Talk:Woman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sunrise (talk | contribs) at 22:21, 10 January 2016 (→‎Motion for the elimination of the montage of "notable women" from the infobox: close). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Template:Vital article

Transexuals

What citations are there to prove that people born with XX chromosomes but identify as female are female? I see none from reputable sources but I do see a fair few CN tags that have yet to be answered despite a significant amount of time passing. The references to transsexuals should be taken out and put into the the page on transsexuals. Cacra (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People born with XX chromosomes who identify as female are female. People born with XY chromosomes who identify as male are male. Surely this is tautologically true, as no one claims otherwise. - Nunh-huh 04:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what? XX chromosomes and identifies as female is cisgender... not trans. But what's the problem with including trans women here? There are plenty of sources about trans women being women... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
EvergreenFir, I know that that's the (essentially) unanimous consensus of gender studies, but my quick look for a definitive quote in a respected introductory textbook found nothing on Google Books. Do you happen to know of something that would fit the bill? FourViolas (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Motion for the elimination of the montage of "notable women" from the infobox

Procedural close as requested at WP:AN, with a pointer to the more general RfC on this subject at WT:MOS. Sunrise (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There was already a consensus that articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a gallery of images of group members, because selecting them is normally original research, and often contentious (see the corresponding discussion).

I suggest the removal of collage from the infobox, because of lacking objective criteria; it is original research to determine who should be featured in the gallery. Who is for? Who is against? 64.62.219.165 (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - It is not original research to show that Indira Gandhi was a woman. No one has ever suggested that she was a man in disguise, and Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. The selections are necessarily arbitrary and there will be disagreement as to who to include. That's what discussion and WP:CONSENSUS are for, and we don't eliminate things because they are contentious (that's why we have so much contention). Leave the box and treat it like any other content: any contested change should stay out until consensus for it is reached here. Onward and upward! ―Mandruss ☎ 17:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're missing the point. The OR isn't in the (easily documented) fact that these are women (ignoring the issue of whether female deities count as women); it's in the choice of these particular women as somehow being representative. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Removal. The original research, User:Mandruss is who to choose and who to leave out. It's all original research, improper synthesis, and POV in deciding who to put in and who to leave out. And the Queen of Sheba, Venus, and Isis? Really? Three fictitious women without a shred of hard evidence that they were more than legendary/mythological figures. Who decided that? If that doesn't demonstrate how worthless these galleries are... --Taivo (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You confuse original research, synth, and POV with editorial judgment, something we do all the time. If you don't think it should include fictitious women, propose that they be removed and replaced with actual women. If the consensus is to remove them, they will be removed. Removing the box because it contains elements you disagree with is not the correct path. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal is not to remove the infobox. Perhaps you're confused? It is to remove the gallery because the selection of whom to include is always subject to POV based on OR and SYNTH. This has already been debated with respect to ethnicity/nationality articles and a Wikipedia-wide consensus is already in place to remove the galleries. Applying it to all articles related to groups of humans is simply common sense because the same issues are relevant to all these articles. --Taivo (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to File:Woman Montage (1).jpg, and I disagree that a consensus on ethnicity/nationality automatically extends to this case. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The collage breaches WP:NOR, Mandruss. It's SYNTH compiled at 'editor discretion' and flies in the face of where editors should use their discretion. Someone putting together a collage of artists' renditions of 'women' in one medium or another, and head-shots of notable women (fictitious and real) is PPOV and distracts the reader from the article. Per WP:TITLE, the article is not about a gratuitous collection of images. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your opinion, with which I disagree. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then you wouldn't object if I were to rejig the collage to include Jiang Qing? I dislike the current collage and am willing to create a collage (of equal or better quality) using images of completely different women. Once I've completed it, should we hold an RfC and see whose gallery gets the most !votes... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I object? That would be a legitimate use of standard Wikipedia process. Frankly I think this discussion should be an RfC, this is a large enough question to warrant wider participation, but I'll leave that decision to others. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're confusing WP:PPOV as = standard editorial practice. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This whole issue of galleries in infoboxes has already been the subject of an extensive RfC that was further confirmed by an ANI ruling. There is nothing for you to discuss at an RfC, Mandruss. The only question left is the precise extent of what constitutes a human group. The ruling, which originally concerned only articles about ethnicity has already extended to include all human groups. There really isn't anything further to work through--the issues are very plain and as the applicability of the ruling expands, the consensus hasn't changed, despite a few lone voices trying to fight the consensus. The overall consensus is standing firm that these POV galleries simply don't belong in articles about groups of humans. --Taivo (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even without the extension of the ruling, such a collage usurping the infoboxes/templates is nonsensical per WP:PERTINENCE. The WP:TITLE and WP:LEAD are not complex concepts in need of concrete examples, and a random selection of images does nothing to enhance the understanding of the subject of the article. I think we can safely assume that the reader is not another species trying to establish what a female homo sapien is, and will not confuse a woman for a ewe or a doe. There is no justification for this form of image clutter, particularly where other editors are using their discretion to tell you that it is an obstruction. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm offended by the politicization of Wikipedia content, which is the real POV. I avoid LGBT areas here for that reason, and I would have stayed out of this had I understood the context. I'm now leaving this discussion with my argument unchanged. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The IP addressed this matter because I brought it up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#"Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a gallery of images of group members", citing the trans woman aspect as the main source of contention currently going with the image disputes at this article. A WP:Permalink for that discussion is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - as Flyer22 pointed out I doubt the intentions of the ip editor here. I don't see an issue with the collage. I agree with Mandruss above that this is not OR or SYNTH. The issue is which images to include and what goals to aim for in doing so. IMHO, we aim to should a broad and representative selection of women around the world. I'd honestly like to see the mythological women removed and generally modern ones added, but that's my opinion. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't believe the 'no ethnic galleries' guideline (???) applies here. PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove – No collage of this sort can ever be representative of the concept of "woman". The present collage is not only point-of-view-based original research, but it is also essentialism. Defining "woman" and selecting pictures to represent that definition is not work for Wikipedia to do. RGloucester — ☎ 19:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove: Such a collage is arbitrary, skewed, and unhelpful. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal for the same reasons as in the more general discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal per my arguments above, as well as reasons provided on the other RfCs surrounding the issue of the use of galleries in infoboxes (or placed above infoboxes and project templates). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose removal. Yes, that's what we should do – let's remove everything on Wikipedia that is a source of contention among (global?) editors. That way, there will be no more arguments about anything on this encyclopedia. Of course, this reference work would be reduced to a fraction of its present size; however, maybe that's a good thing? I see this as "much ado about nothing" and agree with others above that the montage should remain in the ibox. I also support the mythical representatives as they lend an "ancient" and "historic" flavor to the article (women have been around in one form or another for quite some time, you know – goddesses in the flesh, as it were). So keep the montage and continue to improve it with discussion and consensus. Happy New Year! Paine  04:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the real problem, Paine, these galleries do absolutely nothing to improve this article. What do they add to this article? Do they illustrate what women look like for the benefit of someone who just arrived from Mars and doesn't know what a woman looks like? That's what images are for in articles--to illustrate what something looks like that a significant number of our readers wouldn't recognize otherwise. Do you honestly think that a significant number of our readers don't know what a woman looks like? And if the point is to show that women exist in all cultures, are you convinced that a significant number of our readers don't know that there are women among the Quechua? Or fictional women among the fictional gods? Seriously? This gallery adds nothing whatsoever to this article other than a gratuitous selection of pictures selected according to someone's POV without any objective selection criteria that illustrate something that everyone already knows. A medical chart illustrating a naked woman to demonstrate why women are not men would be more informative than just a random selection of head shots. --Taivo (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Such a medical chart would not indicate why women are not men, and certainly would not indicate why women are women. However, Taivo is quite right in explaining that these montages serve no purpose. They illustrate nothing to the reader. What they do do, however, is require editors to engage in original research based on their own definition of what a "woman" is, selecting those they think are ideal "specimens" to serve as representative of the category. There is no way to do this in a manner that is neutral, and neutral presentation of facts without original research is indeed the goal of this encylopaedia. If there were only one woman, or if all woman were exactly alike in every respect, only then could an image be placed here to represent "woman" within Wikipedia guidelines and policies. RGloucester — ☎ 06:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If hypothetical space aliens came to our article in its current state and tried to use the gallery to understand what women look like, they would come to the conclusion that (except for stone figurines) women all lack lower bodies. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The selection of images in an article has somehow gotten connected with WP:OR, which is a mistake to anyone who has read the lead of that policy. What if I were to add to this article a photo of FDR, or George Washington, you know, just so readers can see the difference between men and women? Nobody would consider that original research, would they? Inappropriate, maybe, but then is it inappropriate because they are men? or inappropriate because other men would be more suitable? You see, any – any – uploading and usage of an image is subject to the image use policy, which is specific about montages and galleries in general. Nowhere in any policy is a montage of this type barred from usage. That is the bottom line for me. No policy nor guideline bars the usage of this montage, which is why this discussion even exists. As for the "real problem", whether or not this montage is an article improvement is a matter of opinion. In my opinion the montage is a definite improvement. This article isn't just about what a woman is – it is about what women have done, do and will do. It is about where they have been, where they are now and where they may be in the future. We cannot possibly illustrate all facets of women in this article; however, "a picture is worth a thousand words" and can say so much more than can be written into the article content. Over time editors have chosen what image files should be in this article, to include the montage. It is wrong to wipe out all that deliberation and consensus, all that tremendous pictorial information, just because a few people are myopic about how it improves this article. No, the montage should stay, should remain in this article in the ibox – not just to show how women appear, but also to show how, in so many ways, women are also different – and not just from men, but also from each other. If a picture is worth a thousand words, that montage is an entire encyclopedic volume. We shouldn't even consider tossing it!  Paine  12:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You fail to understand what part of the montage creation process violates WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:NPOV: it is the process of choosing whom to illustrate and whom to leave out. There are no valid, objective selection criteria, so the creation of the montage itself is an exercise in OR. And that is the point of the OR argument. The second part of the argument against using this montage you make yourself as you wax poetic about women and what the montage illustrates in your mind about women, "where they have been, where they are now and where they may be in the future". Can a person get any more emotional about a topic than that? This is an encyclopedia, not a paean to womanhood. And you are wrong that "nowhere in policy is a montage of this type barred from usage". That is precisely what the new Wikipedia-wide policy against photo galleries in articles about groups of people does. While the original policy only applied to articles about ethnic groups, the consensus to remove them from all articles about "large groups of people" is growing and will soon be in force. So no matter how much "deliberation and consensus" went into the creation of the "Woman montage" in the past, it will be removed once the new consensus takes affect. The same argument can (and was) made about montages throughout Wikipedia at ethnic group and nationality articles, but was unsuccessful. I get it, you love and respect women. But that's not the issue. --Taivo (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You take far too many liberties with my words, friend Taivo. I think it is you who fails to understand the concept of what OR actually is. That includes SYNTH and NPOV as well. Read the policies and you will find that they have absolutely nothing to do with how images are chosen or not chosen in articles – absolutely nothing. Neither I nor anybody else has ever seen a reliable source cited to support the choice of any image in any article. The only policy that may be applied here is the Image use policy, and there is nothing in that policy that bars the inclusion of the montage in this article's ibox – nothing. Also, I do not wax poetic, I simply state facts about the contents of this article. While I shall continue to AGF where your faulty and false-prophetic (there is nada on the WT:Image use policy page) agenda is concerned, I cannot help but think that you yourself are far too emotional about this issue, which casts doubt on your ability to be objective.  Paine  16:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have apparently missed this binding consensus and the pending consensus to expand it to all large groups of humans here. The only reason that final text has not been added to the policy page is that we are finishing up the discussion on how extensive to make the policy (but it's looking like it will affect all articles dealing with large groups of humans including this page). And your interpretation of OR is not shared by the majority of editors who have participated in both of those discussions, nor is it shared by the majority of editors who are participating in this discussion. --Taivo (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first consensus was for ethnic group montages, which I weakly support; however, I see only a weak pending consensus to alter the MOS guideline, and editors should exercise care that they don't change the guideline in a way that goes against the Image use policy. They should also get the policy changed. If there is ever consensus for that, which I doubt, then I would be compelled to be ruled by it. Until then, I fully support the montage in this article and will continue to strongly oppose its removal!  Paine  16:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you didn't notice that the discussion (the second link above) to expand the ethnic group consensus to all large groups of humans is occurring on the Talk Page for the Images policy, so that consensus will, indeed, change the Images policy. And your definition of "weak pending consensus" is certainly strange--currently it's 13-3 in favor of eliminating galleries. That consensus will, indeed, require the elimination of the gallery in this article no matter what the result of this RfC here is. --Taivo (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that discussion is taking place at WT:Manual of Style/Images#"Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a gallery of images of group members", a "guideline", not a "policy". Oh, and just so we're clear, Wikipedia is not a democracy (that's a policy).  Paine  18:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but 13-4 is a consensus. 5-4 is questionable, but 13-4 is not. And the discussion happening at the Manual of Style for Images will affect the Images policy. --Taivo (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You could be right, and yet, that discussion is not over no more than this one is. And I suggest that either this discussion or the MOS talk page discussion be officially ended with a procedural close, because we seem to be in violation of WP:MULTI.  Paine  21:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever happens over there will make this discussion, whatever its result, irrelevant since the other decision will supersede this one. --Taivo (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then we agree that this discussion should be procedurally closed and this thread should be merged with the thread on the guideline talk page?  Paine  22:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Paine Ellsworth, for the suggestion, but I don't think merging is either necessary or desirable even if it were collapsed. The main RfC is already lengthy and hasn't come close to running its course, and all that would be accomplished is the duplication of arguments and !votes in light of the fact that the majority of editors who are represented here have already voted and commented at the centralised RfC. The closer of that RfC will have a massive amount to evaluate as it stands.
I have compared the editors represented and the only editors who haven't participated in that RfC are EvergreenFir, Mandruss, and PeterTheFourth, therefore I'm pinging them as a heads up should they wish to voice their opposition there. Would you be amenable to this RfC being closed off as it stands, directing editors to the primary RfC? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Iryna Harpy: thank you. I've voiced my opinion (specifically that it too vague). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 09:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That will do quite well. Thank you very much! Happy New Year! Paine  17:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Woman&oldid=699202660"