Talk:Venus of Willendorf

Date of the discovery

A coxcomb has suppressed the date of the discovery of this statuette. Does that person think such information is irrelevant? The brief aside "akin to Gaia" has also been suppressed. May we be permitted any reference to Gaia in this context, even to deny any connection? Think of the reader. --Wetman 06:03, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The date is still in the first sentence, and Earth Mother redirects to Gaia (mythology), so perhaps the edit wasn't as bad as it initially looked. —No-One Jones ^(m) 06:19, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

User:Wetman is apparently going around and complaining about my edits (and removing some of them completely without trying to come to any improvement). The date was in fact already mentioned, and "akin to Gaia" is a horribly generalized and poor comparison, as the mythological Gaia bears no resemblence to this figurine. As far as the "coxcomb" bit goes, personally insulting other editors is a no-no in general, and probably something to avoid if for no other reason than to save face when it turns out the changes actually make sense. DreamGuy 18:05, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism?

"Others have raised the possibility that it was designed to be inserted vaginally, perhaps as a fertility charm, to become pregnant."

This bit needs a reference! The vaginal insertion really seems vandalism to me, as is.
Giacomo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.208.60.198 (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Judgemental statements

"A possible purpose of this sculpture is far more mundane, indeed. In the paleolithic times, food would have been such a scarce commodity that any excess of weight in the human body would be looked upon with shock. This statue may merely be one artist's recording of such an extraordinary individual."

All we know for certain is that the food supply back then was sufficient (since we're around nowadays, duh), and we also have no idea whether humanity back then was as easily shockable about fat woman as modern society appears to be.

As for the Venus being an 'extraordinary individual' -- I am going to demonstrate to you that this is unlikley:

If you look at the Venus, she isn't that outrageous obsese, just looks like a normal fat woman who has a BMI of about 38 and big boobs of about JJ cup size (boobs are not fat tissue but mainly mammary glands and the size does not change dramatically with weight gain or loss either, but is more determined by genetics and nursing). That together with the raised vulva could possibly point towards it being connected with fertility. It could also be a yardstick to show women how fat they should be before winter starts, let's do some comparions and sums:

The venus looks a little fatter than me, but not by much. In fact, I very much look like the venus when nekkid, so, let's take me as a living example :) I'm 1.56m and weigh 90kg, and I'm 42 years old. My 'fat-free' weight is 58kg, so, I have 32kg extra on my ribs. I need about 2500 calories a day when I'm active. I have spare 32*7700 calories = 246400 calories, which is only 100 days supply if there is complete starvation, 200 days if I have enough stores to provide 1250 calories daily. 100 days is 3 month -- so, I could survive one winter if the supplies were lost (bears, other tribes etc). So, given this, one could claim that the Venus actually has the ideal figure for survival ;) Btw, if the Venus was nursing a babe or small toddler (highly likely back then) her calorie requirement would be far higher, and so, the estimate of 100 days is rather conservative.

Cinnamon

Ps.: The article is rather judgemental about what constitutes 'ugly' -- please let people decide for themselves if they think it is ugly or not! (I'm here because a customer ordered a pendant that looks like her, so, someone somewhere is still enjoying the art enough to order one at great expense from my studio, so don't knock it! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.218.135 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 12 September 2006

You have no idea what shape the food supply was for anyone back then. Just b/c humans are here now does not mean that starvation was not a regular problem. You can't catch that mammoth, you don't eat. Hence the popularity of agriculture. Duh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.252.183.253 (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Sources for possible meaning

Could we get sources for all the interpretations of this figure? A lot of the commentary seems to be wiki-editors opinions and the article provides no indication as to how accepted each interpretation (art/fertility/goddess, etc) is. Ashmoo 05:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Calling her Venus

This was not the name for the piece before it was found. Someone named it Venus simply because it is female. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenlight (talk • contribs) 21:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

NAME CHANGE

In all my art history classes my teachers insisted that modern scholars are careful to call this the "Woman of Willendorf", as the word "Venus" invites too many assumptions about this being a goddess, when in reality nobody knows exactly what it is. I suggest calling the article the "Woman of Willendorf" and having "Venus of Willendorf" redirect here. It's more accurate and contemporary.Rglong 02:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No further comments since Rglong 10 years ago!? As Rglong states, "Venus" is an after-the-fact Eurocentric assumption. The piece should be listed as Woman of Willendorf with a redirect for Venus. Glenn irs (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

such a stupid idea! the figurine is called "Venus of W." since the early 20th century. and a political over correct agenda is trying to change names! and presupposes anybody to be so stupid to confuse a Roman goddesses name with a paleolithic artifact...Mr. bobby (talk) 10:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Feet

It looks like the feet were carved to insert into a wooden base. To have sat on some ancient mantlepiece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.21.203 (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Pregnant?

Reminds me of a pregnant woman with steatopygia. 24.36.78.185 (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Nah, she's just moderately fat. Pretty much half the female population would develop a figure like that for that BMI. Google "BBW pics" or something if you don't believe me - and you'll see that she is neither visibly pregnant, nor does she have steatopygia or any other unusual physiological features. Aadieu (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Aadieu, I hope you are not serious at all with your observed statements... What do "BBW pics" of the modern era have to do with a female carving from 25,000 years ago? Way to piece things together intellectually... Stevenmitchell (talk) 09:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

palaeoporn?

I like David Brin's suggestion in his novel Kil'n People that the Woman of Willensdorf was in fact pornography. Has anyone considered this seriously? Adambrowne666 (talk) 04:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It's been analysed before this venus was found, art started out with depictions of male and female genitals (phalli and vulva) , art (creative depiction) is "what is on man's mind". from that knowledge it appears the natural follow up.

I am quite sure it stands for the attractivity of woman in every aspect, eg this specific one, with the hairdress, shows the artist tended to look at local examples to shape these unified dedications to female properties.

Also i think the figurine(s) may (all) represent masked actors in party's or ceremony's (Lion-human) even if the suggestion 'venusses' served a more daily use appears correct. i would guess they were worn by woman as fertility pendants, i think some are very worn in that way, It appears also possible they are associated with some (female) priest class at first, comp. eg malta temple's. where she is related to an institutional and powerfull religious complex. I am not sure but i think i remember one motivation to call them venus had to do with not so much the fact they are female(article), but that they betray an erotic characteristic, like venus in her pantheon.62.194.221.212 (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks - of course, as you suggest, there may have been little distinction between erotic art and religious icon. Adambrowne666 (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I suggested this very thing in university when studying ancient history. Granted it is mere supposition, but so is any other explanation of it being a fertility charm or serving a religious purpose, since we know very little about the beliefs of peoples in that time. It should also be pointed out that there is not anything necessarily shocking about the obesity. To this day, there are cultures where a high degree of body fat is considered attractive on a woman, particularily in some southern African countries. That a depiction of such a fat woman would be considered sexually appealling is by no means contradictory.

Unfortunately, many if not most classical history departments are dominated by marxist/feministic faculty members. As one can guess, my conclusions were not popular with the faculty. As a result, what should be the obvious assumption as to the purpose of the Venus (or Woman, if you will) is relegated to obscurity by and large.109.58.94.254 (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the feet are pointed downwards also means that the Palaeoporn could be poked into the ground slightly and still remain upright (like amphora). The most interesting parts being well exposed for viewing. WonderWheeler (talk) 03:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but this whole discussion is not appropriate here as this is not a forum to discuss the subject of the article. Now if someone has sources that discuss the VoW in this way, that would be appropriate. Dougweller (talk) 09:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Prehistoric Penthouse

I suggest that no woman would ever carve this as a self portrait. If a young woman wanted fertility they might very well be carving an attractive young man, not an obese woman. I believe this was carved by a man as a type of prehistoric Penthouse magazine. He was trying to create his ideal of a woman - young, pretty hair, submissive attitude, immense breasts, obese short stature and thick thighs. It could be prehistoric visualization; if he carved her and prayed to her, maybe she would select him. Joanlutz (talk) 07:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)joanl

In tribal societies, being fat is a luxury. It demonstrates superior survival traits and socio-"economic" success - basically rich and high status in modern terms. Furthermore, a woman in a hunter-gatherer society needs significantly less strength, speed, and agility, since she is mostly tending the kids, not chasing dinner with a crude spear, and hence can afford to keep a high body weight. Add to that the rather dramatic increases in fertility in above-average BMIs with wide hips and pendulous breasts in general, but especially in communities with intermittent food supply, and this gal becomes "prehistoric perfect". So, yeah, chances are, someone or someones were fapping to this! Aadieu (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"OBESE"?!? Please! In prehistoric times chances are women were giving birth immediately following puberty, continued until their death. Pregnancies deform women's bodies, even in the modern times - especially if the woman is giving birth on an average every 2-3 years. this is not the body of an obese woman, but the deformed body of a woman who has given birth, and nursed multiple children. hence a fertility symbol because she gives life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.255.236.29 (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Negrito 'peppercorn hair'

It also reminds of an Onge woman (African) with the characteristic negrito "peppercorn hair". That is we can conclude saying that this figurine belong to Africa's continent.Davedawit (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It could be that women at the time cut their hair very short and the hair was curly. I'm not sure if we know of any migrations at the time that went directly from Africa to Central Europe. It is most commonly understood that the migrations to Central Europe originated in India, but perhaps the physical features of people from India were quite different back then, and more similar to those of their ancestors. Sphecidae (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Personified Mushroom Theory

I added a brief discussion of and link to an article that, imho, explains this figurine and several of its analogs more logically and instructively than any of the other theories I've examined over the last two decades. If anyone has a problem with this addition, I'd appreciate discussing it with me before he or she redacts or removes anything in it. Thanks very much in advance. Berlant (talk) 13:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)Berlant

Name change redux, should we change the title to Woman of Willendorf? Is the current name POV?

This was raised before, see above, and an editor changed the lead a few hours ago. I can find sources saying 'Woman of Willendorf' is the term used by archaeologists usually, and [1] agrees with other sources saying the 'Venus' label is absurd. Which raises NPOV issues. Dougweller (talk) 05:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

"Venus", although a somewhat ironic name, is the standard term and is more widely used. We should stay with "Venus of Willendorf". — goethean ॐ 16:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about ironic - probably inappropriate, but still seems to be standard, and is very widely known indeed, even if it is often with a "so-called" these days. The additional name is currently unreferenced, so referencing the alternative would be a start. The matter can be raised with experts at the Wikipedia:GLAM/BM/Ice Age art event in October or November, I forget which, details coming soon. In fact when she, and the whole Venus concept, came up in planning discussions there we stuck to the term itself, but that might have been a concession to non-expert usage. We don't use the Hottentot Venus as an article title though. The Germans & French still use "Venus" too. Johnbod (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

this one source is from a book with the title "Woman And Art in Early Modern Latin America" - which shows that it has really minor importance! Mr. bobby (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Two sculptures

The two photos on this page are of self-evidently different sculptures. Which one is real? If not the Venus of Willendorf, what is the other one? User:Jonwilliamsl(talk|contribs) 03:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's right, but the smaller one was very fuzzy & I have swopped with a better frontal view from the huge choice at commons. Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Remove completely confusing sentence

The following was the end of the introduction:

"The Willendorf figure was named following a model already over fifty years old, and shares many characteristics with other figures."

However nowhere else on the page notes the word “fifty” and what that clause means is completely mysterious and unexplained.

I am guessing the intent is to communicate that female sculptures have been named “Venus” for the last 50 years before this particular statue was discovered, but I am at a loss for why this was not, you know, 'said' instead of awkwardly hinted-at.

--X883 (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Age

The current edit now has conflicting dates for the age of the figurine in the OP and the infobox/first section, each with its own references. They can't both be correct. nagualdesign (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I think there were three sets of dates in all. Now all say "between about 28,000 and 25,000 BCE", following Khan, which is recent & will be properly researched. The museum is no help, nor the German article. Witcombe was too old & the other undated ref seemed very generalist. Johnbod (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, John. nagualdesign (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Possible work of self portraiture?

This is sort of a "crapshoot" speculation, but in a group I frequent on Facebook, someone pointed out that, from the top down, the Venus of Willendorf's proportions look much more realistic. Knowing that mirrors were not widespread (or even really extant) at this point in prehistory, and so an artist's view of themselves would be entirely reliant on what they could see of themselves from their own eyes (and in murky reflections), perhaps this was an attempted work of self portraiture? (Or, if it is a fertility idol, perhaps the artist modeled it after themselves?)

I looked at a 3D replica of the statue here. http://www.123dapp.com/Scenes-and-Props/123C-3D-Model-Venus-of-Willendorf-Fertility-Statue/595811

Not sure if this is the right place to discuss it, even, but I think people might find it interesting. Sphecidae (talk) 14:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggested Sources for New Content

Hello! I am a college student and working on this article for a class project. Please let me know if this is acceptable information for the main article.

"The sac-like breasts, bulging belly, and padded hips conflate woman with her procreative function. She symbolizes health and abundance. But the masked face and withered arms disturbingly show that she has no sight, speech, or reach--no identity as an individual."

"It's an overtly sexual, earthy style: Many of the intricately carved figurines share features such as large, pendulous breasts, huge buttocks, and chubby legs with no feet...Moreover, during the Willendorf period, male figurines, many anatomically correct with penises and detailed facial features, also appear frequently, and occasional sculptures depict men and women side by side."

"[The Woman of Willendorf] is assumed by most archaeologists to have been the product of artistic fantasy. There is no way, they say, that a real woman in a hunter-gatherer society could have gotten that fat. But Barbara Calogero, of the University of Connecticut, who comes to archaeology by way of hospital nursing, begs to differ. Look closely at how the figure's fat collects behind the shoulders, drapes over her knees, and at the way her derriere rises nearly to her waist, and you'll see, Calogero argues, a particularly accurate portrayal of female plumpness."

Eharford (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

References

They are not self-portraits

I never heard of such a stupid theory. No woman in her right mind would make herself out to look like a pregnant mammoth with no face. LOL! No, this is a man's depiction all the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.135.55.229 (talk) 03:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

it would be much more useful to bring an argument instead of documenting your emotional articulations. Mr. bobby (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Sources and Ngram results for titles

There seems to be consensus that Venus of Willendorf is the usual title of this sculpture in most literature, although clearly different editors still disagree on whether Woman of Willendorf or other variations are widely-used alternatives or merely rare exceptions. The most recent attempt to suggest that they're now preferred came with no fewer than five citations: one very good one (Encyclopaedia Britannica), and four others of varying usefulness: I'm not sure that the Dictionary of Women Artists is a very authoritative source for the title, but I've given it a pass as it's at least a general reference. Art History for Dummies is a bit harder to justify, as by definition it's not a scholarly source; imagine if it were the only citeable source for a claim! Since the Britannica is pretty authoritative on its own, I think more than the two sources for the alternative names are unnecessary, unless some of the others carry a significant amount of weight, and Art History for Dummies doesn't, in my opinion.

I had a look at Sex in Space, and found it to be a very recent meditation on the nature of video gaming, virtual reality, and its social context, published in 2013 by the "Discipline & Publish Press", for which I can find no on-line presence. I also found no scholarly reviews or citations of the book. It refers to the Woman of Willendorf several times (and also Venus of Willendorf a few), but doesn't really provide any reason to believe that the author is an expert in art history, nor do the book's primary subject or the author's credentials give much reason to regard this as good authority for the name being widely used in academia or elsewhere. The fifth source I think can be dismissed out of hand. "Venus of Willendorf: Form, Context & Subject Matter" is a brief essay not published outside the internet, and it appears to consist in part of notes for a school lesson plan, with a suggestion that students be encouraged to discuss their own opinions about the statuette. Having five cited sources makes a claim look very well-established, but in fact only the Britannica seems particularly authoritative, while some of the others simply do not pass muster as scholarly sources, and were clearly included solely because they use the phrase.

A more scientific way of establishing the currency of various names is to use the Google Books Ngram Viewer, which lets you search millions of books digitized by Google covering roughly five hundred years. I searched for references to various titles from 1900 (shortly before the statuette's discovery) to 2008 (the last searchable year). The following variations were searched, without case sensitivity:

• Venus of Willendorf
• Woman of Willendorf
• Venus from Willendorf
• Woman from Willendorf
• Willendorf Venus
• Willendorf Woman
• Willendorf Statue
• Willendorf Statuette
• Willendorf Figurine
• Willendorf Sculpture

Here are the results: Venus of Willendorf is by far the most common published term, about eight or nine times as common as all other names combined. The only other widely-used name appears to be "Willendorf Venus", accounting for the bulk of the rest, although "Willendorf Statuette" received some use before World War II.

"Woman from Willendorf" appears in a very small number of published works since the late 1970's, and does not appear to have caught on. There is also a possibility that some of the hits for this title refer to actual (or at least non-sculptural) women, rather than the statuette, since there are two villages in Austria by this name, as well as a fictional kingdom in a popular video game. There are no hits at all for "Woman of Willendorf", which does not mean that the name has no currency whatever, since it appears in the online Britannica, but it is very strong evidence that the name is not broadly accepted. None of the other alternatives were found, also meaning that they are not generally used as titles for the statuette, although they may occur from time to time simply for verbal variety.

Wikipedia policies provide some guidance in this case. I believe the relevant policy is WP:UNDUE, a section of the broader NPOV policy, which explains that views representing a small minority may not be appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia, and that giving equal weight to each alternative viewpoint can create a false equivalency. The following section, on using the "best sources" is also relevant here, given the smattering of sources cited above for the alternative titles. Because the Britannica implies that an alternative title is acceptable (without explicitly endorsing it), I think that the alternative (phrased two ways in various sources) is worthy of inclusion; but because it's not widely used and has never been widely used (finding a handful of uses on the internet, some of which are clearly not authoritative, hardly demonstrates widespread use), it should not be placed in the lead sentence as though it represented more than a tiny minority of literary references to the statuette, and should not be placed in boldface later in the body of the article. Doing so implies that it's generally accepted, when it doesn't appear to be. The proper way to address this disparity is to mention the alternative in a paragraph somewhere in the article discussing the statuette's title. As the title of a work of art, it should be italicized, not placed in boldface (which also looks out of place anywhere but in the lead sentence or as a subsection heading).

There are certainly occasions on which exceptions should be made to official policies. But there ought to be some compelling reason for doing so, and in this case there doesn't appear to be one. No matter how strongly an individual feels that the statuette has been misnamed, no alternative appears to be widely used or generally accepted instead of Venus of Willendorf. Placing alternatives in the lead or otherwise making them more prominent than ordinary body text gives undue weight to what appears to be the view of a very small minority. Fairness demands the inclusion of such titles in this instance, but that in no way implies that they are equivalent to the generally and historically accepted title. P Aculeius (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Venus of Willendorf is of course still the usual title for the object, but anyone who knows any specialists in the field will be aware how uncomfortable they are with the whole "Venus" trope and its origins. It was inevitable that an alternative like Woman of Willendorf would emerge, as it clearly has, and it is to be expected that this will gradually take over. There has been a determined campaign to keep this out of the article by fair means or foul, which apparently continues. I have yet to see Woman from Willendorf in a reference, and would be surprised to do so (at least from a native-speaking author), as it is so unidiomatic. WP:R#PLA says "Normally, we try to make sure that all "inbound redirects" other than misspellings or other obvious close variants of the article title are mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs of the article or section to which the redirect goes. It will often be appropriate to bold the redirected term." That is clearly the case here, and only strong POV or the limited experience of the other current editors on the page explains their failure to recognize this. Equally the simple information that the object is made of stone (not the clay it rather looks like) belongs in the first sentence. That the end of the paragraph specifies "oolitic limestone" makes no difference. The article averages 600-700 views pd, and will be read by many schoolchildren, so should include simple as well as technical information. As for "Art History for Dummies", this is good evidence of wider usage, reaching a popular audience. I entirely agree that this is not a case where "exceptions should be made to official policies". If you think I have strong personal feelings on "Venus" names, you are entirely mistaken, as in so much else. Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we can go with what "anybody who knows any specialists in the field knows about said specialists' degree of comfort with the 'trope'," as you call it. You call it a "campaign by fair means or foul," I call it watchful editors who consider the proposed changes giving too much weight to a small minority who feel that the name is inappropriate for various reasons, but who have yet to demonstrate anything approaching consensus. The Britannica entry itself is titled "Venus of Willendorf" and only mentions the other title once and in passing, together with a third, "nude woman", which I doubt anyone would argue is really a widely used title for this particular statuette. It doesn't discuss the name or suggest that others are replacing it.

If you read WP:UNDUE (linked above), you'll notice the original formulation by Jimbo Wales: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". Right now we have four sources that exist outside the internet, one of which is a self-published book with no indication of its author's expertise, and no citations elsewhere. And as far as I know, none of them contend that the name "Woman of Willendorf" is in the process of displacing the original title. The "Dictionary of Women Artists" only mentions the statuette in passing in order to compare something the book discusses to it (I couldn't view the page in question before today), and says nothing about the name, other than using the alternative that you favour. Frankly it's not really a very good source for this article if all it does is use the phrase once without discussing it; at least the entry in "Art History for Dummies" is actually about the statuette. But in essence all that these sources prove is that the alternative name is mentioned (but not really discussed) in a few books you can find on the internet. And that doesn't prove it's widespread or inevitable.

You can assert without evidence that requiring you to show significant evidence before giving much greater weight to what appears to be the view of a small minority is unfair, a campaign willing to use foul means, on behalf of people with strong PoV or limited experience who fail to recognize the correctness of your views. But that's just your own PoV. And kindly don't tell people that they're mistaken about many other things, if you really want them to take what you have to say on board.

Lastly, I strongly doubt that many of the visitors to this article are schoolchildren, since schoolchildren are hardly likely to be asked to look at and discuss the exaggerated sexual characteristics of a prehistoric statue, and whether they represent a fertility fetish or some sort of paleolithic porn. But even if schoolchildren were a significant part of the audience, Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to be dumbed down for a school-age audience. They should be accessible to a general readership, with technical details provided for those who need them, but it's not necessary to hammer into people that a statue made of stone is a stone statue made of stone, as if they were incapable of inferring one from the other. Articles should be written clearly, but not patronizingly, redundantly, or pedantically. I think it's both redundant and pedantic to insist that a statue which is identified as being made of limestone be referred to as a "stone statue" (or "stone statuette" or "stone figurine") on the grounds that a reader might not realize that it's made of stone until they reach the end of the paragraph. An article lead is, to borrow a phrase from the Rules of Civil Procedure, "a short and plain statement of the facts." Not a convoluted one with the same thing repeated over and over. As it is, it could probably stand trimming, and some of the information could be shunted to a "discovery" section. Anyway, that's my tuppence' worth. P Aculeius (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

P Aculeius. You have very precise and convincing arguments here. Thank you for those. The former contributions of johnbod were real distortions due to the viewpoint of a maybe political pressure group, completely convinced to be on the right side. Brilliant use of a bit statistics to save the term "venus" from the political correct (?) lament of being false. These terms were given to these artworks and used for decades. Even today these sculptures are named "Venus" (as. f. i, the "Venus of Hohle Fels". But so much work for keeping a crusader from destroying meaning. Mr. bobby (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I have never denied that "Venus" is the main current name, or proposed changing it. But it is clear from sections in the talk page above that (no doubt mainly in the US) "Woman" is now what very many students are taught to call it. To object to including the alternative title in the first sentence IN WHAT IS ENTIRELY THE NORMAL WAY FOR ARTWORKS, and that set out in policy, would be inexplicable, except that you have several times reverted other editors to remove all mention of the name. It is clear that, what with you, and Mr bobby removing all additions not sourced to German-language material, these important articles have now become POV badlands. You are obviously unaware how prominently this object features in any introduction to the history of art, even for young audiuences; that's why it gets 700 views a day. I won't get into your bizarre objection to including a five letter word with the material in the first sentence. It is clear from your user page that you have no experience of writing about works of art, and it shows. Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

since you keep giving argumentum ad hominem (as you usually do), it is ok to reply on your level. you cannot recognize even simple statistics, dear hot-air merchant. and you still think, your are doing a good job for the poor young students. all your english articles are NOT written by scholars, but by strange guys hoping to reinvent art history. YOU are living in POV badland. stay there. 21:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. bobby (talk • contribs)

Request to change the article's title

Art Historian here - PLEASE change the f-ing name already. I would but I'm sure it would be edited back as who am I? The field no longer uses Venus (nor did its creator, obviously) and hasn't for a generation. If you need a citation, look in every art history survey textbook (I'm looking at Stokstad's brief art history on page 21). Sure, keep a sentence in there about how it had long been called "Venus" due to this and that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:46E2:B748:59EC:D4DE:7F06:8208 (talk) 12:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

No need to resort to profanity. Anyone can edit this article, whether or not they're an art historian. But all editors need to understand that 1) Wikipedia is a collaborative project that seeks consensus for controversial changes, and by any definition the change you want is controversial; and 2) assertions of this type need to be supported by scholarly sources; it's not enough that one source, or even several sources, use alternative titles for the work, if the current name is still widely used and better known—which numerous inquiries on this page suggest is the case. My impression—and it's just mine, not a statement of fact—is that attempts to shoehorn a new name on an ancient artifact have less to do with correcting historic wrongs than they do with misdirected anger at other things, and that not one of the proposed alternative names has actually caught on. And while this isn't the key to the discussion, you might want to start a new section instead of replying to a stale comment in reply to a bump of an eleven-year-old argument way up at the top of the talk page. What people said that long ago has some relevance, but each occasion that a change is proposed begins a new discussion that has to stand on its own. I've gone ahead and made a new section for you.

The idea that the figurine is misnamed stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the traditional title: nobody ever claimed that it was intended to represent a Roman goddess whose mythology came thousands of years after this figurine was carved. That's not why it's called a "Venus" figurine; the appellative describes the manner of the figurine's portrayal metaphorically, since this type of figurine resembles the much later and more familiar portrayals of Venus and other fertility goddesses: a nude woman, perhaps a deity, with carefully depicted (and in the case of these figurines, typically exaggerated) sexual characteristics, possibly admiring herself, and probably associated with some sort of fertility rituals or magic. The term is not intended to suggest that the figurine represents a deity associated with love or an idealized version of feminine beauty. There's nothing offensive or insulting about the term, and it continues to be widely used for this sort of statuette. P Aculeius (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

At the same time it is true that many in the field are very unhappy with the whole Venus figurines trope, and it isn't used in recent scholarly publications, or only with lots of nose-holding (mind you, no one seems to have told these two: "Dixson, Alan F., and Barnaby Dixson. 2011. “Venus Figurines of the European Paleolithic: Symbols of Fertility or Attractiveness?” Journal of Anthropology 2011: 1-11"). Unfortunately the field has failed to come up with an equally snappy alternative - our VF article doesn't even give an alternative, nor does the cross ip suggest one. I'm sure the time will come to make a change, but I doubt it is here yet. I'd imagine VF would change before this article. As always, we will follow WP:COMMONNAME. Getting alternative terms into the articles would be a start. To state the bleeding obvious, a "Request to change the article's title" should always offer one or more proposed new titles. Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

3D Model is wonderful

I just had to give a big thank you to whoever included the 3D model of the statue. It made a huge difference to be able to "hold it in my hand" and take a proper look.

It immediately struck me that the figure - though exaggerated - looks extremely natural. "Venus" is definitely looking down upon herself, hence the lack of emphasis on any facial features. Furthermore, this is a self portrait of a woman fascinated by her own pregnancy and the changes in her body. The emphasis of her swelling breasts, belly and genitalia is obvious, particularly from the top down angle. Nothing about this strikes me as a fertility fetish. Its pose is very natural, and says self discovery. The 3D model also reveals the otherwise lost detail of the hands, the fingers of which are well sculpted. GM Pink Elephant (talk) 08:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eharford.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The 3D image is of a replica and not the original artefact. There are many notable differences. The backside lacks the indents for example. This should be removed or labelled as a replica. 2A00:23C7:A00C:9801:8D94:88E0:7356:F664 (talk) 13:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

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): Slovett23, Dominique Ardis.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

limestone source

An article referring to a scientific paper (but that paper and the journal in which it was published remains unnamed as far as I can see) discusses research on the geological/geographic source of the limestone from which the Venus (as they refer to it) was carved: https://www.heritagedaily.com/2022/02/origins-of-the-30000-year-old-venus-of-willendo-solved/142920 Kdammers (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Silesia?

I heard (several times) another version: that she comes from today´s SILESIA. Was it a fake ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:AD90:C400:7135:78BE:2E8F:7A29 (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Portrayal in Deacon King Kong by James McBride

In the terrific novel by James McBride, the statue plays an important (fictional) role. Given the success of the novel, this is probably how most people who have heard of the statue have encountered it (though many might not think to check Wikipedia and learn that such a statue actually exists). I think this literary reference should be noted in the Wikipedia article. BekraY (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

More honest explanation of McDermott's claims

Edited article to represent a more honest discussion of McDermott's claim that the figurine's proportions are the result of women carving the figurine while looking down at their own body, and misunderstanding their own bodily proportions. Before my edit, the article mentioned only Bisson's criticism -- it should be noted by anyone who reads the actual paper published in Current Anthropoly that all 14 of McDermott's contemporaries disagreed with his thesis and criticized the logic! McDermott's thesis is not accepted, and never was, even at the time of its publishing. There are several issues with his assumptions that are noted by all commenters featured in the journal, which is clear to anyone who does a little further research, however, the original state of the article seemed to suggest that McDermott's claims are recognized as valid. Let's be honest, here. We should not be leading people to confusing fringe theories as widely accepted or even logically valid. It is only right that there should be an acknowledgement in the article of the vast extent of the criticism levied against McDermott, as well as their superior logic. I invite you all to peruse the article itself which is available on JSTOR for free, I'm sure you will find that his contemporaries make much more sense than he does. 76.97.93.14 (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Who makes more sense is a matter of opinion, not fact, and it's not Wikipedia's place to take sides on a debate. The fact that one published scholar suggested a reason why Venus figurines lack facial features is relevant to the article, whether or not it seems like the most likely explanation, or whether Wikipedia editors agree or disagree. There's already another scholar cited in opposition, citing a rather obvious criticism of the hypothesis; the only shortcoming is that we don't know why this person was cited, and that wasn't addressed by turning his observation into a list of critics and an argument that the first scholar was wrong. The new paragraph was overkill and then some; and in no circumstances can we say that opposition to the idea is "unanimous", since that implies that everyone entitled to an opinion has been surveyed, and that is certainly untrue.

You might try again to incorporate some of this material into the article, but if you do so, please bear in mind that Wikipedia reports what is said, without attempting to analyze it or take sides. Focusing on how many scholars support one opinion is argumentative, particularly when the reader will have no idea how many scholars there are in the field, or how representative the sample is. You cannot go "over the top" in support of one side of an argument and still remain encyclopedic. At best, you might say that McDermott's opinion is not widely accepted, and perhaps replace the citation to Bisson or explain why we're citing him. The fact that women would likely have seen their reflections in water—or their shadows, or inferred what they must look like by looking at other women—might occur to anyone, but we don't cite random people with no experience or credentials in anthropology.

Anyway, you're welcome to try again, but please keep it in proportion: McDermott's idea and any rebuttals to it are a relatively minor point speculating on something that can never be proven or disproven, at least without time travel, and Wikipedia articles should not be arguing for one side or the other in a debate: we can report the debate, but not become advocates in it. P Aculeius (talk) 03:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)