Talk:Cuteness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Psychology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

The term Cute[edit]

This article fails to deliver a simple cultural commonality represented today, specifically in youth. The term cute has become more of a term to describe a)a relationship which is innocent, and childlike. b)a person when they are simple-minded, or as the article has stated, have youthful appearances c)when Francis Martin Keano C. Cuenca was born cuteness was discovered — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.54.244.130 (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

creepy cute is an uncommn type of cute

Cute can indeed have a negative connotation by degrading and belittling the person to which it is spoken to. By using the term to describe a teenager or young adult, it is felt to impair that person's self esteem, making them feel like a baby, and child-like

Please consider this, because this is a widely agreed term which hasn't been addressed in this article

Mcleaniechris (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)ChrisMcleaniechris (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC) University of Otago, NZ

Kittens[edit]

This article needs more of them

300px --1sneakers6 (talk) 10:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.204.198 (talk) 10:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC) 

external links, creation[edit]

I think interesting (external links, creation) with one, but your context must be I'm not English native, and the subject is:
What exactly does 'cute' mean? ( Which is the most attractive people ? ), and I've found interesting: hot & cute, cute & hot. See the link:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080831232156AA2eLWW

  • I'm going to write it down, like: What exactly does 'cute' mean? ( The context: Which is the most attractive people ? i.e.: hot vs cute ). Cfr the section: Cultural significance ( marketing tool in many cultures ). --PLA y Grande Covián (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Images[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} This edit should be reverted because... I am almost unwilling to state the obvious. But ok, the source (NOT merely of the image, but of the rationale to include it, mind you) is this flickr page. The reference in the article says, I kid you not, "The comments on the Flickr photopage show typical human reactions on cute animals." This has got to be one of the more ridiculously blatant violations of OR I've seen in quite a while. To be very precise: The edit should be reverted. It is not enough to simply remove the image, since the edit also placed the image of Knut above the one image with true explanatory power (as opposed to mere decorative value). 78.34.98.95 (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, so I have removed it. It's not the image itself that was objectionable (aww), but it was not relevent to the article. If a suitable caption made a link (to juveniles with big eyes, or whatever) then it would be a different matter; but the edit notice says;

Do not add any images without providing reliable sources.

Any image added without reliable sources to verify that the depicted animal or other object has been notably referred to as cute will be removed as Original Research

Therefore, removed.
Yes check.svg Done  Chzz  ►  18:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Not quite incidentally, I was the one who formulated that edit notice way back when, to discourage people from adding images of each and everything they think is cute (and the inevitable warring that accompanies any such situation). It is in fact the image itself that is objectionable as OR unless reliable sources are cited. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the caption, it's the lack of accompanying sources that renders it OR. Anyhow, thanks for performing the edit. 78.34.102.254 (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


Russian girls[edit]

I think that in the cultural section, the attraction of Western men to Russian, rather than British or American girls, is due to the pedomorphic, 'cute' faces of Russian women in comparison to Western women. A lot of Russians from the northern part of the country belong to what physical anthropologists designate the East Baltic type of the European race. 81.129.119.136 (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Uh, no. That is, unless you can find a very reliable source that says exactly that, it absolutely should not be in the article. --Beeblebrox (talk) 05:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for demonstrating exactly why it is a good thing that this article is indefinitely semiprotected. --87.79.191.75 (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I demand![edit]

The restoration of that picture of a kitten with a caption that says, "A kitten shown here exhibiting cuteness." That was the best thing Wikipedia has ever done. --GenkiNeko (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Go away and never return, pretty please. 84.44.249.90 (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Lol, anon. Also, I agree with the proposal.--Ar-Pharazôn (talk) 09:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Pedomorphosis[edit]

"That is, humans prefer animals which exhibit pedomorphosis. Pedomorphosis is the retention of child-like characteristics—such as big heads or large eyes—into adulthood. Thus, pedomorphosis and cuteness may explain the popularity of Giant Pandas and Koalas.

The use of the term pedomorphosis is wrong , and should be removed - giant pandas do not have pedomorphosis. It's conflating two different concepts - animals which look child like (big eyes, round head etc), and a biological term which means retaining infant characteristics of it's own species.87.102.94.154 (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Sounds good to me. Go ahead and stave that part off then, and include that explanation in the summary. 69.138.63.230 (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Seems you're right. Pandas being perceived by humans as having human-child-like traits has nothing to do with Pedomorphosis or Neoteny. --87.79.51.197 (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

That is, humans prefer animals which exhibit pedomorphosis. Pedomorphosis is the retention of child-like characteristics—such as big heads or large eyes—into adulthood. Thus, pedomorphosis and cuteness may explain the popularity of Giant Pandas and Koalas.

Those three sentences should be removed according to the above reasoning. A link to Pedomorphosis should be added to the sentence following those to be removed; or alternatively a link to the more specific subform of pedomorphosis which is relevant here, Neoteny. --87.79.51.197 (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Done I removed "Thus, pedomorphosis and cuteness may explain the popularity of Giant Pandas and Koalas." that seemed to be the biggest problem there, the other sentences fit with the rest of the paragraph after removal. Jamesofur (talk) 10:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

First off, thanks for the edit. However, from my layman's understanding, pedomorphosis in animals is not, in fact, related to characteristics of human infants. The article currently reads:
As evidence, Lorenz noted that humans react more positively to animals that resemble infants—with big eyes, big heads, shortened noses, etc.—than to animals that do not.
That is, humans prefer animals which exhibit pedomorphosis. Pedomorphosis is the retention of child-like characteristics—such as big heads or large eyes—into adulthood. The widely perceived cuteness of domesticated animals, such as dogs and cats, may be due to the fact that humans selectively breed their pets for infant-like characteristics, including non-aggressive behavior and child-like appearance.
I'm not entirely sure, but if I'm not mistaken, the current version is still not factually correct: "animals that resemble infants" appears to refer to human infants, and pedomorphosis in turn deictically refers to animals that resemble infants. --78.34.232.188 (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Being that the various example species being discussed in this section are all mammals, are there not some juvenile characteristics (large eyes, skull shape) that all mammalian species share in common? --96.251.9.196 (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Gmeezyjr, 22 May 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} Cuteness can also be based on personality. How he/she flirts and holds a conversation.

Gmeezyjr (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: This is subjective and contradicts the definition of cuteness presented in the article. The topic to which you refer is already appropriately discussed at Halo effect. Intelligentsium 00:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

{{Edit semi-protected}} Please undo this edit. It is the epitome of what should be avoided in this article: a random image, chosen by an editor, without any source to back up the bold assertion in the caption. It is pure original research based on one editor's private opinion and it is thus unacceptable. The reason I am placing this here instead of approaching the editor who made the edit is that someone who makes such an edit in the first place is (speaking from years of frustrating experience) quite unlikely to open-mindedly reassess their own edit, regardless of any arguments presented to them. --78.35.212.131 (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Done -Atmoz (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

What on earth happened here?[edit]

What happened to this article? It used to be half-decent when I referred to it once before. Now it doesn't even define what cuteness is or what features are considered cute, just sends you off to a page on neotony. There used to be a good image showing human head proportion changes with age, now we've got Betty Boop, which is justified by saying it's an example of neotony?? If all this article is going to do is send us to Neotony, it might as well be merged.

Please can we put in a proper definition of cuteness and some actual science that's not just copy-pasted from another Wikipedia page? ~ Kimelea (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree that the other version was far better, and especially the excellent illustration you mention, which was removed in this edit as "original research" by the same editor who made the major changes. Some of the current version of the article could be incorporated back, but the older version was clearly better. Particularly the super-short current lead is unacceptable, and the Betty Boop image is just horribly bad at conveying the concept. --87.79.133.40 (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I am taking a WP:BOLD step and reverting the page all the way back to the version as edited by The Lord of the Allosaurs at 02:30 on 23 January 2011. It may very well be that some of the edits since then have been real improvements and should be folded back in, but if you compare the restored version with what it replaced I think you will agree that it was far better 14 months ago. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
In May 2011 User:Ephert did an overhaul that deleted a lot of material, but also verified and added sources. You can see his reasoning in the edit history from that month: [1] The version you reverted to has only three references for the entire article. Large sections are entirely unsourced. Maybe some amalgamation of the two versions could be created, but I don't think the sourced material that Ephert added/cleaned up/verified should just be removed. And a definition of cuteness (as was called for above) doesn't really mean anything when it's unsourced original research. Siawase (talk) 00:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree that Ephert's edits introduced useful sources and some valuable material. Nevertheless, I agree with Guy's revert since the basic article structure was indeed much better before Ephert's overhaul. Imo, we should now look at Ephert's additions and incorporate the valuable parts into the existing article structure. --87.78.5.129 (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The frog pic[edit]

I personally think the little frog is not cute to say the least. I propose, unless there is a reliable source that says that particular frog is cute, to remove the pic and put a kitten there. Moscowconnection (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but I came here absolutely assured there would a kitten, or something more universally agreed upon (obviously subjective, but it doesn't exactly take an empirical cross-sectional study for the strong assumption to exist that a kitten would win out over a frog) would constitute at least one of the images.

Other inevitably subjective opinions but posited nonetheless: the sketch of the human head is so basic as to obfuscate any feeling of cuteness achieved from a child's profile. Also, the polar bear is some distance away from the camera, and to one side, running a potential for subjugation of the feeling of cuteness that a closer and more direct shot may have evoked with greater intensity. Meanwhile the caption "has been described in news media as cute" straddles the implication such descriptors are rare in news media and that's why that particular image was chosen (news media being numerous and diverse it's difficult to believe a mention of cuteness in this instance is of especial merit). Bringing forth a strong psychological/physiological response to cuteness via images may not be Wikipedia's job, but considering there are countless images to choose, and evoking such a response can only increase, not hinder, clarity of the subject under scrutiny this nameless IP address suggests reexamination of potential image use, if only in a casual capacity. Good day! -- 75.207.26.147 (talk) 07:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Finally!. I haven't added a kitten photo myself because I couldn't find a reliable source for "kittens to be universally considered cute" or something like that (what I searched the net for). Sarahj2107 found it, thankfully. I will also add a citation request for the frog pic description, cause the presence of the scary frog in the article looks like a joke to me. :) --Moscowconnection (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I have added 2 refs that describe frogs as cute, I found plenty of other mentions of this but very little reliable sources. Personally I think the little frog in the image is cute, but I can see how it would be a lot more subjective than kittens and puppies.Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Sources would have to back the assertion that the specific animal depicted is considered cute. Just sources saying something like "kittens/puppies/frogs are considered cute" is not enough to justify any image of an animal of that type. All images "illustrating" cuteness should therefore be removed unless sources can be introduced to verify that the specific animal depicted is considered cute. Anything else is original research and thus unacceptable. --87.79.106.149 (talk) 23:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
That is just ridiculous, you are never going to be able to find an appropriately licensed picture and a source stating that particular animal is considered cute. Therefore, the article will never have any photos, and that is clearly not what people want based on the requests on this page.
I see nothing wrong with having a reference that states a species of animal is considered cute by some and a photo of a member of that species as an example of what they look like. That is not original research. If you can find an appropriate image and specific reference then feel free to add it, but all current images should stay as they are properly referenced. Sarahj2107 (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
That is just ridiculous, you are never going to be able to find an appropriately licensed picture and a source stating that particular animal is considered cute. -- Wrong. There are freely licensed pictures of Knut, who has been specifically referred to as cute. That image used to be the only animal depicted in the article, alongside appropriate sources. So, we have just established that you obviously didn't even bother looking at the article before writing your comment.
What is even more important is that you are also demonstrably wrong about "arbitrary" pictures of animals whose species has been referred to as "cute". Here's the problem: When trying to find an image to illustrate a sentence like "Some frogs have been referred to as cute", an editor would obviously not look for any ol' picture of a frog, but for a particularly "cute" one. Therefore, the editor deciding on an image of a frog would make a choice of personal preference as to which picture of a frog fits the description of "cute". That is pretty much the definition of original research. So, we have also established that you don't know our policies all that well. --78.35.232.31 (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I have an example: I'm putting there a picture of a really ugly frog. Will the citation saying that some frogs are cute be enough in this case? "Some frogs are cute" = "cute frogs exist". You need a citation saying that all frogs are cute in order to justify inclusion of a picture of a random frog. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Spot-on correct. Also, this is the exact example I had in mind when I typed my comment. --78.35.232.31 (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 September 2012[edit]

In the section "Caregiving correlates to cuteness", second paragraph, please add:

Melanie Glocker used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), to demonstrate that baby portraits that contained stronger baby schema features, generated more activation in the Nucleus Accumbens, a small brain area central to the motivation and reward [12]. This work elucidated the neural mechanism through which baby schema (Kindchenschema [13]) may act as a "releaser" of caretaking behavior.

The references are: 12. Glocker ML, Langleben DD, Ruparel K, Loughead JW, Valdez JN, Griffin MD, Sachser N, Gur RC. Baby schema modulates the brain reward system in nulliparous women. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Jun 2;106(22):9115-9. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2690007. 13. Lorenz K. Studies in Animal and Human Behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ Press; 1971. Daniel19104 (talk) 01:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Please specify where in the article this reference should be added. Update the template to answered=no to relist the request Illia Connell (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 September 2012[edit]

1) To the first paragraph of the article, after "....Konrad Lorenz", please add: Lorenz proposed the concept of baby schema (Kindchenschema), a set of facial and body features, that make a creature appear "cute" and activate ("release") in others the motivation to care for it [13].

2) To the section "Caregiving correlates to cuteness", second paragraph, after the sentence "The research suggested that the caregiver's response to the perceived cuteness of infants corresponded to higher levels of motivation to care for the infant", please add:

Melanie Glocker and colleagues used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), to demonstrate that baby portraits that contained stronger baby schema features, generated more activation in the Nucleus Accumbens, a small brain area central to the motivation and reward [13]. This work elucidated the neural mechanism through which baby schema (Kindchenschema) [12] may motivate ("release") caretaking behavior.

3) To the References section, please add: 12. Lorenz K. Studies in Animal and Human Behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ Press; 1971. 13. Glocker ML, Langleben DD, Ruparel K, Loughead JW, Valdez JN, Griffin MD, Sachser N, Gur RC. Baby schema modulates the brain reward system in nulliparous women. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Jun 2;106(22):9115-9. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2690007.

Thank you. Daniel19104 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel19104 (talkcontribs) 03:26, 12 September 2012‎ (UTC)

Done Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 September 2012[edit]

Not my edit request, but the request is "Reference [1] and [13] are the same paper. Please delete [13] and renumber the reference list accordingly. ", for reference. Somehow, it's not showing up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Refs merged. Monty845 18:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit on November 7[edit]

Overall I think this article was well done. The only suggestion I could provide, some of your sentence are to wordy and therefore making it unclear and hard to understand. Although I thought you described the empirical article very well, describing the method and finding. Therefore the only suggestion I would provide, is try to be a little clearer and less wordy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.86.199 (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request 13 September 2012[edit]

In the section about Caretaking: 1) Replace Glocker (2008) argued ... with Melanie Glocker (2009) argued .... Note the correct the publication year of this paper is 2009, not 2008. 2) Insert period after "....reward" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.6.196 (talkcontribs) 13 September 2012

Done Seems benign enough and I agree with the reasoning. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request 13 September 2012 (2)[edit]

In the section about Caretaking please replace: "Melanie Glocker argued in 2009 that the cuteness that an infant embodies can motivate the type of care one takes while caring for the infant". with: "Melanie Glocker argued in 2009 that cuteness of an infant motivates caretaking in unrelated adults"

APS Wikipedia Initiative[edit]

―I have decided to edit this article for Psych 2410A at King’s 2012‖Thuynh46 (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC) 1)For the “Caregiving Correlates to Cuteness” I will be using Melanie Glocker’s(2008) Study of "Baby Schema in Infant Faces Induces Cuteness Perception and Motivation for Caretaking in Adults" to expand on her study. 2)Under the Section “Gender Differences” I will be using Sprengelmeyer’s(2009) study on "The cutest little baby face: a hormonal link to sensitivity to cuteness in infant faces" to explain the difference in cuteness sensitivity according to different genders. 3)I will create a new heading labelled “Hormonal Impact” and use Sprengelmeyer’s(2008) study to explain that the difference in cuteness sensitivity can be affected by hormone levels in women.Thuynh46 (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.58.11.58 (talkcontribs) 13 September 2012

Not done for now: Primarily, why do you want it changed? Callanecc (alt) (talk) 11:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Reason: Because the current sentence is grammatically incorrect and misses one key point of the experiment: these were adults unrelated to the babies.

Not done for now: I still don't understand how it would make the meaning different.... Mdann52 (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Because this sentence has redundant verbs following one another and it makes no sense. This paragraph is wrong both grammatically and content-wise. The key difference is between related and unrelated adults. The former care for an infant because they are used to it, i.e. it is learned behavior. The latter exhibit instinctual behavior that is automatic and is responding to baby schema in the infant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.100.209.238 (talk) 03:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Please register an account and just make your edits. Most people on this talk page are hopelessly uninformed about the scientific side of the subject and will not understand even relevant and major distinctions like you pointed out. Alternatively, it would greatly help if you could include a quote of the current wording in the article alongside your proposed rewording. --213.168.72.41 (talk) 04:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Please remove some of the pictures[edit]

For the reason laid out in this comment, pictures of animals whose species has been referred to as "cute", but who have not in their own right been referred to as "cute" should be removed as original research.

The problem with including images in this way is that the editor who decides to include a particular image makes a choice of personal preference as to the "cuteness" of the depicted animals. This choice of personal preference constitutes unacceptable original research and private opinion that has no place in an encyclopedic article.

Things like that were the reason I originally petitioned for this article to be indefinitely semiprotected, lest it be flooded by "cute" pictures and possible edit wars over which picture best represents the "cuteness" of a type of animal ("my kitten pic is teh cutest"). I find it interesting to see that the same thing keeps happening because of badly informed registered users. --78.35.232.31 (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Agree I've already raised the matter above, at #The frog pic. I didn't pursue the discussion simply because I didn't want to argue. I still think the frog is not cute. I even wanted to replace the picture with a picture of a really disgusting frog, but thought it could be considered vandalism. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Some frogs have been described as cute -- although not the one in the picture which I included purely as a matter of personal choice which imho clearly does not constitute original research, because that's my opinion.
  • It wouldn't be vandalism, but to demonstrate the fallacy by including a random not-very-cute picture of a frog in the article might be considered a bit pointy. Luckily, we can instead demonstrate it by including an image here on the talk page. Note that this frog is the exact same species as the one currently included in the article, it just happens to be less "cute" -- according to the Wikipedia editor who decided that the one in the article best illustrates cuteness in frogs. I obviously see your reasoning as entirely valid and it goes to the core of the problem. How others can't see that making a personal decision in a matter of entirely subjective perception is original research and POV as all get out is what's truly baffling. --78.35.232.31 (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I, too, was subjective, I made a mistake of welcoming the addition of the kitten photo. The kittens should be removed too. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, definitely. The same problem applies to the kitten image. Unacceptable OR. --78.35.232.31 (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
The image you included here is great, by the way. Very convincing (I hope :)). --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to exchange it with an image you find less cute. This talk page is, after all, not an encyclopedic article... :D --78.35.232.31 (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Kittens have been said[by whom?] to be generally considered cute.
Also, now that you mention it, even the caption of the kitten image is really bad in that it makes a very strong assertion regarding poorly measureable subjective perception ("Kittens are generally considered to be cute"). And the attached source is not free to view, and the available abstract does not (and couldn't possibly) back up a strongly worded assertion like that. --78.35.232.31 (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Clearly cuteness is entirely subjective and any reference to anything being cute is therefore original research and the whole article should be deleted. At the very least if the frog and kitten pics are to be removed the knut picture should be too as any reference where he is referred to as cute is the personal opinion of the person who wrote the reference cited. Sarahj2107 (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Clearly cuteness is entirely subjective and any reference to anything being cute is therefore original research and the whole article should be deleted. -- Don't be fatuous, and don't pretend to be. You are well able to see the difference between reporting on opinions as being held by someone, and editing based on personal preferences regarding the subject matter.
At the very least if the frog and kitten pics are to be removed the knut picture should be too as any reference where he is referred to as cute is the personal opinion of the person who wrote the reference cited. -- The difference has been explained to you. The Knut image is accompanied by published sources that serve as primary sources for the factual assertion that Knut has been referred to as cute. The kitten and frog images are arbitrary choices made by Wikipedia editors. --213.168.72.41 (talk) 03:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I was using sarcasm in an attempt to highlight out how petty and ridiculous you are being about a couple of photos on a stub class article of relatively low importance. Maybe instead of criticizing other editors attempts to improve and add to the article as per requests on this talk page, you could find more appropriate photos with better references or add to and improve the article as a whole.
I am well aware of the rule regarding original research however I think sometimes you need to look at the bigger picture and remember the the maim aim is to improve and maintain articles. Removing all photos would lower the quality of the page and therefor WP:Ignore all rules should apply. As I said before if appropriately licensed and referenced photos of a specific animal can be found then the current ones can be replaced, but until the current ones should stay. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I object to the pictures staying. The Wikipedia rules say the images should be removed as original research. Maybe if no users disagreed, then you could propose to ignore all rules. But not in this situation. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I was using sarcasm
    Sarcasm is really helpful.
  • how petty and ridiculous you are being about a couple of photos on a stub class article of relatively low importance
    Because it's not FA class we shouldn't care about clearcut violations of our core content policies? Au contraire, these are the very first things we should take care of on any article.
  • I am well aware of the rule regarding original research however I think sometimes you need to look at the bigger picture and remember the the maim aim is to improve and maintain articles
    Removing original research is just about the most basic and most important improvement to any article. Original research never "improves" an article, regardless of how "cute" you think it is.
  • Removing all photos would lower the quality of the page
    After everything Moscowconnection and I clearly laid out in this section, I'm not going to dignify that with the response it deserves. You have produced no coherent argument. Consider this: The best you could come up with above is to basically admit that the pictures are unacceptable, in violation of our most basic principles and core content policies, but you like them. So, your private ideas on how an encyclopedic project should work notwithstanding, we're going to remove the kitten and the frog images. The picture of Knut stays and can of course be supplemented or replaced by any image of another individual animal that has been referred to as cute in the media. --213.168.89.193 (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Do whatever you what I really couldn't care less. I have better things to do than argue with you or read to your pretentious, condescending posts.Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Knut, a young polar bear at the Berlin Zoo, has been described in news media as cute.[who cares?]
Truth be told though, I wouldn't mind removing the Knut image as well, regardless of its validity in terms of policy. A picture of "something that has been called cute" cannot possibly illustrate the concept of cuteness itself (which is the topic of this article). Imho we should really do away with all "pics of cute things". --213.168.89.193 (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I think "pics of cute things" are useful, they make the article more visually pleasing. An article about cuteness should look cute. So, I would leave the photo of Knut, at least for now, until the page doesn't have more pictures of cute things. Preferably, of something described as the "cutest in the world" by reliable sources. Cause being simply cute is not enough, in my opinion. By the way, Knut and this article are mentioned in the Wikipedia essay "Lamest edit wars": Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Cute. As for when to remove the kitten and frog images, let's wait a week for more opinions. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Knut, still young

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────An article about cuteness should look cute -- Should an article about arachnophobia look visually repulsive e.g. by including close-up images of spiders? I'd say no, and I'd prefer this article to not "communicate cuteness" but to give a sober and straightforward summary of published sources about the topic.

Also, LOL, I wasn't aware of the Lamest edit wars entry, but yeah this has been a thing for years now. That's one of the reasons I would now rather get rid of the Knut image quickly, either by replacing it or by just throwing it out. Wouldn't that be a more sensible interim solution? I mean, I get where you're coming from when you say let's leave it in for now. But it's such a sorry placeholder and has led to so much ultralame back and forth on this article and talk page.

So, I dunno. If you think it makes the article more appealing, why the heck not. However, I'd remove the Knut image since there is evidently no longterm consensus to include it over other images. Instead, I'd put a challenge to every interested editor to find an acceptably licensed picture of something that more universally represents cuteness, as evidenced by reliable sources.

Ditto on the one week "respite" to remove the frog and the kitten images, no hurry. --78.35.246.58 (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Update: LOL'd again @ Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Arachnophobia. They finally decided against including an image that might trigger arachnophobic reactions. So maybe we should do the same and avoid images that trigger attraction to cuteness. This is an encyclopedic article about cuteness, it shouldn't "embody" or symbolize cuteness, it should describe it based on reliable sources. Anyway, I know I'm way too preachy about such things. And a cute image doesn't hurt the article, just as long as it's one representative image, and not the present little gallery which I find very embarassing to be honest. --78.35.246.58 (talk) 02:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  • You persuaded me, I vote for removing the Knut picture. I still think the article should look cute, though. But the Knut image is a very random choice. The image has haunted the article for years now. It is not right that the whole concept of cuteness is associated with the bear. Why do I have to see him every time I'm here? Removing the photo would be a good editorial choice. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Alpaca head.jpg
In the meantime, I'll send this image to news agencies trying to get them to write about it and call it "cute". All the focus on the generic examples is bothering me: kittens, frogs, bear cubs -- puppies are pretty much the only thing missing, in addition to Katie from Josh's class, a close-up of Chinese bound feet (for historic reference), and that piglet in boots from The Onion. And a panda. Why hasn't anyone suggested a panda? Aren't they widely considered to be cute? I bet there are plenty of references for that. --78.35.246.58 (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
An alpaca? Okay. I'm not really happy about it, but, at least, it doesn't have a big round head. Cause the article seems to suggest that only big round heads are cute, and I don't think it is true. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that's another big problem with the article, isn't it. "Cute" can mean so many different things.
I'm not really happy about it -- You probably noticed, I wasn't actually suggesting to include the image, just trying to make a point about how different perception of cuteness is from person to person. Any example illustration would probably either be rather abstract (like the imho excellent schematic drawing at the top), or rather specific in taste (i.e. any "pics of cute things" as far as I can see). --78.35.246.58 (talk) 10:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I understood it was a joke, though I was puzzled by the statement at first. I checked if the alpaca was famous and it wasn't. :) By the way, someone removed the frog today. I'm still okay with removing the other two pictures, cause thanks to your examples I understood that these pictures don't add anything to the article. They don't illustrate the text, but may prevent people from actually reading the article. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Did you notice the edit summary? Someone likes kittens more than frogs, it seems. --78.35.255.143 (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I noticed the edit summary but I haven't noticed the user name until now. :D --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
A self-hating frog? Or just a realist? --78.35.255.143 (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright, one week has passed. Please remove the kitten image as OR, and the Knut image as too contentious to represent the concept of cuteness or to serve as a representative example, despite its acceptable sourcing. Thanks in advance. --87.78.5.129 (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Images removed, though the cat one could arguably stay as a depiction of what is being said in the Overview section about domesticated animals. Might be better ones for that floating around, though, and the caption would need to more directly tie it in for it to really make sense. -— Isarra 22:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
What's the problem, are you needing a particular image verifiably certified by a biologist to be the cutest image in existence? (If so, there you go.) But I would have thought it would already be trivial to source the fact that generally kittens etc are considered cute (esp. since mainstream media are not above publishing cute images just as feel-good stories), and to illustrate that point with practically any old stereotypically-cute image of a pet kitten. I can understand some push back against every random editor inserting their favourite ideosyncratic cute image, but seriously disputing the stereotypical popular notion of cute seems a bit ridiculous. Cesiumfrog (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I also note that anonIP justified removal of a previous kitten image on the basis that the caption "Kittens are generally considered cute" was sourced to peer-reviewed scientific literature. Apparently the anonIP is only interested in sources that can be read for free without visiting a library. How tendentious. If the standards being suggested here were applied broadly and consistently, WP would be bereft of images. Cesiumfrog (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Part of it is just randomness - a lot of cute is subjective and a lot of images just plain aren't relevant to article itself, or in particular to the sections in which they might reside. Anything specifically illustrating concepts in a particular section would probably fine so long as it's at least reasonably sourceable (which that kitten image I removed was, so please, feel free to put that one back if you want). -— Isarra 22:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
so long as it's at least reasonably sourceable (which that kitten image I removed was -- No, it's not at all. The source (only the abstract of which is freely available) just mentions kittens thusly:
In 2 experiments, viewing very cute images (puppies and kittens)—as opposed to slightly cute images (dogs and cats)—led to superior performance on a subsequent fine-motor dexterity task (the children's game “Operation”).
That's not "reasonable sourcing" for a random, Wikipedia-editor-chosen image of some kittens, not by any stretch of the imagination. That image needs to stay the heck off the article, and no reformulation of the caption can alleviate that problem.
The only image that is acceptably sourced for what the caption asserted is the Knut image. If we keep any of the images that have been included so far, it could only be the Knut image. But that one does not have consensus as representing cuteness. --213.196.209.92 (talk) 06:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I might be wasting my time trying to explain policy to another anonIP, but does it really make sense to be judging what a source says when you acknowledge you haven't actually read beyond the blurb? Compare the featured article ocean sunfish: the images there do not require sources to verify that they are images of mola (and not porcupinefish); some things are obvious, and it is sufficient that the images are obviously illustrating what the text is discussing (and that this text cites sources which are reliable if not necessarily freely provided). Cesiumfrog (talk) 11:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────does it really make sense to be judging what a source says when you acknowledge you haven't actually read beyond the blurb -- Has Sarahj2107 read the full source? Has Isarra? Have you? No? Then what are you all talking about? The abstract. You all have read only the abstract, isn't that right, because it's the only part that is freely available. Otherwise, could someone quote verbatim from the full document what they are writing about kittens and cuteness. Maybe they're even citing other studies dedicated to that particular question. We will never know as long as none of us have even read the full source.
More importantly, even if the source establishes on scientific grounds that "kittens are generally considered cute" (highly doubtable), as laid out above, this source couldn't possibly serve to verify the cuteness of some randomly chosen cats.
Does this particular anonIP's logic make sense to your established editor's sensibilities? If you're not done lumping in every single person who has ever edited via IP, please continue in that vein. I don't mind biting and attacks, as long as we're doing proper work here. --195.14.220.127 (talk) 12:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Please, discuss the content, not the contributors, and assume good faith. Even if folks have not read the source in full, there is no reason at this point to doubt the applicability to the given statement. The cat image itself is indeed a random one, but that is no reason it cannot be used to illustrate a specific point in the article itself discussing cats in general - yes, there is concern about original research, but in interpreting policy using common sense is a must or it doesn't mean anything. At the end of the day what matters is that the article is improved in terms of usefulness to the reader, and if we have to do some synthesis and decide that yes, these are cats, then so be it. -— Isarra 14:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Please do not insinuate that I violated NPA in any way shape or form, when I clearly didn't. Cesiumfrog wrote "I might be wasting my time trying to explain policy to another anonIP". That is the only real insult that anyone has posted in this thread.
Likewise, please do not assume that I didn't assume good faith, or show me exactly where you thought I didn't. No vague insinuations of the type you have been making. That isn't conducive to anything.
Even if folks have not read the source in full, there is no reason at this point to doubt the applicability to the given statement. -- I'm sorry, but I don't see any valid reasoning behind your comment. You cannot possibly be serious. All we know is the abstract. It does not go into any detail, nor does it promise any greater detail as to that particular assertion ("kittens are generally considered cute") to be found in the main text. Not only is there excellent reason to assume that the source cannot, and categorically couldn't possibly, back up that particular assertion. There is no reason whatsoever to assume, as you do, that the source even talks about kittens and cuteness in any detail. How you are able to glean that from the abstract is baffling.
The cat image is simply out of the question, for the reasons provided. You, on the other hand, have provided zero reason why it shouldn't be regarded pure OR, or how exactly you can judge from the abstract that the source could serve to verify that "kittens are generally considered cute".
Sorry, as far as real arguments go, it's either Knut or no cute image at this point. --195.14.220.127 (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I can assure you that the study is relevant, classifying kittens and puppies as high cuteness and backing it up with measurable results, and the abstract references this as well as that was the entire basis of their experiments. Even were it not mentioned, however, provided no clear evidence to the contrary in a low-risk article such as this, there is no reason not to assume a reference is good until such time as it can be checked, as to do otherwise runs the risk of losing a good reference entirely.
As for original research concerns, WP:OR specifically does not apply to images "so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." The ideas are already in the article. The caption was sourced as it should be. This is not original research. -— Isarra 18:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I can assure you -- Have you read the full study? What exactly are they saying that might serve to back up the assertion that "kittens are generally considered cute"? What are they relying on for that? Have they conducted a study, or are they citing other studies? You can assure me by being precise.
there is no reason not to assume a reference is good until such time as it can be checked -- Apparently you don't know a lot about verifiability. The assertion "kittens are generally cute" is an exceptionally strong one. You continue to argue in the vein of "this article is of low importance" etc, like Sarah did above. Sorry, that kind of reasoning is just unacceptable on Wikipedia. No article is exempt from verifiability, especially strong assertions of the type discussed.
With regard to WP:OI, you are wrong again: Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments. The unpublished idea the kitten image would introduce is that these kittens in particular are cute. Very much the epitome of original research.
Like I said, Knut or nothing. The kittens are completely out of the question at this point. --87.79.231.118 (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I went ahead and readded the kittens image using a more relevant caption to the section it was in. If you still disagree, please feel free to find someone else and convince them that it is wrong. -— Isarra 20:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. The image is not relevant. What does it illustrate? --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
It is an example and further illustration of what is described in the two paragraphs to the left of it. -— Isarra 21:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I can't see any connection. And the caption says something about nurturing, while no one nurtures anything in the picture. I'm removing it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I've removed it. I'm sorry fot that. I don't want to be stubborn or anything, I simply think the IP is right. And I think the article is better without pictures. When the 2 photos were removed, I really felt a relief. The photos were distracting. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
No. The epitome of original research on WP is not the recognising of the obvious content in a particular photo. This is just sillyness; consider the illustrations in any exemplar FA:- by your criteria, we could not have any obvious images of instances of sunfish unless an external source confirmed that the subjects of those particular images really are sunfish. (FA also demonstrate that two images in an article with half a dozen sections is not excessive/distracting, so I really don't grok your objection.) Likewise, if the article text discusses "cute kitten images" as a scientifically significant example of cuteness, then that's all the license we need to be free to insert an illustrating obviously depicting an instance of what generally is considered a cute kitten image. PS: full text lmgtfy.com/?q=%22Viewing+cute+images+increases+behavioral+carefulness%22+filetype%3Apdf&l=1 Cesiumfrog (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
But imagine some people don't like the photo. Imagine some people hate white kittens or simply these particular kittens. I hated the frog picture, while other editors liked it and left in the article for years. It's exactly the same. The IP has already demonstrated it graphically by switching a "cute" photo with another, "less cute". --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Why playing hypotheticals? So what if one of us hates the picture personally, as long as we're objective we can still both acknowledge that it reasonably illustrates the topic. Sherman, Haidt, et al probably had a reason for not using herptile images to epitomise cuteness. Cesiumfrog (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
as long as we're objective we can still both acknowledge that it reasonably illustrates the topic -- We are not. The image is a random choice. Even if all of us Wikipedia editors agreed on that image, it would make it no less original research to assert that the image illustrates cuteness. As it happens, there is resistence to that idea even here in this thread. You and Isarra have simply decided to ignore our core content policies and ignore valid arguments by other people. So, are we honestly going to have to start a full-fledged RfC just to get you guys to not ignore policy-based arguments? That's very annoying. --213.168.117.135 (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I went ahead and readded the kittens image -- Well, fantastic. You have been explained the exact reasoning as to why that image is absolutely unacceptable according to our core content policies. You have provided not a single argument beyond "but I like teh kittens". Just great. You're doing great as an editor. Could someone with more clue please remove the OR kitten image? --213.168.117.135 (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
As an uninvolved editor, I've gone ahead and temporarily commented out the image until a consensus can be reached here on the talk page. I would ask that no image be added until a clear policy-backed consensus can be formed. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

An image I came across[edit]

File:The three faces that are perceived cutest in Alley's study of Head Shape and Perceived Cuteness.png User Jmikkila uploaded this interesting picture to Wikipedia. Currently, it faces deletion. Should we add a fair-use rationale to it and use it in the article? --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

no "young" translation into russian in google translate[edit]

in http://translate.google.com/#en/ru/Cute there is no "young" meaning:

adjective


милый

cute, dear, nice, sweet, darling, lovely


привлекательный

attractive, appealing, inviting, lovable, engaging, cute


умный

smart, clever, intelligent, brainy, shrewd, cute


миловидный

comely, pretty, cute, nice-looking, bonny, goodly


остроумный

witty, ingenious, smart, sharp-witted, facetious, cute


сообразительный

smart, quick-witted, bright, astute, cute, quick


находчивый

resourceful, smart, quick-witted, inventive, cute, ready-witted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qdinar (talkcontribs) 07:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request[edit]

"In the second study it was found that pre-menopausal women discriminated cutness at a highlevel than their postmenopausal female peers."

cutness --> cuteness, highlevel --> higher level.

Why is this article locked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.254.222.53 (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done This article is indefinitely semi-protected because it is frequently vandalized. Gobōnobō + c 10:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2014[edit]

cuteness is a word for not only cute things or people but for even hideous people to make them feel better…. so you should consider changing that for the hideous people in the world. Hope that helps!!!!!!!! love, the cute pineapple girls (; Cutepinapples123 (talk) 00:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. But I'm sure your intentions are good. Face-smile.svg Sam Sailor Sing 04:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)