Talk:Woman
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Woman article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28Auto-archiving period: 14 days ![]() |
![]() | Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
![]() | ![]() Important Note: The most appropriate image to use at the top of this article has been a highly controversial issue with many valid viewpoints. The current lead image was chosen by an RfC on 5/26/2021. A gallery and discussion of potential lead images is also available here. New images may be added there. |
![]() | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated, especially about Wording of lede, Definition of woman and Self contradiction in lede. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting on that topic, and read through the list of highlighted discussions below before starting a new one: |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() |
|
![]() | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Page edit request
Please let me remove a image from this article Mybirthday647 (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Mybirthday647, can you please tell us which image you would like removed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Ada Lovelace should be added to the science section of the article
How is possible that Ada Lovelace is not mentioned in the science section of this article?
Ada Lovelace was the creator one of the first algorithms for modern computers, she had the intention to develop software for multipurpose tasks, not just the first woman, but one of the first humans if not the first in doing that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace#First_published_computer_program
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Note_G
Thanks.--Zchemic (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- The section Women § Science, literature and art is meant to be a summary of the articles Women in science, Women in literature, and Women in art. To avoid becoming overly long and cluttered (it already contains 6 paras and 2 images), it cannot hope to include every notable woman in these fields, regardless of her contributions. The Countess of Lovelace is mentioned in Women in science § Early nineteenth century and her portrait appears in an imagebox alongside Curie later in that article.
- It is for the best that the text of this summary section mostly avoids mentioning women by name, as this begets lots of
why does X get included, and not Y
, which eventually expands into a WP:BLUESEA of links. For a particularly egregious example of the useless and unreadable text this kind of editing produces, see old revisions of the article Gay icon. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 17:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
On "wermann"
The page in its current form mentions without sources the supposed existence of the Old English word wermann. This word is, unless I'm gravely mistaken, completely unattested (try finding it on Wiktionary, for example) and possibly fabricated. Unless a good source can be found for the existence of wermann as an OE word (and a cursory internet search reveals only discussions pondering where on earth it supposedly came from), its mention ought to be removed. AutisticCatnip (talk) 04:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- You appear to be correct. For those interested, here are some such discussions [1][2][3]. I've gone and made an edit (Special:Diff/1216741813) which replaces the specious wermann with wer (apparently the most common OE word for male/man) and wǣpnedmann, which is attested occasionally as the analogue to wifmann. I hope this looks acceptable.
- I think the Dictionary.com link is rotten, as it no longer contains the information we're citing it for. If anyone has access to the OED or another source which verifies this etymology, please verify this text if possible. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 18:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Why does this page use extended confirmed protection even though Man uses semi-protection only?
... Usersnipedname (talk) 08:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- GENSEX enforcement vs. generic vandalism. Dronebogus (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Also because trolls and bigots perseverate more on people assigned male at birth who are either gay/bi/pan or trans. Transwomen are targeted more than transmen and thus this article gets more trolls. Here's an article: [4] EvergreenFir (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- The page has had ECP since July 2023. At that time the article and talk had some targeted vandalism from sockpuppets that had gamed autoconfirmation. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 04:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
A new departure required for this article (and others)
Following the Tickle v Giggle judgement should this article be reframed in its entirety?
The Australian Human Rights Commission acted as a friend of the court. Barrister Zelie Heger told the court that sex was no longer defined in the Sex Discrimination Act but that “importantly the act recognises that a person’s sex is not limited to [being a man or a woman]”.
This doesn’t just have repercussions in the jurisdiction of the court that made the judgement
The Beeb draws attention to the significance of this judgement:
“So today’s ruling in favour of Tickle will be significant for all the 189 countries where CEDAW has been ratified - from Brazil to India to South Africa.
When it comes to interpreting international treaties, national courts often look at how other countries have done it.
Australia’s interpretation of the law in a case that got this level of media attention is likely to have global repercussions.
If over time a growing number of courts rule in favour of gender identity claims - it is more likely that other countries will follow suit.”
Is the term ‘Woman’ as has been widely understood and as reflected in this article (possibly even as a distinct definition) becoming anachronistic?
Lukewarmbeer (talk) 08:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- The judgment is from a single Australian court and legal definitions don't necessarily override biological, social, or historical understandings of womanhood. The article currently presents multiple viewpoints, including both traditional and evolving definitions of womanhood. Legal definitions serve specific purposes and may not encompass the full complexity of biological, social, and cultural understandings of womanhood. The concept of woman has deep cultural, historical, and biological roots that extend beyond legal definitions.
- Wikipedia should aim to present mainstream knowledge and established facts. A single court case does not warrant an immediate overhaul of a fundamental concept. The article should reflect various perspectives, including traditional definitions alongside emerging views. Drastically changing the article based on one legal decision is overreactive.
- Major changes should be based on broad scholarly and societal consensus, not single events. The current article already includes information on gender identity and the evolving understanding of sex and gender in the opening section. Adding information about this court case and its implications could be done without completely reframing the entire article. The implications of this ruling might be better covered in a separate article or section, rather than reframing the entire concept of woman. ViolanteMD (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's a great response. Thanks for taking the time. I'm broadly very with you but I think, given the 'lean' that what we consider to be RS have it's a discussion we need to have.
- Let's see if any other editors have a view. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 08:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's not even clear what would need to be changed, but regardless, I agree with ViolanteMD that it is not warranted to reframe anything at this time. The content in the article is based on reliable sources on the topic, of which there are extremely many; a court case isn't going to impact that much. Crossroads -talk- 22:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's not exactly a revolutionary position either. For many legal purposes, gender/sex is defined as something that can be reassigned, rather than what you were born as. Anywikiuser (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia objectionable content
- B-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-3 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in Everyday life
- B-Class level-3 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-3 vital articles in Everyday life
- B-Class vital articles in Everyday life
- B-Class Anthropology articles
- High-importance Anthropology articles
- B-Class sociology articles
- High-importance sociology articles
- B-Class Gender studies articles
- Top-importance Gender studies articles
- WikiProject Gender studies articles
- B-Class Feminism articles
- Top-importance Feminism articles
- WikiProject Feminism articles
- B-Class WikiProject Women articles
- All WikiProject Women-related pages
- WikiProject Women articles
- B-Class Women's History articles
- Top-importance Women's History articles
- WikiProject Women's History articles
- B-Class Women's sport articles
- High-importance Women's sport articles