Talk:Woman/Archive 4

message: The essence of all the arguments against the Frua being placed there, critically, is due to the fact that some people personally do not want to see it there. I do not perceive the frau dissidents as wanting to prevent others from seeing the picture. We can satisfy both camps here. We can give people fair warning that there is a picture of a naked frua here; or we can simply dress up frau in clothes and declothe her when people click on her picture, if they want to see her naked. This is not censorship, because the naked frau is on wikipedia and is easily accessible to those who want to see it (by simply clicking on the frua and instantly declothing her) yet we can cater to those people who do not want the frau there, because she is naked etc. with a simple 'declothing option'
THis is just one solution i made up off the top of my head. In essence, the solution should give an option or warn people about the naked frau, and give them choice as to whether or not they want her naked. This would satisfy both camps, and would at the same time not censor wikipedia, because the naked frua would still be very accessible.
:This idea is in direct conflict with the basic Wikipedian principle that Wikipedia is not censored. Also, it would not resolve the issue for many people on both sides of the debate, since the issue is how best to illustrate the term, that is one of definition not aesthetics. Also, most do not share your particular aesthetics.--Homunq 14:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A very simple solution to this naked woman picture debate 

message: I'm adding this section to help people keep track of the edit wars about the picture. I'm trying to address the "posession is 9 points of the law" issue - that is, it is very hard for the average editor to track the history of the which image is the lead on the page itself, and so whatever they see there when they load it seems appears to be the presumptive consensus. This keeps newcomers from understanding the real situation, and thus dooms the page to an eternal slow-grinding edit war between the partisans who, though we have good faith, are not getting anywhere (without prejudice, I'd include Nunh-huh, Haham hanuka, Kasreyn, and myself Homunq 20:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead picture status and history 

message: There's no actual real photograph on this page that shows a woman.  We have a drawing of one, but that's kind of, uh, pointless.  We need to do what the SETI people did and put these silly human body shame issues to rest and find the most representative photograph we can find, and use it.  --Cyde Weys 06:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And who precisely determines which issues are "silly"?  What is the criteria?  This is an encyclopedia...let us maintain a certain air of dignity, shall we? NetK 00:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After my edit  that removed the Apollo image (:Image:Human-woman.png) and moved the frau image (:Image:Frau-2.jpg) up to replace it, User:Netkinetic swapped the Frau image for the old Apollo one. I am of the opinion that the Frau photo is a much better representation and much more appropriate for an encyclopedia than the Apollo line drawing. I think the line drawing is a horrible image and has too much association with the Apollo missions. What image do the other editors here think is the most best one to complete the article, and is anyone going to object if I change the images back again?--Clawed 07:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better picture 

message: 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"  and a troll .  You inserted that.  If you try to put words in someone else's mouth again, you will be reported to an administrator.  Have a wonderful day, Kasreyn 09:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Both of you, CALM DOWN 

message: The pro- arguments are essentially saying either 1) that nudity is the best illustration of the most universal part of the definition of the term or 2) that anything else would be culturally biased. The anti- arguments say A) that nudity is offensive B) that nudity privileges a reductionist viewpoint of women (direct counterargument to 1) and C) that you can't escape some cultural specificity so you shouldn't try. Personally I'd say that the 2/C debate is irresolvable and thus to be avoided. A) seems directly counter to WP:NOT. So we're down to 1 vs. B. Obviously there are partisans on both sides, but really I can't see how proponents of 1 ("we have the best option out of several") should be as offended by losing the argument as proponents of B ("your option, considered as part of a larger pattern, does concrete harm"). I personally am more sympathetic to B than to 1, but even if I weren't I think I'd accept that a "further down" compromise worth it to reduce conflict. --Homunq 21:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I realized I missed one basic pro-nude argument. 3)Anti-nudity censorship privileges a viewpoint of women's sexuality as something needing to be hidden. This is a direct counterargument to A) (which was non-wikipedian anyway), but more importantly a direct counterPART to B). But I think that it's harder to claim that "Anything but a nude picture is part of a pattern of censorship" than it is to claim that "A nude picture is part of a pattern of objectification" - just because of the "anything but" part, and especially if the nude is still present further down. So I'd still argue that, respecting the validity of all the arguments involved, the least-conflictive solution is no (lead, solo) nude. --Homunq 16:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place for meta-arguments. 

message: The ongoing reversion is absolutely ridiculous. Decide what you will, but stop flipping between versions until a consensus decision is made. Dysprosia 08:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?  I find it totally acceptable, and it must be kept at any cost.  There, now that we've espoused our totally irrelevant personal opinions, how about you exercise some logical thought instead of forcing your views down other people's throats. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.115.211.122 (talk • contribs) .
Whether the picture is appropriate or not is not the issue. You achieve consensus before acting, not the other way around. Dysprosia 05:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The straw poll above indicates that the current consensus is for the Frau image. When another proposed image achieves a stronger consensus, we'll of course change it.  Until then, though, the current image should stay. --jwandersTalk 20:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the straw poll reveals a majority, not a consensus. Images without consensus should be removed. Wikipedia content is not decided by votes, or by majorities, or by vigilence of partisans. At least it is not supposed to be. - Nunh-huh 20:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion 

message: While I am happy with the current image, I'm aware that the ~70% consensus it received in the poll above is not great by Wikipedia standards (see WP:NOT).  I've been trying to think of workable compromises, like maybe some sort of time share arrangement between clothed/unclothed images (which seems to me to be the crux of the disagreement).  I then remembered that hearing that the main image on  flower cycles through various flower images (see right); I suppose choosing one image of a flower to lead that page was a similar challenge to choosing a woman of one age/ethnicity/culture to head ours!
So, I thought we might perhaps do something similar here.  The technology is pretty straight-forward: just an animated gif slide show of a bunch of images.  All we'd need do you is decide which images to use, crop them to the same proportions, and run them through an animated gif maker.  This would allow us to display both clothed and unclothed women from as many different backgrounds as we can find, all effectively at the same time.
The questions we need to answer first, though, are:
# Would this address the concerns users have regarding clothes implying a cultural POV? and,
# Would users unhappy with an unclothed image be able to accept the compromise of having images of both clothed and unclothed women included in the slide show?
--jwandersTalk 21:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think it's a very good proposal. During the history of this discussion, several people have advocated the use of some kind of a gallery, showing female diversity, as a lead image; but nobody saw how this could be done in practice. Now this seems possible. Several races and cultures, with and without clothes - that would be great. The only problem is that Nunh-huh is right - I suppose that it won't satisfy those who have been against just for puritanic reasons, and those who simply hate Frau in any context. The latter are very few, I think, but I'm not sure about the former. --194.145.161.227 00:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also unclear if it would appease the Frau partisans: they have resolutely resisted all compromise to date, refusing to reduce the picture from its enormous size, refusing all proposed substitutes, and refusing to move it from its position of prime importance. - Nunh-huh 00:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, let's be fair - the only proposed nude substitute, which was actually accepted at the time, turned out to be of, hmm, slightly uncertain copyright status and got deleted for this reason (I even mailed the author to get things straight, but he never answered). I suppose they'll be happy as long as there's some nudity at the top. --194.145.161.227 00:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, there have been other nude substitutes, including the picture that was there before, and the Frau partisans have not come up with a nude substitute they'd agree to. It's the German potato dumpling or nothing. Die Frau andernfalls das Tau. - Nunh-huh 00:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Pioneer image wasn't a photo, and it was rather abstract, too. I suppose people might be partly motivated by their fondness for Frau's pretty-homely-and-trivial appearance, but for the time being, it's been mostly an argument about nudity in general. --194.145.161.227 01:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think nudity's a straw man. Some have complained (mostly in all capitals and semi-coherently) about it, and they are easy to dismiss. They were not the main thrust of the dispute, which has been over prominence and positioning, though some have found it easier to answer the objections about nudity and pretended that that's what this is about. - Nunh-huh 02:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Wasn't it both about nudity and positioning/prominence - namely, whether we should position a nude at the top (i.e. prominently). I mean - if you have some other arguments apart from nudity, what are they? --194.145.161.227 02:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Very nicely shifted, but the issue is not whether there is nudity, but whether it is urgent that the most prominent picture be [1] nude and/or [2] Frau. - Nunh-huh 02:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: ;:::::::We have no others because Frau's partisans rejected non-photos, and made it their business to delete the other photos we did have. By all means, let's see what others can be found, and what JWanders can come up with.  The 2/3 "majority" isn't really, as some of the "yes" votes indicate that they are voting on the presence of a nude rather than its position. - Nunh-huh 03:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I've made a proposal beneath, which I think, if tastefully done, could be entirely satisfactory. My problem with the animated solution is that while it may work with flowers, which desite being sexual in the extreme are not seen as such, is that an animated cavalcade of nude women is going to be even more of a shock to the unwary than "Frau", especially if they cycle as rapidly as the flower example. Technically it is an excellent solution, but having a stream of nude women appear on my screen seems to be asking for trouble. and then the women will be asking for ewqual time with a parade of nude men on the Man article, and heaven knows where it will all end! --Jumbo 11:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the proposal was for a montage of women, including nudes, but not for a montage made up entirely of nude women. - Nunh-huh 17:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having clad and unclad women posing in the same photograph raises all sorts of questions. I would prefer that all be clad (preferably in a diversity of garments) or all unclad. My weak preference is for unclad so as to display a diversity of body shapes and ages and that the female body is different to the male. Tasteful nude group photographs are a staple of widely available "health and education" texts. A group portrait would also reduce the size of each figure. I think Frau is a little too large in her current pixels. --Jumbo 20:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What sorts of questions does a mixed group raise? As for group portraits - I think we should restrict ourselves to what we have or to what we can produce easily. The group portrait thing has been proposed, as have a number of other things, but we just don't have them. Alas - from the very beginning, this debate has suffered a surplus of ideas and discussion and a shortage of actual available material. --194.145.161.227 10:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Re the rotating animated picture: OpposedAnimation?!?! Give me a break!  This is an encyclopedia, not youtube.  As to the montage: Keep it?  As to diversity of women: the women in the montage are representing different cultures.  But we still get no sense of expanding work and societal roles, as made apparent in the West since the last 100 of so years. Dogru144 00:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Proposal 

message: Per Clayworth's suggestion above, I threw this image together.  I like the compromise of being able to have both clothed and unclothed women and have women from a variety of backgrounds. Thoughts? --jwandersTalk 23:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A definite improvement, but Frau still "sticks out" like a sore thumb. Perhaps it's the fact that it is the only one with a light background, or perhaps it is because she is the only one so obviously posed. Could you substitute a darker background with PhotoShop (or your tool of choice)? - Nunh-huh 23:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much as I like the thought of some of WP's prominent female editors posing in the buff, this could be a good solution. However, I make the point that we need to keep a record of the images used in a montage. --Jumbo 00:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Nice work, but I'd still say yet darker was better. The idea is to match the other backgrounds in average color - so close to the color of the dirt in the picture on the lower left. - 01:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! I think all the results are surprisingly beautiful. I agree that a dark background is better, so that Frau doesn't seem to be the absolute, context-less one. BTW, I wonder if one couldn't include the chess-playing Slovene  from the gallery as an example of a woman who is doing something else but being nude or selling fruits? The Japanese and the Mozambique woman make a similar impression (posture, colourful national dress), so I suppose one of them could be removed without diversity suffering. I'm not sure if it would be as pleasing aesthetically, though.  --194.145.161.227 16:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Support as nom. --jwandersTalk 07:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Support, particularly "Original with black borders and a brown backdrop for Frau." Thanks for taking the time and effort to put together a montage, which strikes me as the best solution for the article. I like the idea of including the chess-playing image and/or an image of a woman in "modern" business attire or something similar. VoluntarySlave 18:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Support as voluntaryslave. --Homunq 21:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Strongly Oppose, As has been discussed over and over before, a montage wouldn't work for this article.  You cannot possibly add every single race and culture.  For example, in the montages that you are proposing, I don't see a Chinese, or an Indian, or a Puerto Rican, or an Iranian, just to name a few.  In fact, the Japanese and the Mozambique woman in your montages are covered with a mask, is this an article about women or their masks?  This montage is wholly inappropiate, I strongly oppose it.  Dionyseus 09:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but I don't understand the argument. It would appear you're arguing that the concept cannot possibly be illustrated. To me, a suggestion of diversity can't be criticized for lack of diversity when the alternative is no diversity. If you think that a montage is a poor choice aesthetically, say so, but don't argue that it's not diverse enough. --Homunq 21:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose.  Though it is a very nice montage, as noted above, there's no real way to capture diversity, so really, why bother?  And the single image played the role fine.  However, the montage would be appropriate further down in the article, but not at the start. JayMan 18:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment The montage on the talk page has a caption that unwittingly suggests western women walk around naked. Would it not be more appropriate to have a photo of women of different ethnicities standing together? If a nude photo is too offensive or controversial, could not an illustration of a naked woman be used instead? I think there should be either a nude photo or illustration because the details of a woman's body distinguish the female sex more fundamentally than the clothes women wear. Rintrah 05:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, go ahead and edit the caption, it is only a first attempt at something succinct and appropriate. Do you feel that the montage photo does not illustrate the details of a woman's body? If so, why? --201.151.76.224 14:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The pictures within the montage are too small (even on my screen, which has high-resolution). I think a single picture (or illustration) illustrates the details of a woman's body better, and serves as a useful cue for the reader. However, unlike other editors, I do not think a picture essential; so it is not a great issue for me. If a nude photo is too provocative, a good illustration is probably an adequate substitute. But I have difficulty understanding why this is so contentious. Surely there are bigger issues than whether a picture of a nude woman should be included, even for those highly averse to suggested prurience and those who cry blasphemy when something is censored. Rintrah 08:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Opposed This is a horrble image, it's too small, and there are too much cultural stuff in it. This article is about woman, the nude image shows an average woman with out a bunch of cultural stuff added in. --HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 14:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose. The "Montage" would be completely innapropriate. The Woman article is first and foremost about the gender, and as such a naked woman is the most apropriate. The best place to display the diversite of woman and the female form would be a gallery at the bottom as in the Man page. Overall the montage has considerably less dignity. LordFenix 15:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Montage

message: Must the picture be of a "contemporary" white European woman who is depilated?
The picture ive proposed is of Indira Varma that exhibits the body of a woman in its natural state (undepilated)....note the picture was uploaded by someone else.
Freakkk
:See the comment at the top of this discussion page. Any changes to the lead image can only be via consensus. --Jumbo 12:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is copyrighted and used under fair use, so policy dictates that we do not use it as there are equitable free images available--Clawed 08:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately so.  It's a nice image, but too culture-specific for my tastes (background, specific style of jewelry).  The image is also poorly focused (or at least overexposed).  I agree that we should be open to suggestion, and this was a good one; but I would prefer an image that's more informative than Frau, not less.  Kasreyn 22:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Better Pic

message: Because of the many issues raised (particulary viewing this page from classrooms) and the whole Adult Conspiracy thing, using :Image:Human-woman.png seems to be the Right Way to go, especially if it includes a link to the Pioneer plaque in its caption to show where it came from. (It's obvious from the discussion—search this page for "Pioneer"—that most people are unaware of it's origin, or the correct link reference to use ... even the page for the image fails to identify it!) To make them match, the article for Man could use the companion image, :Image:Human-man.png. Just my 2¢ worth. --Dennette 01:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there have been a lot of people who've felt that way, but that's really not an important issue here.  This is an encyclopedia for adults.  As for children, that is what parents are for.  It's not our job to censor this encyclopedia because some people can't bother to supervise their kids.  A photograph carries more information than a line drawing, so I would stick with a photo.  Cheers, Kasreyn 02:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Parents are not in the classroom, and schools are increasingly putting PCs with high-speed connections in them. We cannot rely on censor-bots to block content, because they just are not smart enough, and most schools stopped using them a few years ago after the Sky & Telescope magazine site got blocked when their lead article (preceding a prominent meteor shower) was about "Naked-eye Astronomy". If there were a way to put content warnings on the pages, that would be a different matter. The reality is that this  is the 21st Century, and educators in primary and secondary schools are having students do research on the 'Net, with Wikipedia being recommended more often than Google. --Dennette 05:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's simply not our concern.  I personally don't feel there's such a thing as bad information.  If others feel differently and wish to shield their children from information they perceive as "bad", they can figure out how to do it on their own.  They can live with the fallibilities of censorware, or they can put their money where their ideals are and hire a human censor, or they can have Ronald McDonald come to the school and do a song and dance about how looking at dirty things online will make Timmy go blind.  It really doesn't carry any weight here.  Content warnings have been discussed many times on WP and such articles as Nudity.  Every time, the consensus has been that Wikipedia's Content Disclaimer covers the entire situation.  Cheers, Kasreyn 23:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: That's none of my concern, or Wikipedia's.  But I must say it's odd that after all your Playboys, you would remove the lead image from this article...  Kasreyn 02:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Please refer to WP:NOT.  Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors.  Kasreyn 07:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You dont want kids to know the truth? The real thing? Its fairly honest photo in the whole scheme of things. ( could be better)Cilstr 08:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel it should be up to the parents to decide when their children are mature enough to see such depictions.  A seven-year-old has just as much access to this page as an adult, and should not be subjected to such images.  This obscenity appears without any sort of warning to the viewer.  At the very least, there should something like a mouseover applet that can black out the image until the user moves over it.  That way, he or she at least has some control over what he or she is viewing.  Stovetopcookies 00:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, a seven-year-old only has access to this page because an adult, either their parent or a teacher or whoever is in loco parentis, has allowed it.  Responsibility for that child's experience rests squarely on that adult.  It is also purely subjective that images of nudity are "obscene", and subjective definitions of this sort would constitute original research, adding yet another policy violated to the list.  WP does not have the mission of being a "family-friendly" encyclopedia.  Its mission is to record all human knowledge.  This includes the knowledge of what a nude person looks like.  The images must remain.  Kasreyn 05:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is worth noting, en passant, that many other images of nudity, usually far more explicit than this one, have been removed from Wikipedia, because they were inappropriate. This image of a nude woman is about as good as it gets here, so no, we aren't in the business of providing smut to kiddies. I might also point out that in an educational context, tasteful nude images are generally seen as appropriate. --Jumbo 06:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  Witness the one recently added by Nnixon to replace Frau2; it makes my hair stand on end to contemplate what those editors who described Frau as demeaning to women would say about that one!  I keep imagining birds falling stone dead off of the telephone lines conveying their outrage to the wikiservers...  Kasreyn 07:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *laughs* Yeah. I guess some people haven't yet worked out how Wikipedia operates. Sometimes this place infuriates and frustrates me, but mostly I love the way that people of diverse views can work together to find common ground and produce a work that is educational and informative. Frau might not be perfect, but she is definitely feminine, and I particularly like the way she evokes Venus on the Half Shell. If someone can find a better free image, they are welcome to try. I just wish they'd run it through here first. --Jumbo 07:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pioneer Image 

message: It might be worth semi-protecting the page for a while. An Anon user continually removes the first image of the nude woman. On Omicronpersei8's talk page the user gave the reason that the picture was offensive to Muslims. As this user has no account, it could be a good idea to semi-protect the page. -Neural 23:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've semi-protected it (and blocked the AOL IP user again). However, please do not add the  tag to an article that you haven't yourself semi-protected as this is misleading. Thanks, Gwernol 00:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I misunderstood the use of the tag. I thought that itself protected it. Thanks for the help. -Neural 00:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I just read the above post.  I have not been removing the picture.  I only did it now. Since this is causing so much controversy, I think we should keep it off until the issue is resolved.  Perhaps have a better picture instead.  But please consider that children have as much right and access to the page as anyone else, and they don't deserve to have that thrown in their faces. Stovetopcookies 23:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is it about the human body that is so offensive "to the children"? They have bodies too, so I don't think it will come as too much of a surprise to them. Please don't take it upon yourself to censor Wikipedia. Thanks, Gwernol 00:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Stovetopcookies, this matter has been discussed extensively. Despite the depth of your feelings, I doubt that you can come up with any arguments that have not been heard here befoe. perhaps you would like to look back through this discussion page, and the archives and see what steps have been taken by others. To those of us who have been here for a while, you are just rehashing old material. Wikipedia operates on consensus, and despite numerous experiments, the current image is the one that most editors feel happy with. I do appreciate your concerns, but unless you can come up with some new wrinkle, you are better off working on other areas of the project. --Jumbo 00:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Please refer to WP:NOT.  Wikipedia is not censored for minors; this is explained dozens of times on this talk page.  I don't see "so much controversy" over the images; I see a very firm consensus of long-time editors of this page to keep the images, and every so often a single editor who argues for removal, who then leaves and is quickly replaced by another single editor in favor of removal.  That isn't controversy.  The image has strong consensus and will remain until there's some sign the consensus has changed.  Kasreyn 05:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has anyone considered that Wikipedia should be accessible in libraries and at homes for youths looking to do research through the Internet?  Ergo, yes, let's keep the semi-protected status. Dogru144 00:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection?

message: does she have to be naked?
cant it just be like a photo of some non-naked woman? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.116.93.68 (talk • contribs) .
:There has been a lot of debate over this subject.  If you would read the rest of the talk page, you would find where the discussion is ongoing on the issue, which would be a more appropriate place to reply than to add a new section.  Cheers, Kasreyn 20:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Wouldn't a more appropriate caption be "Common ethnic stereotypes of women" ? -- 70.71.155.24 05:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think some people will be unhappy with me for saying this, but yes. It doesn't really add much to the article, except the pretence it covers women in all ethnicities. People have emphasised the pictures too much. I would rather a single photo or illustration, and that's it. However, if the article is being turned into a coffee table book, I can understand the profusion of pictures and their paramount importance. Rintrah 04:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  Where are the astronauts, prime ministers, and talk show hosts?  Why are there three pictures of naked women in a single article, when probably 99.9999% of women typically wear clothing?  — Omegatron 04:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead montage caption 

message: Is there any reason why the collage of pictures in the main picture contains a picture of a nude caucasian woman only while the women from the other cultures are clothed in their respective "traditional" way? I find it rather offensive to traditional minded white people as it seems to suggest that "clothes free" is a culture amongst caucasians and are more "liberal" and more open about sexuality than other cultures. Having a nude picture is a problem, since there are difficulties with race and culture, and style (body hair/shaven, long hair/short hair, etc.), that is why I support the asexual Pioneer image to demonstrate the "nude" form of a woman, and to have other pictures which show different races of women in their traditional clothing.
Freakkk 00:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Replace the "Frau" picture with someone who lives in a culture where women are always naked, if you're so desperate to show three naked women in a single encyclopedia article about all aspects of women, not just nudity or biological appearance.  — Omegatron 04:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. - Emiellaiendiay 03:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: The painting of the woman, on my screen, dwarfs the adjacent content. Though it is beautifully painted, I think its size should be reduced so as to not draw attention away from the article content. An encyclopedia is foremost a text; so pictures should only have a secondary role. Rintrah 12:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.--ToyotaPanasonic 03:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on painting

message: The article is becoming a work of self-indulgence by female gender rights activism. It is already 3 times the length of the Man article and is full of connotation and innuendo which stretches credibility of the article and its neutrality. Case in point: "It is commonly accepted that the reason both men and women have breasts is that the rudimentary form of animals was female for millions of years." This is neither cited, nor is it commonly accepted (noting that since animals are thought to have decended from flagellate protozoa, which is akin to sperm, this is quite a claim). It is a broad claim on gender origins on the entire Kingdom of Animalia, lacking scientific pretext. Furthermore, the quality of both articles is very poor, with statements such as "the breast is an enlarged sweat gland" working to degrade the quality of the woman article. The majority of the article is unneccesary and focuses on arguments of sexism, which, while an important side note for the article - is not the main focus of the article itself.
Furthermore, I would like to point out to whomever added these ridiculous, unscientific and biased claims: you are suggesting that males evolved from females as a standard. This implies that males are more evolved, is that your true belief? Perhaps that illustrates the need to remain objective and scientific here, despite all your beliefs and urges to the contrary. You do yourselves a disservice by detracting from the credibility and value of this article. C00kiemnstr 17:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just redid my own, hopefully more acceptable-compromise, version of your edits above. Only place where I went past you: removing the "woman default form" stuff which was badly stated (reading it literally suggested that sexual reproduction had evolved convergently in each animal species; while there may be a few marginal cases, this is obviously not true in 99.999%). Good job, but don't get touchy when people react to your comments without poring over the edit history to see a reverted edit of yours. If you get reverted unjustly, say so, don't just say the article's bad. --201.216.145.39 18:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was touchy about the insinuation that I was only complaining, and not contributing. I'm glad you found my edit useable; though from glancing over the article again, either your edit was also reverted, or your changes were indeed minor. For instance, the article still claims that unborn fetuses are female until hormones change features for the male fetus. This is technically incorrect, among other things. In the first weeks of life, a fetus has no anatomic or hormonal sex, and only the gentic karyotype distinguishes male from female. It is simply erroneous to claim that 'all males begin as females', since both males and females begin gender neutral and it is irritating to see in the article. Similarly, the line "most anthropologists think [...] that women led the neolithic revolution..." is still in there, albeit with a [citation needed] tag. Its a completely bogus claim and  thats why  there is no citation, and never will be, unless the sentance is changed to 'some anthropologists claim...'. "Harmless" POV 'stuff' will have to be defined somewhere by Wikipedia, in this case I dont think its harmless, I think its propaganda (product placement). Thanks for taking an interest, glad some people arent choked up about the nude images. C00kiemnstr 01:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article still needs work (see below). Rintrah 07:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-Indulgence

message: Why does this picture was deleted? --Haham hanuka 14:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there wa no GDFL release from author. If he gives such release, the image can be undeleted. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 14:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: See WP:CSD#Images.2FMedia ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 21:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meditating nude woman 

message: Every English dictionary agrees that a woman is an adult female human. However, the :Category:Women article, which I propose a rename for, is about simply female humans. Anything regarding the word's actual definition?? Georgia guy 14:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is something better handled at :Category talk:Women rather than here.  But I'll join in the CfD discussion.  Kasreyn 19:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word definition 

message: 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.} 
(Remember Jesus Loves You!!!)
User:M17
:The image was within a gallery of many other images of women.  I did not add it, but my understanding is that the purpose of the gallery is to attempt to show at least a small fragment of the great diversity of womankind.  If you know of a good reason why the image should be removed, please let us know.  And thank you for your assumption of good faith on our part; that was quite kind of you, and is exactly the sort of attitude preferred here.
:As to "pornography", my understanding of the term is that it is based upon the subjective interpretation of a stimulus as being "obscene", and Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view; this being the case, I don't see how we could decide what is obscene and what is not.  Furthermore, refer to WP:NOT; Wikipedia is not censored.  
:As to the model's permission, I am not 100% certain here, but I believe that as long as we have the permission of whoever owns the rights to the image - often a photographer or studio - then we do have the right to use the image.  Cheers, Kasreyn 07:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S.  The image in question originally appeared on www.flickr.com, which is an online image hosting and sharing site.  Therefore the image first came online there, and I assume if the model had any problems with her image being online, she would first take it to the flickr user who originally uploaded it.  Wikipedia's permission to use the file seems to have been granted by that user, so he would be the guy to talk to.  Kasreyn 07:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kasreyn, I'm afraid both your assumptions are possibly incorrect. In most Western countires, the model in a photograph needs to sign a consent form for the specific use of the photograph (assuming the photograph was not shot in a public place) so its certainly possible that she did not consent to it being used online. Second the fact that the image was on Flickr has no bearing on whether it can be used on Wikipedia. We have very strict rules about not using copyrighted material. If there is doubt about the copyright status of the image, it should be hastily removed. Best, Gwernol 10:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image question

message: Perhaps most of this should be in an article on parthenogenesis, but here is my attempt to provide the sources requested for some discussion to exist in this article on women. 
Google results:    80,000 for parthenogenesis in humans.
…………………………………..
Google definitions include: 
•  human conception without fertilization by a man 
•  process in which an unfertilized egg develops into a new individual; common among insects and some other arthropods 
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
(par•the•no•gen•e•sis) (pahr²th[schwa]-no-jen¢[schwa]-sis) [Gr. parthenos virgin + -genesis] a modified form of sexual reproduction by the development of a gamete without fertilization, as occurs in some plants and invertebrates, especially arthropods, eg, honey bees and wasps, and in certain lizards. It may occur as a natural phenomenon or be induced by chemical, thermal, or mechanical stimulation (artificial p.).
www.mercksource.com/pp/us/cns/cns_hl_dorlands.jspzQzpgzEzzSzppdocszSzuszSzcommonzSzdorlandszSzdorlandzSzdmd_p_07zPzhtm
Process of reproduction by the development of an unfertilized egg.
ppathw3.cals.cornell.edu/glossary/Defs_P.htm
The production of offspring by a female with no genetic contribution from a male. The development of an individual from an unfertilized egg that did not arise by meiotic chromosome reduction .
helios.bto.ed.ac.uk/bto/glossary/p.htm
……………………………………………………………………………………………..
Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) recently published a study demonstrating that parthenogenesis can be used in non-human primates. [D] Cibelli, Robert P. et al Science Magazine. "Parthenogenic Stem Cells in Non-Human Primates." wysiwyg://10/http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/295/5556/819.
•	The eggs at the 36 hour stage of development were soaked in media derived from a pregnant mare and kinase. 
•	28 of the original 77 eggs reached the stage of metaphase II.
•	4 of these 28 eggs reached the blastocyte stage. 
•	The cells extracted from this experiment were found to contain characteristics of embryonic stem cells. 
•	Derivatives of all three germ layers were grown from this same set of cells. [E] Shoukhrat, Mitalipov M. et al Biology of Reproduction. "Parthenogenetic Activation of Rhesus Monkey Oocytes and Reconstructed Embryos". Vol. 65 Pg 253-259, 2001.
This experiment leads directly into a realistic possibility of parthenogenesis in humans. 
http://www.brown.edu/Courses/BI0032/partheno/human.htm
………………………………………
Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Genetic Testing
Pioneer in Embryo Genetic Testing and Gender Selection
… In Los Angeles, Jerry Hall of the Institute of Reproductive Medicine and Genetic Testing is also working on parthenogenesis. He wouldn't reveal any details but was confident it would work in humans. "Not only are we optimistic that parthenogenesis in humans would lead us to the same results, I would be surprised if they didn't."… 
http://www.preimplantationgenetictesting.com/Media5.htm
…………………………………
J Exp Clin Assist Reprod. 2004; 1: 3. 
Published online 2004 December 8. doi: 10.1186/1743-1050-1-3.
Copyright © 2004 Hipp and Atala; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
Tissue engineering, stem cells, cloning, and parthenogenesis: new paradigms for therapy
Jason Hipp1 and Anthony Atala 1,2
1Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine Wake Forest University School of Medicine Winston Salem, North Carolina USA
2Wake Forest University School of Medicine Medical Center Blvd. Winston Salem, North Carolina 27157 USA
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=539246
………………….
The Future of Assisted Reproductive Technology
The field of assisted reproductive technology has been developed in the past thirty years. The oldest person born from an IVF pregnancy is in her early twenties. The oldest child produced from a frozen embryo is a teenager and the oldest ICSI child is less than 10 years old (Hardy, 2002).
Since ART methods have not been around long enough to gauge whether there are any long term, late onset effects, it is not known whether there will be adverse effects on future generations. Even though physiological health may appear equal in babies spawned using ART, the reproductive performance of their offspring cannot yet be determined (Hardy, 2002).
Based on history and the possibility of future technologies, it is likely that the new methods of ART will be developed, allowing infertile couples more options, should they choose to seek help producing an offspring that is biologically their own. One recent and hopeful example, for females diagnosed with cancer, is an ovarian transplant as a future possibility for preserving fertility. The experimental steps would include cryopreserving one or both of a woman’s ovaries immediately following cancer diagnosis and transplanting the tissue back into the woman following cancer treatment. Ideally, normal oocyte development will occur.
In 1999, ovarian tissue was successfully transplanted into a woman who suffered early menopause. In 2002, a whole ovary transplant was successfully conducted in a woman. Studies in monkeys show that fertility after ovarian transplant is a possibility (Tizzard, 2003). Cryopreservation of ovarian tissue is another possibility for women diagnosed with cancer. Currently, such young women are faced with the decision to undergo cancer treatment immediately, which may render them infertile, or wait until their menstrual cycle provides them with an egg to preserve.
It is possible that “the pursuit of human perfection” will be taken to new extremes. People may be able to choose specific traits for their children. The scientific breakthroughs which will change today’s moderate methods of assisted reproduction to tomorrow’s personalized, synthesized ectogenesis may be right around the corner. More likely, these technological advances are in the distant future and may never be actualized. What we will likely see in the future of male fertility control is the interdisciplinary intersection of many interests: law, ethics, biology, chemistry, medicine and media.
Several recent studies have indicated that parthenogenesis, the process by which the genetic material from two female embryos is capable of developing into an offspring without contribution from a male element, is possible in mammals. One of the first studies to reveal the importance of genetic imprinting in parthenogenesis appeared last April in Nature. The abstract can be seen below:
Birth of parthenogenetic mice that can develop to adulthood.  *
The development of parthenogenesis in humans, while still a long way off from a scientific standpoint, certainly carries with it some ethical implications and will certainly be resisted by many who believe that reproduction should only take place between a man and a woman. There are some who believe that human parthenotes may be useful for stem cell research, as the ethical dilemma of creating embryos for the purpose of generating new embryonic stem cell lines could be circumvented using parthenotes as the source. The theory behind this proposal is that if a parthenogenic embryo was not considered to be a potential life, then there would be no moral quandaries with extracting stem cells from the embryo at the blastocyst stage. 
Link to article in science news: http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SU/parthenogenesis.html
It is well known that embryos and sperm are capable of being cryopreserved for later use in infertility treatments. Although the process of freezing eggs is not currently widely available, there is evidence to suggest that this technique may be possible.
Link to Newsweek article “Fertility and the Freezer”: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5505094/site/newsweek/
Many doctors believe this technology should only be offered to certain patients: women undergoing chemotherapy or infertile couples opposed to freezing embryos for religious reasons as the cost and the burdens are many. By this fall, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine expects to publish its first guidelines, saying egg-freezing should be offered only as an experimental therapy under strict oversight and that it should not be marketed to "defer reproductive aging.”
The link below displays an abstract from a recent study involving cryopreservation of eggs that appeared in the journal Human Reproduction:
Clinical application of human egg cryopreservation
Questions or Comments: Email Dr. Verna Case
Davidson College Biology Department 
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/vecase/SeniorColloquium/04/ARTFuture.html
*  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15103378
Comment in: 
•	Nature. 2004 Apr 22;428(6985):809-11.
Birth of parthenogenetic mice that can develop to adulthood.
Kono T, Obata Y, Wu Q, Niwa K, Ono Y, Yamamoto Y, Park ES, Seo JS, Ogawa H.
Department of BioScience, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Setagaya-ku, Tokyo 156-8502, Japan. tomohiro@nodai.ac.jp
… Here we show the development of a viable parthenogenetic mouse individual from a reconstructed oocyte containing two haploid sets of maternal genome, derived from non-growing and fully grown oocytes. This development was made possible by the appropriate expression of the Igf2 and H19 genes with other imprinted genes, using mutant mice with a 13-kilobase deletion in the H19 gene as non-growing oocytes donors. This full-term development is associated with a marked reduction in aberrantly expressed genes. The parthenote developed to adulthood with the ability to reproduce offspring. These results suggest that paternal imprinting prevents parthenogenesis, ensuring that the paternal contribution is obligatory for the descendant.
PMID: 15103378 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
……………………….
http://7e.devbio.com/article.php?ch=7&id=72
The Invention of Artificial Parthenogenesis
Chapter 5 in Controlling Life: Jacques Loeb and the Engineering Ideal in Biology, Oxford University Press, NY. Pp. 93-117.
Philip J. Pauly, 1987 
This chapter is reproduced here thanks to the generosity of the author and of the Oxford University Press.
From the late 1880s, Jacques Loeb had been living out his own scientific epic. The Urwald of Chicago was the setting for scientific creation. His 1896 cornerstone laying speech was a declaration of the path he proposed to take. In taking up physical chemistry, the direction of this path became clearer; but he only believed that he had found his own way in 1899 when he developed what he called "artificial parthenogenesis." The personal importance of this achievement was evident in his announcement of his result to Ernst Mach, in what would be his last confessional letter, that "it is in the end still possible that I find my dream realized, to see a constructive or engineering biology in place of a biology that is merely analytical." Artificial parthenogenesis brought Loeb scientific fame, and even popular notoriety, as a modern Faust. He used that heroic stature to continue his quest in what he considered the true Eden of California. Loeb worked alone on the shores of the Pacific for seven years, returning east periodically to proclaim the new scientific era.(1)   … 
49. "Artificial Parthenogenesis," Journal of the American Medical Association 34 (1900):1009-1010; Ludwig Hektoen to JL, 24 April 1900, LP box 6.
[Loeb] had enjoyed at Stanford's small Hopkins Marine Station in Pacific Grove, California, in the winters of 1898 and 1900. He confessed to Mall that he longed to live in California in order to develop the possibilities of artificial parthenogenesis full-time; he wanted to work on marine organisms because, he joked, they were the only animals, besides man, "whose life is entirely absorbed in assimilation and reproduction."(57)
Sorry about the length -- but figured it had better be thorough to satisy request for documentation. ---- kb - 2006.0804
:Many thanks for the work finding these. You are correct that these would be much more appropriate in the Parethenogenesis article. These sources are either not related to human parthenogenesis or are speculative. I don't see how this is directly relevant to the Woman article. At most I could see a single sentence in the Woman article that references the parthenogenesis article, with some of this material in there. Gwernol 23:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, could you expand on that request? I'm afraid I don't entirely follow. Gwernol 23:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, like I say, the first step is to figure out what, if anything is appropriate for the Parthenogenesis article. That article already refers to the possibility of human Parthenogenesis. Given the citations above that may be all that can be said. I could see a single sentence in the Woman article  referring to the future possibility of human Parthenogenesis, but that's it. This is a general article about Women, not a venue for a detailed treatise on something that is speculation at this point. Gwernol 23:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. My point is this can be expressed in a single sentence. Something along the lines of "Future developments in Parthenogenesis could lead to female reproduction without the involvement of a male". Given that Parthenogenesis is not currently possible, this seems perfectly adequate coverage. Three long paragraphs of detailed explanation is not. Gwernol 00:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added "This generally requires internal fertilization of her eggs with the sperm of a man, though the surgical implantation of an existing embryo is also possible (see reproductive technology)." and took out the request for expansion. I added in vitro parthenogenesis to the initial list in reproductive technology. --Homunq 16:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  parthenogenesis 

message: Is it possible to add images of women in more activities/roles in the gallery. Perhaps a professional, scientist or athlete? Not a dog 19:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being an astronaut is one of the most highly skilled professions there are, and NASA's images are public domain.  Get a photo of Dr. Mae Jemison, or any other female astronaut, from the NASA website, and add it to Wikipedia.  Be bold.  :)  Kasreyn 21:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one seemed interested, so I've added an image of Dr. Jemison to the Gallery.  Kasreyn 22:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery 

message: I think the first paragraph of biology, about trans and intersex, should be moved down. It's not a matter of importance, it's that it doesn't make sense to state the exeption before what it's an exception to. If I asked you "What is a bird?" you wouldn't start out by saying "Well, some birds can't fly...", it would just confuse me. Over on man it seems to read better IMO. --72.252.56.171 20:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  moving trans stuff later on in biology 

message: /* Women's rights */ blanking - covered by "Culture and gender roles", linked from "see also", copy-paste form original article, we don't have "Men's right" in man. --2 September 2006 82.166.109.71
Why was the whole section stripped out, without discussion on this page.
And, can we have something discussed on this page other than the photo edit war??? There have been similar sections on other languages' pages without challeng. Dogru144 00:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or better yet, the discussion of the edit war be moved to another page. The photos might be important, marginally, but the subject has distracted nearly everyone from concerns about content. This talk page seems like a shouting ground for people monomaniacally obssessed by photos. The volume of discussion on it swallows up all other discussions. This article should not be treated like a newspaper, in which photos generally constitute half of the story. Rintrah 06:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blanking section by me 

message: However, many other common english customs, such as always listing males before females and always calling "God" (or a Higher Power) "He" distinctly ARE sexist. - This is inherently POV, even if it is right. For it even to be considered valid, there needs to be a discussion of how it is sexist, and what sexist means, which are unnecessary digressions. Moreover, the capitalised "ARE" is not encyclopedic. If this sentence is to remain, i.e., be rendered validly, and thus retain the point validly, it needs to be reformed to less pointed language. Encyclopedic articles are not supposed to be moral essays for exclaiming one's opinion on a contentious issue. Think of a dispassionate, curious reader seeking education, and not one who needs to be instructed in moral values. Rintrah 15:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence 

message: 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)
replies: text: Actually, I think that all of these "exotic" women do belong to different cultures already. That said, I agree that the "ethnographic" part is too dominant here - the diversity of women should not be reduced to diversity of nationality/ethnicity. The individual, social, intra-cultural variations are just as important. --85.187.44.131 19:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is precisely why I attempted to add a little diversity in careers (as most of the women in all the pictures were in menial careers regardless of their ethnic diversity).  I believe I was attempting to show that women do more than weave and bear children.  Unfortunately, the image of astronaut Dr. Mae Jemison I added was removed.  I can't begin to imagine why. Kasreyn 05:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: With respect, I couldn't disagree more, romarin.  "Woman" is a truly vast subject to cover and deserves a great deal of diversity in its images.  The original gallery was a good thing, in my opinion.  As to "one from any given culture or society" - how is that balanced?  Different cultures and societies have differing populations.  If one were to attempt to insert some sort of order or logic into the selection of images, I would think some sort of proportionality would be in order.  Kasreyn 05:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with both of you. I liked the idea of a gallery (it doesn't seem at all trite or trivial to me). However, I think that "a bunch of national costumes and a bunch of western women doing varied and interesting things" does have a bit of a bias (both here and in the montage). I don't think the solution is to explicitly try to be proportional - diversity is best sketched, not covered. (If you're drawing a tree with 10 quick lines, you don't spend 5 of them on the trunk even if that has half the mass, and one of your lines might show a leaf even though that's tiny.) So the best solution would be not "Westerner? Check. African? Check. etc.." but "Some ethnic diversity? check. Some age diversity? Check. Some activity diversity? Check. Some body type diversity? Check. No clear central norm which all the diversities revolve around? Check." I'd say you could cover all of that with about 8-20 women, no more. In fact, in a way it would be BETTER to have a semi-glaring omission to show that you're NOT trying to get everyone because you never could. For instance: no black and white "ethnographic" stuff.... I live in Guatemala City, I'll try to get a photo of an indigenous Guatemalan woman in traje or semi-traje doing something non-traditional (secretary, press conference, out on the town, or something like that) and I think that'll help with the "only westerners are diverse" problem. --Homunq 18:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  While we're on the subject of photos... (other than the lead photo)