Talk:Nudity and children

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contents

[edit] Section 1

What is the point of this page? I really don't see why it exists separate from the main "nudism" article.

The anon poster was me not logged in. To me, this page looks like it may be a POV fork. At the very least, you're going to need specific quoted sources for all your "nudists believe..." statements to make it clear that these are not simply your own opinions attributed to a nebulous nudist community.

DanB†DanD 00:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If its POV, lets make it NPOV. The Nudity article was getting way too long so I broke off three to four topics today that could stand on their own. I also created a separate page because the material was strong enough to warrant a special page on the subject. I am not aware of any controversy, however, if there is some it should be mentioned in a NPOV way. Thanks for contributing! I do agree this is a very POV article. Let's make it better! Cheers! User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 05:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I gave a section of this article an inappropriate tone tag and excised some of the more egregious passages. This article is a complete disaster of the moment, and could probably use a complete rewrite. The whole subject of nudity in Wikipedia seems to be dominated by pro-nudity viewpoints. The nudity page even has a link to another wiki that announces that it pushes a pro-naturist POV on Wikipedia. We need people with more conservative viewpoints to balance it out. --Terminus-Est 02:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I see. Perhaps we can expect you to do some editing soon then, yes? I'm sure there are many "conservatives" out there who could lend a neutral POV to these articles. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 02:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree that this article has a pro-nudity bias, especially in the "Nudity in physical education" section, which makes out required nudity to be the most reasonable thing on Earth. The personal privacy aspect should be more thoroughly addressed. In addition, many controversial statements are made and followed by a footnote, but not explained any further in the text of the article itself, leaving readers to have to click on numerous external links for further explanation. -Emiellaiendiay 01:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the article... Thanks. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 20:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Huge images all of a sudden

What the hell?

Yes, why did you do that? User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 07:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I was disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Is there a policy against that or something?
The point was: you have made the pictures of naked people extremely prominent in the article, so much so that they overshadow the content.
(Also, going anon was an accident. I stand by my drunken policy violation.)DanB†DanD 07:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if there is a policy on Wikipedia against being an ass. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 15:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually I am pretty sure there is. DanB†DanD 00:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

^ For posterity, what we are talking about is that Dandelion increased the size of some of the images to make them more prominent. In response, I flippantly increased the image sizes even more.

One note: as I understand it, the fair-use policy on book covers only allows them to be used to illustrate an article about the book itself, not, as here, a general article on the book's topic. DanB†DanD 04:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wayyyy toooo POV

"It is socially acceptable in the United States to be nude in the company of others of the same gender. Requiring school showers within the boundaries of social acceptance is not beyond reason. The fact that a student or a student's parents may be religiously or morally opposed to an open locker room environment does not make that activity socially unacceptable, and schools do not change policy to each student's personal comfort level."

This part seems to have been written by, say, a school personnel member? In fact, all of it pretty much is written from a supporter's point of view.

Come to think of it...this article I think should just be deleted. That's just my opinion though. If it can be cleaned up (but what's the point of this article anyway?) then by all means, it should be done. Just my two cents...

-WikiFiend90 00:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this isn't really very notable. Everything regarding child nudity can be covered in the other nudity pages.71.235.155.139 19:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
A POV that is so very very wrong. Do I walk into the bathroom, expecting dudes to waddle away from urinals with their pants down? Compulsory nudity is dehumanizing and people who want to impose this situation on children in school (such as the stereotypical insane overweight highschool football coach everyone knows and loves/loathes) to be at best pedophiles, or at worst, jerks. -- 19:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.175.230.59 (talk)

[edit] the naked man

Is the photo of the naked man necessary? 69.218.230.103 01:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It could discourge people who disagree with the photo from contributing or even reading this article. For some reason I think that image is more porn then any of the other images in this article. 76.183.208.186 04:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the group photographs of the boys are necessary at all. We know what naked children look like without having to show it. Gunstar hero 19:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination for article deletion

I think this article should definitely stay and remain on its own because it does address an important aspect of social nudity. Legislation has been passed in the past restricted participation of children in social nudity and it is important to have an opportunity to make arguments behind such legislation and also document trends in different parts of the world regarding the subject. Moving this back into the nudity article would make that article, which is already getting very long, even longer. Thank you for your consideration. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 23:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I've copied this comment to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nudity and children. Thryduulf 22:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] call for discussion: remove non-exemplar photos

As with any encyclopedia article, you only need one photo and/or drawing for a given topic unless multiple pictures substantially improve the article. Examples of photos that would add value to the article: Communal showers in Europe, either 1 of the 2 the nude artworks already present, Benin ritual scarification on a small child, etc. The rest add little or no value to this topic. Dfpc 00:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. — Emiellaiendiay 21:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I also agree; there are too many pictures. Gunstar hero 19:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
This article has no photos of naked girls (NOW I AM NOT SAYING THAT THERE SHOULD!!!), Boy has a photo of naked boys, but Girl does not have a photo of naked girls. Is this some kind of gender stereotype? 76.183.208.186 08:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Many citations inaccurate, consider trimming; dubious facts

Many of the citations contradict the article text. I plan on removing them and possibly the article text around them. Feel free to do it for me. Several unreferenced or poorly-supported assertions seem dubious and I marked them as such. They should go. This whole article would benefit from a rewrite, sticking to properly-cited or universally accepted "the sky is blue" facts. This article is under consideration for deletion. It should not be deleted. Dfpc 21:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite - ideas wanted

my sandbox has ideas for a replacement article. I'll cobble something together over the next week or two and ask for opinions then. If you have ideas you don't see there, please write to me here. Dfpc 21:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I have uploaded a first draft. Did I leave anything important out? Dfpc 04:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the fact that you're a pedophile and have enlisted your fellow pedophiles to your cause: http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:YL7cCx_0hzcJ:www.boychat.org/messages/1073015.htm+site:boychat.org+wikipedia&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=46&gl=us - source. The question remains... why are pedophiles taking such an active interest in promoting their views through this article... and moreover, does this article only exist because they voted "keep" in an organized fashion during this article's votes for deletion? XavierVE 18:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pic of live child

The disputed pic adds nothing to the article, illustrates nothing and is in no way helpful to the article. Or am I missing something? SqueakBox 23:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It illustrates other events in which nudity is considered appropriate for children. Joshua Zelinsky 13:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I would say that references in the text to such events are perfectly sufficient. Gunstar hero 19:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The significance of the "live child" image

Image:NRT6 2001.jpg should stay for the time being on this page for the following reasons:

  • (1) No good reason for deletion has been presented.
  • (2) The image clearly resonates with a number of people because it shows family-friendly social nudity in a public setting and it challenges some taboos many people hold. These taboos are addressed in this Nudity and children article and there should be an image which visually depicts a real life example from a real-life context of what is being discussed.
  • (3) Images depicting families/children participating in social nudity events help illustrate visually arguments that casual nudity is embraced by many cultures across the globe and they reinforce arguments that non-sexualized nudity is harmelss and even beneficial for children. See articles at the bottom of the Nudity and children page. This isn't some kind of imaginary concept, people advocate and live a body-positive lifestyle that also includes incorporating family-friendly social nudity into their everyday lives. Images like this make these discussions far less abstract. Arguing that these kinds of images are immoral or irresponsible are being put foward by people who believe that social nudity in the family is inappropriate. Public displays of this lifestyle are a very visual and tangible validation of this that some people just are not willing to accept. That is why these topics deserve a space on wikipedia. The law is different in different parts of the world and these issues are being played out in different events. It is true... a picture is worth a thousand words.
  • (4) Nackt Radtour is a public event, just like World Naked Bike Ride and all other clothing-optional bike rides. We have children participate in our Seattle ride too and those pictures are also live currently on the internet. We have large people, skinny people, democrats, republicans, asian, white, latino, you name it. The more diverse a ride looks the more it will attract a diverse set of potential riders. These photos in Germany were uploaded so participants and outsiders could have some idea of what the ride is like. The fact that participants of all ages and families participate adds a sense of safety for those who might be deciding if they want to participate or not. If families did not participate then these events it would be harder to classify as family-friendly events. People of all ages participate in these events all over the world. Diversity in age, sex and ethnicity is represented in popular events such as these. Family-friendly events involve participants of all ages.
  • (5) Permissions cleared.
    • (a) I spoke personally with the owner of the image who knows the people involved and everything was cleared and also cleared through Wikipedia licensing process.
    • (b) The German film "Radtour-Classics 2001: Nackt-Radtour in und um Karlsruhe am 14. 6. 2001" from this ride was also cleared by filmmaker to screen at the Naked Freedom Film Festival taking place in Seattle in 2004 at the Seattle Art Museum and 911 Media Arts Center and persons depicted in the image were all present in that as well. It was removed at the last minute due to a German -> English translation dispute and because an early trailer screening suggested that a 45 minute film on the subject was just boring. http://www.bodyfreedom.org/nfff/lineup.html . The ad for the festival itself featured persons of all ages, including children. See http://www.bodyfreedom.org/media_projects/NFFFstranger3C.jpg
  • (6) The image is entirely legal in the United States and in the State of Florida.
  • (7) The image has alreay passed one nomination for deletion and is headed towards being cleared a second time.
  • (8) The image is non-sexual and family-friendly in nature, just like something you might see in National Geographic Magazine. It really scares me that some here are trying to argue that these images are lewd or sexy or exploitative. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 05:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • (9) The fact that someone has posted discussions about the page on the boychat website does not make the topic unworthy of discussion. This is a serious cultural and legal issue. The topic is contentious for some so it deserves to have a NPOV page discussing aspects of the topic. Pictures should also be used to illustrate real life examples of cases where people may agree it is ok or not (avoiding context of exploitative or lewd activities). User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 05:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly? There are already too many images on this article. Two, three at the most would suffice to establish the point, more than that is excessive. Do we really need 5 images to illustrate what a nude child looks like? On that note alone, all I think we need are En premiär, "boys skinny dipping" and The Bathers to illustrate the point. And one of the paintings could probably go. -- Kesh


Agree that pics should stay. There's not too many pics, just add more text. Joshua Zelinsky 10:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, the image that needs to go the most is Image:NRT6 2001.jpg. 76.183.208.186 03:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree; that image is unecessary and likely to generate unwanted controversy regardless of its other rationale for use. Gunstar hero 19:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Which image is the disputed image more than another? Generally, in an article, discussion is good; discussion + image is better. What criteria are you using to determine which images are sufficient and which are excessive? The bike tour photo, while it does depict an event involving nudity and children, doesn't seem apecific to the subject of the article, since its focus appears to be a nude adult. --Ssbohio 15:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poor article

Numerous parts of this article are simply extremely poor. There are not enough citations, and those that are there are of somewhat dubious quality.

The US section is the worst. It is far too POV. It reads like someone's polemical defence of childhood nudity after physical education, with the final four paragraphs being almost laughable.

In any case, the amout of original research throughout is unacceptable.

Then there is the outrageous claim at the top of the Europe section.

"Europeans have generally been more insistent that all students shower communally."

which is backed up with a citation of an article from 1988. An article 19 years old used to justify an extremely sweeping statement. Indeed, in the next paragraph, the above sentence is then immediately contradicted.

Let's face it - this article is just a cobbling together of numerous prejudices. If it has to stay, then the physical education section either has to be overhauled completely or, better still, removed. The remainder of the article would suffice if it were strengthened.

--77.97.101.36 08:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. There is NO WAY this article constitutues anything like encyclopedic rigour or quality. You can't generalise entire cultural views and traditions without sourcing it. I also got the feeling that whoever wrote huge swathes of this had an axe to grind.
Parts of the article also need laying out differently. Why under the 'nudity and physical education' subheader do the sections for 'Europe' and 'United Kingdom' discuss something different?
I realise someone has flagged all the citations needed, but when an article is in such a state as this I would suggest scrapping it altogether. Gunstar hero 18:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Have to agree with XavierVE up there that notes this article is being maintained by pedos or something. A lot of it sounded like support to have boys (why is it the pedos who are most vocal seem to be the homosexual ones? NAMBLA, etc...) shower together so they can maintain some sicko fantasy of them laughing and snapping each other with towels. The "Sufficiently strong-willed child" bit sounded like it was out of some twisted molestation fantasy where the victim is foolish enough to resist or something. What the shit. What I'd like to see done:

Hey now, I created the article and I'm not a pedo. Calm down. Let's address your concerns User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 23:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Legal issues of nudity and children. Stuff like David Hamilton's photographs are controversial, could be noted here. Also in the United States many people have been prosecuted for taking photos of their children nude to be developed at a store.
That would be an excellent addition, do you have time to add it? User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 23:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The two topmost pictures (of the young man and his mother/older sister and the sisters in the tub) are the only good pictures here. The ones of the nude dudes do not add anything. At the very least, keep the Indian boys and ditch the other two.
  • This article doesn't require a fine comb, it requires a hacksaw. -- 20:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


Agree with most said here. See this: "An alternate option for the modest child in an unforgiving educational environment is to minimize the physical participation as much as possible, or to simply not participate or completely skip out of the physical education classes, so as to remain clean and sweat-free the rest of the school day. This may result in pressure from parents, classmates and/or school staff." Sorry? If you don't participate at all, you fail the class. "Skip out" is truancy, enough to get you expelled if done repeatedly. I don't think that "pressure from school staff" covers expulsion. It's not even sourced! And I'm not sure if "unforgiving educational environment" is exactly a neutral point of view.--212.71.160.50 21:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] south Italy and north italy

I erased the part where is affirmed that the southern part of Italy is more strict with nudism. A lot of people thinks that north italy has more "advanced wiews" than the south. It's simply stupid and false. The same is affirmed for Germany, i think it's not true, but I am not german so I didn't erased it. Bobbore


[edit] article should include a discussion of possible abuses

I agree that this article has major problems and something should be done about this. A true discussion of the subject would be welcome that includes how damaging and shaming forced nudity can be. What is the historical truth about nudity in public schools? In some public schools, segregated swim class for boys was done without swim trunks -- in Buffalo NY, for example, until the early 80s. What was the policy around the country and did it change? Was Buffalo unique (the YMCA had it until the 70s)? It seems beneficial to shine the light on this practice. It could be valuable to educate people to the shaming language used by abusers to young children "if you are uncomfortable with being naked, there is something wrong with you." There is a language used to silence those uncomfortable with communal showers which needs to be identified. This is NOT to say that nudity is wrong or dangerous or abusive in itself, however the CONTEXT -- requiring students and shaming them for their modesty CAN be abusive. For example:

"A small percentage of students have always objected to communal showers; however, after the first few days of school showers, these students very frequently overcame the initial embarrassment and were fine.[15] In most cases, the objections to school showers are actually from the student's parents, while the student in question does not object to having to take showers.[10]"

I seriously double this. I would bet that the MAJORITY of children in public school are very uncomfortable with nudity in public school, but this is my opinion. It would be very beneficial to shine the light on this, and get some facts.This "fact" was taken from an interview of a principal which also claims that girls are justifiably shy and deserve the opportunity to have private showers, but boys do not -- the implication is that "normal boys" would not feel uncomfortable with nudity in front of their peers or teachers. I think this is a ridiculous and an old "macho" attitude from the 50s which does not take into account the very fragile self-esteem of children and their bodies in a public school setting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.38.160 (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is a mess

For one thing, it doesn't decide what it is. Its lead refers to "nudity of children" and "children seeing nude people", which raise very different issues. The "United Kingdom" section is largely unsourced original research. The "Nudity in physical education" section is disproportionate to the body of the article. The "Non-western cultures" section is also largely unsourced original research. The "see also" reference to child sexuality is nothing whatsoever to do with the topic, except in a pedophile's dream- and that should be addressed, although it won't be easy. Having said that, this article, having survived deletion, now needs a massive encyclopedic rewrite. I propose to tackle that, unless anyone has any strenuous objections. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Jesus no, no objections. Have at it, and fear no evil. Herostratus (talk) 06:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor modifications

I have taken the liberty of making some changes to the UK material to remove some of the worst misleading emphasis, to make one correction and to improve the citation. As noted above this page has value but it needs significant work. If anyone would like assistance on citations please get in touch as I can probably help. Malcolm.boura (talk) 10:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] merge proposal re "Nudity in the home"

The article Nudity in the home appears to be a non-notable spinoff of this article. Nudity in the home is a non-issue when there are no children, therefore the topic of that article actually is "Nudity in the home when there are children in the home"; as such, it is part of the topic of this article.

As it is, this article is in very bad shape (as several people have already mentioned) and needs extensive clean-up. Merging the two articles can be done as part of that process. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Both of these articles are in the grayish of notability borderlines. Merging simply into Nudity might be an even better solution. • VigilancePrime • • • 23:28 (UTC) 2 Mar '08
Merging both into Nudity sounds like a good plan. Only information that is clear, directly on-topic, and well-referenced should be retained. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, without looking at it, I cannot see a possible encyclopedic treatment of that topic, unless it's going to be along the lines of "water found to be wet". There really is little in the current article that could not be addressed in a section of Nudity, likewise Nudity in the home. This nettle needs to be grasped. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I was asked to give my opinion. I agree that merging this article and Nudity in the home should both be merged into Nudity. The subjects are substantially the same and there is already overlap between the articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Irrelevant photos

Can we stop readding photos that have nothing to do with the article? A statue? Simply showing naked children in this article serves no encyclopedic purpose. (Like the uncaptioned naked baby in the references section... that's purely meant to be humourous, pruient, or vandalism.) This article is in such a poor condition already that, combined with its non-notability (could easily be covered in Child sexuality or Nudity), it ought to go to AfD. Pathetic-izing it further with overuse of gratuitous images is the wrong direction to go. • VigilancePrime • • • 23:28 (UTC) 2 Mar '08

So your opinion is based on what? Your own POV? And just how are these images irrelevant? They are depictions of various examples of how child nudity is portrayed in different media and by different cultures. I'd say they were more than relevant. None of them are gratuitous, all of them portray the nudity in non-sexual examples. It sounds like it's your prurience that's the deciding factor here. --WebHamster 00:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) "Various examples" makes it Original Research (not to mention the images are not captioned that way). The placement is awful. The page is over-imaged. You are so quick to pull the "Your own POV" line that your painfully-obvious lack of actual rational is clear. Some of your edit histories sound arrogant issue-forcing. If you'd like to discuss the need to have a page full of photos with little adequate text, feel free. The number of them is gratuitious. Your personal attacking mannerisms only underscore your positions lack of actual foundation. If this article is about Nudity and Children, why have photos of statues? There isn't a photo of David (statue) on the main Nudity page, is there? There's stated rationale above for removing many of these images. We still have yet to hear any rationale for keeping them all (other than your accusations). (Truth is, the Nudity article is over-imaged as well... so much and very distracting.) • VigilancePrime • • • 00:18 (UTC) 3 Mar '08
I'm not doing the attacking here, but should you wish me to I'd be happy to oblige. Meanwhile once your bluster fades I'll point out that the only rationale you've given is "irrelevant" and "gratuitous", both of which are subjective terms, ie they are a point of view. "Examples of" is not original research and how you consider it to be so I have no idea. Additionally I don't understand your complaints of a statue. The article is not "nudity and real live children". It covers how the human race deals with and portrays the nudity of children. One of those venues is art which quite conveniently covers the subject of statues wouldn't you say? The red link in the summary was not deliberate. I merely copied the content I typed in the article into the edit summary box to show what I'd added. The red link arrived because the original image with that name was deleted when added to Commons. Now, can you come up with a reason that isn't subjective and doesn't involve a lot of blustery rhetoric? --WebHamster 00:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Me arrogant? You cheeky sod! I'm not the one coming out with such classic summaries as "this article has been excrementally edited...". Perhaps you should rein in the mental projection and leave things alone until a consensus has been reached. --WebHamster 00:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
May I recommend that you go down to the convenience store and pick up a can of "sense of humor"? Thus far, I have stated that the article is in dire need of help. I have used the pun "excrementally edited" (play on incrementally) that also has to do with a WikiEssay you probably haven't read (and thus have no idea what you are talking about). You, on the other hand have obviously not even looked into what you are saying about editors. You have accused me, as best I can tell, of being prudish about nudity. Have you seen my userpage (long version)? Far from the truth. You have now stepped into the realm of name-calling.
But in stark oposition to your continued attacks of me personally, you fail to see that I have helped your view on this article. You tiraded about the statue and how this article relates to art as well, but wholly ignore the fact that I added a section for art (because before that, this article had nothing to do with it). You see, I'm helping your position within the confines of encyclopedic content and you still go after me. How about this: work on making the article better.
Just a thought. • VigilancePrime • • • 00:58 (UTC) 3 Mar '08
Please re-read what I wrote about you. I asked if it was your prurience. I didn't say anything about you not liking nudie pics. Meanwhile I'm just sitting back waiting for the promised bout of vomiting. --WebHamster 01:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Put the article up for AfD and you'll see it. I'm not a deletionist by nature, so I'm unlikely to do that. But please send it to AfD and you'll see the reverse-peristalsis quite quickly! • VigilancePrime • • • 01:16 (UTC) 3 Mar '08 ;-)
Why would I put it up for AfD? I'm not the one who's complaining. Incidentally it's "peristalsis". --WebHamster 01:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
THank you for the spelling fix. That's one of those words that just always throws me. As for the AfD, you wanted to see the vomit... I was just reiterating the way to do it. • VigilancePrime • • • 01:32 (UTC) 3 Mar '08
I'm wondering what purpose any image serves here other than to merely decorate the article. We are not dealing with fair-use images (I hope, I haven't checked) but it would seem to me that the test should be "encyclopedic purpose", after all everyone knows what a nude child looks like. If a particular image has been the subject of discussion or controversy then it seems arguable to include it to illustrate that, in conjunction with text descriptive of the issues surrounding that image. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I concur with this. There is no valid reason to include random photos of nude children; that adds no encyclopedic value to the article. According to WP:LAYOUT, images should be used only to illustrate specific topics in articles, should relate directly to the text, and should not be added simply because they are available. For example, regarding artwork, it might be appropriate to include a statue of a nude child in a museum or public square, if there were a well-referenced text section discussing social attitudes about such art, or how it is differentiated from child pornography. But without such text, the statues don't relate to the article and should not be included. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Improper rolling back

Please look at your undo and rollback edits before making them, WebHamster. Your last one removed legitimate Wiki tags as well as unsorting images (in point of fact, their new locations bolster your position of wanting to keep every last one of them). As for your accusations regarding edit summaries, I am perfectly justified in my critique of the ARTICLE. You, on the other hand, have made derogatory comments about the EDITORS. The latter can get people blocked (and rightfully so). You would do well to assume better faith in your other editors. • VigilancePrime • • • 00:34 (UTC) 3 Mar '08
I disagree, you didn't say the article was 'excremental' you said it had been edited excrementally. That dear boy, is making an attack on the editors who preceded you. Please keep up. --WebHamster 01:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
You can disagree all you want. You're still wrong. Excrementally edited. Incrementally edited. "I'm not eating that!" ... never mind ... The point is that you seek out offense where none exists. If I had said that the last couple editors were full of it and moronic idiot excuses for bacterially-minded amoebas, that would be a personal attack on the editors. If I had said that the last editor was a cheeky sod, that would be a personal attack. No, I stated that the article had been edited badly... which goes back far before you I would expect. Articles I've been heavily involved in have been badly edited. Again, walk down to the convenience store... • VigilancePrime • • • 01:13 (UTC) 3 Mar '08
Nice to see I now have my very own stalker. I even made your archives. As for the vandalism template, go back to the Harry Potter page, click on edit and see what it says right at the top of the page, then when you've done that go back and have a look at the history of that article (and other similar ones) and look at the IP subnets who have been continually making the same edit. To make things easier for you would you prefer it if I left a note on your talk page as to what article I'll be editing next? --WebHamster 01:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that was another personal attack. If looking at another user's contributions makes one a stalker, than you just admitted to being one too. Funny. But you are more than welcome to look through my contributions, archives, talk pages, etc. I have no problem with that and I won't start accusing you of stalking, as you have me. Regardless of notes, there are plenty of good-faith assumptions that could have been taken. But no, if someone edits into a redirect, it must be vandalism. There used to be a time when I was told that I was too quick to assume vandalism but you far outshine any sort of Assuming Vandalistic Faith than I could ever do. Now, if you're done trying to insult and offend and accuse me, may we get back to discussion of the actual articles? How about the proposed merge? I think that a lot of the problems with both articles would be alleviated to some extend through a merge. Two very weak articles versus one marginally decent article. • VigilancePrime • • • 01:32 (UTC) 3 Mar '08
Gentlemen, please. Herostratus (talk) 03:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] The photo

Let's stop the edit warring and discuss this please. I say the photo doesn't belong, at least in its current location and with the current content of the article. The section it's contained in is about the controversy over communal showers, which the photo has nothing to do with. This photo belongs amongst content where child nudity in art and photography is discussed. It either needs to be removed or moved to a more appropriate place. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's a nice photo, but completely off-topic and gratuitous.-PetraSchelm (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
For once, I agree with Petra, and my comments above show, I hope, how desperately unfocussed this article is. It is better than I first saw it, but not much. It's a tendentious title to start with, capable of many interpretations, and misinterpretations. The acid test is "What is this article meant to be talking about?" Not pedophilia, although some might want to hijack it for that purpose. "Art"? Then let's have an article about child nudity in art, and deal with that from reliable sources. As it is, I doubt the article knows where it's going. "Sociology"? I doubt there's much research out there to support a viable article as currently constructed. I'm open to persuasion, however, and addressing that issue is probably more worthwhile than gribbling over images. --Rodhullandemu 00:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, it is up for deletion, so the deletion discussion is probably the place to make known your thoughts on the article's existence. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I haven't removed photos cos I want them deleted. i removed because i do not want them here. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
You'll need a better reason for removing them than simply not wanting them here, SqueakBox, if you'd like to contribute constructively to this discussion. And, I did not suggest the deletion of the image, I hope no one else here assumed that's what I meant. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The United States section isn't solely about communal showers. Ideally, it would discuss art and attitudes in the U.S. to child nudity or child exposure to nudity more generally, and even now it concludes with a short paragraph not related to the showers. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 04:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ideally it would, but it doesn't. The sentence currently there that doesn't involve communal showers is about parents having to destroy home photos, and has nothing to do with an artistic photo by a professional photographer. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

See here for the closing merge decision. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)