Talk:Nudity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nudity article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
The article Nudity and children was nominated for deletion. The debate was closed on 2008-05-07 with a consensus to merge the content into Nudity. If the merger is not completed promptly, Nudity and children might be re-nominated for deletion.

To discuss the merger, please use this talk page.
This is not a forum! Please note that this Talk page is for discussion of changes to the Nudity article. Wikipedia is not censored for minors, and the images used to illustrate the subject matter may be necessary for the quality of the article. Please refer also to Wikipedia's Content Disclaimer. As the talk page guidelines state, discussions which are off-topic (not about how to improve the article) may be removed, so this is not the place for discussions about the acceptability of images of nudity on Wikipedia. Thank you for your understanding.
Nudity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nudity, which collaborates on articles related to nudity and naturism topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Archive
Archives
  1. 25 Feb 2002 - 4 May 2006

Contents


[edit] Vandalism

There has ben a lot of vandalism lately. Maybe this article should be Semi-protected ? (By the way: my revisions have been made to get rid of vandalism only) - Prede (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Male underrepresentation

The article as it stands has quite a few high-quality photos of nude women (wonderful job on those, by the way), but no photos of nude men. Michaelangelo's David is a great addition to the article (and would be best balanced by the Venus de Milo, in my opinion), and I see there is also an illustration of nude men, but it still appears males are a bit underrepresented. Are there any male Wikipedia editors willing to pluck up their courage and grace the article with their images? I would, but I wouldn't want to give the human body a bad name with an image of my ugly self.  :P Kasreyn 17:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Haiduc has added a tasteful male nude. Thanks! Kasreyn 04:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I have replaced one of the nude male images with another one that is more revealing and I think balances out the sexual representation of the article. Omgitsasecret 19:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately the image that you added is copyrighted and does not qualify under fair use. You may want to look under http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Men for other free images. There are also many free and CC licensed images at http://www.flikr.com --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it was more revealing, but it could have been used to replace a different image, rather than removing the very nice photo Haiduc found. Kasreyn 22:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nude bathing in East Germany

I removed the section which claimed that nude bathing in East Germany is acceptable even outside of nudist areas. This is an urban myth which came into existance shortly after the German reunification. Back then East German tourism boards drastically reduced the number of nudist areas on the beaches because they feared that western tourists might be appalled. The local nudist population however did initially not accept or notice that what have been "their" nudist beaches for decades were suddenly not allowed for nude bathing anymore and that led to a temporary mixture of clothed and nude people lying on the same beach and some western tourists misinterpreted that view and assumed that it was common practice and acceptable in East Germany to be nude anywhere on the beach and spread the story back home. The legal situation is however very clear and the same all over Germany including the East: nude bathing is only allowed in signed nudist area

[edit] All nude pics removed

No need for anymore complaints about nude pics. I removed them all. User: Coconutfred73 9:45 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There have been no legitimate complaints that I am aware of. Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored. Pictures of nudity are entirely acceptable and appropriate on an article on that topic. The images have been restored. Kasreyn 04:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Several images were once again removed, this time by 205.188.117.5. They have all been restored. Kasreyn 08:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

But don't you have a no one under 18 policy? User:Coconutfred73 00:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Our policies need to be enforced more strongly. Skinnyweed 00:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about. If you are insinuating that an image on Wikipedia constitutes obscenity or child pornography, then say so. Point to the image and I will see for myself. Blanket statements serve no purpose here. This is an adult encyclopedia which is not censored. Thanks, Kasreyn 06:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

People need to learn that Wikipedia is a collection of knowledge. Search for nudity, what do you expect to get? - Nudity. Also not everyone lives in the naive United States (where such laws exist) and the world does not revolve around the USA's social norms. --Benchat 02:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC) 10:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pornography

I believe that the nude images should be only of art or film, or statues, but images that are frankly,too nude, say in flashing, or streaking, or naturism. --Bjmp 12 03:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Bjmp 12

You put naturism with flashing and streaking?--67.40.211.137 06:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
What is "too nude"? Refer to WP:NOT; Wikipedia is not censored. Kasreyn 04:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
No POV and no censorship. Skinnyweed 20:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Kasreyn 02:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


WHY CANT ANYONE TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NON SEXUALIZED NUDITY AND PORNOGRAPHY!!!???

[edit] Spelling bits and Moses

"diffrenetiating" is misspelled, given that google leads to no other hits for "preentably", I presume that too is a spelling error. Presumably the Moses quote is someone's translation, shouldn't there be some attribution (is this from e.g. the King James translation)?

17:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Once Again?

In "Outside the United States", there's a sentence beginning "Once again, in Finland, ...", however there's only one other reference to Finland in the article, that's near a reference to Finnish, but there's no indication that Finnish families attend sauna often (from what I've been told this happens to be the case, but this article doesn't indicate that).

18:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sentence rewrite needed

"North Korea tends to be more strict compared to other countries when it comes to exposure of skin for women, such the exposure of a shoulder."

This sentence needs a rewrite, the end "such the exposure of a shoulder" is a fragment and I can't figure out what it was trying to say :(.

18:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Image:NUDE.JPG

I continue to feel this image is inappropriate for the article.

  1. It is unencyclopedic. What does it add that we don't already have from other images of nude women?
  2. It is being considered for deletion.
  3. It is an apparent vanity image. Uploader's edit summary: "MY GF!!"
  4. Maybe I'm wrong here, but she might also be underage, which could involve legal liability for Wikimedia.
  5. Plus, personal opinion: compared to the other nudes we have in the article, it's rather tasteless.

I'm interested to hear others' opinions. Kasreyn 07:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Bleah. I just thought of something alarming. I've seen remarks such as mine misinterpreted through overly-cautious analysis before. Forgive me for stressing that I am not making or implying any legal threat against WM. I am merely concerned for the sake of Wikimedia as an editor who loves Wikipedia. Nothing more. Kasreyn 08:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
To address your first point, there is no other example of (real-life, female) full-frontal nudity in the article. However, I concur with your vanity (it's obviously either vanity or a copyright violation) and tastefulness arguments. As for age, she doesn't look underage to me, but I admit I may be wrong. Powers 13:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias in illustration

As of today, the photos and drawings are as follows:

  1. one full frontal nudity drawing of man and woman from a space probe
  2. one female nude photo with crossed legs, head not visible
  3. one male nude painting, only rear nudity (no buttocks) visible
  4. one full frontal nude male statue (Michelangelo's David)
  5. one ancient frontal nude male drawing (sports)
  6. one male nude shower painting, only rear nudity (including buttocks) visible
  7. one female nude art pose photo, only rear nudity (including buttocks) visible
  8. one public nudity scene, showing only rear nudity
  9. one photo showing nude children "skinny dipping", side nudity
  10. one photo of a headless Japanese swimmer, rear semi-nudity
  11. one nude photo of a woman with her eyes closed, only breasts visible
  12. one photo of a nude male statue, no genitals visible

So, in an article with a dozen pictures, the overwhelming impression is one of people turning their backs to the viewer, closing their eyes, turning their heads away, crossing their legs, or otherwise concealing the nudity that is supposedly the subject of the article. The primary illustration of frontal nudity including the genitals is in the form of ancient statues or a NASA drawing. This is a bit bizarre, and conveys a subtle bias of shamefulness about the human body. I don't think the bias is intentional -- it's easy not to worry about issues like model release with photos without heads -- but I think it needs to be addressed.

I would suggest that article should simply begin with a full frontal nude photo of a nude man and a nude woman, such as the ones used in man and woman (surely these photos are even more appropriate and unproblematic an article about nudity itself). Any objections?--Eloquence* 00:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I think the current lead image is appropriate as it presents both male and female nudity, and presents them identically. The image on man and the image on woman are very dissimilar. Aside from that, I can only say that there are a lot of different kinds of nudity, and I thought they were very well represented in this article. Powers 01:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
They may be dissimilar, but they are actual full frontal photos of a nude man and a nude woman, as opposed to a drawing attached to a space probe. Right now, in spite of 12 pictures, we don't have any such photos.--Eloquence* 12:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. It's silly that an article on nudity is show shy about showing all the human body! --Zantastik talk 21:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
How much of it is shyness and how much of it is like the picture Black nude.jpg (she may not be crossing her legs, but she has her legs close, so its not what Eloquence is talking about but its all I have to work with), where in a natural state, they just arn't showing every single part of their body. When I sit (clothed or otherwise), my legs are sometimes crossed or togeather. Nudity is not to show every part of the body, just to enjoy being yourself. --Traisjames (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Eloquence - there are a lot of images of backs but almost nothing of fronts. I believe the NASA line drawing should be retained - it has quite a bit of significance since it was an attempt to show ourselves to unknown intelligences, and so it shows a lot of our attitudes about ourselves - but a better lead image would be actual photographic frontal nudes. Kasreyn 00:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


Leave in photographs only. No censorship. Censorship is prudish

[edit] George Carlin is needed Here

I'm offended. Not by the images, the concept or it's reality. I'm offended by the obvious, and rather sad, attempts of a few specific people to control thought, censer, and otherwise promote utter ignorance. Beauty, its said, is in the eye of the beholder. Artistic nudity and pornographic nudity is no different, other than the context in which we choose to observe it. Nude is Nude, and I don't really care if it does offend you. Let me see if I can break it down another way for you. You have problem with nudity. I don't. Which of us, then, has the problem? You can paint civility on anything your heart desires, but that doesn't change the canvas. Knowledge is power, and censorship is ignorance.

I say leave it as is.

Those that want the knowledge shouldn't be punished because someone else might possibly use it for lust. As I parent, I also want to address the worry-wart who is afraid a child might use this site. As a parent, it is our duty to educate our children. If we don't, someone else will, and I'd wager my paycheck against anyone here, it will be worse. Blind ignorance is fine for faith, but reality takes open eyes.

Censorship is the beginning of the end of all knowledge - unknown

To the admins:Keep spreading the knowlege, even against those that promote ignorance.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Styric (talk • contribs) .

I'm not sure to what censorship you're referring, but thanks for the input. Powers 13:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to add comments like this, but this might work. I didn't mean to imply that you censored anything, I was just refering to those that were asking you to remove content. Styric

[edit] Overdoing it a bit?

I remember some months ago when I mentioned an imbalance of images, the article featuring primarily females, and Haiduc was kind enough to add some images of male nudes for balance. Now after some time away, I come back to find a great many new images of male nudes or seminudes, some of which are really poor quality or simply flat-out hideous. My first reaction upon seeing the "fat man in tights" (as I would describe it) image: I thought someone had vandalized the article with a shock image.

The article currently stands at: 1 image of a nude male and female (the line drawing), 3 images of females, and 13 images of males or mostly-male groups. I'd definitely say that's overdoing it. Kasreyn 03:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Obviously the images are not chose (or kept) in function of a rather pointless count -it would make more sense to mention to overrepresentation of white people, while there is no single Chinese or Latino, for example- but to illustrate the variations and contexts treated in the (sub)sections; often there simply seems to be no choice, e.g. nudity in combat means by Ancient fighters (all male then), or at least amongst the images we could find in our Wiki-arsenal, and as the article elaborates in many cases traditions only allow male nude, e.g. the Indian boys skinny-dipping. Fastifex 18:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    Well, I would hope they're not being chosen for a rigorous mathematical equality, and I'm not arguing for such. But it does seem such a significant imbalance that I have to wonder about the purpose of such a change. Also, the "fat man in tights" is really, really hard to take. I don't mean to be harsh if the uploader was also the model and is reading this, but I almost lost my lunch. Can't we find a way of depicting the topic equally well without descending to grotesquery? Kasreyn 08:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
If you can find a more eye-pleasing alternative, please do- however rejecting any illustration on the sole, utterly subjective criterion of esthetical appreciation is something I won't do, by the way 'grotesque' is surely over the top (I'ld rather suggest a lighter lunch), 'ridiculous' would be the harshest I could believe, but if you can't live till you've deleted that one, I probably can live without it. Fastifex 14:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not essential, but it is at least relevant to the topic being discussed in the article. I don't find it grotesque ("ridiculous" is good). A better image to use might be one of a male dancer, perhaps. Powers T 20:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Astetics aside, as a start, I see two photos of male swimwear and one of tights. These don't seem appropriate to the article as the subject at hand is *not* wearing such garments. After that, a few more can probably go as the article currently looks more like a photo gallery than an encylopedic article. --StuffOfInterest 21:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • No, the article deals with all uses of nude, naked and bare, NOT just full nudity, so it covers (especially in the section terminology) various forms of Parial and even Analogous nudity. Nor is there anything unencyclopaedic about ample illustrations of a rather graphical subject - I own editions of such leading e,cyclopaedias as Britannica and Larousse which include full or even multiple pages of colour illustrations (photos and/or drawings) on such varied subjects as Regalia or Dog breeds Fastifex 22:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Another point is that all these images are scattered around rather willy-nilly (pun not intended), seemingly at random. I won't say anything about the aesthetic quality of the images themselves (except to note that the pictures of women are all rather arty, those of men are clearly amateur self-pics), but their placement makes the page look rathe scruffy. Dewrad 13:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I've been attempting, off and on, to improve that. I recently rearranged the photos on partial male nudity and mooning, as well as Japanese fundoshi, to more appropriate locations. Are there any others that are poorly placed? Kasreyn 23:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nudity in advertising

It's interesting that while there is an article on nudity in sports there is not currently one on nudity in advertising, although the link does redirect to sex in advertising. The two (nudity and sex) are not one in the same and should be looked at separately. During my travels in Europe, I've noticed that it is fairly common to see nudity in advertising media. Of particular note, I saw store ads in both Spain and the Czech Republic which features bare breasts and buttocks in non-sexualized advertisements. It would be interesting to cover this in a little more depth showing the contrasts between countries and cultures within this medium. --StuffOfInterest 15:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nudity in Art Today

I am wondering how to add information to this topic relating to art of the nude today. It seems that people are so sensitive and have so many conflicting agendas, that just telling people that there is a non-pornographic website devoted to the art of the nude where all visual artists can list their art and where the public can see art is a major deal here.

barebrush.com is a free website devoted to the art of the nude to help all visual artists who draw, paint, sculpt or video the nude today to get exposure for their work (pun intended). The website has a membership component, but that is to keep out spammers and pornographers. The website has some pay-for features, but these are nominal. The real purpose of the website is to increase the interest, appreciation and acceptance of the art of the nude. To help people find out that its OKAY to enjoy the art of the nude. To help people understand that enjoying the art of the nude does not automatically make a person a pervert.

barebrush.com includes a blog which reports on news and events relating to the art of the nude. There is a listing service (free) which allows all artists to post their art to the website (free) and to enter into a monthly contest in which a different art professional curates a virtual show.

The website started in September 2006. So far, we have had six curators: a dealer from Gramercy Park in NYC, the President of the Salmagundi Club, a collector and former museum president, two dealers from Chelsea and the curator for the February show is an artist who is very active with the International Dance Festival. NONE OF THESE PEOPLE WERE PAID FOR THEIR SERVICES. They all believed in the project enough to participate.

When I talk to Europeans they are incredulous as to the hang-ups the US has regarding the art of the nude. They think Americans are rather bizarre in their involvement with and denial of body parts.

Any advice on where an article or link might be welcome would be greatly appreciated. I thought that I could add an external link to this page, but it has been removed and I'm not sure what to do nextArt Lister 16:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

In a word, nowhere. A website may be cited if it provides specific materials relative to creation of the article but external links should not be used as a "see also" sort of reference. If the links are not part of the citation process then they are considered spam and are likely to be removed. Please take a read of WP:EL for more information. Regarding the US vs Europe view of nudity, I fully agree. My countrymen have issues. --StuffOfInterest 13:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image clutter / gallery

I'd like to propose that most of the images in this article be moved to a separate gallery near the bottom of the page. I also think that 3 or 4 of the most relevant images should be left interspersed within the article. I'd like to hear what other editors have to say about this idea. Robotman1974 02:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

As no objections to the above idea have been made, I've gone ahead with the changes. Robotman1974 00:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed images

I've added the images of the naked mole rat and of the swimwear/mooning pic again. I think these inages are a very good way of conveying some of what the article describes at the point in which they're inserted. The mole rat image serves to illustrate the concept of "analogous nakedness" in the animal kingdom, and the image comparing the speedo with the mooners serves to illustrate an aspect of the way nudity is viewed in Western culture. If there are objections to including these images in the article, then those can be discussed here first in order for a consensus to be reached. Robotman1974 01:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave the example pic of the mole out, but I'm reverting to the version of the layout that doesn't look so messed up. Robotman1974 02:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I disagree with the value of the mole rat image in terms of adding substantive value to the quality of the article, sorry.

As for the gallery, I know you announced and asked in advance, but I must have missed it. I don;t think that having a gallery of nude images is what the article is about. The previouis format where different images illustrated different section not only looked better, but was functionally more sensible. The logic step after moving a number of picture to a collective gallery is to delete the gallery as not essential to the article. Individual images that add to the quality of a section, or the article as a whole should be added to the content of the article to support vatious statements. If they are not needed to support various statements, then whether they are in a gallery, or in the body of the article, they don't need to be there. Atom 02:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the mole rat image is helpful as stated above, but it doesn't bother me a whole lot if it's not included. I do think that the images I moved to the gallery weren't really necessary to the article's content, so if the entire gallery gets some of those images get deleted I won't worry about that either. Even if some of those gallery images are moved back into the article it would be fine with me as long as it doesn't become cluttered and messy like it was before. I disagree that the previous layout looked better and that the placing of the images better suited the text. I think the opposite is true. Robotman1974 03:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope I didn't step on any toes. I removed a very good image that had no licensing attached. With a little format and layout work was able to clean up article to put what I view as a few good images in. Deleted the gallery, as this is not a collection of images. Even if they are good images, no place for them means they don't belong in the article. Atom 03:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The article looks a lot better now. My main issue was with the clutter, and that's no longer a problem. Thanks Atomaton. Robotman1974 05:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


I removed Image:SpencerTunick-Brugge2.jpg as it is a copyrighted image. Fair-use is limited to commentary, criticism or parody of the artist or the work. Use for display of the topic of the artwork for an article of that topic is a counterexample used in the policy for what is not fair-use. Correct fair-use would be in an article about Spencer Tunick, or perhaps a critique of the style of art. Atom 01:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I also found that Image:HorsesCM.jpg was a copyrighted image used outside of fair use, and removed it. Atom 01:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pioneer Plaques

I don't think the pioneer plaques should be there, It has nothing to do with nudity, It's is just the human body designes to educate extraterrestrials. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.164.74.53 (talk) 10:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm inclined to agree with this. It's an extremely poor representation of the subject in question and is surely only included because of possible issues with a photograph of full nudity of both sexes. TygerTyger 13:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes me too, this is just an anatomical illustration, nudity and the anatomical appearance of the human body are entirely unrelated. A photograph showing people in a state where nudity is occurring would make sense. Even just a full frontal anatomical illustration photograph would be equally irrelevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.190.88.130 (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] The Brief bit on Islam

It mentions here that women in Islam are required to completely cover themselves due to purdah. I may be wrong, but isn't purdah an Indian custom? I agree there are some similarities in custom, but would purdah be the correct appelation? Also, while there are varying degrees to which women (and men) cover, or don't cover themselves in Islamic societies as far as I know the main stipulation based on religion was the Koranic injunction to dress modestly. The specifics as to what this (dressing modestly) means are spread across the multiple interpretations of Islamic law - not to mention those who attempt to go beyond the four (five w/shia) schools. While the article is good enough to mention that the hadith is the inspiration for much of the debate that followed, it would be more appropriate to note that there are many schools of thought regarding awrah. The sentence "For women, Islam requires them to observe purdah, covering their entire bodies, including the face (see burqa). A common misconception, however, is to cover everything but the hands and face," is incorrect in that it is reductionist and makes a POV judgment in regard to schools of thought that may differ from that which the editor had subscribed to. This is not to say the sentence is wholly wrong in that it may fit with a certain view, but it is only one among many. Perhaps, however, it might be wise to separate perceived religious injunctions from how people actually behave. After all, religious and cultural mores are very different between Saudi Arabia and Egypt, yet they are both generally considered Muslim countries. 18 February 2007 jankyalias

Considering the lack of response I am making a slight edit. jankyalias 21 February 2007

[edit] Please Delete the Nude boys pics

Please delete those, it's sick, nasty and illegal. — French Bodybuilder 15:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

How are they illegal? — Walloon 23:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking at nude pics of young boys is illegal. Please don't tell me you're a pedifile. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by French Bodybuilder (talk • contribs).

Yeah, I realize wikipedia is uncensored and all, but having pictures of those boys, who are obviously underage, nude is unacceptable. I deleted it. We have plenty of pictures on this page to illustrate nudity already. 24.254.47.90 01:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Underage nudity? Are you kidding? Please point to Wikipedia policy concerning where nudity under a certain age is inappropriate. Not acceptable to you, fine, but do not censor without respectable justification. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 03:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
IANAL, but to my knowledge there is no law against simple nudity for minors. If the nudity was sexualized, then it certainly would be illegal but this image is about as far from it as you can get. If you can't cite specific regulation then don't try pushing your judgement onto others. --StuffOfInterest 15:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, British law on this subject is drawn very widely. You can even be arrested for possession of non-nude pictures of children if the photos are deemed 'provocative'.Blaise (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why was the male sunbathing animated gif deleted ?

The first complaint on this talk page is the underrepresentation of males on the article. Someone adds a beautifully relaxing looking animated gif image of a nude male sunbathing, and it gets deleted. Why ? 68.218.8.130 04:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm pretty sure I gave the reasons in the edit. Can you read? Please see User talk:88.144.39.84. The size of the image (1.44MB for the thumbnail) is simply too large and would take a long time to download for users on slower connections. The animation is unecessary anyway.88.144.39.84 00:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I can't read, however. I should have checked the dates. 88.144.39.84 00:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm glad to see the image go. My problem is not the subject but the presentation. Animated images only make sense when the animiation is for illustration purposes. When you have a still image with an animated background, then it is nothing more than a vanity art piece. Also, the image needs to support some point in the written text (not saying it didn't) or it is just more clutter for the article. If you look through the history, this article has had long problems with lots of excess images being added. At some point we may have to adopt a procedure on this article where all images are vetted on the talk page before addition to the article. --StuffOfInterest 15:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nakedness v Nudity

Why is there only one page for Nakedness AND Nudity when much theory has gone into the different politics, philosophies and psychologies behind these states?

I point towards Kenneth Clark, John Berger, Gill Saunders and Edward Lucie Smith for a primer in these areas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.190.88.130 (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Nudity and Nudism

These 2 articles can be merged? The other looks more professional than this article. Rubbing worth (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Nudity and Nudism are different subjects, so merging them probably wouldn't be necessary. And if you feel the other is better written, why don't you try to improve this one?--C. ROSS 00:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I just inserted summary section, which needs little more expansion.. This should be enough, and i agree that they are different from nudity, but they are closely related. Rubbing worth (talk) 05:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Western culture?

Why is nudity divided along lines of Western culture and non-Western culture in this article? Many of the subjects currently under Western could be placed in the non-Western section. The treatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib or Jewish attitudes towards nudity are arguably non-Western. Furthermore, it's more than evident that there is no uniform Western attitude to nudity. In America people freak out over a nipple, but in Sweden major political parties advertise with images of nude people in them.

Since nothing is served by drawing distinctions along Western and non-Western lines, just scrap the categorisation altogether, and instead give each region (Scandinavia, America, Arab, Sub-saharan African, etc) their own sections where it seems appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.188.86.230 (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image housecleaning time again

Once again the article has become completely overloaded in images. A number have nothing to do with nudity (aka the "bare feet" and "leeloo" photos) and others appear to be mainly intended as pornographic (woman at computer). Throw on top of that two naked cycles photos. I think we need to drop at least a half dozen photos to make the article look more like an article again and less like a photo gallery. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree. It looks utterly ridiculous. Go for it! Gillyweed (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

agreed. I removed the photos not being used to make a point or were additional ones of that type --Flyingember (talk) 03:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Children's Pictures

I'm pretty sure you cannot take pictures of children and then post them onto here. Is it all right to have them on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Den5328954 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. There are legal restrictions on the depiction of children engaged in **sexualized** activities, especially **exploitative**. Those would be illegal in the US. Non-sexualized images of children are not illegal. If that was the case, every parent with pictures of their children would be potentially in trouble. Hope this helps. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 01:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandelion1 (talk • contribs)

Funny you should mention that, because in the UK every parent with nude pictures of their children IS potentially in trouble, and not just in theory. A few years ago, TV newscaster Julia Somerville and her partner were questioned by police after taking pictures of her own children in the bath. (She took the 35 mm film to a drugstore for developing and they called the police.) No charges followed, but it was a distressing incident. Blaise (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Nudity

Please see portal discussion regarding a new WikiProject. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The only country to censor male nipples

I think the US should have a special part in this article, not in Western culture nor in non-Western culture, but a special part. Exposure of female nipples is considered criminal by many states (in the US), not in the other western countries (Europe). Altough, exposure of male nipples is now considered indecent in a state like Florida (see this article). This country has a very unique point of view about nudity. --Onesbrief (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

As I understand the Orlando Sentinel article, the absence of male nipples on the billboard was not due to any law in force. Rather, it was a misunderstanding on the part of the designers, who were told not to make the billboard too provocative. I live in the United States, and I do not believe that exposed nipples of either sex should be considered indecent. --JHVipond (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from Nudity and children

I am opposed to this merge. This article is already very long and Nudity and children is a controversial topic by itself that should be represented in Wikipedia. (In case you are wondering about my edit pattern, I have an account, but I edit anon for topics like this.) 76.183.208.186 (talk) 09:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opinions?

(deleted -- this isn't how merges work. Simply insert whatever content is necessary from Nudity and children in its present location. When that's done, that article can be redirected. Do not blank or redirect before that, and there's no reason to copy it to this talk page. Thank you. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nudity and children

I've tried several different positions for this recently-merged section but I can't find a place where it really belongs and doesn't seem to disrupt the flow of the article. Its current placement is just after the Terminology section, which I think is still rather strange and gives the topic undue weight. If anyone has any opinions on this please feel free to comment. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted opinions

See this diff. This was a very POV edit. Backing up such opinions with authors who hold those opinions is still POV. Sources need to be objective and neutral. Welcoming any comments. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Islamic slave nudity" stuff removed

I've removed the following unsubstantiated material from the article:

"Islamic Sharia'a (Law) defrentiate between Free women and Slave Women, where the awrah of the slave woman is only between her knees and navel."

The material was apparently first added in this edit, which (unless it can somehow be substantiated) appears to be pure vandalism. Please do not restore this material to the article, unless you can provide a cite to reliable sources that supports it. -- The Anome (talk) 11:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)