Talk:Venus figurine

message: 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)
thread_title:  Notable specimens 

message: 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)
replies: text: ...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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A few comments for the students 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Draft page which could be assisted

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. . 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Venus of Laussel 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Notable Figurine Dating 

message: 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)
thread_title:  self depiction by female artist? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Revert of information from an undergraduate paper 

message: 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)
thread_title:  No weapons found with/high concentrations of/Venus figurines 

message: 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)
replies: text: Evidence, no. Speculation, plenty. 14:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idol or representation