Talk:Woman/poll02.2007

How about another straw poll? This time, with plenty of options, and some rules.
This is a straw poll to determine what kind of illustration to use as the lead illustration of this article, at the level of the article header. Illustrations in the subsections are not affected by this poll.

Options: (Vote for/against in as many as you must, but as few as you can. Keep your arguments very brief - preferably one short sentence, referencing the common arguments below. Edit or add to the arguments below if, and only if, your view is not represented there at all. NO counterarguments here please.)

Please understand that anyone who votes an "objection" here (ideally) has a serious issue, not merely a personal opposition. On the other hand, please try to take this issue as much on-its-own-merits as possible, not making any connections to external issues that you do not see as absolutely fundamental here.

Finally, this is an attempt to find consensus, not a vote. Any one of the options below could be considered untenable on the basis of a few firm, well-reasoned objections, even if it has broad support. (Say "weakly object" if you don't want this to happen.) Conversely, an option with only tepid support may "win" just because it lacks firm, well-reasoned objections.

The options on this poll, in no particular order, are: Nude Photo, Montage, Nude art, Nude line drawing, No lead illustration, and Other. For some possible, non-definitive examples of the first four options, see here.


 * Objections directly to the poll
 * 1) Object to this whole poll. Your "options" are not specific.  It's like asking "Should we have a coal power plant, or an oil power plant?"  There's not enough specificity to make any meaningful objections or affirmations about anything.  You could easily have a dirty coal plant than an oil plant, or even vice versa.  I would possibly agree to virtually any of these choices rather than what is already there... but I need a specific criteria to judge it against.  Blanketly saying "I want a nude photo" is... what?  It's entirely useless!  WHICH nude photo do you want to replace it with? --Puellanivis 20:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Nude photo
 * Support (no more than short one-sentence reasons please):
 * 1) support--Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 19:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Dionyseus 19:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - It's our birthday suit. Wear it with pride. Gillyweed 21:32, 28
 * 4) Strongly Support - per reason 5: nudity is not pornographic. I support reversion to Image:Frau-2.jpg. --popefauvexxiii 22:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Object (brief reason please - see arguments below for common arguments):
 * 1) weakly object, for reason 5 --Homunq 17:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Montage, including nudes and non-nudes
 * Support (no more than short one-sentence reasons please):
 * 1) --Homunq 17:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Object (brief reason please - see arguments below for common arguments):
 * 1) object because some of the images in the montage are too culturally point of view, and the montage is a very poor lead-in image --Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 19:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Object per reason 3; also, this is the english wikipedia, the vast majority of native english speakers are caucasian, i have no problem with solitary caucasian representations in this context --popefauvexxiii 20:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Nude Art
 * Support (no more than short one-sentence reasons please):
 * 1) support--Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 19:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Object (brief reason please - see arguments below for common arguments):
 * 1) weakly object, for reason 5 --Homunq 17:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Object, its midsection is completely covered, it is not informative enough. -- Dionyseus 20:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Object, for reasons cited in Natural woman section of this page --popefauvexxiii 07:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

21:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nude Line drawing
 * Support (no more than short one-sentence reasons please):
 * 1) Support - its accurate and not grotesque, like venus. (Image:Human.svg) --popefauvexxiii 11:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Object (brief reason please - see arguments below for common arguments):
 * 1) Object - looks like we are offended by our natural condition Gillyweed


 * No lead illustration
 * Support (no more than short one-sentence reasons please):
 * 1) Support only until consensus is reached --popefauvexxiii 07:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Object (brief reason please - see arguments below for common arguments):


 * Other
 * Propose a substantially different solution (Be brief. The goal is to reach consensus, not to show creativity.):

Common arguments, with consensus explanation and counterargument for each common argument above (no more than one paragraph each, edit in place rather than responding, only edit those you agree with. ):

1. '''It is pornographic. '''
 * Pro: "We do not want to have this page turned into a pronographic center for men to get their jollies"
 * Contra: "Wikipedia is not censored" is a core policy.

2. It is too culturally/racially specific.
 * Pro: The picture does not represent the natural state of women, as such it could be exclusionary of other cultures.
 * Contra: Anything would be.

3. It is ugly.
 * Pro: The picture looks entirely unprofessional, and inappropriate for a serious argument about this topic.
 * Contra: That's your opinion.

4. It is not informative enough.
 * Pro: This image alone does not give any reasonable information as to the anatomy or anything about the female form.
 * Pro: The Venus de Milo is covered, and does not show the genital region of the female.
 * Contra: The article has several illustrations, we're only talking about the lead one, and trying to reach consensus means compromising.
 * Contra: There is a wide range of genitalia in females, and presenting a specific single one as the archetypal generic representation of a female is not necessarily appropriate.

5. It demeans women.
 * Pro: It helps to imply that women's bodies are all that matter. This implication is a widespread pattern, and no one image can ever be blamed, yet the very definition of "woman" is an appropriate place to insist on a higher standard.
 * Contra: Censorship demeans women too.

6. Not enough information
 * Pro: There's not enough specificity to make any meaningful objections or affirmations about anything.
 * Contra: A large fraction of the arguments on this matter have been general, not specific. If we're going to get a consensus, we have to start somewhere. If that consensus is to last as new images/versions appear, it should be based on general arguments. It is fine to state conditional objections: "I would object to any image that....".
 * Right, so they would object to any pronographic representations of a female. Yet the Venus de Milo is semi-nude, yet not pornographic.  All arguments should be in regards to specific material. --Puellanivis 00:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

There's absolutely no reason for a poll. It has been amply demonstrated that there is no concensus to have "Frau" in the article. - Nunh-huh 18:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It has been amply demonstrated that there is not yet a consensus for any solution to this problem. This poll is intended as a way to reach consensus, since endlessly arguing back and forth and edit-warring seems not to work. I believe that a poll in this form is different enough from any movement towards solution tried so far, as to be worth trying. Please, either participate, or propose another way to reach consensus. --Homunq 18:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The only "solution" is for those dissatisfied with the current status of the article's illustrations to find one they like better and see if concensus for its use can be obtained. You need something concrete to discuss, a specific "instance": you can't discuss a picture abstractly. And it's not at all clear that there's a "problem" now: the problem was "Frau". - Nunh-huh 18:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You cannot can arguments just because you don't like them. 1 is a given, but 2 is opposed by wikipedian policies regrading POV, which, while I agree that nothing is completely non-cultural, showing a image with, for example, of a religiously clothed woman is very clearing showing a cultural POV.


 * also, I'm confused to why exactly we can't make arguments in the support category.--Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 19:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm also confused as to why I'm not allowed to make an argument in the support category. Dionyseus 19:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I guess that "canned" (in the non-pejorative sense of "pre-prepared) was unclear on my part. I meant no prejudice, I've changed the wording to "common" arguments.


 * As to the "no pro arguments" rule, I just think that this has been argued to death already. Arguments in favor are either "I like this" or arguments against the other options. By making people only argue in regards to serious (albeit perhaps weak) objections, we cut down on the amount of hot air. But OK, I'll change the wording to allow one-sentence pro arguments. --Homunq 19:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * sigh* I must agree... these polls are essentially useless, Homonq's filling my watchlist with edits trying to get this talk page looking right, etc... If you're going to start a poll, why not do it on an under page like Talk:Woman/poll_2007_february or something like that, so we don't fill up our watchlists everytime someone wants to express their opinion? --Puellanivis 20:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)