneer spacecraft line drawing, for several reasons. First, it is still a nude, but it causes much less controversy here. Second, it was specifically designed to be as ethnically indistinguishable as possible. If we are really trying to represent "woman", this generic depiction does a much better job than any picture of a real person ever could (not to mention that images of attractive white people are vastly overrepresented in our articles). The Pioneer image is used at Human for this reason, and images in that article tend to be much better balanced than this one (Man uses Vitruvian Man; unfortunately there is no anatomical image of a woman that is as internationally recognizeable as that.)--Cúchullaint/c 21:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We already have an artistic nude in this article (and, frankly, a more appropriate one than "Frau"), so I don't think there is any valid reason to add even more nudity to the article. I have nothing against the non-nude montage (or some variant thereof) as the main picture - unless there is some technical reason not to use it. - Mike Rosoft 11:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is she pregnant? Perhaps that could be mentioned along with the whole depilation thing? Stovetopcookies 07:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think she's pregnant? We don't have any such information to the best of my knowledge. Kasreyn 10:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the montage as it is super ugly, IMO. ≈ jossi ≈t • @ 18:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you feel that way. However, in about 3 other places on this page, you say something like "I'd be happy to replace Frau if we can find a suitable substitute". I'm putting back the montage, for the 4th and last time (personally I think it's a good compromise but if nobody else puts it I guess I'm wrong). Jossi, or whoever else, go ahead and remove it again, but please tell us what you see is ugly about it - any montage, or this one? Is "no image" a good compromise? And personally I'd prefer it if you logged yourself in the image history at the top of this page, though so far that's just my preference :) . --Homunq 07:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't a more appropriate caption be "Common ethnic stereotypes of women" ? -- 70.71.155.24 05:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think some people will be unhappy with me for saying this, but yes. It doesn't really add much to the article, except the pretence it covers women in all ethnicities. People have emphasised the pictures too much. I would rather a single photo or illustration, and that's it. However, if the article is being turned into a coffee table book, I can understand the profusion of pictures and their paramount importance. Rintrah 04:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Where are the astronauts, prime ministers, and talk show hosts? Why are there three pictures of naked women in a single article, when probably 99.9999% of women typically wear clothing? — Omegatron 04:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason why the collage of pictures in the main picture contains a picture of a nude caucasian woman only while the women from the other cultures are clothed in their respective "traditional" way? I find it rather offensive to traditional minded white people as it seems to suggest that "clothes free" is a culture amongst caucasians and are more "liberal" and more open about sexuality than other cultures. Having a nude picture is a problem, since there are difficulties with race and culture, and style (body hair/shaven, long hair/short hair, etc.), that is why I support the asexual Pioneer image to demonstrate the "nude" form of a woman, and to have other pictures which show different races of women in their traditional clothing.
Freakkk 00:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Replace the "Frau" picture with someone who lives in a culture where women are always naked, if you're so desperate to show three naked women in a single encyclopedia article about all aspects of women, not just nudity or biological appearance. — Omegatron 04:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The painting of the woman, on my screen, dwarfs the adjacent content. Though it is beautifully painted, I think its size should be reduced so as to not draw attention away from the article content. An encyclopedia is foremost a text; so pictures should only have a secondary role. Rintrah 12:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is becoming a work of self-indulgence by female gender rights activism. It is already 3 times the length of the Man article and is full of connotation and innuendo which stretches credibility of the article and its neutrality. Case in point: "It is commonly accepted that the reason both men and women have breasts is that the rudimentary form of animals was female for millions of years." This is neither cited, nor is it commonly accepted (noting that since animals are thought to have decended from flagellate protozoa, which is akin to sperm, this is quite a claim). It is a broad claim on gender origins on the entire Kingdom of Animalia, lacking scientific pretext. Furthermore, the quality of both articles is very poor, with statements such as "the breast is an enlarged sweat gland" working to degrade the quality of the woman article. The majority of the article is unneccesary and focuses on arguments of sexism, which, while an important side note for the article - is not the main focus of the article itself.
Furthermore, I would like to point out to whomever added these ridiculous, unscientific and biased claims: you are suggesting that males evolved from females as a standard. This implies that males are more evolved, is that your true belief? Perhaps that illustrates the need to remain objective and scientific here, despite all your beliefs and urges to the contrary. You do yourselves a disservice by detracting from the credibility and value of this article. C00kiemnstr 17:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you try to improve the article? Complaining about it won't make it any better and I'm interested to see what you could contribute.CerealBabyMilk 20:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Already have (01:50, 1 November 2006 70.171.231.12), removing speculative information without citation, adding or improving information on some topics, rewording sentances to a more neutral stance and etc. The edit was quickly reverted to a previous version in it's entirety, and I'm not interested in wasting my time on an edit/revert war with hopeless malcontents. Since the disscussion page directly bears on the content and future actions taken upon the article, me writing my concerns here should help to improve the article, at least indirectly. Thanks for complaining about my complaints though. C00kiemnstr 04:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just redid my own, hopefully more acceptable-compromise, version of your edits above. Only place where I went past you: removing the "woman default form" stuff which was badly stated (reading it literally suggested that sexual reproduction had evolved convergently in each animal species; while there may be a few marginal cases, this is obviously not true in 99.999%). Good job, but don't get touchy when people react to your comments without poring over the edit history to see a reverted edit of yours. If you get reverted unjustly, say so, don't just say the article's bad. --201.216.145.39 18:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC) ps. Oops I just realized I wasn't logged in for any of that. Also, cookiemnstr: you were definitely unjustly reverted, but I'd suggest that when you're doing a POV adjustment on an article you make an attempt to leave some harmless/useful stuff that is not too POV, such as the example using "women's rights" in the first paragraph. --Homunq 18:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was touchy about the insinuation that I was only complaining, and not contributing. I'm glad you found my edit useable; though from glancing over the article again, either your edit was also reverted, or your changes were indeed minor. For instance, the article still claims that unborn fetuses are female until hormones change features for the male fetus. This is technically incorrect, among other things. In the first weeks of life, a fetus has no anatomic or hormonal sex, and only the gentic karyotype distinguishes male from female. It is simply erroneous to claim that 'all males begin as females', since both males and females begin gender neutral and it is irritating to see in the article. Similarly, the line "most anthropologists think [...] that women led the neolithic revolution..." is still in there, albeit with a [citation needed] tag. Its a completely bogus claim and thats why there is no citation, and never will be, unless the sentance is changed to 'some anthropologists claim...'. "Harmless" POV 'stuff' will have to be defined somewhere by Wikipedia, in this case I dont think its harmless, I think its propaganda (product placement). Thanks for taking an interest, glad some people arent choked up about the nude images. C00kiemnstr 01:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article still needs work (see below). Rintrah 07:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, much of this article is terible. I have replaced "and today, using the word, girl, to refer to grown women in most social settings and the workplace (as in office girl) typically is considered inappropriate and denigrating in the United States and United Kingdom because it implies a view of women as infantile, having a parallel in the use of the term "boy" for black men to deny their adult status in racist communities. It is sometimes stated that the use remains commonplace in several other English-speaking countries, without such implications, but research regarding that is lacking. ". This shows an incredible application of double standards, re need for research or citations (not to mention an at best spurious parallel). There is still much work to be done. Certainly in Britain, girl is often gerenally for all women, and is not vesital. Similarly, using the term boy to refer to a fully grown man is common and not necessarily offencive. Thehalfone 09:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's good. What about the "certain cultures woman is a family insult meaning nonvirgin" bit? I took out "non-western" but still feel that this section should either give an example of such a culture or go. I'd prefer the latter, it's not notable in this context IMO, but I'll leave it in to give others a chance to fix it or cut it.--Homunq 16:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep changing it to 'oestrogen'? Is there some reasoning behind this that I'm not aware of? -- Blarrrg 18:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's just getting caught up in the reverting over the location of the "Frau" image. --Allen 18:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like he said. You do know that's the correct British spelling? They love having extra vowels in medical terms. Oesophagus, foetus, haemotology, etc. - Nunh-huh 19:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't stop there! Make them ligatures! Œsophagus, fœtus, hæmotology...Cameron Nedland 15:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh, we should use the ligatures really
Wikipedia is not British, so we do not have to use British spellings. From the article on Estrogen: Estrogens (less commonly oestrogens). --The Dark Side 03:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree, Wikipedia is not British, mainpages articles should be Americanised for consistency. But a good proportion of the world (everyone outside America) uses british english, and have never heard of oestrogen spelt 'estrogen' It won't hurt to put it in brackets or something, because I'm not sure that American users are the majority in a world wide encyclopedia. Most people would generally be able to work it out (i.e what 'pediatrist' is referring to) but there is a milisecond where one does not recognise the connection in words like Oestrogen because the FIRST LETTER of the word is different in american spelling and it is hard to recognise.). Clarity of meaning should be the key driver, rather than strict adherence to american spelling to the detriment and confusion of the rest of the world. --ToyotaPanasonic 03:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Shouldn't that be "Americanized"? I disagree: mainpage articles should not be summarily Americanized. The Manual of Style itself only says the spelling should be consistent. The article on London, for instance, would look strange if written in American English—like a condescending American Lonely Planet guide. Rintrah 04:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Every English dictionary agrees that a woman is an adult female human. However, the Category:Women article, which I propose a rename for, is about simply female humans. Anything regarding the word's actual definition?? Georgia guy 14:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is something better handled at Category talk:Women rather than here. But I'll join in the CfD discussion. Kasreyn 19:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The image was within a gallery of many other images of women. I did not add it, but my understanding is that the purpose of the gallery is to attempt to show at least a small fragment of the great diversity of womankind. If you know of a good reason why the image should be removed, please let us know. And thank you for your assumption of good faith on our part; that was quite kind of you, and is exactly the sort of attitude preferred here.
As to "pornography", my understanding of the term is that it is based upon the subjective interpretation of a stimulus as being "obscene", and Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view; this being the case, I don't see how we could decide what is obscene and what is not. Furthermore, refer to WP:NOT; Wikipedia is not censored.
As to the model's permission, I am not 100% certain here, but I believe that as long as we have the permission of whoever owns the rights to the image - often a photographer or studio - then we do have the right to use the image. Cheers, Kasreyn 07:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The image in question originally appeared on www.flickr.com, which is an online image hosting and sharing site. Therefore the image first came online there, and I assume if the model had any problems with her image being online, she would first take it to the flickr user who originally uploaded it. Wikipedia's permission to use the file seems to have been granted by that user, so he would be the guy to talk to. Kasreyn 07:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kasreyn, I'm afraid both your assumptions are possibly incorrect. In most Western countires, the model in a photograph needs to sign a consent form for the specific use of the photograph (assuming the photograph was not shot in a public place) so its certainly possible that she did not consent to it being used online. Second the fact that the image was on Flickr has no bearing on whether it can be used on Wikipedia. We have very strict rules about not using copyrighted material. If there is doubt about the copyright status of the image, it should be hastily removed. Best, Gwernol 10:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From the nude lady all the way down through the whole article.
I expected it to have more of a professional layout such as the article on men.
They had a little bit of everything about the guy--age, maturity, development, psychological development, and the like.
I didn't see a huge showcase of all the famous things that guys started. Neither did I see little parts about famous men who helped out with women's suffrage.
All I see is...
1. A nude lady.
2. A tiny description about women and where the word comes from.
3. A tad bit about how emotional they are and certain cases of emotional disturbance that they go through.
4. A HUGE SHOWCASE on "women's rights" and "prejudices against women."
To me, it sounds like the article is overemphasizing on "little things" instead of examing what all she goes through (from childhood upwards).
I for one, say that someone needs to clean the article up.
It is impossible to describe what a woman goes through childhood upwards. Women of different cultures, ethnicities, sexualities, and incomes have vastly different experiences. the only the thing every woman inherently shares is a similar body. One can describe the experience of woman throughout history as a group, but individually woman differ so much it is impossible to describe their lves
Perhaps most of this should be in an article on parthenogenesis, but here is my attempt to provide the sources requested for some discussion to exist in this article on women.
Google results: 80,000 for parthenogenesis in humans.
…………………………………..
Google definitions include:
• human conception without fertilization by a man
• process in which an unfertilized egg develops into a new individual; common among insects and some other arthropods
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
(par•the•no•gen•e•sis) (pahr²th[schwa]-no-jen¢[schwa]-sis) [Gr. parthenos virgin + -genesis] a modified form of sexual reproduction by the development of a gamete without fertilization, as occurs in some plants and invertebrates, especially arthropods, eg, honey bees and wasps, and in certain lizards. It may occur as a natural phenomenon or be induced by chemical, thermal, or mechanical stimulation (artificial p.).
www.mercksource.com/pp/us/cns/cns_hl_dorlands.jspzQzpgzEzzSzppdocszSzuszSzcommonzSzdorlandszSzdorlandzSzdmd_p_07zPzhtm
Process of reproduction by the development of an unfertilized egg.
ppathw3.cals.cornell.edu/glossary/Defs_P.htm
The production of offspring by a female with no genetic contribution from a male. The development of an individual from an unfertilized egg that did not arise by meiotic chromosome reduction .
helios.bto.ed.ac.uk/bto/glossary/p.htm
……………………………………………………………………………………………..
Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) recently published a study demonstrating that parthenogenesis can be used in non-human primates. [D] Cibelli, Robert P. et al Science Magazine. "Parthenogenic Stem Cells in Non-Human Primates." wysiwyg://10/http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/295/5556/819.
• The eggs at the 36 hour stage of development were soaked in media derived from a pregnant mare and kinase.
• 28 of the original 77 eggs reached the stage of metaphase II.
• 4 of these 28 eggs reached the blastocyte stage.
• The cells extracted from this experiment were found to contain characteristics of embryonic stem cells.
• Derivatives of all three germ layers were grown from this same set of cells. [E] Shoukhrat, Mitalipov M. et al Biology of Reproduction. "Parthenogenetic Activation of Rhesus Monkey Oocytes and Reconstructed Embryos". Vol. 65 Pg 253-259, 2001.
This experiment leads directly into a realistic possibility of parthenogenesis in humans.
Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Genetic Testing
Pioneer in Embryo Genetic Testing and Gender Selection
… In Los Angeles, Jerry Hall of the Institute of Reproductive Medicine and Genetic Testing is also working on parthenogenesis. He wouldn't reveal any details but was confident it would work in humans. "Not only are we optimistic that parthenogenesis in humans would lead us to the same results, I would be surprised if they didn't."…
Tissue engineering, stem cells, cloning, and parthenogenesis: new paradigms for therapy
Jason Hipp1 and Anthony Atala 1,2
1Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine Wake Forest University School of Medicine Winston Salem, North Carolina USA
2Wake Forest University School of Medicine Medical Center Blvd. Winston Salem, North Carolina 27157 USA
The Future of Assisted Reproductive Technology
The field of assisted reproductive technology has been developed in the past thirty years. The oldest person born from an IVF pregnancy is in her early twenties. The oldest child produced from a frozen embryo is a teenager and the oldest ICSI child is less than 10 years old (Hardy, 2002).
Since ART methods have not been around long enough to gauge whether there are any long term, late onset effects, it is not known whether there will be adverse effects on future generations. Even though physiological health may appear equal in babies spawned using ART, the reproductive performance of their offspring cannot yet be determined (Hardy, 2002).
Based on history and the possibility of future technologies, it is likely that the new methods of ART will be developed, allowing infertile couples more options, should they choose to seek help producing an offspring that is biologically their own. One recent and hopeful example, for females diagnosed with cancer, is an ovarian transplant as a future possibility for preserving fertility. The experimental steps would include cryopreserving one or both of a woman’s ovaries immediately following cancer diagnosis and transplanting the tissue back into the woman following cancer treatment. Ideally, normal oocyte development will occur.
In 1999, ovarian tissue was successfully transplanted into a woman who suffered early menopause. In 2002, a whole ovary transplant was successfully conducted in a woman. Studies in monkeys show that fertility after ovarian transplant is a possibility (Tizzard, 2003). Cryopreservation of ovarian tissue is another possibility for women diagnosed with cancer. Currently, such young women are faced with the decision to undergo cancer treatment immediately, which may render them infertile, or wait until their menstrual cycle provides them with an egg to preserve.
It is possible that “the pursuit of human perfection” will be taken to new extremes. People may be able to choose specific traits for their children. The scientific breakthroughs which will change today’s moderate methods of assisted reproduction to tomorrow’s personalized, synthesized ectogenesis may be right around the corner. More likely, these technological advances are in the distant future and may never be actualized. What we will likely see in the future of male fertility control is the interdisciplinary intersection of many interests: law, ethics, biology, chemistry, medicine and media.
Several recent studies have indicated that parthenogenesis, the process by which the genetic material from two female embryos is capable of developing into an offspring without contribution from a male element, is possible in mammals. One of the first studies to reveal the importance of genetic imprinting in parthenogenesis appeared last April in Nature. The abstract can be seen below:
Birth of parthenogenetic mice that can develop to adulthood. *
The development of parthenogenesis in humans, while still a long way off from a scientific standpoint, certainly carries with it some ethical implications and will certainly be resisted by many who believe that reproduction should only take place between a man and a woman. There are some who believe that human parthenotes may be useful for stem cell research, as the ethical dilemma of creating embryos for the purpose of generating new embryonic stem cell lines could be circumvented using parthenotes as the source. The theory behind this proposal is that if a parthenogenic embryo was not considered to be a potential life, then there would be no moral quandaries with extracting stem cells from the embryo at the blastocyst stage.
Link to article in science news: http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SU/parthenogenesis.html
It is well known that embryos and sperm are capable of being cryopreserved for later use in infertility treatments. Although the process of freezing eggs is not currently widely available, there is evidence to suggest that this technique may be possible.
Link to Newsweek article “Fertility and the Freezer”: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5505094/site/newsweek/
Many doctors believe this technology should only be offered to certain patients: women undergoing chemotherapy or infertile couples opposed to freezing embryos for religious reasons as the cost and the burdens are many. By this fall, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine expects to publish its first guidelines, saying egg-freezing should be offered only as an experimental therapy under strict oversight and that it should not be marketed to "defer reproductive aging.”
The link below displays an abstract from a recent study involving cryopreservation of eggs that appeared in the journal Human Reproduction:
Clinical application of human egg cryopreservation
Questions or Comments: Email Dr. Verna Case
Davidson College Biology Department
Birth of parthenogenetic mice that can develop to adulthood.
Kono T, Obata Y, Wu Q, Niwa K, Ono Y, Yamamoto Y, Park ES, Seo JS, Ogawa H.
Department of BioScience, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Setagaya-ku, Tokyo 156-8502, Japan. tomohiro@nodai.ac.jp
… Here we show the development of a viable parthenogenetic mouse individual from a reconstructed oocyte containing two haploid sets of maternal genome, derived from non-growing and fully grown oocytes. This development was made possible by the appropriate expression of the Igf2 and H19 genes with other imprinted genes, using mutant mice with a 13-kilobase deletion in the H19 gene as non-growing oocytes donors. This full-term development is associated with a marked reduction in aberrantly expressed genes. The parthenote developed to adulthood with the ability to reproduce offspring. These results suggest that paternal imprinting prevents parthenogenesis, ensuring that the paternal contribution is obligatory for the descendant.
PMID: 15103378 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
……………………….
http://7e.devbio.com/article.php?ch=7&id=72
The Invention of Artificial Parthenogenesis
Chapter 5 in Controlling Life: Jacques Loeb and the Engineering Ideal in Biology, Oxford University Press, NY. Pp. 93-117.
Philip J. Pauly, 1987
This chapter is reproduced here thanks to the generosity of the author and of the Oxford University Press.
From the late 1880s, Jacques Loeb had been living out his own scientific epic. The Urwald of Chicago was the setting for scientific creation. His 1896 cornerstone laying speech was a declaration of the path he proposed to take. In taking up physical chemistry, the direction of this path became clearer; but he only believed that he had found his own way in 1899 when he developed what he called "artificial parthenogenesis." The personal importance of this achievement was evident in his announcement of his result to Ernst Mach, in what would be his last confessional letter, that "it is in the end still possible that I find my dream realized, to see a constructive or engineering biology in place of a biology that is merely analytical." Artificial parthenogenesis brought Loeb scientific fame, and even popular notoriety, as a modern Faust. He used that heroic stature to continue his quest in what he considered the true Eden of California. Loeb worked alone on the shores of the Pacific for seven years, returning east periodically to proclaim the new scientific era.(1) …
49. "Artificial Parthenogenesis," Journal of the American Medical Association 34 (1900):1009-1010; Ludwig Hektoen to JL, 24 April 1900, LP box 6.
[Loeb] had enjoyed at Stanford's small Hopkins Marine Station in Pacific Grove, California, in the winters of 1898 and 1900. He confessed to Mall that he longed to live in California in order to develop the possibilities of artificial parthenogenesis full-time; he wanted to work on marine organisms because, he joked, they were the only animals, besides man, "whose life is entirely absorbed in assimilation and reproduction."(57)
Sorry about the length -- but figured it had better be thorough to satisy request for documentation. ---- kb - 2006.0804
Many thanks for the work finding these. You are correct that these would be much more appropriate in the Parethenogenesis article. These sources are either not related to human parthenogenesis or are speculative. I don't see how this is directly relevant to the Woman article. At most I could see a single sentence in the Woman article that references the parthenogenesis article, with some of this material in there. Gwernol 23:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then please select the inclusion you choose... ---- kb -
Sorry, could you expand on that request? I'm afraid I don't entirely follow. Gwernol 23:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided a lot of discussion that you have deleted, why don't you select the parts that you feel are appropriate for this article -- It will eliminate lots of tedious back and forth... ---- kb -
Well, like I say, the first step is to figure out what, if anything is appropriate for the Parthenogenesis article. That article already refers to the possibility of human Parthenogenesis. Given the citations above that may be all that can be said. I could see a single sentence in the Woman article referring to the future possibility of human Parthenogenesis, but that's it. This is a general article about Women, not a venue for a detailed treatise on something that is speculation at this point. Gwernol 23:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the future possibilities regarding reproduction are quite germane to a discussion of women, when you know what you would retain, why not place it there? ---- kb -
I agree. My point is this can be expressed in a single sentence. Something along the lines of "Future developments in Parthenogenesis could lead to female reproduction without the involvement of a male". Given that Parthenogenesis is not currently possible, this seems perfectly adequate coverage. Three long paragraphs of detailed explanation is not. Gwernol 00:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just added "This generally requires internal fertilization of her eggs with the sperm of a man, though the surgical implantation of an existing embryo is also possible (see reproductive technology)." and took out the request for expansion. I added in vitro parthenogenesis to the initial list in reproductive technology. --Homunq 16:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to add images of women in more activities/roles in the gallery. Perhaps a professional, scientist or athlete? Not a dog 19:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Being an astronaut is one of the most highly skilled professions there are, and NASA's images are public domain. Get a photo of Dr. Mae Jemison, or any other female astronaut, from the NASA website, and add it to Wikipedia. Be bold. :) Kasreyn 21:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one seemed interested, so I've added an image of Dr. Jemison to the Gallery. Kasreyn 22:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the first paragraph of biology, about trans and intersex, should be moved down. It's not a matter of importance, it's that it doesn't make sense to state the exeption before what it's an exception to. If I asked you "What is a bird?" you wouldn't start out by saying "Well, some birds can't fly...", it would just confuse me. Over on man it seems to read better IMO. --72.252.56.171 20:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
/* Women's rights */ blanking - covered by "Culture and gender roles", linked from "see also", copy-paste form original article, we don't have "Men's right" in man. --2 September 2006 82.166.109.71
Why was the whole section stripped out, without discussion on this page.
And, can we have something discussed on this page other than the photo edit war??? There have been similar sections on other languages' pages without challeng. Dogru144 00:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or better yet, the discussion of the edit war be moved to another page. The photos might be important, marginally, but the subject has distracted nearly everyone from concerns about content. This talk page seems like a shouting ground for people monomaniacally obssessed by photos. The volume of discussion on it swallows up all other discussions. This article should not be treated like a newspaper, in which photos generally constitute half of the story. Rintrah 06:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, many other common english customs, such as always listing males before females and always calling "God" (or a Higher Power) "He" distinctly ARE sexist. - This is inherently POV, even if it is right. For it even to be considered valid, there needs to be a discussion of how it is sexist, and what sexist means, which are unnecessary digressions. Moreover, the capitalised "ARE" is not encyclopedic. If this sentence is to remain, i.e., be rendered validly, and thus retain the point validly, it needs to be reformed to less pointed language. Encyclopedic articles are not supposed to be moral essays for exclaiming one's opinion on a contentious issue. Think of a dispassionate, curious reader seeking education, and not one who needs to be instructed in moral values. Rintrah 15:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While we're on the subject of photos... (other than the lead photo)[edit]
Does anyone else think that there are too many pictures at the end of this article? It kind of looks like just anyone can go put up a picture of themselves or their friends, as long as they are female, and in my opinion it renders the article somewhat trite. Besides, there are all these ethnographic-ish photos of "exotic" women (except for one or two exceptions), and a bunch of ordinary-looking snapshots of Western, white women, which creates an unbalanced effect. I would suggest that the photos be limited to one from any given culture or society. If we're trying to represent women here, there are better ways to do it. Any suggestions? romarin[talk ] 18:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think that all of these "exotic" women do belong to different cultures already. That said, I agree that the "ethnographic" part is too dominant here - the diversity of women should not be reduced to diversity of nationality/ethnicity. The individual, social, intra-cultural variations are just as important. --85.187.44.131 19:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which is precisely why I attempted to add a little diversity in careers (as most of the women in all the pictures were in menial careers regardless of their ethnic diversity). I believe I was attempting to show that women do more than weave and bear children. Unfortunately, the image of astronaut Dr. Mae Jemison I added was removed. I can't begin to imagine why. Kasreyn 05:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I couldn't disagree more, romarin. "Woman" is a truly vast subject to cover and deserves a great deal of diversity in its images. The original gallery was a good thing, in my opinion. As to "one from any given culture or society" - how is that balanced? Different cultures and societies have differing populations. If one were to attempt to insert some sort of order or logic into the selection of images, I would think some sort of proportionality would be in order. Kasreyn 05:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both of you. I liked the idea of a gallery (it doesn't seem at all trite or trivial to me). However, I think that "a bunch of national costumes and a bunch of western women doing varied and interesting things" does have a bit of a bias (both here and in the montage). I don't think the solution is to explicitly try to be proportional - diversity is best sketched, not covered. (If you're drawing a tree with 10 quick lines, you don't spend 5 of them on the trunk even if that has half the mass, and one of your lines might show a leaf even though that's tiny.) So the best solution would be not "Westerner? Check. African? Check. etc.." but "Some ethnic diversity? check. Some age diversity? Check. Some activity diversity? Check. Some body type diversity? Check. No clear central norm which all the diversities revolve around? Check." I'd say you could cover all of that with about 8-20 women, no more. In fact, in a way it would be BETTER to have a semi-glaring omission to show that you're NOT trying to get everyone because you never could. For instance: no black and white "ethnographic" stuff.... I live in Guatemala City, I'll try to get a photo of an indigenous Guatemalan woman in traje or semi-traje doing something non-traditional (secretary, press conference, out on the town, or something like that) and I think that'll help with the "only westerners are diverse" problem. --Homunq 18:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Talk 07:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Frau-2.jpg){kind=link}
