Talk:Woman/Archive 1

Original picture vs. Frau's picture

I suggest reverting to the original picture. Any objections?? 66.245.121.70 01:56, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am for the new one, is's more female. AshSert

But are you the person who took the photo? The same user as the German original? That could bias your opinion. - Vague | Rant 03:59, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to have a nude in this article. I think we should remove the "frau" image. Rhobite 02:23, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

There is also no reason not to have both images, as far as I can see. Dysprosia 03:33, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You know, it was harder to write this comment than I thought it would be. It's hard to put my objection into words. I simply don't think a nude photograph of a woman is necessary or beneficial here. Whether or not we agree with it, nudity is a taboo and I don't think we should use it where it's not necessary. I think many would see the image as flaunting Wikipedia's "open-mindedness" or "liberalness" or whatever. I have no problem with using images on Clitoris or Penis. But when I picture the "perfect encyclopedia" in my head, it uses nudity judiciously, and doesn't have a female nude in its "woman" article. Rhobite 04:06, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Then, this is an issue with the amount or appropriateness of nudity which I personally do not wish to get into. My point of view above is strictly on the amount of images, regardless, their appropriateness is of course a different issue. Dysprosia 04:16, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just a thought, apart from the nudity issue: The Voyager image is a good choice because it is fairly abstract. Image:Frau.jpg is of a woman of very definite race, age, and body type. Why not have an image of a very young, thin East African woman? Or one of a stooped, elderly Japanese woman? Image:Human-woman.png is probably as abstract as we can get and still be identifiably human and female, and has the advantage of being a very famous image which is in the public domain. Just by €0.02... —Tkinias 05:42, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

America, ok we try it again in 10 years.. AshSert

Ah, blame it all on America. Such a rational response. Rhobite 05:57, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Huh? What on earth does America have to do with my comment? *confused* —Tkinias 06:04, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

15:20 < Engla> even though most of our visitors come to wikipedia to look for naked 
              women, we should image an audience (since the existing is not real) 
              that's looking for information. And people looking for info on a 
              woman probably don't want to see them naked

Therefore, I think we should use the pioneer image only. ✏ Sverdrup 14:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Use your words, people! Let's not have another edit war. Please remember that this talk page is here for a reason. Also, decisions shouldn't be made in IRC without consulting talk pages. Rhobite 16:09, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

In order to be truely encyclopedic we need to demostrate what makes a woman a woman. The bangladeshi lady is fine for the gender roles section, but she is far from the archtype of womanhood. Lets not be prudes, humans look a certain way, and we need to demonstrate that. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 16:16, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Another thing to consider: I formerly worked in a university computing site where having a page displaying Image:Frau.jpg would get a user thrown out of the site for violation of the sexual harrassment policy, because display of a naked women was considered implicit sexual harrassment. IMO this was draconian, but it was the policy. —Tkinias 16:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The standard which was proposed (I think on Talk:Clitoris) was that we should only have nudity or pictures of genitalia on pages where they are expected. I don't think it's too much of a burden to accommodate those who are viewing Wikipedia from public labs, libraries, and schools, by refraining from using nudity on pages where nudity isn't expected. Obviously someone viewing vagina should expect to see a vagina. Viewing woman, I wouldn't expect to see a nude woman. Rhobite 16:37, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

That was a compromise, not a standard. If people have issues w nudity, they need to stay out of the encyclopedia, all encyclopedias have loads of naked pics in em. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 16:45, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Um, we've got a lot of kids who use Wikipedia for school research (I've had several students cite it in their papers); they could get into trouble with their schools over a nude image if they are working on a school computer. It's not an issue of accomodating prudes; it's an issue of accomodating users who have to work in environments with silly rules. Saying that students working in school labs "need to stay out of the encyclopedia" is a bit problematic, no? (As Rhobite says, if they are reading Clitoris they brought it on themselves if they get in trouble with their schools.) —Tkinias 17:52, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be banned from schools. It contains too much content which isn't suitable for children. Schools, at least in the US, are generally very strict about what kind of content they allow access to without specific parental permission. We would have to get rid of far too much to please them. Personally I think having a nude woman in Wikipedia is borderline. I see it as a lot less shocking than many of the other photos we have. anthony 警告 22:38, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have nothing against the photograph itself, or the woman herself. My opinion is however that the image should go. It's too specific on several counts, these being (a) white people are a small minority of the world's population (b) the image implies that women are born with metal bands around their fingers (c) not all women have that hairstyle (d) not all women look like that. I believe it would be better for the article to have an image of 'Woman' than of a specific woman. If the person who took this photograph can supply me with high-resolution images of this woman I would be more than happy to review them for suitability. Note also the page for penis, which has an erection; in that case, although the erection is also white, it works on a graphic level (the background is dark) and is iconic enough to symbolise the erections of all mankind. - Ashley Pomeroy 22:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd prefer a collage for this reason. anthony 警告 22:38, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now that is a bloody good idea. A collage of several dozen women - faces, preferably - of as many ages, races and sizes as possible. Think National Geographic, think Time magazine. Perhaps we could have a Wiki-project whereby the female contributers are encouraged to submit photographs of their faces, anonymously, and vice-versa for the men. -Ashley Pomeroy 10:51, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is so easy: We really don't need a naked photo describe women -- drawings and clothed photos are totally sufficient for this article, as it's even not about anatomy. Pic out. ✏ Sverdrup 01:20, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1) I don't like the caption "woman with natural proportions." What's the basis for saying that? I happen to agree with the point that's being made, but we shouldn't be trying to make a point.

2) The Pioneer plaque is too abstract. The present picture is too... personal. How about a famous painting?

3) I do think there should be a nude picture of a man and a woman on their respective pages. Let's not be too prudish. All of our pictures of other species are nude. A nude picture gives some racial or ethnic specificity, but if you start putting on clothes, you are suddenly pinning it down to a very small place and time and culture. A picture of a clothed man isn't a picture of a generic man at all; it becomes a picture of (say) a middle-class American man from a specific decade. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:54, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't see the point of putting a single photo of a clothed woman. Personally I think the best solution would be to put a collage with lots of women in it. As for the "with natural proportions", I've removed that as it is POV. We wouldn't put "natural sex" in an article on hetero sex, would we? anthony 警告 04:35, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've got no problems with nudity, however I think this isn't the right place. Most women don't go running around naked, so if we're to have a picture of a "typical" woman, she should be wearing clothes. Shane King 04:39, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Keep both pics. Put the clothed one at the top of the page, and put the nude next to a section on anatomy. Tuf-Kat 04:49, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

I prefer the Human-woman.png image over this one. As others have said, this picture of a nude woman is extremely narrow in regards to age, ethnicity, etc. The Voyager image is specific enough without being too specific (or explicit- is nudity really needed to convey the message here? what is the message?). I would support a collage, but I'm not sure how that would work out. Reene (リニ) 08:06, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

I agree w Tuf-Kat's compromise. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 10:24, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I personally prefer Image:Human-woman.png over Image:Frau.jpg, but don't have a problem with including the latter as well. -Sean Curtin 03:03, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

High Schools

Anthony, do you really think 17-year-olds can't handle Wikipedia? Or university students? We've got contributors who are in high school... —Tkinias 19:51, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I can't imagine why a school would chastise a child for looking at a nude photo in an encyclopedia. Has anybody compared the german wiki article? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 21:43, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As one recently out of the high school system I can honestly say that if a monitor were to catch someone looking at this article and saw the Frau picture, Wikipedia would be put on the school's network-wide block faster than you could say "censorship". Now, it may well be different for university/college situations (where monitors might actually consider the context) but as far as anybody running a high school network is concerned, nudity == immoral, and immoral == potential lawsuit. Reene (リニ) 21:57, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Of course, Reene is referring I assume to the United States. Australia I believe has regions with similar ideas about display of the female body. The (IMO sad) fact is that English Wikipedia operates in a different cultural milieu than German, Swedish, French, etc.; the Anglophone world is pretty much the prudest part of the "West" -- not to mention that the English Wikipedia is the most likely to be used by people in parts of the world where their native-language version is embryonic or nonexistent. And as I mentioned before, when I was a university computing site monitor as an undergrad, I would have been obligated to throw out anyone looking at Image:Frau.jpg for violating the sexual harrassment policy. IMO that was stupid, but it was the rule. —Tkinias 22:06, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh yes, my comment was in reference to the 'States. I should have made that clearer, sorry :) Reene (リニ) 22:08, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

I personally think most 17-year-olds can handle Wikipedia, but it's not the job of a public high school to make that decision without the permission of the students' parents. anthony 警告 22:33, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Compromise?

When someone suggested a collage, I remembered the an article featured on the main page a while ago and made this:

image deleted from commons for being out of scope

Is this any good as a compromise? The women are White, Black, Hispanic and Asian respectivly. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 22:44, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's not bad in principle, but that particular image is not technically of very good quality; the contrast of its components is bad and there is significant compression artifacting. Sorry to be critical... :( —Tkinias 23:06, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That image is unsuitable on this page. I oppose the collage idea generally as well, btw. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 00:11, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My opinion is that the collage should be a large square grid with several dozen, if not hundreds, of photographs of faces, rather like those clever images which are made up of little photographs. Ideally the faces should be small enough to be recognisable, but not so large as to be obvious people - the message should be 'here is Woman, in all its diversity'. Could this process somehow be automated with Google and a piece of software? -Ashley Pomeroy 14:08, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Automating search for images is really hard since Wikipedia can only use free images. Read more on Wikipedia:Copyrights. ✏ Sverdrup 02:34, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since the truth will evidently not last long in the article, here's my proposed caption:

I think Nunh-huh's caption throws into light the obvious point that this image is not suitable for the article in question. I welcome the Pioneer image, but am open to other solutions. I just don't think Image:Frau.jpg is the right one. - Vague | Rant 04:54, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

I think Nunh-huh's caption is an obscene insult to people everywhere. I am completely shocked he would say something so awful. Sexually objectified indeed! Go put a naked man on the man article, if it amuses you. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 10:56, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Snort! good thing I wasn't drinking milk. The obscenity is that Wikipedia would choose as its primary exemplification of "woman" a photo which reflects only those attributes which fourteen-year-old boys think matter about women, rather than choose to inform readers that women's contribution to knowledge and society goes well beyond being able to arouse adolescent boys to rock-hard attention. - Nunh-huh 11:39, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nudity is natural. Your emphasis on what "fourteen-year-old boys think matter about women" is telling, and likely innaccurate. If we were looking to amuse the boys at home, I doubt we'd use a woman of such normal proportions, but rather would place a pornographic image of Pamela Anderson or some such. This image of a woman posing for an artistic photo has nothing to do with "A sexually objectified woman". All this talk about "sexual objectification" is better suited to an article on gender studies or feminism, and is out of place here, especilly in regards to this image. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 15:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Of course nudity is natural. Nothing, however, about that picture is "natural"<g>! It's a carefully posed, carefully lit, professional photograph of enormous breasts which happen to be attached to a woman. Any personalizing features, such as her face, are hidden in shadow. It's unfortunate that you can't recognize sexual objectification when you see it, but your inability to recognize it doesn't make this picture any more appropriate an illustration for an article whch purports to be about "woman". - Nunh-huh 19:08, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I find your comments here unfortunate. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 19:25, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As I find the lack of a response with any substance. - Nunh-huh 21:08, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would like to ask once more in hopes of receiving a response: What is this picture accomplishing that the other images on the page do not? To me it seems to be there for no other reason than the desire to have a carefully posed nude woman adorning the page. Reene (リニ) 22:16, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

The image clarifies the difference between a woman and a man, what makes a woman a woman. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 23:02, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. There are important biological differences between men and women. There should be photos on both pages which illustrate what those differences are. If this particular photo is not ideal for whatever reason, a different nude should be used. Tuf-Kat 23:08, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Notice my question includes "that the other images don't". If you are attempting to illustrate the sexual differences between men and women (which is the only thing the image does, and even then it does so poorly) the Pioneer image does this sufficiently. My question has still not been answered sufficiently. Reene (リニ) 23:22, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

The Pioneer image is a drawing, and is thus inferior to a photo, especially a high quality photo such as this one. If you have a better photo, please provide it. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 23:34, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I might agree except that a drawing acheives several things a photograph cannot: it (relatively) neutrally presents the female form, it's not based upon the narrow appearance of one person, and it can be anything the person creating it wants it to be- including a way to clearly illustrate the differences between males and females without bias and without (what I consider to be) excess sexuality. I would also disagree that this is high quality. Her face is hidden in shadow for goodness' sake, whereas her midsection is thrust forward and illuminated. It's high quality only if you're looking for wank material. And unless something better can be found I would rather we remove it from the article altogether.

If you think the current drawing is insufficient, I'd be glad to do up something else and upload it. Just tell me exactly what you want the drawing to look like. Reene (リニ) 23:47, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Firstly the current drawing is superb, for a drawing. It should not be removed or replaced for any reason, its cultural context (of having been sent into space to represent mankind) is too high. Secondly, unless a superior nude is provided, I strongly object to the removal of the current image. If you dislike it, and (as at least one other) envision it as "wank material", please provide a superior image. Otherwise, I can see no value in its removal (indeed, were a superior image provided, I may still question it's removal, albeit far less vigorously). [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 09:59, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You mischaracterize my argument. I object to the inclusion of this photograph because it is inappropriate an an illustration for "woman": its inclusion suggests that we endorse, envision as unobjectionable, or consider as a defining characteristic of womanhood the sexual objectification of women. As there is now a reasonably secure concensus on the talk page about the inappropriateness of its use in this article, I would ask that you use your persuasive powers here to convince others that it should be added, rather than simply re-adding it yourself. - Nunh-huh 10:39, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Caption

That woman is not particularly young, and making comments about her ethnicity is completely unneccessary, and presumptuous (how do you know what her family tree contains? Has she been interviewed on the subject? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 15:15, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Making comments about her gender is obviously unnecessary as well, but you see fit to make the groundbreaking statement "a woman" in the caption. Why not be more specific? It's obvious she's not asian, black, or hispanic, and in that respect her background is unnecessary as "white" refers only to skin colour. And she is a young woman. I would say she's in her mid-late 20s or early 30s at most. Does young == teenager to you or something? I would appreciate it if you would clarify your statements. Reene (リニ) 22:13, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

She is a woman. That’s a fact. It’s also what this article is about. The other details are subjective. What is young? Is caucasian what this woman chooses to call herself? Is it technically what she is (most scientists now feel the only accurate measure of "race" is blood type and language group... what are hers)? Who knows? It isn't what this article is about even if we did, but if we knew for sure, I'd be ok w adding it. See my caption on the collage image for example. I gave the factual info. I didn't speculate about how the woman described as black looked like she might be mixed-race, or how they were probably all in their early thirties. I just put down the facts as I knew them, and left the rest up in the air. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 23:11, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OT, but... Young == "mid-late 20s or early 30s" -- you have a refreshing prespective for a just-out-of-high-school person, Reene. I agree, but a decade ago I would have said 30 was pretty old... :/ —Tkinias 02:27, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Does it matter what she chooses to call herself? I could call myself a male african-american but that wouldn't make it true (and indeed, looking at your FBI example, it matters not to them what a person calls themselves or what their breeding is either, as it is based on appearance). I say once more, "white" refers to skin colour, not ethnicity or her breeding, and such things are irrelevant. "Young" may be subjective but it is still a fair assessment- she is either a child, young, middle-aged, or elderly- they're all very broad ranges and it is very easy to see this person would be placed in "young". If you don't agree with that, pick one. Let's not get silly about this. Reene (リニ) 23:30, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

We could, of course, make a reasonable assumption that the woman is German, since she is named Gabi (a distinctively German form of Gabrielle) and is a colleague of de:Benutzer:Wikibär. Most people consider ethnic Germans to be white, no? —Tkinias 02:20, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But we are an encyclopedia, and thus should focus on precise data, not opinion (especially not our own opinions). [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 10:02, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Collage

I placed the collage in the article, as it does demonstrate differences amongst women. I clarified it as being faces of female felons wanted by the FBI however, and placed it low in the article for that reason. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 21:03, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yuck! the collage looks horrible, very low quality photographs. I have no problem with a nude woman I don't think the frau photo is ideal - IMO the most important feature of a person in the face, so any photo should clearly show the face. A collage is good - but not this one. Perhaps a photo of an older woman would be seen as less sexual? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 10:47, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree w theresa, the collage is awful (they are criminals as well, I believe 2 are murderers), but it is important to show women of various types. I think it should be replaced w a different series of women of different ages and ethnicities. We also need girls, since this article is not only about adult women. As far as the nude, I could care less how "sexy" people think it is (sexy is subjective, people have diverse tastes), so long as it shows obvious breasts, hips, and facial features. I do agree that the shadow on her face is bad, mainly because women have some distinct facial features which are hard to see in this image. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 11:19, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

TBH, the collage was done in two minutes in Mac Preview. I agree the photos are of bad quality, and they are criminals, but I feel it helps to show race difference (something the other two images lack). Also, the people at the Race article seem to be OK with it. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 23:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The collage is poor quality, that is true. More disturbing is the caption currently being used. Repeated mentioning of the FBI is a) pointless as it's in no way related to the article; and b) a possible violation of the FBI's terms of use of the image. I suggest a better quality collage be made, or at the least, the caption be reworded to remove all references to the FBI. Shane King 10:48, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Offensive image

Sam, I don't think the image should be added back to the article when it has already offended so many. If it offends our users, then how many readers is it offending? - Vague | Rant 12:23, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

If this image is offensive, how about the image @ Pan (mythology)? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 13:06, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's an article about Pan, for Pete's sake. You look Clitoris, you get a clitoris. You look at Pan, you get Pan doing what Pan does. (I would also note that that image is of an ancient sculpture, which—rightly or wrongly—has a different impact on viewers than a contemporary photograph does.) —Tkinias 13:11, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, here's what seems to be the breakdown of pros and cons to Image:Frau.jpg:

• Pro:
  • It is a photograph, and photographs are supposed to be inherently better than drawings
  • It prominently features large breasts and large hips, which are supposed to be the markers of "woman"
  • It makes a statement that Wikipedia will not tolerate prudishness
  • (Implicit:) It is sexy—"woman" == "sexy"
• Con:
  • It is a photograph, and a photograph is supposed to be inherently inferior for this purpose to an abstracted drawing
  • It is understood as presenting "woman" as a sexual object
  • It can offend readers with certain religious views
  • It can cause legal problems for unsuspecting readers (who would not expect to find it here) in some jurisdictions or work environments
  • It can get student readers in administrative trouble with their schools
  • (My own opinion, and just that:) It is not a particularly attractive photograph; if we must have a nude, there are better ones available

I fail to see how the pros outweigh the cons here. —Tkinias 13:22, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree better photos could be found. If its so easy, please find one. We could also use images of females of various ages, races, etc... [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 13:28, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why should we have to find one? We've all expressed our objections to the image being there. If you're so gung-ho about there needing to be a nude woman on the page, why don't you find one? And find a nude man while you're at it, since the man article is lacking nudity. This is something I find funny, because the physical differences between women and men are more obvious in clothed females than clothed men. Yet this article is the one featuring nudity. Hmmm. Suddenly the "showing differences between men and women" argument isn't holding much water. After all, what are the naive kiddies that (allegedly) have absoloutely no idea as to the differences between men and women supposed to compare it to?

I liked the idea someone offered about featuring a painting of some kind here instead. Perhaps The Birth of Venus or something similar? Reene (リニ) 21:28, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

A painting might be nice as long as it's reasonably realistic - the venus woman is out of proportion. I suggest we all stop jabbering away and everone goes off and see if they can find some images that they think are possibilities. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 21:36, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

@User:Reene : The onus is on the person making the objection to make the repair, this is a group editing process, after all. I am under no obigation to edit anything, no matter how much you sass me, I'm a volunteer. I decided to edit this page because it was listed on WP:RfC. Man is not. The reason why there is a naked lady on this page and not one on the male article is simple to me as a psyche major, and possesser of common sense: both men and women prefer looking at pictures of naked women to naked men, on average (its easy to measure by pupil dialation). The presence of such things as Wikipedia:Featured pictures makes it clear we are far from spartan in regards to artistic value here. We may insist on factual accuracy and NPOV, but we also accentuate the beautiful and neglect the unappealing. If you like pics of naked men, feel free to ad one to the man article. I doubt I'll be the one to revert you. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 21:57, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "sass" anyone. All I was intending to do was point out flaws in past arguments for the inclusion of this particular picture. That said, what do you think of replacing it with a painting? Reene (リニ) 22:27, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

I find it odd that the only vocal proponent of the image has no response whatsoever to my outline of the principal objections to it, responding only to my (relatively unimportant) aesthetic objection that I just don't the image is beautiful or technically well executed. All of the other objections would stand equally for most or all photographic nudes, except those he would reject as not sufficiently emphasizing huge breasts as woman's primary attribute. Please explain why all of these objections should be ignored. I don't get it. —Tkinias 23:15, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I didn't find your outline insightful, so I didn't comment on it. As I have said to others, if you know of a better nude photo, bring it. :) [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 01:33, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A few thoughts:

• Here's what I don't get: Why should "sexiness" factor into our choosing between pictures that illustrate a woman? Nudity being sexy should not be a pro, nor should its perceived unattractiveness be a con in and of itself.
• I agree with Sam on the point that, if you don't like this particular picture, find a better one. We already have a drawing of the female form, and there is something to be said for an actual photograph being included as well. Thus, although there may be better pictures out there, simply removing Frau detracts from the article.
• It seems that the presence of a nude photograph is the real issue at stake here. The point that one would not expect to find a nude woman at this article and thus be surprisingly offended is a valid one. However, altering content to conform to a reader's expectations and offenses is conforming to a perceived POV. The fact that some people might be offended is not a reason to change the article. And, IMHO, what's the difference between a realistic painting of a nude woman and Frau, besides "style" or "quality"?

Just some thoughts. I'd be fine with a better picture or painting/photograph/etc., but let's not do something because some kid might get in trouble at an elementary school. Wikipedia as a whole already isn't appropriate for little kids, even if we took out all nude pictures. Timbo 00:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Why the hell would a kid in elementary school look up woman on wikipedia? Hell, I expected a nude picture on this, its the natural form, but we should downsize pictures and add more variations of women instead of 1 big specific picture. Zach 23:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)