Talk:Venus figurine

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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)

Notable specimens

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)

A few comments for the students

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)

...Or you have another good source. A comment for the instructor: assigning the same article to four students is most unusual, and looks like a bad idea. Johnbod (talk) 13:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Students work in groups sometimes and it means they have to coordinate their efforts to decide which parts of the article they'll each work on, while perhaps overlapping in some parts. That doesn't seem particularly problematic, at least to me eyes. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:44, 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)

This: Vandewettering, Kaylea R. (2015) "Upper Paleolithic Venus Figurines and Interpretations of Prehistoric Gender Representations", PURE Insights: Vol. 4, Article 7, free online - is a good deal broader, & more recent, but is one of those published undergraduate papers. Not exactly a RS, but a useful pointer to stuff that is, from a feminist perspective. Johnbod (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The picture of the Yeliseevichi Venus figurine in Vandewettering's article is the photo of a replica, obviously not noticed by the author. That might show that she is not acquainted with her chosen topic. The article is a simple, tiny bit of writing by a student, not worth to mention for any student of social sciences, anthropology or whatever. Students should be advised not to waste time reading such stuff. By the way: Wikipedia is not a place for a recommending literature or care for students. Maybe somebody should delete the whole discussion here.Mr. bobby (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft page which could be assisted

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)

Thanks. I've moved it back to mainspace with some additional sources. I do wish NPPers weren't so quick to draftify articles on clearly notable topics... – Joe (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Venus of Laussel

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)

It is technically a relief yes, but it is frequently discussed together with other Venuses and googling "Venus of Laussel" turns up plenty of sources that describe it specifically as a "Venus figurine", e.g. [1][2][3][4][5][6]. As we have discussed on this talk page before, I don't think any of the sources are as exacting in defining Venuses as you are. Pedantically excluding the Venus of Laussel does not improve the article. – Joe (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The situation is similar, but reversed, with Palaeolithic animal images, where figurines and reliefs are the minority. Johnbod (talk) 12:57, 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)

As far as I'm concerned, this is essentially art history, not "science", and it is clearly appropriate to mention similar contemporary depictions in other forms. The ones I question are the Siberian figures, whose significant differences should at least be covered. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

We're not here to do science Mr. bobby, we're here to write an encyclopaedia for general readers that summarises what reliable sources say. – Joe (talk) 08:03, 9 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)

Notable Figurine Dating

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)

@Wuffles: I hope the "years ago" sources aren't actually using BP, as you can't automatically make that conversion. Doug Weller talk 10:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Article appearing as "not being created"

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!

self depiction by female artist?

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.

Women have been known to capture their form Thornfield Hall — Preceding undated comment added 09:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Revert of information from an undergraduate paper

I revertet the changes using the problematic article of Vadewetering. Argument can be found in a former discussion:

• This: Vandewettering, Kaylea R. (2015) "Upper Paleolithic Venus Figurines and Interpretations of Prehistoric Gender Representations", PURE Insights: Vol. 4, Article 7, free online - is a good deal broader, & more recent, but is one of those published undergraduate papers. Not exactly a RS, but a useful pointer to stuff that is, from a feminist perspective. Johnbod (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• The picture of the Yeliseevichi Venus figurine in Vandewettering's article is the photo of a replica, obviously not noticed by the author. That might show that she is not acquainted with her chosen topic. The article is a simple, tiny bit of writing by a student, not worth to mention for any student of social sciences, anthropology or whatever. Mr. bobby (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Mr. bobby (talk) 10:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

No weapons found with/high concentrations of/Venus figurines

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)

Idol or representation

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)—

Evidence, no. Speculation, plenty. 14:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Removal of interpretation section

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)

"presents a lot of potentially unbalanced opinions in a a balanced way" - is that a bad thing? What might "balance" represent in this context? The second thing would be good; the first is unlikely to happen. All the points are referenced, so how is this "borderline editorializing"? Johnbod (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is indeed a bad thing and explicitly against the manual of style.

Editorialization can be sourced, it's about the language used.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

"Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. The only bias that should be evident is the bias attributed to the source."

In my opinion, this section seems to favor these authors opinions. Any mainstream dissenting views? How do these disparate views work with each other, are they compatible or not? Are these the mainstream historical points of view or fringe theories? I think these are good questions for a historian or archaeologist who studies these figures. And maybe it all remains here in the talk page. At face value, and from a lay person point of view (the audience this encyclopedia is written for), I can't tell whether or not these opinions should be taken seriously, whether they are mainstream, or whether they are controversial.

I'm glad we agree that it needs reworked. I wish I knew a historian to bother about this, but this is about as much as I can say about the subject. This is mostly a matter of style and presentation of the content, not a qualm with the content itself.

PS. I just took another look at the article, and I like the edits you made. Seems to be a better organization and the opinions seem to be more balanced. Happy editing, and thanks for taking the time to discuss this. :) Malnu (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)