Talk:Adorant from the Geißenklösterle cave

Name

This object is referred to by multiple secondary sources as the "Adorant from Geißenklösterle" or "Adorant from the Geißenklösterle cave". The museum that holds this object uses adorant to refer to the object [1]. UNESCO uses Adorant from Geißenklösterle[2] to refer to the object in English. The object is also referred to by multiple sources, including several secondary sources, in English as Adorant from the Geißenklösterle cave[3] or Adorant [4]. The name possibly being a misnomer or being uncommon in English is irrevelant - there's good evidence that multiple sources use the term "Adorant", in various forms, to refer to this object. Fraenir (talk) 04:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

None of these sources is by a native-speaker. One of the sad consequences of being the world's dominant language is that all sorts of people think they speak English better than they do. UNESCO is a regular offender here, and no RS for English usage. It is noticeable that the Oxford book refuses to mention the word. Johnbod (talk) 04:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Let's sum it up a bit: Speaking the world's dominant language makes language imperialists. And makes Johnboy think he is able to think better than he does. And makes him think of the "Oxford book" (terminus technicus!) it is the Holy Writ (although a Frenchman wrote the article on figurines ).Mr. bobby (talk) 07:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Mr Bobby informs me, in a torrent of abuse I've had to remove per policy, that the OUP entry was written by a Frenchman. This rather proves my point, surely? Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Mr. bobby, I don't mind what this article is called, but can I just say that on this and other pages you are coming across as very aggressive and uncooperative. Please remember that we are all here to improve the encyclopaedia. Your recent work on Venus-related articles is much appreciated, and if you work with Johnbod to reach a consensus rather than reverting his changes, you will be able to get back to it much more quickly. – Joe (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Wow, a good one-sided view! When Johnbod reverts my contribution he comments "rvt - nonsense" (see history of Venus figuirnes). Although he finally has to admid that he (not me) used undergraduate literature. Johnbod moves articles I started, although other WP-users confirmed the English version of a name I chose (Johnbad has a problem with "Adorant"). He comments ad hominem and so on. So look at his behavior, too. Mr. bobby (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

You don't use any sources, because you never add anything, just remove things. Johnbod (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

These were articles I created. With sources, pics, knowledge. Mr. bobby (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

You have created a few stubs, but mostly you remove stuff from long-established articles. Johnbod (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

"because you never add anything" and "You have created a few stubs" - shows the quality of your thinking. Mr. bobby (talk) 09:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Maybe i can help calm you guys down a bit by again focusing on the initial subject. I am a German native speaker. The term Adorant is most certainly a scholarly word and/or has its origin in religious terminology. I have actually never heard it before as has probably 99 percent of the population. Anyone who speaks Latin, English or a Romanic language should be able to deduce its meaning somehow, though. maybe there exists a similar term in English religious tradition. All the best Wikirictor 10:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, getting back on topic then. Adorant is an English word, albeit a very uncommon one, and as you say anyone who speaks a Latin-influenced language can figure out the meaning easily enough. I think the more substantial issue is that German archaeologists are more willing to attach interpretations like adorant/worshipper to artefacts that their Anglophone colleagues, who prefer to stick to more purely descriptive terminology (e.g. "figurine"). However since the majority of secondary sources seem to adopt the "Adorant" terminology, and Farbstein doesn't really call it anything definite, I think we have to stick with that. – Joe (talk) 11:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I adore all these contributions here, dealing with the artificial problem of a single guy. Mr. bobby (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Figurine, reliefs, and venuses

Hello Mr. bobby,

I am the one who you disagreed with over adding the "Venus figurines" menu to the bottom of this page. I have no expectations that you will change your mind, and I am not interested in edit warring about it, but I did wish to share why I added it.

Of course, your are right that a "figurine" by definition is technically not a "relief", nor vice versa. However, they are both three dimenstional representations, and there are many figures that are flattened or maybe are figures but have parts integrated into a larger background. Yes, there is a dividing line, but not all objects are fully black or fully white.

The reason I even found the adorant and got to see it was that I stumbled across that figurine menu which had the adorant on it! Otherwise, I would have missed it (which you may not have minded, :-) but I would have!) I would imagine the reason the person added it in the first place is that although a figurine is not a relief, they are both *figural*, and if someone is interested in really old Venus 3d depictions then they might want to see things that are similar if not precisely the same.

Finally, if we want to be fechnically correct, we could change the menu title to reflect figural representations of Venuses, or to say "figurines and reliefs". In general, I believe in being sort of "inclusive" side with related information in Wikipedia (as long as it is not overwhelmingly so); I think there is some general guideline about trying to keep information that has been added to a page, but, of course, interpreting that guideline is subjective, and I am not up to finding the guideline tonight anyway.

I apologize if I was not polite in my first response; I have in the past had edits that I have made that have taken a lot of work (not this one, obviously) which take a lot of work reverted because the person didn't carefully evaluate what I was trying to do, or deleted an edit with a lot of work in it for one tiny reason. I of course find this very frustrating.

I do appreciate your adding Venus Figurines to the See Also section of the page – that helps people get around and find the good stuff!

The adorant is rather subtle. Is there a particular reason you are interested in her? I was hoping she would be more detailed when I clicked on the link. Peacedance (talk) 01:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

well, i am not so inclusive, especially when categories are logically not consisting each other. the adorant is a relief, hardly 3d, in a a certain way also 2d. a figurine is a sculpture, completely 3d, many times with no special side to look at it. this is completely different from a relief. there are several paleolithic reliefs, which are also important pieces oft art and could be grouped together with the adorant.

the mentioning of the adorant in the venus figurines template is also a mistake and should be corrected.

by the way: the article on „venus figurines“ now is changed in an „inclusive way“, showing not only paleolithic figurines (statuetttes) but also bronze age figuries, allegedly showing the same features as the paleolithic ones. to me such inclusivity leads to nowhere. consequently, a sculpture of a today’s school kid might be called „venus figurine“. the whole article once had a clear demarcation (epoch), now it has not. (sometimes inclusivity is uselful, and sometime ist is really not.)

i am interested in all these depictions of women and men. so i started the article of the adorant.

"figural" means depicting a natural object (in opposition to abstract shemes or patters or similar charceteristics). both, figurines and reliefs are figural, but require really different artistic handling: a relief is smilar to drawing (with more power in the hands) choosing ONE perspective, a sculpture needs thinking about the whole object in all possible perspectives. Mr. bobby (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

PS: of course there are reliefs which come near to a sculpture. but i would not think that the adorant is such an almost-sculpture...Mr. bobby (talk) 09:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Picture

If I may offer a suggestion, you might want to provide the reader with more than one picture. I know you added a link at the bottom, but the reader may not click the actual link. Overall, your details were precise, and your article was an easy read Hkeenan01 (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)