Jump to content

Talk:Secretum (British Museum)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleSecretum (British Museum) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 3, 2024.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 11, 2024Peer reviewReviewed
May 5, 2024Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

'Phallocentric', really?

[edit]

'In 1865 the antiquarian George Witt donated his phallocentric collection of 434 artefacts to the museum'.

The adjective links to Phallocentrism, which is defined there as 'the ideology that the phallus, or male sexual organ, is the central element in the organization of the social world'. I see no reason to believe that either Witt or the creators of the artefacts were adherents of such an ideology (one may discuss whether anyone is, but that's another matter). Not every image of a phallus has something to do with a 'phallocentric' ideology. If the idea is that Witt's collection happened to contain mostly phallic imagery, then that is what should be said. 62.73.72.3 (talk) 10:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, really. We follow what the sources say, not what we think we want it to say, and the sources say phallocentric. - SchroCat (talk) 10:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but I believe it may be a question of definition? How the book defines the term vs how Wikipedia defines the term. Is it a possibility to just remove the link to phallocentrism while keeping the term the book used? I could not find access to the source quickly, but if the book does not mention Witt's belief that the phallus 'is the central element in the organization of the social world', I do not believe it would be correct to ascribe that definition to him. I am not a professional editor here so if I am incorrect please let me know. 73.184.232.224 (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that it's more than one source that describes the collection as phallocentric - and these are academic ones, which are the type we should always prefer. We can't ignore what they say. I think if someone removed the link, someone else would put it back in fairly quickly as a term that needs to be explained for most people. - SchroCat (talk) 13:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is fair, especially because multiple sources use the term. 73.184.232.224 (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]