Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Pig-faced women

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pig-faced women[edit]

Previous nomination
This nomination predates the introduction in April 2014 of article-specific subpages for nominations and has been created from the edit history of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests.
This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page unless you are renominating the article at TFAR. For renominations, please add {{collapse top|Previous nomination}} to the top of the discussion and {{collapse bottom}} at the bottom, then complete a new nomination underneath. To do this, see the instructions at {{TFAR nom/doc}}.

The result was: not scheduled by BencherliteTalk 19:38, 19 March 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Pig-faced woman
Pig-faced women, generally having a body of a human but the face of a pig, appeared without warning in Holland, England and France in the late 1630s. Some people thought that these often rich women were under a magical curse, in which they could be beautiful to their husbands and ugly to the world at large, or pretty outside the pen but porkers to their men. This curse was attributed to the fathers' mistreatment of a beggar. Eventually, however, the factualness of the women began to be recognized, and case studies such as Griselda Steevens or the Sow of Marylebone began to circulate, and, in Paris, personal ads by lonely pig-faced women seeking male company were met with great interest. Portraits of these women were often published (an example is shown here), sometimes given away for free to interested parties. Shucksters sought filthy lucre by putting such women on display, though few could bear the naked truth of the matter. By 1924, however, interest in these women was at a low, and few believed that they had ever existed. Today the women are almost forgotten, although their spirits may live on. (Full article...)
  • Not really, but I was there for Wife selling and can say with something approaching certainty that this would be a disaster on April 1 - it's so contentious it will be vandalised and good-faith-censored to hell and back whenever it runs, but coupled with the fuckwittery April Fools attracts it will be unmanageable and require the article either to be on constant watch (which I do not volunteer to do) or locked down completely, Check the histories of previous similar April Fools TFAs. (As an aside, I loathe the "liturgical calendar" element Raul imposed on TFA, and would happily consign April Fools, Halloween and Christmas to the bonfire. Those three days are probably responsible for more grief at TFAR than the rest of the year combined.) – iridescent 06:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understood, I certainly respect your views, especially for an article on which you were the significant contributor to help bring to WP:FA. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 06:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mixed feelings. Just because April 1 is so dramatic around here and the outside world knows it. Semi protection at the drop of a hat would be in order. I wouldn't be sorry to see it passed over and run it on July 12 as at least there would be more baseball fans … whatever the community decides is fine, but if they start misbehaving, I'd like it understood that a quick semi-protection is OK because I'm gonna do it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought, let's get this done, if possible, and respecting Bencherlite's judgement. I expect to be much more available to watch the article on April 1 than I will be on July 12 due to planned travel. It can be justified as the start of the baseball season if more relevancy is needed (actually the day before, wiki-time, I think, but what's a day?)--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Mainly because I oppose all April Fool's Day hoaxes, which have made April 1st the worst day to be on the internet. I'd change it to support if the blurb were written to showcase a hoax or false belief, but I am on the record as being a curmudgeon who thinks that we shouldn't ever be deliberately spreading misinformation, even on April 1st. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 00:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, this is the very embodiment of "showcasing a hoax or false belief", unless you're under the impression that were-pigs really did once roam the streets. It's very well documented that a lot of people who should have known better feel for this particular hoax. – iridescent 06:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Do nothing special for April Fools—we're an encyclopedia. Run the most boring article possible as a counter-point to the stupidity of past years. Everyking (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I am not beholden to political correctness, and I believe in not censoring WP. I think that this is a perfectly acceptable article and topic to have as part of WP. However, with the controversies in recent months and years about female participation in WP editing and the status of articles about female writers, scientists, artists, etc., and considering that the April 1st main page presentations typically get much more attention that those of the other days of the year, I think that we will be potentially hurting our overall project if we purposely use this article and blurb, regardless of how well-written or sourced. KConWiki (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Iridescent, Everyking, 0x0077BE and KConWiki. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per SlimVirgin. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per avoiding potential systemic bias against women. Any other day but April 1 I would not oppose, but this timing could be viewed as WP promoting the notion that ugly or overweight women are a joke. Montanabw(talk) 17:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pig-faced women (2nd nomination)[edit]

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page unless you are renominating the article at TFAR. For renominations, please add {{collapse top|Previous nomination}} to the top of the discussion and {{collapse bottom}} at the bottom, then complete a new nomination underneath. To do this, see the instructions at {{TFAR nom/doc}}.

The result was: not scheduled by Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An illustration of the "pig-faced woman"
An illustration of the "pig-faced woman"

Stories about pig-faced women became popular in the Dutch Republic, England, France and Ireland from the late 1630s to the early 20th century. The stories depicted a wealthy woman whose body looked to be similar to normal humans, but whose face is that of a pig. Earliest versions of the stories show that the woman's pig-like appearance was due to witchcraft. By the 19th century however, the story's magical elements vanished, and the existence of pig-faced women began to be treated as fact. It became particularly widespread in Dublin – because of the reclusiveness of philanthropist Griselda Steevens – and in Marylebone, London – due to a rumour that a pig-faced woman was living there. However, by the early 20th century, belief in pig-faced women declined, with the last significant work about their existence being published in 1924. (Full article...)

  • Most recent similar article(s): Black Christian Siriano gown of Billy Porter on 8 August 2022 was the last culture and society-related TFA.
  • Main editors: Iridescent was the FAC nominator and main editor 12 years ago.
  • Promoted: 4 September 2010
  • Reasons for nomination: There was a previous TFA nomination for this one eight years ago (as seen above), and was requested to be run on April Fools' Day. It was not scheduled because of the reasons stated above. I agree with that: this shouldn't be run on April Fools' Day but on another day instead, and I think it is time for this to be featured some time between 1 February and 3 March 2023.
  • Support as nominator. Vida0007 (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, and I would sincerely hope the reasons why don't need explanation. WP:WINC means we don't shy away from contentious topics; it doesn't mean we have an obligation to shove them in readers' faces. This is an article about misogyny and ableism, rather than an article which is misogynistic and ableist, but that isn't a nuance that's easy to convey in 975 characters, and as such it will lead to a barrage of complaints and negative publicity, without any benefit (this isn't a topic like Lynching of Jesse Washington where there's a "we know this will upset people but highlighting the topic is in the public interest" argument). Some FAs aren't suited to being TFA, and this is definitely one of them. ‑ Iridescent 07:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Points taken. I would like to apologise for this re-nomination. That said, I would like to withdraw this one. Vida0007 (talk) 08:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/requests/Pig-faced_women&oldid=1138371906"