A fact from Tuyuhun invasion of Gansu appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 5 August 2013 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't know how this got through the process without someone picking up on the fact that "obscene", "lewdly performed" and "erotic" were all making much the same point, in more, and less subjective ways.
If some Wikipedia editor wrote that a piece of music was "beautiful", "magnificently performed" and "triumphant", then two of the adjectives would be deleted immediately, and "triumphant" would be assessed on the basis that it described the nature of the music. The same would go for the description of an artwork.
The same rules have to apply here.
If there is strong evidence that the dance was in some way so explicit or vulgar that it caused great offence and was therefore "obscene" then this needs to be stated.
If, on the other hand, the word is merely being used to emphasise the erotic or sexual nature of the dance, then it is misplaced.
What is the evidence that the dance was truly offensive?
Amandajm ( talk) 10:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Seriously absurd. It reads/read: ‘[DYK] that two dancing girls (statue pictured) performed an erotic dance in front of Tuyuhun soldiers, while Chai Shao of Tang attacked them from the rear with his cavalry?’. The girls were attacked from behind by the cavalry? Ian Spackman ( talk) 14:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
A fact from Tuyuhun invasion of Gansu appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 5 August 2013 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't know how this got through the process without someone picking up on the fact that "obscene", "lewdly performed" and "erotic" were all making much the same point, in more, and less subjective ways.
If some Wikipedia editor wrote that a piece of music was "beautiful", "magnificently performed" and "triumphant", then two of the adjectives would be deleted immediately, and "triumphant" would be assessed on the basis that it described the nature of the music. The same would go for the description of an artwork.
The same rules have to apply here.
If there is strong evidence that the dance was in some way so explicit or vulgar that it caused great offence and was therefore "obscene" then this needs to be stated.
If, on the other hand, the word is merely being used to emphasise the erotic or sexual nature of the dance, then it is misplaced.
What is the evidence that the dance was truly offensive?
Amandajm ( talk) 10:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Seriously absurd. It reads/read: ‘[DYK] that two dancing girls (statue pictured) performed an erotic dance in front of Tuyuhun soldiers, while Chai Shao of Tang attacked them from the rear with his cavalry?’. The girls were attacked from behind by the cavalry? Ian Spackman ( talk) 14:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)