Talk:Phallic architecture

Anthropologists? What? Who? When?
"Some anthropologists such as Binet argue that the historical preoccupation with gigantic phallus-shaped monuments shared by some societies such as Ancient Greece and Egypt came down to fetishism". Which Binet is that? And why are we citing a book written by dermatologist who died in 1922 for what "Some anthropologists argue"? If one were to look for it, I'm sure there are vast reams of (sadly sometimes incomprehensible) more recent anthropological texts on the relationship between architecture, symbolism and gender. It might be worthwhile actually looking for some, rather than disinterring the corpses of those that said something or other on the subject 100 years or so ago. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Strikes me as a rather grumpy comment on a valiant first attempt at covering a well-known concept which for some reason has been avoided until now. Rather than pick out a passage you dislike, why not try to improve the article by drawing on the "vast realms of more recent anthropological texts" with which you seem to be so well acquainted. --Ipigott (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but my point stands. We shouldn't be stating that "Some anthropologists argue" something when the person (a) has been dead for 100 years, and (b) isn't an anthropologist. Then again, the source actually cited doesn't make clear if Alfred Binet is the 'Binet' in question (as far as I can see), and Anthropological Studies in the Strange Sexual Practices of All Races in All Ages isn't remotely a reliable source for modern scholarship on, well, anything. As I pointed out, Iwan Bloch died in 1922 - we shouldn't be using him as a source in the way the article does - and it isn't just used for 'a passage', it is used as the sole source for much of the first paragraph of the 'origins' section - which incidentally seems to be confusing two entirely different meanings of the word 'fetishism'. 16:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Relax, its still in its early stages. No need to get all haughty.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * So are you going to correct the glaring errors and ridiculous sourcing in the section or not? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not today no. The OR will be sourced in due course. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In which case, the material must be removed - as I have done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You maybe have a point in the need to edit the phaseology but I cannot agree that Alfred Binet was not an anthropologist. Anthropology is all about the study of man (or mankind), a topic which fascinated Binet. But I see edits have (unfortunately) been made in the meantime to relieve him of any anthropological interest. May I also suggest that you adopt a more constructive attitude towards seasoned editors. Remarks such as "glaring errors" and "ridiculous sourcing" are hardly conducive to further progress. --Ipigott (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If you have a source that states that Alfred Binet was an anthropologist, please show it. In any case, we don't even know if the 'Binet' referred to was him. And 'seasoned editors' should know that errors in articles should be corrected or removed, not left in place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Did I not say the "errors" would be fixed in due course for DYK nom? Patience please.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Couldn't you make a draft in your user space and then move it article space when it is sourced and ready? You could take as much time as you need without worrying about reversions. Ripberger (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I could yes, but another alternative would be to just be patient eh?♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And meanwhile have a misleading article? Which matters more to you, giving our readers correct information, or producing yet another DYK? Actually, don't bother to answer that - you've already made your answer clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * (Reply to Dr. Blofeld) What about waiting until you have the sources to cite before writing in article space? I'm having trouble understanding your reasoning.  What about the readers?  Why should they have to wait to have a properly sourced article?  Ripberger (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The article has 17 different sources and over 20 citations!♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't alter the fact that sources were being cited for things they don't say. Alfred Binet was not an anthropologist, and even if he was, he shouldn't have been used as a source for what 'some anthropologists argue'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Alfred Binet argues that the historical preoccupation with gigantic phallus-shaped monuments shared by some societies such as Ancient Greece and Egypt came down to fetishism." "The some anthropologists argue" was removed days ago.♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I am surprised at the repeated queries about Binet. Normally disambiguation of a wikilink is seen as a positive addition to an article. Of course the source is Alfred Binet. If you would really like the original quotation (it's in French of course), it is "On ne peut pas s'empêcher de songer au fétichisme lorsqu'on voit sur les monuments égyptiens ces yeux de femme que le kohl entoure d'une large bande noire. Beaucoup de personnes désapprouvent le maquillage comme elles désapprouvent l’abus des parfums; ces artifices peuvent en effet manquer de bon goût, mais ils ne manquent pas toujours d'utilité, car ils ont une action incontestable sur les sens de l'homme." Alfred Binet, Le fétichisme dans l'amour, Revue philosophique, 1887. I hope that settles the matter. --Ipigott (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly it settles the matter if that is supposed to be the material being cited. What the f*** have depictions of cosmetics on the eyes of women depicted on Egyptian monuments got to do with phallic architecture? Nothing at all. And incidentally, this seems to be yet another case of the confusion over the two meanings of 'fetish'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've lost interest and motivation in this now and shan't be DYK nomming.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So Dr B storms off in a huff... A touch of WP:OWN, I suspect? I think that at this point we should probably as for help with the article at WikiProject Architecture and possibly WikiProject Sociology and WikiProject Anthropology as well. Any suggestions for who else could help? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

'Examples of Phallic architecture'
The 'Examples of Phallic architecture' section appears to contain 'examples' for which there is no source to justify inclusion beyond the opinion of the person including them. Can I suggest that, to avoid this becoming nothing more than a random collection of tall buildings, no structure is included without a reliable source stating that the said structure has been described as 'phallic'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've got to agree with this. Give it a while for them to be found, but this shouldn't include any buildings without a source, especially if we plan on putting it on the main page. Ryan Vesey 19:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A valid point, but again I'm baffled as to why you think I would leave it unsourced or indeed feature any building not cited in a source as an example. That would make it original research of course. Had I known this article would have got so much talk page attention I'd have created it "complete" first time.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Because we can only comment on the article that actully is - not the one that you imagine eventually creating.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I will note that I noticed it the other day and was going to comment on the very topic mentioned above but didn't knowing that you would get the sources in there. Ryan Vesey 20:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

'Origins'
Quote: "The origins of phallic architecture lay in Ancient Egypt and Greece where genitalia and human sexuality received a high degree of attention". Er, no. Or to put it more bluntly, bullshit. If the "origins of phallic architecture" lie anywhere, it will have to be deep within the human psyche (or to keep the evolutionary psychologists happy, deep inside the 'phallic architecture' module of the mind they will no doubt discover exists after reading this article ;-) ). The crass hyperdiffusionism implied in suggesting that phallic architecture has a single historical 'origin' doesn't belong in any article based on contemporary scholarship. The section is flawed in its premise, and without this would seem more than a rag-bag collection of observations regarding phallic symbolism in different cultures, contemporary and historical. What little useful content there is could probably best be merged with the 'symbolism' section. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is true there is to my knowledge noone who makes such a claim - rather psychologists claim that preoccupation with penises is a universal of the human subconscious.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Further to this, there seems to be a great deal of material in the section which has nothing obviously to do with phallic architecture at all. While how 'Prince Puger gained the power from God', may be interesting, it appears not to be relevant here, at least from what our article tells us. Architecture doesn't ejaculate... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "Architecture doesn't ejaculate". Hehe that's a good one! I bet some building does in Japan or Korea though which was usually the subject of most of the bizarre clips they had on Tarrant on TV. That sort of thing, a building which is a stored sperm bank which impregnates women who select a certain set of tadpoles upon demand would be just the sort of thing that appeared on it!♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Misses the point and is OR
The topic is notable but it misses the main point which is that since the 19th century it has been common to interpret towers as phallic symbols. The point is that the buildings are not "phallic" but that they can be interpreted by such, and certain strains of psychology have a proclivity for interpreting anything at all as phallic if possible. In short the fact that "phallic architecture exists" is a claim and it should be described as such. The claim is further that humans have a tendency to construct phallus symbols unconsciously, because of latent associations between penises and power. Possibly a secondary topic are types of architecture that are explicitly phallic or have explicit phallic symbolism. This is a different issue because these buildings are consciously emulating phalluses for different culturally contingent symbolic purposes. Another problem is the WP:SYNTH - it does not seem that there are any sources that are explicitly about the topic of phallic architecture in use in the article. This is especially problematic in the origins section since it constructs an historical narrative piecemeal from sources about other topics. I think it is a commendable effort to create an article for this topic that is probably among the top 1000 searches on wikipedia, but perhaps it should be published as a research essay first - it doesn't seem to me that any comparable treatment of this topic exists. A google scholar search on "phallic architecture" gets 26, some of them about the "phallic architecture of rodents" which is something else.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, a fine point. I had actually strayed into that with my edits this evening, that modern example are more subtle, but I've made it clearer now that it is often subject to interpretation. But that claim could use a source or two as the source I'm using only mentions its more subtle.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Seeing as the Empire State Building and other buildings are included solely on the basis that they are predominately protruding from the earth's surface in the same fashion as, say, a tree, and are taller than they are wide, every other building in the world which fulfils these criteria must also be included. The examples list should be completely removed or hugely expanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.245.75 (talk) 09:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This whole article strikes me as stupid and I think Dr. B. has some fetish problems himself, frankly. Dubious examples such as the one about the four-year old boy comparing his erection (is that even possible) with the Washington Monument make the article even more laughable.68.144.172.8 (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hyde Park
I discovered that a beehive sculpture was taken down in Hyde Park for being too phallic. Should this be included in the Hyde Park section? Ryan Vesey 20:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, thanks for finding that, further sources, newspapers etc would be appreciated if you could link them here. I'd appreciate it if on JSTOR you could browse and contribute to the article and add anything notable you find. Should I ever nominate this for GA in the future, naturally I will credit anybody who constructively assists me with this.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Section headings linked
MOS:SECTIONS says that "headings should not normally contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked." In addition, AWB automatically de-links section headings. Would it be best to delink these, use Main, or leave them as is? Ryan Vesey 20:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Washington Monument
I found this source describes the Washington Monument as phallic and the Vietnam Memorial as a vaginal counterpart; however, it isn't a critical review of the monuments and just makes the mention in passing. Should this information be included in any way? Ryan Vesey 20:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No. It is an opinion expressed in passing. Then again, without evidence that a building or monument was intended to be phallic, any statement that it is phallic is merely opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of phallic buildings are open to interpretation. I've merely mentioned those which are cited in masses of reliable sources for being phallic like and those of course which were specifically designed as such like the Korean Penis Park. So as long as multiple reliable sources cover it it isn't OR. For Empire State I've even added a quote that generally New Yorkers don't think of it as phallic. I'm proud of my work on the article to date and think its a pretty good achievement regardless of what you think.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Forum of Augustus
Starting from a JSTOR reference, I've been doing some searching for information about phallic architecture at the Forum of Augustus. I've yet to find anything reliable and I don't have more time available to edit Wikipedia today. I did find this. If someone wants to use that for background, they might be able to find some good sources. Ryan Vesey 21:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is mentioned briefly at Sexuality in ancient Rome. If you check out the footnote, there are a few sources which will point you to more. I personally think it's silly and unlikely, but there are plenty of RS to support it. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Phallic cemetery in Iran??
This reference is just gossip quality and should be removed. See Talk:Khalid Nabi Cemetery. Kipala (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Room for improvement
I've been reviewing articles in WP Architecture and came upon this. Looking at it from architectural point of view I can see some issues. I've made some changes to tighten up the lead which I think are now accepted (with some stress involved initially which we won't go into) and now points to the Freudian context of the modern examples, which are individually well researched and attributed. The main issue is what constitutes architecture and I accept that a) the subject is a little tongue in cheek and b) it's not really possible to separate architecture from surface decoration and related artefacts that are definitely not architecture, nor easy to know where to draw the line. Even so some of the content is drifting away from the stated topic more than a little and it would improve the article greatly if that could be tightened up. Some of the anecdotes are weak and might be better omitted: the amateurish beehive 'sculpture' in Manchester being a prime example.

Since architecture is about buildings it should be possible to at least have a lead image which is of a building, and what better than the winner of the 2003 contest? A tomb might possibly be architecture: the Albert Memorial definitely counts (but then it's a memorial not actually a tomb), but a simple graveyard tombstone may be phallic but it isn't really architecture. I don't plan to edit any further but for what it's worth, someone ought to? ProfDEH (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

People's Daily Tower
Is there a reason why the People's Daily Tower and China's attempt to censor its phallic design(ref)Jennifer Wadsworth. "China tries, fails, to censor jokes about penis-shaped skyscraper". SFGate, 2013-05-03. Accessed 2013-05-12.(/ref)(ref)Alexander Abad-Santos. "China Is Censoring Jokes About Its Propaganda Machine's Penis-Shaped HQ". The Atlantic Wire, 2013-05-03. Accessed 2013-05-12.(/ref)(ref)Luke Villapaz. "People's Daily Tower: Chinese Newspaper Receives Widespread Criticism For Its Phallic-Shaped Building". International Business Times, 2013-05-03. Accessed 2013-05-12.(/ref) isn't mentioned? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 18:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Because it is a recent building and hasn't been updated maybe? Feel free to add it.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  18:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing
Why is this article citing a book described as "A collection of gay erotic short stories about men who are truly packing in the size department." for the statement that "The worship of the phallus has existed since the Stone Age, and was particularly prevalent during the Neolithic period and the Bronze Age"? Does anyone here seriously think this is even remotely appropriate? If the statement is true, find a proper academic source. Or stop pretending to be an encyclopaedia. 86.128.242.86 (talk) 02:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Phallic architecture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130415040229/http://www.vanityfair.com/online/beauty/2008/04/jean-nouvels-message-in-a-bottle to http://www.vanityfair.com/online/beauty/2008/04/jean-nouvels-message-in-a-bottle

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Problem with lead/"Symbolism" subheading
"Scholars of anthropology, sociology, and feminism have pointed out the symbolic nature of phallic architecture, especially large skyscrapers which dominate the landscape as symbols of male domination, power and political authority." This, to me, sounds like it is violating WP:FRINGE. Under the subheading "Symbolism" we also have: 'Feminists in particular, such as Margrit Kennedy, perceive high-rise phallic-like buildings on the urban landscape as "phallic symbols of male domination, power and rational instrumentality."' There is a citation, but that doesn't mean that this is a mainstream idea. Should it even be mentioned when it is probably only believed by a very small group of people? DesertPipeline (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Poor article
Is every high-rise tower phallic, or is it simply a result of limited land and the need to consider gravity? This article needs SERIOUS rephrasing and reworking when talking about contemporary (and even some older structures) to justify if they are indeed phallic, or more likely, the nature that SOME PEOPLE interpret them as phallic, and why that may be. As it stands a genuinely interesting topic is polluted with nonsense. 2A02:C7C:C48F:5C00:9E08:F401:CE7A:BCAE (talk) 12:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

If an object is twice as tall as it is wide, it is a phallus standing up. If an object is twice as wide as it is tall, it is a phallus on its side.;-).Septagram (talk) 02:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for sub-sections
I'd like to edit the article so that under each section, there are subheads. for example, 'Ancient Greek', 'Roman', 'Pre-Modern Himduism', etc. FropFrop (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems unnecessary to me. The article makes it clear enough the context for particular examples etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Straight line equals penis, wow very clever feminism2603:3018:CD9:100:4D18:E9CC:6EBC:D6C8 (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)