Talk:Woman

Before complaining about article content, please read: Wikipedia is not censored.

Template:Vital article

Overweight Woman

The woman whose picture is used appears overweight. If a picture of a nude woman is going to be used, why should that picture be overweight? The nude picture of a man in the "man" Wikipedia article does not appear overweight. A picture of an overweight woman is misleading as an aspect of an encyclopedic article on women, because it presents an image of a woman in an unhealthy state and a state that doctors advise one to avoid. 66.171.226.69 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC).

I disagree. You're probably just not used to seeing a real woman - and that's not your fault; The fashion industry is obsessed with portraying women as emaciated, skinny little boys. And celebrities with their addiction to plastic surgery, don't make the picture any prettier. Reality is often vastly different than the fantasy that you see all around you, and this photograph is a good representative sample of what a woman looks like. And, I think she looks great. Viriditas (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that she is a good representative of the "average" woman. However, unfortunately, the average woman in the United States (as well as some European countries) is overweight. For the reasons previously stated, I don't believe that having a picture of an overweight woman is appropriate for an encyclopedic article. I am not making a judgment on her attractiveness or lack thereof. I am simply stating facts and that I do not believe that a condition recognized as unhealthy should be represented in the main picture for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.226.69 (talk) 04:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

For further reference, here is a Wikipedia article that includes silhouettes for what represents healthy, overweight, and obese. Even though the silhouettes are for a male figure, I think they are informative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obese —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.226.69 (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The woman does not appear overweight at all, nor does she appear to be American. I suggest you take a moment to read life model and art nude, two articles which will shed light on your error. Viriditas (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

From personal experience of completely normal women of various ages, I would second the opinion that the woman in the picture on the article does indeed seem slightly overweight. Not enough that it would worry me too much, but yeah... perhaps we should indeed look for a better photo? 195.50.199.86 (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a late comment, in case anyone looks at this later:

A woman who is only 5'6" can weigh as much as 155 pounds and still be 'normal weight'. "Overweight" is defined by health authorities on the basis of what weights associated with a higher net risk of disease, not by the fashion authorities opinion of what looks most appealing. It seems highly unlikely to me that this woman is actually overweight (=BMI > 25). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

this was discussed

How about something like this (I just took the box from an ethnic group page and pasted in some of the image fn's):

Woman

DavidOaks (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length. Please do not change this present lede photo without first getting a group consensus. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, I didn't. I put it here to see what other people think, including their reasoning, rather than simple preference. This gets around the repeated objections (inevitable for ANY single image) to focus on body, or on culturally-determined features (like clothing, body modification rather than intrinsic distinctions of females from males), ethnocentrism, now-ism, the representation of one age or shape or activity as typical, etc. BTW, I don't know that the present image enjoys consensus. Certainly there was at least as much support for the collage concept, which I've tried to cooperate with. Here we have women of many different origins, in various types of dress, stages of life, roles...DavidOaks (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

More on the choices here: a clinical physical specimen (not confined to contemporary body-images of beauty nor standards of prudery); two heads of state, two soldiers (one of whom is a saint, the other a pioneer of computer science); two sculptures (one a goddess, the other a venerable figure for LGBT community); three elderly, three in the prime of life, three distinctly young; only one media celebrity (and this one known for her intelligence and verbal skill rather than her looks). Only one in a biologically distinctive role (nursing), none in sexualized or glamorized settings. The effort here has been to acknowledge the range of "woman" but to do so with dignity. I would offer these as governing principles for any additions or substitutions we might choose to make; icons like Mona Lisa or Whistler's Mother occured, as did an image of childbirth from the commons or a Rosie the Riverter shot. DavidOaks (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, let's give it a try. DavidOaks (talk) 05:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, neither a support. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 06:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Got something to say? Say it. If you have a reason to delete or alter, let's hear it. But the subject has been held in abeyance to vague discomforts way too long.DavidOaks (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the present image. There have been no complaints and I feel that it is best to leave well enough alone for now. Gandydancer (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) If you mean the collage, which is the present image, I agree that there have been no complaints, and certainly no response to the rationale which has been advanced in its favor -- though an individual being satisfied, or a lack of complaints don't amount to a ringing endorsement or the kind of reasoning we usually invoke when considering edits. If you mean the previous image (Lactancia bebe aire libre.jpg), the complaints would be the converses of the rationale which has been laid out in favor of the collage, with the additional observation that the advantages of the Lactancia image are preserved, as the image is included in the collage. It's a nice image, though amateurish, and limits this enormous subject by its very specific circumstances -- relatively propserous young European in the present day exercising a function not all women are willing to take on as defining. DavidOaks (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course I meant the previous image - I had no idea you had changed it. It's pretty obvious that when one must resort to being sneaky and change something that has been hotly contested without an edit summary, one is not using good Wikipedia policy. Please revert your change. Gandydancer (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:Civility. Then please explain what you feel I did that was, as you put it "sneaky" -- I announced what I thought was needed, laid out my rationale, waited several days for comment, and receiving no responses to the rationale, made a change while at the same time announcing that I was doing so (you are clearly watching the talkpage; I reported there what I was doing, and reported in my edit summary that I was reporting it on the talkpage). If you think that I have missed a step in procedure, please point it out to me. The one objection I can imagine is that I did not take your unilateral command not to make any changes as binding; it's in violation of WP:OWN. If you think the page needed locking, you should have requested a lock. You have experience with that procedure from another page. If you dislike the image, by all means change it, providing your response to the rationale which I laid out. If you do not have any such response except defaulting to no-change, I recommend letting it alone until another editor brings forward a reasoned response or an alternative. I'm going to point out another advantage of the current image -- individual elements can be added or substituted (though there's a hidden comment advising/requesting that people respect the px values in order to maintain visual balance). DavidOaks (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering how much conflict the lede picture has created recently and over the years, I did/do not feel that 2 or 3 days time is resonable to ask for feedback.

Yes I do watch this page; your lede picture change did not show up on my watchlist.

No, I have no experience with requesting a lock.

And finally, I did prefer the previous photo, however there has been no objection to your change and it's been some time now, and I see no reason for me to object since others seem to be OK with it. Happy editing to you! Gandydancer (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at what we're using, David you were right - it was a good idea and you did a great job.Gandydancer (talk) 03:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I love the multiple images, but I notice that the problem of the female nude having a shaved pubic area has not been resolved. I feel strongly that this is important - pubic shaving is a highly cultural practice and the point of the nude woman was (I understand) to show a real, anatomically correct female human. This reinforces misleading representations in popular culture of women as hairless and pre-pubescent looking. Is another image possible, just to replace that one? Mirandak (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Two observations

Currently this page lists the pronunciation of the plural as /wʊmɛn/. I am unable to find this in any dictionaries. The OED has /ˈwɪmɪn/, which I believe is correct. Secondly, the montage caption says "clockwise from left." But the caption's list of names is not clockwise, which would suggest a spiral; rather, it is in rows, left to right and top to bottom. 66.31.40.197 (talk) 23:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  20:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 14 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The statement "In the United States women who are ages 30 to 44 and hold a university degree make only 62 percent of what similarly qualified men do" is undocumented and blatantly false. See "The 76-cent myth" (http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/21/commentary/everyday/sahadi/), "What's Really Behind Female Inequality in America?" ("Even the liberal American Association of University Women concluded that three-quarters of the wage gap is due to factors such as education, occupational choice and hours worked.", http://iwf.org/news/show/22723.html) and "Gender Wage Gap Is Feminist Fiction" (http://www.iwf.org/blog/2432979/Gender-Wage-Gap-Is-Feminist-Fiction). Please remove that statement, indicate it is being disputed, or provide opposing viewpoints.

72.79.221.118 (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Example of opposing viewpoint: "A study of the gender wage gap conducted by economist June O' Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, found that women earn 98 percent of what men do when controlled for experience, education, and number of years on the job." (from http://www.iwf.org/blog/2432979/Gender-Wage-Gap-Is-Feminist-Fiction)

72.79.221.118 (talk) 04:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me, please, but I removed the {{edit semi-protected}} for now, because I don't think this is a simple, uncontroversial 'change X to Y' type of request - which is the point of "edit semi-protected". It needs discussion, and some agreement to make a specific change

I'm sure others will see your comments, and discuss them. If there is consensus shown here for a change, you could re-request; please allow some time for responses here; if nobody object, please ask again. Thanks.  Chzz  ►  06:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where you get the idea that it is blatantly false and undocumented since those are the facts that the source has given. However, it seems to me that you have come up with some excellent information that shows that it's not quite so simple as that. A section that explains the pay inequality more fully would be a great addition to the article if you would be willing to write it. You could find a lot of information here Male–female income disparity in the United States and Economic inequality and several other articles as well. Gandydancer (talk) 10:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the good suggestions and thank you for correcting me. According to Male–female income disparity in the United States: In 2009 the median income of full-time, year-round (FTYR) workers was $47,127 for men, compared to $36,278 for women. The female-to-male earnings ratio was 0.77, not statistically different from the 2008 ratio. The female-to-male earnings ratio of 0.77 means that, in 2009, female FTYR workers earned 23% less than male FTYR workers. The statistic does not take into account differences in experience, skill, occupation, education or hours worked as long as it qualifies as full-time work." Is there any reason that quote cannot be included in the current article? The source given for the 62% statistic is dated 13 September 2005. The 2011 version (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/51/6/48614460.xls) of the same OECD report where that statistic originated indicates female workers earned 20% less than male workers. From http://thebleedingear.blogspot.com/2005/09/women-vs-men_13.html: "Ultimately, the numbers cited by the Organization for Cooperation and Development are so broad as to be meaningless and so misconstrued as to blind the public from the true fact". I propose that the outdated and misleading 62% statistic be updated to reflect the most recent version of the source, and language included to the effect that "The statistic does not take into account differences in experience, skill, occupation, education or hours worked as long as it qualifies as full-time work." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.205.39 (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Another source: A 2009 report prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor entitled "An Analysis of the Reasons for the Disparity in Wages Between Men and Women" states "the raw wage gap continues to be used in misleading ways to advance public policy agendas without fully explaining the reasons behind the gap." (http://chamberpost.typepad.com/files/gender_wage_gap_final_report.pdf) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.205.39 (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Great sources. Obviously the issue is quite complex. An in-depth section to the article would be a good addition. Gandydancer (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello??? The page remains locked and inaccurate. Does anyone care enough to fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.34.143.130 (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

"In a 2010 study of single, childless urban workers between the ages of 22 and 30, the research firm Reach Advisors found that women earned an average of 8% more than their male counterparts." (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704415104576250672504707048.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.212.62 (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a message to anyone who came here questioning the "62 percent" statistic asserted on the main page: In the United States and much of the western world, there exists a vast conspiracy whose purpose is to perpetuate the myth that women in western societies are more oppressed and victimized than men. Wikipedia is already well known for its bias and lack of objectivity, but here is irrefutable proof that Wikipedia actively perpetuates the conspiracy to pretend that western women are oppressed. 17:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.152.201.105 (talk)

So, I added some of the things suggested by the users in this talk thread. My personal opinion, is that the "Woman" article should not really get too deep into this particular issue. The page at Male–female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States does the job much better than we can in this limited space. But, as long as the 62% claim was there, I felt it was right to balance that with the sources given that indicate it may be incorrect. Jacobitten (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Female biologist

Any particualr reason why this picture is there? If it is intended to show a modern eductaed woman, fine but do we really need to know exactly where and under whose aegis she is realeasing her tortoise? Epeeist smudge (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed and fixed. On the other hand, the Tibetan farmer in the first image sticks out like a sore thumb as the only one of the 20 who is nameless. If there were another image of a traditional farmer woman who'd agreed to give her name (no, I don't expect a traditional farmer to know what wikipedia is, just a simple "can I tell people who see this picture your name?" is plenty), I'd favor replacing the Tibetan woman. Until then, she can remain. Homunq (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I propose we add a picture of a transsexual woman

Transsexual women are woman even though they are not genetically or biologically a female. They are legally known as women and consider themselves as women. Gender is very fluid and we need some representation that does not automatically fit a stereotypical mold or definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.15.212 (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Transsexual women are female. Gelatinous cubism (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

If you would like to add an image of a trans woman, then perhaps you should go and add one. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Go to Christine Jorgensen. Images of such a person can be found in their own article. Georgia guy (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

They are not female because they are biological male.--93.128.1.34 (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree If you were born a man, you are a man. Changing your external features doesn't change that you're a man. 71.60.35.185 (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Somebody please watch the edits to this section of the talk page. Georgia guy (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a great suggestion, I also noticed that the head picture is sorely lacking women in STEM/Business. Considering this I would suggest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Conway Her contributions to the field of computer science were key, as discussed here: http://www.engin.umich.edu/college/about/news/stories/2014/april/thank-lynn-conway-for-your-cell-phone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.89.74 (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It's great to have a transgender woman included but we could really do with a more well known example than Laverne Cox. In the UK hardly anyone knows her and in less Americanised cultures I'm sure it's even worse. Chelsea Manning makes a lot more sense to me to include. Wikiditm (talk) 09:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Cissexism/dyadism

From the opening paragraph: "Unlike men, women are typically capable of giving birth."

This is cissexist/dyadist. Men can give birth. While the majority of human beings capable of giving birth are women, this doesn't mean that all people who are capable of giving birth are women. Some genderqueer/non-binary people, some trans men, and even some cis intersex men, can give birth. Gender/sex does not imply anything about reproductive anatomy.

I would fix this myself, but this account hasn't been autoconfirmed yet.

I find no offense in the statement. I do not see how this statement is cissexist. Women are typically capable of birth. Men are typically not. That a few men can does not make it typical. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 03:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

There are two ways of interpreting the sentence:

• "Men cannot give birth. Women typically can give birth."

• "Men _typically_ cannot give birth. Women typically can give birth."

The first interpretation would be cissexist. The second would not (it looks like you interpreted it as the second one, I the first). As it stands, the sentance is ambiguous and needs to be changed (as the ambiguity can and will result in cissexism). Gelatinous cubism (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Biologically male

Although women typically have a female reproductive system, some intersex people with ambiguous genitals, and biologically male transgender people, may also be classified or self-identify as a woman.

This statement appears to point towards the statement that trans women are really men who call themselves women simply because they want to. We need to alter the above statement to make it not point towards this statement so much. Georgia guy (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Biology does not consider an individual's feelings, self-image, or even their brain structure or chemistry when classifying the individual's sex. --NoPetrol (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think it points to exactly what it says: "some intersex people with ambiguous genitals, and biologically male transgender people, may also be classified or self-identify as a woman." Rather than "really men" or "simply because they want to", it says "biologically male" and "may also be classified or self-identify". These are wholly accurate and starkly contrast with what you say they "point to". Am I wrong? 04:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.46.33 (talk)

Yes, just like your whole life is 71.246.152.92 (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

There needs to be more information in here about transsexual women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.144.215 (talk) 03:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Seconded, there is a severe lack of information about transgender/transsexual women. I'm unsure if it would be considered cissexist to have a new section to include more information on intersex and transgender/transsexual women, but something does need to added to address the imbalance.Oneboikyle (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I was directed to this wiki page by a discussion in a feminist group. The main concern which caught our attention was that the primary person representing all woman is Laverne Cox who is actually a transgender actor who happens to be the star of a silly reality TV show. Even if Cox were biologically female, this individual does not belong in the same pantheon as the other figures such as Marie Curie. Not only is it silly for Cox to be there but to be listed as the FIRST woman in the image lineup is simply ridiculous. The other concern is that the entire article is a huge mess in terms of mix-matching the terms sex and gender. People who are not familiar with the difference in the meaning of the words have mixed them up throughout the entire article. This ties directly into the transgender representation. Transgender MtF's and intersex are only considered women by some people talking about women in the gender sphere. When you talk about a woman in a biological sense then the word gender does not come into play and you are only talking about human females. Audaxski (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

As for the statement "Transgender MtF's and intersex are only considered women by some people talking about women in the gender sphere"; these "some people" are people who understand transgenderism properly. We have many people who don't. Georgia guy (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Those who you say in your opinion "understand transgenderism properly" are using an incorrect definition of gender which was introduced somewhat recently. This wiki article is not about the definition(s) of gender, it is defining a "woman" which as the article says is an adult human female which is most definitely not a trans-woman. If you want to include an addendum about trans-woman in the context of sociology and 3rd and 4th wave feminism that is one thing but having an MtF as the primary representation of a woman is nuts. The word gender also needs to be almost entirely removed from the article because the article is actually talking about sex. Audaxski (talk) 10:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no one way to define gender; some sources and people, like me, often go by the sex and gender distinction; other sources and people do not. There are feminists, like the Sex and gender distinction article notes, who do not go by that distinction. Also see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Gender identity#The Goal (a WP:Permalink for that discussion is here). The term woman is far more of a social category than it is a sex category. Woman is more so a social category; female is more so a sex category. And even so, many sources and people use the terms interchangeably to mean the same thing. Flyer22 (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you are basically agreeing with me on the gender issue with the indication that others are trying to use a new definition of gender related to transgender politics but the main concern was that the article is using a biologically male individual with little contribution to society as the primary representation of a woman. Audaxski (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Fix in etymology

The old english form of woman is wimman[1]. 'wifmann' is possible as an earlier form, but not with a double N.

So you've found one source, that is not the most thorough specialist source on Old English, but one intended for popular consumption, where it is spelled with only one N, and that enables you to say then it is not "possible" with a double N? How does that account for all the specialist and original sources on Old English that do spell it "wifmann" with two Ns? There is nothing to fix here. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The source currently used to (apparently) justify "wifmann" does not mention "wifmann". The etymononline site does, without the double n. It is a popular site, but based in science. As wikipedia should be. It needs to be fixed, as is your attitude. 195.169.209.53 (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It does not need to be fixed, because you are in error. Wifmann is the perfectly correct Old English spelling, according to all the specialist and original sources, once again. This is not a matter for "science"; introducing sloppy "science" into a non-scientist area generally serves only to confuse things. This is a matter of incontrovertible fact. I have said not one wrong word, and I have a clear conscience with regard to my "attitude", but you seem to suffer from a little of "IDIDNTHEARTHAT"... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you please supply some of the sources you are using? Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

No, because that's a bit ludicrous when, with today's technology, it ought to take all of about three seconds of anyone's time to satisfy oneself that "Wifmann" is not an incorrect spelling. If you want to spend some time on increasing our article quality and detail instead, the progression of English spellings of the word went from Wifmann => Wimmann => Wumman => Woman. Source: The Webster's New World Dictionary sitting beside my desk. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

You really do need to take a look at your attitude about how to work with others to improve our encyclopedia. The article needs to be edited to include the suggestions of the other editors that have made comments. I will do it later when I have time. Gandydancer (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

So what exactly would it take to convince you that wifmann is not incorrect? You aren't my parent, I am not a child, and we aren't here to discuss my attitude nor your perceptions of it, so your comments in that regard do not belong here. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

By refusing to bring forward the source between your claim, you forfeit any further role in this discussion per WP:SOURCE. Provide a citation or take your frustration elsewhere, preferably not on wikipedia. 195.169.209.53 (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Where did you learn to read? I really hate repeating myself. Here it is again: If you want to spend some time on increasing our article quality and detail instead, the progression of English spellings of the word went from Wifmann => Wimmann => Wumman => Woman. Source: The Webster's New World Dictionary sitting beside my desk. Please stop wasting everyone's time here trying to make this conversation personal, and look for ways to make some real improvements, thank you! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

OK 195, what do you think about my edit? Is it factual and clear? @ Eulen, you don't need to shout, we need to see an online source. Gandydancer (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

No, the rule is offline sources are acceptable and online sources are not a requirement. There's like hundreds of guidelines saying that. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You are being a pest. Knock it off. Gandydancer (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I will not, because I'm talking about the rules, and your talking "forget the rules, I'll make the rules here." If you look into it, you will see I am correct. As soon as I find one of our policy pages stating that there is no burden to provide everything online, I'll point you to it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I came over here because of Gandydancer's message at WP:RSN. An ordinary modern English dictionary is a handy source for etymology but not the best source. The most reliable source for understanding the historical sequence would usually be an etymological dictionary; the most reliable source for the form/spelling of a word at any particular time would usually be a dictionary of the language at that period. I don't think there is an online English etymological dictionary as reliable as the printed ones -- but someone else might well correct me about this.

So I looked on my desk and found a short dictionary of Old English which gives the spelling wīfmann; I found the Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology which gives two alternative oldest forms wīfman(n); and I found the Oxford English Dictionary which gives the oldest form as wifman. So then I looked for the real big dictionary of Old English (Bosworth & Toller, Anglo-Saxon Dictionary) which has the entry word wîfmann but has several quotations with the spelling wifman. So there was free variation. I might as well add a footnote, I suppose ... Andrew Dalby 13:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for coming over! I hope that you will stay long enough to help us get the wording on the page correct. I will be out much of the day... Gandydancer (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

As one who reads Old English and Middle English myself, I can vouch that Andrew's information is 100% correct. What we need is more good faith that people fluent in languages aren't out to deceive you and demand that they prove everything they say about the language they know. (Note that we don't demand citations and sources that a French word is a French word) Wifmann is the "standard" spelling of the Wessex dialect ca. 900. In other dialects it could be spelled Wifman or even Wifmon. Wimmann is ca. 1100, Wumman is ca. 1300, Woman is ca 1500. Spelling has been more stabilized since then. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Breast feeding photo

I believe that the previous photo was much better. It is a good clear photo whereas the replacement woman is in the shadows and hard to even see. I'm not sure what the editor means by suggesting that the previous photo seemed "posed", but that is not my impression at all. Gandydancer (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't feel strong about it, but I thought the new photo was better. The new photo shows a woman in a more 'natural' environment - ie. she is simply breastfeeding as she would do usually, on a daily basis, she isn't looking as she is specifically posing for a photo: she is focusing on her baby, she doesn't appear to care about the camera. Not that there is anything wrong with posing specifically for a photo, but the new photo seems to capture better the process of breastfeeding, while in the other one there is too much focus on the woman herself. Now it also depends on what you think the purpose of a photo of breastfeeding in this article should be: should it be to focus on breastfeeding itself (as I think it should be) or is it not necessary?

And there is also the advantage that it helps a little solve the Western bias in pics on WP. But I really do not feel strong about it.Skydeepblue (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 August 2013

Word for Woman in other languages: Russian: Жена( Jena) Pashto: kh'za or sh'za (hk' or sh' means Good, Za means GO). Together GOOD GO or the one having good deals. Also Jenai or Jenkai means GIRL 2.51.18.66 (talk) 04:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Wikipedia doesn't generally provide translations unless they are of encyclopedic value. Rivertorch (talk) 08:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Bias

I think this article needs to be edited to eliminate bias. I understand that female equality is a growing idea, and it is very popular, but that should not affect the academic objectivity of this article. There are many instances which pragmatically seem to be arguing for a greater equality of women in the Gender Roles, Education, and Women in Politics section. Take the Jobs subsection for example (I am new to the Wikipedia community by the way, so forgive my inability to use proper terminology):

In 1992, women earned 9 percent of the Ph.D.'s awarded in engineering but only one percent made it to become a professor. In 1995, 11 percent of professors in science and engineering were women. In relation, only 311 deans of engineering schools were women, which is less than 1 percent of the total. Even in psychology, a degree in which women earn the majority of Ph.D.'s, they hold a significant amount of fewer tenured positions, roughly 19 percent in 1994.[43]

The way that this is worded strongly implies that women are not being employed as much as they should be. This is a very real and very important opinion, but it has no place in a factual article. I believe this could be substituted by initial facts concerning female employment and pay rates and then followed by a mention that some believe that women are being unfairly in the workforce, and then attributing appropriate pieces of evidence to those people. Basically a more factual and objective section would give the reader a chance to form their own opinion by giving them facts, and then opinions of others. This could then provide room for someone with an opposing viewpoint to interject with counter-evidence.

Also, in the politics section, Instead of the biased sentence "Politics have been traditionally dominated by men; and women today continue to be under-represented in government in most countries," the men part should be eliminated, because it implies that the global political scene is man vs. woman, and the woman part should either be reformulated as someone's or some faction's opinion, or replaced with a quantitative analysis of female representation in parliaments and administrative offices worldwide. This should be a socially scientific section that gives the reader an objective look at where women stand in modern politics, NOT an unaccredited strongly worded opinion that "underrepresented women" are being "dominated" by men presented in factual form. Just the word "underrepresented" means that women SHOULD have greater representation in parliaments, which is an OPINION.

I would really appreciate not receiving an angry backlash accusing me of being sexist or a lecture on why women ARE in fact underrepresented. I do not wish to debate gender roles, but instead work in collaboration to figure out the BEST way to make this article as objective as possible. Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sferry143 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with what you see as bias, but I agree this article exhibits bias from the get-go.

Gads! I just stumbled upon the article from the WP ad for The Core Contest, and wow! I hear you. Compare the lead of this article right now to the lead of the Man article of one hour ago. I changed the Man lead a little, so the difference was less striking - but still obvious. In fact, I'll compare the current leads side-by-side here. Wow.

Man lead

Woman lead

A man is a male human. The term man is usually reserved for an adult, with the term boy being the usual term for a male child or adolescent. However, the term man is also sometimes used to identify a male human, regardless of age, as in phrases such as "Men's rights". Like most other male mammals, a man's genome inherits an X chromosome from his mother and a Y chromosome from his father. The male fetus produces larger amounts of androgens and smaller amounts of estrogens than a female fetus. This difference in the relative amounts of these sex steroids is largely responsible for the physiological differences that distinguish men from women. During puberty, hormones which stimulate androgen production result in the development of secondary sexual characteristics, thus exhibiting greater differences between the sexes.

A woman /ˈwʊmən/, pl: women /ˈwɪmɨn/ is a female human. The term woman is usually reserved for an adult, with the term girl being the usual term for a female child or adolescent. However, the term woman is also sometimes used to identify a female human, regardless of age, as in phrases such as "Women's rights". Women are typically capable of giving birth from puberty onwards, though older women who have gone through menopause and some intersex women cannot. Throughout history women have assumed various social roles in occupation. In some cultures, a majority of women have adopted specific appearances, such as those regulated by dress codes.

The Man lead had been:

A man is an adult human male. Like most other male mammals, a man's genome inherits an X chromosome from his mother and a Y chromosome from his father. The male fetus produces larger amounts of androgens and smaller amounts of estrogens than a female fetus. This difference in the relative amounts of these sex steroids is largely responsible for the physiological differences that distinguish men from women.

During puberty, hormones which stimulate androgen production result in the development of secondary sexual characteristics, thus exhibiting greater differences between the sexes.

--Lightbreather (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Lightbreather. I'd looked on your user page to see what kind of editor you are and saw the "This editor wants to close Wikipedia's gender gap" and "This user is part of the Countering Systemic Bias WikiProject" userboxes. From that, I had a feeling that your definition of bias would contrast mine. And judging by our minor disputes so far, seen here, here, here and here, I think your definition of bias would contrast with a lot of other people's if you were to argue similar points at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. Flyer22 (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: The "Politics have been traditionally dominated by men; and women today continue to be" part that Sferry143 wanted removed has been recently removed. Flyer22 (talk) 12:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Obvious feminist propaganda

After reading this article it's very easy to see that Wikipedia has been hijacked by feminists. 76.10.148.145 (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Such vague claims aren't conducive to the improvement of the article. What reliable sources would you like to see included? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not an issue of reliability of sources, it's an obvious bias in its presentation. For instance, when discussing literacy, the article opens with a backhanded complaint about disparity in gender literacy

"World literacy is lower for females than for males. Latest data from CIA World Factbook shows that 79.7% of women are literate, compared to 88.6% of men (aged 15 and over)."

This is obvious feminist drum beating. It's not about facts, it's about a sneaky one sided presentation. 108.161.117.136 (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

How would you present the same facts? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

If the first sentence on women's literacy must discuss the literacy rate, then why not "World literacy rates for women is 79.7%." Contrasting and comparing literacy rates across genders is appropriate in an article on social issues facing women, not in a broad article about women.

And this is just one instance. By glancing at the article I can see at least 10 such examples which are backhanded feminist complaints. Without disagreeing or agreeing with their validity, I can say an article on women in general does not need to be a summary of gender issues. 108.170.141.186 (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course, social and gender issues that women face should not be in an article titled Woman, especially if those issues compare the very real disparity between men and women. And if such information is in an article titled Woman, it's "obvious feminist propaganda," despite the vast majority of sources on the topic of "woman" addressing/discussing the same things. Wrong. I suppose it's obvious masculinist propaganda to include, in the Man article, social and gender issues that men face? No?

I should not have taken the WP:Bait offered in this discussion. Bye. Flyer22 (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Daughter

Can a link be added to daughter - I am not sure where it fits but it should be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.49.1.240 (talk) 07:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Problem with etymologies

Etymology of the name "woman" lacks the history of the species that invented the name in the first place. Language does not come to the species full blown, it is created item by item one item at a time most of the names as symbols needed. No item stands in isolation of others, greatly affecting etymologies. When someone purports to write about etymology she or he is dealing with names.

The "spelling" history is not all that important, and the appropriateness of the name or the logic in the name are not questioned in the article. The article misleads the reader to believe in the information given. The etymological dictionaries the writer consulted took for granted that the information was correct.

Then the article goes into the source for "queen" in the second paragraph. How is this related to the name 'woman'? Then goes to the Gr. gyne. Gyne has a whole other etymology --and history.

Third paragraph, 'female' comes from Latin 'femina"? This is outright misinformation. This article needs a lot of cleaning up. Louise GouefficLouise Goueffic (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Any cleanup of that section, when it comes to relaying etymology information, should be based on WP:Reliable sources. Flyer22 (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I removed the "queen" stuff and the following para as well. That sort of info needs a good working reference. What else do you have in mind Louise? Gandydancer (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Eva Peron

On photos in the top of article, the photo with Eva Peron is not free ([2]). Should we delete the picture ? GabrieL (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's trying seeing if the image creator will change it for us. Bleff, please see above message. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixed! --Bleff (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Bleff Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Transgender woman suggestions for picture

I notice that the grid with pictures of women contains no pictures of transgender women, which could be taken to bolster the incorrect idea that such women are not "real" women. I also see that the grid contains a picture of a goddess - Isis - who is not human and thus not an "adult human female", which this article is supposed to be about. Perhaps Isis could be replaced with a picture of a transgender woman? I would suggest Christine Jorgensen but I am open to other suggestions. Maranjosie (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I support this and agree with point about Isis. I'd suggest Andreja Pejić and Laverne Cox as possibilities. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we could add an image of a transwoman in the body of the article. The article only mentions transwomen once. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. I'm thinking maybe Laverne Cox in the grid replacing Isis and Andreja Pejić replacing the Venus symbol in the biology and gender section of the body of the article, since there is already another picture of Venus (the painting that says "Venus, a classical image of youthful female beauty in Western art") in that section in the body of the article. I'll give it a week from now to see if any objections are made, if not I'll try it. 71.175.26.106 (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Or we could just remove all of the images because they are in fact undue weight, giving prominence to an arbitrarily selected few out of the billions that have existed in history. I doubt that there is anyone who reads Wikipedia who cannot visualise what a woman looks like, even those using screen-readers. - Sitush (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how having a variety of images of women, as the article currently does, including a female biology image, can be argued as WP:Undue weight. Of course we can't display every woman who has existed in the world; similar can be stated of having an image of anything in a Wikipedia article. We can't have an image of every single thing that ever existed; often, we can't even have an image of every type of a topic that has existed (if there are too many types to display, especially in an encyclopedic manner). The point of an image is to give an example. And giving examples of what a woman may look like at a certain age, of a certain color, while naked, while breastfeeding, while working, etc., are all images that help aid readers, just like the variety of images at the Man article do, despite being able to picture a woman or a man in any of these ways. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not just for adults; these pictures are going to especially help little kids better understand the topic, even with their big imaginations, which is why such images are often in school books.

As for transgender only being mentioned once in the article, that's not true. If it were, per WP:Lead, it should be removed from the lead unless discussed lower in the article. However, like I noted, it is a topic that is discussed lower in the article -- in the Biology and gender section. The "Women are typically capable of giving birth from puberty until menopause, although some intersex and transgender women cannot." line that is in the lead, though, needs more tweaking. I realize that Sitush tweaked it recently, but either version gives the impression that transgender women can give birth to children. Unless by transgender, one is talking about the topic of third gender or genderqueer, or transgender women who are intersex, the transgender part needs tweaking since girls assigned male at birth based on their genitalia cannot give birth once they are adults unless they have the biology to do so (might be possible if intersex). Flyer22 (talk) 12:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The mention of intersex and transgender should be presented better in the lead anyway, instead of as an afterthought with regard to fertility. Flyer22 (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

My opinions on the lead photos. 1)Don't remove them. 2) Move Sappho down to "Science, literature and art" and use that space for a transgender woman. I'd suggest the most well-known, Christine Jorgenson. We don't need two representative photos and I strongly object to deleting Isis. Gandydancer (talk) 13:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, that sounds like a good compromise. If nobody objects, a week from now, I will move Sappho down to science, literature, and art and use that space for Christine Jorgensen. I know the grid can't give examples of every type of woman, but I think an example of a transgender woman is especially important because some deny such women are women at all, and we don't want to be seeming to perpetuate that idea. Maranjosie (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd argue for taking them out of Man as well. They've already gone from caste-related articles. Images that are specific to a subject, eg: a photo of a person in a bio article, are fine. Broad-brush images are inherently subject to pov. Why not find some images of completely non-notable women on Commons and we use them instead, if we must use at all. And, actually, if some people argue that transgender women are not women then that is an excellent reason not to have a transgender woman in the imagebox because it most clearly would be pushing a POV. - Sitush (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

A single photo causes frequent arguments and the grouping has been a good solution. Gandydancer (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Opps - misread your post. You have suggested multiple non-notable women. I prefer what we've got. Makes more sense to me. Gandydancer (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure Christine Jorgensen is a notable trans woman. Georgia guy (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

You mean, do these such people have a perfectly okay point of view to be entitled to?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The idea that transgender women are not "real" women has already been debunked in the body of the article as well as many other articles on Wikipedia that mention transgender women, and is thus not a valid objection. Are there any other objections to my replacing the picture of Sappho in the grid with a picture of Christine Jorgensen, and placing a picture of Sappho in the science, literature, and art section? Maranjosie (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure in agreement and I give you a lot of credit for bringing the issue to our attention in the first place - it's something important that I never thought about. Gandydancer (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment. If a newly-registered or un-registered user notices this talk page section, it is likely that they might want to say something like "No. Such a woman really is a man, and this is a biological fact. Real women lack a Y-chromosome," as their comment as a reason to oppose. (The quotation in the preceding sentence is only a statement that I'm referring to; I'm not saying it's true.) Please close this section as soon as a consensus among registered users for at least a week is reached. (My own opinion is to support this change.)Georgia guy (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

For clarification, "support this change" means support the change that this section of the talk page is talking about, which is a change in the image at the top of the article. Georgia guy (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, it seems like we've got a consensus. I put a picture of Sappho in the science, literature, and art section. Can somebody please replace the picture of Sappho in the grid with a picture of Christine Jorgensen? I'm sorry but I can't figure out how, so if anybody could do it for me that would be a great help. Maranjosie (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Neither can I. It's a single image with lots of pictures. Georgia guy (talk) 00:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Bleff is the author of that image. Maybe they can help. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I wrote a message on Bleff's talk page but Bleff didn't respond. Georgia guy (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I can replace it, but there's not a picture of Christine Jorgensen I can use.--Bleff (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the Christine Jorgensen article reveals a picture of herself. Georgia guy (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

But that picture is not free to use; look at the licence. The non-free use rationale will allow it to be used on the article in question, but wouldn't allow its use here. If you need more information, read Wikipedia:Non-free content. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, try to upload a free picture of CJ to replace the appropriate part of the picture in this article. Georgia guy (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Other names were suggested if Christine Jorgensen's image is not available. Personally I like Laverne Cox. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

So, re-upload the image by taking out Isis and putting in Laverne Cox. Georgia guy (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll see if I can get to it tonight. Image would need cropping and added into current collage. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I've uploaded a version with Laverne Cox instead of Sappho. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I've been thinking, if it isn't too much to ask, do you think we might also put a picture of a transgender man (maybe Chaz Bono?) in the picture grid for Man? I tried to ask on the talk page for Man but nobody answered. I thought we could replace the picture of Vitruvian Man since it is also shown further down on the Man page. Maranjosie (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot tonight. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}}18:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Cool! How do you do that? 71.175.26.106 (talk) 04:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I used a program called Paint.NET to edit out the one square, then using layers I took the new image, scaled it down, and positioned it into the blank square. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I think all of the images should be removed. I don't think the reader needs examples of women. What purpose does this photo-box serve? Bus stop (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, and I already addressed why above. Nothing more for me to state on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

WARNING: there are plans going on a trans-hate site to remove this edit specifically for transphobic purposes. http://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2014/08/22/laverne-cox-launches-media-campaign-in-support-of-transwoman-synthia-china-blast-convicted-for-the-rape-murder-and-abuse-of-the-corpse-of-thirteen-year-old-ebony-nicole-williams/#comment-40195 I am not sure what preventive measures, if any, can be taken, but at least have to alert the community. Ramendik (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. We had some edits from the same site on War on Women. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Now this one was a surprise. But at least, praemonitis praemunitis, etc. Ramendik (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

OTRS note We have had very similar notes emailed to us, however due to this discussion, I have directed then here. You may need to expect a bit of an influx, especially if the email is leaked outside the recipient. --Mdann52talk to me! 06:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

external link/female tennis players

I should think this would make an excellent external link to this article. Yet my edit was reverted. This is a link to The New York Times. It is about "female tennis players". I'd like to hear the opinions of others. Bus stop (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I really don't see what it adds to the article. The only connection is the gender of the people, but the link is primarily about tennis. I also have some concerns that it's objectifying. No similar gallery for men. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It is about physicality in women; it isn't only "about tennis". What do you mean by "objectifying"? These are women exerting both body and mind in sport. You say there is no "similar gallery for men". What is your point? We use relevant material. Relevant material does not become irrelevant when its counterpart is absent from a corresponding article. Bus stop (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

My comment on "no gallery for men" was questioning the motives/intentions of the artist. The photos talk about "beauty" (though through strength) and only has images of women. But that aside, in my opinion the link fails based on #1 and #13 in WP:ELNO. I'll let someone else weigh in on the issue and if there are others who disagree with me, I'd concede. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

What "photos" are you referring to? There are videos of 7 tennis players. You say you are questioning the motives of the "artist". What "artist" are you referring to, and how would we know about "motivations"? This is The New York Times and the topic is tennis. Would that cause one to suspect less than noble "motivations"? I can't fathom how WP:ELNO is ruling out the external link. The subject of this article is obviously "women". A good quality source explores by exceptionally good quality video the functioning of 7 very exceptional female sports players. Our policy of WP:ELNO discourages the inclusion of external links to such material? Bus stop (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I also don't see what it adds. Is the point that women play tennis? Or is it that we produce film of them playing, in designer outfits with special studio lighting and effects, with high-speed cameras, so we can watch in slow motion? It's nice and all, but I can't discern anything significant about this. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Their bodies and their minds are functioning at a very high level. These are extremely talented women. Bus stop (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure that's true, but I wouldn't know that from the videos, since they're staged. The only thing provably demonstrated is their ability to perform on cue, and others' ability to enjoy watching them. That last part leaves me slightly uncomfortable, and there's no other significance presented to counter this. --A D Monroe III (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Many things are "staged". We need not omit external links on the basis that they are "staged". On a tennis court too a "staged" event takes place, the difference being that the tennis court is the normal setting for that activity. It is not the staging in the video at our external link that allows for the muscular actions, fast reaction times, or calm and steady visual contact with the tennis ball. Rather it is the professionalism in the other stage, the real tennis court, that allows for this. Only these tennis players can perform at this level. These are a group of some of the most highly developed international athletes. You are denigrating them when you say "The only thing provably demonstrated is their ability to perform on cue..." They are demonstrating that which they are most noted for but they are demonstrating that under the controlled conditions that allow for the creation of a high quality visual record in the form of a video. Would you say that there is a significant disconnect between the skills these women demonstrate on the real tennis court and the skills that they display on the New York Times video? I would say not. I would say that few if any other human beings on the planet Earth could handle a tennis racket and hit a tennis ball as we see these 7 women do on this video. Isn't this article about Women? The names of the seven women featured in the video by the way are Kim Clijsters, Serena Williams, Elena Dementieva, Jelena Jankovic, Samantha Stosur, Victoria Azarenka, and Vera Zvonareva. Bus stop (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd be fine if the videos were about the tennis players, but it's only about how they look. We can guess at the intent of this, but nothing is stated. At best, it's simply vague. Why add it? I've nothing more to say. --A D Monroe III (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not about the tennis players? I see 7 professional tennis players. Do you see something different? How is it not about the tennis players? You are being coy. If you object to the external link, please articulate your objection. You say that you "can guess at the intent of this". We are not "guessing". We are actually speaking with one another. In my opinion we should provide an external link at an article on Women to seven women who allowed themselves to be filmed doing something that they are exceedingly good at—the sport of tennis. I am astounded that you can say "I'd be fine if the videos were about the tennis players, but it's only about how they look." They "look" however they look. As far as I can tell they look like themselves. They all look different. I would assume they chose their costumes on their own. I don't think they were coerced to wear costumes other than costumes of their own choosing. Do you doubt their intelligence? These are unique individuals with a high degree of proficiency in tennis in common, and I assume they voluntarily engaged in the reenactment of their activity on-court, under controlled circumstances that allowed for a very high quality video documentation of the way they play the sport of tennis when played under normal conditions. You would not get such a high quality video if it were made on an actual court during an actual tennis match. They are engaged in a reenactment of almost precisely what transpires on an actual tennis court. The musculature of the female body is distinct from that of a male body. We don't have to shy away from showing the female body in motion, under the control of a powerful and precise musculature. It is completely baffling that you are objecting to a very good quality external link. You are not articulating any objection to showing the female body in motion, so what is your objection to the video at the external link that I attempted to add to the article? In my opinion this is an important document. I think this document is on-topic as concerns this article. There isn't any reason for excluding the document we are discussing, or at least you have not articulated any reason. Women can be physical in sport. These seven women are top-notch in this particular sphere of activity known as tennis. Physical agility represents a longstanding and important facet of females. Haven't there always been females that were particularly strong and agile—even in comparison to men? Each of the tennis players already has an article on our project. And The New York Times is hardly a source lacking in journalistic stature. These are women who represent how strong and physically fit women can be. Bus stop (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I've initiated a discussion here at the External links/Noticeboard. Bus stop (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You still don't have local consensus. Frankly the EL is just "fitness porn". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Catchy phrase there—"fitness porn". Please tell me in what way this is "porn"? Kim Clijsters, Serena Williams, Elena Dementieva, Jelena Jankovic, Samantha Stosur, Victoria Azarenka, and Vera Zvonareva are tennis players. They are virtually the best tennis players in the world. Do you mean that they also dabble in pornography? Bus stop (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It is a catchy phrase that I took from this article. But that's just my personal opinion on it. Still feel it violates WP:ELNO as I mentioned on the ELN. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

A link doesn't violate WP:ELNO simply because you say it does, unless the violation is very obvious. You've presented no argument. You've simply pointed to the sections #1 and #13 at WP:ELNO. You've engaged in no lengthier argument beyond asserting that a violation exists. Please tell me in what way the link I tried to add to the external links section of the article is in violation of the policy language found at those two sections of WP:ELNO. Bus stop (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Trans inclusion in header?

Now that the trans topic is discussed anyway: is "a female human" a complete description? Especially with "female" linked to an article defining "female" by ova. I'm not exactly sure how to phrase it better without going into some form of ideology and I'm definitely NOT making any hasty edits. This is just something for consideration of the editors here - perhaps the heading should be made trans inclusive in some way? Another thing to consider for the formula: goddesses have been described as women without actually being human. All the same issues apply to Man too, of course. Ramendik (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

also found a very good paragraph in the Man article - how about reusing it here? "Biological factors are not sufficient determinants of whether a person considers themselves a man or is considered a man. Intersex individuals, who have physical and/or genetic features considered to be mixed or atypical for one sex or the other, may use other criteria in making a clear determination. There are also transgender and transsexual men, who were assigned as female at birth, but identify as men; there are varying social, legal and individual definitions with regard to these issues. (See transman.)" change man to woman, of course. Will do this one if not contradicted for a couple of days. Ramendik (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That seems like good language to use. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the current lead of the article, where do you want your proposal included in the lead? I mentioned in the Talk:Woman#Transgender woman suggestions for picture section above that there is a problem with the "[w]omen are typically capable of giving birth from puberty until menopause" line; your text could replace that bit nicely, and then describe reproductive issues more accurately. The wording "a female human" should remain somewhere very early on in the lead, if not the very first sentence, given that it is the most common definition of the term woman (actually, the word adult is usually included). We should definitely respect the WP:Due weight policy in that regard. WP:LEADSENTENCE is a guide for how to begin the first sentence, whether we make it more inclusive of transgender people or leave it as it is, and let the rest of the lead paragraph address the topic of gender identity...like it currently does. Flyer22 (talk) 04:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

You are either biologically male or female. How about you just leave facts alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.84.133.206 (talk) 08:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, trans women have a brain structure similar to those of cisgender women; and brain structure is an important biological property of a person. Georgia guy (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

1%-2% of the population is intersex, so no. Regardless, gender is about identity, not chromosomes, hormones, and gonads. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: Composite image

Sorry I missed this discussion last month. Anyway, I'm down for continuing to include Ms. Cox in the composite, but may I suggest that instead of replacing a real person, she replace a fictional person? So we'd restore Sappho and remove Venus or Isis. This would also restore a woman writer to the composite, which currently lacks any women who were/are primarily authors. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

An author is an occupation. Do authors have special properties that makes you say this?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed and it was decided to move Sappho down to the Arts etc. section. Gandydancer (talk) 12:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I see that that was discussed above, yes, but it's not as though there was a big discussion as to which of the women in the existing composite should be removed. I'm objecting to the removal of Sappho and suggesting that we remove one of the fictional women instead, that is, Venus, Venus, or Isis (in order to keep the image, it could be moved down to Religion). I think it's a problem that the current version contains no authors, as writing is generally acknowledged to be an important contribution to society. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I strongly support removing the image of Sappho. Deviants like that should not be depicted in an encyclopedia article meant for the whole world, not only for Western perverts and degenerates. ″a woman writer″? Harlot and Beelzebul! Abdurrahman Muslim (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Sappho's picture

Recently the picture of Sappho's bust was removed from the header image for this article and substituted by Laverne Cox's, as well as the link to Sappho's article. Sappho is an incredibly important historical figure, the only woman among the nine great greek poets. She was also the only lesbian woman in the header image, which is definitely something important for an article about women. While it's relevant for Laverne Cox or other trans women to be added, it shouldn't be at the expense of Sappho. It would be better to add another line of pictures to add pictures of trans women if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.110.169.21 (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it's important to have one trans woman in the image. Georgia guy (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The contributor above was not saying that there shouldn't be a trans woman in the collage, but that that addition should not be at the cost of a significant historical figure and the only lesbian. Sappho was removed, but two fictional women and an artistic depiction/fertility image were preserved. Isis or Aphrodite should get the boot, and Sappho should go back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.217.196 (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me we don't need two Venuses. One will do, replace the other with Sappho. There's no comparably important ancient female author, with the (very) arguable exception of Homer. I'd probably keep WiIlmendorf, an actual artifact reflecting the artist's actual belief in Venus, rather than Bougereau, a 19th century artist's conception of a deity he didn't believe existed.- Nunh-huh 00:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI - "Venus" of Willendorf doesn't represent the same Venus that Bouguereau's does, but rather (possibly) an unknown Paleolithic fertility goddess. It's not a content duplicate. There are points in favor of each one (the ubiquity of Venus as a symbol of femininity, the importance of a really ancient depiction like Willendorf, an identifiable goddess like Isis depicted by a believer), although, as I said, I think it's more important to include an author (the point about including a lesbian is also good) than a fictional person. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, so I'm hearing that lesbians should be represented and thus Sappho should be readded, and Venus removed? If that's the case, I can do that in a day or two. Also, it's important to note that the order of the images means nothing about their importance. That Cox is top left does not implies she is somehow more important (remember, top left is not "first" everywhere in the world). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The article is written in English where top left is in fact first. If this was a coincidence of alphabetization you would have a case but you are reaching for something that is not there. Audaxski (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Audaxski It's only in that location because that's where the Sappho image was. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there any rhyme or reason to the order? Whoever is doing the job of swapping out images (and there seems to be at least a weak consensus to restore Sappho at the expense of one of the fictional people), would it be a huge pain in the ass to re-order chronologically or something? (Personally, I think I like it better visually if it goes through artistic depictions, b/w photographs, and color photographs.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no vote on the order, but please keep Laverne Cox in the image. Georgia guy (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Roscelese: It would be a pain in the ass to be honest, but it's possible. I'm keeping an eye on this page, but have been rather busy. If someone wants a change to the image, I can do the edit. Just message me or ping me. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll make sure that I or someone else does when all changes have been agreed upon, so you're not wasting your time. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised that it is not seen as an added "honor", so as to speak, that Sappho gets her own section rather than being just one of many. I think that she fits so well in the section that she is now in... But to those that do not see it that way, I can see the reasoning that the composite is not complete without a representative of writing/poetry. What about deleting the Queen of Sheba and putting Sappho there? Gandydancer (talk) 11:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Sheba is noted in multiple cultures and traditions, and is "real" insofar as historians believe that the title refers to an actual person. I think that Bougereau's painting is the most expendable from the collage. (If it must be cut? Would 3 more women be hard to find?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.217.196 (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I would recommend replacing Mother Theresa given she's a far more contentious figure in terms of representing women. Sappho should absolutely be there, as both a transwoman and lesbian both groups should be represented. Also - there are no sex workers in the image. I'd recommend perhaps replacing Venus, or maybe even Marilyn Monroe with Veronica Franco, who is an extremely important historical feminist figure. Also, perhaps look into adding a Muslim woman, and a historical representation of a witch or village wisewoman type figure.Little Miss Desu (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I support putting Sappho back in the picture. In addition, I don't think it's important that a sex worker is added. There are female chemists, female physicists, female teachers, female soldiers, female store clerks in history - I don't think sex workers are that special of a job group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.214.238.133 (talk) 10:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Forum-like posts

I suggest that any post in this talk page that references any variant of the statement that trans women are not real women (including any person-specific example of this statement) should be considered a forum-like post and be reverted immediately. Any thoughts anyone has here?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Laverne Cox' presence on that Wikipedia article depends on whether or not Cox is a woman AND the contributions Cox has made for women. That is I why I propose Cox' immediate removal and a substitution with either Sappho or an equivalent historical personality. Yes, mentioning Laverne Cox is a person-specific example, but Cox or any other trans woman being on that page is a factual error and a blatant disregard for historical women. Advokata1 (talk) 08:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

We are all entitled to an opinion. Wikipedia does not delete opinions that we don't agree with. Gandydancer (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You mean, it's a perfectly okay opinion people have that trans women are just men who make up fake identities by arbitrarily lying?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If you can name some contributions Cox has made for women or, more generally, a good reason why Cox deserves a space in that page, then fine. All I have seen is a history of talking over women, ignorance of female biology and even support of a child rapist (because he decided in prison that he was a woman). Cox' male socialisation is visible.Advokata1 (talk) 15:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Advokata1, do you really think trans women are simply men who arbitrarily lie by calling themselves women?? Please do research to find out what they actually are. Georgia guy (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

"Lie" was not the word I used (or would have used) at all. Gender identity and expression may change at one's will, but biological sex does not. Which is why I objected to Cox' presence on that page. All the examples of women on that article feature biological women (women who born women), so why is an exception being made for Cox?Advokata1 (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

An important part of respecting trans women is to understand what they contrast with. They contrast with cisgender women, not with biological women. Georgia guy (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Advokata1: Please do not misgender trans individuals. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Transgender women, you say, contrast with cisgender women. The ugly duckling contrasted with the beautiful ducklings. It thought of itself as a duckling. But it was not a duckling. And it could not become one. 86.45.0.228 (talk) 09:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The Ugly Duckling is a fairy tale. In reality, there is no such thing as "transspeciesism". Only transgenderism exists. Georgia guy (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a huge tangent but the person was making an analogy not a literal point but regardless you are totally wrong in your assertion. The same condition exists in both aspects but otherkin do not have the same options. Audaxski (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I would recommend removing her as well as she is not an important figure in history. I do not find her relevant enough to be a part of this article. Sappho should get back, and if we need a transwoman in the header I believe it would be better to have one from the Stonewall riots. 83.250.248.61 (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

This is an article about women, not the history of women. Georgia guy (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

If that were the case, you could remove all of the images and replace them with a single clinical diagram. Audaxski (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

New section for discussing the composite

Here are all the women currently in the composite as of the timestamp on this signature:

• Laverne Cox
• Venus
• Joan of Arc
• Eva Perón
• Marie Curie
• Indira Gandhi
• Venus of Willendorf
• Wangari Maathai
• Mother Teresa
• Grace Hopper
• Mamechiho, a Geisha
• a Tibetan farmer
• Marilyn Monroe
• Oprah Winfrey
• Aung San Suu Kyi
• Josephine Baker
• Isis
• the Queen of Sheba
• Elizabeth I
• a Quechua mother

We have already discussed restoring Sappho to the image at the expense of Venus, with the argument being that she is a notable woman writer and a lesbian, while Venus is fictional. Are there any other changes that should be made at the same time in order to avoid putting the person making the change to the unnecessary trouble of repeated edits?

• I personally favor organizing the images chronologically.
• Are there any other image swaps that people would like to propose? Replacing Mother Teresa has been suggested due to her controversial status; is there someone else (eg. another religious figure or figure known for a relationship to religion) that it might be good to include instead?
• I'm also unfamiliar with the community consensus regarding how we decide which ordinary folks to include; do we consider these ones representative? Is there a case to be made for using a famous Japanese person instead of an ordinary one, for instance, or do we like having some ordinary people?
• Are there any demographics or careers we consider important and currently unrepresented?

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm fine with restoring Sappho at the expense of an artist's conception of Venus. And if we are looking for replacements for Mother Teresa, I would suggest a religious icon of some aspect of the Virgin Mary. She was the face of women to the Church for centuries, taken to be an exemplar of Divine Wisdom/Sophia, and to philosophers the Eternal Feminine. Fictional, yes, and also any depiction would necessarily be an artist's conception rather than a depiction of an actual person, but she certainly has far more historical importance than Mother Teresa, who dressed to resemble her. - Nunh-huh 05:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd be behind that. @Little Miss Desu:? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest replacing Laverne Cox with Lynn Conway to bring in more STEM representation, although Cox is obviously a more recognizable figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.89.74 (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Works for me! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Heyo, Iiiiiii kind of forgot about this. Can we talk about the issue of representing "famous" vs. "ordinary" people? Is representing "ordinary" people actually a goal of the composite, or is it a byproduct of trying to cover bases of ethnicities and professions? And do we want to include another scientist and/or author. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hatshepsut: sub for Isis, an ahistorical abstraction

Golly. Looks like an inordinate amount of discussion has gone into this already. I'm just going to very gingerly submit that while Ms. Cox is an excellent subject for the montage, it's politically WP:activist to make her, literally, the prime example of womanhood. Ms. Cox's claim to fame is primarily her position as a television star and the highest-profile transgender activist in the world; I'm glad WP "takes her side" against those who would misgender her, but there are other women who have a more meaningful claim to the top spot. I think Ms. Cox's image should kept, but swapped with a) an "everywoman" like the Tibetan (rationale: resembles the "median human female") or b) a personage of less-WP:Recentist significance, such as Ms. Curie or Hatshepsut. FourViolas (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's just a result of a chronologically early image being swapped out for Cox's without the whole thing being rearranged. I'd also prefer having her closer to the bottom, but not so we can have a different photo of a contemporary person up top. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It's great to have a transgender woman included but we could really do with a more well known example than Laverne Cox. In the UK hardly anyone knows her and in less Americanised cultures I'm sure it's even worse. Chelsea Manning makes a lot more sense to me to include. Wikiditm (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Please Add...

• {{Feminism}}

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.221.112 (talk • contribs)

 Done EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Woman Montage (1).jpg

Since the meaning of Woman is "human female" there is no way to make some images in the montage fit. "Isis" is a goddess not a human. We could also say the same about the two Venuses, but that is less clear. Why not change Isis image to Cleopatra VII? tahc ^chat 16:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason to make any change, because the female gods do represent the feminine and therefore symbolize the human female form in the myths. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 21:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Since this article is Woman and not Femininity, I think your reasoning is misplaced. Are you just saying you don't want to do this yourself, or that there is any actual reason to avoid it at all? tahc ^chat 01:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I agree that there is reasoning misplacement here, but not mine. When one considers that as recently as August of this year, a bust of Sappho was replaced with an image of Laverne Cox, a notable and openly transgender person, then one might feel that "female" gods are appropriate inclusions in this montage. In my humble opinion, they are. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 02:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Isis and Venus shouldn't be here. Instead I suggest:

• Queen Victoria
• George Sand
• Simone de Beauvoir
• Virginia Woolf
• Coco Chanel
• Rosa Parks
• Margaret Thatcher
• Katharine Hepburn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1A:BA30 (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The word "woman" is used for female deities when depicting them as humans, so I don't think it's inappropriate to have these. Nature itself is sometimes called a woman too, but that would be too abstract. I don't think the image should be restricted just to human women when the word is used outside that context.Wikiditm (talk) 10:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Cox first - really?

Don't get me wrong, I'm on board with gender and racial diversity, but is Laverne Cox really the first woman that comes to mind over Cleopatra, Joan of Arc, Venus, or Mother Theresa? I agree that Cox, a trans woman of color, has a place in the composite, but first on the woman article is a little overkill, dare I say - tokenistic?

Just the $0.02 of a random anon.

--75.68.111.172 (talk) 09:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Why

Why put a transgender person among the other women and not, I don't know, a female midget? Or a woman with down syndrome? Is it arbitrary, or is there a reason? --JimmyBroole (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)