Talk:Face/Archive 1

Anatomy Concerns

. What, specifically, seems to be the problem? The anatomy terms? --ScottEllsworth 08:03, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is need for quality - Rock 17:17, 23 Aug 2012 (UTC)

This is just a test run for a research Rock 05:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Facial surgery is a simple procedure that can be completed with as little as a butter knife and some towels.

uhm, what?..removed unless someone can explain this. InformationOverload 20:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Anatomy Concerns

Someone marked this as too technical. What, specifically, seems to be the problem? The anatomy terms? --ScottEllsworth 08:03, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

it's not understandable by someone unfamiliar with all this technical stuff. "it runs a tortuous course to near the angle of the mouth" that's only one example - Stoph 06:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That has to be the single creepiest illustration on all Wikipedia. Philwelch 05:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anatomy

I have added two diagrams to help other readers and editors of this article understand the anatomy terms and the general anatomy of the face. I have also added other information, and am quite encouraged to work on this article over the next few weeks to prepare it for featured article status. I think it deserves to win its current COTW nomination. Wackymacs 20:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Face Size

I'd like to see some information about average human face size ( width and height ). I looked all over the internet for the information and couldn't find it. It's not in the head or skull article either.

Why are there only female faces?

Seems not quite right...

I'll go a step further: why are there only white, female faces? And why do we need three of them? Dyfsunctional 17:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

there aren't only white female's faces. I even went so far as to add a smiley faceHostile Hams 22:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Davelaw 00 has decided to vandalize this page and I'm going to fix it. I don't know how to report people for that or whatever, so the most i can do is fix it.

--CCPT 03:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I've renamed this section of the talk page. I also think a link to something as weird and obscure as "Chinface" on the "Face" page is inappropriate (bordering on vandalism itself), so I'm removing it. gohlkus (talk) 06:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

anatomy term

whats the thing called between your nose and your upper lip? the little concave vertical strip? could this be included? - Jack (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's called a philtrum.--Tregonsee 23:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Health section

The health section say that you use soap when clean face. Is it true? Should you use soap to clean face? What kind of soap? should it be perfume free? should it have pH value? what about alcohol solutions?

Desmond Tutu

Why is Desmond Tutu's face here?

I have the same question. Looks like someone wanted a black guy's face, but why use that of a well-known figure? It's distracting. 70.21.236.100 04:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I would not say he has a typical face. and no, that's not because he is black...

Face and emotion

I'd like to see a section on the importance of the face in body language and displays of emotion, such as facial expressions...--Tiberius47 07:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup?

It's my opinion that this article is quite badly written, but I don't want to just barge in and label it as needing cleanup, so I'm expressing my opinion here. Perhaps someone with more "authority" (i.e. a more experienced, active contributor) might want to add it to a Project or something? 3DS Mike

More Vandalism

"CCHHEESSEE" I'm not sure what the full version of this article consisted of. It should be revised and watched.

Question on the Face

I've heard of rings developing on the face under the eyes. Usually it happens by not enough sleep, but one of my friends has had this since the day he was born. Is this unusual? Also what would be the name of developing rings under your eyes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.183.185.108 (talk) 01:18, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

i think this is not good...

The face has widely been seen as a right of power and precision. If your face has strong features such as a prominent chin and high cheekbones, you presence would most likely command respect.

In some countries 'face' can also be a form of offence toward other peer members. It's used a short term for saying that one's face is unsightly in public and may cause pupil dilatation and hostile activities within the surrounding area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.211.53 (talk) 11:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Stubes

My godness this article is small, make more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.1.106.16 (talk) 09:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me say something

That picture of the woman's head which is going to be deleted, can I please add it in this article? Fangusu (talk) 07:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted your image change. It does not make sense to replace a practically universally recognized work of art with a poor quality image of some random woman. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 06:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Asian Psychology Face

I am having a difficult time understanding the term in psychology called "face", mostly dealing with Asian cultures where pride, honor, embarassment and such are included in the topic. Could someone please contribute to this, or let me know where to find this information? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LanguageSLO (talk • contribs) 17:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Face (sociological concept) is the article you're looking for. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 00:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The mona lisa

It makes no sense to have a the mona lisa there as an example of a human face. Yes it's a great work of art, but it's not an actual human face. A photograph would be much better. Preferably a man and a woman.--Veggieburgerfish (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I see a practical reason for keeping the Mona Lisa there. In a number of articles from "boy" and "girl" all the way to "breast" and "buttocks", I've noticed that some users interpret the presence of real-life photos as an invitation to add their own, regardless of the new photo's quality or a pre-existing excess of images, and even remove higher quality photos entirely to replace with their own. While this is certainly not a reason to categorically prefer non-photographic representations, it creates a big enough headache to continually revert an article that in my opinion, there would have to be a significant increase in quality to the article for it to be worth making a change in an article like this that does not already use a photo. The Mona Lisa is a highly recognizable and by and large realistic portrayal of a human face. If it was a Picasso painting or something I would see how a photo would be an improvement, but I don't see a problem with the Mona Lisa. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 21:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I dont see why we have the Mona Lisa posted for the human face, being that she is only a painting. I came to this artical while studying the face, and I expected there to be some well done phtotgraphs of real faces and features. Instead, I got a painting and a racoon. The page needs some work. I understand that having real faces invites people to fill the page with there own faces, but we need a real face of at least 2 different animals and a man and a womans face (no photoshop). --User:azcolvin429 ^{(User_talk:azcolvin)} 6:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that having some high-quality photographs showing an educationally informative variety would be of great benefit to the article. If you have access to any, and they're acceptable per the Wikipedia:Copyright policies, then feel free to add some! --Icarus ^(Hi!) 02:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

On this topic (of appropriate images), I'll put aside the Mona Lisa for now; either the article is about human faces, and the raccoon and dog should be removed, or it is about faces in general, in which case a "cute and cuddly" mammal-centric approach is equally inappropriate. Why raccoon and dog? Why not a reptile? Amphibian? Bird? Do these not have faces? I motion to delete the dog and raccoon and just have representative human faces, preferably one male and one female. Glacialfury (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the raccoon and dog. They don't have much relevance to the article, and resulted in weird formatting. I agree that representative faces of a male and a female would be useful. I suggest that they ought to be high quality and not just cropped from personal photographs, however, as it's very annoying when dozens of people see photos of people and interpret that as an invitation to add their own personal photos. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 20:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that having Mona Lisa as the main picture is rather silly. There's plenty of Wikipedians around here; I'm sure someone could provide a picture of one's face. --Newimagekirby (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Expand tagging

The content of this article is at an optimum of economy which its history over some time shows has been maintained by many editors. Unless there is a cogent argument for expansion beyond that, the tag should be removed. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 03:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This article could have a bit more information, as could any other page, but i have seen sections with one or two sentences, cheers Frozen4322 (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

So that's the response/argument, "every article could have a bit more information, as could any other page"? What an imbecile pronouncement. Lycurgus (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well how about this, this page is short, what else can we put on it.Frozen4322 (talk) 02:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Protection

I'm afraid this body part will have to join Breast, Penis, and Vagina and be permanently protected as threads above and the history indicate.Lycurgus (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Fallacious Etymology, et. al.

removed

The word 'face' is a translation of Prosopon, an old Biblical concept. However, face and prosopon do not include the same anatomical boundaries (prosopon often refers to the full front of the body). It can be prudently concluded that it is cultural rather than biological criteria that determine how face is defined in our own time. (Reference: Berrios G E (2002). The Face in Medicine and Psychology: A Conceptual History. In M. Katsikitis (Ed), The Human Face: Measurement and Meaning (pp. 49-62). Boston, Kluwer Academic Publishers.)

For the following reasons. First, the English word "face" is not derived from the greek word given as is apparent and OED gives the etymology from the similar sounding Latin. Second, it states an absurdity: that the face (or what the word refers to) is something culturally determined in modern times. Obviously every human culture with language would have an expression for the face. Finally, the language "prudently concluded" is inappropriate for WP. Lycurgus (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, it would appear that this editor is giving himself or his father as a reference and editing his own article, that or he has taken a user name "GEB" which matches G. E. Berrios, q.v. as there is at least an appearance of irregularity there. Lycurgus (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Kind reply to the above comments:

I am GEB11. Please, before removing statements that are based on years of research, do consult the published literature. What I added is not an etymological claim (believe me, I am aware of the Latin origin of the word 'face') but a conceptual one. The Latin term face is, in fact, a direct translation (not transliteration) of prosopon. The point I was trying to make goes beyond the claim that "Obviously every human culture with language would have an expression for the face" and hence is not an 'absurdity'. Such comments seem uncalled for.

The point I was trying to make is intracultural, i.e. it concerns the way in which the boundaries of the face have been established WITHIN the English-speaking World. In fact, the very OED entry you quote shows how complicated it has been to decide what parts of the face should be included in the definition. For example, we have good evidence that since the 14th century the forehead has been included and excluded repeatedly from it! Our work in Cambridge shows that it is only since the 1650s that most dictionary writers decided to define the face in the way that we recognize it nowadays, and that this was influenced not by biological data but by the way in which exegesis of the Biblical concept of Prosopon changed in the transition from the Cromwellian Commonwealth to the English Restoration. It is these historical facts that provide the foundation for my prudent claim that in the English-speaking West the boundaries of the face were determined on 'cultural' rather then 'biological' criteria.

So, all I am asking of you, Sir, is to read up on this issue. If after doing so you still feel sure about your views, might it be possible to seek conceptual arbitration or refereeing from a higher level of WP?

I should also like to add that you are right, and that the reference in question is mine. I included it because is the only one I know that lists the relevant primary literature on the subject. If you know of another work that does that, or if you yourself have published on this subject, please feel free to replace it.

My email is geb11@cam.ac.uk. Please feel free to write so that we can reach an amicable conclusion. All we should be aiming for is write an entry on the face that is scholarly and useful to the readers of WP.

Professor G.E. Berrios University of Cambridge, UK —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geb11 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

---

If the main point is that the definition of "face" (specifically, which parts of the head are part of the face) has changed slightly across time and place, then there must be a far less cumbersome wording than that which Geb11 wrote. It is also a concern that Geb11 himself wrote the source he is citing. This is not a direct violation of WP:OR as it appears to have been published elsewhere, but WP:COI is still relevant. Such information should, therefore, have a different or additional source.

In Geb11's original wording, the concept is rather confusing. Insofar as this "prosopon" concept is relevant, it needs to be briefly defined and the relevance needs to be explained in a way that is comprehensible to those who have not already done a great deal of research on the subject. It also appears to me prosopon as a concept and the question of the face's definition across time and place be more relevant to a new section than to the article's introduction. A section called "The face in human culture" or something, perhaps, which could also briefly address the Asian concept of "face" as someone asked about some time ago on this talk page. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 04:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)