Talk:Nudity/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Further editing/collaboration

Since my restructuring has been done without comment, I am turning to further cleanup and additional content. My skills are in social science research, and my writing is sometimes academic and terse, so I appreciate the recent revisions by User:SunCrow.

A note on my personal connection to the topic: one of my lifelong preoccupations is art, and I have been drawing nude models weekly for decades. My degrees are in the social sciences, so I naturally became interested in figure drawing as a social activity. I began editing WP in ~2007 with the articles Nude (art), Nude photography (art), and Model (art).

I plan to continue improving this article using reliable, academic sources, likely expanding to the related articles such as Naturism (which also needs work). Since I have both physical and online access to a university library, this is easy for me to do. Some of these sources are not generally available, so it may be difficult for others to verify my understanding of the original. I edit as a subject area expert. I have learned to do so within the guidelines for WP content, guiding two controversial articles to GA status, where they have remained for several years. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again for your hard work on this page, WriterArtistDC. The reorganization of the article was much needed. It's good that you intend to keep improving and expanding the article. Thank you, also, for the explanation on your subject area expertise. That should be a real asset. I'm happy to collaborate on proofreading and writing style (which I know I can be quite picky about; being raised by two English teachers can do that to a person). I do have two follow-up questions that I would invite your input (and other editors' input) on:

1. I think the article needs more clarity on the distinction between social nudity and public nudity. I remember you saying something about these terms here on the talk page, but that material didn't make its way into the article yet. Without clarity on that distinction, a reader who doesn't know much about this topic (like me, for instance) might wonder why social nudity and public nudity aren't one and the same thing.

I have not found a source, perhaps the distinction has become passé. I remember a time when nudist camp members were "conservative", and would never think of being nude where any member of the general public could see; now they are all naturists and want their clothing optional portion of taxpayer funded recreation areas.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

2. What do you think of the idea of making the "imposed nudity" section a subcategory under "modern societies"? It seems to me that it belongs there. The sentence on the historical treatment of the poor and insane could be moved to "nudity in western history".

This is a matter of style; I am used to having sections at the end of an article for content that is not essential parts of the main topic. Nudity as punishment is such a sub-topic.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

There is still a good deal of material that needs sources (one of my pet peeves), so I'd invite any and all editors to work together on sourcing it. SunCrow (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I am going through the references previously collected without particular attention to cn tags.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Wayne Jayes, SunCrow - Teamwork pays off, the article may now deserve its "B" rating.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

WriterArtistDC, the article is certainly much improved due to your diligent efforts. However, it needs more inline sources before I could support its current B-Class designation. SunCrow (talk) 06:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Structural revision

I would like to proceed with substantial changes to the structure of the article, beginning with a consolidated section on cultural differences with four sub-sections for the major divisions of the world: the Culture of Africa, Eastern culture, the Culture of South America and Western culture.

The current content in the Western culture and Non-western attitudes sections could then be moved into these four sections, with sub-section for content applying to particular counties. However much of the content in the Public/Private nudity section also only applies to Western counties, with much coverage of fringe groups and isolated incidents. Both cultural and coverage bias are the result of wp:systemic bias.

Another problem with this neat classification is the effect of globalization and the divisions within countries between indigenous and colonial cultures. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I plan to add a section Modern social differences and move existing content into sub-sections:

• Private nudity renamed to Individual and family nudity - truly private, nudity between individual known to each other
  • Nudity and body image - individual psychology
  • Family nudity
• Social nudity defined as group activities in traditional nudist locations not open to the general public
  • Communal bathing, saunas
• Public nudity - open or visible to the general public
  • Clothing optional sections in public beaches, parks, etc.
  • Performances- primarily live, with links to theater, film and tv
  • Protests
• Other issues
  • Gender differences - Sexting, revenge porn, ?
    • Topfreedom
      • Breast feeding
  • Torture

Since there is so little cross-cultural content currently, it would be better to include modern items within these categories, with additional sections for anything unique to one country.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Lokking forward to seeing your changes. Wayne Jayes (talk) 05:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

SunCrow, Wayne Jayes: Done restructuring for now (not exactly as above), needs cleanup and many holes in the content were made more obvious. Will likely start with individual psychology, which is my specialty.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The section structure of the article needs continued refinement as I find, or fail to find, citations for existing and needed content. Most recently I have been doing research regarding dance and theater, for which there are many academic sources, so I was surprised that there were no separate articles as there is for Nudity in film. The latter is poor, more a catalog of movies than a coherent treatment of the topic.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 06:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Citation style/Further reading

It has finally dawned upon me that this article has mixed citation styles, List Defined References (LDR), and a "Sources" list with sfn tags inline. The guideline indicates that a consistent style should be used, but right now it is 50/50 with the two types of lists, so there would be a lot of work. I like the source list for books, which allows for multiple uses specifying pages and chapters. Unfortunately I have also been adding standard inline references although I tend to name them. I have the LDR editing tool installed, but have never uses it.

Using the {{sfn|Author|date|page}} is my preference and it is very easy to do for books and journal articles, in the case of newspaper and web citations it's not always simple, but if there is an identifiable person as the author and the article has a date then there is no reason not to use {{sfn|Author|date|page}}, I'm happy to convert the <ref name="NAME">...</ref> citations to {{sfn|Author|date|page}} where possible. Wayne Jayes (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The "Further reading" list has only one book that I can locate online or in a library. I have no problem deleting the others, most of which are naturist publications which I would not cite as reliable.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I removed the Rouche book as well. The only page in it that I can actually view is talking about 5th century Gaul and says nothing about nudity. SunCrow (talk) 06:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

There does need be a source for the emergence of the modern concept of privacy, since public/private is a significant distinction. Before the modern era most people had none that we would recognize today, since they lived in such close quarters with an extended family and other tenants. There were few private baths, and only the rich had private chambers, and even then they were surrounded by servants. Being naked in any but the most public situations (e.g. Lady Godiva) could not have been unusual, so it is not mentioned.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Found a modern source for privacy differences.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of content on UVA skin receptors

Drilling down from the cited source to the underlying journal articles, I found that it is disputed wp:primary research and too technical for this article, which is about the end result of humans becoming naked, not the cell biology.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for working on this, and thank you for noting significant edits here as well! I think your edit is probably correct, however, it would always be good for edits like this, to mention the content removed in a WP:DIFF when removing it, just in case in future years someone wants to try to reconstruct something. For example in this case it was this edit. MPS1992 (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Questions

WriterArtistDC, I am writing with a couple of questions.

First, I find the following paragraph a bit confusing:

Cultural differences in gender roles define what is appropriate and normal behavior for women and men. In much of the world, the norm for women continues to be modesty, while men are more assertive. In Western cultures shame is the result of not living up to the ideals of society, which historically has been more of a concern for women, but that may be changing.

The final sentence is awkward. Also, I'm not sure what the word "assertive" means here. I cannot access the entire journal article that is cited as a source, so I am not sure how to clear up the problem. Any thoughts?

One other thing: What is the basis for the Asia material you reinstated in the lede?

Thanks again for all your work on this piece. SunCrow (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The "awkward" sentence paraphrases the source, so it may be too academic, I will try again. I have wiki-linked to "Assertiveness" which has the standard meaning here: self-assured confidence. The gender role meaning is that assertiveness is a positive, perhaps even a requirement for men but may be viewed negatively in women.

I think the lede is a basic summary of the article content.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, but I don't see anything in the article body about Asians not having western-style shame, etc. As to assertiveness, I don't see the connection to nudity. SunCrow (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Topless?

While the term "topless" may be in general use in the US, it is hopelessly biased. It is a measure of coverage bias on WP that there are two articles, toplessness and topfreedom each about as large as the nudity article and with so much overlap that they should be merged. In cultures that never adopted the Western definition of female breasts as indecent, the term is likely preposterous. I intend to expand the section on gender differences.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 06:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Film

I tried summarizing the main article, but ended up with an outline with no sources since Nudity in film has few.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Wild child section

I did a library search and immediately found psychology articles that confirmed my recollection, that the idea of "feral children" has no scientific validity. There are cases of severely deprived or abandoned children, but these are not "wild", and none were ever "raised by animals". Humans are social, and those that do not live with other people during the critical period of their cognitive development never recover normal function. Other stories of "wild children" may have been based upon un-diagnosed cases of autism. In any case, nudity is not related to any of these conditions, any more than it would be in relation to any other medical or psychological condition which would prevent an individual from dressing themselves.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

You didn't look far enough. Although there is a lot of fakery in this area, and therefore sources need to be checked carefully for reliability, there are genuine cases in the historical record. I'm fine with this edit of yours, in which you removed the entire section previously present in this version, as that section contained no sources and deserved to be removed for that reason alone; others can argue the relevance question, about which I have no opinion.

But categorical statements such as "feral children [have] no scientific validity" are your own (mistaken) opinion, and your personal conjectures about autism are pointless and off-topic here. I don't care that much if a section about wild children is included in this article or not; if someone wishes to add one, it could be based on highly reliable accounts such as that for Victor of Aveyron and others. Victor, in particular, ran around naked in the French forests for years, summer and winter, with no apparent ill effects. However, I am a bit concerned about your dismissive attitude, as illustrated in your comments both in this section, and in your occasional, somewhat arrogant or own-y comments such as this one to User:SunCrow. Please be sure that your edits to the article adhere to the Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and are not dependent on having your mistaken recollections "immediately confirmed" based on cursory investigation that amounts to confirmation bias of your previously held beliefs, and that you maintain civil relations with other editors; this is a collaborative project, after all. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry if speaking from my expertise on this talk page is taken as violating all the guidelines of WP editing. I dismiss nonsense, but I was not including my opinions in an article, but giving reasons for my edit. I am not aware of needing to provide citations on a talk page, but here they are:

• The current definition in psychology(1) and a review of the historical accounts(2) dismisses the validity of "feral children", but instead places them in several categories based upon scientific diagnosis of their condition. These include neglected: those raised in isolation away from society and abused: those confined in isolation or with limited human contact, usually accompanied by other forms of abuse. The subsection I deleted here, and perhaps the entire article on Feral child perpetuates a myth unless it makes the distinction between accounts from the 18th century or earlier and current standards of evidence.

1. The definition of a feral child is "A child supposedly raised by wild animals with little or no involvement of other humans." Colman, Andrew M (2015). "feral child" in A Dictionary of Psychology. Oxford University Press.
2. "Over the past 500 years numerous cases of individuals who were raised in the wild or in non-normative domestic situations have been reported. Characteristics thought to be common to true feral children include quadruped locomotion, hairiness, and mutism. However research has not provided a clear basis for acceptance and understanding of these characteristics and many of the children described as feral were never proven to be raised by animals." - McNeil, Mary Charles; Polloway, Edward A.; Smith, J. David (1984). "Feral and Isolated Children: Historical Review and Analysis". Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded. 19 (1): 70–79.

• This paper make it perfectly clear: "There have been no proven cases of feral children; they are all hoaxes. B. Bettleheim thought the children's symptoms could be explained by psychosis." - Favazza, Armando R. (1977). "Feral and Isolated Children". British Journal of Medical Psychology. 50 (1): 105–111.

• This is a paper on a typical case of a severely neglected child that fits the stereotype of "feral", but actually is a trauma victim. "Cammie," an infant who was bitten, shaken, and sexually abused, and whose 25-day-old sister was discovered at home, murdered, is the subject of this report. This little girl, upon removal at 13 months of age from her home of origin, growled, bit, sniffed sexual organs, rarely spoke, and behaved like the "feral children" described in the classic psychiatric literature. Two respected professionals diagnosed her as mentally retarded. A year in an outstanding foster home did little to improve her. At 29 months of age she was brought to the author, who saw enough imagination and pithy language to believe the child to be intelligent but severely traumatized. - Terr, Lenore (December 1, 2003). "'Wild Child': How Three Principles of Healing Organized 12 Years of Psychotherapy". Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 42 (12): 1401–1409.

• This is the original source regarding autism being misdiagnosed. "Belief in the truth of the occasional reports of children having been reared by wolves and behaving like animals may in part be accounted for by a narcissistic unwillingness to acknowledge the human nature of the so-called feral children. However, Ogburn has successfully proved that in a recent instance there is no sound evidence of animal foster-parents. - Bettelheim, Bruno (March 1, 1959). "Feral Children and Autistic Children". American Journal of Sociology. 64 (5): 455–467.

Most of these references are old, because the topic is now settled science, and only of historical interest. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikilinks to poor articles?

I generally link words to their articles, but I finally read the one on modesty and found it more of a religious/philosophical debate than a neutral presentation on the meaning and usage of the term. It could be argued that not having links, an article would remain isolated and thus not improve, but I am thinking more about making this article better, and there are plenty of links to modesty.

Many of the closely related (but also poor) articles must have wikilinks, and I hope they receive some attention as a result. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

My edits

WriterArtistDC, in my view, we have been collaborating productively on this article with good results. I am not sure why you've taken exception to my recent edits. Let's try to work it out. Here are the concerns I have, and if you like, we (and others) can discuss how to address them.

In the meaning and usage section:

"Synonyms and euphemisms for nudity abound, including "birthday suit", "in the altogether", "in the buff" and "state of nature", the latter also referring to the state of humans before the existence of organized societies."

Problem: The word "latter" refers to the second of two things, not the last item in a series. Also, the sentence is at least awkward if not a run-on.

"In the United States the legal definition of "full nudity" is exposure of the genitals; and "partial nudity" includes exposure of the buttocks by either sex, or exposure of the female breasts."

Problem: Run-on sentence. Semicolon should not be used because the material following it could not stand as a complete sentence by itself.

"Legal definitions are further complicated by laws regarding indecent exposure, which generally requires more than exposure, but the intention to offend common decency."

Problem: Subject-verb agreement ("legal definitions" is plural and "requires" is singular) and run-on sentence.

"Few broad academic studies have been made, perhaps because nudity takes its meaning from a particular context, with no agreed-upon definitions from one research situation to another."

Problem: Awkward. The second comma should not be there.

The Freud sentence in the art section is also awkward if not run-on.

What are your thoughts? SunCrow (talk) 07:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not a grammarian, so perhaps I do need suggestions, but some of your changes had the effect of changing the meaning I intended. Also, when there are many changes in one edit I cannot always see the reason for particular ones. If I reverted a subject verb agreement, sorry. It perhaps it was one of many changes made in a single edit.

I had always used "latter" to mean "last" in a series, but if this is incorrect, rather than repeating the last item: "Synonyms and euphemisms for nudity abound, including "birthday suit", "in the altogether" and "in the buff". The euphemism "in a state of nature" is also used by philosophers to refer the state of humans before the existence of organized societies."

Something I have mentioned before is the problem of paraphrasing academic sources that can be dense and awkward themselves. When I go beyond paraphrasing to write what I understand the source to mean based upon my own academic background, it is objected to as unsupported. When I preface something with an explanation that provides some of that background, it is objected to as off-topic.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

As I read it, the subject of "requires" is the exposure (singular), not the legal definitions (plural). Some of the clauses being described as "run-on" do sound awkward to me, but some look correct. MPS1992 (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Just made another few edits to these sentences. WriterArtistDC and MPS1992, any thoughts? SunCrow (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Some of your earlier edits were helpful, and despite my reversions above I did go back and either self-reverted or tried again, but these changes (indecent exposure and Lucien Freud) are not improvements to me. I left them, except changing the double hyphens to en dashes, which I assume is what was intended, but the WP editor is not Word. Never use them, my parenthetical comments are in parentheses. —WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Shower image

WriterArtistDC, how committed are you to the shower image you added recently? I find myself a bit uncomfortable with it because of the children's frontal nudity. Is there a Wikipedia policy on images like that? How would you feel about using an image like this one instead? SunCrow (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The policy is Wikipedia is not censored. The photo is on the Simple English page for this topic, which I assume is aimed at young people, and has no mention on the talk page. I was born in 1949, and grew up with the social norm that the nudity of children was innocent, and parents would allow them, up to the age of those in the photo (5-6 years?), to be nude on the beach, in my case the Chesapeake Bay. In other words, American then was much like Europe is today.

You are seriously proposing an alternative of men in the Warsaw Ghetto, 1941? You are not aware that in Nazi concentration camps Jews were told they were "going to the showers", stripped naked, and herded into the gas chambers? This is a photo of victims of genocide.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

SunCrow-PS: It is my assumption (which has worked since 2007) that an editor who is making frequent edits to a page will Watch it as I do to automatically receive notice of all changes rather than needing targeted alert messages from other editors.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I won't ping you next time, then. You're right about my suggested image; I retract it. But I am still uncomfortable with the one you picked. SunCrow (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

A significant number of editors might be uncomfortable with the entire topic, thus the hard rule on censorship. I commend your reasonableness editing these topics based upon my having visited your user page. I am comfortable with anything but porn. Pornography is virtually absent from the academic sources I use, so I would not oppose deleting much of it from WP not as a censor, but based upon the articles or images not being noteworthy. I have argued this in attempting to keep random nude pictures out of the nudity photography articles.

However, mere nakedness is always good, and this image illustrates communal bathing very well. I think it is the lack of non-sexual nude images to normalize the human body at all ages that has made porn the default context for viewing nudity and sex, only increasing its pervasiveness. The academic studies of naturist children support this view, they grow up with higher self-esteem, and the rate of teen pregnancy in Scandinavia is a fraction of the US. This means the adults also learn to be comfortable with nudity, not making a big deal about genitals.

By the way, I reconsidered the content on Nude-A-Poppin' in the recreation article, but only reduced it, added a critical view and separated it from the Naturism section. The owner of the Ponderosa club was basically born there, and although is likely rationalizing, defends the event as not violating her naturism. Although porn sites make a lot of the event, no actual sex occurs in public, but yes it is borderline. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

LOL. What is it about my user page that would lead you to commend my reasonable editing on nudity-related topics? ;) SunCrow (talk) 04:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I propose to merge Public nudity into Nudity. There is a great deal of subject matter overlap between public nudity and this page. Also, public nudity is not an overly lengthy article; therefore, merging it into this article should not make this article unwieldy. Furthermore, there is unsourced content in public nudity that could be condensed or removed. Most importantly, there is no clear reason why the encyclopedia needs to address public nudity separately from nudity. SunCrow (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not opposed to the merge, except for the length of the resulting article. Nudity is already 88,000 bytes, and Public nudity 30,000. When I proposed my two Good Articles the reviewers applied a general rule of thumb that ~100k was "too long, didn't read"; the remedy for which was rigorous application of summary style and creating separate articles for sub-topics. The obvious sub-topic is legal issues, which are addressed in the article Indecent exposure.

However, I think a case could be made for keeping two articles, one general and one about public nudity. The general topic for me is about the psychology, sociology, and cultural anthropology sources, while the public topics are the legal issues, protests and other events, etc.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that input, WriterArtistDC. Once the unsourced material from public nudity is pared away and the material from public nudity that is already covered in this article is pared away, I think we might be at or near the 100,000 bytes mark. SunCrow (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

WriterArtistDC: As to keeping two separate articles, my concern is that the vast majority of the material on this page relates to public nudity. So I don't see the need for a separate page on that topic. The distinction you are drawing between the general topic and the public topics is a bit confusing to me. Also, there is an overarching issue of disorganization and overlap on Wikipedia pages on nudity and naturism. For instance, the naturism page has a good bit of topic overlap with this one; in addition, there are a ton of stubby, poorly written, and poorly sourced pages on rather minor topics related to nudity. Overall, I think having fewer individual pages regarding nudity and clearer distinctions between them would be a good thing. SunCrow (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Making distinctions is a general problem on WP, since the perspective that provides a context for defining a topic must come from reliable sources. This is no problem when the topic is within the domain of a scientific discipline with a well-established consensus. Some topics have competing contexts; both within academic disciplines and from mainstream cultural points of view. Nudity is such a topic, since it both crosses the boundaries between many fields of academic study and also has coverage in the mainstream media. It might be said that nudity is not a coherent topic, but a factor in many other topics, for example: in psychology, the topics of self-esteem and body image; in anthropology, the topic of cultural evolution; in sociology, the topics of subcultures, social status, sex roles. The academic, reliable sources rarely mention current topics covered in mainstream media, which have a constituency of WP editor who created "Public nudity" and the other poorly sourced stubs. I would prefer letting the academic view rule, but there are many that think that anything that gets a certain level of media attention also deserves a place in WP (hence the stubs), and if that content remains I would rather it be in its own article.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

WriterArtistDC, I hear you. If the merged article stays under 100,000 bytes, are you OK with it? SunCrow (talk) 21:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

User:SunCrow: Certainly.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, WriterArtistDC. SunCrow (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

There has been no activity here, but I plan to proceed preparing for the merge by removing the un-sourced (and frankly trivial) content from the other article.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• SunCrow I am amazed that instead of replying to my last message above, you chose to end to the merge, and make a mass insertion of content in the wrong place. I am reverting all of it.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I have reinstated the merge and would respectfully ask that you kindly leave it in place. I didn't know you were waiting on a response from me. You expressed that you were OK with the merge. There was no discussion from anyone else. I saw that you were planning to remove unsourced and trivial content from the public nudity article; in performing the merger, I have removed much of that unsourced and trivial content. We can both certainly feel free to continue removing any unsourced and trivial content now that the articles have been merged. Can you clarify what the problem is? SunCrow (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The merged article is 114,140 bytes. There is certainly material here that could be cut to bring the page down to the (agreed-upon) 100,000 bytes. Do you have any thoughts on what could be condensed? SunCrow (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry about the misunderstanding, but I was actually "preparing for the merge by removing the un-sourced (and frankly trivial) content from the other article" just as I said only to find it was gone. (Amazing that we did not collide). Much of the rescued content has been merged into other articles than the main one, Nudity, which is down just below the 100k. The remaining content of Public nudity is about protests, and will go to that article.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Done, including redirect of Public nudity to Nudity#Social and public nudity, rather than full article. Now doing cleanup of links.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Current editing / Is clothing off the topic of nudity?

I am filling in obvious holes, and finding references for content that lacks them. What is missing is a global viewpoint, which is in part due to the rejection of nudity by many societies, which means talking about clothing, not nakedness. Islam was relatively easy, since veiling is referenced often, but for many countries there is nothing, it is unmentionable. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Images

We are now up to 23 images on the page, which may be too many. I would propose that some of the following images be considered for deletion:

Indigenous woman in German East Africa, early 20th century (there is another image of Africans from around the same time)

Two women of the Zo'é tribe of Pará State, Brazil (there is another image of indigenous Brazilians from around the same time)

Fountain in Israel between 1947 and 1950 (there are two other similar images)

People taking part in the World Naked Bike Ride in London (may not have much to do with the stated topic of the section, which has to do with protests)

The Venus of Willendorf made between 24,000 and 22,000 BCE (without being rude, it's a weird and unappealing image)

Thoughts? SunCrow (talk) 06:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I just pared the indigenous gallery down to 6 images; male and female from Africa, one each from Australia and Fiji in Oceania, two different tribes in Brazil.

The gallery of "Cultural differences in childhood" illustrates the two adjacent sections on Childhood and Culture; in similar situations, American children are clothed while Israeli and German children are naked.

The only thing we may agree upon is that editors across WP make to big a deal of the WNBR.

The Venus of Willendorf is iconic in human culture, not only because it is one of the oldest surviving art objects. It is only the best preserved of many thousands of similar objects excavated from all over Europe, indicating the value placed upon fertility represented by an ample female form. There is no better image to illustrate the major section on "Representations" than this one.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, WriterArtistDC. Good to know. I did take out one image of beach nudity on the grounds that I don't think the article needs two. SunCrow (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I also removed a topless image on the grounds that it is poor quality. SunCrow (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)