Talk:Human figure/Archive 1

true but why?

Its true different hormones make for different changes. but why that change is necessary also important. function of a difference caused by hormones also important. like estrogen does store fat true, but why?(this is energy reserve for pregnancy) this is also equally important. 202.41.72.100 07:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC) This why is used in arts to emphasize the function of individual parts. more fat equal to more carrying potency in females hence bottom of females are always shown bigger in arts.202.41.72.100 04:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

confine in scope

confine article to shape/figure of human body. as for all other differences go to article sex differences — vinay 14:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

human figure

user:Andyjsmith, this article deals with idealised human body shape, it belongs to category aesthetics. Still little of exceptions are also dealt in a section. if all sorts of body shape are to be talked about, you may please develop article Human body shape(which redirects here currently) or edit Human physical appearance. thanks 202.41.72.100 05:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed various statements which are unsupported and in some cases are clearly rubbish. For example that women are built for stamina during sex. Apart from the ludicrously sexist nature of such a statement it would imply that men too must be built for stamina during sex - otherwise why would women run the risk of getting tired?

The statement that women look like pre-pubertal children is sinister to say the least, as well as idiotic. What sort of children, male or female? The statement would either read "Female faces are generally more similar to that of a pre-pubertal female" or "Female faces are generally more similar to that of a pre-pubertal male" - neither makes any sense: older women look like younger women or older women look like younger men!(what the crap— vinay 08:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

Unfounded Claims

Most of this article is unscientific and, not surprisingly, unsupported by evidence. Perhaps what is clear to our eyes doesn't need references, but statements like one I removed claiming females are "fairer" in the sense of paler in skin colour, so that they have a better ability to absorb vitamin D for a fetus is just plain silly. There is no evidence that women are fairer than men any in any given ethnicity. I would support a deletion as my example is only one of many. Bielle 19:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The so-called idealised hourglass shape of a woman is idealised in many cultures but by no means all, nor at all times. (narrow waist and wide hips = hourglass— vinay 08:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

And so on.

This article contains many clear statements of purported fact that must be supported by references. I'm wondering if it isn't actually a suitable candidate for {{afd}}. andy 07:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

you seem to be over conscious about female protection. kindly go through references given below. im sad for people who ask for reference over head of every sentence. first reference accounts for many statements made. i can put superscript over every sentence. and what you are blackmailing of afd, go bury your face in distant dessert. — vinay 08:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Prod

I've "prodded" the article for deletion because it requires massive cleanup but unfortunately some editors are reverting all changes. andy 08:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

and if you put afd i will delete afd message in article, let afd be sorted without any discussion. — vinay 09:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

hindrance to improving the article

user:andyjsmith has reverted changes without any explanations for his revert [1]. and improving article is completely allowed even if article is in afd. he has not considered reference added in second time. Greg dn 03:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed that section too and have now supplied an argument twice. Please, an AfD doesn't make every contribution good content.

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 03:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

you again fail to tell what exactly you did not like(you are evading in your third chance). proper reference is given second time. please be specific and tell what sentence in that section you did not like. and if you tell particular sentence, i will search and provide a good reference at your perusal. thanks Greg dn 03:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

take thisIn section 17 he refers t the human figure as the ideal of beauty, this [2] and this[3] and use cntr+f to find human figure in those pages. i will add these references, or yourself search "human figure aesthetics" in google. thanks. Greg dn 04:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, no one is keeping you from improving the article. You are doing it all by yourself. Why do you insist on adding this nonsense to Wikipedia? Your first reference above is a description of Kant's view on aesthetics, his problems with tattoos and is probably dealt with better in an article related to Kant. Your second reference is about art and there are other article devoted to that subject. Your third reference is a 404. Before adding more stuff to Wikipedia please ask yourself why articles such as this one and Driving pleasure are being suggested for deletion. If what you want is underlining your own point of view, please try another project.

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfounded Claims

Most of this article is unscientific and, not surprisingly, unsupported by evidence. Perhaps what is clear to our eyes doesn't need references, but statements like one I removed claiming females are "fairer" in the sense of paler in skin colour, so that they have a better ability to absorb vitamin D for a fetus, is just plain silly. There is no evidence that women are fairer than men any in any given ethnicity. I would support a deletion as my example is only one of many. Bielle 19:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)