Talk:History of erotic depictions/Archive 1

message: "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)
thread_title: major contradiction

message: 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) 
Image:Shigenobu print - Family values.jpg|Double page print from an illustrated shunga book by Yanagawa Shigenobu (1787-1832), a pupil of Hokusai. Size: chubon; Colored ink on paper; ca.1820; Private collection
Image:MORONOBU.JPG|Japanese man in the company of two  adolescent male entertainers Early ukiyo-e print in the shunga (erotic) style. Hishikawa Moronobu, ca. 1680; Private collection.
Image:Katsushika Hokusai - Fukujuso.jpg|Two LoversKatsushika Hokusai, The Adonis Plant (Fukujusô) Woodblock print, from a set of 12, ôban ca. 1815
Image:Love play in China - wiki.jpg|Young men sipping tea, reading poetry, and making love Individual panel from a hand scroll on homosexual themes, paint on silk; China, Qing dynasty (18th-19th c.); Kinsey Institute, Bloomington, Indiana
Image:936F.JPG|Spring Pastimes
A tryst between an older man and a youth.  See Nanshoku. Miyagawa Isshō, ca. 1750; Shunga hand scroll (kakemono-e); sumi, color and gofun on silk. Private collection.
Image:Chinese homoerotic print Hua Ying Chin Chen.jpg|The Way of the Academicians from “Hua Ying Chin Chen” (Variegated Positions of the Flower Battle), China, Ming dynasty (1368–1644)
Image:Kunisada surimono.jpg|19th c. shunga print by Kunisada
: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)
thread_title: More variety needed in the illustrations

message: 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)
thread_title: why the lengthy title?

message: I hate getting stuck on such a minor and obvious point, but if I must prove the Earth is round, here it goes. . . 
#"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."
#"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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  the Greeks and the glans 

message: 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)
thread_title: References

message: I am sorry I said anything, I wish you all the best with the article. Haiduc 05:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I see what the situation is 

message: 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)
replies: text: Just like every other FA on the main page. pschemp | talk 22:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Amen for Wikipedia

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: You mean babies don't come from storks? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: But of course. --Lenoxus 02:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks alot wikipedia 

message: 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)
replies: text: Why not use the more common spelling for consistency's sake? Nimrand 01:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: yes. Insane detail. pschemp | talk 23:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Probably. School filtering systems are pretty extreme. --Vyran 01:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  ??? 

message: "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)
thread_title:  See also links 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: In any case, here's the diff from the FAC discussion:  - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Agree with the no straw poll. Polls are evil. pschemp | talk 01:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Bunch of gay porn links 

message: Reference number 3 contains
 
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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Seymore Butts..? Dear God.. --Wooty Woot? contribs 07:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial links in references 

message: Image:Cinta ligas 009.jpg
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)
replies: text: Upload one and we'll discuss it. Thanks. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can we find a better illustration?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Hope the article will not require semi-protection. --Brand спойт 03:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volunteers for warning vandals? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Remove it again and you will be blocked. pschemp | talk 04:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: thank you for your concern. We'll just have to agree to disagree about this. pschemp | talk 05:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I see you've missed the entire point of the article. pschemp | talk 15:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the Venus of Willendorf really shouldn't be in here 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Information about this has been added. See below. pschemp | talk 15:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tale of Genji? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Sometimes I need to read an article twice before I understand it. Samsara (talk • contribs) 04:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Its actual use is unknown, and is a subject od debate. Iconoclastodon 15:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Venus of Willendorf 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: 1857 Webster's definition -- "obscene"?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Who were "the Victorians" ? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Historic attitudes : Incongruous dates? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Why not use the more common spelling for consistency's sake? Nimrand 01:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thank you. pschemp | talk 18:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The temples of India

message: 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.  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. 
::Looks good to me. Take the dashes out of the ISBNs though. They aren't needed. pschemp | talk 19:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! In it goes. Dybryd 19:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New subsection: Asian fiction

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: PLZ Admins

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pornography was legalized in the Netherlands in 1969 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why no BC on caption for image? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Non-editable "vandalization"

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  About the Moches 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bob Mizer section unclear 

message: 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)
thread_title: Photos on wiki commons

message: 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)
thread_title:  Question to anyone who knows 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Question regarding the choice of depictions 

message: 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.
* – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll