Important Note: The main image used at the top of this article is and likely always will be the subject of an ongoing discussion. If you disagree with the current image or would simply like to add your points to the debate, please feel free to do so below.
Any image which has no consensus here will be removed.
NO ONE SHOULD SEE WOMAN NAKED. IT IS BAD. I REALLY THINK THAT IT IS NOT GOOD. WOMEN ARE ACTUALLY NOT SHALLOW AND GOOD FOR STUFF. PORN IS REALLY REALY BAD FOR WOMEN AND MAN. IF YOU LOOK AT TOO MUCH PORN YOU WILL GO TO HELL. WOMEN ARE VERY VERY SMART. I AM A GIRL TEEN IN AMERICA AND WORK VERY VERY HARD AT SCHOOL, AND WANT TO BE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. HOWEVER, WHEN I BECOME TH PRESIDENT I WOULD NEVER LET STUPID STUPID GUYS LOOKAT PORN. --JENNA
Predictable things
I've found the lampooning for this article extremely funny!
Better picture
There's no actual real photograph on this page that shows a woman. We have a drawing of one, but that's kind of, uh, pointless. We need to do what the SETI people did and put these silly human body shame issues to rest and find the most representative photograph we can find, and use it. --Cyde Weys06:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! What exactly is the most representative? There is so much variation that any "representative" photograph is likely to be biased or, even worse, more representative of a particular race or ethnic group.
And who precisely determines which issues are "silly"? What is the criteria? This is an encyclopedia...let us maintain a certain air of dignity, shall we? NetK00:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After my edit [1] that removed the Apollo image (Image:Human-woman.png) and moved the frau image (Image:Frau-2.jpg) up to replace it, User:Netkinetic swapped the Frau image for the old Apollo one. I am of the opinion that the Frau photo is a much better representation and much more appropriate for an encyclopedia than the Apollo line drawing. I think the line drawing is a horrible image and has too much association with the Apollo missions. What image do the other editors here think is the most best one to complete the article, and is anyone going to object if I change the images back again?--Clawed07:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note on the "Apollo" image (Image:Human-woman.png): it is not from the Apollo missions, but from the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 space probes to Jupiter and Saturn, the first two man-made objects to leave the Solar System. The woman and man were drawn to be as pan-racial as possible and according to the conventions of classic Greek sculpture. Also, since the probes were publicly funded.
they could not fly in the face of American mores of the time (the early 1970s). -- Stefano KALB 01:51, 16 Jul 2006 (UTC)
Illustration
Aha, so that's what it all boils down to! Now we know what a woman is: huge tits, broad hips, nice long hair, shaved you-know-what, makeup, nail polish and white skin! Thanks for that priceless piece of info! Now we men can recognize the thing when we see it, and women are going to know how to be, err, real women.
One thing I like about this civilisation is the way it thinks that you can illustrate woman the way you illustrate cow.
Very strong agreer! I am personally extremely repulsed by the image on the article. Definitely not the best article to showcase the virtues of nudism. I have two questions. 1) Why should there be an "illustrative" picture for this article in the first place? is it intended to be something like a human zoo? 2) If there should be a picture, why should it be this? To help kids see nude women for the first time? Please! Chancemill04:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a photo of an average woman. Not a photo of a sex bomb. Most of the women nowadays removed the hair from legs, armpits and etc. (I know she also removed her public (sic) hair). The only problem with this photo is that the woman is too big, women are usally smalls then men. --Haham hanuka17:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Average perhaps in some millieus, such as the porn world which your articles indicate you are quite interested in. Oddly, many people think that the subject of "woman" might be slightly more complex than just tits and unshaven pussy, the criteria that you seem to think is most important to illustrate. - Nunh-huh17:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nunh-huh, please try not to make personal insinuations. Your last edit seems to imply that Haham hanuka's views are prejudiced by pornography, and I think we should be able to talk about the issues here without getting into editors' personal lives.
I'm not getting into anyone's personal life, I'm looking at what they are interested in bringing to Wikipedia. In this case, it seems to be pornography. It's not a matter of shame, he brags about it on his user page. - Nunh-huh18:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That said, am I right in thinking that the main disagreement here is where to put the "Frau" image? If so, then Haham hanuka, why do you feel the image should be at the top of the page as opposed to further down? --Allen18:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. In the article man whe have a main nude photo. 2. This photo is much more better then the arabic women we have right now, take it to ar.wiki. --Haham hanuka18:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Nunh-huh, if you're talking about something in the Hebrew section of Haham's user page, then I'll take your word for it; I don't know any Hebrew. As for the English part of Haham's page, all I see is that Haham has created articles related to pornography. For all I know based on that, the POV that Haham is bringing to Wikipedia could be that pornography perpetuates an unrealistic and unhealthy image of female beauty, and Haham wants to document the world of pornography so that more people can see this. I'm not saying I think that's Haham's view, but I do think it's our responsibility not to assume things about where other editors are coming from unless they've made it explicit. --Allen18:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could read the articles. That would put all your doubts to rest. Then you wouldn't have to assume anything. Quite clearly someone so thoroughlly enamored of pornography will have a different view of what is important in depicting women than will most Wikipedia contributors.- Nunh-huh19:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haham, what if the nude man photo was moved further down that page, as you've suggested before? Would that be satisfactory? --Allen18:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should have read Talk:Man before asking that question -- User:Angr has made a case over there for why the top picture should be a nude, and personally I don't want to argue otherwise. Maybe the best solution would be to find a photo of a nude woman that more people could agree on than "Frau". I searched through the commons -- I did find some pictures that were public domain, natural body hair, no apparent makeup, less posed... but they're low-resolution, and also the subjects look quite young, and I expect a lot of people would like the image to be of a more middle-aged woman. (I'm talking about Image:Desnudismo Integral 1.jpg and the other similar pictures you can find by following the link there.) A Google search was less successful. I'm coming to a greater appreciation of why "Frau" is so popular. There must be something more acceptable to more Wikipedians out there... but I guess it's easier said than found. --Allen19:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(I've quoted the image so it doesn't take up so much space here.) I have no problem with it, but it has been discussed at length before here. I haven't read through the whole discussion yet, and I'm not sure if there was no consensus to put it in, or if it was put in but then taken out later for some reason. Nunh-huh, I see you were arguing against its inclusion, but I'm not sure if you were arguing against the picture itself, or against the addition of another nude when there were already more than one in the article.
As for the merits of this particular image, although the woman in the picture seems to have natural body hair, and doesn't seem to be wearing makeup, she is still young and thin. I'm fine with that, but we might have an easier time reaching consensus if the woman were middle-aged and a bit heavier. --Allen21:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"she is still young and thin.", if I would suggest a picture of older and fatter woman you would say "she is still old and fat". This picture is perfect for this article. --Haham hanuka21:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I would not say "she is still old and fat", or anything to that effect. Anyway, while I'm not sure that there is a consensus for the Erleuchtung picture, there does seem to be wide agreement that it is at least as appropriate as the Frau picture. So I'll go ahead and switch them out. I won't move it back up to the top, though; I'd say there's no consensus for that yet. --Allen21:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Photo
The German, the Spanish and the Dutch Wiki's have this pic as a main one. Also in the article man we have a nude photo. We can found a better nude photo, but It seems the best right now --Haham hanuka17:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the germans have added their pic successfully to those articles. They really seem to love it. Here, we don't seem so intent on objectifying women, or in insisting that the most important thing about women is that they can be nude. "Frau" is still there, she's just not at the top. - Nunh-huh17:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, by including anything other than a nude woman in the picture, you are tacitly endorsing their adornment in whatever fashion is shown. A nude photo is appropriate. If you find the woman's current state offensive, I would say (seriously) find a more representative nude photo (somewhat snidely) grow up. Stop assuming your cultural conditioning is representative of anything more than your cultural conditioning. There is nothing offensive about representing an organism in it's natural state. The objections you are voicing are social constructs, and really only indicate your inability to separate sexuality from biology.
Like he said. You do know that's the correct British spelling? They love having extra vowels in medical terms. Oesophagus, foetus, haemotology, etc. - Nunh-huh19:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nude photo on top
Now, I think Erleuthung is much better than Frau, because it is much farther from promoting somebody's standard of nice cosy femininity or absolute, perfect womanhood. But, while I would hardly engage in an edit war about it, I don't think that even having a nude picture in the top is necessary. In talk:Man, User:Angr's main argument for having a nude picture is that "The top picture needs to be nude because this is first and foremost a biology article, and the entire male body needs to be shown.". In fact, that doesn't hold true of the article Man and even less of this article, because both are not only about the biological, but also about the social and cultural (even linguistic) aspects of the concept - actually, these latter ones occupy more space than the first one. Putting only the nude picture on top seems to imply that the biological aspect is the most important one, as it is in animals. This is, at best, a POV. In fact, it's clear that society and culture are at least as important as biology in determining the "being" of men and women.
Another thing is that this topic is just too sensitive. Whether we like it or not, each illustration in the heading of such an article will tend to imply that this or that is what the typical, absolute woman, the essence of femininity looks like. So one good solution would be a collage, and another one would be an image like "women of Egypt" (see also the Arabic and the Danish versions, silly as they are), which overtly and with a measure of irony refuses to even attempt to portray "the essence of femininity". --85.187.44.13122:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having a nude picture does not detract from the sociological and cultural aspects, but having a nonnude picture does detract from the biological aspects. It is in no way "unclassy and tacky"; what's unclassy and tacky is fear and loathing of a nude picture of a human being. Angr (talk) 11:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's unclassy and tacky to suggest, by undue prominence, that the most important thing about "woman" is how she looks naked. It's what would be expected in an encyclopedia written mostly by teenage Internet-addicted geek adolescent boys, rather than a serious work. Please pay attention to the fact that "having" a nude picture is not in issue, and stop attacking that straw man: what has been discussed is "which", and "where". There's no "fear and loathing" in evidence. - Nunh-huh21:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nunh-huh, how do you feel about the argument that man and woman should be consistent in whether or not they have nude pictures on top? --Allen23:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While equal treatment for men and women is a good thing, that doesn't mean you can ignored long-established cultural biases. Woman have long been demeaned by being reduced to their body parts, and otherwise objectified, and there is good reason for an encyclopedia that values its neutrality not to likewise do so. There is no such cultural tendency to objectify men by reducing them to their bodies, or body parts, and so placement in the "men" article isn't as tendentious. Maintaining that "man" and "woman" must be identical is to argue for a foolish consistency. - Nunh-huh01:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one has discussed "deleting" the image. Please review the prior discussion: it is about placement. The image not selected ("Frau") is the demeaning one. - Nunh-huh01:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is demeaning about the "Frau" image? She's certainly not some airbrushed anorexic underwear model. What's the problem? Kasreyn18:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "Frau" can't be called exactly "demeaning". . The problem is that the image reflects (and by its placement in the lead, propagates) a certain standard of feminine beauty, and that's what it shouldn't do, for obvious reasons. First of all, the body is heavily "edited" (total epilation, significant makeup, nail polish etc.), the implication being that that condition is "the" only one and even the natural one, and that these things are constitutive and required for femininity. Unlike a dressed image, which doesn't pretend to show you "the natural woman", this one does pretend to do it, but in fact shows you another kind of "clothing", telling you that it's "the real one". Another thing is that while she isn't a model, she does reflect another, more homely ideal (breasts bigger than her head etc.) that few women actually meet. I agree that in terms of body shape, she is a fine, beatiful specimen of some typically feminine traits. With an illustration for cow, that would be okay; with a representative of homo sapiens, it smacks of a Nazi-like "biological" approach to humans ("a strong well-shaped German woman of fine breed, ready to give birth to many children for the Fuehrer"). A general problem with having Frau at the top is the same as with having a non-nude Western woman, dressed according to the latest Western fashion (that's probably the reason why there are so many images of "exotic" Third World women in the article, and almost no European types): using as a lead illustration something that obviously isn't "the norm" is okay; using as a lead illustration something that the prevailing cultural bias would lead us to regard as "the norm" is harmful. --85.187.44.13111:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, I think you may be reading a bit too much into it with the "Nazi" stuff. "Frau" is the word for "woman" in German, if I remember correctly, and the image was uploaded by a German-speaker. Perhaps we could assume good faith and not make such assumptions about the character of those who uploaded and added the image? It seems to me like you're assuming a lot more about the uploader and photographer's intentions than is warranted. Honestly, I wasn't even considering the eyeshadow and nail polish, they're not particularly extreme and they don't distract from the more important aspects of the image. I can't tell if you think the model is good-looking or not (at one point you call her homely and compare her to a cow, at another point you refer to her makeup and nails as being part of a standard of beauty). I think you're splitting hairs. You're never going to find an image of a nude woman that is perfectly average and completely au naturale. Something will always be wrong with it, either the pose, or the facial expression, or the makeup, or the bodily hair, or the breast size, or the body fat content, and on and on. Honestly, we need a quality nude more than we need it to conform to some absolutely impossible ideal of being the ideal "average" woman - she doesn't exist any more than the stereotyped ideal "perfect woman" you mention does. Kasreyn15:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But that's 85.187.44.131's point, right - because we can't find a picture of the "average" woman, we should be careful about using an image which might be taken to be our understanding of an "average" woman. Using a woman dressed in clothes we specifically identify as from a certain place and time makes it very clear that it is not an image of "woman" as such. But using a picture of a nude woman, particularly if we aren't explicit about what time and place she comes from, risks suggesting that we aren't aware of how culturally specific the image is. That's the problem with using any image of a nude woman: it implies a generality it can't actually embody. As a nude woman is no more or less suitable than a clothed woman as an image of women as such, why is it so important that the lead image be nude? VoluntarySlave18:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't fundamentally disagree with your logic. I just feel that if we follow it to its end, we will wind up with an article which does not have any images, because we have too high a standard for what sort of image can represent the term "woman". Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. As to nudity, it's not in itself specifically important to me, but I felt that by doing away with clothing we could shed most cultural preconditioning and specificity, which I feel is about all we can hope for. To be honest, I didn't even notice the makeup and nail polish on the "Frau" model until it was pointed out to me; I'm not a big appreciator of fashion and such things don't immediately attract my attention. Mostly I was pleased with the image because it was a full frontal nude with good lighting and no distracting or culture-specific backgrounds; because the woman was adult, of average weight and height, and appeared to be in good health; because the woman's facial expression was not lascivious or sultry (typical in images lifted from porn sites) nor did she appear shamed or abashed by her nudity, and most importantly because the woman wasn't the sort of airbrushed, overly made-up anorexic bottle blonde that has sadly become a Western ideal of "beauty". I think these points in its favor make the image a very good choice, and many images of women with, perhaps, more common body-types would fail one or more of these tests. Sure, her breasts are probably a bit larger than average, but not by that much, and I don't see why it matters. I think you made the same points as the anon, but in a less offensive way. And sure, I see no reason why we shouldn't point out that the model is a contemporary German woman. There's no particular reason not to that I can see. But I do still feel that a nude model is more appropriate. Kasreyn19:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to be "offensive", and I didn't want to imply that the uploaders' national affiliation had anything to do with this. I used the Nazi example as an extreme (you certainly don't need to be Nazi to have the ideas that I "read into" it). I didn't want to insult the model either (in fact, I personally think she looks quite nice, but that has nothing to do with the issue), and I certainly didn't call her a cow; the context in which I used the word "cow" was pretty clear. --85.187.44.13112:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
La Maja Desnuda c. 1799-1800. Oil on canvas. 97 x 190 cm. Museo del Prado (Madrid, Goya. I agree, See this famous painting by Goya, for example: Not much difference from Mrs Frau, is it? I would argue that the Frau image is as good as any other image. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @17:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see what is so "unclassy" or "tacky" about the nude female body. Mind explaining it to me? To my mind, a nude photo is the most informative and appropriate to have at the top of the article. Kasreyn18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest reading the talk page. Again, while I don't think that expressions like "unclassy and tacky" are very adequate or meaningful here, the idea that a nude female body shows the essential things about being a woman is, in fact, a POV, a point I tried to make at the top of this section. And the abstract Apollo drawing (ambiguous regarding race etc.) is informative enough, reflecting a typically female shape of the body without making any further suggestions. --85.187.44.13111:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the Apollo drawing is any better: it's still culturally specific (e.g long hair, amount of body fat), and it maintains the idea of a nude woman as "natural" (i.e., non-cultural) woman. Perhaps a montage of images of woman from different places and times (and wearing different amounts of clothes, I guess) would be the best bet. But using the "Frau" image, but explicitly mentioning it's cultural specificity in the caption, doesn't strike me as too terrible. VoluntarySlave18:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the image of a nude woman to the top of the article, and added a pointer in the caption to the similar image at man, and vice versa. Logically, either both should stay, or both should go. Can you tell me why you consider an image of a nude woman unacceptable, whilst a nude man is OK? -- The Anome23:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This "consistency" thing isn't an argument at all.
1. We aren't dealing with man now. Each article should be considered in its own right.
2. If we did have to deal with this question at all (which we don't) it should be obvious to anyone that men have never been targets of objectifying in the way women have.
3. If it's just consistency y'all wanted, why didn't you remove the picture in man instead?
4. If you look at the talk page of man, you'll see that they put a nude photo following woman's example. According to the "consistency" logic, somebody should have stopped the change to a nude photo in woman, because there was no nude photo in man back then!
Anyway, since I doubt that I'm going to convince anybody of that, at least I'm putting back the compromise meditating nude at the top, this being my humble contribution to the edit war. --85.187.44.13101:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The meditating woman drawing is not relevant to this article. There is absoultely nothing wrong with a picture of a nude woman. If there are editors that are see this image as prurient, please note that it is not, as it is a photo taken obviosuly without that intention. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @01:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a drawing, it's just as relevant as Frau, and while Frau isn't prurient, she advances certain stereotypes, as has been argued earlier. Nobody is against pictures of nude women in principle. --85.187.44.13101:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop adding images. Thanks. Discuss first. And read previous discussion before getiing involved. Thanks.- Nunh-huh01:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Nunh-huh, but this image has been there for a long time, unchallenged. The burden is on you to discuss and gain consensus for its removal. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @01:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stored version
Line 99: Line 99:
Please stop adding images. Thanks. Discuss first. And read previous discussion before getiing involved. Thanks.- Nunh-huh 01:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC) :Please stop adding images. Thanks. Discuss first. And read previous discussion before getiing involved. Thanks.- Nunh-huh01:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Nunh-huh, but this image has been there for a long time, unchallenged. The burden is on you to discuss and gain consensus for its removal. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @01:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC) :[reply]
It was discussed before the change. The fact is that you simply didn't bother to read or participate in that discussion before or after your fourth revert. - Nunh-huh01:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jossi, I don't think that's a fair characterization of Nunh-huh's edits. The image hadn't been there that long -- there was a line drawing there a few weeks ago -- and it doesn't seem to me like any stable consensus has existed for at least a year and a half. Further, until you made it clear you preferred Frau to Erleuthung, it was starting to look as though, while there wasn't a consensus for very much, there was at least wide agreement that Erleuthung was at least as appropriate as Frau. --Allen01:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not involved in this content dispute. I just reverted what I considered to be vandalism, e.g. the removal of an image that was placed a while back, as I have this article on my watch list to combat vandalism. I added a gallery of images from commons a few weeks ago, that may be suitable to illustrate this article. I will let these that are into editing this article find a suitable image to replace the previous image, providig this is done not based on puritanism or other POV. Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @01:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that everything in Wikipedia is copyrighted. The pertinent question is whether the copyright holder releases his exclusive rights, so that we can use is. This particular copyright holder has done so, and has done so under a licence which is even less restrictive than the GFDL.. - Nunh-huh02:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not so, Nunh. I am a deviantArt artist (see http://jossif.deviantart.com/) and I can assure you that the policy of deviantArt is that material posted by artists is copyrighted. The uploader had no rights released by that artists. Anyone can such make a disclaimer. See the uploader's upload log and you will see what I mean [2]. That image is now in IFD. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @02:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll let the mavens there straighten it out, but it seems to be that the cophyright holder has released it for free use with attribution. - Nunh-huh02:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader is a kid, and no longer contributing. Most certainly he uploaded the image (his edit summary was "image taken from") and then added a spurious tag. It will be most certainly deteled. There are many suitable images in commons that can be used. See commons:Category:Woman≈ jossi ≈ t • @02:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Text of copyright notice: This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that copyright statement and link to http://buecax.deviantart.com/ are maintained.
Image has been deleted. If the author uploads the image himself with a release about his agreement to use within the GFDL, it can be un-deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @03:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can we move the nude picture down on the article, so its not immediately available? Then we could paste a warning at the top of the page for those who don't want to see a woman naked. Single guy00:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Frau"'s presense here is the result of a campaign by those who are friends of the model. Many people have expressed concern with the editorial consequences of leading off the "Woman" article with this particular photo, and their concerns are dismissed by those who so resolutely campaign for making this photo the most prominent part of the article. So it's probably not worth wasting a lot of time urging people to adopt a more mature position: they prefer to conceptualize it as winning for "their" photo, or as a blow against censorship, and run roughshod over the suggestion that perhaps Wikipedia might find something more important to say about "woman" than "a man with tits." - Nunh-huh03:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I do not know of the model. If you can find alternative images to illustrate the article, it would be excellent to know what these could be. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @04:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know "Frau" either, but think it is the best image to use for the article. If there were a better image (nude or otherwise) then I would support that image as being the first image on the page. --Clawed09:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you're talking about, Nunh-huh. I've already outlined the reasons I support the image above in excruciating detail. Mind detailing who here precisely are friends of the model, and what your evidence is that they're allowing that friendship to sway their decisions? Kasreyn11:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can look through the archive for Frau's German friends. A bad illustration is worse than no illustration. And several preferable photos have been used in this article as the lead photo, some placed by those just above, and nonetheless, the pubescent urge to have Frau first seems to prevail. - Nunh-huh15:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's explore otehr altrnatives, shall we? If we find something more suitable, I would have no problems in replacing it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @15:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Describing those who argue for the Frau image as "pubescent" goes against Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and clearly misrepresents the arguments put forward for the image. Proponents of the "Frau" image have argued that an image of a woman without clothes is the most appropriate way to present women in general, that is, the concept of woman absent any specific cultural factors. I think that's a mistake, as the body is culturally produced just as a specific dress or activity are; but it's a perfectly reasonable argument. If you want to remove the Frau image from the top of the article, you should address that argument. VoluntarySlave23:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, your "refutation" of the reasoning for including the photo is nonsense. What you seem to be arguing is that, in removing one kind of cultural bias, you are left with a different kind of cultural bias. That of, body type. Ignoring the idea that this is inaccurate, you seem to be saying not that you have a problem with the nude, but that you have a problem with that particular nude, as it represents a different kind of cultural bias. So find a better one, I suggest something like Betty Crocker. And frankly, your assertion that body type is as dependent on culture as dress or activity is patently ridiculous. The differences in varities of dress and activity are so clearly more dependent on culture that I have to wonder if you genuinely believe your argument, or were simply thrashing about in a vain effort to refute something you didn't agree with. 70.115.211.12205:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)You're wrong[reply]
If you don't like pubescent, puerile will do. And it is neither a representation nor a misrepresentation of "arguments", it's my assessment of motivation. As you point out, the argument that a "woman sans clothes" is culturally neutral is specious; besides your refutation, I'd add that the presentation of a nude woman as the first and foremost image says "woman belongs naked", and flips the figurative bird to all cultures that don't think so - and in the process reduces women to an image pandering to the notion that her most important function is to visually (and otherwise) satisfy men. - Nunh-huh00:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sort of curious: what is the difference, if any, between "assessment of motivation" and an argument ad hominem? Please focus on other editors' actual arguments and comments as such, and leave your speculation and guesswork about their motives out of it. Kasreyn09:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When the actual argument don't reflect actual motivation, it's counterproductive to focus on them. Please focus on my actual argument and not your guesswork about it. - Nunh-huh15:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pfft. Excuse me, but you were the one who started calling people's arguments "pubescent" and "peurile" and assuming you knew their underlying motives. I was pointing out that your arguments were ad hominem, which means that I, unlike you, was commenting about an argument rather than a person. Please get it straight. Kasreyn18:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, "pfft" and "please get it straight", then, would be the model on which I should base future interaction? I'll be continuing to characterize attitudes (not arguments) as such when necessary. - Nunh-huh18:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make a deal with you: if you assume good faith and stop describing people's motives as "pubescent" and "peurile", I'll stop pointing out that your remarks are ad hominem (because I won't have to any more). Kasreyn22:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure I've never described any specific person's motives as pubescent or peurile (or even puerile). As far as I'm concerned, you can voice your opinion about whatever you like. - Nunh-huh23:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so you changed the terms of the debate to specific people and I didn't notice. That doesn't mean anything except that I should pay better attention to your replies. I never claimed you had targeted a specific person, I said you were referring to people, plural. Ad hominem remarks against groups are still ad hominem remarks. Kasreyn00:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well, then, we've finally managed to characterize our basic dispute. Pointing out that a group of people who share a motive are a group of people who share a motive is not an ad hominem argument in my book. You think it is. So we disagree. - Nunh-huh01:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To Nunh-huh: I'm having trouble contextualizing your statement "Wikipedia might find something more important to say about "woman" than "a man with tits"." Is this what a woman is to you? A man with tits? Please explain, because I find it difficult to agree that someone with this viewpoint should be editing the Woman article at all. romarin[talk ]16:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read more carefully. That's my characterization of the (present) article that thinks "Frau" is the most important illustration we can have for "Woman". It is most decidedly not my attitude. - Nunh-huh17:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, and I apologize if I came across as assuming bad faith; I just couldn't think of another way to understand what you had said, not having been a part of previous discussions on this topic. romarin[talk ]20:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I'm very happy to welcome the participation of those who might have ideas about fixing the current article. - Nunh-huh00:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who said it was the most important? I merely feel that it's a good compromise, consensus image. It's certainly not ideal, but it's (in my opinion) better than every other image that has been proposed for the first spot. I have no problems with having plenty of photos showing the great diversity of appearance of women. But one image has to be first, simply by the nature of the web. I feel that first image should be a nude. And I've already detailed my reasons for feeling the "Frau" image superior to the other nudes we have available (or, I should say, that have been proposed for this article). Kasreyn09:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the first image (which is also now the largest, though it shouldn't be) is "the most important". If it's not, it shouldn't be first. - Nunh-huh15:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is it the "largest"? It's taller than most, but narrower than some. If its height were reduced much more, the corresponding reduction in width would make it rather hard to make out the details. And of course it wouldn't be appropriate to sacrifice the image proportions and turn the image into a funhouse mirror to make it fit.
As to the most imporant, I don't see why that follows from its position, or even why it should. I would say a better description would be "most broadly representational", which there is already a section for the discussion of, above. Kasreyn22:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very basic precept of page layout. The first picture is the most prominent, the most influential, the most important. Surely you are familiar with the idea of an "above-the-fold" photograph. - Nunh-huh23:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask why you reverted my edit on Woman without any comment? Did you regard it as vandalism or what? --85.187.44.131 14:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't regard it as vandalism, but it seemed unnecessary and contentious. Given the already heated debate on the page contents and that image in particular, calling attention to her pubic area (why not comment on other aspects of the model?) seemed like throwing gasoline on the fire. I should have mentioned that in the edit summary however, sorry. Gwernol 14:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I see, but I think that it is as relevant as writing that she is European and modern (also obvious things, but the point of mentioning them is to stress that they aren't "default"). Omitting to mention her depilation (not only in the pubic area) suggests that that's how women look normally (whatever that means). One of the main arguments of the pro-Frau side is that it shows "biological reality", so according to this logic such a noticeable deviation from "biological reality" should be mentioned. Makeup and nail polish could also be mentioned, of course, but they aren't so noticeable.--85.187.44.131 14:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
A line is going to have to be drawn at some point. Sure, she looks depilated. But would you think that a woman who doesn't remove any hair on her body is the most representative? Some women choose to remove all of their body hair, and others choose to let it all stay. Some remove parts of it. Women treat their bodies differently, and unless you have actual statistics, there is no way to know what categorizes the "majority", thereby rendering "depilated" worth mention.
Personally I feel torn here, because while I agree that removal of the pubic hair could be significant enough to mention, as it is not the "natural" state of a woman's body, I also think that this is being taken too far, and that we are starting to make presumptions based on mere observation. What if she is naturally hairless? Or her hair is so fine and sparce that it doesn't show up in the photo? Surely women like that exist. Kasreyn is right; we don't know for sure. Besides, there are so many factors that make this woman a cultural and individual being. Are we going to end up naming them all in the photo caption? romarin[talk ]15:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with romarin and Kasreyn. Aren't we splitting hairs here? (pun not intended). Let's assume some kind of basic intelligence on the part of our readers, OK? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @16:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I obviously have the majority against me, but I must say I'm not convinced at all.
Concerning the "we don't know for sure" bit (Kasreyn's and Romarine's argument) - maybe I'm just an ignoramus, but I've never heard of any adult being naturally completely hairless, could you please give me some sources about that? As for "fine hair", I just don't think it can be as fine as to be completely invisible, in the pubic region at any rate.
As for "representativeness" (Romarine's argument), we shouldn't be trying to have a "representative" woman, because it's impossible. She can't be some kind of a Frankenstein-like reflection of "the average human female" (40% Asian, 30% African, 30% fat, 20% blond and so on), nor can we mention every single characterisitic in the caption, e.g. that she is young, long-haired etc. etc.. The point is that the photo is supposed to show us the natural, biological woman (that's why we have a nude photo there, right?), and then something close to her "natural" state should be shown, or at least striking deviations from it should be mentioned. If we are going to show the culturally determined part (including depilation), then we might as well have a picture of a dressed woman (which was what I advocated in the first place).
As for "basic intelligence" (Jossi's argument) - yes, of course most viewers know that women naturally grow some hair. Also, most viewers know what a nude woman looks like, so once again, the whole "nudity" thing becomes unnecessary. However, our premise, and the premise of any similar illustration in an encyclopedia, is that there is an odd viewer who doesn't know these things and comes to Wikipedia to learn more.
IMO, not even mentioning depilation would imply that any normal modern European woman depilates herself by default, that depilation is something self-evident. Which is, of course, a POV. --194.145.161.22701:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the painting by Goya La maja desnuda, in this page above. Is Goya's model depilated or not? Can you tell? Would you add a caption, "painting by Goya of a depilated Spaniard woman circa 1797? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @01:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Pubic_hair#Pubic_hair_in_art, stating explicitly: "Francisco Goya's The Nude Maja was probably the first European painting to show woman's pubic hair, though others had hinted at it. The painting was considered quite pornographic at the time." It's true that the hair is barely hinted at by today's standards, but pubic hair, especially in females, was considered a taboo until then (see that article). Also, exactly because Goya has only hinted at it, the picture isn't a good illustration for the "biological" woman. --194.145.161.22711:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
227 (can we call you 227?), I completely understand your uncomfort with this photo. It is extremely hard to find a good representation of what "woman" looks like, probably even impossible, as there are so many different women with different physical characteristics, whether due to genetics or culture. Personally, I would rather support a photo of a woman who was not depilated, as I see removal of pubic hair as a potentially sexist custom (woman trying to look like young girl for man's pleasure, etc.). I'm sure that there are plenty of other reasons why some women choose to do this, but I'm just pointing this out to show you that my reasoning is not that I think a depilated woman is the best representation. I do think, however, as I mentioned before, that we have to draw the line somewhere, and we can't list everything in the photo caption that makes this woman a product of her society and/or her own individuality. Maybe someone will come up with another photo that we all can agree is better here, but until then, I support this photo, and I don't think it is necessary to mention her depilation. I think that jossi is right too; people will know, if they notice at all. And for now, if readers really want to see pubic hair, they can visit Pubic hair. romarin[talk ]02:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being friendly, but I don't think you've responded to any of my arguments, and in fact you have ignored them completely. Mentioning depilation is exactly what would urge readers to visit pubic, or rather, body hair and remind them that this is not the way a woman looks, biologically. As for drawing the line, I'd draw the line after depilation and not before it, because depilation (unlike, say, nail polish) is a rather striking deviation from usual biological appearance. So far, none of you has explained why the line must be drawn before depilation (but after modern and European) - apart from Kasreyn's "natural hairlessness" hypothesis, which I have neither heard of nor read on Wikipedia, in sexological books or elsewhere. The first description I came across actually started with female pubic hair as the most striking sexual characteristic - without mentioning, as usual in such cases, something like "some women don't have visible pubic hair, don't worry, it's normal". --194.145.161.22711:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are exaggerating my point. I did not claim the woman is hairless. I claimed that it is possible she has very fine or sparse hair which wouldn't show up in a photograph. After all, we're not standing next to her, we're looking at a photograph a couple of inches tall. A certain amount of resolution is inevitably sacrificed. I was also under the impression that a dark line at the woman's crotch was a trimmed patch of pubic hair. On closer examination, it appears to be the woman's genitals, so I certainly agree she's depilated. I still disagree that it's really important to point it out, but I don't think it's important enough to argue about. Kasreyn21:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While we're on the subject of photos...
Does anyone else think that there are too many pictures at the end of this article? It kind of looks like just anyone can go put up a picture of themselves or their friends, as long as they are female, and in my opinion it renders the article somewhat trite. Besides, there are all these ethnographic-ish photos of "exotic" women (except for one or two exceptions), and a bunch of ordinary-looking snapshots of Western, white women, which creates an unbalanced effect. I would suggest that the photos be limited to one from any given culture or society. If we're trying to represent women here, there are better ways to do it. Any suggestions? romarin[talk ]18:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think that all of these "exotic" women do belong to different cultures already. That said, I agree that the "ethnographic" part is too dominant here - the diversity of women should not be reduced to diversity of nationality/ethnicity. The individual, social, intra-cultural variations are just as important. --85.187.44.13119:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Every English dictionary agrees that a woman is an adult female human. However, the Category:Women article, which I propose a rename for, is about simply female humans. Anything regarding the word's actual definition?? Georgia guy14:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not censored, nudity to illustrate an article (as it does in this case) is perfectly acceptable. You can find out who made any edit by looking in the History tab. Thanks, Gwernol13:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that this photo should be removed and replaced with something a little more decent (and possibly more appealing). If I understand correctly, Wikipaedia is meant to be a repository of human knowledge, not a pornography free-for-all. Let us also consider that minors have as much access to this web site as anyone else. It follows that I do not feel a nude photo is even necessary, as there are medical diagrams to illustrate the genitals more accurately. Stovetopcookies01:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you feel the photo is pornographic? I'm very puzzled. I asked that question of a user above and never received an answer. I'm very curious. To me, it looks like a nude woman, standing still, and doing nothing particularly sex-related. She does not have a lascivious expression on her face, she is not wearing any lingerie, she is not posing with any sexual paraphernalia, she is not engaged in any sexual activity. What is pornographic about the image?
Human knowledge includes the appearance of a naked woman.
It is clearly indicated in Wikipedia's general disclaimer that material some may find offensive can be found here. See WP:NOT; Wikipedia is not censored for minors. Images should not be removed for this reason.
As far as I can tell, the current consensus among editors is that a photo of a nude woman does a fairly decent job of removing as many culture-specific identifiers (typically garments) from the woman while maintaining a high degree of information content. Clothing is a covering; one of its intended purposes is to reduce information content about the body, and the body is a legitimate topic for this article.
May I suggest that you read the previous discussion before complaining. As long as there are no new arguments, all this discussion is likely fruitless, and it hardly imaginable that any arguments exist that have not been presented on this and related pages. Keep that picture on the page, it's as neutral as a picture could possibly be, and it shows an average, if rather attractive, young woman, i.e. it is perfectly suitable. 87.122.38.7510:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there are clear conclusions to be made from the above discussion, and I don't know what the consensus is, it's been changing a lot. I've always been opposed to using a single nude picture at the top of the article: the female body is culturally or racially specific, just like clothes. Furthermore, I simply feel kinda offended (don't take me wrong, I'm male), when I see a cute, nude, slightly plump woman displayed as the absolute representative of the female part of humanity. It's difficult to even explain why I am, but I am. Even though I don't mind plumpness, or nudity, or cuteness, or the photo per se. I just hate the idea of their being presented as the ideal Woman with a capital W, and placing a single nude picture at the top of the article sort of implies an ideal. (which is why I think there should be a clearly non-ideal illustration).
Now criteria of encyclopedicness should be a little better defined than your aversion obviously is. There are good arguments against models that are in some respect extreme (extremely beautiful etc.), but that lady is close enough to average to be suitable. Good looking, but not perfect, what else do you want? If you found a picture showing more than one nude woman (aesthetically acceptable, that is, non-pornographic, plus with an acceptable license), that would be even better to disarm the anti-discrimination lobbyists (and ditto trolls), but such a picture may be difficult to find. 87.122.54.22917:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, I agree that she is average and quite fine as an individual. That's not the problem. As for encyclopedicness, let's be frank, what we are doing in this case is just "playing encyclopedicness" anyway. Other encyclopedias don't even have such an article. And where in heaven's name have you met an "anti-discrimination troll"? --194.145.161.22722:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look into this page's archives to find out. Every conceivable argument and many more there, including extensive discussions of fingernails, the sexism of taking a photograph of a woman exemplified by her posture, and the cultural biases inherent in showing (or rather not showing) pubic hair. If the feminists of this world have nothing better to do than lead such discussions, little wonder their cause is foundering. 87.122.26.16606:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I may have confused some such discussions with the analog talk page in German. Great fun reading, if you have some German. 87.122.26.16606:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with a nude woman at the top of the article. The article is about woman obviously we need a picture of a woman, obviously that woman should be nude. However i do see that it is difficult to represent "woman" by displaying a photo of just one woman. Ideally I would like to see a collection of women - all nude - of different ages, races and weights, standing or sitting in a naturally posed group. That would be my ideal photo, however until a photo like that becomes available I'm happy to settle for the one we have at the top of the article. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn14:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually a really good idea... unfortunately I suspect it may be hard to find free photos of that! If you do find one, please upload it! :) Kasreyn16:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel best practise at an encyclopedia is to a.) assume the readers know literally nothing except how to read the basic language, and b.) to include all information that seems notable and pertinent. What people look like - their entire bodies - is surely notable. Kasreyn21:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. The question is rather whether it is the most notable thing and whether it should be placed at the top. Never mind, I'm letting this be for the time being. But if more people come and feel uncomfortable about the photo (there have already been quite a few on both sides), I think a survey should be conducted. --194.145.161.22722:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Poor argument, as cultures in which it is the norm for women to live their lives nude are far and few between. So a nude is culturally inaccurate as well. It also seems to have escaped your notice that the arguements are not that the picture is porn (it would be bad porn, if it were porn) but that its placement as the most prominent photograph here implies that the essense of womanhood is nudeness - and, given the cultural baggage attached, sexual availability. It denigrates the actual accomplishments of women when you reduce them to tits and ass. - Nunh-huh05:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However this is not about cultural aspects alone, but about women in general, and in that context such a picture is clearly needed. And by the same token you could argue a lot about man. If we can show a nude man in man, why should we not show a nude woman in woman? I may be not too versed in the intricacies of antidiscriminatory pettifoggery, however, so the finer arguments may have escaped me... 87.122.26.16606:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Though you breezily dismiss attention to the historical status of women as a class, I think it is appropriate that cultural context be taken into account rather than pretending that showing a nude man requires showing a nude woman, and vice versa, as though the two things were culturally equivalent. - Nunh-huh18:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is not that one requires the othe, but that one is just as harmless as the other. It worries me that this simple and harmless picture incites such amounts of debate. A simple picture of an average woman to illustrate woman, what the hell could be more normal? I just don't get it.87.122.21.12906:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How many cultures exise where NO women are EVER nude? What is the only state that is, at some time or another universally shared by women? Yup, nudity. Point to me.
Only if they are giving out points for misunderstanding arguments, or exhibiting logical flaws, I fear.
Oh god, please shut the hell up. Unless you plan to actually READ what the hell you are responding to, the you have no business commenting. And if you plan to CLAIM there are logicl flaws, then you'd better be able to elaborate, not just CLAIM like you did. The truth is you know I'm right, and your arguments are unable to refute me, so you resort to vagaries of speech to support yourself. You've been outed as a troll and you hate it.70.115.211.12208:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)You hate that I'm right, but I'm still right.[reply]
Also, it seems to have escaped YOUR notice that Stovetopcookies posted the following
"I do agree that this photo should be removed and replaced with something a little more decent (and possibly more appealing). If I understand correctly, Wikipaedia is meant to be a repository of human knowledge, not a pornography free-for-all."
One arguement that our Wikipedian friend Frau, so vigorously promoted by her close friends, is porn, doesn't represent any large proportion of the actual argumentation here.
Perhaps not, but is the THE argument I Was addressing. Perhaps in the future, instead of runnig off at the mouth in anticipation of an argument, you should exercise due diligence and attempt to find out what you are responding to.70.115.211.12208:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Tired of know it alls like YOU[reply]
No, I'm still done with YOU, unles you plan to actually read what I post and not respond with your typical taliing points. And if you plan to reply, don't be such a scumbag and do it so we can see it was YOU.70.115.211.12208:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)I'm still right, and you're still pissed about it (unsigned)"[reply]
NO, I don't have to have the last word, I just ask for an honest discussion, not a ridicuolous repetition of talking points, sans logic. Since you are incapable of providing said arguments (and have demnonstrated such with your failure to support your exceedingly weak and silly assertations) what's the point of enagingg you in discussion?70.115.211.12208:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)How sad are you thast you follow others around responding to their tags? The answer is, you are so sad that suicide is a viable option.[reply]
So, I accept your apology in advance.70.115.211.12206:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Frankly, I think you're nuts, your silly assertions about "objectification" in a PHOTOGRAPH that shows an OBJECT which actually IS AN OBJECT, and that somepart of womanhood other that what is visible can somehow be represented in a PHOTOGRAPH are ridiculous, and you're a troll, and I'm done with you![reply]
Well, that's good news, in anycase. So I am relieved of the need to enlighten you, or object to your undeserved insult. Ta ta. - Nunh-huh06:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Funny though, how you chatise me for not following the argument, and then after demonstrating that it was in fact YOU who did not follow, you say nothing. You were wrong, you were thinking of a separate discussion, and instead of owning up, you troll on. Undeserved my rear, you earned it by doing things such as that. Also, you have repeatedly resorted to childish, confrontational attacks on those who disagree with you. You sound pretty funny trying to take the high road NOW.70.115.211.12206:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)You lose. Again. For like, the thirtieth time. I bet that gets old huh?[reply]
Nunh-huh, 70.115, just lay off. It's clear you're not going to agree. Quit wasting so much talk page space on something so futile.
Oh, and 70.115, don't think I didn't see your attempts to make it look like Nunh-huh called you a "Douchebag" [4] and a troll [5]. You inserted that. If you try to put words in someone else's mouth again, you will be reported to an administrator. Have a wonderful day, Kasreyn09:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Poll
Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, preferably adding a brief comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.
Question: Should the main image at the top of the article be a nude photo?
Weak support -- the image (or a similar one) is certainly appropriate for the article. I don't have a strong opinion about having it at the top of the article vs. lower down, but I'd sooner keep the status quo than shake things up without fuly understanding. CRGreathouse17:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What spacecraft? Are you perchance confusing it with the (rather abstract) Apollo drawings? The question was about a photo, not about the Pioneer drawings. --194.145.161.22710:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. The problem with leading with a nude image is that it might suggest that the picture is of a "natural" woman which is somehow not culturally specific. However, I haven't seen any convincing proposals for alternative lead pictures. VoluntarySlave08:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Illustrative picture concerning anatomy and human form. As mentioned earlier, nude pictures of men and women were inscribed on those spacecraft plaques. --Joffeloff17:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reject - seems like this is just a way to start unneeded controversy. An appropriate pic to include? Sure, just not for the lead. -- MrDolomite | Talk15:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MrDolomite. The nude picture is only generating controversy. Maybe something a little more "decent" would be more appropriate for the lead, but an unclothed picture should be included elsewhere in the article. Lawilkin16:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No — The article is not about female anatomy. A naked female body in the lead does not well represent the article as a whole. And, from a balanced WP:NPOV, a similar actual photo of an unclothed male does not lead off the article on man. (The illustration is the Michelangelo statue of David, which perhaps the analogous female image would be Venus de Milo.)— ERcheck (talk) 05:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly object to the Venus de Milo being the lead image. It's an image of the ancient Greek idealization of woman; it's extraordinarily culturally specific and, worse, specific to the European culture which might mistakenly pass as universal among editors of the English language Wikipedia. VoluntarySlave08:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but shouldn't be on the top. Similarly to Lawilkin position, i agree the picture is ok, but not for the top. It's more for a woman anatomy section, not for the heading, appearing the first on a casual overview. Platonides21:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. (I'm the anon who's been arguing against a nude photo all along). In short, I think that nudity doesn't deserve to be at the top; a nude picture is neither the most informative, nor the most beautiful possible image; and the (appearance of) a nude body is neither the most important, nor the most "non-discriminatory" characteristic of women. The worst thing is that it pretends to be so. --Anonymous4422:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
Discussion resulting from the survey would go here. If there were a significant amount, it might be moved to a talk page instead.
Except that we're omitting her entrails, which aren't normally visible either. In fact, what makes a woman a woman is not her appearance on the outside (transsexuals can have it too), but her reproductive system (on the inside). Ergo, we should place Image:Female_anatomy_frontal.png at the top. --194.145.161.22721:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A nice attempt at reductio ad absurdum but it misses the point. The illustration is not intended to define what a woman is, but to illustrate it. This image does a good enough job of that. Adding clothing would make the already complex question of which is an illustrative/representative image much thornier since clothing is so culturally specific. Gwernol21:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand how you define an illustration and, consequently, why it's clear that an illustration should strip the clothes and not the skin. If an illustration is supposed to show how you normally look, then there should be clothes. If it is supposed to show the essential things (shared by all women in all cultures, as the other anon argued), then there should be no skin. And, any image will inevitable be - and is - specific, both culturally and biologically. Rather, it should at least not pretend to be something other than specific.--194.145.161.22708:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict) I started typing pretty much the same thing, but Gwernol said it better than me. No matter how we try, we cannot show a whole woman, so we must try to show as much as it's possible for one illustration (and that means no clothes). Female anatomy picture is an important one to have further down in the article, but it is just unsuitable at the top as a picture of a dressed woman is—it shows (a lot) less than it's possible.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not very clear for me what is "more" and what is "less" in terms of, err, quantity, I suppose it's subjective. To me, the question is what is more relevant.----
In any case, my old enemy Common Sense seems to be winning a new victory. It seems that puritan Wikipedians don't read Current Surveys, and I don't feel like going about and posting messages to the people that have posted comments against the nude photo at some moment or other. Fine, at least now the discussion of this article can be limited to other issues for some time. I guess the poll should remain open for another couple of days. --194.145.161.22708:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Except that we're omitting her entrails, which aren't normally visible either."
Even worse, we're not showing her backside either! Darned two-dimensional imaging technology! Clearly, the solution is to remove all images from Wikipedia until three-dimensional holography is added to the project! (or in other words: ridiculous) Kasreyn20:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I think I know whose arguments I consider ridiculous better than you do. I was satirizing your reductio ad absurdum re: entrails not being visible. The point being that of course a photo is incapable of conveying all possible information; the point is, it can be meaningfully and usefully illustrative. The reason you're not following is probably because you are misinterpreting which sense the word "illustration" is being used in. Definitions 2 and 3 here may prove... illustrative. Kasreyn03:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then your satire missed the point, because I never said we should give up images, and all I suggested in this case was that the "show the hidden parts of a woman" argument doesn't make sense. The definition you provided a link to ("visual matter that clarifies or decorates a text") doesn't change anything. A picture of a dressed woman is probably better as a decoration, and a picture of the reproductive system is better as a meaningful clarification. I suppose you were trying to repeat Gwernol's argument that an illustration is not a definition, but that doesn't explain why one should prefer a certain form/condition of the subject (in this case, nude) for the lead illustration. One possible basis for such a preference, a basis that was implied earlier by the other anon, could be how unique or constituent features the given form of the subject has - hence my jocular conclusion that we should use the female reproductive system as a lead picture. --194.145.161.22710:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re: the comments of MrDolomite and Lawilkin. I agree that a nude photo is controversial. Unfortunately I think the proposed solution (picture of a clothed woman) would be at least as controversial and likely more so. Clothes are so culturally specific that you will just have endless debate about what is a good photo to use. Trying to create more "decency" (not really sure what that means as its a totally subjective term) closes down one source of debate but opens up another huge one, so doesn't seem to address your concerns. Best, Gwernol18:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re: the comments of Gwernol and others above. I never thought about culturally specific clothes being an issue, ty. But then that leads me to a new, related issue. What race should the (nude or clothed) lead picture be for an article about (woman or man)? -- MrDolomite | Talk18:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the solution is to choose both clothes and race that obviously can't be regarded as "privileged" in any way. Actually, the only possible mistake would be to use a Western woman in Western clothes. If we were to use, say, an Eskimo woman, nobody would think that we are trying to impose an Eskimo POV or anything. --194.145.161.22720:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there even a discussion about race here? The current picture is fine, and no the woman should not be clothed. The main photo's purpose is to demonstrate the body of a woman, not her culture. Dionyseus08:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? But why? What makes you think that the body of a woman is more important for this article than her culture is? I can't agree with that. Maybe it's because the body is the decisive factor that causes a woman to be a woman, while all the social factors, decisive as they are for the actual "being" of a woman, come afterwards. But, as some people argued above, an illustration is not a definition and needn't be guided by that; or, if it should be a definition and if it should be guided by that, then a picture of the female reproductive system would be the best solution, since a photo of external appearance includes many irrelevant characterisitics, and since a transsexual can also look like a woman on the outside. --194.145.161.22712:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You yourself explained why the body of a woman is more important for the main photo of this article than her culture. As for your idea of replacing the current main photo with a picture (I guess you meant an illustration) of the female reproductive system, that is even worse than the idea to use a photo of a clothed woman. Are you claiming that a woman's reproductive system is more important than the woman herself? That's kind of how the Tleilaxu view women. The current main photo is fine. Dionyseus21:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not claiming it, that was a reductio ad absurdum. But, if we are following the "intuitive implications" argument - are you claiming that a woman's nude body is more important than her entire personality (which is expressed in her normal, everyday, clothed appearance)? Does a woman live nude, work nude, think nude? --194.145.161.22710:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the big problem with using a nude picture as the main picture of the article. Woman is not solely a biological category, it's also, and primarily, a social one. However, given the massive cultural diversity of women, how can we illustrate the social concept of "woman"? The nude picture at least avoids attributing too many specific cultural features to woman as a concept, even if it also falsely implies that there is some non-cultural substrate underlying the concept. If anyone has any better suggestions, I'd love to hear them, but so far, as far as I can tell, those who oppose the current picture have not argued for any specific alternative. VoluntarySlave08:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a question of principle. If the majority turned out to think that a nude photo wasn't good for the lead, then we would look for specific alternatives. But as I said - a non-Western clothed photo doesn't attribute anything to woman as a concept, because nobody takes clothes seriously, especially non-Western clothes. If we were to place a picture of an Eskimo woman there, nobody would dream of thinking that we are attributing the Eskimo cultural ideas of a woman to the general concept of a woman. It is only the simplest way to say that everything is relative. IMO, even a Western woman isn't necessarily a problem - the picture on the Danish wikipedia is simply a joke (an obvious model, and a slim one, too, posing in the most fashionable Western clothes) - and exactly because it's so obviously particular and transient, it's pretty harmless. Nobody would imagine that this is what women in general look or should look like. --194.145.161.22710:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Harmless? I'm beginning to think that there's no such thing as an image that could go on the top of this page without someone finding something objectionable about it. Good grief, think of how much real work could have been done on this article if people weren't so all fired-up over gasp an average-looking naked woman at the top! -_- Kasreyn19:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or so het up about it that they insist no other place on the page is good enough for it, despite other's reasonable objections... - Nunh-huh20:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image question
Why is
Image:Formentera i Eivissa 019 cropped.jpg
(the naked women on the beach)
on a this page????
It looks more to me like pornography than something to describe women.
Also did the women on the top page know she was going to be put on Wikipedia?
{I'm Not Accussing anyone of putting on the internet without consent.}
The image was within a gallery of many other images of women. I did not add it, but my understanding is that the purpose of the gallery is to attempt to show at least a small fragment of the great diversity of womankind. If you know of a good reason why the image should be removed, please let us know. And thank you for your assumption of good faith on our part; that was quite kind of you, and is exactly the sort of attitude preferred here.
As to "pornography", my understanding of the term is that it is based upon the subjective interpretation of a stimulus as being "obscene", and Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view; this being the case, I don't see how we could decide what is obscene and what is not. Furthermore, refer to WP:NOT; Wikipedia is not censored.
As to the model's permission, I am not 100% certain here, but I believe that as long as we have the permission of whoever owns the rights to the image - often a photographer or studio - then we do have the right to use the image. Cheers, Kasreyn07:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The image in question originally appeared on www.flickr.com, which is an online image hosting and sharing site. Therefore the image first came online there, and I assume if the model had any problems with her image being online, she would first take it to the flickr user who originally uploaded it. Wikipedia's permission to use the file seems to have been granted by that user, so he would be the guy to talk to. Kasreyn07:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kasreyn, I'm afraid both your assumptions are possibly incorrect. In most Western countires, the model in a photograph needs to sign a consent form for the specific use of the photograph (assuming the photograph was not shot in a public place) so its certainly possible that she did not consent to it being used online. Second the fact that the image was on Flickr has no bearing on whether it can be used on Wikipedia. We have very strict rules about not using copyrighted material. If there is doubt about the copyright status of the image, it should be hastily removed. Best, Gwernol10:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re:
...I'm disappointed.
From the nude lady all the way down through the whole article.
I expected it to have more of a professional layout such as the article on men.
They had a little bit of everything about the guy--age, maturity, development, psychological development, and the like.
I didn't see a huge showcase of all the famous things that guys started. Neither did I see little parts about famous men who helped out with women's suffrage.
All I see is...
1. A nude lady.
2. A tiny description about women and where the word comes from.
3. A tad bit about how emotional they are and certain cases of emotional disturbance that they go through.
4. A HUGE SHOWCASE on "women's rights" and "prejudices against women."
To me, it sounds like the article is overemphasizing on "little things" instead of examing what all she goes through (from childhood upwards).
I for one, say that someone needs to clean the article up.
It is impossible to describe what a woman goes through childhood upwards. Women of different cultures, ethnicities, sexualities, and incomes have vastly different experiences. the only the thing every woman inherently shares is a similar body. One can describe the experience of woman throughout history as a group, but individually woman differ so much it is impossible to describe their lves
- Talk 07:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Frau-2.jpg){kind=link}
