Talk:Physical attractiveness

pictures of guys

In order to remain neutral, I think it's important that this article also feature at least one photo or representation of male attractiveness. It currently has 11 pictures of female attractiveness. I don't know much about Wikipedia so suggestions welcome. 70.60.230.215 (talk) 00:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

No objections here. anything you find here should be fine to use.Jytdog (talk) 02:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this was brought up before: Talk:Physical attractiveness/Archive 4#Male Beauty. One reason that so many pictures of women have been in the article might be because the male editors had more interest in female beauty. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I also noticed this. There should be one in the lead as well.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Done. See here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Alot of ugly people are super intelligent

I removed the theory that good looking people are intelligent. Most nobel prize winners are ugly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.50.217 (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

You need to have a source about that. The List of Nobel laureates in Literature does not include supermodels, but I see among them decently-looking people like Selma Lagerlöf, Grazia Deledda, and Sigrid Undset. Dimadick (talk) 08:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

IP, what you were reverted on is not stating that good-looking people are automatically intelligent. It's speaking of the perception more than anything. And in any case, there is the "dumb blonde" perception for some physically attractive women with blond hair. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I will state that the author behind the source, Satoshi Kanazawa, is quite controversial, though. In cases like these, it's best to look into his work and see how it holds up to the general literature. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

A person who is ugly can have a completely symmetrical body

A person who is ugly can have a completely symmetrical body — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.50.217 (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Primary source studies

Ephert, adding primary source after primary source study is not the way to build Wikipedia articles. I think I've told you this before. Look for WP:Secondary sources instead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The WP:NOR article currently says, "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." The physical attractiveness article in its current state is not only based on primary sources, so the first part of the guideline about not basing whole articles on primary sources does not seem like it applies here. The second part of the guideline says to be cautious about basing large passages on primary sources, and I am going to assume that is what you are talking about. I am also going to assume that you are talking about my most recent contributions which was a citation about Brazilian ideas of attractiveness in this edit and a citation about Luo ideas of attractiveness in this edit. Unfortunately, the WP:NOR article in its current state does not seem to explain what the word "cautious" entails in that specific instance of its guideline. I do not know, but I guess that the word "cautious" as used in that instance of the guideline means Wikipedia editors have to be cautious when citing primary sources that make extraordinary claims and Wikipedia editors have to be cautious that the primary sources being cited are reliable. The citation about Brazil claimed that they liked women with big butts in Brazil, and the citation about the Luo claimed that the Luo liked women with big butts too, and I do not think that either of these claims are extraordinary. The primary sources about the Luo people and the Brazilian people appear to be reliable. The guy who wrote the book for the Brazilian claim is Don Kulick, and he's a professor of anthropology. One of the authors of the Luo claim is a professor in the Department of Literary Studies at Maseno University in Kenya as stated in the first page of the academic journal article which was cited, so you have a professor at a Kenyan university making claims about how the people who live in his area (the Luo people) think after analyzing subject matter relevant to his or her field of study (music of the Luo people) in an academic journal article. Yes, they are both primary sources, but using primary sources is allowed, and they do not appear to be making extraordinary claims, and they appear to be reliable sources for the claims that they are making.--Ephert (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer22, primary sources should be avoided as much as possible. Because we cannot necessarily judge correctly whether a professor in Luo music is a reliable source for claims about physical preferences. This kind of stuff very quickly becomes synthesis or at least invites the reader to do the synthesis for us.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Ephert, the WP:Primary sources policy is clear that we should generally avoid primary sources. Rather, we should use them sparingly unless using them is necessary. You rely too heavily on them. I'm saying that you should rely more heavily on secondary sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

If you look at the secondary sources part of the policy, it states, "Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The university professor from the Department of Literary Studies at the Kenyan university in the academic journal article which was cited must have read song lyrics and/or some other type of literature which served as his or her primary sources. Then, the university professor at the Kenyan university must have made his or her "interpretive" claim that the Luo people liked women with big butts, so the professor appears to actually be a secondary source who made an "interpretive" claim based on primary sources that he or she read. Therefore, it seems to be okay to include the "interpretive" claim attributed to the Kenyan university source, because the "interpretive" claim being made in that source appears to have been made based on his or her interpretation of primary sources.--Ephert (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The professor is a primary source for her own interpretation of those lyrics, and a secondary source for the contents of the songs/texts. We are not writing about the content of the songs/texts here.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

A web page at Lafeyette College Library says, for the academic discipline of "Literature", possible primary sources include "contemporary review, interview, letter, manuscript, personal account, published work", and the web page says that its list which includes the list specific to literature is an "incomplete list of things that might be considered primary sources". Judging by its list for the academic discipline of literature, it appears to be that things that were written down in the case of "letter" or things that were said in the case of "interview" are considered fair game in the academic discipline of literature. Although song lyrics were not specifically listed in the library's list as being possible primary sources for the academic discipline of literature, the range of primary sources in the academic discipline of literature seems very broad, seemingly encompassing things that were written or spoken and probably encompassing song lyrics too. The academic journal article from the Kenyan university must have passed peer review to be published in an academic journal article, so other literary studies academic people must have viewed song lyrics as acceptable primary sources to make the interpretive claims that the professor and his or her co-author made.--Ephert (talk) 08:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

That a source is peer reviewed does not mean that it is not a primary source for its own analytical claims. The article is not about physical attractiveness but about song lyrics, YOU are the one who is interpreting the article to be relevant for this topic. I think that is problematic. Unless you can find a secondary source that cites the article by Magak and Okombo I don't think it belongs in this article at all.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the Luo article and also Kulick's study which is not about physical attractiveness in Brazil but about the lives of travestis. A book that actually is about concepts of physical attractiveness in Brazil is the ethnography Pretty Modern by Alexander Edmonds.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Maunus said, at 09:10 on 12/2/2016, in this edit, that "The article is not about physical attractiveness but about song lyrics, YOU are the one who is interpreting the article to be relevant for this topic." I can see how someone could easily misinterpret Maunus's statement here to mean that Maunus is claiming that Magak & Okombo (2014) article did not make statements about what Luo people find physically attractive when Maunus must have meant by his or her phrase "not about physical attractiveness" that the article was not only an article about physical attractiveness. I believe that this is the correct interpretation of Maunus's words, since Maunus later said, at 09:14 on 12/2/2016, in this edit,"I think Ephert is very clearly conducting original research by extracting information about physical attractiveness in different cultures from texts that are not about physical attractiveness but only mention local concepts of physical attractiveness in passing while discussing other topics." which is a statement that indicates that Maunus is making a distinction between texts that "only mention" a concept and texts that are "about" a concept. I would just like to make this clarification about a meaning which I do not think is readily apparent, so other people will not confuse Maunus's meaning in his or her statement here to mean something other than what he or she intended.--Ephert (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• I think Ephert is very clearly conducting original research by extracting information about physical attractiveness in different cultures from texts that are not about physical attractiveness but only mention local concepts of physical attractiveness in passing while discussing other topics. This is not a proper way of writing wikipedia articles.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Travesti: sex, gender, and culture among Brazilian transgendered prostitutes a 1998 book by Don Kulick, Page 70

in exasperation at a travesti who had marked little xs with eyebrow pen– cil on at least twenty different parts of her body where she wanted a touch-up. The bombadeira tried to inject silicone into these parts, but the travesti already had so much silicone in her body that no more would go in. "Bicha," the bombadeira finally cried out, "stop this. Women don't have absolutely smooth bodies. Nobody has an absolutely blemish-free body." After the talk reaffirming that "one always has to do a little touching up," the conversation moves on to silicone injections in the breasts. Keila is typical among travestis in that she has a number of liters of silicone in her lower body, but none as yet in her breasts. The vast majority of tra- vestis over twenty years of age have some silicone in their bodies, in amounts ranging from a few glasses (travestis measure silicone in liters and water glasses [copos], six of which make up a liter) to up to twenty liters. Most have between two and and five liters. The majority of travestis who have silicone, however, have it in their buttocks, hips, knees, and in- ner thighs, not in their breasts.10 This strategic placement of silicone is in direct deference to Brazilian aesthetic ideals. Throughout Brazil, the hallmark of feminine beauty is not first and foremost large breasts, as it tends to be in North America and Europe. Instead, the symbol and essence of feminine allure are fleshy thighs, ex- pansive hips, and a prominent, teardrop-shaped bunda (buttocks). The salience of the bunda in Brazilian culture is evident to even the most ca- sual visitor to the country. The conspicuous display of bundas during the annual Carnival celebrations is well known. But even during the rest of the year, bundas are omnipresent. They are displayed with great flair at beaches, where the tiny bathing-suit bottoms known throughout the country as fio dental (dental floss) cover women's genitals but nothings else. Many young women, especially when they go out to dance in the evenings — but even when they are relaxing during the day — are careful to arrange their shorts or skirt so that the bottom of their bunda is clearly visible. A gesture used by men throughout the country to express a desirable female body is to cup both hands at waist level, spread the fingers, and bounce the hands lightly up and down, as though jiggling the bottom of a bunda. Television commercials for virtually anything, it seems usually manage to include at least one shot of a woman's bunda. Viewers watching any female entertainer performing on television will be treated to repeated shots of her bunda — usually filmed from knee level, so one actually looks up her (inevitably short) dress. The credits of a popular television novela shown in the afternoon in 1996 begin and end with a shot from behind of a woman in tiny shorts bending over at the

User:Maunus said, in this edit, "I think Ephert is very clearly conducting original research by extracting information about physical attractiveness in different cultures from texts that are not about physical attractiveness but only mention local concepts of physical attractiveness in passing while discussing other topics." I do not see how what Maunus talked about in his or her quote in the previous sentence is an example of original research. Maybe Maunus can show me where such a thing is addressed in the WP:OR policy. To clarify what Maunus is talking about, Maunus is talking about me citing page 70 of Don Kulick's book Travesti: sex, gender, and culture among Brazilian transgendered prostitutes (1998), and saying since Travesti is a book about travestis and not about physical attractiveness in particular when Don Kulick talked about physical attractiveness ideals in Brazil it is inadmissible even though Don Kulick would be considered a reliable source for that information as it is within his field of research. I'll put forth an analogy in case people do not understand. It is like saying that a cultural anthropology professor who did research about prostitutes in ancient China and who wrote a book about prostitutes in ancient China could not have a page within his or her book cited for a statement about the ancient Chinese ideal of small feet known about through evidence of footbinding and other possibly textual evidence, since the main topic of his or her book is about prostitutes in ancient China and not the ancient Chinese ideal of small feet in particular even though the ancient Chinese ideal of small feet would be a topic that would be within his or her field of research. I think that closest policy I know of that sounds similar to what Maunus is saying is the policy about not being allowed to take quotes of out context to change their meaning even though that's completely different. However, I think that other people might read what User:Maunus said and think that he or she is referring to said policy about misrepresenting sources. To address this foreseeable misunderstanding, I have written down page 70 of Don Kulick's book Travesti in a box above. In the copy of page 70 above, I have highlighted the most relevant parts in yellow. These parts that are highlighted in yellow were not highlighted in yellow in the original text. A person can compare the original text of page 70 in the box above and the part I wrote which was cited to the original text in this edit to see that I did not misrepresent the source.--Ephert (talk) 05:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

It is a kind of synthesis and Original Research to find passing mentions in books that are now specifically about x topic to write about x. It is kind of the equivalent of doing a survey of primary sources. Kulick is not writing about physical attrativeness but is writing n ethnographic study of trasvesti life. He is not an expert in concepts of physical attractiveness in brazil, and cannot be expected to necessarily represent the mainstream view on that. So if we want to write about physical attractiveness in brazil we should use sources about physical attractiveness in Brazil (and there are many). I agree that it is not a clear cut violation of OR, but I think it is clearly not the way we write good articles in wikipedia to use sources in the way you are doing.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

stereotype and assumptions

Where to begin...

• Men:

1. 'Flat abdomen' There's plenty of women who are attracted to chubby men with big bellies, finding it both visually pleasant and arousing, especially those with preference for older men
2. 'Genitalia' No mention of the scrotum
3. 'Hairiness' Again, plenty of women who find men with hair visually pleasant and arousing... girls, I mean shaved men, are a product of society in the several last decades

• Women:

1. 'Genitalia' Heterosexual/bisexual men being aroused by women's genitalia isn't the same as finding it visually attractive, in fact many men don't find vulva aesthetically appealing, likely why some societies cut off the labia to make it nicer looking
2. 'Breasts' Many women regardless of self-identified orientation also find breasts of other women attractive, not sure why this is so often attributed to men alone, heterosexual women find breasts attractive aesthetically, that's not the same as liking them sexually
3. 'Buttocks' Why aren't they mentioned as part of Men's physical attractiveness? Many women like buttocks
4. 'Nose' Likewise, nice nose is very attractive on a man, ask a heterosexual woman
5. 'Eyes' Likewise, eyes are on the top of the list of what women attracts to men

89.173.151.168 (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

We should go by what the WP:Reliable sources state with WP:Due weight. These sources are usually talking about what people are typically attracted to. For example, typically, men are sexually attracted to slender women as opposed to chubby or overweight women. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, as noted before on this talk page, most of the research in this area is heteronormative. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

"Hairiness", I'm not sure why you mean that to be an insult. Men shaving their face is a result mostly of usefulness. Someone with facial hair fairs poorly when trying to don a gas mask. So the military and many public safety sectors instituted facial hair standards to adhere to that. Unless you put on a special much longer to equip gas mask than any facial hair besides a moustache would be of much less value to an individual. The hair stops the rubber from forming an airtight seal. So you would have to already be wearing a rubber or latex open face hood to put on a gas mask in the proper amount of time. Then also have the mask be effective for long periods of time. The two easiest professions I can think up that should require no facial hair is the military (where I learned to not have facial hair as an identity) and a firefighter. You must have some saline injected big balls to call the military and firemen girls. It's also not a modern phenomenon. Many Greeks and afterward more Romans thought it barbaric to have an unclean face which included grooming of the hair. In most cases shaving it off. I know not your profession but you are ill informed on the subject based on an ignorance of knowing your history. In fact there are very few true empires where Viking like facial hair was acceptable. And most giant empires in history did not grow facial hair, I don't know your heritage or where you learned history but from a lot of your comments you fail ro know your history. In another example being overweight is generally only considered attractive in societies where it equates to wealth and prestige. Not the actual fat belly itself. If you want the scrotum mentioned then I suggest you look up,research articles about it and then you can have it put in. You should be aware if you actually follow links or read the cited material it is misquoted often on Wikipedia, comes from a non reputable source like vogue or readers digest, or simply doesn't exist. If you don't like something start with the citations. Read them. Are they being authored correctly into the article. Is the subject being cited even in the cited material (a cheap trick used by people who try to muddy the waters about climate change and such is to use citations that have nothing to do with the statements they are making). They just put a citation to it because they assume (correctly) visrtually no one who isn't an academic will read the citation.

Again with your complaints about women find material you can cite and present it. Don't just complain about it and hope someone else does the work only you seem interested in.

There really isn't a list per se that you mentioned about in what women are attracted to. But you could list almost any body part and each gender will have an opinion about it. There is no top of a list for such an abstract subject. And I would change it from "what women attracts to men" to " what attracts women to a man". If you want it to sound better.

But I think you are putting too much thought into this as if this were say a math theorem or physics theory which is concrete and debatable with irrefutable data if done correctly. This subject is very abstract and not one that is as definable to study. There are no theories or math equations or proofs that can be used. A lot of the research has biases ingrained in the results that cannot be properly reduced to none or close to none. For instance using a control group and double blind study it can easily be shown if a medicine works and if it has side effects and if those side effects are really significant when you read how many of the control group members also got the side effect (usually not many side effects differ a whole lot). You'll find a few side effects that greatly differ but otherwise they have to be mentioned simply because they had shown up but likely had nothing to do with the medicine. But you can show all this with statistics and the fact that all subjects were unbiased. Double blind means the patient and the treating group do not know which is real or fake. There is simply no experiment one can set up to research this topic without removing most or all bias. Researchers can throw numbers around but many times the numbers change depending on who does the experiment. It also goes by an abstract scale of asking people to rate attractiveness and then post hoc try to make theories and measuremnrts. But the whole point is any experiment uses abstract data. Meaning there was no measurement device that could define units of beauty and use that to make measurements. It's often done by asking participants to rate a feature on a scale. Say rate this on a scale from one to ten. With the only definition being 1is the least attractive and 10 is the most. But not really defining it beyond that.

Where if I came up with a pain scale from 1 to 10 it would still be abstract but I could make it less so by stating a painful event for each number. Like 10 is you are on fire. Even then I will see people walking around and talking calmly but say their pain is a 10. I then ask them if they have ever seen a person on fire. If not to look it up. Come back when you see how a person on fire behaves. A 5 could be I got hit by a pitch in baseball only the pain is constant. The more a scale can be defined the better the results will become and the less bias is in the work. Unfortunately how do you rate a scale of beauty. If you say what a 10 is to someone then you already just influenced and biased the research by telling them what beauty is. So any scale you use has to be intentionally vague. But a vague scale then leads to the likely result that what I consider to be a 4 you might consider to be a 5 making any numbers obtained less meaningupfuk since there is no standard to go by on which most reasonable people could agree.. So it's a catch 22. I won't argue about physical attractiveness and sexual arousal. I can find a dog to be something beautiful but if course I'm not aroused by one. I love German shepherds but not sexually. How this article is suppose to deal with that issue I really didn't read enough of it to know what the goal was. But the outset seemed to set up sexual attractiveness but only using physical traits. That was my take on the purpose of the article. It did not outright state it which I will give you that. However it was implied in several ways that the physical attraction is one of a sexual nature. But implying something that should be stated outright is poor authorship that I can't help you with. But yes there is a difference.2601:8D:8800:A032:D9BF:AAA0:EC69:FD76 (talk) 06:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)a

I was incorrrect. The author does distinctly say what the article is about. Only the author states it could be about both. Which is worse then saying nothing at all or at least implying one or the other.2601:8D:8800:A032:D9BF:AAA0:EC69:FD76 (talk) 06:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Manga image of young girl

I removed the image of "Wikipe-tan" but an IP editor reverted me twice and suggested I take it to the talk page, so I am doing so.

I want to remove this image because:

1. It is highly inappropriate for Wikipedia to use an image of a fictional child - or an image that looks like it is depicting a child, at any rate - to illustrate physical attractiveness. We can of course illustrate the concept of neotenous facial features on adults - a concept that is discussed already in the text - without using images of children.
2. One of the sources cited in the image caption is a blog, which is not a reliable source.
3. The other source cited, a book of cultural criticism about anime films, does not actually verify the claims made in the caption - there is no mention of "neoteny", "large eyes" etc. in the entire book (which is available online as a PDF, so I was able to search for those exact phrases in it).
4. The warning that appears when anyone edits the article states that images of people must have reliable sources to indicate they have been notably referred to as physically attractive. But the caption does not even make this claim about this specific image. It is pure WP:SYNTH.

In summary, both this image and its caption should removed due to being inappropriate, WP:OR and in particular WP:SYNTH.--greenrd (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree - in particular the attractiveness of "neoteny" is only partly, if at all, sexual, which is what this article is mainly about. Hence puppies, kittens, and other animal favourites. Johnbod (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree.. Your primary argument is it isn't appropriate for the article which is highly up for debate and two people do not a consesnsus make. Your other two complaints stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fangrim (talk • contribs) 02:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. This is not an image of a young girl. This is an image of wikipe-tan. Person who removed this is batshit crazy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan More, the image is there to describe a category of physical attractiveness. 2001:558:6025:75:6168:955F:54A1:6CB9 (talk) 06:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

No personal attacks please. Also, Wikipe-tan is a young girl, and appears to be under 18 in this image.--greenrd (talk) 08:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

She is not a young girl, she's a drawing. 206.41.25.114 (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

... of a young girl. Marteau (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

You can't be serious. That most certainly is a representation of a young girl and its usage as an example of features men desire is completely inappropriate and unsourced. Marteau (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Jimbo had it right in 2007. Just no. [1] --DHeyward (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how that image improves the article. And if its caption is WP:OR, it certainly should stay removed. Ephert, did you add that image, like you added most of the other images? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: I looked through previous versions of this article to try to find the first instance of that image of Wikipe-tan, and I think that I tracked down the first instance of that image. I think that User:Anddme was the editor who first added it to this article in this edit on December 16, 2015. I added a different anime image about a bishōnen in this edit on May 1, 2011, and I used The Encyclopedia of Contemporary Japanese Culture as a reference for the inclusion of a drawing of a bishōnen for that edit on May 1, 2011. The quote located on page 45 in The Encyclopedia of Contemporary Japanese Culture which is relevant for the inclusion of a bishōnen drawing is, "Literally 'beautiful boys', bishōnen refers most directly to a style of depiction of male characters in manga for adolescent girls. Bishōnen are uniformly svelte, with enormous eyes and features recognisably male, but nearly as delicate and beautiful as those of the depiction of female characters. Bishōnen narratives often involve a homo-erotic romance between these beautiful young men." I think you may be recalling this other anime image that I added, because they are both anime images.--Ephert (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I wasn't recalling anything, though. My memory is usually very good, but I wasn't sure who added that image. I asked if you added it because you've added most of the images and image captions in this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Physical attractiveness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140630103616/http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hbe-lab/acrobatfiles/preferred%20waist.pdf to http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hbe-lab/acrobatfiles/preferred%20waist.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140601070431/http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hbe-lab/acrobatfiles/profilewhr.pdf to http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hbe-lab/acrobatfiles/profilewhr.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is a nightmare

There is no solution to fixing this article except totally tearing it down and building it up from scratch. It is an absolute mess: politically, socially, structurally, scientifically.Nmwe5j58 (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Nmwe5j58, I see that you are advocating for WP:TNT. You have to give guideline or policy-based reasons for your argument, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

facial beauty

we need a separate article for facial beauty. All of these qualities are wonderful but after it's all said and done we are attracted to a beautiful face.i learned nothing about what makes a face beautiful except symmetry. the words "symmetry" and "symmetrical" appear over 65 times in this article which is frankly absurd. symmetrical faces be ugly and asymmetrical faces can be good looking.. why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8780:5D0:3D90:E931:61DA:83CC (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

OkCupid and Coffee Meets Bagel material

As seen here and here, I twice reverted the following addition by WikiManStan (talk · contribs):

___

Data from OkCupid has show that men tended to not be attracted to African American women, but other wise had little racial preference. Women first preferred their own race, but had white men as a second place (except for white women who had white men as their number one preference). A study from Coffee Meets Bagel shows that Asian women prefer White men more than White men prefer Asian women.

References

___

I reverted because this data comes from the OkCupid and Coffee Meets Bagel dating site blogs and the text generalizes the preferences of white men, white women and Asian women. These are not encyclopedic sources in any way, and, per WP:Reliable sources, blogs are typically not the type of sources we should be including (unless it's a news blog, which still has exceptions). As for the other OkCupid material in the article, I don't agree with it being included either, but it is at least tailored to the OkCupid site and is not written in a way that seems to be suggesting that men and women are that way in general. Pinging Maunus, Greenrd, Johnbod and Zefr for their thoughts on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. These are not secondary sources suitable for an encyclopedia per WP:SOURCETYPES. To be 'secondary', they would have to be part of an analysis by another source, such as a social science publication, a scholarly book or news outlet. --Zefr (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Sexual vs non sexual attractiveness

I think a great deal of confusion could be set aside if this were split into two articles. One focusing on sexual arousal and physical attractiveness and the other focusing specifically on just physical attractiveness that is not intended for purposes of sexual arousal. Then make a link to the page specifically about sexual attractiveness to lead people who are looking just for that.

Or at lesst make an article focused specifically on sexual attraction and have a link to it. But this new article should deal with specific adult man and adult women sexual attractions (heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise). And not deal with fetishes or mental illnesses which lead to inappropriate sexual attractiveness of others such as children. That would be my recommendation to kind of clean the article up. In so far as people could no longer argue about other forms of attraction that don't involve defined body parts and whether sexual arousal is necessary.2601:8D:8800:A032:D9BF:AAA0:EC69:FD76 (talk) 07:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)