Talk:Physical attractiveness/Archive 2

message: I found a citation for this sentence at the end of the article: 
"Both men and women use physical attractiveness as a measure of how 'good' another person is. Men often tend to value attractiveness more than women[citation needed]."
The citation can be found here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=L014FD2CYOJDZQFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/05/09/nmen09.xml
Please insert it. Thanks.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IntricateBalance (talk • contribs) 20:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation provided help

message: This article has for some time apparently comprised of various individuals throwing in their two cents worth, apparently from the top of their heads. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. WP:NFT
A look through some of the references reveals that some contradict each other. 
In the "female attractiveness" section, compare the findings of the reference for "Body mass proportion" with that of "waist-hip ratio".
Much of the rest is made-up and unencyclopedic. I would encourage other editors to remove material from the article which they challenge and which also is unreferenced. Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor. WP:CITE 
Pathlessdesert 23:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, Pathless.  I've thrown up some unreferenced tags.  Will remove any unsourced information in a few days.--Loodog 00:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreferenced and made-up on the spot

message: I'd like to make some changes to make more of a differentiation between these two, but I'm not sure which article should contain the physical elements of sexual attraction. Should such a large portion of the physical attractiveness article concern itself with attraction towards potential mates?Guava 04:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Difference from Sexual Attraction

message: When I think of physical attractiveness, I think of only those aspects that we can see and touch. Would this section be more appropriate under sexual attraction?Guava 04:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Olfactory factors

message: In this article, homosexuality is unaccounted for. Regardless of one's feelings for it, it does exist, and should be included in this article. Various sections of the article read like "females like males who..." and "male who like females who..." 
I would suggest editing various bits to make them gender-neutral, so it will read like "males are found attractive when they..." 72.24.173.143 02:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with sentences like "males are found attractive when they..." since (at least stereotypically), homosexual males find different traits attractive in men than heterosexual women do.--Loodog 02:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree wholeheartedly, and wikipedia is not written based on stereotypes, less-so your personal opinions and i actually disagree I think most straight and bi women find the same things attractive about men as gay and bi men do. Good looks, symmetrical faces, height weight proportions, athletic figure, deep voice, outgoingness, but again this isn't the issue, neutral wording is key here as plenty of women probably find sissy hetero men sexy as fuck and probably plenty of homos do too, its all subjective and even if its not that way in the general political culture in which each one of us experiences independently and differently neutral wording goes in line with wp policy of WP:NPOVT ALK•QRC2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 00:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Evolution of Desire".  David Buss.  2003.  p60-63.  What homosexual men find attractive in other men are the same things that heterosexual men find attractive in women: youth, heavy emphasis on appearances.  Lesbians have same preferences in women that hetersexual women have in men: little to no importance on youth, physical appearance.  I will put this in the article, k?--Loodog 05:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Homosexuality

message: I move that this excuse for an article be deleted. This travesty of the english language is not actually an article at all. Until someone with an 8th grade level understanding or higher of english cares to take the time to synthesize this article, it should be removed. This article possess no redeeming characteristics whatsoever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.206.83.152 (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then nominate it.--Loodog 04:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the disturbing trend of gutting articles on neccisary topics simply because they are not written the best at a certain point in time really needs to stop, this is wikipedia, its a continuing collaborative effort to improve. look at any article's history 1 month ago and its probably horrible in comparison to today if you think its broke than fix it or else shut up and do something constructive. At least put up a cleanup or copyedit or references tag on it and write a sentence or two or some bullets here on the TP (talk page) so someone else may take a look.T ALK•QRC2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 00:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  English 

message: I'm all for neoteric features, but she looks like a total coldfish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.64.149.253 (talk) 06:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs more sexy dames. 

message: Removed the following part:
"Cultural, social, or time period environments can have a strong effect on the degree to which people determine certain traits to be attractive.  As part of the socialization process, children typically learn what their culture or time period considers attractive. Children are shown examples of what is considered beautiful in the form of dolls and pictures on magazine covers.  Perception of what is considered as attractive and appealing is also very heavily influenced by other dominant cultures and the impact of their value systems."
Seems POV and unfounded. Redsand
::Re-removed the above text. This reads like a pamphlet for self-esteem.  Wikipedia is not the place for this. See: Universal determinants of beauty.
::I don't think this is a POV issue at all it reads like a psychology book to me, although children should probably be changes to people. A source would be great though, any shrinks we can ask?T ALK•QRC2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 00:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone actually wants this to be a decent article, one could pick up a few books on evolutionary psychology and sociology and read them.  So far, it's a few piecemeal pieces of information from assorted internet articles.  A solid theme with substance.  When I get through my reading list, I'll get on it.  Just don't hold your breath...--Loodog 01:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed POV material 

message: This article has come a ways from a depository of scattered original research to a excellent overview with 40+ sources.  Thanks everyone who's worked on it.--Loodog 22:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking better 

message: Not just saying this becouse i like it but Women should, Becouse its like that with animals and Insects where the Females outsize the Males. It would help them match the physical strengh of the Male and would help them live a healthier life.
Link
Image—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aiamaninana (talk • contribs) 
:Interesting, but impertinent here.--Loodog 01:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sexual dimorphism. -h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 21:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Women naturally should outsize Men

message: There is an assload of redundant informatio on the sexual attraction page.  I've put a tag there for a merging into this page.--Loodog 02:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging sexual attraction into this page 

message: Why can't we just leave this?  When there was no picture on the page, there was a request for one.  It is the perfect visual aid for this article and its caption includes major points in the article.  It is useful and there's no reason to remove it short of feminism.  There are also no pictures WHATSOEVER if we remove this.  What are we afraid of, that we'll lengthen the article?--Loodog 03:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: maybe we could use a free license image for that, in favor of policies --Andersmusician VOTE 06:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Removed, because what is considered "attractive" varies tremendously among various cultures, in different eras, and between individuals.  A gallery would be far more appropriate.  209.204.144.185 19:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the above discussion before assuming we hadn't considered that.--Loodog 19:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: How about balancing Jessica's skinny, blonde looks (which I find unattractive) with a babe with some meat on her bones and dark hair. Megan Mullally would be a good choice. :b Baseball Bugs 01:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not mispresent what this article says.  It makes no statements of individual preferences and even states in the second sentence that such judgements are: "partly a matter of individual subjective preference".--Loodog 17:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, please read the above discussion about this issue.--Loodog 17:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the picture should remain, it's relevant to the article. - PhDP 17:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What people find physically attractive varies so widely that a single image at the top of the page is not appropriate.  I have removed the image of Alba.  Joie de Vivre° 06:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Better than removing it would be to find a bunch of different photos of varieties of attractiveness. A rear view of Jennifer Lopez would be good. And how about some cleavage of the bounteous Queen Latifah? And for the opposite side of the fence, there's Brad Pitt or Bruce Willis or whoever. Now that I think of it, the gallery would be endless. Hmmm... Baseball Bugs 07:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If what people find physically attractive is so diverse that no picture can be called attractive, this entire article can't be written.  The fact is there are trends observed cross-culturally, verified repeatedly by research.  This article is about those observed trends though it concedes that attractiveness is "partly a matter of individual subjective preference."  For the goddamn hundredth time, the picture is not there to show an attractive person.  The picture demonstrates AN EXAMPLE of traits which are universally attracitve AS IT SAYS IN THE CAPTION.--Loodog 12:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I as a straight guy (which I am) don't find her all that attractive (which I don't), then either (1) I'm not in this universe; or (2) her look is not "universally" attractive. Baseball Bugs 23:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true.  If you blatantly pervert the article and fail to read the caption under the image as well as the sentence I just posted.--Loodog 14:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It says "often", it doesn't say "universal". "Univesal" is your word, above, which is logically and factually untrue. Baseball Bugs 16:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: universal.--Loodog 20:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, for example, American citizens are "universally" caucasian? Baseball Bugs 20:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I suggest you read the dictionary entry I provided before misusing the word.--Loodog 21:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did. You're misusing the term. Baseball Bugs 22:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right.  "American citizens are universally caucausion" is not misusage.  I retract my statement.--Loodog 22:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor are American citizens "universally" into skinny babes. Baseball Bugs 23:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue seems to be the difference between "universally" and "predominantly". Baseball Bugs 23:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Nor did I nor this article ever intend to assert that.--Loodog 23:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then lose "universal" and substitute "predominant", and you'll be on safer ground. Baseball Bugs 23:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The word universal is correct in the usage of omnipresent, as in, cross-culturally.  Not as in "absolute".--Loodog 23:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its usage here is misleading, as well as being false. Baseball Bugs 23:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your definition is misleading, as well as being false. universal--Loodog 23:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. At least I'm not reverting you to death. Good luck with that. Baseball Bugs 02:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Nice. Although someone's got to be kidding with that last name. Baseball Bugs 10:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  jessica alba's picture 

message: Objections to this article as it stands seem centralized around the issue of the subjectivity of beauty and if the trends this article asserts (through sources) negate that.  The third sentence in this article states that an individual's notions of attractiveness are governed by three things:
#Genetic selection (e.g. Waist-hip ratio)
#Cultural exposure (e.g. slimness in Hollywood)
#Individual variation there is no goddamn accounting for (e.g. blondes vs. brunettes vs. redheads)
Anything attributed to the first cause must be observed cross-culturally with sufficient prominence to be statistically significant.  Anything attributed to the second must be observed across a society with sufficient prominence to be statistically significant.  Everything else is still individual variation.  This article addresses the first two, as that's all that can be measured objectively and scientifically.  Please do not infer this article to be attempting anything further.--Loodog 22:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To settle a recurring point 

message: I've nominated the article for GA status.  If you haven't contributed signicantly, feel free to leave a review.--Loodog 17:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA nomination 

message: Upon reviewing the article against the GA criteria, I came to the following conclusions:
:GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail: 
===Criteria 2a===
*References should include all available information requested at WP:CITE. 
**This includes page numbers for books, magazines, etc. for verification of information; and retrieval dates allowing for potential replacement of links that may die in the future. I recommend the use of .
*They should also be consistently formatted per WP:WIAGA note 2.
**Note also that as this is the English Wikipedia, all references should be in English, as long as it's available. For this reason, it is unnecessary to put "(In English)" in references. Such a note should be reserved for references in another language.
===Criteria 2b and 2c===
*There are many claims, determinations, and conclusions made without references. This is unacceptable.
===Criteria 3a, 4a, and 4b===
*This article is very Westernized. The images each specify that the subject has features attractive to Western culture. There should not only be images, but also details in text regarding what features are found attractive in various countries and cultures.
===Conclusion===
Because the issues are numerous and I don't feel can easily or quickly be corrected, I have failed the nomination. Once corrections are made on the article to improve the quality of that needed for GA, it can be renominated at WP:GAC. If you feel this review was made in error, you can request remediation at WP:GA/R. Regards, LaraLove 04:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA nomination review

message: Because the issues are numerous and I don't feel can easily or quickly be corrected, I have failed the nomination. Once corrections are made on the article to improve the quality of that needed for GA, it can be renominated at WP:GAC. If you feel this review was made in error, you can request remediation at WP:GA/R. Regards, LaraLove 04:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion

message: "Despite the existence of universally agreed upon signs of beauty in both genders, both homosexual and heterosexual men tend to place significantly higher value on physical appearance in a partner than women."
I just can't make sense of the sentence. Can someone rephrase it? 202.136.111.86 16:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence was intended to convey, "Even though both genders are superficial to the point that certain features can almost always be called attractive, men are more superficial than women."--Loodog 17:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hmmm?

message: Sorry. Why does this article have a huge picture of an attractive woman on the introduction? Do you think physical attractiveness = females? This is straight guy bias, sorry (I know, for some of you the perception of that as bias is outrageous, I mean, *gasp* do you mean my vision of the world isn't universal??) Betina 02:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, to the extent that there was anything to fix. The "huge" pic of a woman was 13.7% larger than the one of the guys (250px as opposed to 220px), but now they're all the same. Poindexter Propellerhead 02:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the effort, but the issue isn't the size itself. Rather, the association of attractiveness = women implied by having a female white model on the introduction as opposed to its specific section. Betina 02:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When we have an article like Art Deco, we put an image up top and there's no arguing about what's "the most" Art Deco image, nor that the first image being a building implies that the term is centered on buildings.--Loodog 02:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huge picture of a woman 

message: Since the (cited) publications in the early-mid '90s, which claimed that the whole world preferred female WHRs of approximately 0.7, some researchers went out to into the jungles of East Africa and elsewhere, and did surveys of people who hadn't been exposed to significant amounts of western media. And, lo and behold, they did not uniformly like 0.7, the Hadza of Tanzania, for example, preferred somewhere between .78 and 1.0, depending on how one looks at the data.[] A study in the Peruvian Andes, and another in rural Ecuador, also gave results favoring a WHR significantly higher than 0.7. So, despite my great fondness for my SO's 0.63, I am going to have to question the article's statement that a low WHR is a universal preference. Thoughts? Poindexter Propellerhead 02:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then question the source's accuracy.  David Buss mentions in his book that there are a few cultures that  do not prefer a low WHR, but by and large, most cultures, including those not exposed to Western media, prefer it.  At any rate, it's not our place to contest a source personally.  We can only offer other sources that contest it.  If you have a source that contradicts Buss's findings, it should be cited and mentioned in the article.--Loodog 02:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I don't mean to be contesting it personally, rather to be pointing out a number of newer studies that appear to at least partially refute the original conclusion. Like the one I cited above, and these. The Chinese prefer 0.6, and are 1/5 of the world's population. The article now reads "Women with a 0.7 WHR (waist circumference that is 70% of the hip circumference) are invariably rated as more attractive by men, regardless of their culture.[13]" I will probably attempt a (very thoroughly cited) revision of this section, but thought that I should, at very least, mention my reasoning on the talk page before fiddling with things. Poindexter Propellerhead 04:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know if I've read that .7 is the magic number, but I'm pretty sure "low" WHR has been said by Buss to be observed to be more attractive cross culturally.--Loodog 06:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I just gave an edit a try, see what you think of it. Preference for low WHR (0.6-0.7) seems to be the rule in Europe, the US and China, but those pesky Equadorians, Peruvians and some Africans like 0.8-0.9, as mentioned (and cited) in the text. I commented out a little material which was sourced, but which I didn't know what to do with, since the context had changed. Poindexter Propellerhead 06:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WHR