Talk:Gynoid/Archive 1

Merge with Androids

I know this is a fairly lengthy article, but it seems logical that it should be a subcategory of the [android] article, as though, technically, android refers to male, it is commonly used as a gender neutral term and the Greek root may have been used as such. It seems strange, like having one page for female dogs and another for males.... Comments? Chris Shanks 09:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Male and female dogs reproduce by sexual means. Androids don't. Mad scientists (and a host of others) create female androids, that is gynoids for very specific reasons. In organic species with sexual reproduction a male or female is born by the luck of the draw, so to speak. With a gynoid, the author of the book/script/short story is giving a very specific message. That is what makes them so special and worth a separate article. The article is already long and will get even longer. The list is just starting to cover gynoids in classical SF. There are a lot more. And the discussion of the nature of gynoids in fiction could easily be several paragraphs long. There are reams of material on this in feminist studies of science fiction literature. Instead of being merged with android this article should eventually be split in two with one article for the commented list and one article discussing gynoids per se. --AlainV 02:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with AlainV. I think that if a gynoid is used in a fictionous work, it is because the story _needs_ a gynoid. For example, a common purpose of gynoids in SF to replace women in an all-male community, doing various tasks, and accompany men. So I think that this article shouldn't be merged with androids. It's a nice article alone, as SF (and anime) fans can read about female androids. Describing each gynoid is a good idea too. --Rev-san 17:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The article should stand alone. Merging it with "android" is innapropriate because there is a distinctive history, esthetic, etc. that inheres in the gynoid concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.232.37 (talk • contribs)

Yes, yes, a distinctive history and aesthetic... which was just invented a couple years ago by a still-living science fiction author. You fucking twit. --76.209.48.85 06:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with AlainV, Rev-san: the two articles, dealing with unique subjects with voluminous source matter, should remain separate. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No merge, as per E Pluribus Anthony, AlainV, and Rev-san. 66.229.160.94 08:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge, instead, into Fembot

While this is the superior article IMNVHO, I suspect that fembot is the more widely circulated word for this specific phenomenon, and outscores gynoid on Google by more than 3:1. Smerdis of Tlön 14:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge but from Fembot to Gynoid. Gynoid is the more formal and proper term; fembot is the newer and less serious term. I don't know how much more simple to make it: I'm shocked beyond words that anyone would consider putting a classical Greek-based term under an obnoxious comedy-based term. The fact that "fembot" is more circulated than "gynoid" is immaterial, it only goes to show that as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should do the right thing in making the proper term more known to the idiotic masses. I cannot stress enough how wrong it is to put "gynoid" under "fembot", no matter what the vapid majority of the public thinks. Beyond that, the "gynoid" article has far more references, has more information, and has 5 times more articles linking to it. It also has 3 equivalent articles in 3 different Wikis; "fembot" has none. 66.229.160.94 08:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Popular terms such as fembot will appear and disappear. There might be a ref from the term fembot to the gynoid article, and some elementsfrom the fembot article could be brought into the gynoid article, but no more. --AlainV 19:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If the article is correct, "gynoid" is not an older word than "fembot" since Gwyneth Jones was first published in 1977. It is also significantly less popular. That it is composed of Greek roots rather than Latin and Slavic ones is not an argument in its favor. It also loses a Googlefight by a ratio of more than 60:1. 68.36.34.173 03:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Fembot is a trademarked word used under license in the "Austin Powers" movies. Check the credits of those movies.

The word "gynoid" was invented for specific fictional purposes. The word "fembot" is established and in the Oxford English Dictionary (first quotation 1976). The article needs to be rewritten, renamed "Fembot", and have a (short) reference to the usage "gynoid". Unfortunately someone seems to have replaced a lot of references to robots with female attributes with this invented word, making WP seem like a teenage SF fan forum instead of an encyclopaedia. DavidCh0 (talk) 09:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

List of fictional gynoids

This list is becoming a bit too long to navigate. Can something be done about it? --Steerpike 11:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The classic is to put it in alphabetical order. I got caught at this game once and am not going through it again. I put one of the Web comics list in alpha order, all by myself one day and a few days later they decided to eliminate it! --AlainV 01:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be wise to sort the list entries with names, and then put the misc entries at the end. --Rev-san 16:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the list now includes some duplicate entries, likely due to its being too unwieldy. Perhaps those entries representing characters from the same work should be combined, and the resulting list sorted by title of work. ---Bersl2 01:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The list of fictional gynoids is now organised by media category and alphabetically. Robotman1974 12:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the list should at least be cleared of all non-gynoids. Sure, the description says "or cyborgs with a female appearance", but why? This is Gynoid, not Cyborg or Female Cyborg. --193.11.177.69 01:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to this being done, as long as the entire list is sifted through to remove cyborg entries. However, I think some criteria have to be established for the categories first. For example, what constitutes the difference between gynoid and cyborg? Are the characters in Blade Runner considered gynoids because they have artificial consciousness or are they cyborgs because of their biological construction? Robotman1974 10:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

We are unlikely to come up with a perfect solution to this nebulous philosophical dilemma. I propose that we treat the Blade Runner replicants as gynoids, because that is how they are viewed from the movie’s (mostly) and that society’s perspective. Also, in my view a cyborg is something natural that has something artificial added to it after the fact that is not part of it otherwise. But yeah, we are never going to be able to establish a definition to satisfy everyone. --193.11.177.69 14:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Motoko Kusangi is NOT a gynoid. The character is a cyborg... she was human girl who experianced a horrific accident and as such, had her body replaced. Her brain is still biological, and she IS human, IE Cyborg. Trying to find a better, well known, example of a destructive gynoid in a setting where they're common for the article. Best i can come up with is Miyu from Mai-HiME (My-Hime)128.104.45.240 21:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Buck Rogers

I seem to recall at least 1, if not several, female robots in the 1980s Buck Rogers TV series. I'm pretty sure that Twiki had a female companion. --Booch 21:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

role in fiction

I have tried to get started on why storytellers put specifically female robots into stories. There is more to say, I am sure. There should be overlap with Women in science fiction (though that article also needs attention) for example, have the roles given to gynoids altered in line wiht human female characters going from being sex symbols who need endless rescuing to being (at least sometimes) stronger characters with their own agenda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.139.214 (talk • contribs) Sorry! that last post and edit was mine, and I have just realised that I forgot to sign in ! ChrisBaker 09:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Split. Robotman1974 09:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Split to List of fictional gynoids and female cyborgs

I propose that the lengthy list in this article be moved to a page of its own. Robotman1974 14:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Support. This list will only get larger in the future. Similar lists for fictional characters exist, ie. List of fictional robots and Cyborgs in fiction. Robotman1974 14:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support seems like a sensible idea. IMO the list is fine as it is now, but lists like this are always continously growing. So we may as well just split it now. However, i tihnk just a List of fictional gynoids is fine. Fembots are a subset of gynoids (which is why the merge happened), i don't think we need the "and female cyborgs" behind it. Gynoid itself doesn't imply 'male'. --`/aksha 02:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

There has been some discussion before about whether or not this list should include fictional female cyborgs. It has included them since before I began working on the list, but I am open to having those cyborg entries removed as long as it is done according to consistent rules. That brings up other problems. First, what are the exact criteria that distinguish a gynoid from a cyborg? I mentioned the example of the synthetic bio-androids of Blade Runner before. Are they considered androids/gynoids because they were never real humans, or are they considered cyborgs due to their biological makeup? Second, I don't know enough about most of the entries here to say with certainty if they are gynoids or cyborgs. Sometimes that issue is also left purposefully unclear within the fictional works, so I think it would be impossible to consistently separate the two types according to set rules. To be totally accurate, each contentious entry would have to be discussed on the talk page until a consensus was reached. Because of these types of ambiguity, I personally think the list should be left the way it is, with the cyborg entries remaining. Robotman1974 15:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Move to List of fictional gynoids and female cyborgs is complete. Robotman1974 06:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Fembot mentioned in Frank Zappa's "Joe's Garage" rock opera. The tune concerning a wet t-shirt night a dance and entertainment establishment is entitled, 'Fembot in a Wet T-Shirt."210.153.95.1 04:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Term created by-?

The late Isaac Asimov claimed (in an editorial) that he invented the term. When exactly was it created? 193.122.47.162 10:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Could someone add pronunciation to the article? Should it be gai-noid or jai-noid? Antisora 13:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek

Although a separate list article exists, I think it's important to mention the predominant SF franchise, Star Trek, as featuring gynoids on several occasions (i.e. Ilia, Lal, Mudd's androids and Korby's companion), so I have added the reference here. 23skidoo (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Unmerge!

I came to read about "Gynoid" and instead I get a wall of text of crap that I'm not intersted in. You people get waaaaaaay to merge happy. I think most of this should be moved to a seperate article. --IceHunter (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

WHEN did Gwyneth Jones invent Gynoid?

I came to read about this word, and about the only thing on topic is an interjected line about how Gwyneth Jones invented the word - but WHEN did she do this? Why did she do this? Nobody really knows? That would have been interesting, not that there is a "fembot" in Terminator 3. --IceHunter (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree; as it is written, this is just a list of movie and TV scenes with spoilers attached. Paxsimius (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

She didn't. Hajime Sorayama published a book with evolutions on his "Sexy Robots" theme under the title "The Gynoids" in ~1993.

Not to worry, that claim was deleted some time ago. As no one can find sources, now no-one gets the credit for coining the term.Yobmod (talk) 09:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The TX character - android or gynoid?

I'm after opinion on whether it's appropriate to refer to Kristanna Loken's portrayal as the Terminatrix - or TX - in the movie Terminator 3 as being that of a gynoid. It’s obvious the TX is not a cyborg (as compared to the T-800/T-850 character played by Schwarzenegger), since this robot contains no organic components - it only resembles a person. Also, it’s clear that the TX can mimic both human males and females. But with regard to Loken’s portrayal, this is a robot that has female-likeness.

Accepting that (1) the word ‘android’ derives from the Greek andr-, meaning "man, male", and the suffix -eides, used to mean "of the species; alike", and (2) that the word ‘gynoid’ is a term used to describe a robot designed to look like a human female, I would suggest that in this context the TX is a gynoid.

Now, while the Wikipedia article on the TX states that “The T-X, nicknamed the "Terminatrix", is a fictional gynoid assassin”, the fact is that there is some opposition to the article on Loken herself as referring to her TX role in terms of being a gynoid. There are plenty of on-line articles which clearly and categorically state Loken plays a gynoid - including, for example: http://www.celebrityindex.com/Kristanna_Loken/biography.html, http://www.chickipedia.com/kristanna-loken/, http://www.pxdrive.com/album/KRISTANNA+LOKEN_pictures_grgspic/, http://www.celebrityshack.com/view/celebrities/female/Kristanna-Loken/, and http://www.americola.com/sites/Kristanna+Loken/.

Notwithstanding these references, nor the etymology of the word gynoid, or its useful applicability in this context, opposition remains. Any opinions are welcome - both on this discussion page and on the one about Loken. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Reading what you say, and looking at both sides of the debate, yes Id have to agree the TX is a gynoid. However, that would be us inferring the term upon her - and not using the term applied in the film. In Terminator 3 the TX is called neither an android or a gynoid. She is only indirectly defined - as a cybernetic organism. While this term seems wrong, it is what the film makers call her - so maybe we should to. I understand why shes not really a cyborg (but then she doesnt really exist either). She ought to be called a gynoid, but since the film dont say that she should be cited as a cybernetic organism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.16.61.77 (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The THX just happeded to look like a female for some part of the film. It could also look like a man: It's arbitary. It certainly didn't seem to claim a female gender. shouldn't it be a trans-roid? Of course, just sticking with film description or RS works best. and is RSs disagree, then discuss this in the article.Yobmod (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Gender symbol is real?

Is the diamond-topped gender symbol real? As in taken from somewhere, whether it be fictional or non-fiction? It doesn't appear in gender symbol, and I'm concerned about whether it is made up or not. Splash - tk 22:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It's made up, its original art. as long as we don't claim it to be "real", i think that's allowed. Art isn't research, no? Just made the caption clear.Yobmod (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I like it, but I'm uncomfortable with it in Wikipedic terms. I think it should not be in the article if it is original thought. It runs counter to an encyclopedia being a tertiary source: reporting what others have reported that others say. I don't think a caption that says "warning: this symbol is made up" really fixes the problem, unfortunately. After all, WP:OR does include "original ideas" in its opening sentence. In particular, at WP:OR#Original images, it is made fairly clear that unpublished ideas are not a good fit. Splash - tk 22:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen imaginary gender symbols around (which we cant use cos of copyright), so the idea isn't original, but have nothing to support the caption yet. Would a reference sayinf something similar to the caption, along with "artists rendition of..." work? All published examples would be copyrighted. As nothing in the article is cited at the moment, i think it's not so urgent yet. I'll look for sources.Yobmod (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit-conflict)You would probably be able to make a fair-use claim along the lines of Template:Non-free logo for such a published thing, though I'd suggest not using ones off forums or blogs or the like (they are not reliable sources). Your point about references more generally is apt. A quick Google for the word suggests (non-rigorously) that, actually, the whole thing is one enormous piece of original research based on a plausible, but original, precept. If it is only being mooted on fora and the like, and the term is not actually in authoritative use, then the article may have a bleak future bearing down upon it. Splash - tk 22:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Has some official use (see notes), but only enough for a stub without citations.++++

[1] [2] I considered these as fair use in the gender in SF article, but this fair use doesn't work here at gynoid.

I would say that these fall squarely into the 'unreliable' sources net, unfortunately. I'm not sure they should appear in any article. Splash - tk 22:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean as sources, but as images. Logo fair use doesn't apply, they are comedy toilet signs from the Science Fictionn Museum, hence copyrighted art, not corporate or event logos (the blog was just the first place in google search with the photos). Fair use in Gender... would be ok if these toilets were discussed in an article, but not here.Yobmod (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Back to the original research issue, since this invented logo is entirely made up, and since the caption "Gender symbols (female left) may need to be adapted, as technology allows gender to be applied to robots (imagined gynoid right)." is complete speculation without any sources, I will remove the image and caption from this page and List of fictional gynoids and female cyborgs. Only if a reliable source is found for both the image and the sentiment conveyed in the caption could they be added back to these articles. 66.18.238.120 (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear: this isn't me logged out. Anyway, yeah, I think that quite a lot of the article may face the same fate, per my note slightly further up. Splash - tk 23:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I would agree to that statement. This whole article needs a big trimming. 66.18.238.120 (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Following the above discussion, I have significantly trimmed the article. I have left Fembots in as eminently verifiable from the Austin Powers movies. However, given the lack of provenance of 'Gynoid' in reputable sources that demonstrate wide usage, I am thinking that the order of the material should be reversed, to put 'Fembot' first and Gynoid second. Following this I would then further propose that the article be moved to Fembot, with Gynoid being a sectional redirect there. Splash - tk 16:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me, as long as the redirect is in place. Neither term is widely used or important enough for it to matter. A fembot article should have a "Gynoid" section though, so further editors know where to add any cited info - even if for now it is a one sentence stub section with a fact tag.Yobmod (talk) 12:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The made-up logo was re-inserted into this article and List of fictional gynoids and female cyborgs. As no source whatsoever for this image or the caption has been provided, I have removed it from both articles again. This image and the accompanying caption constitute original research and will be removed again if added again. 66.18.238.120 (talk) 01:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The caption is not original research at all - it just describes the picture. "Artists imagining of fictional gender symbol for robots" is a description, not research of any sort. the fact that people have made up fictional gender symbols is shown from the signs above, so the idea isn't original, and now the caption also has no content except description.Yobmod (talk) 07:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The caption you invented along with the image you invented is indeed original research. Where is the source for this image? Where is the source for the caption? From where did the symbol on the right in the image originate? Who uses the symbol? What groups identify with that symbol? I suspect there will not be any adequate replies for those questions as this image is completely made up, and any captions that can be imagined for it are original research because of that. 66.18.238.120 (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

How can "this is a picture" be OR? Captions need a source to prove they are describing a picture? How would that work exactly?! LoLYobmod (talk) 09:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Appropriateness of Yobmod's edits

I think this paragraph is completely inappropriate and opinionated:

"Gynoids are "irresistably linked" to men's lust, and are mainly designed as sex-objects, having no use beyond "pleasing men's violent sexual desires".[1] A long tradition exists in fiction, of men attempting to create the stereotypical "perfect woman".[2] Examples include the Greek myth of Pygmalion, and the female robot Maria in Fritz Lang's Metropolis . Female cyborgs have been similarly used in fiction, in which natural bodies are modified to become objects of fantasy.[2] Fiction about gynoids or female cyborgs reinforce "essentialist ideas of feminity".[3]"

Yobmod, please refrain from placing the paragraph in the article until this is resolved. Olinga (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from removing cited material without any consensus, when you clearly have no knowledge of the subject. Go to a library and look up gynoids, this is what you find. This is the mainstream view, and even if it wasn't, deleting cited material because you disagree with it is not the correct path. Why not try doing the hard work of researching what the article is missing instead of destroying others work?

If you think consensus would be on your side, try a Request for comment. I can then present 20+ sources showing that "Gynoid" is a term far more common in discusions of fiction than in robotics, and that fictional uses are mostly as sex objects. And also a few about real world uses as sex objects. In my experience, consensus usually sides with the most sources.

YobMod 21:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you at least be willing to place the paragraph under In Fiction instead of in the introduction? Despite what you wrote on your talk page there are many examples of real gynoids, just not gynoids that lie outside the Uncanny valley. Olinga (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll move it to fiction, and the new sentence to real life. It was only in the lead as the article was so short. Any citations discussing real world gynoids would be great - what exactly is the excuse for making robots that have a sex, if not linked to sex? Must be an interesting read.YobMod 22:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

We'll need robots that can realistically impersonate both men and women for the upcoming robotic takeover. :) Olinga (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Controversy"

There is no controversy, because you are unable to find any sources that disagree with this mainstream view. Please stop messing with cited information in order to promote your POV. Also stop adding uncited OR. And lying about sources as you remove them is bad faith - the source doesn't contain the word eroticized at all".YobMod 11:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

There are no other sources because no one bothers to refute feministic dogma. It's like wasting time refuting astrology. When real roboticists Hans Moravec makes a statement about it then we have something to go on. In the meantime, I'm going to continue removing your attempts to insert biased feminist ideology from this article. Olinga (talk) 11:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring during the RfC. There is no refutation, because this is the mainstream view.YobMod 11:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

RfC

There is a disagreement about the placement and inclusion of paragrpahs describing gy<noids as fetishized sex objects in both fiction and real life. One user repeatedly removes cited information as being NPOV. I think it is both cited and the mainstream view on this topic (after reading dozens of sources). Where and how should this information be presented. Also, should a controvery section exist for presenting information one user doesn't like, even with no inciation that it is in anyway controversial?YobMod 11:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. The entire field of feminism is controversial. Prove your statements have achieved consensus among non-feminists and then you can say your view is mainstream. I would expect to see statistical studies done by real social scientists, not just rambling opinions by literary and feminist critics. Olinga (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"The entire field of feminism is controversial?" That's like saying "The entire field of capitalism is controversial" or "the entire field of libertarianism is controversial" or "the entire field of Buddhism is controversial." Feminism is an understanding of the world, a political philosophy, and a moral and spiritual belief system. It can be an underpinning of a social scientist's personal philosophy (and is for many social scientists), but it's not itself a social science or anything that can be proven through social scientists' tools. IceCreamEmpress (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. Capitalism IS controversial (ask any socialist), libertarianism IS controversial (ask any communist), and Buddhism IS controversial (ask any Hindu). Feminism IS controversial by the very fact that it is rejected by certain groups that have standing in academia and in its militant version that you appear to follow is accepted by far fewer people than the ideologies you mention. For a proper NPOV a "masculinist" version MUST ALSO BE PRESENTED. I'm not the one to write that though since I actually AGREE with most of your feminist beliefs and I don't know much about the subject. The topic of the article is GYNOIDS, not "Feminism and Gynoids". The whole feminist viewpoint on the topic is really minor, almost tangential.

I disagree with the category this RfC was file under. It should be Math, Science, and Technology. Also, the RfC is worded to favor the viewpoint of the writer. Olinga (talk) 12:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As there are no sources indicating anything controversial, and no sources describing any of the views as feminist, the material should be in the standard "fiction" section, not a separated "controversy" section. The controversy is manufactured by one editor, who has a POV.Dillypickle (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This "manufactured controversy" stuff is nonsense. The real manufactured controversies over climate change and intelligent design are in a different category because they deal with real science. In the case of sex and gynoids all that has been quoted so far is literary, social, and feminist critics. Critics are not in the same league as scientists and everything they say is controversial because they cannot present empirical evidence to back themselves up. Yobmod and Dillypickle are committing the fallacy of taking absence of evidence as evidence of absence, eg, they cannot find any opposing opinions and therefore their opinion is mainstream. That's nonsense.

Also, I am in agreement with most of what is Yobdob writes but she is deliberately writing to support to persuade the reader to her way of thinking. Olinga (talk) 13:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Also a book on robotics is used. And the first gynoid was a sex toy, as was the second. If you did any research, you would learn that my supposed POV is in all literature on this subject. "Absence of evidence" does not mean you can make things up, per WP:Verfiability. If there are no sources, then as far as wikipedia is concened it doesn't exist. I tagged you attempts at OR.

The title of one of the sources is Alien Constructions: Science Fiction and Feminist Thought. So yes, at least that source is feminist. Olinga (talk) 11:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And the other 4?

You moved the goalposts. Olinga (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Btw, you have broken the 3RR. IF you revert agina, you will be reported.YobMod 11:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Report away. You made your edits and based on that version requested an RFC. That's not in good faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olinga (talk • contribs) 12:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Feminist and literary viewpoint section

I finally figured out exactly what's been bothering me about this article: facts and opinion are intermixed too much. Although it is presumably factual that Margret Grebowicz wrote that "fiction about gynoids or female cyborgs reinforce 'essentialist ideas of feminity'" the statement itself is opinion. Meanwhile, it is not opinion to state that characters called "fembots" were in Austin Powers. For an encyclopedia article it is crucial to point this out. I think dedicating the opinionated parts to their own section makes the article clearer on this. Olinga (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It is fancruft to say that the Austin powers were fembots. This is covered in the list of gynoids article. This article is for discussion of how they are used and why. Simple listing of examples should not be in a separate section here - there is an entire separate article already. Seperating sections into opinions you disagree with is poor writing, like criticism sections, typical of editors who don't have experience with creaing good and featured content.

"This article is for discussion of how they are used and why." I disagree. The purpose of the article is to primarily explain WHAT gynoids are, not their subjective interpretation. The article should discuss things such as involvement in history, the uncanny valley, the state of technology, and other more factual stuff. Perhaps "Gynoid social criticism" or somesuch deserves a separate article. The reader should be able to read the facts of gynoids without having to read the opinion of critics no matter how respected or cited those critics are. Olinga (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, bundling social commentary, literary crit, feminism and queer theory into one separate section is strange to say the least. The split between fiction and rallife is clearly the best way to approach this. If the fiction section needs separating, it should by subsectioning, probalbe into Sexuality and Gender Stereotypes at the moment, as these are the only sources.

YobMod 08:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not so strange when you consider that "social commentary, literary crit, feminism and queer theory" as applied to this article are all opinions and not facts. Let the reader read the facts first and the opinions later. If necessary each of the four can have a separate section. Those sections should be after the factual material about gynoids. As it is written the article sounds like an editor had a chip on their shoulder. Olinga (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If scholarly criticism is separated from the examples, there is no need to have the fiction section, as it would be redundant to the list article. Read any Featured article on a literary or popular culture subject - commentary should be integrated into the text, not isolated in a "miscellanous opinions" section.YobMod 21:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at Romeo and Juliet, a featured article. "Criticism and interpretation" is the 6th section, and "Feminist criticism" is a section under that. The commentary is NOT integrated and the article places the factual material in sections 1-5 BEFORE the commentary. Olinga (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Drastically reducing the fiction section may not a bad idea. I think it deserves a paragraph or two but is unimportant compared to discussing gynoid technology, usage, and social consequences. I still see this as primarily a robotics, ie technical, article, not a literary or pop culture article. Olinga (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Overcitations?

I don't think hyperlinked statements require citations if the linked document specifies them. I can't quote any WP: pages but that's my general impression of citations on Wikipedia. Examples:

• Among the first conceptualizations of constructions similar to gynoids in literary history is Ovid's account of Pygmalion,[citation needed]: the article specified by the "Pygmalion" contains everything the reader needs.
• In Fritz Lang's Metropolis a femininely shaped robot is given skin so that she is not known to be a robot and successfully impersonates Maria,[citation needed]: likewise with the "Metropolis" link
• Meinü robot[8][9]: let the user click the link to find out
• EveR-1, [5]: likewise

Several other examples exist. Olinga (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Citations are needed, it is poicy. Depending on other wikipedia artilces to uphold facts given here does not conform to WP:RS. IF you cannot find citations, remove the information.YobMod 08:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's take List of fictional gynoids and female cyborgs as an example. The list is not directly cited but rather indirectly cited by the hyperlinks. What would be the point of citing every item on the list? The user can click on the hyperlink to see the citation.

Agreed, that is a poor quality uncited list. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a reason to remove citations from here. Some of the links in this article lead to pages that do not even mention gynoid or female.YobMod 21:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, here's some featured lists that don't have citations just to include hyperlinked items in the list: List of cultural references in The Cantos, Works of William Gibson, List of German World War II jet aces, List of U.S. states by date of statehood. Including citations would seem redundant and distracting when the citation can be obtained simply by clicking the hyperlink. Olinga (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

None of those are expecting a reader to click the link to find a source: All are sourced using general sources from the references section - this is common practice for lists in which all entries come from a few comprehensive sources. As no such reference exists that lists all examples, they should be cited here.YobMod 09:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

History

All gynoids until the last few years have been fictional. From 600 BC onward legends of talking bronze and clay statues coming to life have been a regular occurrence in the works of classical authors such as: Homer, Plato, Pindar, Tacitus, and Pliny. In Book 18 of the Iliad, Hephaestus the god of all mechanical arts, was assisted by two moving female statues made from gold - "by two female statues of pure gold, formed by his own hand, which possessed the power of motion, and always accompanied him wherever he went" . In another legend Zeus commands Hephaestus to create the first woman, Pandora, from out of clay . The myth of Pygmalion, king of Cyprus, tells of a lonely man who sculpted his ideal woman from ivory , Galatea, and then promptly fell in love with her after the goddess Aphrodite brings her to life. Variations on this recurrent theme of loving an artificial creation appear in E.T.A. Hoffmann's gothic short story Der Sandmann (1817) in which the love object is the automaton Olympia and in countless recent science fiction films and novels.

Adding primary sources to this previously removed section in no way solves the problem that these source make no link to the idea of gynoids. Listing every example with the primary source should go to the list article. No source called Pandora a gynoid, and giving a primary source showing she was made out of clay does not change this.YobMod 21:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

According to your own edits, Melzer identifies Pygmalion's statue made of ivory as a gynoid. The physical substance of the gynoid is immaterial, whether it's steel and silicon, ivory, or clay. We don't need a source to specify whether each specific character is a gynoid or not. That can be inferred from the definition of a "humanoid robot with feminine appearance" or somesuch. Also, the list article is a mere list and provides no proper historical context to the reader. That's like trying to learn history from a timeline.

If by "primary source" you mean that Homer himself did not state certain characters as "gynoid" then we can't call anything prior to coining of the term a "gynoid". We also cannot infer that any female-humanoid-robot since then is a gynoid unless the author or inventor specifically uses the term. Olinga (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

What type of article?

There needs to be a discussion about what category of article this should be. One view is that this is a critical article concerning the social interpretations of gynoids. Another view is that this is a factual article concerning the technological and historical aspects of gynoids. Although both can exist to some degree the two sides are reverting each others' edits, to which I am admittedly guilty. Olinga (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)