This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Venus figurine article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Venus figurine appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 17 December 2007, and was viewed approximately 8,837 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article was edited to contain a total or partial translation of Vénus paléolithique from the French Wikipedia. Consult the history of the original page to see a list of its authors. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 6 December 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Allymoores,
Slovett23,
Dominique Ardis,
Jess lorraine.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 12:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
At this subsection, I suggest to add an additional field on the very right side, with a small tiny screenshot or link to the specific figurine. Something small, like 25x25 or 50x50. The reason why I suggest it is is this - right now I clicked on each link, and had a look at the figurines manually one at a time. But this was a bit tedious: I think it would be easier for the visitor to have a small GRAPHICAL overview too; nothing complicated, just tiny screenshots of each figurine. 2A02:8388:1641:8D00:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 ( talk) 21:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Allymoores, Slovett23, Dominique Ardis, Jess lorraine - a couple of minor guideline issues - WP:Section headings use sentence case and you need to follow our guideline on British-American spelling at WP:ENGVAR. Also if you are changing text that is already sourced, please make sure that the change is a better representation of what the source says. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Also for the students: something on the historiography of the topic would be very useful to add. Randall White's paper on 'The Women of Brassempouy: A Century of Research and Interpretation' (currently cited in the article) gives some background and a few threads to pull on if you have time to go in search of more information. Richard Nevell ( talk) 23:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
There is a draft page by DA, Draft:Venus figurines of Kostjonki, which could use assistance and maybe easily mainspaced to join the ranks. Thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 13:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
The Venus of Laussel is a relief. It is called "venus" but not "Venus figurine". Because it is not a figurine. Mr. bobby ( talk) 08:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
"Venus of Laussel" is categorized as a "Venus figurine" , as anybody can see in the article "Venus of Laussel"(scroll to the bottom und watch). It is a pity that an archeologist calls clear statements "pedantic". Mixing parietal und portable art dimisses any clear meaning of different kinds of art and its use and fuction for the paleolithic society. This archeologist also sticks to the name "Venus" - as if this term would have any significance. But he doesn't grasp the crucial differences. And he even gets somebody who simply aggrees. Mr. bobby (talk) 10:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
It's getting worse and worse. Now the Venus of Laussel is under the heading "notable Figurines" but connected with the hint "note as a relief ". How contradictory should it be? The V. of Laussel has to be deleted very simply. Science is always trying to avoid logical contradictions such as " a relief is a kind of figurine". Mr. bobby ( talk) 12:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Mr. bobby ( talk) 12:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
A useful WP article has to without logical contradictions. A figurine is no relief. An therefor the Venus of Laussel is no figurine and cannot be categorized as figurine. As a consequence of logical conistency - the material is said to be "limestone, but a relief". But it is simply limestone. Mr. bobby ( talk) 09:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Venus of Willendorf has estimated dates of between 24,000 - 26,000 years ago on the list of notable figurines but when you click the link it says about 30,000 years ago on the main Venus of Willendorf page. Most other sources seem to agree with the 30,000 estimate.
A couple of other dating inconsistencies include: Brassempouy says 23,000 but its actual page says 25,000; and Dolní Věstonice says 27,000 to 31,000 but the page says between 29,000 and 25,000. Wuffles1 ( talk) 08:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
On closer inspection I can see that some of these differences in dates come as a result of 'BCE' vs 'years ago', and so this explains a couple of them. My apologies. It still doesn't account for the difference in age of the Venus of Willendorf though. Wuffles1 ( talk) 09:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Is anyone else having issues with the article appearing on their dashboard? Obviously the page has been made, and edits are recorded on this page but in my dashboard it states "This article has not been created yet."
Has the location been moved / is anyone having the same issues and has any tips?
Thanks!
Not likely. They're all ass, boobs and no head. Just the way most men would depict women today. It wasn't a woman who made these...... it was a man.
I revertet the changes using the problematic article of Vadewetering. Argument can be found in a former discussion:
According to Merlin Stone's sources from When God Was A Woman. Would love to see some discussion of the facts & implications here; seems absolutely important to note & have Alexae1367 ( talk) 01:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Would there be any evidence so as to decide whether the figurines were modelled after actual observation or rather an idealization? Which would heip to justify conclusions as to historic body shapes. I wish to suggest that pre-historice times frequently were times of periodical hunger and the figurines might reflect wishful thinking rather than true represenation. Ol hogger ( talk) 13:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)—
I believe this section is borderline editorializing and presents a lot of potentially unbalanced opinions in a a balanced way. I think it either needs removed or completely reworked by a subject matter expert. Malnu ( talk) 22:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Venus figurine article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Venus figurine appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 17 December 2007, and was viewed approximately 8,837 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article was edited to contain a total or partial translation of Vénus paléolithique from the French Wikipedia. Consult the history of the original page to see a list of its authors. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 6 December 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Allymoores,
Slovett23,
Dominique Ardis,
Jess lorraine.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 12:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
At this subsection, I suggest to add an additional field on the very right side, with a small tiny screenshot or link to the specific figurine. Something small, like 25x25 or 50x50. The reason why I suggest it is is this - right now I clicked on each link, and had a look at the figurines manually one at a time. But this was a bit tedious: I think it would be easier for the visitor to have a small GRAPHICAL overview too; nothing complicated, just tiny screenshots of each figurine. 2A02:8388:1641:8D00:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 ( talk) 21:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Allymoores, Slovett23, Dominique Ardis, Jess lorraine - a couple of minor guideline issues - WP:Section headings use sentence case and you need to follow our guideline on British-American spelling at WP:ENGVAR. Also if you are changing text that is already sourced, please make sure that the change is a better representation of what the source says. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Also for the students: something on the historiography of the topic would be very useful to add. Randall White's paper on 'The Women of Brassempouy: A Century of Research and Interpretation' (currently cited in the article) gives some background and a few threads to pull on if you have time to go in search of more information. Richard Nevell ( talk) 23:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
There is a draft page by DA, Draft:Venus figurines of Kostjonki, which could use assistance and maybe easily mainspaced to join the ranks. Thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 13:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
The Venus of Laussel is a relief. It is called "venus" but not "Venus figurine". Because it is not a figurine. Mr. bobby ( talk) 08:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
"Venus of Laussel" is categorized as a "Venus figurine" , as anybody can see in the article "Venus of Laussel"(scroll to the bottom und watch). It is a pity that an archeologist calls clear statements "pedantic". Mixing parietal und portable art dimisses any clear meaning of different kinds of art and its use and fuction for the paleolithic society. This archeologist also sticks to the name "Venus" - as if this term would have any significance. But he doesn't grasp the crucial differences. And he even gets somebody who simply aggrees. Mr. bobby (talk) 10:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
It's getting worse and worse. Now the Venus of Laussel is under the heading "notable Figurines" but connected with the hint "note as a relief ". How contradictory should it be? The V. of Laussel has to be deleted very simply. Science is always trying to avoid logical contradictions such as " a relief is a kind of figurine". Mr. bobby ( talk) 12:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Mr. bobby ( talk) 12:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
A useful WP article has to without logical contradictions. A figurine is no relief. An therefor the Venus of Laussel is no figurine and cannot be categorized as figurine. As a consequence of logical conistency - the material is said to be "limestone, but a relief". But it is simply limestone. Mr. bobby ( talk) 09:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Venus of Willendorf has estimated dates of between 24,000 - 26,000 years ago on the list of notable figurines but when you click the link it says about 30,000 years ago on the main Venus of Willendorf page. Most other sources seem to agree with the 30,000 estimate.
A couple of other dating inconsistencies include: Brassempouy says 23,000 but its actual page says 25,000; and Dolní Věstonice says 27,000 to 31,000 but the page says between 29,000 and 25,000. Wuffles1 ( talk) 08:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
On closer inspection I can see that some of these differences in dates come as a result of 'BCE' vs 'years ago', and so this explains a couple of them. My apologies. It still doesn't account for the difference in age of the Venus of Willendorf though. Wuffles1 ( talk) 09:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Is anyone else having issues with the article appearing on their dashboard? Obviously the page has been made, and edits are recorded on this page but in my dashboard it states "This article has not been created yet."
Has the location been moved / is anyone having the same issues and has any tips?
Thanks!
Not likely. They're all ass, boobs and no head. Just the way most men would depict women today. It wasn't a woman who made these...... it was a man.
I revertet the changes using the problematic article of Vadewetering. Argument can be found in a former discussion:
According to Merlin Stone's sources from When God Was A Woman. Would love to see some discussion of the facts & implications here; seems absolutely important to note & have Alexae1367 ( talk) 01:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Would there be any evidence so as to decide whether the figurines were modelled after actual observation or rather an idealization? Which would heip to justify conclusions as to historic body shapes. I wish to suggest that pre-historice times frequently were times of periodical hunger and the figurines might reflect wishful thinking rather than true represenation. Ol hogger ( talk) 13:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)—
I believe this section is borderline editorializing and presents a lot of potentially unbalanced opinions in a a balanced way. I think it either needs removed or completely reworked by a subject matter expert. Malnu ( talk) 22:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)