Jump to content

Talk:History of erotic depictions/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

major contradiction

"merely looking at objects or images depicting them was not outlawed in any country until 1857."

vs.

"the first of which was a ban on erotic books known as kōshokubon ( 好色本, kōshokubon?) issued by the Tokugawa shogunate in Kyōhō 7 (1722)."

In general, the section containing the first quote should probably be made to be a bit more balanced, instead of more or less implying that the Victorians are responsible for all efforts to restrict pornography.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.245.6.230 (talk • contribs)

A ban is not neccessarily a written law. pschemp | talk 18:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

More variety needed in the illustrations

What is here is very good, but a bit more art from the Eastern traditions would be in order. I will contribute some examples, posting them here so the main editors can make their selection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haiduc (talk • contribs)

Thanks. I've transfered any of these that are not on commons to commons and place them in the Shunga and Chinese erotic art categories there that are linked at the bottom of this article so they can participate whether they are in the article directly or not. I'm not actaully done with the eastern depictions and the choice of images. In the future, when you put images on commons, please consider adding them to these categories. Also consider moving everything to commons too, to keep images organized. Thanks. pschemp | talk 19:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

why the lengthy title?

Seems like this article would be better titled simply "Erotica" - that article is presently a tiny stub. Why not a merge/delete?

This article is explicitly about the history, not the current use. The article on erotica clearly states that the term carries current connotations that would exclude a lot of the material described by this article because it is not "high brow". The term "erotic depictions" is not weighted in this way. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

back and forth

So as not to destabilize the article at this point I thought we should discuss these matters here.

  1. First of all, please see this link for an extensive discussion of the Greeks' appreciation of the intact penis, and their ridicule of circumcision.
  2. Second, this text Greek art often portrays sexual activity, but it is impossible to distinguish between what to them was illegal or immoral since the ancient Greeks did not have a concept of pornography. is not intelligible from a classical standpoint. We actually have a fair idea of what the Greeks held to be illegal and what they held to be immoral in the domain of love. And what does it mean that they did not have a concept of pornography? The whole discussion reads more like a projection of modern standards on ancient art.
  3. Finally, if you are going to link the Greek pederasty amphora image to a pederasty article, why not link it to the Greek pederasty article rather than the generic one?
  4. Oh, yes, I do agree with you on herms having heads other than that of Hermes, thank you for picking that up. Haiduc 06:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


I think its awful presumptuous of modern people to say they know what the Greeks meant or were thinking. Yes, we can guess, but we don't know for certain. Our interpretations *could* be totally wrong. Therefore, I don't think things should be stated as absolute fact and indeed it is true that we can never know their morals for certain. We do indeed know that they modern concept of pornography was invented by the Victorians, therefore, it is impossible for the Greeks to share it as they were long dead. Pederasty is already linked as a concept, if people wish to go to the level of Greek pederasty, it is easy for them to do so. I feel its better to start out with a more general link to the concept for educational purposes. As for the views of circumcision, this article is not here to discuss every detail of Greek self image, nor of Roman. That belongs in an article dedicated to the topic but is a detail not needed here. Honestly I'd love to see an article written about Greek and Roman body image, as very little about is mentioned on Wikipedia and that not referenced. The level of detail would be appropriate there, but not here. This article is an overview, and that's just not a necessary detail. Nor do I feel like having this article being used for propaganda in the circumcision wars, which I feel might be your intent when I look at your contributions. So, no I don't agree with any of your proposed changes. pschemp | talk 22:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't agree with any of your formulations. Your sally into "illegality and immorality" is patent nonsense from a classicist perspective, and sounds like schoolmarmish moralizing. It has no place in a balanced objective treatment of erotic art in ancient times. It is a modern puritan voice that may belong somewhere but certainly not here. As for your claim of lack of certainty, that is a yardstick that smacks of tendentiousness. Nothing is certain, that does not mean that we erase everything and go home. I was hoping for a discussion of the issues I raised, not a lecture or a imputation of motives based on a superficial understanding of my work here. Since that is not forthcoming I will simply edit as required. Haiduc 23:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you are putting interpretations on my comments that do not exist. I am not lecturing you about prudishness, nor am I a modern puritan. If you are willing to write me off so quickly, I can't help but think you have an agenda of your own. Nowhere did I say I was not willing to discuss further, but rather than countering my comments with facts, you have made a moral judgement on my character. If you truly cared about the content, you would discuss as I am doing here. However, you need to make a convincing argument for your viewpoint. I've done a lot of research to write this article so I'm not just some dumb kid. Additionally, this is a featured article, so you need to justify your edits with more than "well I think its this way." Honestly, what a terribly immature reaction on your part. I gave you my reasoning and you countered with "you're a prude". How is that assuming good faith on your part? pschemp | talk 23:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
There is many approaches I could take, but I have to wonder what circumcision has to do with an article on the history of erotic depictions. The assertion that circumcision was eschewed over the "intact" penis in the greek world seems nothing more than an attempt to insert modern day concerns and values. Of course in the greek world a large majority of greeks were not circumcised, and so greek art, erotic or not, would indicate this. Trying to suggest that art was created during that period with a purpose to glorify the "intact" penis over the circumcised seems to be to be nonsense. Even if there were some grain of truth to that, it seems like minutae of little importance in a the larger context of erotic depictions. If "your work" is of greater importance than it seems on the surface, you'll need to present it in a more convincing fashion. Atom 00:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
If you are going to describe the Greek aesthetic ideal of the penis, you need to say that it was small and uncircumcised. To gloss over that IS to insert modern sexual polemics into the discussion, and cheats the reader. Whether you describe the uncut member as "intact" or not is irrelevant, but it would seem fitting to respect the conventions that have evolved as part of this project. I am flabbergasted that you and Pschemp would cling tooth and nail to an inaccurate description when with the addition of one word you can actually present a proper idea of the subject you are discussing. This whole polemic of what the art was designed for is, forgive me, off the wall. Let's drop the culture wars and the anxieties about personal agendas and deal with the Greeks, shall we?
Also, the external links leave something to be desired. Can we not find some more varied sources of historical erotic depictions? Do the Moche deserve two links?! If this is to be a featured article I think we can do better than that.
Furthermore, I have not seen any valid reason to retain that anachronistic aside on illegality and immorality, certainly not in that "we can not know" mode which is simply false. I would prefer to reason our way through that, but failing that I will simply ask for a proper citation. A better solution would be to say that depictions of eros were not problematized, and that those aspects of eros which were problematized (such as a man fellating another, or masturbating, or being buggered) were either not depicted, or only rarely. That at least would be true. And no, I am not insisting on any particular wording, just getting that idea across. And I can't believe, Pschamp, that you would have the nerve to review my edits, as if that had anything to do with the value of my contributions here, which need to stand or fall on their own merits. That is not too much to ask, is it? Haiduc 01:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I haven't heard anyone describe the Greek aesthetic ideal as something other than small and uncircumcised. (The article states "The Greek male ideal had a small penis, an aesthetic the Romans later adopted." That's always been my understanding. The penis is by default "uncircumcised" and so I'm not sure why one would go out of their way to describe it as "intact", a term not used at that time, and not really used until recently. If the article were to describe the Greek ideal as large and circumcised, we wouldn't be discussing this. Pschemp's description, given above, seems perfect IMO. If the majority of the civilized world at that time were circumcised then noting that uncircumcised penises were the ideal would be notable. Noting that the ideal was uncircumcised in a world that was 90% uncircumcised doesn't seem important. It also doesn't mention that the Greek ideal was not pierced with a prince albert either.
As for the Links, as in all articles, even a featured article, I am sure improvements can be made. Why don't you suggest some. Since you point that out, I am sure others will work on that too.
As for the issue of stating "Greek art often portrays sexual activity, but it is impossible to assume they saw it as immoral since the ancient Greeks did not have a concept of pornography" that seems credible to me. Were someone to say otherwise would require a citation that showed that the sexual activity was viewed by the Greeks as immoral, or as pornography, which as far as I know would be incorrect, and non-citable. What would you suggest that it say? Do you have citations that disagree? Maybe you could explain how that view is anachronistic, because I don't understand. As you are a scholar and this is your area of expertise, a more thorough explanation of how the greeks viewed art portraying sexual activity would be enlightening for me. Frankly I can't see how that view could be seen as "Puritan" or "Moralizing", it seems quite the opposite. Atom 03:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
That article is pretty speculative. He acknowledges a number of times that other scholars don't agree with his arguments - for example on whether psolos can be read as "circumsised" or simply means "erect."
Dybryd 02:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. The author even points out that that adjective was used even when a man was circumcised. I have to admit that I'm skeptical of this as a source considering that all the other scholars I've read have never felt circumcision notable enough to even mention. Of course they were uncircumcised, the Greeks didn't practice that. Mentioning it is rather redundant. As for the Moche, they certainly do deserve two links, as erotic art in ancient civilisations in South American is an under researched topic and just as important as erotic art in any other ancient culture. Additionally, I didn't have any free pictures of their works so they need to be there so people can see what the works look like. If there are good, NPOV and educational links that add to the content that's fine, but the focus of an article certainly isn't its external links. If you read the FAC discussion you'll see I had to fight tooth and nail just to get the description of Greek and Roman phallic preference that does exist in here. Citing a speculative source is problematic as is making the assertation that we know exactly for sure and without a doubt how the ancient Greeks thought. Certainly that would need a helluva source - or ten. pschemp | talk 03:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

the Greeks and the glans

I hate getting stuck on such a minor and obvious point, but if I must prove the Earth is round, here it goes. . .

  1. "Because the Greeks regarded circumcision as a multilation of the body, some of the Jewish participants in the Greek athletic games tried to mask the signs."
  2. "The Greeks, Etruscans, and Romans, appear to have been accustomed to cover the foreskin with the kynodesme (a band), or the fibula (a ring), for custom and modesty demanded that the glans should be concealed. Such covering is represented in persons who were compelled to be naked, and is referred to by Celsus as "decori causâ." (L. Stieda, "Anatomisch-archäologische Studien," Anatomische Hefte, Bd. XIX, Heft 2, 1902.)"

Consider it done. Also, as a correction to what I had written earlier, the glans IS shown exposed in the iconography, but usually as a comedic device, since it was seen as ridiculous, or as an ethnic marker, to distinguish certain barbarian races from the Greeks.

As an aside, Pschamps, if you were a novice user and came across with the kind of capricious statement, as you did, that you expect a helluva source - or ten. I would write it off to youthful abandon and inexperience. But it appears you are an admin. How do you permit yourself that level of discourse?! You should be twice as circumspect as a regular user, such as myself, since you have more power.

Finally, if this were the article (but it is not) I would also insert a comment to the picture of Priapus pointing out that his exposed glans is part of that very effect you so aptly describe (undesirable and comic).

Enough of dicks, if you please. That is not why I came here. I simply wanted to do a general lookover, to make sure we do not make asses of ourselves with a masthead article. So I will attempt to do just that, and feel free to comment as you please. But I hope that you will do me the courtesy to not just revert arbitrarily as if this article was personal territory. Haiduc 04:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

No one said it was your personal theory. We said it was redundant to mention and a level of detail that isn't needed here. As I suggested before why don't you write an article about Greek body image and we'll link it? You still didn't prove that anyone out there is 100% correct at interpreting Greek thoughts though. Btw, this article isn't specifically about homosexual depictions, so unless you are going to balance that link with a straight and lesbian one, it isn't appropriate. NPOV applies. Oh yeah, and the old "you are an admin so you have to just shut up and take abuse from other editors" doesn't fly with me. It was good attempt at a backhanded insult though. pschemp | talk 05:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
"We"?! "100%"?! "Balance" when there are already a bunch of straight links there?! Why are you being so antagonistic? "Go write an article?!" "An unneeded level of detail" when all I wanted to do is add ONE word?! "Abuse"??? "Insult you"?! I came in here in the most respectful way imaginable, with my original suggestion of alternative images which I did not even post in the article but only on the talk page. And all along what I get is condescension and resistance. What is going on here? This is not the kind of collaborative, collegial climate I would expect from a group of experienced users with whom I have no prior history of bad blood. Haiduc 05:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I rather think that *you* were the condescending one. Or did you forget that you called me a "Puritan"? Or how about "schoolmarmish moralizing"? it sounds quite condescending to me. pschemp | talk 05:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Good job guys, way to show the world the Wikipedia way. 66.0.141.195 01:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well it may not always be pretty, but in the long run, it does build better articles. Doc Tropics 01:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Clarification: it's the free and open exchange of ideas that builds better articles, the name-calling is just an optional extra feature. Doc Tropics 01:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

References

Haiduc, you need to understand that every single claim in the article is referenced to a source at the end of a paragraph. Thus, you cannot just go sticking in facts without other references where they appear to have come from those cited. In fact they don't and such edits are misleading to the reader. Cite sources or your insertions will be removed. Also understand that this is not an article created to focus on western culture and edits that make the article go that way are not neccesary. pschemp | talk 05:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I see what the situation is

I am sorry I said anything, I wish you all the best with the article. Haiduc 05:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Amen for Wikipedia

Hell yes. This is what I like to see on the Main Page! Let's develop a theme here.UberCryxic 00:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and now it's a target for every vandal on Wikipedia. (84.13.178.35 22:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC))

Just like every other FA on the main page. pschemp | talk 22:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Good. If it means they're not bothering anybody else... :) Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

...Speaking of, wtf is going on with the article right now and why wasn't it put in protected status? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.221.39.187 (talk • contribs)

Thanks alot wikipedia

Yeah, Wikipedia is not censored and all... but this didn't lend much credibility to my attempts at proving wikipedia as a viable start for internet research.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.29.193.181 (talk • contribs)

Um perhaps you missed the 40 references at the bottom of the article. pschemp | talk 00:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Have you read the article? It's fairly good. I'm guessing your research isn't exactly directed towards erotic depictions? The Main Page has a great deal of variety; I'm sure another day you'd find something you liked.UberCryxic 00:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree, I think it would behoove wikipedia editors to act as if sex did not exist and to refrain from mentioning it--or making any articles about it--in the future. Information about anything to do with sex can do nothing but harm to a world full of dangerously wayward souls. Thank You. Brentt 01:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
You mean babies don't come from storks? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, there are other theories about where babies come from, but they are all pretty wacky (and perverted), and don't need to be given equal validity. Brentt 04:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Just for the heck of it and because you've left enough ambiguity that I'm not sure, are you being serious or not? pschemp | talk 04:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Depends on which part your speaking of. I really do think babies come from storks, but I don't know if I'm being serious or not about the other thing, because the other thing doesn't exist, so I'm not sure if I'm serious. Maybe? Brentt 08:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
But of course. --Lenoxus 02:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Images

Please refrain from removing images without discussing it first here. There are very good reasons why these ones were included and just removing them is not helpful. Also, for those who keep changing my spelling of civilisation, please see here. It is a valid spelling. Thank you. pschemp | talk 00:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not use the more common spelling for consistency's sake? Nimrand 01:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The rule around here is to retain the spelling of the original contributor as a sign of respect. Thank you. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, while I dismiss the inaccurate comment about "the more common spelling", the rule is that the article should be consistent throughout with either British English or American English. The choice of which to use depends on either the subject, or, if that doesn't yield a preference, on the earliest editor's selection. The choice between the British spelling "civilisation" and the American spelling "civilization" should be made on that basis, not an individual editor's preference. (But I haven't studied the history of the article enough to judge whether the British spelling is the appropriate choice in this case.) Xtifr tälk 22:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I see this was covered in more detail (and more accurately) below, so ignore my comments please. Sorry. Xtifr tälk 22:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
yes. Insane detail. pschemp | talk 23:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

???

Interesting choice of Featured Article. I hope elementary school teachers aren't planning to send their students on here to research anything in the next 24 hours. --D-Day I'm all ears 00:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Eh, why not? Then they can see how babies are made. The damn bastards always wonder that, after all (kidding, of course)....UberCryxic 00:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I hope they do send their kids here personally. Every thing contained has an academic source. They can can then lecture on the morality of those scholars who wrote about it first then. pschemp | talk 00:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

But if they did send their students here, they are dumb. It's no secret that Wikipedia is uncensored. I personally think this article shows that it's possible to have an unbiased and academic treatment of a socially taboo subject. *question though* will this get filtered by various filtering programs? 66.194.72.10 00:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably. School filtering systems are pretty extreme. --Vyran 01:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Depends on the system. Like often the Penis article is blocked, but not ones like this because there isn't a "bad key word" in the title. pschemp | talk 03:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Awesome article

It was a great read, and kudos for putting it on the front page. It's gotta be a particularly bad vandalism magnet tho, huh? I'll put it on my watchlist. Anchoress 00:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You, and hopefully a few dozen others. Put your seatbelt on, this could be a wild ride ; )
And yes, it's a great article, and front page placement was a bold move. Doc Tropics 01:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I suspect that by lunch-time this article will have to be protected or semi-protected. But props to all involved; I think it is excellent work. Legis 08:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"think we can safely assume that you can read edit summaries, Blue"

Well, I can read this: "see also was removed as part of FAC discussions)"
However, nobody but a consumate Wikipedia bureaucrat is actually going to understand the above as an "explanation".
Is it too much to ask other editors to have the @#%^@^@%ing decency to explain themselves? Might save yourselves a needless edit war.
Since when and by what rule are "See also" links to other articles disallowed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamcuriousblue (talk • contribs)
You missed an earlier edit summary and the above post on this very talk page. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is not about pornography, and links are given to pornography articles where appropriate. The "see also" section was removed for a reason - the links in the main text are perfectly adequate to direct the reader to related topics. Finally, all the links added were of a homosexual theme, which is introducing undue weight into the article. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This is arbitrary – pornography is a subset of erotic depictions. Furthermore, none of these links are included in the article itself, that's why I included them! The content of the "Lesbianism in erotica" article in particular closely parallels this one. As per the "three revert rule", I'll wait 24 hours and some discussion before re-adding these links, but so far, I've been given some very poor explanations by other editors concerning their actions. "It was removed for a reason" is not an explanation! Iamcuriousblue 00:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
As I said you missed this one. Please also see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of erotic depictions/archive1. Thank you. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I've re-added the lesbianism in erotica link within the text, with what I think is an appropriate degree of weight. Dybryd 01:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that adding links that flesh out aspects of this topic not covered in this article (in this case, the history of various kinds of homoerotic depictions) in any way constitutes "undue weight". And frankly, I am a bit suspicious about exactly what you have against "introducing a homosexual theme" to an article about "erotic depictions". Homoeroticism is part of erotica, after all.

In any event, Wikipedia articles are edited by consensus, and I'd like to throw this open to discussion and perhaps a straw poll. See also section or some other links to history of homoerotic depictions – so far I say yes and Samsara says no – what do other's think? Iamcuriousblue 01:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

In any case, here's the diff from the FAC discussion: [1] - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Note that the FAC discussion explicitly says that All of those either are or should be incorporated into the article text. If they aren't, then clearly they should either be included into the text of the article or left in "See also". The problem with "See also" on FAC was not that it existed, but rather that it was too long. This is no longer the case. (Also, please no straw polls. Polls are evil.) —Cuiviénen 01:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Agree with the no straw poll. Polls are evil. pschemp | talk 01:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually the see also consisted of only 3 links at the time it was called "bloated". There is no actual need for a see also section at all. Frog for instance does not have one either. If it is relevent if should go in the text with a citation. For this reason, I removed Dybyrds edit because it put uncited material into the article. This is an FA. we don't just dump stuff in without citing it. It also didn't refer to a specific depiction, was just a generic statement. pschemp | talk 01:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, fine. I don't think this article covers this topic in adequate detail and I thought it would be helpful to add a link to articles that did cover the topic in more detail. But fine, "featured article", property of the editors who have been working on it, and evidently not to be touched. I'll keep well away from it. Iamcuriousblue 01:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Reference number 3 contains

Marilyn Chambers, John Leslie, Seymore Butts (2005). Pornography: The Secret History of Civilization (DVD). Koch Vision. {{cite AV media}}: External link in |title= (help) ISBN 1417228857

Is there a more 'neutral' way to cite this video? As of now the commercial link seems like a very weasily bit of spam. RichMac (Talk) 01:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a link to the publisher. If it was a link to amazon.com, it might be a problem. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
No, its not spam, its the publishers website. The citation is correct and neutral and the Amazon page for this has incorrect publishing information anyway. pschemp | talk 01:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Would removing the link and leaving it as a simple reference be appropriate? I hate to link to page off wikipedia and see pricing. It just seems fundamentally wrong to me. RichMac (Talk) 07:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
No. that link is the proof that this reference is legitimate and people who want to find out more about it should be allowed to do so. You'll just have to get over your squeamishness, this is important information to be linked to. Without it, beacuse it is so heavily used, questions would arise at to whether the resource existed. pschemp | talk 07:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Squeamishness? Did you bother reading my reasoning? It has absolutely nothing to do with being prudish it's a matter of SPAM commercial linkage. Surely there must be a better reference. RichMac (Talk) 08:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Seymore Butts..? Dear God.. --Wooty Woot? contribs 07:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we find a better illustration?

I do not believe this image is a representative or a particularly evocative example of digitally altered erotica. --89.242.103.224 02:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Upload one and we'll discuss it. Thanks. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Volunteers for warning vandals?

Does anybody want to take on the job of dishing out warnings and issuing blocks while the rest of us revert? Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm, not sure if that's a good use of resources. I don't mind warning people (I do that usually when I revert - if it's appropriate), but I'm not willing to look back thru previous reverts by other editors to figure out whether they were vandalism, and to warn if appropriate. And, I am not an admin so I can't block. Let's put it this way; if other editors use really descriptive edit summaries so I don't have to look at a bunch of diffs, I'd be happy to warn vandals for the next few hours. Anchoress 02:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Cool. When you see me using edit summaries matching "Reverted edits by [...] (talk) to last version by [...]", it means I'm classifying the edit as vandalism. Technically, that edit summary should only be used for vandalism, so I expect that other admins use it in a similar way. Most other people use "rvv" to mean "revert vandalism", but you knew that (just for benefit of other readers) ;) Put a message on my talk or pschemp's when someone needs blocking. Many thanks, Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I know what rvv means, but for instance I don't want to bother warning any of the people who have been 'fixing' the spelling, so when people just revert with 'reverting to last version by so-and-so', I'm not gonna bother even looking at it to figure out if it was vandalism. Anchoress 02:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Hope the article will not require semi-protection. --Brand спойт 03:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Kinda Inappropriate for Feature...

I know a lot of kids use Wikipedia, and I think it was a bad idea featuring it. Does anyone agree with me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.51.119 (talk • contribs)

Yes! Very innappropriate! Someone should change this! This is out of the question. I understand that Wikipedia isn't censored, but putting it on the front page. Thanks, now Wikipedia will be blocked at my school tomorrow. Of course the article on Penis and fuck exists, but let the person go there themselves, instead of innocently finding porn on the front page of a "professional" encyclopedia. Yes it is porn, not "erotic paintings". "Erotic paintings" is a cover to make it sound innocent, but its still porn. They have nude models, they can call that "erotic picture" but if you go to a pornsite, its the same thing, its just that people don't call it art. Is hentai porn or art? Is pictures of children's cartoons naked porn or art? Reconsider your definition of the word "art". -69.67.230.47 03:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Of course this article includes the topic of pornography. No one is hiding that fact. But when the term wasn't invented until the 1860's, you have to use something else if you include the Greek and the Romans. This isn't here to define "porn" or "art" just give part of our human history. Personally I've never seen a porn site that featured paintings from Pompeii, but then you seem to be more knowledgeable about them than me. pschemp | talk 04:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
That makes a difference!? The term wasn't invented until 1860's!? Remove these images! Remove this! If that is the reason this is here, you're doing this for the wrong reason! Pornography is pornography, no age, date, or era can change that!

Lets show kids this! Come on! Lets show kids this and tell them its not wrong because the term porn came after this. Its not porn! Its Erotic art! Erotic art are pictures of nude people having sex. Porn is pictures of nude people having sex! Hey, lets get a grip people. Are they sexual images? Is porn sexual images? Same damn thing. -69.67.230.47 04:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Now, you say its just a part of history. Ok, ok. If there was a sextape that changed history, that's history. Should it be shown on Wikipedia? Or at least pictures of penetration? That's porno. Are we this desperate that we need images of it? -69.67.230.47
Yes, get a grip. It's not wrong. See it for what it is. Pictures of people with no clothes on having fun. Sex can be enjoyed responsibly, you know. You're not doing kids a favour by hiding it from them, because they will discover it for themselves. Samsara (talk • contribs) 04:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Incredible. That philosophy is what's making us an immoral society. Parents have the responsibility to teach their kids what sex is, and when to do it. If you teach kids this, they will have a higher chance of saving this act for marriage. Sex is for marriage, you can't run around willy-nilly, having sex. We aren't hiding sex. We shouldn't hide it. Sex education needs to be taught, preferably by parents, if they aren't cowards. Why are STDs all over the place, this kinda thing, my friend, this. They should learn when to do it. I may sound repetitive, but it needs to be said. Why is this even an arguement? 50-60 years ago, they knew better. Oh, screw this. You guys are too thick-headed that you won't get what I'm saying. I've argued with you guys before, you never get it. -69.67.230.47 04:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Who says sex is for marriage? What a really stupid concept. For me, not having sex before marriage is inmoral. Why should the morality of a single editor dictate Wikipedia policies? If you didn't want this article to be FA then you should have voted against it. Complaining now is useless and irresponsible. Sarg 08:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
In that case perhaps you realize that continuing to rant is useless then. pschemp | talk 05:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I doubt a few pictures of bronze sculptures (admittedly rather tastefully done) will encourage anyone to have sex. This is not the place to argue about politics. Like I said below, if you don't like it, use another reference, one that IS censored. WP will never be so. --Wooty Woot? contribs 07:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
As a direct result of this article being on the front page, I proceeded to have sex.
The bronze statue was not very responsive.
–Outriggr § 02:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, or just wait 18 hours until it's off the front page. Anchoress 07:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
This is highly inappropriate to be featured on the main page. Many children use Wikipedia for research in schools. I understand that Wikipedia is a open source community, but there are editors that decide what gets placed on the main page. Why does this article need to be highlighted? There's enough pornography on the Internet, why does it need to be on the front page of this site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.102.10.212 (talk • contribs)
If you are concerned about it, use another reference. --Wooty Woot? contribs 07:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I think kids will love this. Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks like good educational material to me. pschemp | talk 02:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
While it goes to pretty much to the extremes of what is an acceptable "featured article" it also does so in a refreshingly professional manner. It seems to have the vandals baffled - where would you insert the word "penis" in this article, in an objectionable way? For once, the vandals have to stop and think about it... At the same time, it shows that such topics can be dealt with in an Encyclopedia; similar topics can use this as a comparison - if they aren't at least this well hashed out, they may not be worth having as a Wikipedia article. (My 2¢.) --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 03:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. I'm pleasantly surprised at how little vandalism there's been, actually. I guess it's more thrilling to add vulgarity to an article about the US Constitution. Anchoress 04:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT censored and may contain objectionable material. How else could an article like Penis or Fuck exist in a comprehensive encyclopedia? See also Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Could be worse - analingus or something as FA. --Wooty Woot? contribs 03:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The more exposure that people have to sexuality, the better the world would be. This is a well written and factual article about one aspect of that. It doesn't make moralistic judgements about sexuality, it merely states the facts about erotic depictions. This is one of the best examples of a featured article I have seen recently. Not a single offensive or obscene image, well referenced and historically accurate while covering what is apparently a sensitive topic for some people. Atom 08:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No I think this is appropriate and that we should not censor this article. We should not bring adult topics down to children topics. Since we feature articles on war, lets not make sexual topics any different. Bronayur 16:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User:69.67.230.47, I'm sorry, would you rather NASCAR, or Christianity be the featured article? There is nothing wrong with this article. Wikipedia is not censored, and nor should education in general be censored. Secondly, the assumption that 50-60 years ago 'kids knew better' is quite frankly a lie. Age of consent laws were LOWER then, and as for STDs not being around everywhere -- ever heard of Syphilis? Darkahn 16:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This si completely unsuitable for use as a featured article. It has been blocked from my school all day thanks to the words used. This has severely hindered me and my classmates pace of work. it is too late now, but something should have been done to stop this in the first place. Yes, the article may be very well structured and sourced, and yes its content may well be good, but his does not make up for how inappropiate it is. --Chickenfeed9 18:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Complain to your head of IT and/or headmaster. Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

There are over 1.5 million articles to choose from for the featured article of the day, why put such a salacious article on the front page that will for sure upset someone, and turn them off to wikipedia who might otherwise make a positive contribuitation to this great site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.72.145 (talk • contribs)

Actually there are only about 1000 articles that are featured articles and are candidates for this slot on the main page. If this kind of academically researched content turns you off, then don't read it. pschemp | talk 20:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Chickenfeed9, Wikipedia is not censored. Period. Just because your school blocks the site, doesn't mean others do; some aren't ran by prudes. Not so long ago, Marilyn Manson was a featured article. Certain schools (though moreso private ones) blocked out Wikipedia because of that. Does that mean that thus Marilyn Manson was an inappropriate article based on the opinions of a few? No. Well, guess what - I now find shoes offensive! If you make shoes a featured article, it will be wholly immoral and inappropriate. While it is unfortunate you could not access the main page (although I believe you still would have been able to access most every other page), the appeasement of a few is not worth the abstinence of all. Darkahn 22:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I teach, and my school did not block the main page. It did, however, block the link to the penis page that someone posted above as an example; I checked out of curiosity. I think the blockage students might have experienced in other schools is more the fault of their schools' overzealous blocking than wikipedia. No problem with this as a featured article. Kid who actually knew how to use the school library could find more offensive stuff there. Eceresa 23:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for that comment. :) Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

the Venus of Willendorf really shouldn't be in here

dudes, seriously, fertility and sex may go hand in hand, but when you're talking about erotic goodness specifically, i think it's reasonable to not have a picture of a fertility symbol. it's simple logic the way i see it. can i please remove the image? AceGT09

We are not just talking about things that people used specifically to jerk off too. The Greek and Roman images fall under the same category. This isn't about the modern definition of erotica, it is about everything in history that has erotic connotations. They are erotic in nature and so is the Venus. Its an important piece of the human history this article covers. You may not remove the image. pschemp | talk 04:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Remove it again and you will be blocked. pschemp | talk 04:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Agree with pschemp. Especially in terms of ancient Greek culture, Venus was practically the definition of erotic. Doc Tropics 04:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
What does the Venus of Willendorf have to do with Greece? I think AceGTO9 has a defensible point. based purely on the Venus' entry there appears to be enough disagreement about its purpose to question its inclusion here Iconoclastodon 06:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't except that both cultures made depictions with erotic content that we meant for other things than jerking off. Doc just got a little mixed up. It is still, one of the earliest and most famous depictions of a human being that has erotic content and should therefore stay. It has even become iconic. pschemp | talk 06:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
This seems a little hand-waving to me. Its entry as an erotic depiction hardens to a distortionary level one of many theories about its purpose. On your definition we may as well include depictions of the Madonna. This is certainly worth more consideration than you are giving it. Your tone seems unusually contemptuous. There are issues here that don't require confusion arising from anachronism, a narrow concept of erotica, or a rude gut feeling that she isn't 'hot'. There is simply a lot of disagreement about what the Willendorf figure is. Iconoclastodon 15:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Please remember this is an overview. By neccessity, it must just highlight important thing in history. The Venus already has its own article where a thourough treatment is appropriate. Here, a mention is all that is needed. There is a lot of disagreement. That's why it is presented here, but no judgements are made in the text. However, it is important and does deserve a mention because it is one of the oldest things we have that could relate to sex and fertility. Notice, this is *NOT* an article about erotica per se, but only a treatment of the images of things that possibly could have been erotic to their respective cultures. pschemp | talk 16:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

whatever man, your faulty logic wins cause you're a admin i guess. i'm not interested in starting a revert war. also, i only removed it the third time because you said on this talk page that i could, after you called me a "lazy mexican" then it dissapeared. AceGT09

Um yes, if you check the history of the page that was user:70.69.169.212 making remarks and signing my name to them, not me. I never said you could remove it, that was a vandal being an imposter and I see you were fooled by that. (Click on history at the top and you can see where he added that). I realize you are a new user, this is why I'm pointing that out. And the reason you can't remove it is not because I'm an admin, but because there is no consensus to do so. pschemp | talk 04:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


sorry dude, my bad. but i still think you're wrong about the Venus thing, just because fertility implies sex, doesn't mean it's an erotic depiction. but i have no interest in starting a revert war, especially if you're gonna threaten me with blockage. i was just trying to streamline the article abit, something this entire site needs. AceGT09

thank you for your concern. We'll just have to agree to disagree about this. pschemp | talk 05:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
In AceGT09's defense, there were some crazy edits posted, and several were fraudulently tagged with pschemp's name. We should extend some AGF under the circumstances. Of course, you're still totally wrong, dude, like, totally : ) Doc Tropics 05:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Yup, that's what I was trying to communicate up there...that I realized he got taken by the vandal after he posted. The only reason I talked about blocking was before I realized that. pschemp | talk 05:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't cover it, but maybe your idea of erotic and another persons idea may differ? Maybe the way people looked at erotica in the past, and the way our culture looks at it today is different? Maybe the way that many men in our culture look at erotica is different than how many women look at it? Besides, then, and now, Venus is often considered an erotic figure, not a fertility figure. Also your delineation that something representing fertility can't be erotic has little relevance to ancient greek culture. Maybe you should read the article and learn more about how other people and cultures viewed erotica rather than saying that ancient cultures, or people who accurately discuss that aren't in alignment with the way that teen-aged white males living in southern Caifornia in the 21st century view sexuality. Atom 08:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a good example of how the original act of NAMING the Willendorf figure 'Venus' has forever loaded perceptions of it. You have been primed to see it a particular way because of an anachronism, and so, in precisely the way you describe, your perception of what is erotica is couched in a time and place inappropriate to the object you observe. Iconoclastodon 15:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The text does not make judgements on the figure. That has been done by the people posting on the talk page. I have simply included it as important and related to the material. Nowhere does the article attempt to define what erotica is, it simply showcases the human history of depictions that could be related to sexuality. pschemp | talk 16:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree! That picture would turn any person off instead of on. It's stupid!!! sonofdurza34896 07:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I see you've missed the entire point of the article. pschemp | talk 15:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Tale of Genji?

It'd be nice to get a sentence on the Tale of Genji -- at the root of Japanese literature and pretty darned steamy. I'm trying to pull one together, but I guess I need a cite on its notability, which I don't have to hand. Dybryd 04:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If its that important it should probably mostly stay at its own article. This is meant to be an overview only. But a sentence would be ok. pschemp | talk 04:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Tale of Genji is also notable as one of the earliest example of a female writer writing about erotic tales too. Even today, too many people readily assume that erotic works will only be made by male creators for the interest of male population. It should also be noted that the story was accepted and became so popular that an Heian era noble Fujiwara no Shunzei lamented anyone not to have read it would be a failure as a poet. This is a stark difference with Victorian-era ethics and the way it looked down on eroticism as "low" things. --Revth 06:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Information about this has been added. See below. pschemp | talk 15:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Venus of Willendorf

The text explicitly refers to it as a fertility symbol, so I don't know where the problem is. Samsara (talk • contribs) 04:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

it seems senseless to me to include a fertility symbol with erotic depiction. it makes no sense. AceGT09

Sometimes I need to read an article twice before I understand it. Samsara (talk • contribs) 04:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Venus of Willendorf was erotic in its own day; it was used as a talisman to encourage and enhance sexual behavior. If that isn't erotic, then tell me what is! —Cuiviénen 14:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Its actual use is unknown, and is a subject od debate. Iconoclastodon 15:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. So we present the facts about it and that's enough. The article doesn't make judgements about it.pschemp | talk 16:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Victorians out-pruded by the Japanese?

The article states on a number of occasions that the Victorians are to blame for banning pornography, but according to ukiyo-e, Sex was not a sanctioned subject either, but continually appeared in ukiyo-e prints. Artists and publishers were sometimes punished for creating these sexually explicit shunga. The first ukiyo-e prints date from 1670. Jpatokal 05:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

they were punished, but no actual laws were passed. Its a technical distinction. pschemp | talk 05:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a source for this odd-sounding claim? The Tokugawa (Edo) shogunate was quite big on laws and their enforcement. Jpatokal 10:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
According to the Japanese wikipedia [2]:

また、井原西鶴の浮世草子、好色一代男が大流行し、好色物と呼ばれるジャンルが流行る。それにより、春画の需要が増える。 しかし享保七年好色本が禁止される。 それでも需要があるためこれより非公開で販売されることとなる。 そして、錦絵の開発により、多色刷りの春画が寛政のころから本格的に登場しだした。

But in the seventh year of Kyoho (ed: 1722 AD) koshokubon (ed: erotic/pornographic books, the predecessor of shunga) were banned.

A slightly more authoritative source scrounged on the Net [3]:

江戸時代には大きな出版取締が三度ある。その最初は１７２２（享保７）年の好色本禁令で、それまで公然と著者や絵師・版元の名前をあらわして店頭販売が許されていた浮世草子の好色本や枕絵・春画本類は絶版となった。

In the Edo period significant publishing controls were imposed three times. The first was, in 1722 (Kyoho 7), the koshokubon kinrei (koshokubon prohibition order), after which the usage of real names for artists and publishers stopped, over-the-counter sales of koshokubon were no longer tolerated and koshukubon, shunga-e and makura-e went out of print.

浮世絵春画名品集成 (roughly, "Ukiyo-e and Shunga Famous Works Collection"), 第１０巻 國貞 (Volume 10: Kunisada) by 林　美一 (Hayashi Yoshikazu). Jpatokal 10:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

floppies

i recall kids circulating 5.25 floppies of porn images and short animations of low quality. should be mentioned. --Leladax 05:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

We'll need a source and a citation for that. Your memory is not an approved Wikipedia source. pschemp | talk 05:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
mentioned meaning mentioned without breaking any wikipedia rules. jeez. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.72.129 (talk • contribs)

1857 Webster's definition -- "obscene"?

Obscene or "associated with obscentity" seems an odd description - the definition is:

"Licentious painting or literature; especially, the painting anciently employed to decorate the walls of rooms devoted to bacchanalian orgies."

Licentious isn't a synonym for obscene, even in period. In fact, in period it sounds like a remarkably non-judgmental definition. Can I delete the adjective/phrase? Dybryd 05:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No, its a direct quote! and sourced. It means "1 : lacking legal or moral restraints; especially : disregarding sexual restraints" that makes perfect sense. But I copied the def from the actual book, so changing a direct quote is not logical. pschemp | talk 05:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I meant delete the word "obscene," not the Webster's def. Is that characterization directly quoted from Chambers' book? Dybryd 06:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It does seem like an odd characterization. Describing the definition itself is obscene made me expect it was going to use explicit terminology, when it was quite middle-of-the-road even by Victorian standards. --Saforrest 06:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
That wasn't the intent of the wording. It didn't meant that the actual defintion was obscene, the intent was to refer to the definition that now encompasses obscenity. I've reworded this to make that completely clear. pschemp | talk 06:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Who were "the Victorians" ?

I find this bit somewhat confusing:

When large scale excavations of Pompeii were undertaken in the 1860s, much of the erotic art of the Romans came to light, shocking the Victorians who saw themselves as the intellectual heirs of the Roman Empire. They did not know what to do with the frank depictions of sexuality, and endeavored to hide them away from everyone but upper class scholars. The movable objects were locked away in the Secret Museum in Naples, Italy and what could not be removed was covered and cordoned off so as to not corrupt the sensibilities of women, children and the working class.

When I hear "the Victorians" I usually think of a certain social class from Britain (and often from the British Empire at large) during the Victorian Era. This is, to me, especially reinforced by the bit about how the Victorians "saw themselves as the intellectual heirs of the Roman Empire", because the British during the Victorian period saw themselves as the new Romans in many ways: hence the emphasis on classical education, popularization of the idea of Pax Britannica, etc.

It is a bit confusing to then see "Victorians" it used in an apparently Italian context. Was it Italians or British who didn't know what to do with the sexy pictures, and locked them up? If the Brits, what did they have to do with a secret museum in Naples? If the Italians, why are we calling them "Victorians"? --Saforrest 06:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It was both. The definition of Victorian does not stipulate that they must be British: "A person living, or born in that period, or exhibiting characteristics of that period". It is merely a specific period of time. The influence of the Victorian morality was so great that most of Europe was dealing with the same morals, and especially in academia, where attitudes were very much alike across nations. The Italians locked it up, but it was the reaction of all the Victorian scholars that prompted this. All the intelligentsia of the time thought themselves heirs to the cultural legacy of the Roman empire. Nationality had little to do with it. pschemp | talk 06:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Historic attitudes : Incongruous dates?

I noticed the following two statements in the section on "Historic attitudes regarding erotic depictions"

  • When large scale excavations of Pompeii were undertaken in the 1860s, much of the erotic art of the Romans came to light,...
  • ...Soon after, England's (and the world's) first laws criminalising pornography were enacted with the passage of the Obscene Publications Act of 1857.

There seems to be a chronological contradiction (however slight). Comments? FMalan 06:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok if you read carefully it says that large scale excavations were undertaking in the 1860s, but the excavations actually started in 1748 (just not large scale). So objects were already known that were a factor in the 1857 law. Let me see if I can reword this. pschemp | talk 06:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I just removed the words "soon after". At one time in their lives those sentences were in different paragraphs in a different order, but shuffling got them out of whack. Fixed now. pschemp | talk 06:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

civilization vs. civilisation

Overnight (UK time) there were many edit wars regarding the spelling of civilization; most of the reverts to the author's preferred spelling referenced a debate on this talk page, however the said discussion is somewhat hidden, living in the Images section. Given that the US has now woken up again, these edit wars are likely to start again (indeed they have started again), so I'm starting this more obvious section to discuss the subject. For convenience, here's a cut & paste of the relevant talk:

Also, for those who keep changing my spelling of civilisation, please see here. It is a valid spelling. Thank you. pschemp | talk 00:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not use the more common spelling for consistency's sake? Nimrand 01:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The rule around here is to retain the spelling of the original contributor as a sign of respect. Thank you. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What I, personally, am curious about is why pschemp is refusing to allow the use of -ization? Is it a mistaken belief that the use of the 'z' is an Americanism?

Given that the use of -isation isn't a spelling mistake or typo, then Samsara's comment probably takes precedence, but it's a bit bemusing to not allow a spelling that's practically mandated in AmE, and perfectly acceptable in BrE (in fact, the use of 'z' is preferred by OED amongst other authorities) Carre 14:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

We respect the spelling choice of the original contributor. Wikipedia has a guideline to that effect. Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thank you - if you read what I wrote, you'll see that I referenced your comment, and also stated it probably takes precedence in the absence of a spelling mistake. However, if such a spelling choice becomes the subject of an edit war then surely it needs to be properly discussed. Many editors have just come along and changed the main article, only to have their change reverted, so a proper discussion should be held (my opinion - other opinions are available). Carre 14:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
There isn't much more to say about it really. People change spellings all the time. A very small proportion of Wikipedia contributors actually add significant amounts of content. If people are going to ignore two inline comments either side of the offending text passage, they're not going to be stopped by any consensus reached on the talk page. Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Samsara and Pschemp are correct. I run into this often in articles. Either UK (British, Australian, New Zealand, South African, Etc.) spelling or U.S. spellings are correct. If an article is written with either, future edits should follow that standard. Does that make sense? Well, it doesn't matter, that is the standard that Wikipedia editors follow by policy. Sometimes an article is primarily written by one author. In this case that has happened, and PSchemp is the primary author. She has done an incredible amount of work on this, and as far as I am concerned, her lead should be followed as to the development and maintenance for a good period of time. (That isn't policy, only proper respect.) When an article is older, and has no primary author, then changing from one type of spelling to another needs to have some justification, and a consensus of participating editors. From what I can see, most of the people who are changing the spelling against the existing standard are new or non editors, and don't understand the policy. The people reverting seem to be primarily experienced editors. That should give people a clue. Also, editor Pschemp (as I understand) is an American, who refreshingly is not ethnocentric in orientation. If she chooses British spelling, then that's good enough for me. Atom 15:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not arguing (take, for example, Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article#civilization, where you'll see I defended the use of -isation) - I just put this section in the talk page because the previous mention of it was a bit hidden, and so not obvious; with the US now awake there are likely to be more edits (although I notice Samsara's recent edit to make the distinction more obvious, which will hopefully lessen the incident of edit war). That said, I'd like to point out again that the use of -ization is not purely the US spelling - it is just as much a British spelling as -isation: -isation is en-GB, whereas -ization is Oxford spelling (en-GB-oed, based on Oxford English Dictionary's practice) as well as en-US. Incidentally, I presume the policy Samsara refers to is WP:MOS#National_varieties_of_English, and as such it is policy that Pschemp's lead be followed :) (BTW, following that MOS, the use of 'color' in the article should be changed ;) ) Carre 15:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
NB (and yes, I am belabouring the point), if "civilisations" is required by Pschemp, then following the MOS "stylized", "legalized" and organized" also all need changing to use the -ise suffix instead of the -ize, since the very first requirement of the MOS is for consistency throughout an article. Carre 17:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
You know what? I'd appreciate it if you'd just leave it. I write with a mishmash and its rude to go around saying that one or the other is correct. Civilisations can be spelled either way in either country. I happen to think that my way of spelling *is* consistent since i don't spell the same word two different ways in an artilce. And you, you are belaboring a point no one else cares about. If the same word was spelled two different ways at different points, you would have an arguement, but it isn't. Stop imposing your spelling conventions on the artilce. It is perfectly comprehensible to all English speakers as it is. Please find something productive to obsess about. pschemp | talk 17:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I see - so it's ok to cite the MOS to defend the use of civilisation, but not ok to use that same MOS, and the same use of en-GB when it contradicts your use of the language? You'll also note that I have never said one or the other is correct; As far as British English is concerned, either is correct - it was you that insisted on the use of the -ise suffix (so who's imposing whose spelling conventions?), American English that insists that the -ize suffix is correct, and the MOS that insists that an article is consistent (WP:MOS#National varieties of English for consistency and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling) for en-GB use). I actually think this is a great article, and recognize (oops, another -ize) the work you've put into it; however, if you live by MOS, then live by it! But yes, I will 'just leave it'. Carre 17:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. pschemp | talk 18:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

All this jibba jabba spent on one character, on an issue that's been discussed a billion times in the past... ugh.— BRIAN0918 • 2006-11-30 19:35Z

The huge yelling comment in the edit text about not changing the spelling clutters the text too much. Also, people are changing the spelling anyway, and I would not be surprised if people who had not even thought of it were BEANSed into it by the warning. There is no reason to edit war over this matter; you can change the spelling back when the article is no longer on the front page. —Centrx→talk • 21:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point. I just did a revert myself, but this looks silly. I agree we should just let things go until it's off the front page. Doc Tropics 21:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
That's a dishonest way to deal with contributors. Just letting them edit in vain does not seem fair to me. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ass if it mattered! You al spelt it rrong! mstroeck 19:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hark! The Shadow Lord of Spelling speaketh. Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The temples of India

Could anyone include information on the temples of India such as (Khajuraho) that include erotic depictions along with appropriate pictures? Bronayur 16:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any free pictures of this, but I am planning on adding some more info about them. pschemp | talk 18:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
What are the guidelines for using Flickr pictures that are public and downloadable? There are quite a few pictures on there that would make a great addition. Bronayur 06:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
They must be listed under a free license. GFDL or PD or CC-by-SA or CC-by or CC-SA. CC-nc (the noncommercial one) is not allowed for use here. pschemp | talk 15:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

New subsection: Asian fiction

I've typed up a couple of sentences on important erotic novels in Japan and China. Posting them here first for a check before adding them to the article. One question: for the Chinese novel, I've simply listed the translator and commentator as the author - what's the correct way to render this?

In both China and Japan, eroticism played a prominent role in the development of the novel. The Tale of Genji, the work by an eleventh-century Japanese noblewoman that is often called “the world’s first novel,” traces the many affairs of its hero in discreet but carnal language. [1] From sixteenth-century China, the still more explicit novel The Plum in the Golden Vase has been called one of the four great classical novels of Chinese literature. The Tale of Genji has been celebrated in Japan since it was written, but The Plum in the Golden Vase was suppressed as pornography for much of its history, and replaced on the list of four classics. [2]
Looks good to me. Take the dashes out of the ISBNs though. They aren't needed. pschemp | talk 19:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! In it goes. Dybryd 19:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

PLZ Admins

Could please someone delete this crap in the article: In early times, erotic depictions were often a subset of the indigenous or religious art of using the force among jedi knights and stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.226.102.130 (talk • contribs)

It's not there to be deleted.--Kchase T 20:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I think he was referring to previous vandalism that has already been removed. In the future anon, you can remove it yourself if you see it, no admin needed. pschemp | talk 20:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Poor reliability of sources

It looks like a lot of this article is sourced to Pornography: The Secret History of Civilization, which is a video made by people in the pornography industry. This is not a reliable source for anything except perhaps the more recent Internet and video sections. I already corrected a stupid error in a paragraph sourced to this text which would have been detected easily if there were any serious research or editorial process associated with this source. How much of this article was sourced from this text and was all the information from this single source checked in other sources? Even with highly reliable sources, it is good to check it and have multiple sources for statements, and this is not a very reliable source. —Centrx→talk • 21:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

All of the text is referenced to more than one source when possible. You can see that listed at the end of each paragraph. That documentary uses experts in the field for each of its assertations and I've independently cited those experts and their works too. This was not produced by the pornography industry but rather by a respsected publisher of video documentaries. It is a perfectly reliable source. In fact it was made by using a series of interviews with experts in the respective fields. For example the information for the Romans contained in the documentary comes directly from interviews with this guy and his book, a respected researcher and author in the field: {cite book| last = Clarke| first = John R.| title = Roman Sex: 100 B.C. to A.D. 250| publisher = Harry N. Abrams| date = April 2003| location = New York| pages = 168| url = http://www.amazon.com/Roman-Sex-100-B-C-250/dp/B000F9RK72/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b/102-1716462-3231355?ie=UTF8| id = ISBN 0810942631 }. Your accusations that this is unreliable are ridiculous, and if you actually watch the documentary, unprovable. Additionally, for someone who has been around for so long, you should know that simply dumping urls with ref tags into an article is not the proper way to cite sources. pschemp | talk 21:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Are the porn stars just used as "stars" to make the film popular? It would be best to have sources from interviews have specific mention of who made the statement, as that does establish the authority of it is established and is helpful for someone looking to get to the source on a topic, but that might be more work than anyone is willing to do. In lieu of that, it would be better to have the "authors" be listed as the editor or director or whomever was directly behind the film, rather than people who are irrelevant to most of the information. Regarding the references, I explained on my talk page the situation with those sources; I am not "dumping". —Centrx→talk • 21:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You are smart enough to come up with a work around, why didn't you just do so to begin with? pschemp | talk 22:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
A great mass of code could be added to the template, but this would take a substantial amount of time, and would go largely unused. Editing an article does not have as a prerequisite spending perhaps hours fiddling with ParserFunctions. Also, it is impossible for all the possibilities of human knowledge to fit in a template (This is a serious problem with people stuffing "facts" into infoboxes that are thereby contorted into falsehood or something misleading, when they can be accurately and plainly stated in the article). Style guides which contain pages upon pages of specifications and examples for citing bibliographic references have, alongside all that rigid formatting, the wise recommendation and documentation of the common practice that some bibliographic information cannot be fitted into these formats and that it nevertheless must be included, whether approximately according to standard form previously delineated or whether in an appended English-language sentence that explains the nature of the source. —Centrx→talk • 22:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually I think a cite dictionary template would get used a lot. I've often found myself wondering why there isn't one. However, you seem to be indicating that if it can't be made perfect, it shouldn't be bothered with. I'm having trouble seeing how that is a constructive view on the matter. If no one tried anything, nothing new would ever get created. Besides, the templates and the fields are already written. Its just a matter of picking out the ones that are apporpriate and pasting them in, plus the addition of one or two new ones and I hardly think that would require masses of code. pschemp | talk 22:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
A dictionary part would probably be used more and would be relatively easy to add. The secondary "From" sources would almost double the size of the template. I am not saying it won't be done or I won't do it, but I am not doing it right now. The issue with it being "perfect" is that these sorts of issues crop up all the time, where the template doesn't fit the intended use, but that does not create an obligation to add a bunch of things to a template for every one. —Centrx→talk • 23:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
It appears the current practice is to use the cite encyclopedia template. pschemp | talk 23:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, because in most cases it is sufficient. For cases where it is not sufficient, this is not a reason to cut out information in order to fit it in the template. —Centrx→talk • 00:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. So do the opposite. My point is that you then find an unused field that formats the information in a manner that's acceptable and put it there. Make the template work for you, rather quitting when you see its limitations. It wouldn't take much modification. pschemp | talk 00:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
If I took your suggestion, every paragraph would look like this:
There are numerous sexually explicit paintings and sculpture from the ruined Roman buildings in Pompeii and Herculaneum but the original purposes of the depictions can vary.[3] On one hand, in the "Villa of the Mysteries", there is a ritual flagellation scene that is clearly associated with a religious cult and this image can be seen as having religious significance rather than sexual. [3] On the other hand, graphic paintings in a brothel advertise sexual services in murals above each door.[4] In Pompeii, phalli and testicles engraved in the sidewalks were created to aid visitors in finding their way by pointing to the prostitution and entertainment district as well as general decoration. [4] The Romans considered depictions of sex to be decoration in good taste, and indeed the pictures reflect the sexual mores and practices of their culture.[3][5] Sex acts that were considered taboo (such as those that defiled the purity of the mouth) were depicted in baths for comic effect.[3][5] Large phalluses were often used near entryways, for the phallus was a good luck charm, and the carvings were common in homes.[3] One of the first objects excavated when the complex was discovered was a marble statue showing the god Pan having sex with a goat, a detailed depiction of bestiality considered so obscene that it is not on public display to this day and remains in the Secret Museum in Naples.[3][4][5]
Which is utterly ridiculous. That *is* insane clutter. Especially if you look at it in the editing mode. Refs at the end are a compromise with the mediawiki software capability we have right now. I had to pick the most logical solution. pschemp | talk 22:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
There is a problem with the current Cite.php references system, as it thoroughly clutters the text in the edit window. Template:Ref is a solution to this. Over-all, the references system ultimately needs to be split into references that contain all the publishing information and other bibliographic information, and citations that have any particular information and that are linked to the bibliographic references. Also, footnotes should be changed so that you could have any number of sources (and ideally, we do want as many references as possible), while having there be only superscript number that refers to the whole collection for any one fact. Another possibility is a "side-by-side" system so that references would not be in the text of the content at all, but rather in a special associated page that corresponds directly with each part of the main article. This would also be useful for making notes about specific areas and collaborative editing, whereas currently all we have is a usually chronological talk page where old comments pile up in archives by the hundreds.
The problem with having citations at the end of the paragraph is that there is no way to determine which statement came from which source. Someone reading or editing the article who wants to ascertain the reliability of some information or who wants to go directly to the original source for further research (whether for personal reasons or to add to or otherwise improve the article) must, if sources are combined at the end of a paragraph, search through every one of them, when the specific information sought was only in one of them (and would ideally be referenced by page number). Also, while an article may now be closely watched and each edit checked for sources and accuracy, this is not sustainable. It is impossible for a human to watch an article in perpetuity, and once anyone is able to make an edit without it being individually verified by someone watching, the added information is suddenly in the middle of a "referenced" paragraph; no longer, then, is every statement referenced and, even worse, it is difficult to see that there are unreferenced statements. —Centrx→talk • 22:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm well aware of that. However I don't think template:ref is any better. I think the refs at the end, with a note so people know this is fine. If they are adding anything, they should be adding a source with it too. Actually the best way is to have the ref txt hidden. There is a feature request for this currently. In the meantime, this will do, I'm not leaving the project anytime soon. pschemp | talk 22:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Centrx, Cite.php is much preferred for a number of reasons that I won't go into here. Suffice to say that if you have a problem with the clutter, there is text editor support available including syntax highlighting. As for the links you have added in the text, I find them entirely confusing; they do not seem to show anything other than that the publication you are trying to cite is likely to, in fact, exist. Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The issue is with putting the references at the end of the paragraph, so that the citations do not directly correspond to the information they cite. The clutter is a problem generally for any of the many Wikipedia users and more likely casual browsers who choose to edit. I personally have no trouble with it. I am not sure what you are referring to by "the links" I added, but if you mean the link at the end of the citation, the bibliographic information there did not seem perfectly clear-cut, and the web page there does change; the link and date of its access is provided just like any web source. —Centrx→talk • 22:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Pornography was legalized in the Netherlands in 1969

And before that in Denmark in 1967 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.73.46.28 (talk • contribs)

Indeed. And it was the legalization in the Netherlands that prompted the explosion of the genre due to the people working in that country. No claim is made that it was the first, just the most important. pschemp | talk 21:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Why no BC on caption for image?

I noticed the image caption for the greek amphora said "5th century" the other day. I edited it to add a BC, which is obviously correct (and the same image is labeled elsewhere as being from 5th century BC). But it was reverted. What the hell? Are you assuming that BC is implicit? --Robbrown 21:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I personally did not revert that. Search the edit history and complain to whomever did. Then put it it back in if its necessary. No need to get so upset. pschemp | talk 22:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Non-editable "vandalization"

I'm not sure how this happens, but when the article loads in my browser, the first visible sentence reads "Today is Vandalize Wikipedia Day", but when I open the edit page, this text doesn't appear anywhere in the editing field. I'm also not sure where the best place to report this type of "vandalizm" actually "iz". I'll leave it to the more capable ones here. Nice article! Kudos! Robert Turner 23:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess a robot or some other super being has taken care of it, because it's no longer there.Robert Turner 23:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
It appeared that way because someone else fixed it while you were looking at it. No big deal. (btw, new comments go at the bottom) pschemp | talk 23:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Title

Does anyone else think "History of erotic depictions" is a bad title? Specifically, the "depictions" part: I'm left wondering, depictions of what? The word "depiction(s)" is almost always followed by "of (something)". It feels weird to just have it there by itself, unspecified. --Ptcamn 16:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the title is fine. We can't use the word "image", because this is talking about more than just images. The type of depictions are specified and qualified with the adjective "erotic". History of depictions of erotic things is the logical title from your suggestion and that is horribly uneducated sounding. There is no requirement in the English language that depictions be followed by anything, but in this case there is no other word that sufficiently communicates the idea in a general manner. "Art" is not the right term because we are not here to define what is and isn't art (which would be POV and original research anyway.) I'm sorry you aren't used to hearing the word this way but it is perfectly grammatical, and the best choice to describe the topic given the massive amount of things it involves. pschemp | talk 17:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
That's just the thing, I'm not sure it is indeed grammatical: there may well be a requirement in the English language that "depictions" be followed by something. When I say "it feels weird", I don't just mean I'm not used to hearing the word this way, I mean it grates with my native speaker grammaticality-sense. --Ptcamn 17:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Well unto you prove to me that it is a requirement in English (with a source) that the word depiction must be followed by the word "of", I shall remain skeptical. "Those were just depictions." is perfectly good grammar. Your "native speaker grammaticality sense" is no more of a reputable source than mine, and mine says it is fine. If this was such terrible grammar, it would have been addressed in the FAC. pschemp | talk 17:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Technically, the burden of sourcing should fall on those wishing to include rather than remove. In this instance, Ptcamn has the burden of finding sources to back up his claim that there exists an extra requirement for depiction that does not occur with other nouns.
A quick look at any dictionary says nothing about depiction requiring a following of or any other preposition even in prescriptivist grammars[4]. It is a noun (and one made from a verb at that), and as a noun can fall into any other syntactic position that other nouns can. I don't think there's any word that must be followed by of in English. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 21:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
"Depiction" can occur without a following of, if what it's a depiction of has been mentioned earlier. Something like "The following article is about depictions of Jesus Christ. In early depictions he lacks the beard common in later depictions." is acceptable, as you don't have to repeat "of Jesus Christ" after the other two instances of "depiction". But the second sentence on its own, without the first sentence to give it context, I would say is unacceptable.
But I wouldn't expect to find information like this in a dictionary (or most grammars). It's not the sort of thing they cover. For example, the source you linked does not point out in its entry on "me" that it does not take a definite article when used by itself, but does when modified by an adjective ("the old me", "the new me"), but nevertheless I think we can agree that it's true. A better idea in cases like this than attempting to find sources, I think, would be to try building a concensus. --Ptcamn 22:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but sources are what is required by Wikipedia. You make a claim, you back it up. Its called WP:VERIFY. Even consensus in the absence of a source is nothing but an unverified group opinion. I think you are talking about consensus here because there is no source that exists that will back you up and you are unhappy with that fact. btw, "In early depictions he lacks the beard common in later depictions." is perfectly acceptable if you replace the pronoun "he" with "Jesus". Implying, such as you have that a sentence needs a certain context to make the grammar correct is absurd. pschemp | talk 22:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not making a claim! I would be if this was an article about English grammar, but I'm just giving my grammatical/stylistic opinion about the way the article is written, not about its content.--Ptcamn 22:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I get the feeling that you don't have a strong background in English grammar, or semantics. There are indeed sources out there that do delve into very specific aspects of word usage and meaning. I couldn't tell you offhand where they are. I agree with pschemp, grammaticality is context free. See colorless green ideas sleep furiously. Just because a sentence prompts you to ask a question doesn't mean it's not grammatical (he is is grammatical but makes you ask he is what?). Also see dictionary.com's entry on give, which is a ditransitive verb. The definition indicates that specific aspect of the word's usage. If a word required a preposition, it would say so. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 00:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Title is fine. Please leave as is. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Japanese prints

I read somewhere about European men in the late 19th, early 20th century who collected "Japanese prints", actually erotic. Could you add something about this? --Error 02:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The prints are called Shunga and they are already mentioned. pschemp | talk 03:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

About the Moches

I just have some doubts about what is said of the Moches : The Moche believed that the world of the dead was the exact opposite of the world of the living. Therefore, for funeral offerings, they made vessels showing sex acts such as masturbation, fellatio and anal sex that would not result in offspring. This is the first time I read this version. Actually, most of their ceramics shows items or scenes of people's daily life : fruits, vegetables, animals, fishing scenes as well as agriculture, wars, rituals and even human sacrifices. And thus, inevitably erotic scenes. I don't think we have to look further. It's true that there is also some scenes of mythology and gods, but they are very explicit and can be explained by the fact that the Moche society was very influenced by the religion, so that it was some kind of people's daily life. I have much doubts about looking for some kind of mystical explaination of the erotic Moche's poteries. And having seen several museumson this topic, read books and other articles, this is the first time I hear about the explaination given here. --Kremtak 00:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If nobody has been able to cite any source since Jan 6th until today, then perhaps that part should be deleted? DanielDemaret 20:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Bob Mizer section unclear

Hi, can someone check this, as the sentence seems to have something wrong with it? Perhaps an edit that went awry? Thanks. 194.125.110.128 20:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Magazines for every taste and fetish were soon created due to the low cost of producing them. Magazines for the gay community flourished, the most notable and one of the first being Physique Pictorial, started in 1951 by Bob Mizer when his attempt to sell the services of male models; however, Athletic Model Guild photographs of them failed.

Hi-- the above sentence about Bob Mizer is still unclear. I guess the original author of the section is no longer reading these comments? Jlaramee 15:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Photos on wiki commons

I am concerned that some of the photos may constitue child pornography and ought to be removed in order to avoid legal problems. -Vcelloho 02:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


Question to anyone who knows

I just noticed something that I seems strange to me.

On the one hand: "was not outlawed in any country until 1857"

and on the other: "in 1524, an illustrated book of 16 "postures" or sexual positions. Raimondi had actually published the I Modi once before, and was subsequently imprisoned"

But if it was not outlawed in any country before 1857, then why was someone imprisoned? Was it unlawful to publish, but not unlawful to view? DanielDemaret 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


Question regarding the choice of depictions

When I look up "erotic" in wikipedia, the wiki-article says:

"Eroticism is an aesthetic focus on sexual desire, especially the feelings of anticipation of sexual activity. It is not only the state of arousal and anticipation, but also the attempt through whatever means of representation to incite those feelings."

Perhaps it is just me, but to me the depictions shown in this article do not seem to me to "incite those feelings". Some are humorous ,like Priapus, and some are obscene to me, like "Juliette". There certainly are many ancient depictions that are both aesthetic and "incite those feelings". Is there any special reason why these were chosen instead? DanielDemaret 22:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The text on several occasions suggest that the material shown was probably not for sexual arousal. But if they are not, and erotic, according to a wiki-definition "incite those feelings", should the title not simply be "History of depictions showing genitalia" ? DanielDemaret 04:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"Erotic depictions include paintings, sculpture, photographs, dramatic arts, music and writings that show scenes of a sexual nature."

A, I see my error now. The article explicitly defines its subject matter to be depictions that "of a sexual nature", not depictions that are erotic. That is ok then. Does anyone know where I should look for an article about the history of depiction that are erotic, by the way? DanielDemaret 16:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary depictions

An article on the history of erotic depictions is incomplete without a contemporary depiction. I have added one. – Quadell (talk) (random) 05:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

There already is a comteporary depiction, in the digital section. What you added has nothing to do with this article. It is an FA and you shouldn't add random pictures just because you got excited that there is a picture of a half naked woman available. It does not add to the article in any way, and in no way illustrates what can be done digitally. pschemp | talk 14:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you honestly believe that the image in question, Image:Michele Merkin 3.jpg, has nothing to do with the article? I know this is a featured article, but featured articles can still be improved. Please don't malign my character by speculating about my sexual excitation. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
This image adds no value to the article, and seems promotional in nature. You seem to be simply finding excuses to paste your favorite all over Wikipedia.[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]
If your sexual excitation is not your motivation, please consider removing this image in cooperation with other editors, per WP:CONSENSUS or something. / edg ☺ ★ 16:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll

Does the image Image:Michele Merkin 3.jpg belong in this article?

Yes, it depicts a contemporary high-quality erotic image, which is otherwise missing from the article.


No, it detracts from the article

First, this article is about history, not current pornographic practices. Second, straw polls are silly and unnecessary. 3rd, it isn't illustrative of "anything" in the article. This is a featured article and the current pictures were very carefully selected to enhance the article. Adding that does not enhance the text in any way.pschemp | talk 21:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ Puette, William J. (2004). The Tale of Genji: A Reader’s Guide. Tuttle Publishing. ISBN 0-804-83331-1.
  2. ^ Roy, David Tod (1993). The Plum in the Golden Vase or, Chin P'ing Mei : The Gathering, Volume I. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-06932-8.
  3. ^ a b c d e f Cite error: The named reference romans was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference history was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ a b c Hemingway, Seán (Winter 2004). "Roman Erotic Art". Sculpture Review. 53 (4). National Sculpture Society: 10–15. Retrieved 2006-10-24.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_erotic_depictions/Archive_1&oldid=1136797986"