Talk:Erotica

message: Take the photo off please, think of the children that use this page, remove the photo or blur it out
:A child reading this page? In case you haven't noticed the article is titled Erotica. Not Hello Kitty.
:Problem being, in many regions, the law states that a child is anyone under what is called "age of majority" which is to say, under an age where the accumulated experiences are not deemed sufficient to make decisions for themselves with all dangers considered.
:We can't dumb down all of Wikipedia, or all of the Internet to the least common denominator, or the least controversial version of whatever we describe.  It is a parents responsibility to keep their children off of the freeway, not the role of the state to lower the speed limit to five miles per hour because a child may wander onto the freeway.  The Internet, and Wikipedia are about facts and reality.
:Besides the picture is innocent enough -- of a woman in a bikini.  It seems to me less suggestive than many daytime TV commercials. Atom 19:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion regarding unidintified photograph 

message: The difference between erotica and porn is denotative, actually: the former being defined generally as "material intended to provoke sexual stimulation", the latter, "stories inclusive of sexual themes, where sexuality is secondary to a major plot". Also, "pornography" in many legal circles is defined as that which is dehumanizing or degrading. To claim that the only opponents of porn are religiously-motivated, or that their morals are "old-fashioned" is wholly ignorant of a significant portion of its objectors, whose repulsion stems from progressive, humanitarian values and advocacy of what they feel are more honest, respectful depictions of sexuality unhampered by themes of degradation and conformity to a caricature-esque paradigm.
:There's nothing "honest" about this position. There's a great deal in our culture that is degrading or dehumanizing, some of a sexual and some of a non-sexual nature, that is never considered pornography, and a lot of what is called pornography is simply raw sexual acts, sometimes caricaturized and sometimes not, but mere exaggeration or role performance does not make something degrading or dehumanizing -- these are ideology-based judgments more than they are facts. An honest approach would be to identify and remedy individual cases of degradation or dehumanization, whether of a sexual nature or not, rather than try to use the legal system to block imagery that one finds distasteful. -- 98.108.206.178 (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  the difference between erotica and porn is aesthetic...or is it? 

message: Discussion regarded merge with erotica archived here --Jahsonic 19:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Vintage erotica]]

message: I went through and did a copyedit on the page and removed the box for it.  If anyone feels further editing is needed or a future revision requires work again be my guest to put it back or contact me on my talk page.  Greets! skrshawk 17:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit

message: This section seems misplaced, especially with listing a bunch of publications. We don't list other publications featuring erotica, so I'm not sure why this should be different. DreamGuy 19:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added this section back in. The section is referenced, and it is a new movement among student publications. Rather than deleting it, it should be expanded or moved to another article. 151.197.111.178 20:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please create a new article for this. It is wrong here, for the reasons given above, and on your Talk page before you restored this section. / edg ☺ ★ 20:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The section belongs. South Philly 01:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It is sourced. It is more sourced than any of the other genres or themes. I would say that it may one day deserve its own article, but until the information in that section grows, it should should just stay put. Deleting it again is just driving the edit war.151.197.111.178 20:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As stated before, sources do not make this appropriate for this article. Sourcing Family Guy doesn't make him worth adding to History of art. If you create a student erotica article, it would be worth linking from this one. But this is not the place for it. / edg ☺ ★ 20:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's putting the cart before the horse. the information here should be given time to gorw beofre splitting it off on a new article. 151.197.111.178 21:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if this is where Student erotica belongs. This is the wrong place. A stub would be much better. / edg ☺ ★ 21:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Update: this section has now been removed 4 times by 3 different editors   . Interestingly, the anon editor, who has inserted this section at least three times (perhaps all 4), threatens to report the removing editors for "edit warring" (having just previously made this threat on my talk page for my making 1 edit ever to this section). I propose the anon is editing against consensus. / edg ☺ ★ 21:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. You're going against consensus, and are about to violate the WP:3RR. Please, stop. Gscshoyru 21:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The section belongs. Removing it was done without consensus. The people who keep removing it without having first sought consensus are driving an edit war. South Philly 01:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it really is the other way around. Changes to the original structure of the article should not be made if someone is opposing without consensus -- see WP:BRD -- and the addition is the change. Please explain why such a narrow topic is notable enough to be in the article on the general topic, or make a seperate article with that information. Making the seperate article would be much, much better. Gscshoyru 01:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You've been abusing tools, using sockpuppets, and making disingenuous accusations. This is not how Wikipedia works. / edg ☺ ★ 02:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It isn't relevant enough. You're giving it far, far too much weight. With that section added, half of the article is a about student erotica, which is far, far too much, as student erotica is not that important in terms of erotica. If you really want, you can probably make a seperate article, and link to it in the see-also, though I'm not sure if it's notable enough for inclusion there. Additionally, your idea that articles grow inside other articles before being moved off into others, which you keep mentioning, is wrong. I'm not sure where you got that idea, but very few articles start that way, and those that do happen because the original article was far too long and some of the sections were split off. Most articles start as stubs, not in other articles, ok? Gscshoyru 21:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Incorrect, there was consensus to remove it from this article. The fact you are still illogically obstinate regarding this issue indicates to me that you are more than likely deliberately trying to evoke an edit conflict. Frankly, I am losing good faith in your edits, so I am going to repeat my suggestion in strongly recommending that you create a separate article for "student erotica" -- or don't. The choice is yours, but you cannot put the content back into this article. And a repeated attempt to do so will likely resort in your being blocked, because you're really starting to disrupt this article to prove your illogical point. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 00:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't "relevant enough?" Please cite your precedent. It is about erotica, it is sourced. It is not large enough to be considered its own article. If I wasn't worried about an AfD, I would write a Student erotica article. At this point, let's go for an RFC or for mediation. I think I'll win. Until then it belongs in the article - it is sourced, more so than any other part of the article. Student erotica 14:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's too narrow a topic for inclusion in an article about the general topic. And there's a perfect precedent, an analogy, up at the top of this section. Would you put a section on family guy in the article on modern art? It's cartoons, it's modern. But it's not notable enough for inclusion. The article is plenty large enough to be a WP:STUB, so make one instead of adding it here, please. And there is no "winning" WP:RFC's, but be my guest and make a request there. Gscshoyru 14:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Look, the problem is not the name of the section, or the fact it's the fact that that a section on Student Erotica, which is a very specific facet of the subject, does not merit anywhere near the amount of weight you've given it in the article. The fact that it's "sourced," as you put it, does not make it notable. All the rest of the article is about erotica in general, a specific section is out of place and does not belong. I ask specifically, what is wrong with moving it to a seperate article? It's plenty notable enough to be in a seperate article, but since it's not about erotica in general, and not specifically notable enough a phenomenon for inclusion in a general article, why are you so opposed to it being moved? I don't think anyone has a problem with it being made a stub, but in the current form, it cannot be included in a general topic article. Gscshoyru 04:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Another, additional problem with this section is that it consists almost entirely of 1st party sources. In general, an article or section should not rely on first party sources, and should only contain them to supplement third party sources -- see WP:V, please. Gscshoyru 04:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Changing the name does not address the abovementioned problems. This has been discussed at length, and you have been offered alternatives to this sustained, aggressive editing. Even the editor who expresses "sympathy" for you suggests you place this material elsewhere. You are inserting this material entirely against consensus, and you are edit warring. / edg ☺ ★ 09:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Student publications

message: Sections on "Student erotica" have been added three times now, and deleted twice.
Even if sourced, student erotica is too small and recent a genre to add to a broad article like Erotica, especially with details of known publications. If this is a notable phenomemon, consider creating a new article with this information. / edg ☺ ★ 20:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is sourced. It is more sourced than any of the other genres or themes. I would say that it may one day deserve its own article, but until the information in that section grows, it should should just stay put. Deleting it again is just driving the edit war.151.197.111.178 20:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As stated before, sources do not make this appropriate for this article. Sourcing Family Guy doesn't make him worth adding to History of art. If you create a student erotica article, it would be worth linking from this one. But this is not the place for it. / edg ☺ ★ 20:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's putting the cart before the horse. the information here should be given time to gorw beofre splitting it off on a new article. 151.197.111.178 21:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if this is where Student erotica belongs. This is the wrong place. A stub would be much better. / edg ☺ ★ 21:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Update: this section has now been removed 4 times by 3 different editors   . Interestingly, the anon editor, who has inserted this section at least three times (perhaps all 4), threatens to report the removing editors for "edit warring" (having just previously made this threat on my talk page for my making 1 edit ever to this section). I propose the anon is editing against consensus. / edg ☺ ★ 21:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. You're going against consensus, and are about to violate the WP:3RR. Please, stop. Gscshoyru 21:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The section belongs. Removing it was done without consensus. The people who keep removing it without having first sought consensus are driving an edit war. South Philly 01:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it really is the other way around. Changes to the original structure of the article should not be made if someone is opposing without consensus -- see WP:BRD -- and the addition is the change. Please explain why such a narrow topic is notable enough to be in the article on the general topic, or make a seperate article with that information. Making the seperate article would be much, much better. Gscshoyru 01:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You've been abusing tools, using sockpuppets, and making disingenuous accusations. This is not how Wikipedia works. / edg ☺ ★ 02:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It isn't relevant enough. You're giving it far, far too much weight. With that section added, half of the article is a about student erotica, which is far, far too much, as student erotica is not that important in terms of erotica. If you really want, you can probably make a seperate article, and link to it in the see-also, though I'm not sure if it's notable enough for inclusion there. Additionally, your idea that articles grow inside other articles before being moved off into others, which you keep mentioning, is wrong. I'm not sure where you got that idea, but very few articles start that way, and those that do happen because the original article was far too long and some of the sections were split off. Most articles start as stubs, not in other articles, ok? Gscshoyru 21:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Incorrect, there was consensus to remove it from this article. The fact you are still illogically obstinate regarding this issue indicates to me that you are more than likely deliberately trying to evoke an edit conflict. Frankly, I am losing good faith in your edits, so I am going to repeat my suggestion in strongly recommending that you create a separate article for "student erotica" -- or don't. The choice is yours, but you cannot put the content back into this article. And a repeated attempt to do so will likely resort in your being blocked, because you're really starting to disrupt this article to prove your illogical point. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 00:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't "relevant enough?" Please cite your precedent. It is about erotica, it is sourced. It is not large enough to be considered its own article. If I wasn't worried about an AfD, I would write a Student erotica article. At this point, let's go for an RFC or for mediation. I think I'll win. Until then it belongs in the article - it is sourced, more so than any other part of the article. Student erotica 14:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's too narrow a topic for inclusion in an article about the general topic. And there's a perfect precedent, an analogy, up at the top of this section. Would you put a section on family guy in the article on modern art? It's cartoons, it's modern. But it's not notable enough for inclusion. The article is plenty large enough to be a WP:STUB, so make one instead of adding it here, please. And there is no "winning" WP:RFC's, but be my guest and make a request there. Gscshoyru 14:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Look, the problem is not the name of the section, or the fact it's the fact that that a section on Student Erotica, which is a very specific facet of the subject, does not merit anywhere near the amount of weight you've given it in the article. The fact that it's "sourced," as you put it, does not make it notable. All the rest of the article is about erotica in general, a specific section is out of place and does not belong. I ask specifically, what is wrong with moving it to a seperate article? It's plenty notable enough to be in a seperate article, but since it's not about erotica in general, and not specifically notable enough a phenomenon for inclusion in a general article, why are you so opposed to it being moved? I don't think anyone has a problem with it being made a stub, but in the current form, it cannot be included in a general topic article. Gscshoyru 04:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Another, additional problem with this section is that it consists almost entirely of 1st party sources. In general, an article or section should not rely on first party sources, and should only contain them to supplement third party sources -- see WP:V, please. Gscshoyru 04:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Changing the name does not address the abovementioned problems. This has been discussed at length, and you have been offered alternatives to this sustained, aggressive editing. Even the editor who expresses "sympathy" for you suggests you place this material elsewhere. You are inserting this material entirely against consensus, and you are edit warring. / edg ☺ ★ 09:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Student erotica" edit war 

message: No
Does the image :Image:Michele Merkin 1.jpg belong in this article?
Yes, the image depicts contemporary erotica, and the article is lacking pictures without it. 
* – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll

message: As most people do, Eros is translated as 'love' when it should really be translated as 'desire'. Agapi is the word for sexual love.203.114.182.17 23:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with Greek 

message: I've protected this page so that no one falls in the WP:3RR trap or edit wars over the whole "student erotica" mess. The protection will be lifted in 72 hours, or maybe earlier, once we determine whether or not South Philly is using sock puppets to disrupt Wikipedia to make his (or her) point. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 05:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war protection 

message: I re-added the "NPOV-section" tag even before I'd seen that there had been one there earlier and had been removed several days ago. The section clearly leans toward the POV that there is a clear difference between pornography and erotica and that the former is "bad" while the latter is "good". Also, the section (and the article in general) is wholly unreferenced, meaning that the section is simply the exposition of some editor's point of view on the topic. The section needs to be rewritten to be based on actual citable sources on this debate (this shouldn't be hard – there's been a great deal written over the last 40 or so years on this topic) and should be a balanced presentation on all major points of view on this topic. Iamcuriousblue 18:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took out the old POV-soaked paragraph and replaced it with cited material.  I think the writing is disjointed and it could stand to be fleshed out, but I think it's better to get some NPOV material in there than try to save what read like the musing of a college term paper.--David Shankbone 07:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erotica/pornography debate 

message: I started laughing at the article and at Wikipedia after seeing the absurd image (apparently self-taken) of the naked man. Note xkcd's comic at http://xkcd.com/631/ -- there is a reason universities don't consider Wikipedia a valid source: it isn't one, calling itself an encyclopedia but having no standards. Seriously, if Wikipedia wants to be considered a valid encyclopedia -- as its icon in the top corner suggests -- it should remove stupid and absurd images like that naked guy. But I suppose part of Wikipedia is to make its editors feel important, so whatever. -- Newagelink (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).   Chzz  ►  02:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  lol @ wikipedia trash -- the wannabe encyclopedia 

message: The last paragraph of the section entitled "Erotica and pornography", which deals with a certain Ukrainian policy, seems unnecessary for a number of reasons. All of the information in this paragraph is cited from a broken link. The explanation of how an image is determined to be erotica based off of percentages makes no sense whatsoever; it is badly explained and, since the link is broken, there is no way to fix it. The definition of pornography as dealing specifically and exclusively with "group and homosexual intercourse, scenes of sexual violence, and/or sexual perversions" does not reflect any sort of widespread consensus. UranianPoet 08:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ukrainian "criteria on how to distinguish pornography from erotica" 

message: It seems that it would be helpful to compare and contrast specific clear-cut examples of Erotica, Pornography, and Ribaldry across artistic mediums.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConnerFields (talk • contribs) 23:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples

message: Are there some objective criteria for distinguishing between erotica and simple nudity? I think this aspect is a good addition/inclusion to the article.--82.137.8.97 (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably this comes from the definition of erotica as sexually arousing. Simple nudity does not have to be erotic, and the erotic does not have to feature nudity. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinction from nudity 

message: Hello sir the iditer of this page ! Here I want some more erotically written works in history and the latest as well for which I request to Erotic Literature page to enhance their categories and eritic novels and books and the other things that might entertain the audiences and page viewers ! Very Hopefully waiting for new inclusion......! Zeshan Sial (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erotica  

message: The distinction between pornography and erotica is largely subjective and reflects societies standards. . I believe that the separation of both goes against WP: UNCENSORED and WP: NPOV.Guilherme Burn (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , if you're going to cite Britannica in support of merging pornography and erotica, it's worth pointing out that britannica has an article on Erotica, https://www.britannica.com/art/erotica Vexations (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , actually I did not want to merge the articles, I wanted to merge the inner wikipedia concept, like the wikiproject and the template I proposed above. This Rfc was to draw attention to these discussions, I do not believe it is just a simple title issue, many editors do not accept linking erotic art articles with pornography.Guilherme Burn (talk) 10:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh? No, we should not have an article titled "Erotica and pornography" or "Pornography and erotica." And if you want a title change like that, you need to start a WP:Requested moves discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedian concept of Erotica and Pornography 

message: The girl Fernande (Fernande Barrey 1893) is a child prostitute and should not be the introdution to the page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.112.127.160 (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: She was an adult at the time the picture was taken. I don't see how her past is relevant. --John B123 (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fernande is underage, remove picture 

message: The first sentence currently says: 
I propose this alternative: 
Any objections? - Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition proposal 

message: — Assignment last updated by Zy175311460 (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Seminar in Human Sexuality