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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 21:55, 2 March 2008.

---

History of erotic depictions

Review commentary

Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography and the article's principal editors: Pschemp‎ (talk · contribs) and ‎Samsara (talk · contribs), the latter of whom nominated it for FA status.

I submit this article for review because it fails to meet two FA criteria -- 1. (b) and (c). Specifically, it relies exclusively on a poor quality, unscholarly source for its treatment of the 17th and 18th centuries. This source does not "represent the relevant body of published knowledge". [1. (c)] Consequently, this article neglects "major facts and details" -- that is, the history of erotic depictions in the 17th and 18th centuries. [1. (b)].

Our source in question -- the article's sole source for this vital period in the history of printed pornography -- is a sort of highbrow e-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, published on a website with many dead links, this publication does not seek to present itself as scholarly (see here). Specifically, A History of erotic depictions relies on a short article entitled "The Roots of Western Pornography". This article 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 Roger 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.

And you already changed that in article (without adding a source I might add)...why then is it still an issue? pschemp | talk 16:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The Libido article also leads to some other conceptually warped statements. We read that "the market for the mass-produced, inexpensive pamphlets soon became the bourgeoisie, making the upper class worry." This statement is almost meaningless. Does the author mean "nobility" by "upper class"? While "petit bourgeois" can indeed refer to a lower middling order, "bourgeoisie" never does -- whether used in its Marxian sense or not. The author uses the word as though it were simply the plural of bourgeois. Furthermore, in 18th century France, nobles and grands bourgeois intermarried (see Chaussinand-Nogaret) and these bourgeois also bought royal offices that confered nobility. And of course, worries about "philosophical" books were not confined to "upper classes". (A look at many cahiers de doléances of the provincial clergy confirms this)

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.

I added a cleanup tag to the article and left a message on its talk page a month ago evoking these problems, and no changes have come of it. I realize that some may see my criticism as overly technical: to them, I would say the following: an article that aims to adequately describe the history of erotic depictions cannot rely entirely on one bad source for the absolutely vital period stretching from 1600-1900. --Zantastik talk 09:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the problems correctly described by Zantastik are pervasive; the most heavily cited source (over twenty references) gives as it's authors those well-known scholars Seymore Butts, Marilyn Chambers, and John Leslie. Something urgently needs to be done about that - in fact they just feature for seconds, or read the voice-over in what is not a bad set of tv documentaries, featuring several real academics. But this is about the general level of the references, whch especially in an area like this is not really enough. The period Zantastik (1600-1900) complains about is actually one of the better covered ones (though rather crudely written) - the medieval section is highly misleading, and the coverage of India derisory. Needs a good deal of work to justify keeping its status. Johnbod (talk) 12:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

These claims are quite ridiculous. Poorly written? Please justify this. Even the two complaintants above do not agree on the section in question. There are exactly 6 sentences referenced by the publication Zantastik so despises, not entire sections. The fixes to be made are minor (if at all), and rather than demoting the article, and complaining about 6 facts, the complainers should fix it themselves since they claim to be so knowledgeable. What I see in the rest of his statement above is a semantic rant that is quite minor. I see absolutely no reason for the entire article to be demoted because someone doesn't like one source. As nearly every sentence in this article is referenced, claims that large parts of/or the entire article rely on that source are simply false.

An example of a fact cited by the reference so hated above: "Despite their occasional repression, depictions of erotic themes have been common for millennia." -Does any scholar dispute this? No. You don't like that particular reference for it? Find another. Not a single of your complaints has been backed up with a reference.

Also, relying on a documentary of experts in their subject areas is not wrong, nor is it unscholarly. Johnbod makes a ludicrous statement here where he seems to think that because the publication information lists the names of the producers, that that is who is quoted. This is hardly the case. If you've seen the documentary, you'd know that anything cited comes from the information given from the experts interviewed, who make up all of the feature. When you cite a reference, you list the publication information - everyone with common sense knows that. If a book has an editor, that person's name appears in the info of the citation. That doesn't mean you are quoting the editor. The academics in the documentary are all well known, but I have to cite their contributions from the documentary as coming from the documentary. I feel there is some bias here against using media other than the printed page, which is unfair to the documentary film genre, especially one such as this which names and lists all the academics it uses clearly during the film. The form of media makes it no less academic. pschemp | talk 16:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This is nonsense frankly; the trio named above were, I'm fairly sure, not the producers at all, but appeared briefly, and in Leslie's case read the voice-over. They are just listed by the website as the best-known of all those involved. You don't credit a book to the publisher, nor a documentary to the producer anyway. The programmes will have a writer (or several), who should be credited with comments from the commentary, and interview comments with others should be credited to them, just like the authors of articles in a book collection. Another trip to Blockbusters I'm afraid. Johnbod (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That's how the film is cited, even on Amazon and other places. "Conventions for citing film and video productions are less fixed than those for print and even many online sources. This ambiguity is caused in part by the group nature of such productions: even if you identify a writer, producer, or director, a performance almost never has the single authorship of a written text or single image. Your citation should always include the same basic elements (as described below), but their order can vary—especially concerning the first item listed." [1] You are doing nothing but complaining about the citation format. The cite contains all the information available. pschemp | talk 03:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Available to you, off the internet. That is the problem with the article in general. Instead of personal attacks, and sweeping dismissal of problems, you should actually addresss these issues, which aree not trivial. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In assessing Zantastik's argument, I have to note several things:

• The author, in spite of his claimed expertise on the subject, has contributed little to the article. Furthermore, he has provided no actionable suggestion other than the one he has executed already.
• His first concern is that one of the sources used in the article is not an academic, peer-reviewed journal article (which is at odds with the definition we use at WP:RS). He claims that one of the points made in the article is incorrect, citing "common knowledge among historians of 18th century publishing". He links to another Wikipedia article (not a reliable source, and only two footnotes) which does not support his claim. He does not, I emphasise, not, present ANY source supporting his argument. He has therefore presented NO evidence that the cited Libido article is factually inaccurate. References supporting "common knowledge" should be easy to provide for an expert in the field.
• Even peer-reviewed journals frequently contain mistakes. Supposing Zantastik's claim to be true, his evidence relies on n=1, which is not considered significant in any evidence-based field of study. Wikipedia cannot be held to account for mistakes committed in peer-reviewed journals either.
• Furthermore, his characterisation of Libido as an e-zine is incorrect. The journal was published in print until 2000, with a "best of" book volume published in 1997 - check the Library of Congress for confirmation: [2] [3]. You will also find these items listed at amazon.com.[4] Several sources confirm that the editor, Marianna Beck, holds a PhD, among them a book published by Stanford University Press.[5]
• His second criticism (the non-actionable one) is at best semantic and at worst a matter of personal preference. It's unclear from his argument whether Zantastik is claiming that socio-economic gradients did not exist in France (a proposition he thankfuly contradicts in the same paragraph), or whether he is simply unhappy with the words used, in which case, he has suggested no alternative phrasing, nor edited the article to this effect.
• All in all I have to consider the possibility that this is not a good-faith nomination. However, I would prefer to think that the concerns have been addressed, or perhaps, on second thought, seem less substantial to the nominator than when first proposed. The key is that we have to put forward an article that is reasonably factually accurate while also being not only intelligible, but perfectly clear to the general public.

Keep. Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Note Users who feel that the article still meets the FA criteria should present arguments to argue against the nominator's concerns about the article. Comments without substance and/or "votes" are basically ignored. Joelito (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep things civil, please. Calling people "complainers" is a bit personal, I fear. And remember that we all must assume good faith. We might have different points of view on sources, but that's no reason we shouldn't be calm and civil.

Let me clarify a few matters. First of all, I do not "claim expertise" -- what I've pointed out is fairly obvious. But even a non-expert can see that this article has sourcing issues. (I'll be more than happy to dig up a reference on the Amsterdam matter over the next week.) Second, suggesting that I "claim[ed that] socio-economic gradients did not exist in France" is a misreading of my remarks. In fact, what I I did was to point out a nonsense sentence in the heavily relied-upon source. Let's take a look at it again. Beck states that "the market for the mass-produced, inexpensive pamphlets soon became the bourgeoisie, making the upper class worry." What I'm suggesting is that (1) worries about livres philosophiques were not confined to the "upper classes" and (2) that using "bourgeoisie" as a stand in for "lower middle class" as Beck seems to be doing, is more than a bit silly. Some bourgeois were upper-class, some were poor. Some nobles were rich, some were poor. (See The French Nobility in the Eighteenth Century: From Feudalism to Enlightenment by Chaussinand-Nogaret) In terms of the non-class-based nature of opposition to erotic/pornographic material in the 18th century, see: Edition et sédition by Robert Darnton, The Cultural Origins of the French Revolution by Roger Chartier, and Subversive Words: Public Opinion in 18th Century France by Arlette Farge, for instance.

It is clearly correct that whether a publication is printed or published electronically does not affect its academic seriousness. But Libido simply does not attempt to present itself as scholarly. This is not to say that its authors are ill-educated -- it's just more of a general interest magazine. (Judge for yourself).

My objection stands. For the entire seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, we have: (1) an anecdote about Pepys and (2) an article from Libido which cites absolutely no sources! That's it. Neglecting to cite a single book published by an academic press for this vital 200-year span of history is simply unacceptable. It is now up to uninvolved parties to judge the matter.--Zantastik talk 13:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, you are *still* refusing to give a proper reference that includes page numbers. I think expecting people to read three entire books is quite unreasonable. So, please, proper reference: page numbers! Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

In the coming week, I'll gladly head to the library and give you specific page numbers. That said, the point you desperately want proving, with page numbers -- that opposition to erotic material in 18th century France wasn't confined to the upper orders-- is hardly counter-intuitive. But let's not get sidetracked -- the matter at hand is that one source, totally bereft of references, for the entire period of 1600-1900 simply isn't up to par for an article that seeks to maintain FA status.--Zantastik talk 07:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

One section where one person personally doesn't like the source simply does not require removal of FA status. In the interest of more information, I personally wrote to the author of the source to verify her credentials. Her response is quoted:

" My partner, Jack Hafferkamp and I founded the magazine in 1988 in Chicago; it ran 12 years and there were 47 issues. We both obtained Ph.Ds in 1998 from IASHS (the Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality), located in San Francisco. I am currently part-time faculty at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago where I teach The Material Culture of Sex." Verified here [6].

While the author may not be THE foremost expert on the subject, she certainly has qualifying academic credentials and is employed teaching in the field of erotic art. FA does not required that only the absolute one and only agreed on source be used (and in this case there isn't one) so again I reiterate that this whole review is absurd as the dispute is minor. pschemp | talk 03:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to thank pschemp for having brought the author's biography to my attention. Upon inspection, it becomes evident that Beck's academic credentials are more dubious than "qualifying." Let's look more closely:

Beck obtained her Ph.D from the Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality (IASHS). see bio The IASHS does not claim accreditation. While the now-defunct Bureau of Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education of the State of California, did "approve" the school, the Bureau's literature makes it clear that "approval is not the same as accreditation." See here Like many unaccredited institutions, the IASHS has rather lax standards for its doctoral program. For instance, a B.A. is the only degree one must possess in order to be admitted into the doctoral program, which lasts 6 trimesters see here or two years. Yet during those two years, a doctoral candidate is only required to be present at the IASHS for 3 months. FAQ (6 trimesters x 2 weeks = 12 weeks = 3 months) This is probably because students need not "leave their present employment" in order to enter the program. And of course, (admittedly limited) credit is available for past work. here. One trimester is allotted "for preparation of the dissertation." see here

So Beck's Ph.D. comes from an unaccredited institution which, unsurprisingly, has with much less demanding requirements than most graduate schools. Now let's look at what kind of scholarship she's produced since. In what sorts of periodicals has she been published? Excluding her own erotica magazine, she's basically stuck to newspapers. Though she does list the National Enquirer as well! the bio. Needless to say, not one of these periodicals is an academic journal. Books? She lists none. Earlier, pschemp mentioned this book -- Beck neither authored nor contributed to it. Her own defunct Journal of Sex and Sensibility, unaffiliated with any institution of higher learning, did not even seek to present itself as scholarly (see here).

Of course, she has made quite a few sex-ed documentaries, and did win an "Erotic Oscar". But however worthy that is -- and I don't say that sarcasticly -- it's simply not scholarship.

In sum, if someone's terminal degree comes from an unaccredited institution and (s)he produces erotic and general interest material, that person's academic credentials are a bit shaky -- part time (and probably non tenure-track) art instructor or not.

Yes, Beck is certainly not "THE foremost expert" on erotic depictions from 1600-1900. Yet this article relies on her entirely for this period of time. If we want to meet criterion 1.c, then we must "represent the relevant body of published knowledge". I'll let other Wikipedians decide whether or not History of erotic depictions does that, particularly for the 17th and 18th centuries. --Zantastik talk 00:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Zantastik, it's becoming clear to me that you simply dislike this article for its very existence, not its current state. You are unwilling to rationally examine the evidence raised, and have not lifted one finger since your first complaint in helping to fix the article. That is, fix it if you could tell us what's wrong with it. Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I see you've completely ignored the fact that the Art Institute of Chicago, where she currently works is quite a respected institution. You seem to be questioning their hiring decision and thus using that for your reason to remove this article from featured status. Once again you've given no concrete suggestions, suggested no alternatives for sources, contributed nothing and that's not terribly constructive. pschemp | talk 18:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

One may wonder quite where Zantastik's attempts at FUD stop - perhaps the next step is going to be to try to discredit anyone who holds the Art Institute in high esteem. Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again, let's all take a deep breath and keep things civil. When one argues that scholarly, rather than unscholarly, sources should be used in an article, it doesn't mean he opposes that article's very existence. Rather, it means he wants the article to "represent the relevant body of published knowledge". Relying exclusively on an author who (1) has not published any scholarship on the period at hand (17th-19th cens.) and (2) whose academic credentials are shaky is not the best way to meet this criterion. Wondering out loud whether I am "opposed" to this article is both silly and and awfully personal. No, The degree and scholarship issues notwitstanding, I would not question the Art Institute's decision to hire Ms. Beck as a part-time instructor to teach a course entitled "The Material Culture of Sex". Beck has, after all, worked in the arts. What's more, part-time instructors aren't always expected to have a doctorate, from an accredited institution or not, nor to have produced that much scholarship. On the other hand, The Institute certainly hasn't hired her to teach a course on the history of erotic art from 1700-1900. And for good reason -- Beck lacks the expertise and training required for such a post.

No concrete suggestions? I've suggested no alternatives for sources? One need only peruse my (loquacious) comments to see that such accusations are groundless. I've suggested concretely that this article be based on the (substantial) literature concerning erotic material in the 17th and 18th centuries. Here are a few books: Forbidden best-sellers of pre-revolutionary France, Edition et sédition : l'univers de la littérature clandestine au XVIIIe siècle, and The Literary underground of the Old Regime by Robert Darnton come to mind. But it's true that an even more comprehensive source had slipped my mind. The Invention of pornography : obscenity and the origins of modernity, 1500-1800 by Lynn Hunt.

Serious scholarship on the matter at hand exists. Beck's credentials are dubious, and lacks expertise in the specific field of the history of erotic depictions from 1600-1900. She is our only source for this vitally important period. Other, scholarly sources exist. I submit that at present time that this article does not meet criterion 1(c). Furthermore, I would like to remind everyone that this isn't about me, or Pschemp or Samsara -- making things personal is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Disagree resolutely, argue intelligently, but do so civilly. Finally, I think that Pschemp, Samsara and I have pretty much (perhaps not entirely) made our points. Community consensus, following wikipedia policy, will decide the matter. --Zantastik talk 13:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

And what have you done to offer an actionable suggestion or help fix the issues you have Johnbod? I see that you haven't even suggested an alternative citation format to the one you object to above. pschemp | talk 04:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As I suggested above, you should go down to Blockbusters, get the thing out, find out who was actually responsible for the points cited, which was certainly not Seymour Butts, and credit them. Johnbod (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You just don't get it. It HAS to be cited that way because that is the source of the information. I've cited the facts. Annyone can go get the documentary and verify this. pschemp | talk 16:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You've seriously misinterpreted "represent the relevant body of published knowledge." The text here represents the relevant body of published knowledge - it doesn't contradict it, it isn't wrong, and in fact it agrees with the relevant body of published knowledge. Nowhere in the FAC requirements is it said that an article can't be a FA if if doesn't use exactly the sources one person prefers. In fact that statement comes under the heading of Factually accurate: "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge. The important thing is that 1. the correct facts are there 2.the facts are cited 3. they represent the relevant knowledge...and that one paragraph does this. Articles are written with the material that is available. Chastising an article that has the facts correct and is acceptably sourced because the author didn't use your preferred source is wrong. You've finally, for the first time mentioned a book, yet still not offered to help with the article or provide access to the suggested source or send me the $20 dollars to purchase it. This article does not exist to provide in depth coverage of any one time period, which is why one paragraph is sufficient. Certainly the current source isn't sufficient for an in depth analysis of that particular time period but for an overview, which this article is, it is fine. If you'd like to write a sub article on that particular time period in history, and go into meticulous detail, please do. However, we don't punish articles here on wikipedia for not having access to another's preferred source, which seems to be your intent.

The bottom line here is that Zantastik's complaint is a minor issue in what is an overview article that covers much more than the paragraph he has issues with, and even if it does have merit, it isn't significant enough to warrant a delisting. Johnbod's compliant about the form of the citation is literally trivial. pschemp | talk 04:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No wonder no one is bothering to debate here when all points raised are dismissed in this ridiculous and ad hominem fashion. If you think "arguments" like this will impress the decision-makers here, I think you are in for a surprise. Johnbod (talk) 10:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia operates by consensus. Thank you, Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixes needed: some things to work on:

• Can the first sentence in the lead be fixed to better conform with WP:LEAD? Is there a difference between an article, Erotic depictions and History of erotic depictions, since the lead is now the former?
• There are Further details and See also templates in the middle of sections: they belong at the top. See WP:GTL.
• Can the first section heading ("Historic attitudes regarding erotic depictions") be reworked to better conform to WP:MSH?
• WP:OVERLINKing should be addressed (for example, I noticed laws). Common words known to most English speakers need not be linked. I also saw England and Germany; most English speakers know what those are.
• There are some raw URLs in the citations, example: Bibliographic information retrieved November 30, 2006 from [1].
• All citations should be complete (title, publisher, last accessdate on websources, author and publication date when available). For example, missing publication date: Krysia Diver. Archaeologist finds 'oldest porn statue'. Guardian Unlimited. Retrieved on August 21, 2006.
• Journal names should be italicized, and I saw some emdashes rather than endashes on page ranges in citations.
• English language icon isn't needed in English language Wiki, example: Richtel, Matt. "In Raw World of Sex Movies, High Definition Could Be a View Too Real", The New York Times, January 22, 2007. Retrieved on October 15, 2007. (English)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Thank you for the concrete suggestions. Will fix as soon as I can. pschemp | talk 17:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I've gone through and completed all your suggestions, though i can't for the life of me find an mdash anywhere. The one citation that has two years connected uses an ndash, and just to make sure, I retyped it.pschemp | talk 06:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
      • They're there; I may have gotten them all.[7] There is still inconsistent date linking in the citations, some dates linked, others not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Thanks, I'll work on it. Though all my keyboard seems to be able to type is hyphens and underscores...is there a trick I'm missing?pschemp | talk 16:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Ok found the silly punctuation in the editing frame so nevermind. All dates wikilinked now. pschemp | talk 18:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Having now done some adding and editing, I have become more aware of another problem with the article - what is it actually about? Until my edits, almost all the article, except the part on early photography, was about images with explicit vulvas and erect penises, regardless of whether at the time they were seen as perfectly normal to paint on a wall in a family house (Romans) or obscene, illegal and to be kept in secret (modern Europe at times). Actual "erotic depictions", by which is usually meant in the West pretty women with naked breasts etc, was hardly touched on, and still is only very sketchily treated. Really I think the article needs renaming, perhaps to "History of explicit sexual images" or similar. Johnbod (talk) 12:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I've reverted your edits. First, this is a FA which means ANY fact you put in better have a reference, and you put uncited facts into the article. Until you can site your changes, please refrain from editing, because you obviously don't understand that EVERY claim needs to be cited. You need to back up any claim you make here with a reference. Please put your proposed edits on the talk page so they can be discussed. I'm asking you politely not to turn this into an edit war. Discussion on the talk page is even mroe preferable when you don't have references. Everything current;y in there has a cite and if you randomly insert stuff, you can make cites refer to something that is not in them. Erotic is not the same thing as sexually explicit, and different cultures considered different things both erotic and explict. The Romans for instance thought those normal paintings to be erotic, not explicit. Using the word explicit makes even more of a value judgement. Unless you can back up your claim here with references, you are doing nothing but speculation. pschemp | talk 16:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• You have some nerve complaining about referencing, given the article as it was, and your comments above. My additions are as heavily referenced as the rest of the article (which as I have said above is not up to FA standards) and the sources cited are specialized scholarly works by major authorities (Bull was head of an Oxford college, Oberhuber the leading German print scholar of his generation), not a short series of tv programmes credited by you to two porn stars and the defendent in a famous rape case. I can add more cites later. You seem to be agreeing with me on the erotic/explicit point above: the Romans thought their paintings erotic, but what was thought erotic (but not too explicit) in the post-Renaissance West is still hardly touched on. Instead the article covers almost entirelty the explicit, in modern Western terms. So much for the complaints above about the lack of suggestions for improvements etc. Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• When you do them wrong, you are not helping. I'll give you a specific example. The fact about Gutenberg - You moved it up a paragraph, leaving it uncited and dangling when the citation for it is at the end of the paragraph where it originally was. Thus your attempt at helping REMOVED a citation. And the reason the article has the most information on Western things is that in the Literature, most of it refers to western things. Much less is written on other cultures. We can only include what we have cites for. Asian erotica for example is fiendishly difficult to get academic works about. What could be found is included, and you are mistaking length of paragraphs for coverage of available topics. Also this is an overview article, not an indepth study of any one time. IF you go read the original FAC you'll see that was covered there, so I'm not going to rehash it here. pschemp | talk 16:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• The actual "cast list" for the "Pornography" documentaries is here. It will be seen from this that, as I have said all along, Seymore Butts and Maryln Chambers only appear in later sections dealing with modern pornography. I can't be bothered with this any more. I may wait until the next time the series shows up on late night tv & record them to see how many of the cited statements actually reflect what is said. The Gutenberg "History Today" link is dead, so it is impossible for me to tell how many of the non-sequiturs cited to it actually appear there. This article is many things, but it is not an FA. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • • • • • • And it took me two seconds to find where th history today link moved to. You didn't even try to look. It works now. pschemp | talk 04:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
      • A book with an editor cites the editor, not the individual authors. A movie with producers and directors cites the producers and directors, not the individual actors. That's all there is to it. And the link was working at the time of the FAC or the article wouldn't have passed. pschemp | talk 17:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

And references to a documentary with a script and interviews with academics should credit the script authors and/or the person interviewed, not a porn star interviewed briefly two episodes later. Not in an FA anyway. Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

SHow me where on WIkipedia is says a script is required to cite a film. pschemp | talk 17:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• • And why do you suppose that the editors of the article would be making it up? What motive could they have? This is getting increasingly mysterious irrational. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Not making it up, but garbled precis. For example, it is certainly not true that explicit eroticism is "common" in illuminated books of hours - it occurs, but very rarely. As I have said all alone, the documentary contributors were of fairly high quality, and I find it difficult to believe this was actually said in the documentary. Titillatingly erotic scenes, very mild by modern standards, are naturally more common in secular manuscripts of Ovid etc, but even there anything explicit is pretty rare. The passage on I Modi is flat wrong in at least two important respects (dates, survival), and contradicts our article, despite being referenced to a scholarly work just on these prints (also used for the article). Was this book actually consulted? Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No copies of the I Modi from the first printing exist. So, put your money where your mouth is and back up your statements with facts. You admit you haven't watched the documentary, yet you still criticize it. Until you back up your assertions with references, they are irrelevent. pschemp | talk 17:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Boy, you don't read either other people's comments, or your own article. I've made it plain I have watched "it", and the article wrongly says nothing survives of the second version. And what happened in 1524? Enough of this. Johnbod (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You are flat out wrong my friend. It says "the censorship was so complete that no original copies have ever been found" Original means FIRST PRINTING. And indeed, no compete copies of either of those printings exist. "I Modi has reached the twentieth century only in incomplete form." [8] And here: "The I Modi were immediately censored by Pope Clement VII: The plates and virtually all known impressions were destroyed (though a few isolated mostly sillouetted fragments survived) - and "I Modi 1524-25 [9]

And that's just what I found in one minute of looking. pschemp | talk 17:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I seeee - "Original means first printing" - is that the first printing of the second version, that the article has been talking about for some time. No, it's the first printing of the first version - you remember, mentioned 8 lines earlier. Come off it! The 1524-5 link you give relates to Giulio Romano's paintings, not Raimondi's prints - look again. These are the garbled results you get from writing articles on subjects you don't know much about off the internet, I'm afraid. Johnbod (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"Subjects you don't know much about?" Sorry but I seem to know more than you and besides, Wikipedia does not require one to have a PhD in an area to write an article. The common sense interpretation of the word original is "first one", and no one else has a problem understanding it. As for the I Modi, you should read again. Romano started the images in 1524, but Raimondi also did the engravings and published them in 1524. You are absolutely full of crap claiming that the I Modi wasn't printed first in 1524. "1524 saw the execution, printing and circulation in Rome of the 1st edition of a set of copperplate engravings showing heterosexual copulation. The plates were numbered, but unsigned, undated and untitled, and are commonly known as ‘I Modi’, ‘The Postures.’ The combined producers of this erotica were all former members of Raphael’s prestigious workshop. Giulio Romano most probably supplied the working drawings and designs, which were engraved by Marcantonio Raimondi." [10] That says it right there, that Raimondi made the prints in 1524, and that's what the other references I cited say too. For example "engravings made in Rome in 1524 by Marcantonio Raimondi" [11] And another, (Sorry I don't have the book at the moment, It was on interlibrary loan) "Giulio Romano was probably lucky to be in Mantua when the Modi, a series of sixteen explicit sexual postions done after his drawings were published in Rome in 1524. Marcantonio Raimondi, the hapless engraver of Giulio's designs was imprisoned for his part in the affair." [12] And another: "These original drawings, however, no longer exist, and we know them only through their transmission as engraving made in Rome by Marcantonio Raimondi in 1524" [13] I'm citing internet links so you can read them for yourself, as you obviously wouldn't beleive a citation from a book you can't see. You have to back up your assertions with references, period. pschemp | talk 00:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The article says (my bold):"In the 16th 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." Nuff said, except that "I" means "the" in Italian, so you don't say "The I Modi". Johnbod (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Check again. The "published before" sentence was out of place and I fixed it. (An accidental rollback made an older version show when you checked, but it had already been modified.) Produce is there because that is the year he produced the engravings called I Modi so I don't know what your issue is with that. By the way, what happened to your argument about it not being published in 1524? Guess you aren't infallible or the expert either. And some sources do say "The I Modi" so I can't say that bothers me much but just for you, I'll change it. pschemp | talk 03:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

See what the dates were in my version you reverted - if you bothered to look at it before reverting. Johnbod (talk) 05:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I did, which is why I can't believe you then went on to insinuate that the first time something called I Modi was printed wasn't 1524. And I do take issue with your edit, because it certainly caused uproar in 1524, the outrage wasn't delayed until 1527 as your wording suggested. I've added your info where I think it fills some gaps, but I've commented out the parts that aren't referenced. Please do keep in mind that articles are not written for academics here - so try to be clear rather than wordy. Also, opinions, value judgments and such are not appropriate - (It is hard to imagine - can't say that). Last, please, this is the History of erotic depictions, not the Description of erotic depictions article and its an overview. Not every single thing needs to be mentioned or described, if you have more detailed info for a specific time period, please consider writing a separate article. I Modi is a good example. And since this was written, the real names of the directors of the documentary have been produced, so I've added that, and some of the actors names. There are simply too many to list all of them though. pschemp | talk 05:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Actors? They are academics being interviewed, however the movie database classes them. Have you seen the series, I'm beginning to wonder. There is not much point in giving me advice on editing it as you have reverted all my changes en masse. Obviously it would be pointless of me (or as the history of your talk page demonstrates at many points, anyone else) to continue to try to improve the article in the face of the most ferocious WP:OWN attitude I've ever encountered. Since you clearly think the article perfect as it is, there seems little chance of it ever reaching today's FA quality. What a pity. Johnbod (talk) 12:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh Give me a break. I tried to be nice to you, I inserted the changes you made that had references, re-cited the film, changed the I Modi stuff and I still get nothing but semantic whining from you because I used the word actors. It was 2 am for me, I'm up late working on it and after all this all you can do is nit-pick about a word. I'm changing it to cast, now that I'm awake, but you obviously can't be constructive. As for OWN that's all very convenient for you to say when you don't like people correcting you, but when you make changes that remove citations and put in OR and unreferenced facts, I will remove them because that makes the article worse in terms of conforming to FA standards than better! That isn't OWN on my part- its good article editing. pschemp | talk 16:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I must have missed the bit where you tried to be nice to me! I think your idea of "being nice" is allowing anyone to add anything to "your" article. I see you have changed a few things I have pointed out, whilst simultaneously fiercely denying here there was anything wrong with them. But the fundamental problems with the article remain untouched, and are likely to continue so. Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

IF you add unreferenced facts, OR and opinions they will be removed. As they should be. Ask anyone on wikipedia about that. As for your "fundmental" problems, they still boil down to "I don't like your source" and "I don't like the video citation format."pschemp | talk 18:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Relevant link Johnbod (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • While I'm sure you think that proof of something...it isn't relevant.pschemp | talk 00:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me just say that this is an *overview article* and as such does indeed not have in-depth analysis of the 17th and 18th centuries or anything else for that matter. It touches on the basic points through time and if people wish for more information, or have more information they can add, that should go into sub-articles. I Modi is a good example. The claim that it isn't comprehensive enough is poppycock, to cover everything in great detail would make the article vastly oversized and less useful. What information is there is correct, is cited and represents the general academic view. It is purposefully not written in über-academic language to be accessible to all readers, (though I'm sure some take this as proof of my lack of intelligence, it isn't so). It does cover western sensibilities more than Asian, and this is due to the fact that much more has been published about western sensibilities, and that other countries have different views and while some has been written about the ancient Asian art, modern takes on pornography in these countries have not been published. I'm not going to re-hash that more since it is in the original FAC if people want to read it. Accusations of OWN are fun for bashing my character but the fact remains that inserting unreferenced facts, OR and opinions is not acceptable for a FA and degrades the quality. Anyone who has ever written a FA knows about the babysitting then involved. Accusations of OWN always ensue, but the fact is someone has to keep an eye on the quality or things often and rapidly degrade. Additionally, while some people denigrate internet references, they have an advantage that they can be check and verified easily and no accusations of not reading the reference can be made. This article simply meets all the FA criteria. pschemp | talk 18:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

But the article does not give an overview; much of it is a series of detailed sections on various moments in the history with usually nothing at all to link them - in which it follows the documentaries. Pompeii, the French and English photo business in the C19th, early pornographic films, all get very detailed coverage (and now early prints), and there is a whole paragraph on the predecessor of Fanny Hill, which was a novel with no illustrations at all (until much later editions). Johnbod (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: anyone can write for about.com, it isn't usually a reliable source. What are the credential of the author of the about.com source used and what makes it reliable in this case? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • removed pschemp | talk 17:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• All sources need a publisher, as well as author and date if available (Example: ^ About H&E Naturist. Retrieved on October 10, 2006. The publisher in this case is H&E Naturist. ) Pls check throughout for missing publishers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The publisher was there, but a capitalised P in the template was keeping it from showing. At anyrate, I went through everything else and made sure they had one.pschemp | talk 17:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b) and citations (1c).

This is so massive and disputatious, I'm not sure what to do with it. This may not be something FAR can handle. Marskell (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That's the thing. It isn't massive. It is two editors who disagree with a few trivial things. An overview article can only ever hit the highlights, which is why there are a bunch of subarticles linked in this. It was wrongly brought to FAR in the first place by Zantasktik as a personal vandetta, which is why it isn't helping much. Two editors have a dispute with the fundamental structure, however they are far from the majority here on Wikipedia, and indeed all the editors who passed it in the first place didn't have issues and no one else has come to join their complaint. It really hasn't changed that much since it became an FA. When it was on the front page, the only complaints were that it wasn't censored enough. Here we have two people complaining the opposite, that it isn't detail enough. Notice there aren't any other editors who have issues with the content? That's because the consensus is that it is fine. I'm working on the technical things Sandy has suggested, and once those are fixed (I have a life, it takes time) I see no reason this should be demoted because two editors want a fundamentally different thing. I've suggested to them many times to write subarticles with details, asked for referenced citations and have got very little from them to actually work on. pschemp | talk 19:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The usual nonsense. When have you ever suggested anything about sub-articles. The fact is you & your pal revert all changes, referenced or not, then argue endlessly here, then occasionally sneak a change in without mentioning here you have actually changed your position. It's like working with Andrei Gromyko, who at least was apparently fairly civil. Now that I look at it, you did the same in the original FAC, & your talk page shows you seeing off a number of interlopers over the period since. As to numbers, only one other editor has expressed a one-line view here, as far as I can remember, without searching through the depressing stuff above. Johnbod (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

John, this is the second time that I'm having to remind you to remain civil. Tell us what the problems are with the subject content of the article, and please give us some references. We're not here to shoot down articles, we're here to fix them. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

John your comment is a blatant lie, and anyone who looks in the edit history can see that the things you contributed that have refs are in the article and only the unreferenced things are commented out. Proof [14] Also, search this page for the word subarticle and you'll see I've mentioned it more than once "If you'd like to write a sub article on that particular time period in history, and go into meticulous detail, please do."(Feb 6) and "It touches on the basic points through time and if people wish for more information, or have more information they can add, that should go into sub-articles." (Feb 8) If you are going to make wildly untrue statements, I can't see how anyone is supposed to take you seriously. pschemp | talk 14:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yea, yea [15] and [16] Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Your referenced additions are in the article, so I'm sorry, your diffs mean nothing. Your original edit had to be reverted at first because of the OR, opinion, and unreferenced facts you inserted at the same time, that way the worthwhile things could be sorted out later. I see you aren't going to admit you were wrong about the subarticle suggestions. That's fine, I've long stopped expecting you to be rational. pschemp | talk 15:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep listed In my opinion (and I've been around since it was first made a featured article ;-)) it is definitely of FA quality. Cbrown1023 talk 17:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Remove. The authors are resistant to and not interested in the FA cruiteria. The above conversation is a mess, unusally dismissive and aggressive, and I'm surprised Johnbod had the patience to point out the obvious over and over, again, to such an arrogant and boring front. Shame. Ceoil (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Discussion should focus on what is wrong with the article, not on what is wrong with this discussion. There are other places for that. Thank you. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Remove The article has improved since the nomination, but significant problems remain. The article remains over-reliant on two sources, both with issues discussed at length above. It is actually two different articles: one a history of explicit sexual images up to the early C18th, from a mainly art-historical perspective, and the other a history of the pornography business in England and France, and later the US, from a largely business perspective. The title is a mistake; "erotic" is a word with all sorts of problems when applied over such a wide range. Much of the writing is slack; apart from the problems with the French C18 mentioned by Zantastik waaay above, there are lots of passages like this:

It was not until the invention of the printing press by Johannes Gutenberg that sexually explicit images entered into any type of mass circulation in the western world. Before that time, erotic images, being hand made and expensive, were limited to upper class males who deliberately kept them away from the labouring class, fearing the effect such things would have on the animal lust of the uneducated. Even the British Museum had a Secretum filled with a collection of ancient erotica donated by the upper class doctor, George Witt in 1865. The remains of the collection, including his scrapbooks, still reside in Cupboard 55, though the majority of it has recently been integrated with the museum's other collections.

- which just raise problems at every turn, if you know anything about the subject, or even if you don't: - Is mentioning Gutenburg useful here, since he is famous for the invention of movable type for text, and European prints of images in engraving and woodcut pre-date his invention by several decades? When were they 'kept away'? Was it expense or "fearing the effect"? Why "Even" the British Museum? If Witt's erotica was ancient, what was in the scrapbooks? Was Witt more upper class than other doctors? Might "animal lust of the uneducated" be a touch POV? Is there nothing between the "upper class" and the "labouring class"? ....and so on. Johnbod (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to say - I think most complaints about short leads are overdone, but this surely does not meet WP:LEAD? Johnbod (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

First, "animal lust of the uneducated" is directly from the source at the end of the paragraph, and you know that is exactly the Victorian view. For the Victorian upper class, there were only two categories, themselves and the uneducated and yes they were quite POV, but we write about what they thought. Please come up with cited proof that this isn't true - I know you can't. Those are the source's words, not mine. And yes, Witt was more upper class than other doctor's, he had more money. And the scrapbooks were filled with drawings of erotic statues from Pompei, and things in other private collections from archeologists and such that he had collected. Not prints. And indeed engravings and woodcuts existed, but they were expensive and not accessible to the masses, just as the paragraph says. The printing press and mass circulation of books absolutely made such images common. Not available for the first time, but common. Even the British museum means that even the most respectable of Victorian institutions sometimes had locked cabinets of erotica. History is history, it covers everything. This isn't two different articles, its an overview of the available information. As for poor writing, just because an article isn't written in a snotty stuffed shirt academic wordy overkill manner does not mean its poorly written. Accessible writing is the goal for WP. pschemp | talk 03:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Remove. Lead contains short bits not elaborated or sourced in the main text about religion. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It is sourced. At the end of the paragraph. "Rawson, Phillip S. (1968). Erotic art of the east; the sexual theme in oriental painting and sculpture. New York: Putnam, 380. LCC N7260.R35. " - Its an indisputable fact that countries where Christian morals were never a factor have different outlooks on such images. If that is removed, it leaves the lead focusing solely on Western culture. India China and Japan are elaborated on later, unfortunately there is little written in academia about the other traditions. What isn't written about, can't be included. Are you offended religiously here? I can't think why else this would be an issue. pschemp | talk 03:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep- Suppose i have to do this to make it official. There is no FA criteria this article doesn't meet. Complaints about sources have not been backed up with sourced facts to the contrary. pschemp | talk 04:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Remove. I guess I'll make it official as well. Sourcing issues. Fails to meet 1. (b) and (c). --Zantastik talk 11:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Cbrown1023. Samsara (FA • FP) 21:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Closing: This is a difficult, split review. While there are a number of arguments, the clearest is in favour of remove: This does not meet policy. It's not even debatable. Adult film directors do not have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." If it were two cites, maybe we could overlook it—but there are twenty-two cites to this DVD. It's a foundational source for the article and it is clearly not reliable.

Normally, I would leave this open longer to allow citation debates to run through (and this has been open quite a while) but there has been resistance and reverting, which doesn't seem to be productive in terms of meeting citation policy. There has been no effort to get rid of this obviously unsuitable source, for instance. Basic things, such as a LEAD that properly describes the article, are not met. I'm removing. Some form of WP:DR may be the best place to take this article. Marskell (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.