Jump to content

Talk:History of erotic depictions

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2600:1702:1740:2ca0:1d43:8a98:ec54:cfe5 (talk) at 00:31, 23 August 2019 (Sexual behaviors in art, as opposed to life. Moderate importance to WP Sexuality, compared to articles documenting life.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured articleHistory of erotic depictions is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 30, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 9, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
March 2, 2008Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article
Archive
Archives

Untitled

Bad source for the 18th century.

This article's treatment of 18th century erotic work is quite shoddy. Its sole source is a sort of highbrow 'zine called Libido magazine. Despite Libido's subtitle (The Journal of Sex and Sensibility), this publication is not an academic journal and is unaffiliated with any institution of higher learning. Seemingly defunct and with many dead links, this publication does not seek to present itself as scholarly (see here). The short article "The Roots of Western Pornography" from this publication cited in "History of erotic depictions" contains no citations whatsoever, even though it is obviously a low-quality vulgarisation of pre-existing scholarship (one thinks of Lynn Hunt and Robert Darnton). Unsurprisingly, the article in Libido has several serious failings. First of all, it takes some of these erotic publications at their word and asserts that they were published in Amsterdam. Darnton, as well as Chartier have produced studies showing this to be false -- in France, books destined to arouse the censor's ire were often printed in that country but claimed to have been printed in Amsterdam -- in order to confuse the censor. This is common knowledge among historians of 18th century publishing. Consequently, I have removed any refrences to Amsterdam.

The Libido article also leads to some other conceptually warped statements. "The market for the mass-produced, inexpensive pamphlets soon became the bourgeoisie, making the upper class worry." Does the author mean "nobility" by "upper class"? In France, nobles and grands bourgeois intermarried, (See Chaussinand-Nogaret) and the latter also bought royal offices that confered nobility. Worries about "philosophical" books were not confined to "upper classes". I could go on, but we essentially have an unrelilable, completely unscholarly source (Libido) being taken (1) at face value and (2) used as the sole source for the history of the beginnings of printed erotic matter. This section needs to be re-written. There are plenty of sources -- there's a growing body litterature on the history of pornography, the history of the book and publishing, the history of sex and gender. But these essential sources are generally books or (scholarly!) journal articles -- and necessitate going to a good library, rather than just googling. Until reliable sources are cited, the cleanup tag should remain in place. --Zantastik talk 00:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of erotic depictions. Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

disambiguation

tryst needs disambig Randomblue (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the link to List of films portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors from the "See also" section, since neither sexual abuse nor paedophilia should be classified as erotic. Mindmatrix 14:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current work from Commons

There is currently an edit war over the inclusion of File:Staff_Of_Life_Or_Horn_Of_Man.JPG, File:Cinta ligas 009.jpg and File:Male nudity in digital photography.jpg in the section Video and digital depictions.

I propose that new work declared to be erotic art by their creators should not be included in this article unless they are recognized in independent, reliable sources. Otherwise this section can swell with vanity images of little value in an article providing an overview of art history. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cinta ligas 009.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Cinta ligas 009.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of erotic depictions. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of erotic depictions. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

conflicted article

Though overtly an article on a sex-positive (or at least sex-neutral) topic, it's shot through with nonsense that's essentially anti-sex. For instance, the recurring thread that somehow nudity = sex — something that has long irked nudists/Naturists and indigenous cultures and the art world alike. (An image of a nursing mother is "obscene" because some random wanker somewhere might get a stiffy seeing it.) The title clearly says EROTIC so therefore ought to be about depictions intended to be erotic rather than what bluenoses believe.

Speaking of the title, WTF "depictions"? Define the damned term, then hew closely to it throughout.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a starting point, then:
The term "pornography" appears at least fifty times in this article. Therefore, it's a fair assumption that those sections deal largely with pornography, rather than eroticism. Seeing as Pornography is flourishing, the great majority of references here deserve to be removed. Any cogent countercases?
Interestingly, as we also have Eroticism and Eroticism in film and Erotica, I'm beginning to make the case that there's a whole lot of forking going on and it's perhaps time to get all the erudite wankers on the (rather literally) same page.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_erotic_depictions&oldid=912061322"