Talk:Woman/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The woman whose picture is used appears overweight. If a picture of a nude woman is going to be used, why should that picture be overweight? The nude picture of a man in the "man" Wikipedia article does not appear overweight. A picture of an overweight woman is misleading as an aspect of an encyclopedic article on women, because it presents an image of a woman in an unhealthy state and a state that doctors advise one to avoid. 66.171.226.69 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC).

I disagree. You're probably just not used to seeing a real woman - and that's not your fault; The fashion industry is obsessed with portraying women as emaciated, skinny little boys. And celebrities with their addiction to plastic surgery, don't make the picture any prettier. Reality is often vastly different than the fantasy that you see all around you, and this photograph is a good representative sample of what a woman looks like. And, I think she looks great. Viriditas (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that she is a good representative of the "average" woman. However, unfortunately, the average woman in the United States (as well as some European countries) is overweight. For the reasons previously stated, I don't believe that having a picture of an overweight woman is appropriate for an encyclopedic article. I am not making a judgment on her attractiveness or lack thereof. I am simply stating facts and that I do not believe that a condition recognized as unhealthy should be represented in the main picture for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.226.69 (talk) 04:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

For further reference, here is a Wikipedia article that includes silhouettes for what represents healthy, overweight, and obese. Even though the silhouettes are for a male figure, I think they are informative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obese —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.226.69 (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The woman does not appear overweight at all, nor does she appear to be American. I suggest you take a moment to read

art nude, two articles which will shed light on your error. Viriditas (talk

) 04:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

From personal experience of completely normal women of various ages, I would second the opinion that the woman in the picture on the article does indeed seem slightly overweight. Not enough that it would worry me too much, but yeah... perhaps we should indeed look for a better photo? 195.50.199.86 (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a late comment, in case anyone looks at this later:

A woman who is only 5'6" can weigh as much as 155 pounds and still be 'normal weight'. "Overweight" is defined by health authorities on the basis of what weights associated with a higher net risk of disease, not by the fashion authorities opinion of what looks most appealing. It seems highly unlikely to me that this woman is actually overweight (=BMI > 25). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

How about something like this (I just took the box from an ethnic group page and pasted in some of the image fn's):

Woman

DavidOaks (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length. Please do not change this present lede photo without first getting a group consensus. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, I didn't. I put it here to see what other people think, including their reasoning, rather than simple preference. This gets around the repeated objections (inevitable for ANY single image) to focus on body, or on culturally-determined features (like clothing, body modification rather than intrinsic distinctions of females from males), ethnocentrism, now-ism, the representation of one age or shape or activity as typical, etc. BTW, I don't know that the present image enjoys consensus. Certainly there was at least as much support for the collage concept, which I've tried to cooperate with. Here we have women of many different origins, in various types of dress, stages of life, roles...DavidOaks (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

More on the choices here: a clinical physical specimen (not confined to contemporary body-images of beauty nor standards of prudery); two heads of state, two soldiers (one of whom is a saint, the other a pioneer of computer science); two sculptures (one a goddess, the other a venerable figure for LGBT community); three elderly, three in the prime of life, three distinctly young; only one media celebrity (and this one known for her intelligence and verbal skill rather than her looks). Only one in a biologically distinctive role (nursing), none in sexualized or glamorized settings. The effort here has been to acknowledge the range of "woman" but to do so with dignity. I would offer these as governing principles for any additions or substitutions we might choose to make; icons like Mona Lisa or Whistler's Mother occured, as did an image of childbirth from the commons or a Rosie the Riverter shot. DavidOaks (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, let's give it a try. DavidOaks (talk) 05:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, neither a support. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 06:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Got something to say? Say it. If you have a reason to delete or alter, let's hear it. But the subject has been held in abeyance to vague discomforts way too long.DavidOaks (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the present image. There have been no complaints and I feel that it is best to leave well enough alone for now. Gandydancer (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) If you mean the collage, which is the present image, I agree that there have been no complaints, and certainly no response to the rationale which has been advanced in its favor -- though an individual being satisfied, or a lack of complaints don't amount to a ringing endorsement or the kind of reasoning we usually invoke when considering edits. If you mean the previous image (Lactancia bebe aire libre.jpg), the complaints would be the converses of the rationale which has been laid out in favor of the collage, with the additional observation that the advantages of the Lactancia image are preserved, as the image is included in the collage. It's a nice image, though amateurish, and limits this enormous subject by its very specific circumstances -- relatively propserous young European in the present day exercising a function not all women are willing to take on as defining. DavidOaks (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course I meant the previous image - I had no idea you had changed it. It's pretty obvious that when one must resort to being sneaky and change something that has been hotly contested without an edit summary, one is not using good Wikipedia policy. Please revert your change. Gandydancer (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Please read

WP:OWN. If you think the page needed locking, you should have requested a lock. You have experience with that procedure from another page. If you dislike the image, by all means change it, providing your response to the rationale which I laid out. If you do not have any such response except defaulting to no-change, I recommend letting it alone until another editor brings forward a reasoned response or an alternative. I'm going to point out another advantage of the current image -- individual elements can be added or substituted (though there's a hidden comment advising/requesting that people respect the px values in order to maintain visual balance). DavidOaks (talk

) 18:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

And finally, I did prefer the previous photo, however there has been no objection to your change and it's been some time now, and I see no reason for me to object since others seem to be OK with it. Happy editing to you! Gandydancer (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at what we're using, David you were right - it was a good idea and you did a great job.Gandydancer (talk) 03:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I love the multiple images, but I notice that the problem of the female nude having a shaved pubic area has not been resolved. I feel strongly that this is important - pubic shaving is a highly cultural practice and the point of the nude woman was (I understand) to show a real, anatomically correct female human. This reinforces misleading representations in popular culture of women as hairless and pre-pubescent looking. Is another image possible, just to replace that one? Mirandak (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Currently this page lists the pronunciation of the plural as /wʊmɛn/. I am unable to find this in any dictionaries. The OED has /ˈwɪmɪn/, which I believe is correct. Secondly, the montage caption says "clockwise from left." But the caption's list of names is not clockwise, which would suggest a spiral; rather, it is in rows, left to right and top to bottom. 66.31.40.197 (talk) 23:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  20:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Any particualr reason why this picture is there? If it is intended to show a modern eductaed woman, fine but do we really need to know exactly where and under whose aegis she is realeasing her tortoise? Epeeist smudge (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed and fixed. On the other hand, the Tibetan farmer in the first image sticks out like a sore thumb as the only one of the 20 who is nameless. If there were another image of a traditional farmer woman who'd agreed to give her name (no, I don't expect a traditional farmer to know what wikipedia is, just a simple "can I tell people who see this picture your name?" is plenty), I'd favor replacing the Tibetan woman. Until then, she can remain. Homunq (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}} The statement "In the United States women who are ages 30 to 44 and hold a university degree make only 62 percent of what similarly qualified men do" is undocumented and blatantly false. See "The 76-cent myth" (http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/21/commentary/everyday/sahadi/), "What's Really Behind Female Inequality in America?" ("Even the liberal American Association of University Women concluded that three-quarters of the wage gap is due to factors such as education, occupational choice and hours worked.", http://iwf.org/news/show/22723.html) and "Gender Wage Gap Is Feminist Fiction" (http://www.iwf.org/blog/2432979/Gender-Wage-Gap-Is-Feminist-Fiction). Please remove that statement, indicate it is being disputed, or provide opposing viewpoints.

72.79.221.118 (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Example of opposing viewpoint: "A study of the gender wage gap conducted by economist June O' Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, found that women earn 98 percent of what men do when controlled for experience, education, and number of years on the job." (from http://www.iwf.org/blog/2432979/Gender-Wage-Gap-Is-Feminist-Fiction)

72.79.221.118 (talk) 04:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me, please, but I removed the {{edit semi-protected}} for now, because I don't think this is a simple, uncontroversial 'change X to Y' type of request - which is the point of "edit semi-protected". It needs discussion, and some agreement to make a specific change

I'm sure others will see your comments, and discuss them. If there is consensus shown here for a change, you could re-request; please allow some time for responses here; if nobody object, please ask again. Thanks.  Chzz  ►  06:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where you get the idea that it is blatantly false and undocumented since those are the facts that the source has given. However, it seems to me that you have come up with some excellent information that shows that it's not quite so simple as that. A section that explains the pay inequality more fully would be a great addition to the article if you would be willing to write it. You could find a lot of information here

Male–female income disparity in the United States and Economic inequality and several other articles as well. Gandydancer (talk

) 10:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the good suggestions and thank you for correcting me. According to

Male–female income disparity in the United States: In 2009 the median income of full-time, year-round (FTYR) workers was $47,127 for men, compared to $36,278 for women. The female-to-male earnings ratio was 0.77, not statistically different from the 2008 ratio. The female-to-male earnings ratio of 0.77 means that, in 2009, female FTYR workers earned 23% less than male FTYR workers. The statistic does not take into account differences in experience, skill, occupation, education or hours worked as long as it qualifies as full-time work." Is there any reason that quote cannot be included in the current article? The source given for the 62% statistic is dated 13 September 2005. The 2011 version (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/51/6/48614460.xls) of the same OECD report where that statistic originated indicates female workers earned 20% less than male workers. From http://thebleedingear.blogspot.com/2005/09/women-vs-men_13.html: "Ultimately, the numbers cited by the Organization for Cooperation and Development are so broad as to be meaningless and so misconstrued as to blind the public from the true fact". I propose that the outdated and misleading 62% statistic be updated to reflect the most recent version of the source, and language included to the effect that "The statistic does not take into account differences in experience, skill, occupation, education or hours worked as long as it qualifies as full-time work." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.205.39 (talk

) 21:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Another source: A 2009 report prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor entitled "An Analysis of the Reasons for the Disparity in Wages Between Men and Women" states "the raw wage gap continues to be used in misleading ways to advance public policy agendas without fully explaining the reasons behind the gap." (http://chamberpost.typepad.com/files/gender_wage_gap_final_report.pdf) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.205.39 (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Great sources. Obviously the issue is quite complex. An in-depth section to the article would be a good addition. Gandydancer (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello??? The page remains locked and inaccurate. Does anyone care enough to fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.34.143.130 (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

"In a 2010 study of single, childless urban workers between the ages of 22 and 30, the research firm Reach Advisors found that women earned an average of 8% more than their male counterparts." (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704415104576250672504707048.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.212.62 (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a message to anyone who came here questioning the "62 percent" statistic asserted on the main page: In the United States and much of the western world, there exists a vast conspiracy whose purpose is to perpetuate the myth that women in western societies are more oppressed and victimized than men. Wikipedia is already well known for its bias and lack of objectivity, but here is irrefutable proof that Wikipedia actively perpetuates the conspiracy to pretend that western women are oppressed. 17:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.152.201.105 (talk)

So, I added some of the things suggested by the users in this talk thread. My personal opinion, is that the "Woman" article should not really get too deep into this particular issue. The page at

The first interpretation would be cissexist. The second would not (it looks like you interpreted it as the second one, I the first). As it stands, the sentance is ambiguous and needs to be changed (as the ambiguity can and will result in cissexism). Gelatinous cubism (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The old english form of woman is wimman[1]. 'wifmann' is possible as an earlier form, but not with a double N.

So you've found one source, that is not the most thorough specialist source on Old English, but one intended for popular consumption, where it is spelled with only one N, and that enables you to say then it is not "possible" with a double N? How does that account for all the specialist and original sources on Old English that do spell it "wifmann" with two Ns? There is nothing to fix here. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The source currently used to (apparently) justify "wifmann" does not mention "wifmann". The etymononline site does, without the double n. It is a popular site, but based in science. As wikipedia should be. It needs to be fixed, as is your attitude. 195.169.209.53 (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It does not need to be fixed, because you are in error. Wifmann is the perfectly correct Old English spelling, according to all the specialist and original sources, once again. This is not a matter for "science"; introducing sloppy "science" into a non-scientist area generally serves only to confuse things. This is a matter of incontrovertible fact. I have said not one wrong word, and I have a clear conscience with regard to my "attitude", but you seem to suffer from a little of "IDIDNTHEARTHAT"... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you please supply some of the sources you are using? Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

No, because that's a bit ludicrous when, with today's technology, it ought to take all of about three seconds of anyone's time to satisfy oneself that "Wifmann" is not an incorrect spelling. If you want to spend some time on increasing our article quality and detail instead, the progression of English spellings of the word went from Wifmann => Wimmann => Wumman => Woman. Source: The Webster's New World Dictionary sitting beside my desk. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

You really do need to take a look at your attitude about how to work with others to improve our encyclopedia. The article needs to be edited to include the suggestions of the other editors that have made comments. I will do it later when I have time. Gandydancer (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

So what exactly would it take to convince you that wifmann is not incorrect? You aren't my parent, I am not a child, and we aren't here to discuss my attitude nor your perceptions of it, so your comments in that regard do not belong here. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

By refusing to bring forward the source between your claim, you forfeit any further role in this discussion per

WP:SOURCE. Provide a citation or take your frustration elsewhere, preferably not on wikipedia. 195.169.209.53 (talk

) 20:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Where did you learn to read? I really hate repeating myself. Here it is again: If you want to spend some time on increasing our article quality and detail instead, the progression of English spellings of the word went from Wifmann => Wimmann => Wumman => Woman. Source: The Webster's New World Dictionary sitting beside my desk. Please stop wasting everyone's time here trying to make this conversation personal, and look for ways to make some real improvements, thank you! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

OK 195, what do you think about my edit? Is it factual and clear? @ Eulen, you don't need to shout, we need to see an online source. Gandydancer (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

No, the rule is offline sources are acceptable and online sources are not a requirement. There's like hundreds of guidelines saying that. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You are being a pest. Knock it off. Gandydancer (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I will not, because I'm talking about the rules, and your talking "forget the rules, I'll make the rules here." If you look into it, you will see I am correct. As soon as I find one of our policy pages stating that there is no burden to provide everything online, I'll point you to it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I came over here because of Gandydancer's message at

WP:RSN

. An ordinary modern English dictionary is a handy source for etymology but not the best source. The most reliable source for understanding the historical sequence would usually be an etymological dictionary; the most reliable source for the form/spelling of a word at any particular time would usually be a dictionary of the language at that period. I don't think there is an online English etymological dictionary as reliable as the printed ones -- but someone else might well correct me about this.

So I looked on my desk and found a short dictionary of Old English which gives the spelling wīfmann; I found the Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology which gives two alternative oldest forms wīfman(n); and I found the Oxford English Dictionary which gives the oldest form as wifman. So then I looked for the real big dictionary of Old English (Bosworth & Toller, Anglo-Saxon Dictionary) which has the entry word wîfmann but has several quotations with the spelling wifman. So there was free variation. I might as well add a footnote, I suppose ... Andrew Dalby 13:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for coming over! I hope that you will stay long enough to help us get the wording on the page correct. I will be out much of the day... Gandydancer (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

As one who reads Old English and Middle English myself, I can vouch that Andrew's information is 100% correct. What we need is more good faith that people fluent in languages aren't out to deceive you and demand that they prove everything they say about the language they know. (Note that we don't demand citations and sources that a French word is a French word) Wifmann is the "standard" spelling of the Wessex dialect ca. 900. In other dialects it could be spelled Wifman or even Wifmon. Wimmann is ca. 1100, Wumman is ca. 1300, Woman is ca 1500. Spelling has been more stabilized since then. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the previous photo was much better. It is a good clear photo whereas the replacement woman is in the shadows and hard to even see. I'm not sure what the editor means by suggesting that the previous photo seemed "posed", but that is not my impression at all. Gandydancer (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't feel strong about it, but I thought the new photo was better. The new photo shows a woman in a more 'natural' environment - ie. she is simply breastfeeding as she would do usually, on a daily basis, she isn't looking as she is specifically posing for a photo: she is focusing on her baby, she doesn't appear to care about the camera. Not that there is anything wrong with posing specifically for a photo, but the new photo seems to capture better the process of breastfeeding, while in the other one there is too much focus on the woman herself. Now it also depends on what you think the purpose of a photo of breastfeeding in this article should be: should it be to focus on breastfeeding itself (as I think it should be) or is it not necessary?

And there is also the advantage that it helps a little solve the Western bias in pics on WP. But I really do not feel strong about it.Skydeepblue (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Word for Woman in other languages: Russian: Жена( Jena) Pashto: kh'za or sh'za (hk' or sh' means Good, Za means GO). Together GOOD GO or the one having good deals. Also Jenai or Jenkai means GIRL 2.51.18.66 (talk) 04:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Wikipedia doesn't generally provide translations unless they are of encyclopedic value. Rivertorch (talk) 08:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

After reading this article it's very easy to see that Wikipedia has been hijacked by feminists. 76.10.148.145 (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Such vague claims aren't conducive to the improvement of the article. What

reliable sources would you like to see included? DavidLeighEllis (talk

) 01:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This is obvious feminist drum beating. It's not about facts, it's about a sneaky one sided presentation. 108.161.117.136 (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

How would you present the same facts? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

If the first sentence on women's literacy must discuss the literacy rate, then why not "World literacy rates for women is 79.7%." Contrasting and comparing literacy rates across genders is appropriate in an article on social issues facing women, not in a broad article about women.

And this is just one instance. By glancing at the article I can see at least 10 such examples which are backhanded feminist complaints. Without disagreeing or agreeing with their validity, I can say an article on women in general does not need to be a summary of gender issues. 108.170.141.186 (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course, social and gender issues that women face should not be in an article titled Woman, especially if those issues compare the very real disparity between men and women. And if such information is in an article titled Woman, it's "obvious feminist propaganda," despite the vast majority of sources on the topic of "woman" addressing/discussing the same things. Wrong. I suppose it's obvious

masculinist propaganda to include, in the Man

article, social and gender issues that men face? No?

Can a link be added to daughter - I am not sure where it fits but it should be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.49.1.240 (talk) 07:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Etymology of the name "woman" lacks the history of the species that invented the name in the first place. Language does not come to the species full blown, it is created item by item one item at a time most of the names as symbols needed. No item stands in isolation of others, greatly affecting etymologies. When someone purports to write about etymology she or he is dealing with names.

The "spelling" history is not all that important, and the appropriateness of the name or the logic in the name are not questioned in the article. The article misleads the reader to believe in the information given. The etymological dictionaries the writer consulted took for granted that the information was correct.

Then the article goes into the source for "queen" in the second paragraph. How is this related to the name 'woman'? Then goes to the Gr. gyne. Gyne has a whole other etymology --and history.

Third paragraph, 'female' comes from Latin 'femina"? This is outright misinformation. This article needs a lot of cleaning up. Louise GouefficLouise Goueffic (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Any cleanup of that section, when it comes to relaying etymology information, should be based on

talk

) 13:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I removed the "queen" stuff and the following para as well. That sort of info needs a good working reference. What else do you have in mind Louise? Gandydancer (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

On photos in the top of article, the photo with Eva Peron is not free ([2]). Should we delete the picture ? GabrieL (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's trying seeing if the image creator will change it for us.

re

}} 17:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixed! --Bleff (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

re

}} 01:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this article needs to be edited to eliminate bias. I understand that female equality is a growing idea, and it is very popular, but that should not affect the academic objectivity of this article. There are many instances which pragmatically seem to be arguing for a greater equality of women in the Gender Roles, Education, and Women in Politics section. Take the Jobs subsection for example (I am new to the Wikipedia community by the way, so forgive my inability to use proper terminology):

In 1992, women earned 9 percent of the Ph.D.'s awarded in engineering but only one percent made it to become a professor. In 1995, 11 percent of professors in science and engineering were women. In relation, only 311 deans of engineering schools were women, which is less than 1 percent of the total. Even in psychology, a degree in which women earn the majority of Ph.D.'s, they hold a significant amount of fewer tenured positions, roughly 19 percent in 1994.[43]

The way that this is worded strongly implies that women are not being employed as much as they should be. This is a very real and very important opinion, but it has no place in a factual article. I believe this could be substituted by initial facts concerning female employment and pay rates and then followed by a mention that some believe that women are being unfairly in the workforce, and then attributing appropriate pieces of evidence to those people. Basically a more factual and objective section would give the reader a chance to form their own opinion by giving them facts, and then opinions of others. This could then provide room for someone with an opposing viewpoint to interject with counter-evidence.

Also, in the politics section, Instead of the biased sentence "Politics have been traditionally dominated by men; and women today continue to be under-represented in government in most countries," the men part should be eliminated, because it implies that the global political scene is man vs. woman, and the woman part should either be reformulated as someone's or some faction's opinion, or replaced with a quantitative analysis of female representation in parliaments and administrative offices worldwide. This should be a socially scientific section that gives the reader an objective look at where women stand in modern politics, NOT an unaccredited strongly worded opinion that "underrepresented women" are being "dominated" by men presented in factual form. Just the word "underrepresented" means that women SHOULD have greater representation in parliaments, which is an OPINION.

I would really appreciate not receiving an angry backlash accusing me of being sexist or a lecture on why women ARE in fact underrepresented. I do not wish to debate gender roles, but instead work in collaboration to figure out the BEST way to make this article as objective as possible. Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sferry143 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with what you see as bias, but I agree this article exhibits bias from the get-go.

Gads! I just stumbled upon the article from the WP ad for The Core Contest, and wow! I hear you. Compare the lead of this article right now to the lead of the Man article of one hour ago. I changed the Man lead a little, so the difference was less striking - but still obvious. In fact, I'll compare the current leads side-by-side here. Wow.

The Man lead had been:

A man is an adult human male. Like most other male mammals, a man's genome inherits an X chromosome from his mother and a Y chromosome from his father. The male fetus produces larger amounts of androgens and smaller amounts of estrogens than a female fetus. This difference in the relative amounts of these sex steroids is largely responsible for the physiological differences that distinguish men from women.

During puberty, hormones which stimulate androgen production result in the development of secondary sexual characteristics, thus exhibiting greater differences between the sexes.

--Lightbreather (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Lightbreather. I'd looked on your user page to see what kind of editor you are and saw the "This editor wants to close Wikipedia's gender gap" and "This user is part of the

talk

) 21:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: The "Politics have been traditionally dominated by men; and women today continue to be" part that Sferry143 wanted removed has been recently removed.