Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of erotic depictions/archive1

History of erotic depictions
In the two months since its creation, this article has made amazing progress, is spell-checked, copyedited, decked out with nice illustrations and links to commons, and very thoroughly referenced. As for comprehensiveness, you be the judges (I'm no expert on the subject), but this is without a doubt an outstanding Wikipedia achievement that deserves recognition. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Samsara: Who among us can claim to be expert in this subject, I wonder? :) but this article is a real tour de force. Covers all the significant periods of history, is not western centric, is meticulously referenced (to the point of needing a scroll box for all the references!) and has a nice collection of very striking and apropos images. Would be a great featured article. And to think it started as a split off from a much maligned article. Support ++Lar: t/c 19:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - detailed, interesting, attractive read. Considerably well referenced. I see no reason why this shouldn't be promoted. Regards, &mdash;Cel es tianpower háblame 19:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Note to self: Reread your comments before posting. By "attractive", I meant, there's a good balance of images and text, at that the paragraphs seem the right lengths. :). &mdash;Cel es tianpower háblame 21:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, per Lar and Celestianpower, well referenced, well written, good FAC. --  Bane s  09:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Object.
 * Lead section should be a summary of the article. Especially the first paragraph is currently too specifically focused on definitional issues, which rather should either be cut, or discussed in a separate section and only briefly referenced in the lead.
 * Rewritten. pschemp | talk 20:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "The ancient Greeks often painted sexual scenes on their ceramics, many of them famous for being some of the earliest depictions of same-sex relations and pederasty." This is the only information about ancient Greek erotic art. Surely we can do better than that?
 * Don't see what else needs to be said, since we already have Art in Ancient Greece. The Greeks didn't separate art into erotic and not erotic, it was all the same to them. The notable thing for a summary of history is that they created some of the first recorded scenes of pederasty, which is pointed out. Other than that the Greeks were just doing their normal art with scenes from everyday life. pschemp | talk 17:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you're already saying more than we are saying in the article. In addition: What kind of erotic themes do we know from what time periods? What objects? Which regions? Did phalluses play a role like in Roman times? The single sentence remark simply seems out of place to me at present.--Eloquence* 23:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Section expanded. pschemp | talk 03:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The text about the Romans is poorly referenced. I would specifically like references for the following:
 * "On one hand, in the 'Villa of the Mysteries', there is a ritual flagellation scene that is clearly associated with a religious cult." I have never interpreted it as a flaggellation scene, but this is of course just my opinion. I know that some have, and I wouldn't be surprised if other sources disagree. We should be specific according to whom it depicts a flaggellation scene.
 * "Sex acts that were considered taboo (such as those that defiled the purity of the mouth) were depicted in baths for comic effect only." Especially the "for comic effect" needs to be sourced.
 * Again, all of that is from the reference cited at the end of that paragraph. I don't see the point of putting the same ref number on every sentence of a paragraph when citing the source that covers it can by done more efficiently and with less interruption at the end of the paragraph. It is assumed that everything above that reference comes from that reference. pschemp | talk 17:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In image caption: "Large phalluses were considered undesirable and comical in ancient Rome." Again the "comical" claim. Where is that from?
 * I put the cite in after the caption. pschemp | talk 17:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * For a claim as significant as this, I would really prefer a more scholarly reference than a documentary DVD. I'm really skeptical about this claim -- if we can't have a better source for it, I'd prefer it to be removed. --Eloquence* 23:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you think this is a "significant" claim, as it is common in current literature about Roman sexuality. The documentary was made by interviewing experts in each field, in this case John Clarke who also discussed this same view extensively in his book Roman Sex along with the concept of taboo images being depicted for comic reasons in baths. Nor is John Clarke the only person who thinks that, as is mentioned here. Finally, in case you still don't believe me, it is also mentioned in a review of the book here. I understand there is prejudice against anything but books as sources, but the DVD uses the scholars themselves. Just make you happy, I'll add the book reference too, though I still don't think its needed. pschemp | talk 01:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you slow down a bit with the strike-through? Thanks. Now, regarding the reference, I do not find the claim in the Times Online article by Philip Howard you are citing above. In fact, that article is stating precisely that oversized penises had positive connotations, and were considered erotic or comical, not, as the image caption currently states, "comical and undesirable". Again, in the article itself it also says "for comic effect only", which contradicts the Times Online article. Does Clarke claim so? If that is Clarke's view, it should be stated as such. Right now the article categorically claims that Romans considered large penises and oral sex undesirable and "for comic effect only", which I find very hard to believe and which very much sounds like a personal interpretation by a single scholar to me. Alternatively, just remove the claim that it was considered undesirable and only comical. Why is it significant? Because we're making a categorical claim about the sexual preferences of an entire culture.--Eloquence* 01:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No I can't stop with the strikethough, I need it to keep my place as I work on addressing these things. The sentence, in full now reads, "Sex acts that were considered taboo (such as those that defiled the purity of the mouth) were depicted in baths for comic effect." Note this is *only* referring to those certain kind of depictions. And yes, Clarke claims this. I do not however state anywhere that large penises and taboo acts were *always* depicted for comic effect, but they often were. As for the large penis being undersireable and often being depicted for comic effect, all the sources back that up. Romans didn't want large penises. That was a sign of barbarism. I think you are reading that article incorrectly. It clearly states "Uncivilised brutes had large membra." The oversized depictions were thus often done for comic effect or the titilation of the weaker minded female, not to glorify. In the positive aspect I have mentioned that "Large Phalluses were often used near entryways, for the phallus was seen as a good luck charm, and the carvings were common in every home." which shows I'm not saying they are *only* undersirable. I have also changed the caption to read "Large phalluses were considered undesirable for men to posess and often depicted for comic effect in ancient Rome." This in no way insinuates that was the *only* reason they were painted, but the fact that Roman men wanted small penises is referenced all over the place. It is not a revolutionary idea. 02:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, from another source, (This talking about the Greeks, but this is where the Romans got their views),"Long, thick penises were considered--at least in the highbrow view-- grotesque, comic, or both and were usually found on fertility gods, half-animal critters such as satyrs, ugly old men, and barbarians." the Romans still celebrated that which they found grotesque or comic, but celebrating it doesn't make it stop being grotesque or comic.  Also, "Clarke is an acknowledged expert on Roman erotic art" .pschemp | talk 02:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And another source "Roman texts and images of Priapus, who is closely associated with sexuality and human fertility, are typically prurient and often contain elements of humor." pschemp | talk 03:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "It was not until the invention of the printing press that sexually explicit images entered into any type of mass circulation. Before that time, erotic images, being hand made and expensive, were limited to upper class males who deliberately kept them away from the working class, fearing the effect such things would have on the animal lust of the uneducated." This is far too general a statement. For which cultures, which eras is that true?
 * I added the words, "in Western Culture." As for the era, its already dated by the invention of the printing press. pschemp | talk 18:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "both in your pussy and your behind ..." Source for this translation please. Only Google hit is Wikipedia.
 * Source is at the end of the paragraph pschemp | talk 17:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Minor: text under "Photography" is very densely written; paragraphs should be shorter and should be copyedited for general flow.
 * The last paragraph of "Moving pictures" seems very US-centric. Were the cited movies really pioneering in this regard internationally? If not, this should always be stated explicitly.
 * Clarified and added another ref. pschemp | talk 21:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Video and digital depictions" could be expanded to about twice its current size, especially if you want to cover VHS porn/erotica and Internet pornography in the same section. It also needs copyediting and better referencing.
 * Every statement in there is covered by the references cited at the end of the paragraph. Also, note there is an entire separate article for Internet pornography and this is pointed out at the top of the section. No need to cover the same information twice. The point here is a comprehensive summary of the topic, not a giant discussion of every detail, *especially* since an article specific to the internet already exists. pschemp | talk 17:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, some people feel that it's best to have a squiggle at the end of every sentence, just in case people add stuff that is then not supported by the reference at the end of the paragraph. People are somewhat less likely to break up sentences in their editing. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It would seriously have the same ref at the end of ten sentences in a row, which I think looks terrible, but if that's what people want I'll do it. I *could* cite one of the listed refs for every single sentence, as I know where every fact comes from. Somehow that seems a bit like overkill but I suspect there's a happy medium to be found. pschemp | talk 18:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So long as you appreciate the problem and someone will be around to question unsourced material that gets added, it should be fine with references at the end of each paragraph. Certainly makes it more readable. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I do. This is a but a symptom of a larger Wikipedia problem. Should we sacrifice readability for the exactness of referencing every sentence? I don't know. Stable Versions would help a lot here.pschemp | talk 22:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is all for now. Mind you, even if all these were addressed, it could still only scratch the surface, but that is to be expected with such a topic--making it featured does not preclude us from improving it further. I think the article is on the road to getting there.--Eloquence* 15:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Some good comments there. As for scratching the surface, let's remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a monograph about the history of erotic depictions. Our purpose is to scratch the surface in a comprehensive way. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, ideally I would like to end up with very detailed sub-articles on each topic -- Wikipedia is not paper -- but as I said, the fact that you can always add a lot more information to a topic like this should not stand in the way of FA status.--Eloquence* 23:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

*Object for now, for the following reasons: (changed to weak support, see below)
 * Intro, though quite interesting, does not summarize the article, see WP:LEAD. Needs to be an overview of the article. Right now it's just a summary of the introduction of the word "pornography" to the lexicon.
 * Rewritten. pschemp | talk 20:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Many film directors resisted this shift at first because of the different quality of image it produced, but it moved so quickly and totally to the new format that continuing to shoot on film was no longer an option. - It's unclear to me what the bolded word "it" means. The industry presumably, but if you just substitute that word in, it kind of begs the question "if many directors resisted, then how did the industry move so fast?" Needs clarification badly.
 * Reworded. pschemp | talk 04:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Unencumbered by Christian dogma" This seems like a POV jab that adds nothing to the article. Does the source actually back this up? (it's offline so I can't check) Even still I don't think it adds anything to include that phrase.
 * Phrase removed. pschemp | talk 03:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "The next advance, stereoscopy, was invented in 1838" Eh? How is this the next advance, when the article just told us that the older method was released "In 1839". This needs to be reconciled.
 * Ok, this is because daguerreotypes were not the first photographic process invented, but the first practical process invented and that has documented use for erotic images. (the first photograph was taken in 1826) so stereoscopy came after that. I removed the phrase, "the next advance" so that should make the timeline less confusing. pschemp | talk 01:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Some think that the pictures satisfied the medieval cravings for both erotic pictures and religion in one book" Weasel words ("Some think") should be elimated if feasable. I don't have access to the source again, so I can't figure out who the "some" that think this are.
 * Some is referring to medieval scholars who, like most academics are not in 100% agreement with each other about the motives of the monks who drew the pictures and since we cannot ask the monks, their motives will never be known for sure. The next sentence, starting with "others" gives the alternative veiw. I clarified who the some were and hopefully made it more clear that there are two accepted opinions about this. pschemp | talk 04:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I cannot figure out what the image labelled "Digitally altered photograph" is supposed to be a picture of, or what it's supposed to add to the article.
 * I explained below its a woman wearing knickers, a garter belt and stockings. Its an example of how an erotic image can be altered from a plain photograph with digital technology. At any rate, I changed it to one that is more obvious. pschemp | talk 04:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In general, the article has a curious fixation with the economic classes, the "working class" and so on is mentioned or alluded to several times, sometimes it's relevent sometimes there seems to be little meaningful reason to mention it. This is not something I expected to be acted on, just a general comment.
 * The article starts off with a broad global view, but from "The beginnings of mass circulation" section to the end of the article nothing but European and then American pornography seems to be mentioned whatsoever. --W.marsh 00:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason for that is until the latter part of the 20th century many of the non-European cultures just carried on their traditional forms of erotic art because they didn't have a concept of pornography until the Western morals were imported along with things like photographs and Playboy. We have a separate article Pornography in Japan (totally unreferenced) for that country, but little information from usable sources exists as to these kinds of depictions in other cultures. Sadly, a big reason for this is the imposition of western values during Colonial times when the empires also introduced western forms of pornography. If there were sources for the history of erotic depictions in other cultures different from the traditional depictions, I'd gladly put them in, but they just don't seem to exist. In the case of Japan, the ancient art of Shunga is apparently an acceptable topic but what came after that doesn't seem to be. pschemp | talk 04:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. "Erotic depictions of sexual acts are as old as civilization. Erotic depictions include paintings, sculptures, photographs, music and writings that show scenes of a sexual nature". I'd rather change the sequence of sentences. BTW consider rewording because "old as civilization" sounds like a fairy tale beggining :) Generally probably it would be better to focus deeper on softcore rather than on hardcore issues. --Brand спойт 01:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no distinction between softcore and hardcore in erotic images. Making one would be arbitrary and OR on my part. To be fair, I have to treat all images of a sexual nature the same. I'm going to totally rewordk the lead also, so I'll wait on your suggestions and they may become irrlevent. pschemp | talk 04:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment what on earth is the digital picture at the bottom supposed to be? drumguy8800   C   T  01:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Its a woman's torso clad in knickers, a garter belt and stockings. It helps if you look at the full size. It has obviously been digitally altered, but that's the point. We can do that now. Anyway, I changed it to one that is more obvious. pschemp | talk 01:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Note - If you are going to object because of the lead section, please consider waiting until I have a chance to rework it into a summary. I need to sleep sometime. Also, please don't be offended if I strikethrough your comment. I'm doing it so I know what I've addressed and what I haven't, not to imply that your comment isn't appreciated. If you still have an issue, just post underneath. Thanks. pschemp | talk 04:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I don't mind the striking through at all, and it looks like most of my complaints have been addressed, I'm not sure about the image thing yet, I'll reply on that later. The intro thing is not trivial though, and the FAC should be open for a while so it's not like it's a total rush. --W.marsh 18:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Object for a couple reasons, though it is an excellent article
 * The lead needs work, which I know you're working on.
 * Rewritten. pschemp | talk 20:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Too focused on ancient Greece and Rome in the "Early depictions" section. This is the only really major objection.  If Japan, China, India and Persia "produced copious quantities of art celebrating the human faculty of love", there needs to be more coverage here. Japan and China get a few sentences each, and India and Persia are not covered at all.
 * Sadly, I can cite more sources saying the Persia's erotic art has been ignored by scholars than I can sources that actually look at it. The problem here is that scholars were previously reluctant to look at the erotic art of these cultures, making reliable, scholarly sources lacking. (Most of the available texts are just picture books for India, China and Japan, and in the case of Persia, even pictures are rare.) The Greeks and Romans were analyzed in more detail because western culture saw itself as the heir of their learning. The bias here is not mine but that of the available sources. That being said, I do have a bit more information for these cultures and will add what I do have. pschemp | talk 20:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 *  in the sixteenth century an attempt to print erotic material caused a scandal when Italians Pietro Aretino and Marcantonio Raimondi produced the I Modi in 1524, an illustrated book of 16 "postures" or sexual positions. Raimondi had actually published the I Modi once before, and was subsequently imprisoned by the Pope Clement VII and all copies of the illustrations were destroyed-first letter not capitalized, and it's confusing-was Raimondi imprisoned for the first publishing or the second? If the first, how did he publish the second?
 * (Also rewritten) Might I suggest you read the entire paragraph as it says after that, "He (Aretrino) then composed 16 explicit sonnets ("both in your pussy and your behind, my cock will make me happy, and you happy and blissful") to go with the paintings and secured Raimondi's release from prison. The I Modi was then published the second time with the poems and the pictures making this the first time erotic text and images were combined, though the papacy once more seized all the copies it could find. Raimondi escaped prison that time..." No one else has found this confusing. pschemp | talk 01:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not strike out the comments of others. Thank you for explaining it. The beginning of this paragraph is bad because it jumps around chronologically, and requires reading the last part of the paragraph to make sense of the first part. 02:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Its been rewritten to make this clearer. As for the strikethough, I commented above that I need to do it to make sure I've addressed everyone's issues. If that bothers you I'm sorry, but its an accepted practice here and one I find helpful so I don't forget what I've done and not done. As I said before, its not personal and doesn't mean that comments aren't appreciated. pschemp | talk 20:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It isn't not accepted here, it's profoundly rude. If you want to make a list to strikethrough, do it on a user subpage or the article talk page. My objection still stands on the basis that not enough coverage is given to non-Western topics. There's a lot of material that can still be included - our own article on pornography in Japan provides substantial detail, as an example. Tuf-Kat 04:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you disagree with the strikethrough thing. We'll just have to disagree on it. I said my intentions were not rude, and if you continue to assume that they are, I can't stop you. Others here have not objected, and like I said, it is done all the time on FAC nominations. If you have such a serious issue with it, you should be complaining to all the editors who do this, not just me, and get the practice changed or discussed. In the mean time, I'm going to keep doing it because I've already explained my reasons for it, and stated them multiple times. As for Pornography in Japan, which I discussed above, it is, sadly, completely unreferenced, this proving my point that refs for that kind of information are few and far between. Surely you aren't suggesting that I add material that is unsourced and unverifyable? I've also stated an intention to expland the section as much as can be done with scholarly refs, but haven't done so yet, so of course your objection still stands. pschemp | talk 05:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "See also" seems bloated. All of those either are or should be incorporated into the article text, and then removed from the see also.
 * Incorporated in details templates or text. pschemp | talk 04:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Tuf-Kat 00:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. Brief note to those who had qualms about the lead: it has been completely rewritten as far as I can tell. - User:Samsara (talk· contribs) 10:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * support -- Wow. Amazing how much (and how good) one can write about that topic, it's a really fantastic article. I've learned much about other cultures concerning their behavior of erotic depiction. And I easily understood the English, which is a sign (for me) that it's been written very well. Additionally, the illustrations are very helpful. Thank you, pschemp, for this article. --Thogo (Talk) 15:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * weak support per intro being written and my problems being addressed. However the intro is still a bit short... just needs a little touching up. --W.marsh 03:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Good job, pschemp! ~Kylu ( u | t )  05:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Support This is an excellent topic to inject some variety into the lagging featured articles space - covering an almost taboo topic in a magnificently professional manner. Featuring this article would go a long way towards reinforcing what a proper Wikipedia article should look like - particularly for the hundreds of vandals daily that wish to create a brand new Wikipedia article containing the single word "fuck."  It may make some noise outside of Wikipedia, but any serious review of the article will find the actual article is simply a very well written encyclopedic article.  Truly, something that is of broad interest, yet not something one would research on any given day.  All-in-all, it is surprisingly informative.  I had no idea what the British idiom "what the butler saw" meant, despite having heard it in songs many times over the last couple decades.  --Connel MacKenzie -  wikt 06:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)