Talk:Kristanna Loken

Career ??

It was foolish to label a section "Career", and then everything within it is about her "Acting Career", and so I have changed the title of the section to "Acting Career" to match what it really is.
Now, there is the foolishness of the entire article's saying nothing at all about Kristanna's quite significant modeling career. Some people have gone off the deep end arguing about "android" vs. "gynoid" vs. "cyborg" vs. "cybernetic organism" (the "mote" in someone's eye) that they have neglected to write anything at all about Kristanna's modeling career (the "beam" in one's own eye). It is quite insulting to Kristanna to say nothing at all about her modeling career, something that she doubtless worked hard at learning how to do and her actual work/98.67.164.99 (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That was probably not a good way to introduce your edits to an article. If you think improvements can be made to an article, you can feel free to make them. If you feel compelled to continue in the tone you used above, you may find editing Wikipedia to be a difficult experience. Chicken Wing (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems worth noting also that at least some of your comments are of debatable authority. "Website" does not need to be capitalized or spaced.[1] Kristanna Loken has been reportedly billed before as "Kristanna Løken".[2] Another debatable point would be the use of the word "both" to refer to maternal and paternal grandparents. Yes, there are four grandparents, but there are also two sets of grandparents in the sentence (those being maternal and paternal). Thus, "both" does not appear to be absolutely incorrect. There was really no reason to begin with such an inflammatory section, as this article has already seen a disproportionate amount of arguing. Chicken Wing (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

MySpace

www.myspace.com/kristannaloken (official)

What's the most important thing? Getting her info right, or using "conflict of interst" as an argument for keeping it wrong? I can prove my claims for you. If her myspace was to be fake, this link would not be working, forwarding you to her myspace blog:

www.kristannaloken.net/reply

-A working link would prove my point, right? I can not add the link my self as of "conflict of interst". But any of you can! --Seabris 03:25, 02 March 2007

Sexual orientation

Someone add that she recently discussed that she has and continue to has relationships with women (hot)The Following Quote from Curve magazine goes like this:

"Kristanna Loken, the 26-year-old actress who had her break-out role in 2003's Terminator 3 and currently stars in the film BloodRayne, publicly discusses for the first time in the March issue of Curve magazine that she's had--and will continue to have--relationships with women.

"I have dated and have had sex with men and women and have to say that the relationships I have had with certain women have been much more fulfilling, sexually and emotionally, than of those with certain men," she tells Curve. "I connect with an aura, with energy. And if the person with whom I connect happens to be a female, that’s just the way it is. That’s what makes my wheels turn.”

In the Curve interview, Loken also talks about her lesbian sister, who has been with her partner for more than a decade, and the indie film Loken is currently executive producing and starring in, Lime Salted Love, which she described to MTV as "similar to Reality Bites with a splash of Memento like disjointed narrative."

This isn't the first time Loken has talked about same-sex attraction--the topic has come up frequently in interviews ever since she was caught on camera kissing pop singer Pink in 2003. But she has always approached the subject with some ambiguity, as she did last month in an interview with men's magazine FHM.

When asked about the difference between kissing men vs. women, Loken replied candidly, "The texture of a woman’s mouth and lips are so much softer than a man’s. It’s more romantic, but there are women who can be rough". But when asked if she "kisses a lot of women", Loken hedged, saying "I don’t like to make anything a habit, but I’m definitely open-minded about kissing women."

Here's a link to the same quote: [Afterllen.com]

FHM cover pic

It does appear to qualify under the template that is attached to it:

Unless I am reading it wrong. The only objection I could see from some one is what she is wearing, versus what the license is. If we say that this image is wrong b/c of the license, then any image we use of a magazine cover should be removed as well. If some one is going to remove this, state why you really are removing it.--Azathar 05:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• I assume the template changed since you posted... it now says "Note: It is not acceptable to use images with this tag in the article of the person or persons depicted on the cover, unless used directly in connection with the publication of this image. Such usages will be removed."68.54.228.10 02:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Bisexuality

I put the bisexual category back in because I don't feel Handface's argument holds water. The edit summary said "she didn't say she was bisexual in the article". Loken admits to having dated people of both sexes before. I don't see why she would have to state "I'm bisexual" to justify the cat. If a person says, "I write with my right hand, I brush my teeth with my right hand, I do everything that is left or right handed with my right hand." but does not specifically say, "I am right-handed", would that mean that they couldn't have the category of "Right-handed people" on their article? At most I'd say Loken is just a person who doesn't like labels put on her and that is why she hasn't said that she's either bi or not. Dismas|^(talk) 09:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Handedness and sexual orientation are in no way comparable. People aren’t in the closet about being left-handed. No one tries to pass constitutional amendments preventing left-handed people from getting married. There aren’t thousands of websites for “left-handed curious” people.

There are a lot of people out there who have had homosexual/bisexual experiences who are not homosexual/bisexual or do not identify as such.

Sexuality is such a sensitive subject that no label should be used without incontrovertible evidence or an admission from the person in question.

Let’s not forget also that the magazine that this quote was mentioned in has a biased interest in hyping lesbianism. Loken could have just as easily been making the comment for shock value or because she has been bi-curious in the past. Handface 16:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what your opinion of what she may or may not have been doing is, according to this she self identifies as bisexual. It's very, very clear. "And if the person with whom I connect happens to be a female, that’s just the way it is. That’s what makes my wheels turn". Even Billie Joe Armstrong's talk page has users saying "He was probably just confused when he said that!", but eventually people get over it. Zythe 00:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's not clear, as she never says she is bisexual. Handface 02:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

She says she's attracted to men and women, and whichever she is attracted to she will go for. One does not need to say "I'm bisexual" to be bisexual. She is what she is, and that, in her own words, is someone who is attracted to both men and women. Therefore she is bisexual, it's not even an argument. Zythe 12:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

She may very well be bisexual, but this quote does not prove that. A lot of conclusions can be reached about her quote, one of which is that she is, in fact, bisexual. Until there is better evidence though, it would be imprudent for an encyclopedia to claim that she is definitively bisexual. She could be bi-curious. She could have just experimented in the past. She could have been exaggerating. The magazine could have been hyping her quote since it's marketed to lesbians. One ambiguous quote just can't be taken as definitive, especially regarding sexuality. Handface 13:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's hardly ambigous! It's incrediby clear. Why assume that she may have been curious or may have saying it for shock value, why can't you take what she said at face value? Why do people not like the idea of their heroes being bi? Billie Joe's recently came under attack from somebody this week, claiming he was only making an abstraction by saying he's bi. If someone says they like men AND women, like Loken has, it means their bi. Bicurious isn't it's own sexuality, it's a variant of bisexual. Zythe 14:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I never said bi-curious was its own sexuality, so we'll skip that. She's not a hero of mine, so I'll skip that also. I don't care who Billie Joe is, so let's move on from that also. Basically, what we appear to have is a bi guy who goes around inserting his political beliefs regarding sexuality into articles. You didn't even respond to what I said at all. You just went off on your pre-scripted political rant. Handface 14:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a political agenda thanks, I find the very notion of an "agenda" insulting. I feel she has clearly stated she is bisexual, and you would like to take it to mean she could be when in my opinion it's clear enough she is. She says she likes girls. She says she likes boys. What is she then? Meh, I don't care enough to revert it anymore. But I still disagree. Zythe 14:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"in my opinion..." That says everything that needs to be said. Your opinion doesn't belong in the article. Handface 14:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

And neither does yours. I was simply agreeing with Kristanna herself :P Zythe 14:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is not in the article, I don't need elementary school-like parrotting of my comments. Shovel the gay agenda somewhere else for now. If more sources become available on this subject or if she makes a more definitive statement, we can add it at the appropriate time. Handface 14:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wait, are you blatantly accusing me of carrying a "gay agenda" now? Quick questions, would you consider yourself homophobic by any definition of the term? Are you a boy or a girl? They seem pointless, but since you can use my profile to create a profile of who you think I am, it's only courteous to answer. I think the source we have currently is sufficient, most people wouldn't simply say "I am bi" in an interview since it's a term that encompasses some very different variations. What she has said, unarguably, is that she likes men and women and therefore is bisexual. You cannot argue with that! And I don't feel we need to come to mediation over this. If you want to argue over the category, since she's definitely not straight, would LGBT actors suit you better? Zythe 14:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I would take issue with the statement that "she has hinted that she might be bisexual with a preference for women." I don't know that you could draw that conclusion solely from the quote. I was responsible for the edit that Handface reversed, as I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude from it that she's bisexual. Khan_singh

I'm certain that "I have dated and have had sex with men and women" is 100% conclusive. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually, it's more complex than that. See bisexuality; however, for the purposes of this article I think she probably meets the working definition of bisexual. --Robert Merkel 19:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

A person does not have to be quoted using the exact word "bisexual" to be validly considered bisexual. Her statement is really quite clear and unmistakeable, and I really fail to see how anybody could possibly consider it to mean anything else other than that she identifies as bisexual. And as for the most recent reversion: firstly, this discussion has not reached any kind of consensus against categorizing her as bisexual, and secondly, a paragraph about her statement of sexuality is not redundant with categorization as such. So neither of the stated points constitute a valid reason to not have her in the bisexual actors category. Bearcat 22:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I know this might be an ad hominem argument, and I apologize, but it seems that everyone who wants to add the bisexual tag is an LGBT. The word "agenda" is too extreme, but there seems to a bias. My chief argument would be that bisexual behavior and bisexuality are not the same thing. A guy in college might participate in homosexual behavior, or a guy in prison might participate in homosexual behavior, but they are not necessarily gay or bisexual. Likewise, Loken's behavior could be just that: behavior. And what she has done in the past could be little more than the past. If Kristanna Loken is a bisexual, I wouldn't be surprised. But this is an encyclopedia. To present something as fact in an encyclopedia, it's not enough to be more than 50% sure that she is bisexual. The evidence needs to be reasonably conclusive.

If you can't see how anybody else can see it any other way, that could be taken as an example of your bias in this situation. I'm not using the word "bias" to imply any kind of character flaw, merely that in this situation your view may not be the most impartial view. Chicken Wing 23:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I was correct in the end ;) ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you weren't. You still don't get it. It wasn't whether or not she was bisexual. It was whether or not it was verifiable. I don't think anyone doubted that she was bisexual. The problem was that it couldn't be reasonbly proven. Chicken Wing 23:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I — Preceding unsigned comment added by KristynaCW (talk • contribs) 17:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

title?

If the actress's name is spelled "Løken", why isn't the article at Kristanna Løken? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe her ancestors' name was "Løken", but she spells her name "Loken" now. —Nightstallion (?) 16:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia in the ENGLISH language, and not in Norwegian or anything else. The symbol "ø" is not part of the English alphabet, and is not used. Also, if you were to bother to examine her birth certificate, since she was born in the United States of America, her birth surname is doubtless spelled "Loken". It is an official document in New York State.
There is an old saying, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do," and likewise, when born in the United States, people write their names as the Americans do.98.67.164.99 (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Brunhild & Taja

Chicken Wing, in your opinion her role in The Ring of the Nibelungs is not her most famous role, but that's your personal opinion and not an undeniable fact. The majority of people in Europe would have been introduced to Kristanna through that role, and I as a European want to acknowledge that fact. And what about her role in Mortal Kombat Conquest? That was a more notable role which would have introduced her to more Americans across the USA than the flop BloodRayne. 80.43.42.92 16:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not just my opinion. BloodRayne is her biggest role as the title character, even though the movie did poorly both at the box office and with critics. T3 was the biggest film she has been in with regard to box office and exposure. There's no reason to clutter that small box with all of her roles when there is also a selected filmography on the page, so those two movies will suffice. Chicken Wing 22:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the "Notable Roles" section isn't supposed to cover everything she's done; that's what the rest of the article is for. Chicken Wing's rationale for those two roles (largest single role in a film + largest film she's been involved in) seems pretty sound to me. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't agree that BloodRayne is a worthier notable role than Taja or Brunhild, regardless of Kristanna being the titular character. A notable role is the one she would be most famous for, and maybe you didn't know but BloodRayne only made it to 8 countries around the world, America being the only English-speaking one (where it flopped in anyway). However, MK: Conquest and Ring of the Nibelungs are well-known across Europe, America, Asia and Australia. What more do I need to say? 80.47.140.113 05:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

BloodRayne, as has already been stated, was a personal milestone for the actress, being her largest role to date. The fact that it bombed (I didn't see it; I could tell it would be crap) is largely irrelevant. While MK Conquest and Nibelungs are big, I don't think that it really matches the overall marketing push behind Terminator 3, which is why I think that is a more representative role (and should therefore be in the infobox). EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree that Terminator 3 is one of her most notable roles and should be in the box. However, my concern is with BloodRayne. There is a difference between a big role and a notable role, which I think is at the heart of this dispute. Van Helsing is not Hugh Jackman's most notable role, despite playing the title character. King Arthur is not Clive Owen's most notable role, despite playing the title character. Alexander is not Colin Farrel's most notable role, etc etc. MK Conquest and Nibelungs are definitely more notable roles that made her more famous (in America and internationally) than her BloodRayne role. 80.43.44.96 16:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, an excellent point. Given that, perhaps we should add Taja from Mortal Kombat: Conquest; given the fact that she was one of three main characters of a 22-episode show puts it above a TV movie, in my opinion (plus, MKC is from 1998 vs. Nibelungs in 2004, making it a much easier "break-out role" argument). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No way, those analogies don't match up. BloodRayne is the biggest role Loken has had as the top-billed star. The arguments about Owen and Jackman don't fly because they've played the top-billed character in bigger movies than the ones you listed, whereas Loken only has BloodRayne. Alexander actually is Farrell's biggest title role to date, and actually is listed on his Wikipedia bio in notable roles, so that only supports the BloodRayne argument. Secondly, MK: Conquest was a TV show that was cancel after one season, and nobody outside die-hard MK fans or die-hard Loken fans could even tell you that Loken was in that series. The series doesn't even have a region 1 DVD. Don't get me wrong, I'd watch MK: Conquest a hundred times before I had to watch BloodRayne again (or the MK movies again), but it's just not a very notable role. Chicken Wing 18:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I have to disagree again. Maybe MK Conquest has no Region 1 DVD, but has been widely released elsewhere in the world: the UK, Asia and Australia all have DVD box sets. And in those countries it is a well-known show not just amongst die-hard fans, but a young audience generally (who watch Charmed, Alias, Xena, Buffy, OC and all that stuff). And Jackson and Owen haven't played top-billed roles elsewhere, they have always shared top-billing with their co-stars, is in X-men, Closer, Swordfish, Gosford Park etc. Van Helsing and King Arthur were their one and only biggest leading roles and they are unnotable because they flopped. Jackman shared top-billing with his co-stars in X-Men (his most notable role). Perhaps Alexander is mentioned as Farrel's biggest title role because an editor of his page shares the same logic as you, but I would dispute it too. "Biggest title role" and "most notable role" are not the same thing, and that's my emphatic point. MK Conquest was her debut role (of acceptable notability), Nibelungs is the film she is most famous for internationally (America, UK, Germany and all of Scandinavia know her from it). No-one outside America knows her from BloodRayne, and even then I'm sure a lot of Americans wouldn't be familiar with it either, so it's not one of her "notable" roles (notable: prominent, important, and worthy of notice). 80.43.44.96 21:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal from LBGT and Bisexual categories

WP:BLP mandates that unsourced material that may be potentially controversial must be removed immediately. There is nothing in this article to support that Loken is bisexual or LBGT. All that is stated here is that there is speculation. This is unacceptable under the policy. If there is a verified source that indicates that she is gay or bi, or has self-identified as same in reputable media, then this can be reinstated, though the source must be given in the article. I'm less concerned about her being listed in the LBGT Wikiproject because of her involvement with The L Word, although I wouldn't want her to be categorized based upon speculation otherwise. 23skidoo (talk) 12:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh that's easy to cite... there's an interview at AfterEllen.com, readable here, where she is discussing her recent engagement to a guy and she openly states she is bisexual:

AE: So, to be clear, you're still openly bisexual.

KL: Sure, I mean, it's not like something you choose. I certainly didn't choose it, so I think that's always going to be part of who I am and what I'm about. It was just a matter of the person. It could've been a woman just as easily, and it wasn't. But I also think it was where I was in my life that I really was ready to find a life partner. I was with a woman when I met Noah, so I really wasn't expecting something like that to happen, but who knows? Such is life.

So will you do the right thing and revert your removal? Tabercil (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Role as TX

The article says that Loken "is probably best known for her performance as the android T-X (Terminatrix) in the 2003 movie Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines." While the point being made is correct, the use of the term “android” in this context is erroneous. An android is a robot modeled after a human male. Loken portrays, in her role as the TX, a 'gynoid' – a term used to describe a robot designed to look like a human female. I’ve changed the article to reflect this. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I changed the article, on the basis of this fact, but someone changed it back. Why? Simon P Blackburn (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The term ‘gynoid’ is not “non-standard” English. Whilst the term is not as commonly used as ‘android’, it is nonetheless an accurate designation. Indeed, in the article on the TX character (as portrayed by Loken), the term gynoid is used. Just because a word is uncommon does not mean that it should not be used (especially when referring to fictional beings - since neither androids nor gynoids actually exist). Use of the designation ‘andriod’ in this context is inaccurate (irrespective of the widespread use of the term within certain forms of fiction). The purpose of the article is to provide accurate information - and only by so doing might such terms become more commonly used. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 01:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If you look through the edit history of this article, you'll notice that the term has been added several times already, and it's been removed by various editors, including at least one administrator. The word "gynoid" does not appear in any notable dictionary that I can find. Adding to the article doesn't enhance the grammar of the article. It doesn't improve the article's accessability to the reader. It fuels a political argument more than anything. It's also worth noting that the fact that the word appears in other T-X related articles isn't an argument for adding it here. Rather, it's an argument for removing it from the other articles. Chicken Wing (talk) 03:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You should note also that adding a work to Wikipedia that isn't in common use for the purpose of making it more commonly used is also not an acceptable goal. That's akin to spamming Wikipedia, whereby one might add links to site with low traffic in hope that the site will become more trafficked. You should also note that the word "android" is not inaccurate, as major dictionaries all cite it as a word referring to atamatons of both sexes. Please do not use Wikipedia to push a particular agenda. Look at the edit history, and you will see that people have already unsuccessfully attempted to add this word in the past. Chicken Wing (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

An android is an artificially created robot, an automaton, that resembles a human being usually both in appearance and behaviour. The word derives from the Greek andr- meaning "man, male", and the suffix -eides, used to mean "of the species; alike" (from eidos "species"). In the semantic sense the word "android" is a misnomer. The intended meaning is "an artificial human being like being", while the literal translation is "an artificial male being". The word andros has definite meaning of "male human being" in Greek, while the word man can mean either "male human being" or "human being in general". The gender-neutral word for human being in Greek is anthropos, and the correct word for an artificial human being -like automaton would be anthropoid. The term ‘gynoid; (from Greek γυνη, gynē - meaninh “woman”) is a term used to describe a robot designed to look like a human female (to be differentiated from ‘android’ modelled after a male).

None of this has anything to do with politics (as you wrongly suppose), indeed I can’t image how the matter is remotely political. These terms are derived from ancient etymology (e.g. in Book 18 of the Iliad, Hephaestus the god of all mechanical arts, was assisted by two moving female statues made from gold - "living young damsels, filled with minds and wisdoms". Another legend has Hephaestus being commanded by Zeus to create the first woman, Pandora, from out of clay). They have acquired modern form and usage in the works of science fiction. For example, the term android was first used by the French author Mathias Villiers de l'Isle-Adam (1838-1889) in his work Tomorrow's Eve, featuring an artificial human-like robot named Hadaly.

The fact is, the word ‘gynoid’ can be found in dictionaries (and encyclopaedias). It is a real, genuine word - to be used in a DESCRIPTIVE and OBJECTIVE way, without political connotations (unless one views gender differentiation as inherently political). As explained, the word ‘android’ is a misnomer - for although it is intended to be gender-neutral, it fails to be so. Its etymology is gender specific: it is a male (or man-like). To reflect, or compensate, for this, so the word ‘gynoid’ was formed. Again, it is gender specific, meaning female (or woman-like).

My aim in utilising this word, and the distinction between ‘android’ and ‘gynoid’, is not to somehow “promote” it - and it is not akin to “spamming” or seeking to make it “ more trafficked” as you suggest. Rather, my purpose is far more simple: the elucidation of knowledge, i.e. to expose the truth and thereby explain and clarify the matter at hand.

You are right on one count only - that the use of a word elsewhere is not justification for its adding it here. The point being made, however, is that the word is not as ‘uncommon’ as might be initially assumed. The fact that some people (administrators included) are not fully aware of the word does not mean it should not be used - indeed, rather the opposite in this case, since the goal of an encyclopaedia incorporates the extension of knowledge via explanation and exposition.

That this topic has been discussed previously is not a valid reason to negate further talk, nor to reject the word in question. Again, the opposite is the case. For if time and time again the word ‘gyniod’ is being proposed then that indicates the increased use of (and demand for) this word.

It is clear that you do not ‘like’ this word with regard to its application as a means to describe the fictional character TX (as portrayed by Loken). I accept your dislike. Personally, I don’t ‘like’ the word either. But our likes and dislikes are besides the point. Rather, the purpose must be to provide accurate information in the article. I am pointing out the limitations of the word ‘android’ when applied in this context (i.e. it literally infers a male gender to the character portrayed by Loken). Since she is (obviously) female, the word is incorrect. Only if one ignores the genuine meaning of the term android, and ascribes to it a gender-neutrality that its etymology does not possess, can this error be overcome while retaining its usage. I suggest an alternative - accept the word ‘gynoid’ (which can be properly sourced and referenced) even though it too it problematic (since it is, relatively, less common).

Of course, if you choose to be obstinate - and refuse to accept that your hitherto attitude towards this matter simply reflects your dislike for the word - then, by definition, you will have the “last word” and may alter the article as you see fit - pushing your personal agenda. But then, by doing so, you will reduce the value of the article. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

First, take note that it's a mistake to accuse me of being obstinate or pushing a personal agenda. The policy on Wikipedia is to assume good faith.

Secondly, your resort to the Greek root of the word is fallacious. The word "decimate" means to destroy a great number, even though its Latin roots mean only to detroy one in ten. "Pencil lead" is made of graphite, a form of carbon, not the element lead, as originally thought. More on point, consider the name "Andrea". That name can refer to a male or female, even though it derives from the Greek for "manly". Another related word to this discussion -- "asteroid" -- refers to an object that in the Greek means it is like a star, but an asteroid is actually nothing like a star. The proper understand of an English term is its definition in English and not the back construction of its linguistic roots. To do that is into engage in pseudo-etymology.

Third, you're right that previous discussion of this topic doesn't prevent future discussion. Generally speaking though, it does prevent people from re-inserting the word until some other kind of agreement is reached.

Fourthly, if you're interesed in spreading knowledge, then the word "android" will suffice. Android can be found in major dictionaries, and most people could probably supply an accurate definition of the word "android". Gynoid cannot be found in a major dictionary and is most likely a word most people are unfamiliar with. Thus, their understanding of the article is decreased rather than increased when presented with the word. For gynoid to be more illuminating, we would have to accept the absurd premise that people reading the article might erroneously assume that Kristanna Loken was portraying a nominally male character because of inferences drawn from the use of the word android. You also make mutually exclusive claims in that you're trying to impart knowledge and that some administrators are not fully aware of the word. If more people are familiar with the term android, as you seem to concede, then your argument logically demands that you concede that the term android imparts more understanding. Your only recourse at that point would be to resort to the absurd: that is, that people would assume Loken was playing an ostensibly male character.

Fifth, you claim that gynoid can be found in dictionaries, but a search for the term on dictionary.com reveals no entries. What major dictionaries include this word?

I can't see the addition of the word "gynoid" in the article being reasonable without evidence in notable dictionaries that the word is real and some evidence that the word is somehow more illuminating than the term "android." Chicken Wing (talk) 09:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

While I fully appreciate your comments, I find your reasoning to be flawed - as it is based on a false premise. You say that since no ‘notable’ dictionary offers an entry for the word 'gynoid' so, in consequence, this term is essentially redundant (and thus invalid as a means of describing the character portrayed by Loken in the film Terminator 3).

What is wrong is your basic epistemological position, i.e. that a word may only be used if it is found in (‘notable’) dictionaries. As we both know, dictionaries don’t invent words, rather they merely express them, offering brief definitions (and examples of correct applications). The fact - should it be the case - that a word is not contained within a dictionary does not mean that the said word is somehow unreal.

Many words are quite real without being contained within a dictionary. Moreover, and most crucially, the context of the particular word in question has to be evaluated in connection with regard to the validity of its use in a given lexicon. In this case, we are dealing with a fictional being - namely, a terminator known as "the Terminatrix" or "TX". The word "Terminatrix" does not appear in any ‘notable’ dictionary (and neither does the term "TX"), and thus in accordance with your logic so the word should not be used in this encyclopaedia.

But such logic misses the essential point. This is an encyclopaedia entry, and hence must aim towards containing and expressing the fullest possible knowledge - rather than being restricted to ‘dictionary’ definitions. My epistemological position is that all knowledge on the subject is relevant and useful (should it reference appropriate material). The use of the term appropriate is here important - because, since we are dealing with a fictional being, those materials ascertaining to the fictional properties of the subject must be recognised as legitimate sources.

Which sources are legitimate? This seems to be a fundamental concern. If we accept only the ‘official’ (i.e. movie-related) materials, then the kind of being the TX constitutes may be referred to either as a ‘cybernetic organism’ or, more simply, as a ‘killing machine’. [Note: the terminator portrayed by Schwarzenegger in this film says of the TX, comparing it to himself, 'It’s a far more effective killing machine'. Further, he states that 'TX is designed to terminate other cybernetic organisms' (see http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/t/terminator-3-script-transcript-schwarzenegger.html)].

Nowhere in the film (or its novelisation) is the TX described as an ‘android’. However, the use of the term ‘android’ seems to be more appropriate than the terms ‘cybernetic organism’ or ‘killing machine’ - as the former is technically incorrect (since the TX incorporates no organic components and does not constitute a cyborg), and the latter is too vague and abstract. On this basis, you (and others) attribute this designation - i.e. ‘android’ - to the TX.

Yet, notwithstanding the merit of this designation over the aforementioned other two, the term ‘android’ is problematic. This is so because the word android has a gender-specific etymology. The word derives from the Greek andr - meaning 'man, male', and the suffix - eides, used to mean 'of the species; alike' (from eidos 'species'). It is applicable, therefore, in the context of a robot designed to resemble a man. While the word may possibly be used in a gender-neutral way (referring to a human-like robot), it nonetheless contains a certain ambiguity.

No definitive authority can possibly be located to resolve this ‘gender’ issue - since the term is almost exclusively fictional, i.e. it has very little application in the "real world". Its meaning is largely grounded within the realm of science fiction - with contributors to this field giving the term its meaning, and hence these contributions must be seen as legitimate sources.

Within the annals of science fiction, a definite form of terminology exists which contains no ambiguity in this regard - namely, the word ‘gynoid’. This term can be seen as the counterpart to that of android, and as the Wikipedia article for 'Android states, 'the female counterpart, gynoid, is generally used only when female gender is a distinguishing trait of the robot.'

The term ‘gynoid’ is, it must be acknowledged, less well know within the English language . It does have relevancy within medical science (being related to the term ‘gynecoid’, meaning 'to have the rounded form typical of the human female') (see, for example, http://medical.merriam-webster.com/medical/medical?book=Medical&va=gynecoid+ or http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/288/16/2008.pdf).

Nonetheless, the word ‘gynoid’ is known within the domain of science fiction - and it is here that its relevancy is derived, since the term 'Terminatrix' to which it is being applied is entirely located within this terrain. Wikipedia has an article on this word - which states that "Gynoid (from Greek γυνη, "gynē" - woman) is a term used to describe a robot designed to look like a human female, as compared to an android modeled after a male." This term not only makes sense, but is based on contributions within science fiction. As the article also states, "The term ‘Gynoids’ was created by the female British SF writer Gwyneth Jones, and developed by another British SF writer, Richard Calder."

The term ‘gynoid’ can be easily and readily found in dictionaries, encyclopaedias and other reference sources which specialise in science fiction discourse (hence it is a "real" word - for those who insist on such empiricism). For example, in an article entitled 'Words For Our Modern Age: Robots have become an important part of our lives' it is stated that "The terms android and gynoid provide separate gender classifications even for robots”, and that “calling a female robot an android shows etymological ignorance!" (http://www.wordsources.info/words-mod-robots.html). Without any difficulty, at least a dozen other references can be found pertaining to the same idea.

Since the TX character portrayed by Loken is female, it follows that the TX is a gynoid. It is on this very basis that the Wikipedia article on the TX character states that "The T-X, nicknamed the ‘Terminatrix’, is a fictional gynoid assassin." This statement is qualified, with a reference to source material which clearly acknowledges the term ‘gynoid’ - i.e. Loken "is probably best known for her performance as the gynoid T-X (Terminatrix) in the 2003 movie Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines" (see http://www.celebrityindex.com/Kristanna_Loken/biography.html).

Ultimately, one can either argue for use of the more popular but ambiguous term ‘android’ or, alternatively, for the more technically and etymologically correct (but less well known) term ‘gynoid’. I suggest that the term ‘gynoid’ is used with regard to the TX character as portrayed by Loken - since it accurately describes the gender of her character. Use of this term accords with legitimate sources which may be referenced (and indeed are cited elsewhere on Wikipedia), which are either located within the same terrain as the TX fictional being (i.e. science fiction) or are descriptive of Loken herself. Refusal to accept this term amounts to wearing blinkers - and, as quoted above, 'shows etymological ignorance!' Simon P Blackburn (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You’re setting up straw men. You’ve combined the premise and conclusion of two different arguments to make one incoherent argument. I argued that one word appearing in the dictionary while the other doesn’t offers evidence that the word defined in the dictionary is more likely to be more accessible to the reader. I also argued that gynoid is a word that provides no new information to the reader that isn’t already conveyed by the word android. I never made the argument that the failure of gynoid to appear in the dictionary results in redundancy, nor was there ever a claim that all words which are real words appear in a dictionary. Because your first three paragraphs rest upon straw man arguments, none of them are valid.

Your next argument regarding the use of the term android is also faulty because it erroneously assumes the premise for my inclusion of the word android in the article. Killing machine, cybernetic organism, robot, antagonist, villain, femme fatale, etc. may or may not all be better words than the term android. I haven’t considered those terms. The only terms that I’ve contrasted are android and gynoid, with android being the preferable term.

Then you bring up the Greek etymology again. It’s a flawed argument. I’ve already pointed that out by bringing up other words that have different meanings than their Greek etymologies would suggest. Rather than offering any refutation of this point, you simply restated your original position.

Next, you move on to undermining your own argument again by bringing up that “the term is almost exclusively fictional” and has “little application in the real world.” The Kristanna Loken article isn’t a science fiction article. It’s a biographical article, and it should contain words that are accessible to the real world rather than words than indulge esoteric debates about etymologies.

Note also that there is no reason to reject the definitions of android in every major dictionary, which all define the term as gender-neutral. Gynoid is not a counterpart to android. That the word’s proponents may aspire for it to be such doesn’t make it so.

You also continue to claim that the term android is ambiguous, but you haven’t addressed any of my concerns, again only restating your original position. For you to claim the term is ambiguous, you have to make the argument that people reading the article are being erroneously led to the conclusion that Loken’s Terminatrix character is a male character because of the word android. That’s a highly unlikely proposition.

Claiming that use of android shows etymological ignorance just borders on engaging in personal attacks. Again, there are many words that are currently employed in the English language that do not strictly adhere to their etymological origins. “The house was decimated by the tornado” and “The house was annihilated by the tornado” carry very similar meanings in current English, even though etymologically, one sentence should literally mean that one-tenth of the house was destroyed and the other should mean that the house was reduced to nothing.

I call this politics because Wikipedia isn’t the place to fix perceived etymological wrongs. This one is specifically rooted in gender studies and feminism. If, however, in the outside world, this alleged wrong is fixed and gynoid gains the kind of acceptance than android has, then that should be reflected on Wikipedia. Right now, that’s just not the case.

Given that other administrators and editors have already reverted the word gynoid in the past, it would be inappropriate for you to unilaterally change the word. If you want it changed, it would be more appropriate for you to do a request for comment or a third-party opinion. If outside observers think that gynoid should be added, then it would become more prudent to make the change. Chicken Wing (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The following comments are a further response to those provided by Chicken Wing. However, more importantly, these comments are intended to discuss in further detail the point in question.

With regard to the use of the word gynoid, he says , and I quote, “It fuels a political argument more than anything else.” More than anything else? Politics is essentially about conflict, struggle, and the attempt to manage or overcome such antagonisms. In what way is the use of this word ‘political’ (and not just political, but political more than anything else)? And how does it “fuel” political argument?

As stated, politics is about struggle - which implies division (different ‘sides’ or ‘positions’ engaged in contestation). He seemingly embodies his own conjecture, that the word is political, as he accuses me (and I quote) of “push[ing] a particular agenda”. Of course, if one accepts the word as political then there must be (at least two) particular agendas associated with it. Thus, in accordance with his own argument, it is impossible to advocate a neutral position - and, by necessity, he must accept that his own comments favour a ‘particular agenda’. Yet, in retort, he says it is a mistake on my part to accuse him of pushing a personal agenda! This amounts to an absurdity - if the word is political, so he must be pushing such an agenda. As far as I am concerned, however, the word is not political (and its use does not fuel a political argument). By trying to politicise the word, so a personal agenda is being pursued on his part. It should be recalled, it was he who raised the issue as ‘political’, and it was he who first accused me of pushing a particular agenda - so where was the ‘good faith’ on his part?

He says, with regard to the use of the word gynoid in connection with other TX-related articles, that - and again I quote - “the fact the word appears … [is] an argument for removing it from the other articles”. Does he know what he’s actually saying? What is the logical process at work in this proposition? Taking as his premise ‘the fact the word appears’, he leaps to the conclusion that this is ‘argument for removing it’. If this logic were followed elsewhere, whenever a word makes an appearance on Wikipedia so it should be removed! A bizarre form of logic.

He makes the argument that the word ‘gynoid’ is somehow unreal (that it “does not appear in any notable dictionary”). As I point out above, the word is quite real. Wikipedia has an article on the word, which seeks to explain its conceptualisation in some detail. As the article states, “Gynoid (from Greek γυνη, gynē - woman) is a term used to describe a robot designed to look like a human female, as compared to an android modeled after a male.” Both the origin and development of the word are located within the domain of science fiction (see, for example, the works of English science fiction writers Gwyneth Jones and Richard Calder). While the word is specifically located in this terrain, it is important to note that it has connotations with medical science relating to the female form: ‘gynoid’, and its variants ‘gynecoid’ and ‘gynaeiod’, are terms used in (especially British) medicine and refer to (1) the rounded form typical of the human female, and (2) the distribution of body fat chiefly in the region of the hips and thighs that characterise females (see, for example, the research paper located at http://www.medical-hypotheses.com/article/PIIS0306987702002384/abstract).

Nonetheless, the word is primarily one associated with science fiction. It can be found in literature within this field (see, for example, the works of the aforementioned authors). It can also be located in dictionaries, encyclopaedias and other sources specifically relating to science fiction (as I stress in earlier comments, citing an example of a reference which clearly states the etymology of the word and it’s gender-related nature). To discount this use of the word in these various sources is to argue that such materials are somehow ‘unworthy’ of being referenced in Wikipedia. It is from your point of view that they are not ‘notable’ enough! Your logic is again both quite simple and erroneous - that if a word is not contained in a ‘notable’ dictionary (say, the Oxford English Dictionary?) then it is unreal. I have already, in earlier comments, pointed to the absurdity of this point of view. Words can be real without being found in such ‘notable’ dictionaries (the example I offer above is directly relevant - the word ‘Terminatrix’ cannot be found in any such dictionary, but it is real). The reality of a given word directly relates to the context of it use. The word ‘gynoid’ (as with ‘Terminatrix’) is located within the terrain of science fiction, and it is precisely within this terrain that it can be adequately referenced.

You say the word ‘android’ refers, and again I quote, to the anatomies of “both sexes”. Your defence for saying this is that ‘major’ dictionaries cite the word as such. As has already been pointed out, the word derives from the Greek andr- meaning "man or male", and the suffix -eides mean "alike". The etymology of the word android therefore concerns a robot that is ‘man-like’. In this instance, the so-called ‘major’ dictionaries tend to conflate ‘man’ with ‘human’ (in the sense that both men and women are of ‘Man-kind’); but this is a technical error on their part, as the word does invoke a definite masculinity. To interchange ‘man’ with ‘human’, as you infer, is to blatantly ignore how the Greek andr- refers in a specific sense to ‘male’. Notwithstanding any attempt to deny this, the Wikipedia article on ‘android’ does itself state that “the word derives from a gender-specific root”. To use the word ‘android’ in a gender-neutral manner, though understandable in a naive sense, is etymologically incorrect.

Many dictionaries, encyclopaedias, articles, etc., that are specifically located in the terrain of science fiction - i.e. the locale which constitutes the contextual basis for the words in question (‘gynoid’, ‘android’ and ‘Terminatrix’) - acknowledge the point being made. Since these are directly applicable to the article, i.e. the character portrayed by Loken in the film Terminator 3, so they are far more relevant than the supposed ‘notable’ dictionaries you emphasise.

You say that the word ‘gynoid’ is - and I quote - “most likely a word most people are unfamiliar with”. On the basis of this supposition, you argue that using the word in the article is somehow improper. Your logic, once again simple but erroneous, amounts to this: lack of familiarity with a word or concept will decrease understanding on the part of the reader! Absurd. Wikipedia makes use of a vast amount of words that many people are unfamiliar with. An aim of any encyclopaedia is to enlighten people (to supply them with knowledge); and this necessarily involves making use of unfamiliar words. By learning about these hitherto unfamiliar words, so people increase their understanding - thus the very opposite of what you claim is in fact the outcome. It seems to me that your desire to utilise a word that is at best ambiguous (and at worst just plain wrong) simply to conform to people’s familiarities is a ludicrous undertaking for an encyclopaedia article. Your demand that I “concede that the term android imparts more understanding” just because of a supposed greater familiarity with this word absurd. An article should endeavour to offer correct and truthful knowledge - even at the expense of familiarity. And, in this case, the word ‘gynoid’ is not unfamiliar within the terrain of science fiction - i.e. the terrain in which the TX character is situated.

What my comments amount to is this: (1) The word ‘gynoid’ is real. It can easily and readily be found in the science fiction terrain, i.e. the very space applicable to this article. The word has no ‘political’ connotations. Its use does not form part of a particular agenda. (2) The word ‘gynoid’ is already - and correctly - utilised elsewhere on Wikipedia, and Loken’s TX character is elsewhere already referenced as constituting a ‘gynoid’. (3) The word ‘gynoid’ has in this case merit over that of ‘android’ since Loken’s TX character is female, something which gynoid definitely alludes to, while android does so at best only ambiguously. And (4) By using the word ‘gynoid’ so people can gain in understanding as they become increasingly familiar with this word.

Given these extensive comments, I plan to change the wording of the article accordingly. My argument is sound, and both editors and administrators should be able to appreciate it. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Chiken Wing, I don’t know why but you’re moving the text around! My contribution (above) was provided prior to you last entry (and your comments only make sense in response to mine)!

Rather than actually discussing the matter, you ignore the main points raised (or 'delete' / move them)! This is what I mean by obstinate. I shall offer a single example of your erroneous comments. You say I undermine my own argument because I say only science fiction may be referenced. Incorrect. I say useful references in this case "are either located within the same terrain as the TX fictional being (i.e. science fiction) or are descriptive of Loken herself." You are failing to understand the points raised! Further debate seems pointless. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Lets open this up for discussion? Anyone else, your thoughts please ... Simon P Blackburn (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a long winded discussion over just a single word!!! I have had a quick look at the different articles and references listed and it seems clear to me that the TX is a gynoid. Since Simon P Blackburn properly referenced this use of the word in the article, it should remain. Removing it just because some people might not know what it means is stupid. If something is properly referenced KEEP IT IN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.199.237.22 (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi - I am not here to enter into any sort of heated debate. One of my students suggested I read this discussion, and I’ve been following it on and off for the last 10 days or so, but I an new to “posting”. I’m a Professor in the Department of Design (at the Open University, UK). I have to agree with the comments raised by Simon P Blackburn. The term “gynoid” does have genuine application with regard to what otherwise might be considered a ‘female android’. In our Department we’re currently working on the design and construction of robots that resemble human males and females. We use the technical term android to refer to male-like robots, and gynoid to refer to female-like robots. Our colleagues in Japan use the same technical designations. I guess this represents a fusion of science with science fiction. In Britain at least, the word gynoid has been made use of within certain scientific disciplines for some time - borrowed from medicine, and referring to ‘female-like’ designs or characteristics. As some of the comments already made say, medical references can be found. I am also aware that the term gynoid is used in British SF. So maybe the debate concerns American / British differences in the use of the English language.

Before posting this, I asked one of my colleagues in our Language department to consider these different words. She agrees that, in terms of etymology, the word android is somewhat vague concerning gender neutrality. The word does infer a male-likeness, while the word gynoid denotes female imagery. If the terminator character played by actress Loken is female, then this robot should be called a gynoid. Prof. Philips (talk) 22:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds logical. Android means “man-like robot”, and gynoid means “female-like robot”. Plenty of articles say this. TX is a robot that looks like a female (or, it does when played by Loken). Pretty simply stuff - TX is a gynoid.

Chicken Wing is right only when he says that many people are not familiar with the word gynoid. But as Simon Blackburn correctly says, familiarity is not the most significant issue. Whats important is the truth, and the truth is the TX should be classified as a gynoid. As he says, the word is real. Since his critique of Chicken Wing is valid and insightful, and he offers plenty of references for the word - including a) a useful link to an article which explains what gynoid means, http://www.wordsources.info/words-mod-robots.html and b) a reference to an article on Loken’s biography which states she played the gynoid TX, http://www.celebrityindex.com/Kristanna_Loken/biography.html - so this article should refer to the Terminatrix as a gynoid. JeanPark99 (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I have to agree, the word gynoid should be used. Its not about politics or feminism. In SF and robotics, the word gynoid is used alongside android. Gynoid means a female looking robot. Terminatrix was a female looking robot. She was a GYNOID. The following article states this clearly: http://www.chickipedia.com/kristanna-loken/, saying of Loken that “T-X, the gynoid assassin known to fans as the ‘Terminatrix’ is still her most recognizable role”. See also: http://www.pxdrive.com/album/KRISTANNA+LOKEN_pictures_grgspic/ and http://www.celebrityshack.com/view/celebrities/female/Kristanna-Loken/ as well as http://www.americola.com/sites/Kristanna+Loken/. The arguments presented by Blackburn make complete sense, while the comments by Chicken Wing are full of holes and contradictions. As a 3rd-party person, my view should be considered, and my view is this: in this article Loken should be cited as playing a gynoid Terminatrix in Terminator 3. This view is easily referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.135.140.95 (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

So, a flurry of comments by other ‘observers’! Many thanks for these.

I’d say that, in terms of quick consensus, opinion has it that Loken’s portrayal of the TX should be referred to in terms of the word gynoid. Chicken Wing asked for “outside opinion” and it has been offered - including some additional useful references (which, I find, all cite Loken as portraying a gynoid). To change the article is not a ‘unilateral’ move on my part, but a move based on discussion.

My arguments are not ‘straw man’ (what an odd term of phrase) as Chicken Wing supposes. To illustrate, he claims that because my first “three paragraphs rest upon straw man arguments, none of them are valid”. This is an inappropriate way of engaging in discussion, since it is the attempt to actually avoid discussion by saying ‘everything is wrong and therefore unworthy of further comment’. Yet, notwithstanding this denial, the points I make have relevancy. I say, for example, that the word ‘Terminatrix’ is not to be found in any so-called notable dictionary, but that this does not deprive the word of having a genuine and real existence in modern lexicon. Similarly, just because the word ‘gynoid’ cannot be readily located in ‘notable’ dictionaries does not mean the said word is somehow unreal. But Chicken Wing supposes that without ‘notable’ dictionary citing the word, so ‘gynoid’ is lacking in applicability in this context. This, then, demonstrates the epistemological divide between our arguments - as I consider all appropriate materials as relevant, and find the word ‘gynoid’ to be easily referenced (without recourse to the so-called notable dictionaries). Chicken Wing fails to comment on this, as he dismisses the point as somehow irrelevant.

I have presented facts, all of which can be referenced, but to what end? For example, I provide the etymology for the word ‘android’ - showing that, at root, it refers to male-likeness. Yet Chicken Wing considers this as an “argument”, and says that he shows it to be flawed. Not so. Just because certain words acquire different meanings than their Greek etymologies provided for in no way alters their etymology - rather, it points only to their discursive development. As such, I was presenting an objective fact, not an argument, and it was in no way “flawed” (a fact can be accepted or rejected, it cannot be argued with). Even if we were to discuss “perceived etymological wrongs”, we would NOT be engaging in politics. And the use of the word gynoid in this context is certainly not political “more than anything” - what a bizarre proposition!

Popular dictionaries (i.e. non-SF specific) can be found which define ‘android’ in terms of ‘male-ness’. For example, the Online Dictionary (citing the Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48) states that the primary definition for android is: “of man's form; 'anh`r, 'andro`s, man + e'i^dos form”. Its secondary definitions include both: “A machine or automaton in the form of a human being” , and “Resembling a man” (see http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/android). As such, the term does contain a certain ambiguity - because it tends to highlight a definite and distinct gender, namely ‘man’ or ‘male’. [So, not “every major dictionary” defines the term as gender-neutral]. While this word can possibly be used to refer to ‘human-like’, nonetheless it generally refers to ‘male-like’, and its dictionary definitions typically do not cite applicability to ‘female’ likeness (hence its ambiguity). The fact is, as cited above, the word gynoid does explicitly and directly refer to female-like robot. Gynoid therefore has merit in this regard.

The word gynoid is, in its application concerning the TX, a useful change to the article as it informs the reader of the correct gender designation of the robot, i.e. it emphasises that the TX is female-like (not simply human-like, or man-like). The TX is a woman. Is this of importance to the article? Well, other writers think so. Blitz and Krasniewicz, in their book Why Arnold Matters (2004), see the fact that the TX is “a sexy-looking blond” (p.92) as significant - not least because of what this gender designation represents. For example, they quote Schwarzenegger as saying “I saw this toilet bowl. How many times do you get away with this - to take a woman, grab her upside down, and bury her face in a toilet bowl” (p.136). As such, the issue of gender is crucial - in terms of its cultural resonance.

Given that so many references have now been presented which cite Loken as portraying a gynoid, the article should reflect this evidence. Indeed, without further ado, I could cite half a dozen references which state Loken portrayed a gynoid, all of which are biographical-type articles that are readily accessible to a general readership. Additionally, I could cite a similar number of references which clearly declare the word gynoid to be the counterpart to that of android. And when I say that the use of the word android in this context shows etymological ignorance, I’m not “claiming” anything (nor am I engaging in personal attack) - rather, I’m offering a quote from a relevant article: Robots have become an important part of our lives states that “calling a female robot an android shows etymological ignorance!” (http://www.wordsources.info/words-mod-robots.html).

So, lets use the term gynoid. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have read all this and find that TX is a gynoid. I've read quite a bit of SciFi, and already thought the TX was a gynoid (or fembot). The term is rather common within SciFi, just as it seems to be in robotics. The discussion provided by those in favor of the term gynoid seems entirely logical and straight forward. I dont know why Chicken seems so opposed to the word. His argument denies the actual origin of the word android, specifically the fact it refers to man-like. He denies the validity of the word gynoid, which is crazy given the sources that exist explaining it. He seems to be at pains to stop change for the better even when references exist that say Loken's character is a gynoid! In the end, its like saying all people - male and female - are men, because the term mankind can be used to mean humankind. But since we do use the terms 'men' and 'women' it logically follows that robots that represent different sexes should be differently classified. Androids are male robots. Gynoids are female robots. Because the TX is a female robot so the TX is a gynoid.

Chiken should stop changing the word back to android. The word gynoid must be used in this article. Its apparent that most people adding to this discussion accept the TX as a gynoid. The references should be used and the term gynoid used. Stop this endless debate and just accept gynoid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.27.4.235 (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In medicine both terms ‘android’ and ‘gynoid’ are used. These terms refer to certain forms of fat distribution in the human body. The term android denotes a shape typically characterised by males (and refers to an apple-shaped body). While gynoid denotes a female-like shape (characterised in terms of pear-shaped people). Medically speaking, with regard to body shapes, android=male and gynoid=female. This is a general classification only, since some men (a small percentage) take on a female-like body shape, and vice-versa. Accordingly, it’s appropriate to say that android=male-like, and that gynoid=female-like.

As a medical doctor, I am familiar with these terms. Popular, easy-readable source material can be found on the web which doesn’t include any jargon, and which provides a basic illustration of these terms. See, for instance, http://www.answers.com/topic/gynoid-fat-distribution?cat=health.

I’m aware that these terms express forms of use in other areas of scientific study and research - including robotics and cybernetics. Again, the same applies in the world of science fiction. All these areas are related, borrowing terminology from each other. It is the case, though, that the term gynoid does not appear in any mainstream dictionary. However, it does appear in medical dictionaries (as well as in research papers). It is a very ‘real’ word even though it does not appear in major dictionaries.

I can see the usefulness of the term gynoid in relation to the film character TX, as played by Loken. The robot she plays is obviously ‘female-like’ and thus is a gynoid. This word should be used when describing the sort of robot the TX is. To not use the word simply because it isn’t in mainstream dictionaries is rather ridiculous - it’s like refusing to use the word TX because it doesn’t appear in such dictionaries. The facts are, the TX exists (as a form of fiction) and the TX is a gynoid (a term derived from both science and science fiction). Looking at the above discussion, references are provided which testify to both these facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.16.61.77 (talk) 03:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This discussion centres on whether Loken’s TX character should be referred to as an ‘android’ or a ‘gynoid’.

A request was made for opinions from others on this matter - everyone is welcome to provide comment or opinion, and to assist in reaching agreements.

The article has been using the term ‘android’. For comments in defence of this use, see those offered by Chicken Wing. I suggested changing the article, so as to use term ‘gynoid’ (see my comments above on this suggested change).

Chicken Wing stated that “If outside observers think that gynoid should be added, then it would become more prudent to make the change”.

Many other people have contributed. All are (at the time of writing) in favor of changing the article, so as to refer to the TX as a gynoid.

Given this, the article should be changed - and the change should be accepted as valid and legitimate. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 03:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to change the article -- not because of the unconvincing arguments made here, but because the majority opinion is in favor of the word "gynoid". However, I have posted the dispute on WP:3PO, as that was the proper thing to do. It was what I originally recommended. Posting the dispute on the talk page for gynoid was an example of forum shopping and votestacking. It probably wasn't the best way to go about this. I don't know why you chose that forum after I specifically informed you of better venues. Consensus usually isn't built by having comments from IP addresses with very low edit counts and users whose only contributions are to this discussion, as is what happened here. Chicken Wing (talk) 07:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with Chicken Wing - debate from other people (who regularly use this site) should be included here so as to arrive at a more informed decision. The fact is, I fully appreciate the reasons for using the word “android” - especially that it is a more familiar term to a general readership. I initially made the change because, being an avid reader of science fiction books as well as a regular viewer of films in this genre, I was aware of the word gynoid and though it better “fit” the description of the TX character. However, strictly speaking, the “official” designation assigned to the TX (in the film and its novelisation and script, etc.) is ‘cybernetic organism’ / ‘killing machine’. Both Chicken Wing and myself are “applying” terms that are not presented in the film. Maybe the word ‘robot’ might suffice? I’ve argued for gynoid because other articles - both on this site and elsewhere (including biographical articles on Loken herself) - refer to this character as a gynoid. Anyway, I’ve said all I’m going to on this matter … Simon P Blackburn (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion A request was made for a WP:Third Opinion. However, more than two editors are involved in the dispute as I understand it, so I have removed the request. Please try other options in WP:DISPUTE, such as WP:RFC. Thanks. -Colfer2 (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think what’s important is what can be REFERENCED.

This is a biographical article on Loken. If references can be provided which state what sort of ‘robot’ she played in Terminator 3, then cite them. If a biographical reference, discussing her role in the film, can be given that says she was a “android” or “gynoid” then cite them - it is that simple.

I’ve looked at the references provided above, and it is clear that many on-line biographical articles (which are directly relevant to this article) can be cited which say Loken played the “gynoid TX”. This should be sufficient. I’m not aware of any articles which refer to her as an android. This article was calling her an android, but the term was not referenced (it was therefore unsupported). The Wikipedia article on the TX calls her a gynoid, and the term is referenced. Since a defence can be made for calling the TX a gynoid, such references should stand - and the terms given in this article would be properly supported. By calling her an android - without using references - is not a good move. Is at odds with the other article, and causes confusion.

I’m not a SF fan, especially not of the literature. I’ve watched Terminator 3 and was aware the TX was some sort of robot. The type of robot doesn’t really matter, except that it adds a little bit of extra information. Readers must surely have sufficient wits about them to find out, if they so desire, what the words ‘android’ and ‘gynoid’ mean. A quick search tells you that ‘android’ can refer to human-like robots, but that it principally means man-like robots, and that ‘gynoid’ refers exclusively to female-like robots. The genesis and lineages of these terms is not important here. What matters is that if ‘gynoid’ is used - which, to me, it seems it should be since TX was a female robot - then it be adequately referenced.

Someone has gone to the trouble to reference the word gynoid, and has found more than one reference to cite, so the word should be in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.27.4.236 (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Everyone that commented here besides the two main parties can fall broadly into two categories -- (1) new users whose only contributions are to this discussion, and (2) IP addresses with very few or no other substantive edits.

They all have one thing in common though -- the advancement of facially incorrect arguments. You basically contend two things -- (1) gynoid can be referenced, and (2) android principally means man-like robots.

The first argument suffers from the flaw that android can be referenced also.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

Note as well that the word android's first definition in all the major dictionaries is human-like and not man-like.[10] Further on this point, note that you are probably not a lexicographer, and your judgment should not be used to supplant the judgment of major dictionaries without a very solid foundation. Chicken Wing (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

WOW!!! this is deep. Whats being got at here? Im new to adding "talk" but so what? Anyway Ive looked at the refs CW mentions and he is just all wrong. The 2nd ref calls the TX a cyborg NOT an android. The 3rd ref is really inappropriate as its not biographical or sci fi but is a "whats going on in the life of" style article on Loken and many others. The 5th ref is just a collection of comments by critics on T3 and NONE of them call the TX an android. The 6th ref is about "female robots" and it only says "if you're hoping to have an android robot that looks like Kristanna Loken then you should wait few years" - not really relevant at all, as its neither biographical on Loken or about the meaning of these words. CW if youre going to try and say the argument suffers from the flaw that android can be referenced also you should at least try and get refs that back up what youre saying. Youve done nothing of the sort!!! This talk page has said far to much on this already as its not adding to the Loken article. Im only commenting here to say ENOUGH ALREADY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.16.61.77 (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Source 2 - "...the pitiless android..."

Source 5 - "...a female android..."

Everything I linked to references the character as an android, so we can ignore your criticisms of those two sources. You also offered no criticism of the first, fourth, and seventh criticism. You also ignored the fact that major dictionaries, which I linked to, define the word the way I have used it.

You also use a double standard in criticizing these sources. I don't consider them to be very optimal, but let's look at the others that have been offered. First, I'll ignore all the ones that are talking about gynecoid and not gynoid, as those are two different words and concepts. After that, I notice a link to wordsources.info, a website for which I have seen no evidence of its authority. As far as I can tell, that website is only linked to between one and zero times on the Wikipedia mainspace. The celebrityindex.com article is little more than a copy and paste of the Wikipedia article from a time when someone had inserted the word gynoid in it, so that holds no weight. There are also dozens of websites out there that refer to the T-X as an android that are mere repostings of the Wikipedia article. The medical-hypotheses.com article uses the word gynoid synonymously with the medical term gynecoid. It does not use gynoid to mean female-like robot. Pxdrive.com is another rehashing of the Wikipedia article. Chickipedia.com, despite the rather authoratative sounding name, is not, in fact, a reliable source and appears to only be paraphrasing the Wikipedia article.

The last two IP address editors have actually done more harm to the gynoid argument than good. Through their edits, we've now established that there are no sources for gynoid to be used in this article, multiple sources for android, and that android is the word that dictionaries say is appropriate in this context. Chicken Wing (talk) 07:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

CW you really like to push things, don’t ya. I think some of your comments border on rudeness to others … but that’s another story. You don’t really like getting involved with what others say - you just dismiss it. If one thing someone says can be shown to be a bit ‘iffy’ then you declare everything they say to be wrong. Poor logic. Bad argument.

The refs you gave are not up to much. None of them seems appropriate as they are not biographical on Loken (and this is a biographical article). Nor are they detailed sci fi articles on androids / gynoids (which would also be relevant).

And there are also probs with them - the second calls TX a cyborg many times: “In "Terminator 3, rise of the machines", Kristanna is TX, a cyborg programmed to terminate the kind Schwarzy and his young protected John Connor … This is an improved version of the personage of Robert Patrick in "Terminator 2". A devious cyborg, stuffed with gadgets, and that knows to play on the femininity to reach her mission.”

Seems to me shes being called a CYBORG.

As for ref 5 - ok I admit my mistakes. Of the 11 different reviews given by critics, one of them (David Sterritt of The Christian Science Monitor) does use the word android. BUT THE 10 OTHERS DO NOT!

And no - we have NOT “now established that there are no sources for gynoid to be used in this article” (or that there are “multiple sources for android”). This is again your poor logic, bad argument. You’ve dismissed the relevant refs given by others - but only because you don’t like what they say. That’s not the same as establishing there are no sources!!!

People can keep on adding to this but whats the point? You seem to have a built in gripe. Carrying on like this seems childish to me. So lets put aside tit-for-tat differences in opinion. Let them rest (can we do that? or must we be, to use a term from above, "obstinate"?). Lets try to be constructive instead. Here goes …

When all is said and done the official stuff relating to the film character calls the TX a cyborg. The script which is referenced above by someone indicates shes a “cybernetic organism”. Now while we may not like this term it is what the film makers call her. Given that Lokens TX only exists as a film character then we should accept (even if we don’t like) what the film makers say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.16.61.77 (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's probably not good to follow up a failure to assume good faith (which you did when you said "you really like to push things") with a claim that someone else is being rude. In a conversation that involves disagreement, it's easy to view the other side as being rude. You'll note that I have not, as far as I can remember, accused anyone of being rude in this discussion. That is despite the fact that there have been several comments directed at me that I thought lacked an appropriate level of civility.

Next, you move on to psychoanalysis ("You don't really like getting involved with what others say..."). It's best not to try to determine what I like to do and what I don't like to do. It won't help you very much on Wikipedia.

I'll have to dismiss your complaints about the refernences I provided as an incomplete argument. I already pointed out that the sources in support of gynoid were far more insufficient. Your claim that I dismissed the other sources because I don't like what they say is just untruthful. I actually gave a detailed explanation of why each source was flawed. Mostly, those sources were just re-postings of the Wikipedia article itself. Not only are those unreliable sources per Wikipedia policy, but the failure of other editors to even notice this calls in to question the judgment of each editor that posted or defended those links.

When I look over what has been said in this section, I actually notice that most of my arguments have gone unrefuted or inadequately refuted. All the other arguments that have been offered in favor of gynoid have been refuted. Then, anonymous IP editors and new users have then restated those same defeated arguments without establishing any new evidence or reasoning that would reconstruct the validity of those previous arguments.

Probably the only correct substantive statement you make is that "cybernetic organism" would probably be a better term. I've already previously indicated in this section that there are probably many other terms that would be more suitable than android or gynoid -- "cybernetic organism" among them. Chicken Wing (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Cant let it be … I think “cybernetic warrior” is best here. I was thinking “cybernetic organism” but what Blackburn says makes sense. You are right when you say you mentioned this sort of term earlier. In your comment on the 6th July you say you “haven’t considered” other terms (killing machine, cybernetic warrior, robot, etc). Now you have. But I think it needs pointing out that Blackburn said them first (4th July). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.16.61.77 (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

“I’m back” (as Schwarzenegger would say). Re-reading all this talk, I think it is important to remember the following: contributors should not show disdain for other people’s views or opinions, so long as these views and opinions are reasonable (i.e. based on reason).

I initially aimed to slightly change the article, getting rid of the word ‘android’ and replacing it with ‘gynoid’, and I did so for a legitimate reason. First, I was aware that the word gynoid refers to a female robot, and thus thought it had merit over the more ambiguous term android, and since Loken’s TX is a fremale-like robot so the term seemed more applicable. Second, I was aware that the word gynoid could be adequately referenced - and, since this encyclopaedia strives towards empiricism, so I thought that gynoid (being referenced) was more germane than android (being hitherto unreferenced).

Chicken Wing presented various arguments, ideas and suggestions which sought to counter my change to the article. His doing so is completely valid. He has offered insightful reasons for using the word android. What I disagree with, however, is his attitude towards this matter - as he all to readily rejected other people's comments without acknowledging that they were (and are) reasonable. He also tends to be rather brash in his handling of others.

My reason for saying that the appropriate term - android or gynoid - is not to be garnered from any notable dictionary is clear: such lexicon is not, in this context, justifiable in this manner. Just as the definition of Loken’s character - the Terminatrix - is not to be found in any such dictionary, neither must the word gynoid in its connection with the TX. What is important is that the word be located in relevant referential material - biographical articles on Loken or science fiction articles on gynoids. I found such materials and cited them.

A lot was said in terms of the etymology of the words - but, in actual fact, none of this was strictly relevant. It does not really matter what the various contested meanings of the words are. What matters is how people have used them, and whether they have been used in connection with Loken’s TX.

Chicken Wing has - finally - presented a number of possible references which support use of the term android. However, I find these to be somewhat inappropriate (e.g. an article containing a dozen or so short reviews on the film T3, in which one critic mentions in passing that Loken plays an android, is not the best way to defend the use of this term). Other articles may, of course, be offered which do appropriately cite the TX as an android.

In re-reading all this, I am struck by how it tends to lead nowhere. It’s probable that appropriate references can be found that cite the TX as an android or a gynoid. But, in taking note of what has also been contributed, I find that neither of these terms may be valid for this article. The TX is a character situated in a fictional domain (the films, books, games, etc., of the Terminator franchise). Since this article is about Loken’s portrayal of a character in the film, so it logically follows that material relating to that film is the primary material to cite, i.e. it’s the most relevant and most legitimate. As mentioned above, the script for the film refers to the TX as a ‘killing machine’ and as a ‘cybernetic organism’ (terms which are said in the film itself). The official novelisation (by David Hagberg) of the film also uses this terminology (see pages 154-5). In fact, this official novelisation offers a brief explanation of the word TX, saying it means: “Enhanced Logic Weapons Systems Cybernetic Warrior / Infiltration Unit. TX, for short.” (page 56).

Surely the aim of any editor is to offer the best possible information based on the most relevant materials. On this basis, I now accept that the use of the word gynoid is inappropriate. It’s more appropriate than android, but neither term is valid in this case. The article should refer to the TX as either: (a) a Cybernetic Warrior, (b) a cybernetic organism, or (c) a killing machine. These are the only terms of reference offered in the official materials. Since they are offered, they are of first order importance. The latter two terms are mentioned as indirect reference to the TX, the former is given as a direct explanation. I suggest, therefore, the TX be called a cybernetic warrior.

I don’t like this term, in this context, as I know the TX is not a cyborg in any way - but to say this is, ultimately, to offer POV. Just as, I now accept, calling her a gynoid / android is also POV. It’s either unreferenced (as, originally, the word android was in this article) and thus the POV of the editor who offered it - or it’s the POV of reviewers, critics, etc., (since they are not in actual fact citing where they got the term from).

The factuality of the term ‘cybernetic warrior’ may be erroneous on the part of the film-makers, but it is they who created the TX and they who called her such. That is their prerogative, and this article should - notwithstanding the limitations of the word - accept it. It can be referenced from verifiable and primary source material. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

nope, gynoid is a word, but not one that is is in common use to denote a robot of human appearance. the word droid which is gender-unbiased in its own way has better chances of becoming commonplace. and of course, there is still nothing wrong with good old robot 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:1490:42F0:9710:D3E4 (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

This tx as a future of the machine Amal baiju walker (talk) 07:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Timeline Discrepancy - Personal Life

Look at this information about her marriage in the article: "On January 17, 2008, Loken announced on her Web site that she had become engaged to the actor Noah Danby (her co-star in Painkiller Jane). The couple were married at her family's farm on May 10, 2008.[10]

In an interview published on November 16, 2009, she announced that she had separated from husband Noah Danby and was now in a relationship with a woman.[11]"

Anything there seem funny to anybody else? How could she have said in November 2009 that her marriage in May 2010 is over?--In All Honor 23:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WatchHawk (talk • contribs)

I think you're misreading that, it says the marriage was on May 10 in 2008, not in May 2010. Siawase (talk) 12:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Birthday

She's born on December 19. It previously said she was born on October 8, so I fixed that. But I can't fix it for the picture so...yeah...just putting that out there. Kthxbye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.66.108 (talk) 01:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there a source to support a change? Gimmetoo (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kristanna Loken. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scifi.com/sfw/interviews/sfw12412.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.terminatorfiles.com/news/2003/2003-03-26-a.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scifi.com/sfw/interviews/sfw12412.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kristanna Loken. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20141023045817/http://www.pageantopolis.com/Model/elite.htm to http://www.pageantopolis.com/Model/elite.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kristanna Loken. 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/20111229185948/http://www.askmen.com/celebs/women/models_150/184_kristanna_loken.html to http://www.askmen.com/celebs/women/models_150/184_kristanna_loken.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 22:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Zorb

Nothing about the Zorb scam that she runs or used to run? 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:1490:42F0:9710:D3E4 (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)