Talk:Woman

Sort of an RfC: Blouse color of the lead image, reality or manipulated imagery

The original uncropped image (can someone please do a crop as close as possible to the crop of the present lead image and upload it to Commons for use here? Thanks, RK)

Would like to suggest bringing back the cropped image to its original red-colored blouse, for the sake of accuracy and, related but not required, yes-no photo manipulation on Wikipedia preference. The woman, it seems her name is Agnes, chose to wear a red blouse on her trip to the pier, and her choice arguably should be honored and accepted as how she chose to represent herself. I don't know if she even knows she's the English Wikipedia image on this page, but on this day, when she posed for John Ragai's photograph, her choice of clothing should be a part of that experience. As for photo manipulation on Wikipedia, that's a different topic but overlays with this request. As Wikipedia has taken a stand for human writing vs AI authorship, some of the same logic and principles could apply to images. Note that this is not a discussion to change the individual in the lead image, just to present her as close as possible to real-world reality. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

I think the manipulated version with the gray shirt is more aesthetically pleasing; the lower color contrast improves focus on her face. It is perfectly acceptable per MOS:COLORIZED to make this kind of minor change to improve the image's functionality. The actual color of her shirt is WP:TRIVIAL. It is not pertinent to the viewer's interpretation of the image, and not material to this article whatsoever (though this fact is clearly represented at the image's own page).

While I would strongly oppose the use of an obviously artificial image here, there is no need to ardently reflect "reality" for such a small matter. The treachery of images will drive us mad here. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 19:07, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

MOS:COLORIZED actually seems to discourage doing this, quoted "However, images that were colorized by their creator, an expert, or a reliable source may sometimes be acceptable." The creator, John Ragai, did not colorize the image, nor did an expert. Or any source. It changed a major part of the photograph to something it wasn't. Doesn't seem trivial, but a deliberate action for aesthetics. The grayer color is not even original research, because, in good faith, the color was just made up (personally I think the red blouse is more aesthetically pleasing, and the woman chose it well for appearance). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

That guidance applies to editors introducing false color to historical monochrome images. I should have linked directly to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images § Editing images which broadly authorizes adjustments that improve utility where doing so is not misleading. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 04:06, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Randy Kryn that COLORIZED strongly indicates that we should go with the original color, since the main thrust of the policy is that images should not be edited except in certain specific circumstances. In general, it seems like a terrible idea for Wikipedia to host manipulated photographs of real people. I think if a reader sees a photo on an encyclopedia, they will generally expect that it is a fair representation of the underlying reality, not a fake. The color might be trivial, but there's really no good reason to change it, and many good reasons not to. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:59, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I am confused as to why the color was changed in the first place. The red color of her shirt works well with her skin tone. The only reason someone would change the color is to make her skin look less dark, as lightening the shirt gives the illusion that she is lighter skinned. Honestly, it appears to be a very unusual modification. Viriditas (talk) 01:20, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

It just seems like a first-principles / judgement call / intuition type situation. "Is it acceptable to change the shirt color?" I hear all these arguments but at the end of the day it just doesn't bother me when I compare the edited version to the original. I don't see it any different to color grading; it's just an edited photo. I certainly do not agree that images should not be edited except in rare circumstances - that does not follow from MOS:COLORIZED, which does not apply to this situation anyway. I can't follow why this is "terrible". I agree with RoxySaunders. Leijurv (talk) 05:09, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Might point to Do not change color integral to the subject, such as in images of animals. from MOS:IMG. If the skin tone or eye color or hair color were noticeably changed, one could argue that would be against MOS. But this just isn't an article about shirts. It's fading out and deemphasizing the non-integral part of the image in favor of the integral part. Leijurv (talk) 05:13, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia changing the actual color of her blouse from her choice to what is now possibly a color that she would never personally wear, editors comfortable with the idea of fully manipulating images, even biographical images, into whatever they want, has moved the baseline further from reality and lessens Wikipedia as an accurate depository of real-world information. Seems the same as upscaling a photo with AI, which is not allowed. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

• WP:IMGCONTENT seems to apply: "It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to distort the facts or position illustrated by an image." Changing the woman's choice of clothing certainly distorts the fact of her chosen appearance on her trip to the pier. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

  But the image isn't illustrating the woman's clothing, so that's not relevant. The only fact that is relevant for this article is that she's a woman. It doesn't matter what color clothes she is wearing.

  (Also, you're assuming without evidence that she personally made the choice, and not the photographer whom she was modeling for.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:05, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

• I have a slight preference for the gray shirt, as it's less distracting. I can see why the red shirt was edited; it's pretty loud. I don't see that it's against policy to, using traditional photo editing software, adjust the color of an image to change non-crucial details for viewability; that happens all the time with restoring old photos, adjusting contrast, etc. It's not like all women have red shirts or something. The point of the photograph is not her shirt. But it's not the end of the world if we use the red version, this feels a bit like bikeshedding. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:19, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
• It's not like photos are a 1:1 representation of some objective reality anyway. What comes out depends entirely on how you've set up your camera and what you do in post-processing. The colours of the "unedited" image were produced by the photographer's choices. We just aren't discussing those choices here because they are invisible to us. ;; Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:26, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Edit request

Can we change

"Women are at greater risk of certain diseases like breast cancer, and at lower risk of other diseases like lung cancer. Genetically, women inherit typically a pair of X chromosomes, one from each parent." 

into

"Females are at greater risk of certain diseases like breast cancer, and at lower risk of other diseases like lung cancer. Genetically, females typically inherit a pair of X chromosomes, one from each parent".?

The rationale is that in the original definition of this article, a woman is an adult human female, where female can be used both in the meaning of sex and gender. The concept of woman obviously includes the subcategory of trans woman, therefore phrases which generalise statements about the female sex into women are incorrect. It isn't "women" who are at a greater risk of certain diseases, it is females. It isn't "women" who genetically typically inherit a pair of X chromosomes, it is females.

Either that, or we can modify and include notions about trans women while maintaining woman-centered language.

Thus

"Women are at greater risk of certain diseases like breast cancer, and at lower risk of other diseases like lung cancer, and some women are also at greater risk of certain diseases like prostate cancer. Genetically, women typically inherit a pair of X chromosomes, one from each parent, but some women may inherit an X chromosome from the mother, and a Y chromosome from the father" Simogne (talk) 02:28, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

The possible variances in chromosomes, including being trans or trisomy X, are covered in the paragraph immediately following, and I think that is fine. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:43, 19 September 2026 (UTC)