Talk:Woman

Lead image

Botticelli's The Birth of Venus is a very poor lead image for this page.

I see that there used to be a gallery that was removed in Feb 2016 following this RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images about galleries of large groups of people (which arose from an RfC here, now in the archives here), which arose from a prior RfC about ethnic groups" that led to MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. There was an effort to repeal MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES here in June 2016 that failed.

So OK, no gallery. There has been no discussion here since then.

In the article, we've had:

• gallery removed in Feb 2016, leaving the infobox symbol at the top
• image of group of women runners added 18 May 2016 by User:OnBeyondZebrax
• 2nd image of group of older women added 18 May 2016 also by OnBeyondZebrax
• here women runners was replaced by Lee Remick 23 January 2017 by User:Zhyboo then replaced by Zhyboo with Salma Hayek.
• here the Salma Hayek image was replaced with a fitness model 10 February 2017 by User:Js20030
• here on 15 February 2017 both images were removed by User:Flyer22 Reborn, leaving the infobox symbol image at the top.
• here on 12 March 2017 a drawing "of a woman's bust" was added by User:HeliumPearl
• here on 28 April 2017 image removed by User:Coltsfan, leaving the infobox symbol image at the top.
• here on 18 May 2017 the drawing "of a woman's bust" was restored by HeliumPearl, reverted a few hours later by Flyer22; here a different image of "a woman's bust" was added by HeliumPearl, immediately reverted by User:EvergreenFir
• here on 2 August 2017 the current image of Botticelli's The Birth of Venus was added by User:Gunkarta; reverted by User:Cleaner880 3 days later with no reason given. Immediately restored by Gunkarta.

So the Venus is just a "classier" version of the "bust", "fitness model", and actress pictures, emphasizing sexuality/beauty ideals, and this is not a good thing. I'm removing the image, leaving the infobox symbol image at the top. I very much doubt that an RfC would provide consensus for Venus or the similar images as the lead image on this page. Jytdog (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree overall. I'm also concerned that it uses Western ideals to represent a global topic. I'd recommend scouring https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Females_in_art_by_medium for something not Euro-centric and not objectifying if possible (perhaps like the Willendorf Venus shown on the right?). Otherwise, I'd recommend just leaving it blank. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

something "not Euro-centric" so you propose a European artifact found in Europe instead. More of a comment on wikipedians than anything 71.246.152.225 (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

It's from Europe, but not really "Western"? But point taken. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

On Botticelli's The Birth of Venus image, I just love visuals and would prefer the art to represent the subject, that's all. There is no ill intention on my behalf for the installment of the image. What I did not expect was all this sensitivity; and the fact that people do read into things; like diversity and objectification issues, also the question of Eurocentric beauty ideals, I'm not a European myself. So.., if the main picture is posing a problem, go ahead remove it, I do not mind if the article has none. Cheers..! Gunkarta  talk  05:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't/didn't mind the Venus image as the lead image because it's an artistic expression that shows the female form. It's not WP:GRATUITOUS. There is currently a similar image (of a man) at the Man article. But, sure, if it's preferred that the lead images at both of these articles be of people with clothes on, so be it. Here at the aforementioned RfC, I stated in part, "if this RfC closes with consensus for the broad interpretation of the gallery aspect, we should work out the wording for the content since a number editors, including ones who do support the broad interpretation of the guideline, clearly do not agree that the matter is WP:OR, and also have significant disagreement about the 'similarly large human populations' wording. And there is also the matter of having the gallery lower in the article. How is it any more of a problem for the lead than if it's placed lower in the article?" The "OR" piece was removed from the wording, but the "similarly large human populations" piece is still there, and we see that it hasn't stopped the gallery that is currently at the bottom of in Child article. Furthermore, the Girl article still currently has various images as the lead presentation. It also had it at the time of the aforementioned RfC. It's working for that article, but that's likely because the images are not of celebrities or other notables. As the aforementioned RfC shows, a main problem with such a presentation at articles was including celebrities or other notables. For this article, the debate was mostly over including trans woman Laverne Cox. If we were to do a "variety" presentation again, the trans debate would start up again, but if we included a trans woman or trans women who weren't known as trans, I doubt we'd get fuss over the inclusion(s). People objected because they knew Cox was transgender. Maybe having a gallery at the bottom of the article would work. In that case, not noting who is trans could be seen as trans invisibility; so noting who is trans might be the better option despite the occasional anti-trans comments we'd get. Anyway, a single image for an article like this doesn't come anywhere close to being representative. At least a collage/gallery of different types of women has a significantly longer reach representative-wise. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

As for the image EvergreenFir suggested, I don't see that as an improvement. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that the new image (woman mechanic) is the same problem as was identified with the original image, just in a different way. If the original image emphasized outdated and west-centric ideals of female beauty, then this new image emphasizes (also west-centric) ideals of modern feminism, which is not necessarily a point of view that I disagree with, but it is still a specific conceptualization of "woman" and not a universally applicable representation, and Wikipedia should aim for neutrality. Since the article for "man" uses the image from the Sistine Chapel of "The Birth of Adam", then why not use for this article the image from the Sistine Chapel of "The Creation of Eve"? (The image could potentially be cropped to show only Eve.) That seems the most logical option, to me. Or, alternatively, perhaps keeping the "woman mechanic" image, but along with a couple other images showing other conceptualizations of "women", such as one more traditional western conceptualization, a non-western woman, maybe even a trans-woman? (unless that would be perceived as violating "no ethnic galleries") Or, as a third alternative, one single photograph of a woman who is portrayed in a way that is neither, in traditional conceptualizations of the terms, feminine nor masculine? Vontheri (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Vontheri: I agree with you that the current lead image is non-neutral in that it emphasizes ideals of western modern feminism. I do not support using a collage or an image from the Sistine Chapel. I have been (slowly) working on a gallery for lead image options for the Man and Woman articles. This is what I have so far, with my preferences being the sitting Brazilian woman and the small photo of the sitting Brazilian man, but cropped: Man and Woman gallery Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: I think the Brazilian image you found would be a good choice. Out of curiosity, is there any certain reason you don't think the Sistine Chapel image would be a good fit? Vontheri (talk) 04:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Vontheri: I thought this was discussed here but I can't seem to find it. Basically I think the image should be representative of an actual man, not a piece of art. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: Okay. Well, I think the Brazilian images that you found would be good. I think it's best that the images should be just of a woman/man in a neutral way, and not in a way that suggests a certain role or occupation or activity etc., since the article is just called "woman", and not "women who are mechanics" or "women who are artists", etc. Thus the Brazilian image is a fitting choice. Vontheri (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Vontheri: Thank you; my thoughts exactly. See the section below, "A woman is more than a job".Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

A woman is more than a vagina?

• 
  The current lead image at Man
• 
  The current lead image at Woman
• 
  Human anatomy.jpg
• 
  Weaving profile.jpg
• 
  WomanFactory1940s.jpg

Apologies for bringing up the issue of lead image again, as I see it was discussed above a few months ago. But the lead image is kind of important because it's the image that pops up in previews and some aggregators and such. I was reading something that wikilinked "Man and Woman" and I moused over the links to see the WP:Tools/Navigation popups, and the lead image for Man is a picture of a man, specifically Michelangelo's The Creation of Adam. The lead image for Woman is a diagram of the female reproductive system. These two pictures communicated to me that "man" is a male (complete) human being, and "woman" is a vagina. I didn't want to change it unilaterally (specifically, I didn't want to revert this edit without asking first). Is it just me? ^Leviv_ich 23:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Even though the image in question is not in an infobox or at the top of the article, but instead several screens down and below two other images (which are in the infoboxes), it is indeed very awkward that it's the "top" image that various on- and off-site scripts grab. A very slight tweak would be to swap the order of that image and File:Human anatomy.jpg, which are very close to each other in the same section. This would not involve introducing any new images or changing what section or "screen" any of the images were on, so it would hopefully not be controversial; does anyone object? -sche (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

No objection to that change, as I think it would be an improvement over the current situation. However, I think that change creates a new problem: the lead image for Woman would be a picture of a man and a woman. I think articles like Man, Woman, Horse, Pig, Fish, Tree, etc., should have a lead image that depicts a typical example of the subject. What about swapping it with File:Weaving profile.jpg or File:WomanFactory1940s.jpg (both currently in the article), or adding a new picture altogether? ^Leviv_ich 03:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Definitely an issue that File:Scheme female reproductive system-en.svg currently presents as the main image. And it wouldn't be much better to have the main image be of both male and female anatomy. Given what I stated about the Girl article in the #Lead image discussion above, I think it's time we revisit the "similarly large human populations" matter with a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images. A lead image (collage or otherwise) that shows a variety of different types of women would work best -- meaning it would be better than an image of a single woman for this article. But if the Man article can get away with using a single artistic image for its lead image, so can the Woman article. This is regardless of the transgender topic repeatedly being more of an issue for this article than it has been for the Man article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

If we can't find a suitable lead image for this article, maybe we should change the lead image on Man instead? In general, I agree that the Man and Woman articles should focus less on anatomy than the Male and Female articles. feminist (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Changing the lead image on the Man article won't fix the aforementioned issue with this one. And what would we change the lead image of that article to? We should be more focused on this article unless we want to have a discussion about both articles and leave a note there that, per WP:TALKCENT, the discussion is centralized here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I was going to suggest a painting by Frida Kahlo - if the lead image on Man is a well known painting of and by a man, why not make the lead image on Woman a well known painting of and by a woman? But, unfortunately, it seems her work is still under copyright, and I can't think of another female portrait painter who is iconic in the same way. Someone who is more versed in art than me should make suggestions, but here are a few ideas:

• 
  female artist
• 
  female artist
• 
  female artist
• 
  male artist
• 
  male artist
• 
  male artist
• 
  ancient

Alternately, I think either the factory picture or the weaving picture would be good. WanderingWanda (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmm I see there's already been some good discussion above about the Birth of Venus, beauty standards, etc up higher that I missed. WanderingWanda (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Per what I noted in the Lead image discussion, I don't mind File:Sandro Botticelli 046.jpg (the Birth of Venus image) being the lead image. I think that File:Serebryakova Bath house study 1912.jpg would be a poor choice because it's focused on women bathing. I think that File:Self-portrait in a Straw Hat by Elisabeth-Louise Vigée-Lebrun.jpg would be a poor choice because of her dated clothing and the fact that she is a notable woman from the past. I think that File:Shoen Uemura - Firefly.jpg would be a poor choice because it's too tied to a specific culture. I think that File:Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, from C2RMF retouched.jpg would be a poor choice because of just how famous the image is and that it is sometimes mocked. I'm not sure about File:Meisje met de parel.jpg, but I know I don't prefer it. I think File:Venus von Willendorf 01.jpg would be a poor choice (the poorest choice) because it's a statue without clear facial features and doesn't represent what is typically thought of as the female form. Yes, female forms differ, but WP:LEADIMAGE is about trying to find a representative image. Sometimes a traditional or stereotypical image is more representative to the masses. For example, a red apple as opposed to a green apple, as the lead image for the Apple article. I'm not stating that we need to go with a white woman as the lead image, though, of course. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh brother, must we go through this again? I'd think we had best left well enough alone. But if we must, it would be best to use the first woman rather than the last, in other words a black woman should be used. Gandydancer (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Which woman, Gandy? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Flyer, that's the point - which black woman? Seems to me we're between a rock and a hard place when we think we can find a woman to represent "woman". Look above at all the pure, virginal, sparkling white photos. A black woman in Africa with a nursing child in a sling as she works in a field might as well be from Mars compared to the above photos. I don't want to choose a woman but if we must at least a poor Asian woman better represents woman of today since they are at least half of our world population (I think). BTW, at one point we had a composite and that didn't work out either due to squabbles about the choices. Gandydancer (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh come on, there is no need to bring race into this. Just select the most suitable image that represents a female human, and that means a traditional or stereotypical image that resonates with readers. And I'm not even white. feminist (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Gandy, yeah, in the Lead image discussion, I noted the "various display of women" aspect and that the "various display" route has been working for the Girl article for years. The main issue with using a collage or composite at this article? It was the people who kept complaining about having a trans woman -- Laverne Cox -- in the collage or composite. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Yup, you can have countless trans women saying that they knew something was wrong when they were three years old and yet there are those that say they know better than what these people knew for a fact because they lived it. All the more reason to not use a photo of some illusion of what is considered to be a woman. Gandydancer (talk) 03:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, that reminds me (because this was also a criticism of at least one of the figures in the collage) of one of the criticisms of the Birth of Venus: it's not a depiction of a woman, it's a depiction of a deity. -sche (talk) 03:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Who made that argument? Was it it a common argument? Whatever the case, I think that's a weak argument, -sche, since the imagery is clearly of the female human form. Editors could also use an image of Eve to contrast the image of Adam at the Man article, but then we'd have to worry about "Wikipedia is going with a religious viewpoint" arguments. In the case of Venus, it's Greek mythology and so we don't have to worry about "Wikipedia is going with a religious viewpoint" arguments. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

"that means a traditional or stereotypical image that resonates with readers". You must be kidding, right? Gandydancer (talk) 02:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, looking at it again I understand why this comment may easily be misinterpreted. But I want an image that resonates with the majority of readers. According to a visualization created by the WMF, almost 50% of English Wikipedia readers come from the US or UK. An absolute majority of readers come from the Global North. We should cater to them. feminist (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't object to switching to some completely different image (and I would be fine with either the birth of Venus or a black woman, as proposed above), but another "least change" idea that might side-step debate over a new image: is there a way to cause the image which is currently the first image in the article, File:Symbol_venus.svg, to be parsed as the top/thumbnail image? -sche (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed that the Venus symbol would be a good choice for a neutral image. feminist (talk) 03:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I assume one way to do this would be: instead of including Template:Women_in_society_sidebar, copy and paste the entire contents of the sidebar into the article. Of course, this wouldn't be ideal because any changes updates to the sidebar would have to be added to the article manually and they'd likely fall out of sync. WanderingWanda (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5
• 
  6
• 
  7
• 
  8
• 
  9
• 
  10 (Wikipedia editor reading this thread)

Some additional possibilities? ^Leviv_ich 04:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

How about this? A beautiful work of art that's 1. Stylized enough to feel somewhat universal 2. Not depicting anyone specific. 3. From a culture that's not over-represented on Wikipedia (it's a fresco from a Minoan palace.) 4. Not sexy or male-gazey.

• 

WanderingWanda (talk) 05:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

That image is ambiguous gender-wise. And definitely no to the cartoon image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

If it feels ambiguous gender-wise I'd argue that's a good thing - it means it's presenting a broad and non-stereotypical view of women. Plus the title of the piece - Ladies of the Minoan Court - will clear up any confusion. I'm going to be bold and throw it up there - I think a piece of art is better for such a broad concept as 'woman' than a photograph of one specific person, and after looking at various pieces of art this feels like the best candidate that I've found. In any case it's definitely better than the various photos of conventionally attractive young white women that people keep putting up. But I know this is a controversial subject so 100% feel free to revert or put forward other candidates. (I'd be perfectly happy if we could find a good piece of art where the subjects happened to be black, per discussion above, for example.) WanderingWanda (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Reverted. As a lead image for the topic, it is poor. Clearly, it does not adhere to what WP:LEADIMAGE states about the lead image being something the reader expects to see. You apparently want to use an image that readers won't expect to see...all for the sake of ambiguity or a "non-stereotypical view of women." Our job is to go with an image that readers will expect to see or one that will otherwise resonate with them, or use no image at all. After all, WP:LEADIMAGE also talks about it sometimes not being possible to have a representative image or any lead image. I fail to see how that image you added will resonate with readers in terms of what a woman is. "Conventionally attractive young white women" might be stereotypical, but they resonate with people. This is not an article about gender ambiguity. And the lead having the Woman article use such an image as the lead image is not an improvement. It is also silly for this article to go by such a standard while the Man article does not. Some people might not expect a black woman as the lead image, but a black woman as the lead image would clearly be of a woman to readers and is an image they (many anyway) can easily resonate with. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Considering how debatable this topic (what lead image to use or to use a collage or composite) has been, it would be best to form consensus on an image or images before another lead image attempt is made. We can, of course, also take the WP:RfC route. For how an RfC on images can look, see Talk:Scarlett Johansson/Archive 6#Request for comment on lead image and this one that was had at Talk:Blond. But like I stated in the discussion before that RfC about what blond hair image to use, too many options can overwhelm participants. In other words, the more options there are, the more overwhelmed editors are and less likely they are to vote. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's a painting of women. That seems like something a reader might expect to see in an article about women. :) I'll add that my goal was not specifically to pick an androgynous image, even if I question why that would be a bad thing. Instead I picked it for the criteria I outlined above. You could probably make the image I picked feel less androgynous by cropping it differently, though, if that was the goal. In any case I'm not married to the choice.

...Out of Levivich's choices I'm personally drawn to 3, 6, and 8. The construction images - 3 and 8 - in particular feel bold, empowering, dynamic, well composed, and well lit. WanderingWanda (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts in no particular order: 1. For my part, just about any of the images proposed so far are better than the current lead image, and I always appreciate boldness, so I think the Minoan painting was an improvement, but it's still not my favorite choice for a permanent replacement. 2. I prefer a photograph of a "typical" example(s) of an actual woman (a female human), rather than something abstract (including any symbol or painting) that shows someone's idea of a woman or womanhood or femininity, etc., for the same reasons as Tree, Horse, etc., shows a picture of a typical example of the subject rather than something more philosophical or esoteric (and for this reason I don't like the lead image at Man, either, but that's for another day). 3. I really like the idea of a collage, as is done in Girl, because it demonstrates that "woman" is actually diverse; there is no typical woman; they come in many different appearances. However, it may take some time to create a collage that everyone is happy with; I understand there were some difficulties with the last one, although consensus may change, and perhaps the last collage would gain consensus now even if it didn't before. 4. I do believe/hope we can resolve this on the talk page without having to do something more involved like an RfC. 5. Perhaps we can agree on an interim image to replace the current one, until such time as a collage (or something else) can be created/presented/discussed/consented-to? ^Leviv_ich 16:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree this thread has too many suggestions and would overwhelm many people attempting to pick, and we should winnow things down to the few options with the most support. In whatever informal !vote or formal RfC we hold, we should also employ ranking of choices. I like File:Rosie_the_Riveter_(Vultee)_DS.jpg best among the single-person non-painting photographs. What about, as a tentative suggestion for options: the aforementioned riveter photo (or another woman of colour), the birth of Venus, a collage like was used previously, or "none of the above"? In the last case, we would still be left to decide what non-lead image to put first in the article body and hence set as the "thumbnail" image, or to have another !vote with other options. -sche (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

WanderingWanda, of course, readers would expect to see an image of a woman or women. But that image you added does not cut it, and I'm certain most or all others would state the same. It's also better to have a lead image that doesn't only show a woman's face or just about only her face. Out of Levivich's latest choices, I really like image 8. Will readers expect to see a lead image of a woman working the way she is working in that image? Probably not. But before they click on the article, they will be expecting an image of a woman standing still doing nothing or doing something. So in that sense, that the woman is doing something will be expected. Readers can only guess what the woman might be doing before they click on the image. I considered image 3 as well, and wouldn't mind it as the lead image. We can also try for two or three lead images in a vertical way as long as it doesn't result in mobile (phone) issues or editors stacking more and more in a row. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Out of these choices, I prefer image 8 the most. It's more contemporary and shows the woman more clearly than image 3. A crop may be beneficial. feminist (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding which woman, what about the panracial line drawing of a woman that is etched onto a gold plaque being carried by the Pioneer 10 spacecraft, and which is the first object constructed by humans to leave the solar system? This image, along with the companion image of a man and some technical information about its origin, was the first explicit, concrete interstellar communication attempt by humans, and is intended to convey information about all humankind to other beings, in case it is ever intercepted by extraterrestrial life. Mathglot (talk) 09:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not for the line drawing image, which is focused on anatomy (because it's showing what a female human's body is likely to look like). Compare File:Human.png (a line drawing image with the one you suggested included) to File:Human anatomy.jpg. Pretty much the same thing, except the latter is more detailed. Even in the Human article, the lead image currently isn't focused on showing what the human body looks like. And diversity-wise, we can see that the image isn't of white people. The Venus image does show a nude woman, obviously, and it's informative to show a typical anatomy of a woman in the Woman article, but that image doesn't have the same "this is all about anatomy" feel to it. And as others have mentioned, this isn't the Female article. When it comes to anatomy, we already have anatomy images in the "Biology and sex" section. And this discussion started because of a concern that an anatomy image presents as the lead image (although that image is only of the reproductive system and doesn't show the overall body of a woman). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Levivich (Leviv), regarding this, the image isn't really in the lead. It currently shows as (mainly) being in the Biology and sex section, at least on my computer screen. And it's misplaced there. Moving the image to the top, ahead of the templates, will make it so that it's the lead image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, fixed, thanks for the heads up! Leviv ich 19:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I just wanted to say thank you to everyone who participated in this discussion! Leviv ich 06:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Love the new image! Qzekrom (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah! Good job! Gandydancer (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

A woman is more than a job?

@Levivich: Sorry to say this but I hate that picture. I feel like it is defining a woman by her form of wage labor, and suggesting that a woman has more value when she performs traditionally male roles. I understand we didn't have much to work with, and I appreciate all your effort. I would like something like this as an example(it says all rights reserved): [1] I discussed criteria I felt was important for this lead image in the Man article here: [2] Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: I found this creative commons image that I cropped:

Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

We've come to a consensus on this. Per all of the points made by me and others above, I see no need to discuss this so soon after achieving consensus. We cannot please everyone. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I understand there was just a consensus; my intention was to just add this information for consideration. The concerns I have don't seem to have been addressed. When more users who had not participated in the recent discussion get involved maybe that would be the time to open it up again? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: For my part, I don't draw the same conclusions as you from the current lead image. I think people spend most of their time working, so a picture of a person working makes sense. A picture of a human interacting with technology (in this case, a woman working on an engine) makes sense: it depicts a typical "modern" human as opposed to one from a thousand years ago. That's just my opinion, though, and it's not up to me. I only added the current lead image because it was chosen by consensus here on the talk page. It's up to the consensus of editors what the lead image should be. Leviv ich 01:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Leviv, less than half of the population in the United states perform wage labor, and those that do spend most of their time doing other activities. I feel like humans are over-identified with wage labor, especially in the US. I feel like the image to the right is modern and timeless, depicting the universal (abled) human activity of dancing. So, if more folks would like to open this up for discussion again in the future hopefully my concerns here can be addressed too. Thank you. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Netoholic: This thread shows consensus for that lead image. What your edit has done is to make the reproductive system diagram the lead image again, which is how we started this, months ago. Self-revert and join the talk page discussion. Leviv ich 12:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Pretty sure I read the opposite above, and I concur with them. It is not illustrative of the concept of "woman" to show one performing a traditionally-male job covered in protective clothing and a helmet that shows almost no part of their form which would make them discernibly a woman from a man. Its otherwise a brave, empowering picture. -- Netoholic @ 13:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

"Love the new image!" "Yeah! Good job!" "We've come to a consensus on this." means the opposite of consensus? WTF are you reading, Net? Leviv ich 13:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

A "quiet consensus" based on a few kudos... but a consensus that cannot last once people notice that you've made it. If you look further down on this page its clear there is no consensus presently. Also, you've failed to address my point about how this lead image for "woman" is doing a job typically done by, and dressed looking like, a man. Wikipedia:Image use policy#Image content says the purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter - something yours does not do since I can barely tell its a woman except for the caption. I thought about moving the "Pregnant woman" image up to the lead, as it at least is a clear representation of the vast majority of women in the world, showing their form and indicating an important role to society, but until people on this talk page hash out their opinions (and ultimately reject the activists who want to redefine this topic rather than document it fairly), then its pointless to even have a lead image at all. -- Netoholic @ 13:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Emoticons

"Women are twice as likely as men to use emoticons in text messages" Benjamin (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Any suggestions for wording or placement? Benjamin (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The emoticon article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Why not both? Benjamin (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Various minor gendered differences shouldn't be included in this article. It would be far too long. Save those for specific topic articles. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it's too trivial as information about women. -sche (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Is there, or should there be, some sub article? Perhaps something like "Differences between men and women" or "Women and technology"? Benjamin (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Sex differences in psychology may be what you're after, still, not an obvious fit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hm, yes, perhaps, but that seems more strictly academic. But I'll give it a try. But at any rate, I do think there should be some mention here, perhaps not of this particular point, but that there are differences, in general. Benjamin (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Or perhaps that belongs in Human, ape or mammal. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps human. Have the non humans used emoticons? Benjamin (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it past them, since they can master selfies. But I was thinking of "but that there are differences, in general." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Specifically differences between human men and women. Benjamin (talk) 08:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe in Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus? In all seriousness, though, "Sex differences in psychology are differences in the mental functions and behaviors of the sexes..." and so that article seems the right place for well-sourced information about how men and women communicate differently. Leviv ich 08:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I do still think there should be one article summarizing all the differences between men and women. Here's another example: In women, the index and ring finger tend to be the same length, whereas men's ring finger tends to be longer. Benjamin (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Have you found Differences between men and women? That's physical differences, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that! So, I guess that about covers it, the physical, and the psychological. But perhaps there could be social, cultural, political, economic, etc... Benjamin (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Sex_differences This navbox might help. Leviv ich 16:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks! (^.^) Benjamin (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, what about gender differences? Benjamin (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: I've edited your above comment to not insert the template onto the talk page as it causes undesirable identation issues for sections below your comment. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 02:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Clarity on the tail of the intro

I know people are probably sick of talking about this element of the blurb, but I feel like the following quoted segment should be made more clear:

There are also trans women (those who have a male sex assignment that does not align with their gender identity), and intersex women (those born with sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female).

Specfically, the second half (regarding "intersex women") seems to be using "women" to refer to self-identified gender, not sex, although the parenthetical does not indicate this in any direct way (you could argue it indicates it indirectly since it mentions a deviation in sexual characteristics). Looking through the intersex article, I can't find any instance of the word "woman" that isn't referring to sex, so I don't think there's some 3rd usage I'm overlooking. Simply put, the parenthetical is simply defining what an intersex person is, not an intersex woman, which does not match the first half of the sentence (corresponding to trans women).

If the mention of "intersex women" is simply an additional nod to the usage of the term "woman" to refer to self-identified gender instead of sex, then I feel like there is a clearer way to present that, possibly simply by adding some kind of preface, like so:

The term "woman" is also sometimes used to refer to one's self-identified gender, such as with trans women (those who [...] do not fit typical notions of male or female but identify as women).

This makes the purpose of the sentence (inclusion of the use of the word as a gender identity) more immediately clear, keeps the two topics of the sentence in agreement in terms of format, and makes the last parenthetical directly relevant to the article (current version is not). That said, what I proposed here still needs some obvious work. Notably, the version of the preface I've provided is somewhat weasel-wordy in its use of "sometimes".

Honestly, I think the answer is that the exact wording I'm providing for the preface is wholly undesirable, but the general structure is something that should probably be used. However, I don't know what specific wording would actually be good for this first portion. Whatever wording is used, it should be specific and supported by reliable sources. Even the current wording ("There are also[...]") is honestly awful.

Perhaps the most concrete claim possible looks something like this (very rough):

Within some social sciences, the term "woman" is [...]. This usage has also been adopted by ___a group you can reliably make this claim about___ (new source goes here).

Thoughts? First, on whether or not we can agree that the current sentence is poorly done in the ways I've mentioned, and second, on what I've proposed to replace it. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 02:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Lead images: future RfC

I have put a gallery together of image options for an RfC for the lead images of both this article and WP:Man. We can use the associated talk page to narrow down our choices prior to an RfC. I have included more images of men because IMO the existing lead image of WP:Man is worse than the existing image of WP:Woman. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
For reference: Manual of Style: Lead Image Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Out of the images you are proposing, my votes are for "blue shirt" (second choice: "plaid") for the "man" article, and "hijab" (second choice: "smiling", would be first choice if not for the fact that she is wearing lipstick/makeup, which is sort of a prop rather than just showing simply a person) for the "woman" article. I think the images should be just of a person to the extent possible, and not showing any sort of specific traits or actions or props, other than clothing if necessary. (For example, not the "dancing" image as it shows a specific action rather than just a person, and not "hardhat", "grinder", "cart", "drill", or "wiring" as they show specific actions/occupations, and not "steps", "steps crop", "iphone", or "sunglasses" as they contain props in addition to just the person.) Vontheri (talk) 09:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I feel similarly. I didn't want an image that overly identified someone with a job, activity, or culture. At the same time I feel like social role, culture, and activity are inextricable from our humanity and would naturally be visible. So my preference ends up being a picture of someone where we may have a sense of these things, but we are not distracted by them. My ideal that I looked for were pictures with men and women sitting in front of their dwellings and where I had a sense of their bodies. I actually like that "steps crop" man is holding an iphone; it gives him a somewhat universal modern context, but it's also not visually distracting, unlike "iphone" man where he is actually looking at the iphone. I don't mind that "smiling" woman has makeup. It appears to be a small amount to me, and makeup is a common social signifier for women. Did you notice "ponytail"? It was meant to be a pair with "hijab" (which I don't particularly like because she's so covered, and she is a famous woman). --Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Are we thinking montage or one single image? WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 22:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I was originally thinking one single image. There is a guideline against a photo collage, but we could have a gallery. Personally I like the idea of three images stacked on top of each other so that the top image is actually the lead image, and it seems consistent with most articles to have images on the right side of the article as you scroll down. The only difference here would be directly stacking them. User:Levivich (who has much more experience) may have been interested in three side-by-side photos. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I see stacking images must be done with caution. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

According to the manual of style I linked to above, it's best not to use any sort of gallery or montage. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Nope. I'm fine with the current image. So are others. As seen in the #A woman is more than a vagina? section above, we already reached WP:Consensus on this. Editors need to learn to compromise, like editors did in that discussion, and accept that things will not always go their way. They should not keep pushing and pushing until they get their way. I don't see why we should change the current lead image or add two more just because one or two editors can't accept consensus. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

That's not a fair characterization of what's happening here. This is a new discussion which considers new criteria and new images. I did not participate in the previous discussion where the current image was selected, but perhaps most importantly, this is a proposal that we change the image of WP:Man to a photograph rather than a painting, which is consistent with the consensus that was reached here for WP:Woman. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

It is a fair characterization, because, apparently, to you, the consensus among others is not enough. We somehow have to use an image that satisfies you and/or WanderingWanda...even though there will never be an image that satisfies everyone. Even when there were multiple images presented as a collage or whatever, there were issues. As made clear by WP:Consensus, "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable)." If this discussion is only about the Man article, okay then. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Kolya, you state, "I did not participate in the previous discussion where the current image was selected." Why is that? Gandydancer (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

#Consensus can change when previously unconsidered arguments are raised, which in this case is the argument that the image should not depict a woman engaged in labor, or even doing anything.

@Gandydancer: The previous discussion occurred just before I was following this page. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

We all know that consensus can change. That doesn't mean we should look to change it because one or two editors are not satisfied with the result. To repeat, "there will never be an image that satisfies everyone." We just recently had a lead image discussion and we considered everyone's arguments, even yours after the discussion had ended. There is no need for a new one because you aren't satisfied with the current image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

We should always be looking to improve wikipedia articles, regardless of how long it has or hasn't been since a previous change. There could be people who participated in the previous discussion who may change their mind after considering the additional arguments that have been presented since then, and there also could be other people (such as myself and Kolya Butternut) who were not aware of the previous discussion who could give input, along with any from the previous discussion who wish to participate, in a new consensus. The current image is clearly flawed in so many ways. It seems to me like a subtle violation of neutral point of view. The image shows a certain ideal of a "woman", and it seems it was most likely chosen for exactly that reason. It's just as non-neutral as it would be to have an image of a "woman housewife"; both would be presenting a specific ideal of a "woman", rather than a generalized and neutral example of a "woman". Just because it may present an ideal that we might agree with and like, it is still a specific ideal, and is not appropriate for this article.

The manual of style states "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic". This image appears to be staged like a stock photo, and not a "natural" representation. An image of a "woman mechanic" would be perfectly appropriate for the article for mechanic, (although this specific image wouldn't be, for the reason I just gave: it is not a "natural representation") but this article isn't about mechanics or women who are mechanics, it is just about "women". The image for this article should be simply that of a woman, nothing more and nothing less.

Kolya Butternut, to respond to your response to me earlier, I didn't realize that the woman in the "hijab" photo was someone famous. Who is she? The fact that she is someone famous is a good reason to not use her as the image, so after learning that I now prefer "smiling", although one issue with it is that her eyes are closed. Also I didn't notice before that she was wearing an earring, which is also a sort of prop. However, pretty much any of the images you presented would be fine (except for the first six for "man" and the "woman mechanic" one. The "woman dancing" would be a little better than the current one but is still showing a specific action rather than just simply a woman) and certainly better than the current one. I'm not sure how the "ponytail" image goes with the "hijab" image, but regardless, I don't think the images for the two articles should have to "match" or "go together". As for the images with the smart phone giving a sense of modernity: the articles are simply "man" and "woman", not "modern men" or "modern women", so I don't think that really makes a difference. That said, I am willing to change my votes to the same images you picked ("steps crop" and "smiling") if that would help with achieving consensus. Vontheri (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Vontheri, the woman in the hijab is Fartuun Adan. The website I got it from spelled her name "Fartun", which is apparently incorrect, so that may be why I didn't realize she was particularly well known when I searched for her. I felt her picture was a pair with "ponytail" just because the portraits are visually similar. I agree it would be better not to use someone famous; it is just so hard to find good pictures! I think we have somewhat of a consensus for at least a temporary (and vast) improvement. WanderingWanda did not state a clear preference yet. Genericusername57 wanted the woman to appear to be aware that she is being photographed, which is met by "smiling". We can add and subtract photos from the sandbox found above in the header as we find better photos. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Vontheri, I don't consider "the image is not good enough because I disagree with it" rationale as "looking to improve wikipedia." As for the current lead image, there is no WP:NPOV violation. Nothing on that page (WP:NPOV) supports that image being a WP:NPOV violation. As for "a certain ideal" of a woman? How? Because she is not of some ethnicity you would prefer her to be of? Because she is not as dark as you would like her to be? Because she might be considered physically attractive? Many would argue that the image is not ideal or stereotypical because of what the woman is doing. The "a certain ideal of a woman" argument can be argued for any image we use, because, again, no image is going to satisfy all editors and editors' views of "ideal woman" differ. As for "and it seems it was most likely chosen for exactly that reason"? Like I stated in the #A woman is more than a vagina? discussion, "Our job is to go with an image that readers will expect to see or one that will otherwise resonate with them, or use no image at all. After all, WP:LEADIMAGE also talks about it sometimes not being possible to have a representative image or any lead image. [...] 'Conventionally attractive young white women' might be stereotypical, but they resonate with people. [...] Some people might not expect a black woman as the lead image, but a black woman as the lead image would clearly be of a woman to readers and is an image they (many anyway) can easily resonate with." WP:LEADIMAGE is not about using an image going against "an ideal that we might agree with and like." As for "lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic," I do not see how you think any image of a woman is going to be truly representative, given that so many types of women exist. We do not have to go with an image of a woman doing nothing but standing still. That is not a better image because she's not doing something that other women might not do. Just looking at Kolya Butternut's selections or Genericusername57's selections (especially the latter), they include women wearing or doing things that not all or most women wear or do. So I fail to see why "female mechanic" should be singled out as not representative. I disagree with your "not natural" and "stock photo" argument.

Kolya Butternut, what consensus are you speaking of? I don't see it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

For my part, I would have absolutely no issue with a more natural-seeming picture of a woman mechanic. What I want to avoid is a picture that tries to be either globally representative or aspirational and empowering, whatever that would mean. I'd like the picture to be just one individual woman going about her life—who cares whether she's a mechanic or a housewife? Obviously there are plenty of women in both situations. Back in the day, I was involved in promotional/stock photos at my workplace: we were directed to stand around touching pieces of equipment and looking intently focussed, which of course had nothing to do with our actual work. I'm reminded of that by the current photo, which is one of the reasons I'd like to change it. Cheers, gnu57 23:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be that the smiling woman is a good photo.  I know you like the mechanic photo.  I don't know what you think of the smiling photo or any of the others. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about consensus that it's a good image. But I don't see consensus to add that picture as the lead image. So reverted. Do I like it? It's meh for me. And other than my comment on that, I'm not weighing in on alternative lead images for this article because I see no need for a change and I'd rather not comment on "what is the best lead image" every time someone comes along and wants to change the lead image. And believe me, it will keep happening no matter what lead image we use. My feeling is obviously that we should retain the current lead image (the one I reverted to). I don't feel that we should have two or three lead images in a row, but I wouldn't strongly object to two or three lead images in a row. The templates would be moved farther down, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Flyer, if my argument is best characterized as "the lead image is not good because I disagree with", then anyone's argument on here could be best characterized as "this image is good because I agree with it" or "this image is not good because I disagree with it." In fact, anyone's argument to anything at all could be best characterized as "I'm in favor of universal healthcare because I agree with it" or "I'm against gun control because I disagree with it." Come on... I'm not against the current image because I "disagree with it". I'm against the current image because of the many reasons that I have already explained. And in fact, I don't disagree with the ideal that women can be just as good as mechanics as men, or such similar things, but I don't feel that this article is the appropriate place for such an image.

As I explained before, by "certain ideal" I meant that the mechanic photo invokes an ideal of modern western feminism. It was nothing to do with race or skin color. Nor does my argument have anything to do with being something "most women" do or don't do. It's simply that the image has political tones to it, and is not neutral in that way. It seems the image was chosen with an agenda, and not with the goal of selecting an encyclopedic image. May I ask, would you object to the image being one of a "woman housewife"? If so, then why?

(Apologies if I didn't place this post in the correct location. It's a bit difficult to know where to put it with there being so many threads and sub-threads.) Vontheri (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the "lead image is not good because I disagree with" aspect, I meant that other editors already worked toward a consensus for a lead image. For another editor to essentially come along and say "that consensus is not good enough" is faulty reasoning in this case because what is the best image or a better image is all opinion, unless there actually is an objective aspect to it based on what WP:LEADIMAGE states. This will keep happening over and over again, which is why I'm actually for not using a lead image in the case of this article if we are not to use a collage or a group of images as the lead image. And doing so (not having a lead image) would be in line with WP:LEADIMAGE. As for your "anyone's argument" comparisons, Wikipedia is obviously different. Our arguments on Wikipedia should usually be based on its rules. Selecting images is a trickier case than the vast majority of our rules even when following WP:LEADIMAGE because of the higher subjective level that comes with it.

We still disagree on using the current lead image. I don't see the housewife matter as at all the same.

Your comment is in the correct location since you are replying to me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Flyer, not using any image at all is fine with me. As for the previous consensus, there were previous consensuses prior to it as well. The lead image has been changed multiple times before. I'm not aware of any policy that says that a new consensus cannot be reached after a previous consensus.

Why would a housewife image be different? If you wouldn't be okay with such an image, then why not? Vontheri (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Vontheri, "the lead image has been changed multiple times before" is the point. I made that very clear above. It's not about "any policy that says that a new consensus cannot be reached after a previous consensus." It's about this going on and on because there will always be someone not satisfied with whatever current image we use. That is where compromising comes in. It's pointless to keep debating the lead image. There are a lot of topics where consensus on Wikipedia settles a matter for years. This is not one of those. All the back and forth over images is why MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES now exists.

It's obvious why we shouldn't use a housewife image. You know that. It is not at all obvious that we shouldn't use the mechanic image. I suggest you drop the housewife matter, because I'm not going to elaborate. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Flyer, we shouldn't use a housewife image because it would invoke a specific ideal/ideology instead of being simply a neutral image of a "woman". That is the exact same reason why the woman mechanic image should not be used, just the ideal/ideology is an opposite one. Either way, it's ideological, and about more than just a "woman", and is not anywhere near being the most appropriate image for this article. I'm not going to drop it because it's an obvious comparison and, I think, my strongest argument for why the current image is not appropriate.

You say "That is where compromising comes in." YES! My thoughts exactly! Why not use a neutral image of just a woman, nothing more, nothing less? An image that doesn't invoke any certain ideology or viewpoint. A "boring" image, essentially. Or, alternatively, use no image at all? Vontheri (talk) 03:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Not repeating myself. And nothing ideological about the mechanic image. Nothing obvious about your comparison. As for dropping it, I was referring to you asking me about going with a housewife image. You can keep going on about it if you want to, but you won't see me engaging you on it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Vontheri, Flyer22 has not accurately represented our arguments or correctly inferred what we have been thinking so it's not worth continuing to respond to them (and they don't want us to anyway). There's going to be an RfC, so I think we should focus on getting opinions for which images to include. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Do not patronize me. But do speak for yourself. I know exactly what Vontheri has meant. I disagree with Vontheri. I know exactly what you have meant. I disagree with you. If I have not accurately represented your arguments or correctly inferred what you have been thinking, the same can be stated for you with regard to me. In fact, that you felt the need to state that "[you were] not referring to 'meh' when [you] said [you] thought [my] opinion was unique" below and your comment at Talk:Scarlett Johansson shows a lack of understanding. And then we have Vontheri below stating that "[my] argument seems to be that since no image would satisfy everyone and be what everyone would expect to see, let's use an image that is to the extreme of not being what people would expect to see." You are right that I do not want you talking to me. But more so, I do not want you repeating your flawed logic to me. And I am a she, by the way. No need to use singular they on me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

You have not shown understanding. Same as at Talk:Scarlett Johansson, where you repeated yourself without showing understanding. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

And you are talking nonsense, just like you did at Talk:Scarlett Johansson. Disagreeing with your reasoning/nonsense is not showing a lack of understanding. Do stop replying to me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

More of the same.  You're unwilling or unable to show understanding. nothing you can say about me or other people changes that.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

More of the same from you as well. So everyone who disagrees with your the "mechanic image is bad for this article" reasoning lacks understanding? Or just me? And why just me? You do not get it. I have read all of what you have to state about the image, and I do not agree with your logic. And, clearly, I'm not the only one. Do you want the last word or something? Move the hell on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussing content with you is not possible if you continue to be unwilling or unable to show that you understand, as you demonstrated again with your last comment. To everyone else, I'll stop contributing to the wall of text and let Flyer22 have the last word if it makes them feel better. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Sighs. Yes, yes, people who disagree with you simply do not understand. My intellect couldn't possibly be on the same level as yours. And how clever you are to spin the "last word" thing in my direction. But I'll take it if it means no longer enduring your responses to me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

But I'll take it if it means no longer enduring your responses to me. If you actually didn't want me to respond you wouldn't have given me something to respond to. You're just attacking. You're still not showing any understanding. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, because repeatedly saying "you're still not showing any understanding" is not attacking. Yes, I forced you to reply again after you said you were done. I soooo provoked you; it's my fault that you have no self-control. Want to see self-control? Reply to me after this, and see that I won't respond. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you intentionally making strawman arguments or are you just unable to understand? It seems like in addition to your inability or unwillingness to show understanding you are unwilling or unable to take responsibility for your actions. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Flyer, I have seen a lot of incivility on wikipedia. I find it very off-putting. However, I have not before observed anything from you that I would consider "uncivil". Saying "move the hell on", however, I do think crosses the line. Disagreeing with someone is fine. Using language like that with someone on here, however, is definitely not. Please rethink how you express yourself in the future, okay? It doesn't seem to be typical behavior for you, so I'm a bit surprised. If you are done with the argument, then why don't you move on? The thing about "the last word" could just as equally apply to you as to Koyla Butternut, as you keep saying you are done debating this, yet keep responding to everything Koyla keeps saying.

Also, I'm done debating about the mechanic image. You don't seem to be considering my arguments, which is fine. I'm just waiting for the RFC. I don't anticipate posting on this talk page anymore until then. By the way, I know your argument was not "since no image would satisfy everyone and be what everyone would expect to see, let's use an image that is to the extreme of not being what people would expect to see." I never intended to imply that it was your argument. I was only saying that that's how your argument came across to me. Vontheri (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of people are surprised when I show that I can get very upset and let it show in a Wikipedia discussion. For example, on a rough day and/or on a day where Wikipedia is frustrating me to no end. Others know me better than that. I am not some drone that a person can just keep talking to however they want. And let us not pretend that patronizing another editor is being civil. If you want to defend Kolya Butternut or act like Kolya Butternut was doing nothing wrong, whatever. But just so you know...there is no need for you to come back saying how you were focused on my behavior, not Kolya Butternut's, or that I don't need to engage in tit for tat. As for the last word, if I kept stating that I was done talking to Kolya Butternut, you would have a point about "as [I] keep saying" with regard to Kolya Butternut. But what I stated to Kolya Butternut was "you are right that I do not want you talking to me" and "do stop replying to me." What I stated to you above was "I'm not going to elaborate." I didn't. I also told you that I'm "not repeating myself." What I stated to you below was "I'm done talking with you about this." I was. You decided to come back and talk about my behavior in addition to essentally stating "Flyer just doesn't get it." Not considering your arguments? No. I just don't agree with you. As for what you never implied? You stated, "Flyer, your argument seems to be that since no image would satisfy everyone and be what everyone would expect to see, let's use an image that is to the extreme of not being what people would expect to see." We'll have to disagree on "implied." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

And here again in this comment you don't show understanding. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Going by this and this, I can't take you seriously. You are clearly just trying to aggravate. And I question your age/maturity. I will be looking to ignore you as much as possible from here on out. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to say something different, but you just keep doing the same thing. Whether it's motivations, opinions, or arguments, you don't show that you understand; you just attack. You can't have conversations with people if you don't first show that you understand them. That's the very first step, so all I can do is repeat myself. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, I believe  there actually is an objective aspect to [the argument] based on what WP:LEADIMAGE states. I do not believe the current image is what our readers will expect to see. I think the current image is what readers would expect to see as the lead image for WP:Mechanic or similar article. I think here a reader would expect to see an image of a woman who is not engaged in such a specific, uncommon, activity. The first thing a reader may think when seeing the current lead image may be "woman mechanic" rather than just "woman".  ::Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, I ask that you don't ping me to a talk page that I'm obviously watching. Although I get your point that the "first thing a reader may think when seeing the current lead image may be 'woman mechanic' rather than just 'woman'," I don't see that there is an objective argument for not going with the mechanic image. Plus, the mechanic aspect is heightened by the "mechanic" caption, which can simply be removed. I noted that our readers likely won't be expecting to see a black woman either, or any non-white woman (because society tends to use images of white people as the default), but the image would still be of a woman and it will resonate with many people. We cannot possibly have an image at this article that resonates with everyone. You are stating that our readers will not be expecting to see that image because of the work she is doing. Well, many readers will not be expecting to see a woman sitting on the steps smiling. I noted the following above: "We do not have to go with an image of a woman doing nothing but standing still. That is not a better image because she's not doing something that other women might not do. Just looking at [your] selections or Genericusername57's selections (especially the latter), they include women wearing or doing things that not all or most women wear or do. So I fail to see why 'female mechanic' should be singled out as not representative." I've stated all that I have to state to you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

"Female mechanic" is singled out because it is the current image. My selections are simply the best images I was able to find; that does not mean that I think there are no problems with them, or that there are no problems with Genericusername57's images. I feel that having different options aids the discussion, and different people will have different opinions that I may not have considered. There is an objective argument for not going with the mechanic image. You may disagree with it, but there is an argument that the image does not adhere well to MOS:LEADIMAGE because it is not what readers would expect to see; this is a reason to consider changing the previous consensus. I believe the smiling woman would be much closer to what a reader would expect to see, and I believe other images could be found which would also be much closer to what a reader would expect to see. There is no perfect image, but I think improvement is needed and can be achieved. We can have an RfC, and if you don't want to add your opinion to narrow down the images that's your choice. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

You stating that "Female mechanic" is singled out because it is the current lead image is exactly what I mean about "what is the best lead image for this article" debate going on and on. The "not what readers will expect to see" argument regarding that image is weak. I don't see why you think readers would expect to see File:Woman dancing in Grand-Popo.jpg. They obviously wouldn't. No, an editor coming along and objecting to whatever lead image is up there is not "a reason to consider changing [whatever current] consensus." We won't be agreeing on "Female mechanic." No need to repeat. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

And considering the "women should smile" notion that some people (especially men) have (Google it if you don't know what I mean), I wouldn't be surprised if readers expect to see a smiling woman as the lead image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Flyer, your argument seems to be that since no image would satisfy everyone and be what everyone would expect to see, let's use an image that is to the extreme of not being what people would expect to see. I don't think that the image being of a woman of any certain race or ethnicity is in any way equivalent to the image being of a mechanic (or any other occupation). By default, the woman has to be of some race. What race she is is irrelevant. The article is about "women", not "white women", or "black women", or "Asian women", etc. As an example, look at the lead images used on the article "dog". They are all simply of dogs, with nothing extraneous. Not dogs doing specific actions, or dogs dressed in costumes or service dogs or dogs swimming or anything else. The same can be said for the article "cat", or "rabbit", or "lion", or "fire hydrant, or "statue", on and on. This article, as with any other, should be the same. Why should this article be different? The image should simply be of a woman. Not of a woman who is presented as being in a specific occupation or performing a specific action. Vontheri (talk) 04:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

You state that this is my argument, and yet I have not stated or implied any such thing. I'm done talking with you about this. The only extreme I see are your comparisons. Well, that and some things that Netoholic has stated below. And "performing a specific action"? All of the image selections are of specific actions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It is a fair characterization, because, apparently, to you, the consensus among others is not enough. We somehow have to use an image that satisfies you and/or WanderingWanda.

I actually haven't said one dang word against the current image. I like the current image a lot. This is a good example of how in your interactions with me, you prejudge me and make assumptions about me and my motivations instead of earnestly attempting to collaborate with me. (I'm curious how hard you'd be going to bat for the current image, which depicts a woman working in a traditionally and statistically male-dominated profession and wearing an outfit that many people would regard as masculine-coded, if I was the one that proposed it, or if instead, you'd go off about how it's yet another example of WanderingWanda pushing their sinister feminist queer agenda.)

With that said, I don't have any problem with considering some new ideas for the image, especially considering not many participated in the recent discussion and considering it was not a formal RfC or anything like that. Your attempts to shut the conversation down are not serving anyone.

To the matter at hand: I disagree with the notion that the image should should not depict a woman...doing anything. Action can add real life and energy to an image. As humans we spend our time on earth doing and creating and living and working and playing, why is an image of placid inaction more representative than an image of action? WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 21:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

You argued, "This is a good example of how in [my] interactions with [you], [I] prejudge [you] and make assumptions about [you] and [your] motivations instead of earnestly attempting to collaborate with [you]." Our other interactions are not for this discussion, but I'm not wrongly challenging you at articles. And it's easy to prejudge you when you keep making the same type of edits and arguments. If you edited the way you should edit, we wouldn't be butting heads. I have tried collaborating with you. When you do something wrong or something I disagree with, I'm not going to support it. And while some things on Wikipedia should involve compromising, not everything should. If you had proposed that image, I would have supported it just the same. As seen in the aforementioned previous discussion, it's clear what type of image you were looking to add, and that I objected to it.

As for your "[my] attempts to shut the conversation down are not serving anyone" argument, making the common sense argument that no image is going to satisfy everyone and that we've been through image issues at this article in the past is not attempting to shut down discussion. Going by your and Kolya Butternut's logic, we'd need a new discussion every time someone is not pleased with a current image. And that obviously goes on and on, and on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

it's clear what type of image you were looking to add And what type of image is that? WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 04:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Exactly the type you described in the #A woman is more than a vagina? section above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Here is my stated reasoning for picking the image: A beautiful work of art that's 1. Stylized enough to feel somewhat universal 2. Not depicting anyone specific. 3. From a culture that's not over-represented on Wikipedia (it's a fresco from a Minoan palace.) 4. Not sexy or male-gazey. Which part do you have a problem with? WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 05:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not difficult to recall that I argued, "Clearly, [your image] does not adhere to what WP:LEADIMAGE states about the lead image being something the reader expects to see. You apparently want to use an image that readers won't expect to see...all for the sake of ambiguity or a 'non-stereotypical view of women.'" But no need to repeat; the discussion is right there for everyone to see. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

It's clear how you feel about the lead Woman image, maybe add your opinion for the Man image? Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't mind the current image too too much, but I think it's overly staged and stock-photo-y—like an ad for women's workshirts, or something. Other editors have mentioned the wish to avoid artworks because they present an idealised notion of womanhood—and I think stock photos do that to some extent as well. I've been gathering possible alternatives for the past while, and have some of them up now here, if you'd like to take a look, together with some representative samples of things to be avoided (in particular, she should look like she knows she's being photographed, which rules out the dancing woman above). Cheers, gnu57 23:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Wanda, I agree that action can add a sense of real life to an image, that's why I selected the "dancing" photo. My main objection is to a photo which connects a woman to her employment, but I do want to consider the argument that the image should not depict action. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Genericusername57, I actually prefer that it not look like the woman is aware of being photographed. Pictures of women looking into the camera often look like staged photographs rather than real life. If the looking into the camera looks like natural eye contact with the viewer I wouldn't mind that. Out of your photographs I like "hut" the most. Did you see my gallery and talk page above? I considered a lot of criteria for my top choices, one of which is cosmopolitan and multi-racial. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Those are fantastic. (And I'm not just saying that because gnu is currently peer reviewing an article I created.) Many there meet my preferences. Should the lead images of Man and Woman be selected together? For parity? Leviv ich 23:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Genericusername57: what do you think about consolidating all of our photos into the sandbox page? There's a link in the header here. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You titled this section "Lead images: future RfC." So this change that I reverted you on was obviously premature. Reading the above, I don't see why you felt that consensus was for that image. And just because editors haven't stated that they don't like an image...it doesn't mean that they like it or feel that it's the best lead image. No one can force editors to participate in a discussion, or decide that if they don't vote on a new image...then the previous consensus should be overridden. If you are going to start an RfC, get on with it. No one here should be trying to override the previous consensus when there is no clear consensus for a new lead image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

It is fine to make an edit which is agreed to be an improvement before waiting for an official RfC.  Your opinion seems unique, but I don't understand what you want in an image; I am hearing arguments against what everyone else wants but I can't follow what you want, besides wanting stability. You stated that you felt the "smiling" image was "meh", that that doesn't tell me what you think of it compared to the previous image. If you don't want to participate in this ongoing discussion you don't have to, but others do. I think it's a good idea for this image to evolve. This has been an ongoing discussion since 2004. I see no evidence that we are somehow improperly going against previous consensus.  It seems to me we are building off past consensus.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

No it is not fine. Going against previous agreement and putting up something that you happen to like only leads to edit warring. I agree with Flyer: "If you are going to start an RfC, get on with it." It beats going on and on to "evolve" the image with no end in sight.  Gandydancer (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I feel like a couple of us are talking past each other.  I feel like my arguments aren't being accurately represented.  I don't feel like it's going against previous agreement, but i guess we'll have to disagree. But what happens after an RfC? I don't think an RfC should limit us to a particular image; I think we should decide on what criteria we would like to meet, while also deciding on a photo to use for the time. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Nothing "quite unique" about what I stated. Meh is meh. Feelings obviously are not always black and white. And when it comes to consensus, I stand by what I stated above. And I was not speaking of others improperly going against previous consensus; I was speaking of your actions. I like the current image. "Meh" vs. liking/preferring the current image clearly speaks to "what [I think of the image you added] compared to the [current] image." We did decide "on a photo to use for the time." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I was not referring to "meh" when I said I thought your opinion was unique. I thought you were the only one whose opinion was that you didn't want a change, while also expressing no preference. I see now that you did state you like number "8" above, and Gandydancer clearly doesn't agree with my change now either. It's difficult to follow what you think when mostly what I've heard from you is talking about other people. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I know you were not referring to "meh" you said "[my] opinion seems unique." I didn't need to state anything about the images you presented when I'd already been clear that I support the current lead image. It was clear, and still is, that I am currently against any change. Per what I stated above, I don't see the point. As for "mostly what [you've] heard from [me] is talking about other people," I don't get that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

To have an RfC I think we should narrow down the choices in the Talk:Woman/sandbox gallery first. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't remove the current image

Regarding Netoholic's recent attempt to remove the lead image:

1. A unique concern has been raised that a lead image should be in place so that the main image for search results, etc, is not a picture of the female reproductive system. Until consensus is reached for a new image the current one should stay in place. (The one and only) WanderingWanda, (the #1 premiere member of the WanderingWanda fanclub) Flyer22 Reborn, and Levivich all agree this is a concern. (Addition: -sche expressed this concern as well. -WW)

2. I, Levivich, Flyer22 Reborn, Qzekrom, Gandydancer have all expressed support for the current image. Gnu has said they "don't mind the current image too too much". Kolya Butternut, Vontheri, and Netoholic have expressed disapproval. This indicates there is a narrow consensus to keep the current image at this time. (Let me know if I missed anyone.) WanderingWanda (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

No such thing as a "narrow consensus" this is WP:NOTDEMOCRACY - simple weak majority does not decide. There is 'no' consensus, and so the lead image should revert to the longest-standing one. -- Netoholic @ 14:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know why I said "narrow". It's 2-to-1. Not narrow. See also the Wikipedia:Consensus policy. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity. WanderingWanda (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay... I'm going to put aside the dispute about the image for a moment. I have no idea what your issue what WanderingWanda is. I know nothing at all about the backstory. But referring to him/her in the way you did ("the #1 premiere member of the WanderingWanda fanclub") Does not seem at all civil to me. Really...? You couldn't think of any other way of referring to the person? Vontheri (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

(Vontheri *pst* Look again at who signed the post! :) The joke was that I was calling Flyer a big fan of mine, because we've had some tensions that are visible here on this thread. I probably *shouldn't* have joked about it, but I just thought it was kind of funny that we suddenly found ourselves on the 'same team'. I prefer they/them pronouns, BTW.) WanderingWanda (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

WanderingWanda Oh, I feel stupid. I don't know how, but somehow my eyes tricked me and I thought the post was signed by someone else and that the comment was meant to be some sort of insult towards you. I find that there is so much unnecessary rudeness and incivility on Wikipedia, as well as overzealous "letter of the law, not spirit of the law" type mentality akin to if a police officer were to do something like giving someone a speeding ticket for driving one mph over the speed limit, and I'm kind of getting tired of it to the point that I'm even considering stopping my editing of Wikipedia and participation in discussion. I'm not referring to anyone or anything on this talk page, although I think people could be more rational and understanding on this page too, but I'm referring to some incidents on other articles' talk pages. By the way, I usually use "they/them" when referring to people online whose genders are unknown. (See the section "my thoughts on singular 'they'" on my [rather unorganized and ramble-y] user page) Not sure why I said "he/she" this time. Vontheri (talk) 06:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

-sche, feminist, and Mathglot participated in the discussion as well. It's worth noting that this consensus was reached three months ago. While I don't mind if editors want to pick a new image (I've always said that), I am violently opposed to going back to having a diagram of the reproductive system be the lead image, which is what Netoholic's revert did. I'm also rather ticked off that one editor is steamrolling over everybody else here. There is an ongoing discussion to pick a new image, multiple editors have contributed images to the selection pool, it takes a lot of time to work through this, so Netoholic should just join that discussion instead of pressing the undo button. Leviv ich 14:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Turns out that undo button is installed on your end also. I didn't replace anything with a diagram - I moved the lead image down, leaving no image in that section entirely. But I do have to ask why a reproductive-based image is so wrong? Certainly we're not presenting an image which represents only small population of women and and even smaller number that perform a certain role, right? Why are you fighting to have a picture that is basically a man on the article for woman? I think its not just unrepresentative, but insulting to women. Do you think that's what we want? -- Netoholic @ 15:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

a picture that is basically a man If you want to argue the image isn't representative because of the proportion of women who work as mechanics or whatever, fine, but please be more thoughtful about it. Saying that a woman is "basically a man" because she's working as a mechanic is something I'd expect a time traveller from the 1950s to say. WanderingWanda (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

She is covered in baggy clothing, toolbelt, and helmet, and is doing a job that is vastly more populated by men. It displays many aspects which are rare in women, and has so many elements that are typically male, that I can't even really be sure other than the caption if its a woman. For illustrative purposes it fails considerably. But its empowering and probably makes a couple editors have the "feel-goods' for virtue signalling some kind of empowerment message. You don't need a time-traveling man to say so, any average modern woman will say the same. My current vote is "pregnant women" down on the page. Its not perfect but its representative of at least most of what it means to look like and be a woman. -- Netoholic @ 15:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the current image. But not because I even close to think that the image "is basically a man". The image is obviously a woman. But it's a woman in a specific role. There's nothing wrong with a woman being a mechanic. It's just not anywhere close to being an appropriate image for this article. The article also isn't about "pregnant women". That would be just as bad as the current image. The article is "woman", not "pregnancy". Vontheri (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with childbirth but the lead image should not play into the stereotype that womanhood is primarily about childrearing. I also feel strongly that the woman article should not have more nudity than the man article. That would play into another stereotype: that Wikipedia editors are a bunch of straight white male techies :) If a fully nude female shot is used a fully nude male shot should be used as well (and no, shirtless doesn't count as nude.) WanderingWanda (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Womanhood, as a distinguishing characteristic from the counterpart article Man, is primarily childbearing. I think full nude showing genital regions is a bit much, but the "pregnant woman" image is tasteful. It shows the commonplace, major body differences (breasts, fat distribution, musculature) which is in contrast to man. I have no problems with an equivalent photo on man (I've proposed this this one over on that page tentatively). The point of these images is to show the stark contrasts between the sexes, otherwise they could just be generically part of human. That contrasts are represented in differences of form and unique societal roles of each. -- Netoholic @ 16:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Strongly disagree that Womanhood ... is primarily childbearing. Leviv ich 17:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't be jerk and misquote me. People can see above what I actually wrote. The point of these lead images are to show contrast between the sexes - and there is no bigger one than childbearing. Its the single most unique (and should be the most respected) aspect of being a woman -- Netoholic @ 17:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Strongly disagree that the primary distinguishing characteristic between a man and a woman is childbearing, or that childbearing is the most unique aspect of being a woman, or that it should be the most respected. Also strongly disagree that the point of these lead images is to show contrast between the sexes. (The point is to depict a typical example of the subject of the article; i.e., a typical man, and a typical woman. A pregnant woman is not a typical woman. Most women spend most of their lives not pregnant, some never get pregnant, yet they are still women.) In my view, the problem with Net's entire approach is that he is defining "woman" vis-a-vis "man", i.e., the "Adam and Eve" approach, where a woman is seen in terms of how she is different from a man. "Womanhood" isn't the same as motherhood, and motherhood isn't the same as childbearing. What makes a woman a woman isn't just biological, it's more than that. Leviv ich 17:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

"where a woman is seen in terms of how she is different from a man" ... and a man is seen in how he is different from a woman. That's what "contrasting" means. This is an objective standard, really, because we need images that represent two halves of humanity. They should be ones which clearly show contrasting form and societal role of the typical example. Its silly to say "women aren't always pregnant, therefore...". Hell, if we based it on what single activity is engaged in most often, we'd have pictures of two sleeping people. If we don't set some objective criteria for the, we're stuck debating subjective values... like this stupid mechanic picture which could be replaced with any other picture. We'll never settle on one if its just based on whim. "What makes a woman a woman isn't just biological" - c'mon we have no way of showing an image of women's state of mind or any ethereal qualities you think are important. -- Netoholic @ 17:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not think this would be a good choice for the lead image. Leviv ich 19:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

If the article were Women and men, or Gender role, I might agree that the lead image should show the contrast, but that's not what this article is. Man and woman are only two halves from a biological standpoint, i.e. "male" and "female". Some would say there are human beings who are both a man and a woman, and human beings who are neither a man nor a woman, and women who were born male, and men who were born female. Also, "... if we based it on what single activity is engaged in most often, we'd have pictures of two sleeping people" is incorrect. Most people spend the overwhelming majority of their time (2/3) awake. My original logic behind suggesting the "woman working" picture is that most people spend most of their time working, but Kolya has persuaded me otherwise since the consensus on the current image was reached. If we don't set some objective criteria for them, we're stuck debating subjective values... yes, that's why there are currently-ongoing discussions about criteria at Talk:Woman/sandbox and Talk:Man/sandbox. I'll note that the suggestion of using the pregnant woman image, or of using any image currently in the article, was discussed in the last round a few months ago and consensus was against it, which is how the whole endeavor to gather new options began. I really think the most productive thing you can do is to join the already-ongoing conversations about the images in the galleries, and of course you're welcome to post new images for consideration as well. Leviv ich 18:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

It will be fun watching you try to find a single image to represent all that ethereal postmodernist/gender studies crap. We do not use lead images which display things which are far outside the norm for the topic. Hermaphrodites, intersex, genderqueers, transsexuals, tomboys, etc. are minor population groups. This is not a dig at them, just a fact that the women's population represented in those is incredibly small. We use images that are largely representative of the topic and, as best we can, show characteristics which contrast it with other closely-related topics. Across the world, the one unique characteristic of womanhood is motherhood - else we'd not be having this conversation. On average, women work outside the home far less than men, which is why a similar contrasting image for a man would be the one showing that work. Men's typical role in society is to provide for the eventual childrearing in that way, so it contrasts with the motherhood display in the woman's image. YES YES YES we get there are exceptions, stop re-capping the exceptions and start narrowing down the typical. -- Netoholic @ 19:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Hermaphrodites, intersex, genderqueers, transsexuals, tomboys, etc. are minor population groups. This is not a dig at them, just a fact that the women's population represented in those is incredibly small. We use images that are largely representative of the topic This type of statement is exclusionary even if it has the cloak of reasonableness, and it doesn't hold water if you spend a moment thinking about it. Only a tiny fraction of the population are redheads, for example. About one in a hundred. Does that mean that Wikipedia's policy should be that a redhead should never appear as a lead image, unless the article is specifically about redheads or a specific redhead? That would be absurd. If someone finds a really good, powerful image of a redheaded woman, we're supposed to say, sorry, Wikipedia has a firm no-redheads policy for lead images. Not that we have anything against redheads, you understand. We're not prejudiced or anything, perish the thought!! We just believe that pictures of redheads should never appear on Wikipedia, ever, unless we're absolutely forced to use one. I'm sure that would make our redheaded readers and editors feel like they are welcomed and valued, and like Wikipedia is an openminded, neutral, and prejudice-free environment. WanderingWanda (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Some more thoughts on this: I've proposed several images for Man and Woman. Some of them I consider queer in some way; the majority I do not.

My first idea for the lead image for Woman was a self portrait by Frida Kahlo. Of course at this point it seems like the consensus is for a photo, not a painting, and, in any case, it turns out her paintings are all under copyright, so that's a no go. But for a moment I thought it would be a perfect choice. My reasoning was simple: Man (at the time) had the Creation of Adam as the lead: a powerful, iconic painting of a man, by a man. So, I reasoned, Woman should have a powerful, iconic painting of a woman, by a woman. I did some research, gave it some thought, and I realized a Kahlo painting was not only the best choice (based on that criteria), it was the only choice. Nothing else would have that kind of iconic power. It also would've been a queer choice. Frida was an openly bisexual crossdresser and gender-non-conformist. She proudly didn't shave her small mustache and usually included it in her paintings. I can almost hear the screeching of the hypothetical peanut gallery now. "Most women don't have visible mustaches!!" Sure, and most women aren't name Frida, either. Who gives a fuck? It's exhausting, this sense that queerness is something that has to be answered for.

One of the men I threw into the Man gallery is queer. Not visibly so, but it's clear if you do even the slightest bit of digging. And again, who gives a fuck? It's a nice photo. If people like it they can vote for it, if they don't no one's forcing the image on anyone. Do I have to answer for his queerness? Do I have to answer for my own?

(I've removed the joking caption that was here as an editor objected to it -WW)

Ironically the one time someone seemed to get upset with me for the supposed queerness of an image I proposed, I did not, and do not, consider the image remotely queer. It's just a pretty painting of some courtly woman from an old Minoan palace. Why did I pick it? *Shrug* It happened to be on the cover of a book I read recently and I thought it was pretty. What was the book? All Cissies Are Bastards: A Queer/Transgender Manifesto ...No, just kidding, it was a new translation of The Odyssey by Homer. Anyway, this particular editor thought it was androgynous; I thought it was stereotypically feminine. But I argued that if some people thought it was androgynous, that it wasn't a big deal. (Somehow, if they saw the original, I don't think they would consider it gender-ambiguous, on account of the woman have curvy exposed breasts. I cut those out. Why? Some people expressed the viewpoint that the image shouldn't have nudity, and while personally I am 100% pro nudity, I was trying to be consensus-minded.) Cheers, WanderingWanda (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

If you are referring to me about you selecting that painting image, which you clearly are, my objection to it in the #A woman is more than a vagina? section above had nothing to do with queerness. I was not thinking "oh, that's queer" when objecting to that image. I was thinking, "Oh, readers won't be able to clearly discern that that's a woman. It's a poor water color image that does not demonstrate 'woman' well." And, yes, per WP:LEADIMAGE, the image should clearly be of a woman. I very clearly told you that "[your image] does not adhere to what WP:LEADIMAGE states about the lead image being something the reader expects to see. You apparently want to use an image that readers won't expect to see...all for the sake of ambiguity or a 'non-stereotypical view of women.' Our job is to go with an image that readers will expect to see or one that will otherwise resonate with them, or use no image at all. After all, WP:LEADIMAGE also talks about it sometimes not being possible to have a representative image or any lead image. I fail to see how that image you added will resonate with readers in terms of what a woman is." You asked, "Who gives a fuck?" Wikipedia does. I know that you don't like the way Wikipedia works -- going with the majority view per WP:Due or by readers' expectations, except for when the majority view or readers' expectations work in your favor. I know that you don't like being told to stop trying to right the supposed great wrongs. But Wikipedia has rules. Of course, we shouldn't use an image of a woman with a mustache as the lead image of this article. For goodness' sake! Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

And given our history of butting heads (which may be longer than can be observed if you used a previous Wikipedia account) and that I don't trust you, I don't know why you keep referring to me or addressing me, WanderingWanda. First, your silly "joke" above and now your "SHOCKING Minoan Fresco" mess. Do stop referring to me unless needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

(I'll respond more thoroughly to this post elsewhere, but this is not the appropriate venue to 1. make allegations against me or 2. bring up disagreements you've had with me (or other editors) in other venues about other topics.) WanderingWanda (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

If "elsewhere" is on my talk page, don't bother. You will be reverted. And you brought up the disagreements aspect first, with a "joke." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course, we shouldn't use an image of a woman with a mustache as the lead image of this article. For goodness' sake! To be clear, for people who aren't familiar with Frida and her art, I'm talking about a faintly visible female mustache, not a big-ol handlebar mustache or anything. Women having some hair in the mustache area is much more common than women with red hair, so imagine an editor saying Of course, we shouldn't use an image of a woman with red hair as the lead image of this article. For goodness' sake! (According to the Wikipedia article on hirsutism: Hirsutism affects between 5–15% of all women across all ethnic backgrounds.Depending on the definition and the underlying data, estimates indicate that approximately 40% of women have some degree of unwanted facial hair.) WanderingWanda (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Comparing my mustache comment to your readhead comment? I mean, I know you often use faulty comparisons to make arguments, but wow. You very well know that I wasn't thinking of a little bit of facial hair. It's not like I thought you were talking about the type of facial hair that my paternal grandmother has. You stated "visible mustaches." You did not clarify. And on your hirsutism point? The Hirsutism article currently starts out by stating that hirsutism "is excessive body hair in men and women on parts of the body where hair is normally absent or minimal," and it currently has a lead image of a woman with a lot of facial air. Below that, another image of a woman with a lot of facial hair. Whether it's a big or a small mustache, we obviously should not use an image of a woman with a visible mustache as the lead image. No, the image shouldn't be of a woman with visible facial hair that can't be chalked up to peach fuzz. It's not the same thing as, or similar to, using an image of a redhead, and you know it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: You know, despite your intent behind posting that image on the right, that woman looks extremely happy and should be rightly-respected for fulfilling some of the most important roles a woman does. There are a lot of women of all economic classes which do the same thing every single day. I don't think its fair for you to turn their contributions to society into a joke. Ask your own mother, or any mother, if at anytime she found herself in that same situation, and how she felt about it given the joy that tends to result. -- Netoholic @ 19:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

What happens if the editors who participated in the last discussion do not participate in this one?  Just asking because I don't see that discussed on WP:Consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Only those who participate can form the consensus. El_C 19:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I understand what you are stating, but I don't fully agree with it since we have consensus discussions all over Wikipedia where a few editors cannot come along and overturn that consensus based on their opinions alone. For example, some of our controversial topics that have had RfCs and may be based on one or more Wikipedia rules. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the picture of the mechanic is a fine lead and thumbnail image, and certainly better than going back to using a vagina as the thumbnail as in diff. (My personal highest preference would be for the collage we used to have, but that might require revisiting general guidelines on [not] using collages.) -sche (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Collage has the advantage of being able to display the diversity of the subject. The downside is that if the collage is all one image file, like at Istanbul, then it can make a poor thumbnail because the individual images may be too small to render at a reduced size. If the collage is made from multiple image files, like at Paris or Gender role, then only one of the images appears as the thumbnail, but that image is "the lead image", and so we're back to square one. Personally, though, I think my preference would be for a multi-image collage, like at Paris or Gender roles, although as you say, that might require revisiting general guidelines. Leviv ich 20:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice how the Paris image displays structures which are unique to Paris, and which are typically associated with Paris. It does not show a picture of minor side street that, while still technically unique to Paris, isn't something that clearly illustrates how Paris is different from, say, any small town in France. The pictures don't show Paris covered in snow, fog or during a rainstorm either, because we want those unique structures clearly seen. -- Netoholic @ 23:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Rotating gallery

The problem: 1. The MOS discourages montages 2. One single image of one single person cannot adequately encompass such a broad subject as Man or Woman.

A solution: What if we took a cue from the front page, specifically the featured picture section? We could have a rotating featured image that's changed once a month, with a voted-on cue of images. Has anything like this ever been tried? Just a thought. WanderingWanda (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It's fine with me. I have a suspicion other editors might not like the idea, but we'll see. Vontheri (talk) 03:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It's a creative idea, but based on my experiences on various wiki projects, I would advise against introducing any more systems that require indefinite input/upkeep than necessary. What happens when people stop having time or interest to pick new images, or when there's no consensus/agreement for any candidates? Is the most recent featured image (picked by people who didn't have it in mind as a permanent image) kept on indefinitely? IMO, if one image can't represent the subject, we should pick multiple images for a (stable) collage. -sche (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that's overcomplicating things. We don't need to encompass all of womanhood in a single image. We just need an image like one that might be the lead image in a normal encyclopedia. If we can, I think it would be best for the image to simply communicate "woman" rather than something more specific like "woman mechanic" or "Congolese woman" or "pregnant woman". Every woman has characteristics and context, but we can aim for something averaged. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

This seems like a needlessly complicated solution for what is largely a trivial problem. feminist (talk) 06:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

No. -- Netoholic @ 08:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Admin note

 Administrator note Out of an abundance of caution, I've decided to protect the article for three days. But if you figure this out sooner, let me know and I'll unprotect it early. El_C 14:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Moving on

Our goal is simple: we should have images that allow readers to identify the topic as quickly as possible. When social differences between men and women are minimized, biology becomes a primary, if not the main, difference between the two sexes. If the point of confusion is that the current lead image is more suitable for Mechanic than Woman, then Netoholic has a point. The current lead image on Man does not show any occupation (echoing Kolya Butternut's point above at #A woman is more than a job?; it should not be hard to find a similar image that shows a woman.

If we don't want a lead image showing a random human being, and the main goal is to avoid having File:Scheme female reproductive system-en.svg as the topmost image, there are many possible solutions. One is to move File:Anterior view of human female and male, with labels 2.png upwards so that it appears above the image of the female reproductive system. The other is to add an image in the sections above. For example, either of File:Neith-Emblem.png, File:Museum of Anatolian Civilizations086.jpg or File:Enheduanna, daughter of Sargon of Akkad.jpg can be added to the History section. feminist (talk) 07:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Should the current lead image be replaced with this one?

• 
  pink shirt2

This top choice was the result of a discussion at Talk:Woman/sandbox
See also: Talk:Man#Should the current lead image be replaced with this one? Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes. The current lead image features a woman who is wearing a hat and goggles and is not facing the camera. The proposed new image is a much better picture as well. SunCrow (talk) 08:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

No - this image does not "give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page (WP:LEADIMAGE) because it doesn't show enough dimensions which would, at-a-glance, communicate the topic of the page is the broad category of "woman", and doesn't show enough differentiation from "man". For example, a number of physical features typical of women (as different from men) are not represented - such as lack of defined breast or hip shape. Other indications of typical societal role aren't apparent either - for example, as the only population which carries children, a picture of a pregnant woman would be far more valuable. The photo itself is low-quality (I find the pink and black areas don't have much definition, becoming two solid blocks of color which visually "blow out" the overall image) and badly-posed. The most important thing when considering images for this is to imagine you cannot read the text of the page, the caption, or the filename of the image. If you saw this image on a Wikipedia page from a language you can't read, would you be reasonably be sure you are on the "Woman" page? Because, for a basic concept article like this, its quite likely a lot of readers coming here are just learning English. -- Netoholic @ 12:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Netoholic, do you believe pink shirt2 is an improvement over the current lead image which depicts a woman engaging in traditionally male physical labor, and whose figure is obscured by baggy masculine clothing? Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Neither the current lead nor pick shirt satisfy WP:LEADIMAGE. -- Netoholic @ 05:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

My above comment was meant to relate the current image to Netoholic's criteria which they describe here:[3]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes – because it's better than the current lead image, for three reasons. (1) subject is facing the camera, (2) subject is "doing nothing" rather than working (the current lead image might cause confusion as to whether it's an image of a woman or an image of a woman mechanic), and (3) it "pairs" nicely with the proposed new image at Talk:Man#Should the current lead image be replaced with this one? (same composition, similar pose, etc.). I think even under Net's criteria above (which I disagree with, for example, I can see her breasts and hips just fine), the proposed image is better than the current image. As for resolution, it's 2300x3500, and the detail quality blown up lets me see individual eyelashes and the piping on the skirt. Sufficiently high-res IMO. – Levivich 14:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I just want to say that although Netoholic argued in the #Don't remove the current image section that the current lead image "is basically a man," I can't buy that the current lead image "might cause confusion as to whether it's an image of a woman." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Beyond that, readers will know that we haven't included an image of a man as the lead image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

And, yes, I understand that Levivich was comparing "image of a woman" vs. "image of a woman mechanic" in the sense that the latter focuses on the job the woman is doing, but I just wanted to note that I'm sure that no one will be confused about the gender of the subject. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment. Either would be fine, but I like that the current image challenges gender stereotypes. It's concerning to see these women being discussed in terms of someone's figure being obscured, lack of defined breast or hip shape, or masculine clothing. She's wearing a shirt and a hard hat. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

We are trying to find a representative WP:LEADIMAGE, which means to we have to evaluate them as to whether the pictures communicate typical features. Challenging "gender stereotypes" sounds like WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS reasoning and is the antithesis of the purpose of this lead image and discussion. -- Netoholic @ 05:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The image should be representative of women, not male gaze of women. The current image shows a woman at work in working clothes. There's nothing wrong with it. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I have expressed the exact same standards for lead images of both man and woman, so keep your sexist insinuations and external agenda to yourself. -- Netoholic @ 05:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Netoholic, please strike the above comment; there is no need for personal attacks. SV has valid concerns about avoiding male gazey photos. I do agree with you that we should have a photograph which gives readers a sense of the reality of what a woman looks like, which includes the shape of her body. I understand that you would like to see a representation of a gender role or activity, but I think it's better to just have a neutral image which illustrates a woman existing, doing nothing. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

No way. SarahSV in one reply made an assumption about my gender and a sexist insinuation based on that assumption. I have in no way said the image we should use should be overtly lurid or sexual - only one that shows the natural and typical female form in a way which contrasts it from men and from girls, and one which would be easily understood to represent this topic without need of language knowledge. I'll not strike a single character, just as I expect SarahSV won't strike theirs. -- Netoholic @ 11:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The fact that the current image challenges gender stereotypes is exactly why that image is NOT ideal. I'm all for challenging gender stereotypes, believe me, I 100% am, but this article's image not the place for it. This image is the place to show an image of just a woman, nothing more and nothing else. Start adding in things that suggest feminism or any other philosophy, concept, idea, etc. and the image is about that concept, and not JUST about a woman. I would be saying exactly the same sort of thing if the image were showing specifically traditional conceptualizations of a woman, for example if it were an image of a "woman housewife". Either way, it would be invoking certain ideas/ideologies, and not just a woman. Vontheri (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

No; I don't think it's an improvement. Also, I agree with SV. -sche (talk) 08:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

-sche, do you think any of the photos at Talk:Woman/sandbox are an improvement? I recently added more. If not, what are you looking for? Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes; the current photo illustrates a woman doing work, the proposed photo illustrates a woman. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Lean No: of the two, I have a slight preference for the mechanic image.

I've looked at MOS:LEADIMAGE but didn't find the guideline to be of much help in making a decision. It says lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic. I think either one would qualify. It also says a lead image should be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works. I've looked around, and found one example in a reference work that is similar to the current mechanic image (a cover from the Encyclopedia of Women in Today's World, featuring images of a female astronaut, a female scientist, etc.) I've also found one that's similar to the proposed image (a picture in the Cambridge Dictionary's entry for Woman of a woman looking into the camera and smiling.)

Ultimately, either image seems like a good fit based on the guideline, so I'm just going with personal preference. I like the mechanic image more. The proposed image is bland and looks like something from a LinkedIn profile. WanderingWanda (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• Weak preference for this over the current, but Neither (and None per what I said on the sandbox page(s). It would make sense if the next RfC included none as an option, since that is clearly in the spirit of the RfC on galleries. If there's a question about whatever the first image is appearing as though it's a lead image because of some third party algorithm, that can be addressed separately. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

None is my first choice; second choice is leave it as is. Gandydancer (talk) 09:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment why are we choosing random woman and random man who we don't know who they are? We can't judge the sexuality of the person by his/her appearance.

In my opinion we should choose a photo of a famously known woman especially a famous feminist woman.--SharabSalam (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

An unknown man and woman simply represent a man and woman.  A photograph of Gloria Steinem represents Gloria Steinem.  I'm not sure what you're saying about their sexuality.  That is irrelevant.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Sexuality? What..? What does the person's sexuality have to do with this? Sexuality isn't the same thing as gender or gender identity... A lesbian (or bisexual or asexual or etc.) woman is a woman as much as a straight woman is a woman... Choosing an image of a famous person invokes more than just the idea or concept of a "woman". This image should be an image that represents the subject of the article, nothing more and nothing less. Vontheri (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes This image doesn't invoke any ideas or ideologies beyond simply that of a "woman"; it is simply an image of a woman. Perhaps it isn't ideal, but every image is going to have at least some issue to at least someone. This image is an improvement over the current image by a million miles, and the goal should always be continual improvement of the encyclopedia, not perfection. Vontheri (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Manual of Style discussion on lead images

There is a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images, "What to do for articles since the implementation of MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES?", which asks what kind of lead image should be used for this article and other articles about groups of people. This originated out of a discussion at Talk:African Americans Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed edits to lede

User:Maria Tomoșoiu edited the lede to remove the following sentence:

There are also trans women (those who have a male sex assignment that does not align with their gender identity), and intersex women (those born with sexual characteristics that do not fit typical notions of male or female).

After that edit was made, the lede read as follows:

A woman is a female human being. The word woman is usually reserved for an adult, with girl being the usual term for a female child or adolescent. The plural women is also sometimes used for female humans, regardless of age, as in phrases such as "women's rights". Women with typical genetic development are usually capable of giving birth from puberty until menopause.

User:Maria Tomoșoiu provided an edit summary that reads as follows: "As the inclusion of the term 'trans woman' within the definition of the word 'woman' renders said definition circular therefore invalid, I have removed it."

User:Newimpartial reverted the edit made by User:Maria Tomoșoiu, stating: "Reverted per BRD. Please discuss."

The reasoning set forth by User:Maria Tomoșoiu is correct. If the term "woman" includes trans women, the definition of "woman" in the article ("a female human being") is inaccurate, or at least incomplete. Thus, the current version of the lede is self-contradictory. I proposed that the edit made by User:Maria Tomoșoiu be reinstated. SunCrow (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding links to previous discussions somewhat related: Dec 2018 and most of the threads on this Feb 2017-Oct 2018 archive page. Schazjmd (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The reasoning provided by Maria (an editor with all of one other edit to mainspace—SPA?) is incorrect; in what way does it make the definition "circular"? The argument that covering multiple parts of a definition makes it "incorrect" also appears to lack a basis in logic or RS, one of which the body of the article cites for its (stubby, eminently expandable) discussion of trans women and of intersex women, which needs to be summarized in the lead in some way since per WP:LEAD the lead is supposed to set out the scope of the topic and summarize the body of text about it. The body needs expansion (perhaps especially about intersex women, since for trans women it can just point a link towards that other article for more content), and the lead-text might benefit from some modification, but not total removal. (I don't even see the issue with "female", since the word is polysemous and trans women are often referred to as females, feminine, etc, even if also referred to as male-assigned. Even the article we link the word to says females only usually have two X chromosomes, and it should possibly acknowledge somewhere that even production of ova is only usual/typical of the category but not inherent in all individuals, as e.g. infertile females are well-documented in RS. That, however, is straying off the topic at hand.) -sche (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We worked this out before; see Talk:Woman/Archive 10#Wording. A lead sentence containing one definition or concept does not mean that another definition or concept for the topic is contradictory. Not automatically anyway. Many terms and topics have more than one definition. Per WP:Due weight, Wikipedia usually gives significantly more weight to the most common definition or concept. It is typical to see a Wikipedia article begin with the most common definition or concept and then go into one or more less common definitions or concepts. So that is why the lead of the Woman article begins with the definition it begins with, but later talks about trans women. The article also addresses trans women lower in the article. Intersex women as well. Are you saying the article shouldn't mention trans women at all? If you are saying we shouldn't mention them in the lead, that is contrary to what WP:Lead states. Those who reply to me on this, don't ping me; this page is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

A note that information about transgender and intersex boys was also removed from the lead of Boy, with similar reasoning given. WanderingWanda (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Trans/intersex men were also removed from the lead of Man, though that change was reverted. WanderingWanda (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

-sche, in answer to your question: The current lede is self-contradictory because it says that a woman is a female human, but then goes on to describe "trans women" as women. "Trans women", by definition, are not female. If a "trans woman" is a woman, than the definition of "woman" as a female human being is necessarily either incorrect or incomplete. SunCrow (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, thank you for providing a link to the prior discussion. And yes, multiple definitions of a term are not necessarily contradictory--but they are in this instance. To put it simply: If "trans women" are women, then it is inaccurate to define "woman" as a "female human being." To put it another way, if being a woman requires one to be female, "trans women" are not women. When a lede includes multiple definitions of a term that contradict each other, it should say so and explain the differences between those definitions. It should not simply lay out contradictory information the way this lede currently does. SunCrow (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The underlying assumption here is that the word "female" can only refer to people with certain physiological reproductive features. I'm not sure things are actually that clear cut: the Merriam-Webster definition of "gender identity", for example, talks about "male" and "female" identity, not "man" and "woman" identity. In any case, if the word "female" poses problems, a simple solution would be to remove it: A woman is a type of human being. The word woman is usually..., etc. WanderingWanda (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

SunCrow, I don't agree with your contradiction assessment. This is because of the standard definition/conception of "woman." That is all the lead sentence is doing, and it's what it should do -- present the standard definition/conception of "woman." A trans woman is not a typical woman and many (like you) argue that they are not female. The sex and gender distinction does exist, and some trans women also say that they are not female in the strict sense. But that lead sentence obviously is not about trans women. That is why we note that there are also trans women. As seen with this revert by Mathglot, the lead used to state, "With regard to gender, a woman may also be a person whose sex assignment does not align with their gender identity." As that revert shows, an editor proposed that the lead be changed to the following: "With regard to gender, woman may also refer to gender identity rather than sex assignment." Either version was to explain that a person may be a woman beyond biology (anatomical sex). After that, the discussion I pointed you to ensued. We could go back to an emphasis on gender identity, but the wording would need to be good. And we also need to keep intersex women in mind. I was clear in that aforementioned discussion that "my edit removed 'with regard to gender' [...] specifically with intersex people in mind."

I don't agree with removing "female" and leaving in the vague "is a type of human being." "Female" is a significant aspect of the topic. We are not going to remove "female" just because trans women exist. It would be undue weight to remove "female" to appease sentiments regarding trans women, who are the significant minority. And I'd rather not have the lead focus on the word as though this article is about the word. Yes, going by WanderingWanda's proposal, the word aspect wouldn't be in the first sentence, which is what WP:ISAWORDFOR, MOS:LEADSENTENCE and WP:Refers focus on, but it's still best to not focus on the word.

Betty Logan has been embroiled in the trans woman disputes regarding the definition at the Trans woman article, but I find her to usually have good ideas when it comes to wording. And knowing how passionate she is about this topic, she might want to weigh in as well. So I'm pinging her. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, although I stated that "we could go back to an emphasis on gender identity," the current wording does focus on gender identity with regard to trans women. It's not like the lead is explicitly calling trans women female. It specifically says "a male sex assignment that does not align with their gender identity." To repeat, that first sentence is not about trans women. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

It would be undue weight to remove "female" to appease sentiments regarding trans women, who are the significant minority. This isn't a question of appeasement but of accuracy. The lead sentence should not be constructed in such a way that it excludes trans women, for the same reason that, say, the lead sentence of Americans should not exclude Muslims. Muslims may be a minority in America, but it would still be incorrect to, say, define Americans as being "Judeo-Christian". The question, then, is whether the word "female" necessarily excludes trans women. I'm not sure it does, but if it does, it should be removed. Pinging Wikiproject Women, WikiProject LGBT, Talk:Transgender. WanderingWanda (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

There's no simple definition of "woman" that isn't circular, is unambiguous and has any common sense validity to it. Before we could even start looking at whether gender is performative, biological or psychological, we would have to question whether a definition should be descriptive or prescriptive. Whether trans women are women but not female or vice versa or something else is a rabbit hole with no answer that we shouldn't go down. Instead the point of the lead should be to impress upon the reader significants aspects which are relevant to the category of womanhood. The current version of the lead, which includes mention of trans women and intersex women, looks like a pretty good first paragraph to me. My only suggestion would be to change "There are also trans women (...), and intersex women (...)" to "Some women are trans (...) or intersex (...)" to prevent the potential implication that these groups are not women, or to imply (based on the connection with the previous sentence) that all intersex women are incapable of giving birth. And then I'd suggest that we expand the lead. I'd say a paragraph on typical biology and anatomy, a paragraph on gender roles and social behaviour and patriarchy, and a paragraph on women's history would be ideal. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 20:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

___

References