This is an archive of past discussions about Nudity. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
@Wolfdog:
The opening section is a summary of the entire article, which is often difficult. I was going to thank you for making me rethink my wording, which can be unclear when writing about a topic I know so well that I assume too much. What you reverted was my effort to explain what the sources, mainly Barcan, support regarding Western ambivalence.
I'm not sure what your objections are, but I assume that my use of Puritanical is a problem. To me, it is just another way of saying Americans associate nudity with shame, but with an historical context. I have added a specific journal article on American Puricanism (Uhlmann etal, 2011) to reference when I try again.
--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
@WriterArtistDC: I appreciate the willingness to discuss. Yes, "puritanical" has the negative connotation of "excessive" or "too much", so it's use here is a form of editorializing. Even "Puritans" has very specific social and historical connotations (more so, actually). In general, I think we should avoid going into too much detail about the U.S. in the lead. (We can certainly add details into the body of the article on that topic.) I think my point for the lead is that in any Western country, there is some degree of taboo about public nudity. You do not normally see people nude in restaurants or sports games or libraries in Europe, for example; this is not a U.S.-specific thing. (Obviously specific beaches, specific activist events or parades, etc. are an exception.) Does that make sense? Wolfdog (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
The sources I read say that Europeans are much more open. Not only do they sunbathe nude at beaches but in city parks, have clothing optional restaurants, more nudity in ballet and opera productions, and are generally unconcerned with modesty in many situations, such as medical exams. A naked person a sporting match might be rare but not worthy of mention. A person naked in a formal situation would be seen as a breach of etiquette, i.e. being improperly dressed, rather that a shameful display. In addition this openness extends to children, who play outdoors naked before puberty and are not shielded from the non-sexual nudity of adults. In contrast a majority of Americans would likely think "non-sexual nudity" is an oxymoron.
For me, puritanism (small "p") is the correct term for the attitude that nudity is always private and sex is only within marriage, otherwise it is shameful. A strict morality, but not fanatical or extreme. You use the words shame and taboo, but shy away from the connotations of "puritan"? It is used in the social sciences, such as the journal article I refer to above, to refer to the lingering effects of the past on American culture which make it distinct from Canada and the UK as well as from northern Europe. The lead lays out the basic cultural distinctions, including within Western cultures, that are supported in the body of the article. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Nudity in the theatre of course happens everywhere (the US included) and I've mentioned European beaches (and parks don't seem a stretch from that), but I admit that I definitely would not have guessed the sporting-match reaction. I have no access to the sources but if they honestly suggest that even a randomly naked sporting fan is not worthy of mention, then go with the sources! (Obviously, any specifics the provided sources describe can and should be presented in the body of the article as well.)
I have to say I appreciate your "non-sexual nudity" is an oxymoron comment because it gets the idea of nudity in the US across while not implying that there is some automatic ordinariness to nudity in Europe, which I think would be the wrong impression. There is still some degree of a taboo in most European public contexts for adult nudity, just not a sexual taboo. Again, if the sources do directly contradict this, however, I concede.
"Puritanical" actually very commonly means "fanatical and extreme"; Dictionary.com literally says "excessively" strict and the Cambridge Dictionary includes a belief that "pleasure is wrong and unnecessary". So its use would be editorializing. (Perhaps UK vs. US connotations are at work here?) Meanwhile, "puritan" with a lowercase "p" in this meaning is rare, at least in the US (the exact country it was referring to in your writing) and therefore potentially misleading; Lexico by Oxford literally even gives the synonym of "fanatic". I implore you to use any of a number of other terms, perhaps "provocative" or "offensive" (the most honest notion is probably "shocking/surprising" but that doesn't sound encyclopedic) or perhaps just sticking with "sexual" which adds in the fewest extra assumptions about any specific moral interpretations.
I notice that the abstract for one of the sources says contemporary Americans are implicitly influenced by traditional Puritan-Protestant values. This I can completely get behind. It sounds much more neutral and establishes the social/historical context, unlike the equivalent of "contemporary Americans judge nudity puritanically", which sounds like the author is the one being judgmental. Wolfdog (talk) 02:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
My expertise in psychology, so I know that meaning and connotations are slippery, changing with the times and the context. I grew up in the 50s, so I do remember when the nudity of children in the US was as unremarkable as in Europe, and became close to being the same in the 70s. Not having small children, I have to go by what I read about the general panic over the sexualization of children to gauge current attitudes. I have received negative responses to the inclusion of nude photos of children in this article which I replied to above. Your response to my recent edit was simply a revert. Do you have any alternative wording? What I object to is "however, for many centuries, the prevailing perception of nudity in public life has been one of shame or taboo." I'm saying this is the American attitude, not prevailing. Also, I really thought that I had clarified the statement about ambivalence.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I apologize in assuming I had clarified as well. I reverted for disagreements or confusions about the European perspective, about syntax (strange punctuation surrounding an included citation), about unnecessary focus on the U.S. (which I now understand as relevant), and about editorializing language (the use of "puritanically" for the U.S. rather than something like "negatively", and the mention that "nudity is acknowledged as healthy" in Europe, which suggests a favoring bias, rather than something like "nudity is considered healthy"). I also want to add that, even in your edits, when you suggest that these positive European attitudes stem from the late 19th century, this still remains mutually inclusive with my observation that for many centuries, the prevailing perception of nudity in public life has been one of shame or taboo. (i.e. Even you admit that the positive perception of nudity in Europe is only a relatively recent development.)
OK. So now here is a possible merger of our two edits that I'd accept: The second is based upon the Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—which have viewed being naked as shameful and essentially negative. The fundamental teachings of these religions prohibit public and sometimes also private nudity. The interaction between the Greek classical and later Abrahamic traditions has resulted in Western ambivalence, with nudity acquiring both positive and negative meanings in individual psychology, in social life, and in artistic depictions.(BarcanWolfdog (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Agreement
@Wolfdog: This section is just to break up the discussion for easier editing.
I agree with your proposed text, but am embarrassed to say that in editing in side-by-side windows instead of full screen, I see that the intro is too long, and a lot of detail should be moved to the Cultural Differences section. I have also been distracted because the other articles I work on which are topical have needed my attention.
Graywalls
The citation style of this article is Template:Sfn, which was the case before I began editing here a few months ago. The wp guideline is to maintain a citation style within an article and not change it without a consensus. I happened to like sfn, since it makes it easier to make multiple references to the same source and list the references by type (article, book, or web) in alpha order by author; so I converted the old citation to sfn.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I was too until editing this article. It involves adding a citation to the list of sources, then using a template to link to the text inline. Very similar to an old-fashioned bibliography. I completed my academic degrees in the dark ages, so it seems natural to me.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 05:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
French children's book
@Graywalls:
The new content on a demonstration in support of the book "Tous à Poil" is orphaned by the removal of the content describing the book itself. Perhaps that content needs a better source, but Melville House is a website about books, not a personal blog, so I do not understand the link to "self published" sources.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
The source you restored back is a blog. Please see WP:SPS. Some guy person "Zeljka Marosevic is the former managing director of Melville House UK." wrote that reflection, so, this makes it a business blog, because, the author had total control over the contents. This is no different from reflections/rambling about coffee from mom and pop coffee shop's home page. Along with the restoration of non-RS, you removed the journalism based RS. Graywalls (talk) 16:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
@Graywalls:; I don't understand your characterization of the Melville House source. It appears to be a well-written commentary regarding a book by a woman (not some guy) who has had a career in publishing. Its not the NYTimes, but the Melville House site is not a mom and pop blog either. Regarding what I removed, the quality of the source does not matter it the content is incomplete. There was a naked protest in support of a book, but nothing about the book and why they were protesting. Should all mention of Tous à Poil be deleted?
It would have been more relevant and direct if your research has found the Melville House is the publisher of Tous à Poil, and thus not an unbiased source. I found this fact by doing a university library search, in an academic paper that I will use as a replacement source for the book.
By the way, this article uses sfn citations. It had a mixture of citation styles when I first stated editing, but since sfn predominated, I converted all of them to be consistent per WP:Citation templates. I like sfn because it makes it easy to make multiple references to the same source with page numbers. I will convert the "thelocal.fr" source to this format, and add url-access=limited since this website requires a subscription for viewing more than one page.
--WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
The "Zeljka Marosevic" source is a BLOG, because the author themself has full and total control over the contents, so it would have less of editorial oversight than letter to the editor section of a newspaper. I liken it to the managing director of a dealership posting on his blog on the dealership web domain based and jotting out his thoughts and reflections on an automotive trend, but it can not be treated as if their blog is an article from Motor Trend. If their blog references Motor Trend article, then we cite that article instead and remove references to the dealership or its managing director's blog. The managing director or the dealership has no business being cited on a general automotive trend related stuff. Graywalls (talk) 05:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
If someone feels like putting it in, this is worth inclusion. He got arrested,then it was later thrown out. The ruling is certainly noteworthy. I might get around to it eventually if nobody is interested. Graywalls (talk) 06:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if its noteworthy, more like an episode from Portlandia. The NPR transcript indicates an immature young man who participated in an actual protest, the Naked Bike Ride, and used that as justification for self-indulgent behavior. This was in 2008, so the judge's ruling did not apparently become a precedent.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
"judge has cleared a Northeast Portland nude bicyclist of criminal indecent exposure charges, saying cycling naked has become a "well-established tradition" in Portland and understood as a form of "symbolic protest."" Graywalls (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Source for this topic, global pov
I have relied upon Ruth Barcan's book, and cited it (perhaps too) often. In the introduction she mentions the difficulty of saying anything about nudity due to it's being literally unmentionable, even in academia. There is the additional problem of "everyday life" not being studied and reported in reliable sources. What sources are then left for cultural differences? Rick Steves is a well-known travel writer, and gives candid advice for American travelers. Perhaps his advice to visitors regarding what they might see in a medical context crosses a line in being attributed to a friend, but his general observations are based upon many visits he has made; not really much different from the participant observations of an anthropologist. The reference for streaking, with the list of purposes, was pulled from the section in exhibitionism, were it remains. I found a study which was limited to the 70s fad, perhaps that is all that is needed.
With regard to the section tag regarding a lack of global coverage, that is also a result of the above. Debate tends to be limited to the US because it is not a topic of interest either because it does not exist (the Muslim world) or it is so common there is nothing to say (northern Europe). --WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
People that engage in (insert thing here) related to nudity
@WriterArtistDC:, following up to whether to retain or not photographers in the article. I don't think adding people who do peripheral activities into the subject is justified after looking at other articles. You don't see Rock climbing with a name drop of sports photographers. There's no culinary photographers' names dropped in talked about in sushi and people in French cuisine are people credited with having something to do with it. Not a list of businesses that have wiki page that serves french food, or photographers with wiki pages that merely draw pictures of, or photographrs who photograph French Food. Graywalls (talk) 01:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
These are not photographers hired to shoot something that would go on without them. Spencer Tunick, in particular, creates something by inviting people to be nude in public, and they come as volunteers. His career has gone from being arrested in NYC for having a few people pose on the street to having thousands pose with official cooperation. Both the number of volunteers and the cooperation say something about a particular aspect of nudity. The German guy may be copycat, but seems worthy of mention.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
"Most German (not to mention French, Spanish and Greek) beaches and swimming pools offer FKK (clothing-optional) areas."
It is an obvious lie (and the author did not even provide a source for it) that *most* swimming pools in Germany, France, Spain and Greece offer clothing-optional areas. I have never once seen a regular swimming pool in Germany that offered a "clothing-optional" area outside of "wellness" complexes where nudity is compulsory. I don't doubt that degenerate Germans have *some* swimming pools where there is a clothing-optional area, but I have never seen any evidence that 51%+ offer such a stupid concept. Fix it geniuses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C0:732:EE00:4B1:4824:B088:B5FE (talk) 08:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Look in the cited sources. Some weren't in English. If you can read those language, read them. If the sources don't DIRECTLY support something and you find it contentious, remove or rewrite the part of prose to make it fit around what can be supported by the included source. You could also go find sources to support something that's not sourced. Explain briefly in edit summar. Graywalls (talk) 05:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
I can't edit the article because some wimp decided to semi-protect it and I'm not going to create an account here. Suffice it to say that the singular piece of evidence provided for the claims above is inadequate. It does not address clothing-optional swimming pools and definitely does not claim that "most" German swimming pools accommodate degenerate nudits. And the next sentence, that claims that German-style saunas have gained popularity in neighboring countries, is also not supported. The source states clearly that German-style, coed-nudity saunas have "become popular (in Germany) amongst vacationers from neighboring countries" and says nothing of their popularity in the respective countries. The text is extremely explicit. Whoever authored the text on wikipedia is trying to mislead us or simply doesn't understand the German language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C0:711:2500:C73:93B2:7E74:17E0 (talk) 10:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Nnever acceptable per WP:IUC and WP:NPA: derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religious or political beliefs, disabilities, ethnicity, nationality, etc. These words "degenerate Germans" and "degenerate nudists" really sound like deliberate attacks. WP:CIVIL -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Lack of page numbers and ambiguous words
This article has had issues with claims projecting past what's directly supportable. Some of the recently added contents are lacking page numbers from the books used; on top of ambiguous wording like "might include". Please include page numbers each time a reference is used so to allow easier verification.
Graywalls (talk) 05:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
I have revised the content recently added from a book on public bath houses. The book goes into great detail, much of which is off-topic relative to this article. When summarizing an entire chapter, making generalizations about Europe based upon what the book says about individual countries, my first impulse was to use equivocal wording. I cannot find any other instances where "might" is used inappropriately.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Having no response, and also because OR was not the issue in recent content discussion but instead reliability of sources and completeness of citations, I will remove the tag.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
YouTube
@48Pills:, you restored questionble sources and your edit summary has no context to the action taken, which said "you edited two of my edits over two different articles w/o explanation.you must be a bot???". Per our sourcing guidelines, YouTube can only be used in very limited situations. I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish in this edit, so please kindly explain why you did what you did here. Thank you, Graywalls (talk) 03:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
@48Pills:, this is the article talk page and I am asking you to clarify your edit, because I don't understand why you reinserted YouTube links with regard to the edit I referenced in the first post. Graywalls (talk) 04:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#YouTube indicates "Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability".
BBC Studios is considered reliable for Wikipedia. The documentary illustrates exactly the point "In sub-Saharan Africa, full nudity or nudity below the waist is the norm among some ethnic and family groups—including some Burkinabese and Nilo-Saharan (e.g. Nuba and Surma people)—in daily life or on particular occasions. For example, at highly attended stick-fighting tournaments.
The BBC one, I remember I took it off initially. It didn't quite explain the context beyond that this stick fighting thing occurs, but didn't explain if such nudity was confined to very limited occasions or if it's a common thing. @Basile Morin:Graywalls (talk) 05:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
@Basile Morin:, still misleading. Just as saying "In Europe, riding bicycle in full nudity or nudity below the waist is the norm among some people in daily life or on particular occasions. For example, at highly attended World Naked Bike Ride[1] " I edited that part and it should more accurately reflect what the video actually support. Graywalls (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
This article has had issues with claims projecting past what's directly supportable. Some of the recently added contents are lacking page numbers from the books used; on top of ambiguous wording like "might include". Please include page numbers each time a reference is used so to allow easier verification.
Graywalls (talk) 05:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
I have revised the content recently added from a book on public bath houses. The book goes into great detail, much of which is off-topic relative to this article. When summarizing an entire chapter, making generalizations about Europe based upon what the book says about individual countries, my first impulse was to use equivocal wording. I cannot find any other instances where "might" is used inappropriately.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Having no response, and also because OR was not the issue in recent content discussion but instead reliability of sources and completeness of citations, I will remove the tag.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
YouTube
@48Pills:, you restored questionble sources and your edit summary has no context to the action taken, which said "you edited two of my edits over two different articles w/o explanation.you must be a bot???". Per our sourcing guidelines, YouTube can only be used in very limited situations. I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish in this edit, so please kindly explain why you did what you did here. Thank you, Graywalls (talk) 03:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
@48Pills:, this is the article talk page and I am asking you to clarify your edit, because I don't understand why you reinserted YouTube links with regard to the edit I referenced in the first post. Graywalls (talk) 04:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#YouTube indicates "Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability".
BBC Studios is considered reliable for Wikipedia. The documentary illustrates exactly the point "In sub-Saharan Africa, full nudity or nudity below the waist is the norm among some ethnic and family groups—including some Burkinabese and Nilo-Saharan (e.g. Nuba and Surma people)—in daily life or on particular occasions. For example, at highly attended stick-fighting tournaments.
The BBC one, I remember I took it off initially. It didn't quite explain the context beyond that this stick fighting thing occurs, but didn't explain if such nudity was confined to very limited occasions or if it's a common thing. @Basile Morin:Graywalls (talk) 05:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
@Basile Morin:, still misleading. Just as saying "In Europe, riding bicycle in full nudity or nudity below the waist is the norm among some people in daily life or on particular occasions. For example, at highly attended World Naked Bike Ride[1] " I edited that part and it should more accurately reflect what the video actually support. Graywalls (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
There were only perhaps a dozen ref tags remaining, all for websites that lacked authors. They have been converted to sfn templates using the old ref name=identifier. Sorry if most of the edit summaries used during this process seem cryptic.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Vital article, but wrong category
I certainly think Nudity is a vital topic in Everyday life, but don't understand its listing under "Clothing and fashion" along with other garments. I have proposed moving it to the category Sexuality and gender on the talk page.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Non-western content
I have managed to find sources for colonialism, and a few for contemporary non-western cultures, but the obvious problem is that there are no contemporary images of men in the indigenous gallery. Searching found none in Commons.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
The archive link to the Lonely Planet website works, so there is no immediate need to replace it, but I will look at the new source to see if it has better and more current information on Korean bathhouses.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
It's racist to have an image of an asian man with a small penis, replace it with an asian with a big one.
Peer review
My request for peer review of this article came and went without comment. Could I get some indication from anyone about what I have done in the past months? Any opinions about the article size? I have been considering what content could be moved to a new article, beginning with the Prehistory of nakedness and clothing.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
@WriterArtistDC: I'm new to the peer review process, so if I miss the mark of the intention, I apologize.
I think this is a very well developed article. It has breadth and scope. I think it does a good job of at least touching most of the areas of human experience where nudity is a factor. Overall, it has a good encyclopedia tone to it. Yes, it is a somewhat long article, but it's a general topic that has a lot of sub-categories, so it needs the breadth. I think you've done a good job shaping it.
The references are well developed. I like how they are organized into sections (books, magazines, web sites, etc.).
It seems well illustrated with appropriate imagery.
Many of the sections have links to help readers find more information through "further" and "see also" links.
The linking level is good in general. I don't get the impression of a "sea of blue"; things seem appropriately linked to enhance a reader's understanding. However, I do note that there is some redundant linking. For instance, the words Abrahamic religions, Islamic countries, ancient Greece, and embarrassment are used as links more than once. I find that the Highlight duplicate links tool is helpful for finding these.
In the photo gallery Cultural differences in childhood nudity, all of the photos show some form of childhood nudity, which is to say, there are no contrasting photos of cultures not condoning childhood nudity, thus, no "differences". Maybe re-title the gallery?
I wonder if the Cultural Differences section is necessary? The concepts contained in it are covered in other sections, so this section seems redundant.
I think the overall article needs some development from Latin American, African, Pacific Islander and indigenous (North American peoples, as well as Incan, Aztec, Mayan and other pre-colonial) cultural perspectives, historical and modern.
Concerning the Openness to nudity and sexuality section: could this information be rolled up into others? It doesn't seem as cohesive as other parts of the article. It seems like a recitation of bullet points ("in 2001...", "As part of a science program...", "As of 2015..."). Perhaps each of these points might fit better in other areas of the article, then delete this section. For instance, the first four paragraphs concern children learning about sexuality. Might these be integrated into the Child development section above? Could this section be boiled down? Does it (from an encyclopedic perspective) require this much text (in the context of the larger article)? Maybe some of this information could be moved to the Nudity and sexuality article?
Removing this section would allow the remaining subsections (High and low context cultures, Concepts of privacy and Gender differences) to move up and fit more coherently under the Cultural differences heading, making for more logical development of the idea.
I wonder if the Laws regarding public nudity section could be trimmed? Like others, it has a Main article link, but there is more text under this section than similar ones, so it doesn't seem like a summary but rather is trying to be the main article. Could some of this info be transferred to the main article?
There are two sections that don't have any text, just See also and Further information links (Clothing optional recreation and Erotic performances). I think these need further development. Maybe summary text just to give some context? Or perhaps remove these section and put the links under See also at the end of the article?
The first image in the gallery on childhood is from the US, with clothed swimmers from the same period as the next two, Israel and Germany with nudity.
Openness could be combined with Sexual and non-sexual?
Yes, General issues and Cultural differences overlap, I will combine and reorganize the subsections. Will look at the Laws section.
Began fix of two empty (link only) sections by converting Erotic performances to content flagged for citations, which I am researching. Frankly, the academic research veers away from the everyday into esoteric territory with regard to the present day, but I did find some interesting historical references.
All of the "Openness" content was about sex ed, so I moved that content under the Childhood section and renamed it. I have reorganized General issues and Cultural difference under Contemporary issues. I am thinking of integrating Contemporary social practices into this new section, since most of these practices relate to "Sexual and non-sexual nudity".--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Globalization
Reorganization and cleanup has resulted in a section on Contemporary social practices with two subsections that I have tagged for globalization. I have no idea where to look for sources on these topics. It may well be that organized Naturism is entirely a Western phenomenon, even when practiced worldwide at resorts, since they cater to a Westernized clientele. Globalization plagues the topic generally, since it is not a topic discussed in many cultures. However, there should be information on South America that is missing, but not likely published in English.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Rearrangements
The history content got a bit jumbled as I added content from different references, not all of which agreed. I have tried to fix this, but have more to do, including re-reading the sources to clarify what is supported.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Balancing article content
I am proceeding with the balancing of content between Nudity and History of nudity, which means mostly copying from here to there, and condensing what remains. According to WP:Copying within Wikipedia there is no need for me to attribute this content, since I am moving text I wrote myself. According to XTools I have contributed 80% of the text here, and 66% there. Apparently the guideline states that I need to say this in each edit summary, which I have not always done before, but will now do so.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
With respect to the United states
This article should make mention of the fact that in the United States Nudity does not necessarily equate to obscenity/pornography. See, e.g. Miller v. California 413 U.S. 15 (1973), United States v. Dost 636 F. Supp. 828 (S.D. Cal. 1986), United States v. Dost 575 F.2d 1303 (1978), etc. There have been more than a few law reviews on the subject and it should be ripe for inclusion. 98.178.191.34 (talk) 02:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Can you write out the paragraph or sentence you want to see inserted into the article, complete with references, and indicate where it should go? Then we can look at including it. —VeryRarelyStable03:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
This article should make mention of the fact that in the United States Nudity does not necessarily equate to obscenity/pornography. See, e.g. Miller v. California 413 U.S. 15 (1973), United States v. Dost 636 F. Supp. 828 (S.D. Cal. 1986), United States v. Dost 575 F.2d 1303 (1978), etc. There have been more than a few law reviews on the subject and it should be ripe for inclusion. 98.178.191.34 (talk) 02:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Can you write out the paragraph or sentence you want to see inserted into the article, complete with references, and indicate where it should go? Then we can look at including it. —VeryRarelyStable03:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Clothes free. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 2#Clothes free until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
never acceptable per WP:IUC and WP:NPA: derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religious or political beliefs, disabilities, ethnicity, nationality, etc. These words "degenerate Germans" and "degenerate nudists" really sound like deliberate attacks. WP:CIVIL -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
kept. -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
