Talk:Public nudity

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• Nudity
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:Nudity

This article was nominated for merging with Nudity on 12-12-2019. The result of the discussion (permanent link) was Merge.

Wikipedia is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightst a llion (?) 12:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Clothing-optional activities on public lands → Public nudity – {"Public nudity" is a more common reference for the subject, even though the term "Clothing-optional activities on public lands" is a bit more clear to me and others. I guess I would like others' opinions on this. Dandelion1 21:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)} copied from the entry on the WP:RM page[reply]

Support

I support this move because the general public would more likely use this phrase to refer to the subject Dandelion1 21:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comment input whilst move was underway

~~For the record, I thought I'd still include the following, even though the move occurred whilst I was originally inputting it.~~

~~Add any additional comments~~

Current title [then "Clothing-optional activities on public lands"] strikes me as very cumbersome, as if trying to be "politically correct" but with tongue-in-cheek? So I support a change to something straightforward. However, I propose Public naturism or Naturism (public) in case there are people who'd be perturbed by an article title including the word "nudity" or "nudism".

~~Regards, David Kernow 13:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

I would strongly disagree with the suggestion to use "naturism" or "nudism" in the title of the article. Many who engage in nudity on public lands are NOT naturists or nudists and would cringe from the association. Also, the use of those phrases is not common at all. Dandelion1 18:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck out my observation above as I agree it was ill-conceived. Thank you for pointing this out. David Kernow 22:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for cleanup

This article, and particularly the Non-sexualized section needs some cleanup. Currently it reads as a collection of disjointed observations. There is a lot of material in there which can be used but it should be moved out of list format whenever possible. --StuffOfInterest 19:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overkill

Does this article REALLY need so many images and so many (unsourced) quotes? wikipediatrix 23:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Feel free to fix it. Just zis Guy you know? 11:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just did. Left only the celebrity quotes, and removed a few images that already appear on other articles, plus one that was just plain silly and borderline spammy. Also corrected "Wiccan" to "Neo-Pagan": Wiccans aren't the only people who say "skyclad". wikipediatrix 02:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't there be a source for the claim that according to Oregon law nudity is covered as First Amendment expressive conduct and therefore legal as long as it is not of a sexual nature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.17.250.157 (talk) 06:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: topless protest image

I've added this image as an example of a protest where toplessness is being used as an attention-getter or "draw" for an issue other than toplessness itself. Please note that the caption up to and inclusive of "2005" is required by the license of the image and must not be altered or removed. The portion of the caption after "2005" is my addition and could be altered, if needed. Kasreyn 11:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image

I removed the image because it is a still from a film, which is essetially a situation constructed for tittilation, according to the links attached to the image. Images used with permission are in any case deprecated (more than other forms of unfree image) and in this case it appears that the article is being used to promote the film and its maker, and I am not comfortable with that. Please do not reinsert without discussion. Just zis Guy you know? 16:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you are talking about concerning tittilation. Charles Macfarland has several film showing society's response to public nudity and so it fits in well to this article. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 01:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a single Macfarland shot is fine, three is a bit much. A shot from Spencer Tunick might also be appropriate in this article. We should distinguish clearly photographs that identify different forms of public nudity. Titillation is certainly one of them, and there's nothing wrong with showing that. Other forms include: public nudity as an artform (Tunick etc.), as a lifestyle choice, as a way to generate attention for an unrelated issue (war protests etc.), as a method of publicly expressing an attitude specifically about sexuality and the human body, as part of other activities like sports (should not be staged), and as a punishment. The social reactions to it are also important (the arrest shot is good in that regard).

This article is about public nudity, and I would like it to be richly illustrated in an informative manner. I would recommend the following specific steps: 1) Removal of the naked riding photo (staged from movie, at best duplicates the "titillating" photo, and could be intepreted as promotional for Macfarland); 2) Removal of "Naked celebration" photo from Macfarland -- not particularly high quality and duplicates "Nude & Breast Freedom Parada" in its content; 3) Addition of a photo illustrating nudism, e.g. Image:Bredene naturist beach in belgium cropped.jpg, 4) Addition of one of Tunick's photos, e.g. Image:SpencerTunick-Brugge2.jpg. For historical goodness, John Collier's painting of Lady Godiva might make a nice addition.--Eloquence * 23:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

leading image

Why did we change the lead image of File:Petra+fishermen.jpg with

The young people hiking in the woods in the Czech Republic was perfect. The Adamites image is black and white, and note at all visually interesting (to me). Besides, how is a religious cult a good lead image for this article?

Atom 00:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, think about what message it sends. The image of the young people in the park is a positive one: their nudity is obviously peaceful and accepted, there are smiles all around. Now compare the Adamites: nudity is portrayed in the context of upheaval, torment, and cruelty. I'm certainly not denying that nudists have historically been persecuted. But I have no doubt which is the more appropriate image to begin with: Petra+fishermen.jpg. Kasreyn 01:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the look on the face of that boy with the blue cap is priceless. 193.217.240.102 01:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as there has been no response in four days, no one must care much about it. I'm switching the images back to where they were, pending further discussion. Kasreyn 23:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it think the article looks much better like that (after change to put petra_fisherman at the top, and adamites back in their section). Atom 15:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a far better scan from the Wellcome Library is available:

--Fæ (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have swapped this jpg for the previous one, and also changed the caption to match the title of the new jpg. Polly Tunnel (talk) 11:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RATM protest

I notice that we have an image of the Rage Against the Machine protest of the PMRC (in which they sacrificed their timeslot at a concert while standing nude with taped mouths and "P M R C" written on their chests). I'm not sure whether adding this might be a bit too many nude protest images; would three be too many? Kasreyn 02:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Way too many images

We all (all of us with the gift of sight) know what a nude person is and what the outdoors looks like. Most of the images here are redundant - 2 or 3 of the most technically excellent images, or images related to important events in the history of public nudity, are all that's needed. Currently the article has 12+ images, with the only common theme being "naked people, outside". Seen one, you've seen 'em all! (excluding certain artworks, which may or may not be relevant) --kingboyk 15:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just deleted the most recent addition while reverting another edit. Should I perhaps remove some of the other ones as well? -- NORTH ^talk 22:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are all the photos predominantly of nude women? --71.158.215.87 (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a lot easier to get women to take their clothes off.--Damorbel (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just reviews the article, and there seem to be about the right amount of images. Perhaps three images in lede is more than needed, but the article is readable, and each of the images seems to be on topic, and add something meaningful to the article. Also, there seems to be quite a number of nude men in the images, even if not precisely the same as the number of nude women. I don't think it is unfairly weighted. Atom (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont

I'm just posting this here because my edit summary for my last edit was truncated. There's been a minor revert war going on regarding a link to the story in Brattleboro. I feel that the story is relevant, but I also agree that the link to the blog entry was inappropriate for this context. So instead I've included a link to a better article with a non-spam link. -- NORTH ^talk 09:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beach Photograph

This image is absolutely unnecessary. There are more images in this article than there are in the PHOTOGRAPHY wiki--riiiiight. The image clearly isn't a candid one, it's a model posing for the shot, it's Photoshopped, it's -porn-. Are people so dumb that they can't imagine for themselves what a nude person on a beach might look like, even after being shown TWO (!!) nude people in a forest? --Somnilocus 11:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see more images of public nudity, to accurately represent how widespread it really is. It is not something commonly covered in the media. As for "porn", everyone has their opinion on whatthat means. A healthy and natural naked body isn't remotely close to porn in my book. Atom 13:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine--photos of an actual NUDE BEACH. But a posed Photoshopped portrait of a woman on a beach with her genital area shaved to expose her vagina is slightly different, no? Yeah. --Somnilocus 02:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Well, people pose for photos all the time. I see nude women frequently, and most of them shave, or wax their pubic area. Many women also pluck their eyebrows and nosehair, that doesn't make pictures of them pornography. As for her vagina, well, you'd have to have xray vision for that. The best I can see is her mons, and labia. As far as I know, most nude women have a mons venus and labia. Again, nothing to do with pornography. Are you trying to say that you find the picture arousing, and therfore, it must be pornography because it arouses you? Atom 03:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone manages their pubic hair doesn't make every photo of them porn, no. Having said that, I think Image:Formentera_i_Eivissa_016_cropped.jpg (used on the Nudity page) illustrates nude beaches better- you can't even see a beach in Image:BuoyIK.jpg... Fishies Plaice 11:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that because of THAT, it was porn. But when you put those things together, it's done for a purpose, is it not? The point is, it doesn't show what nude beaches are truly like. People who go to them aren't all blonde-haired, blue-eyed women in perfect shape posing on the shore with little pink accessories, and then go on to have their skin photoshopped to remove imperfections etc etc. It's not a photo that was taken for the purpose of documenting nude beaches. Notice I'm not complaining about the other nude beach pictures, Atom. Is the point of Wikipedia to show what things are really like, or what they could be like in a perfect, flawless world? Leave out the personal comments, too, please--I'm actually a heterosexual female, thank you. --Somnilocus 12:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about public nudity, not about beaches, or nude beaches. YOu are right that the picture does not really suggest whether she is at a public or private beach. Atom 22:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the beach photo (Image:BuoyIK.jpg) actually is, it looks like a soft core porn photo, not a picture of everyday public nudity. It makes the article worse, not better. -- Siobhan Hansa 15:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah yeah thats great idc. its a picture. shes not doing anything with a guy. i think people will get the point. its not intended to be porn. mygod.

I would tend to agree with those who oppose the image's inclusion. Per Somnilocus, I think images should at least appear to be candid, rather than obviously staged as this one is. There should also be something to indicate that the nudity actually took place in public - how else could it be public nudity? Since "public" is defined not as "the outdoors" but as "the presence of other people", I'd say to be a candidate, a photo should include at least two or three other persons who are, or could be, viewing the nude person(s). Kasreyn 07:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One or more people have been putting images of this same woman in multiple articles. In several cases there was almost no relevance to the topic at hand. I've removed those but others are more borderline. This one, and others which look staged, should very likely go from this article and any beach related articles. --StuffOfInterest 13:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nudity is natural. Clothes are in the store. Skin is no a sin. You are all your body. There are not bad parts in it. Change your mind. Accept your body as it is, cause it is your natural esence. Body is all natural. Bad moral in antinatural. We are human beings with a human body. We can´t deny our constitution. We are not gods. Nudity is not guilty. Get naked in public and art expession yourself. Wear the clothes you want to wear. Be free to wear nothing.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.37.36.93 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 8 February 2007.

Solo photos should NOT be disqualified on that basis alone. (see User:Kasreyn above). To be nude on public land doesn't require the presence of another person. A tripod can be the holder of a camera. Other persons would be required in other cases (ex: titillation[1], exhibitionism, voyeurism) where action/reaction defines the behavior. BodyPride 19:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted "Establishing expectations"

Events which include public nudity are generally classified by whether or not activities are sexualized. This enables potential participants who are concerned about sexual activities to avoid such events. Organized naturist events will normally be understood to be non-sexual, in both public or social (non-intimate) situations.

Generally, the reputation of an event is widely known. If the event includes both sexual and non-sexual activities, the areas of sexual activity can be segregated with restricted access or proper signage. In cases where organizers want participants to be clear about what to expect, they will clearly advertise and label the event as being family-friendly, non-sexual, naturist, or nudist. This will avoid unwanted behavior and garnish community support. In any event the organizers should enforce good manners and appropriate behavior as problems occur.

In high visibility events, this clarity of context often helps determine whether participants can be cited for indecent exposure or whether the activities may be legally deemed obscene, lewd, or lascivious.

I have deleted this part because it has no relevance. Gardenparty (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Topfree fashion image removal

I disagree with some of your changes and will revert the image removals tomorrow. The way to work on Wikipedia is to build consensus when someone takes an issue with changes to long-standing article format, not just edit war with the person. Your etiquette in this regard is poor. See you on the article tomorrow. --David Shankbone 23:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, your image is not that great. Please explain why it should be at the top as an example of public nudity. There are other better images and I will replace weaker ones with stronger ones.User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 23:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Libertarian link

Why was this removed as an EL? It seems on topic and gives a fair amount of info re. public nudity, laws, etc.Bob98133 (talk) 13:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Necesity

I think this is a good addition to the article, but placing it so high up gives it undue importance, since the article focuses more on voluntary public nudity - so it doesn't address forced public nudity in concentration camps, tribal nudity or other non-voluntary public nudity. Maybe it could be moved closer to the bottom of the article?Bob98133 (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Boys in India

The images of adults I don't mind, but I think the images of children are inappropriate and should be removed. Though they are not erotic in nature, in some jurisdictions the mere fact that they are not legal adults classifies this as child pornography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.53.15 (talk) 09:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Get over it. There are nude images of under-age humans in the Holocaust article, too. Should history and reality be rewritten to accomodate restrictive laws? Should medical journals be allowed to publish images of examples of childhood diseases if the children are naked or immodestly clothed? Encyclopedias? If you believe that you are committing a crime by viewing these images, please turn yourself in. Disagee. Bob98133 (talk) 12:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The really stupid thing is that, technically, the IP user user is probably correct, at least for the UK. But I agree with you, Bob98133. It's an encyclopaedia. There is nothing sexual in the pictures. Get Over It! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But then the only deciding factor is if it's legal in the US where it is hosted and despite what people may think nude pictures of children have NEVER been illegal. This picture imo is not child pornography so there can't be a problem. Biofase ^flame| stalk 15:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary defines pornography as explicit depiction of sexual subject matter. There was nothing sexual about that image therefor it was not pornography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.81.65 (talk) 03:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This picture was probably taken without the permission of the boys. It therefore infringes their privacy. The picture is therefore deleted. Walker99 (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this deletion most strongly. There are no privacy issues to discuss here. The only issues are lawfulness. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read these pages: [2] and [3]. There are privacy issues. This is a place where people (except paedophiles) do not openly take photographs. You cannot simply say "there are no issues". You need to give reasons.

You are the one trying to censor stuff, not me. The place is a public place. There are no privacy issues. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know it is a public place? There is no one else here, except the boys. As I said before, this is not a place where photography is accepted or expected. Walker99 (talk) 01:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a beach. Beaches are generally public places, unless they're part of some private hotel or estate. Per one of the Commmons articles you linked to, public photographs in India do not need the permission of the participants to be taken or published. Do you have any evidence this is a private location? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The picture does not "ensure a quality article [nor] complete coverage of its subject matter". The picture doesn't contribute to the stated purpose of objectionable material and thus WP:CENSOR does not support the inclusion of the picture. Therefore, its inclusion is incorrect. The picture's also wrong because it's objectionable and children have a certain sacrosanct status and lack of judgement and because the picture is just plain ugly. 110.55.2.46 (talk) 10:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spain

Remove the stuff about nudity being legal in Spain. It is simply not true. The Spanish naturist federation claims that it is, but the only true part of their claim is that it can't be prosecuted anymore on the basis of a law against disrupting public morals, since this law has been repealed. However, it is possible on the basis of other laws. The situation is no different than that in other European countries, neither on paper nor in practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.29.77.101 (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC) The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. One can't prove one's innocence; others have to prove one's guilt. My reference is the entire corpus of Spanish law, where a right to be nude doesn't exist. Impractical? Yes. That is why the person who claims that the legal situation in Spain is different than elsewhere in Europe has the burden of providing a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.29.77.101 (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nudity in Religion

Much of this section is obviously oppinionated. It reffers to a sect of christianity as "obscure". It also states that the the society was absolutly lawless which is not only a political impossibility, but also an unsourced statement.67.181.81.65 (talk) 03:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

During the Middle Ages, the doctrines of this obscure sect were revived: in the Netherlands by the Brethren of the Free Spirit and the Taborites in Bohemia, and, in a grosser form, by the Beghards in Germany.

I'm not sure what this means. The colon seems misplaced, and I have no idea what is meant by the *grosser form* of the German revival. I'd suggest something like the following might be what's intended, but since I know nothing about it I don't want to edit this myself.

Suggested edit: During the Middle Ages, the doctrines of this sect were revived by the Brethren of the Free Spirit in the Netherlands, by the Taborites in Bohemia, and by the Beghards in Germany.

TRiG (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legality / Laws

Can someone provide an overview of where public nudity is officially legal resp. not? Maybe there's also different degrees of legality (topless / total), degrees of penalties and enforcement. A map like that on the page for Same-sex marriage would be perfect, but for a start, a text list would be fully sufficient I think. 82.209.175.58 (talk) 06:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be far more complicated than the same-sex marriage map. Whether same-sex marriages are legal or not tends to apply uniformly across a country (or at least a state), the laws on public nudity can vary down to the level of it being legal an illegal on adjacent beaches, and in many countries whether it is legal or illegal in a given place can have no bearing on whether or not you will be arrested for it - topfreedom even more so. Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another legal matter: As discussed in the section about the image of the boys in India, there is a legal aspect to posting, downloading, etc. (and even viewing?) nude images on-line. Personally, I am not offended by nude images, but I would like to make sure the images on this article and others do not overstep the legal rights of those in the pictures. Does anyone know the laws on this? Here is a link to a page that discusses this: http://www.nudistlaw.com/new_page_3.htm#sent. How accurate does this seem?75.80.99.100 (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 2013 July 18 edit by Timtrent about legality in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland may be unintentionally misleading. The UK comprises three distinct legislative areas: England and Wales; Scotland; Northern Ireland. The law relating to Northern Ireland will normally be identical to that enacted for England and Wales - and I believe this is the case for all matters relating to public nudity. But Scottish law is distinct in a great many respects. In regard to public nudity, I believe it can be prosecuted successfully as a Breach of the Peace, for example. The specific legislation cited by Timtrent is England-and-Wales legislation, and its wording, enforcement, case law and other details may be slightly or substantially different in Northern Ireland and Scotland. See the famous/infamous example of Stephen Gough. While Timtrent's information is a good summary in regard to England and Wales, I think it needs either a clear restriction to these countries, or comparable cited information for Northern Ireland and Scotland. Tim Forcer (talk) 08:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with you. If you can cite difference please go ahead. The challenge we have with WIkipedia is that it reflects cited facts, and these are not always 100% congruent with reality. I added the cited fact which may or may not be the complete picture. Fiddle Faddle 08:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is not yet consensus to make the change to England and Wales. WIthout a citation this is original research, I'm afraid. So I have had to revert it. I appreciate the good faith with which the edit was performed. Fiddle Faddle 10:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nude sunbathing.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Nude sunbathing.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legalizing public nudity

Do you think public nudity for both sexes and all ages should be legal permanently?--Jasonfitz (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but Wikipedia talk pages are not a place to start a forum discussion (see WP:NOTFORUM). This page may only be used to suggest changes to the article itself. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kids skinny dipping in India.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kids skinny dipping in India.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Kids skinny dipping in India.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edits by user:Ewawer

I have now reverted, twice, the edits by this user, invoking the topic in the essay Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I believe that the edits have changed, by subtle usage of words, the tone of the article. I also note a recent block of the user for edit warring. If these edits are to hold sway consensus must be built for them first. Simply restoring them is wholly insufficient. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see what the issue is here. I merely moved a paragraph from the nudity in protest section, because it had nothing to do with protest, to the lead. The paragraph merely said that one doesn't have to belong to a naturist club etc to be nude in public. As for having been blocked - what relevance has that got here? Enthusiast (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fiddle Faddle, could you explain how the rephrasing changed the meaning? While I see a little difference, it's unclear to me how significant it is. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that the sense was shifted subtly towards an article about campaigns for nudity or nudity being used as a campaigning tool. Prior to the edits, which are not solely the movement of a paragraph, but are some subtle wording changes, the was article somewhat more factual. I have no objection to the changes provided always that consensus agrees them. My objective in reverting the edit and requesting discussion the first tome was to seek to achieve that consensus after a bold edit. That is normal. The fact that this was not discussed but merely reverted, while not against policy is against custom and practice. The block is relevant since it was previously for edit warring, and was recent.

It is somewhat ingenuous to say that the edit was simply a paragraph move. I agree that it was subtle, and could well be considered by some to be a simple wording enhancement. I disagree with that unless and until a consensus is reached upon it, at which point I will become content.

I am not about to get into a revert cycle over this. My objective is a simple discussion. The relevant diffs are first set and second set I am far more interested in the subtle alterations to wording than I am in the migration of a paragraph. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timtrent, you didn't actually answer the question. And while Don't revert due to No Consensus is just an essay, it's one that applies exceedingly well here. There is not, nor has there ever been, a requirement that people get consensus first prior to editing. Now, it's fine for you to revert, and then, yes, it's better for Ewawer to come here and discuss rather than re-reverting...but there's nothing for him to discuss until you actually explain what was wrong with the edits. So, again, what is this "subtle shift"? How is the article less factual now? Qwyrxian (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I simply leave it to you and others to determine whether the wording in Ewawer's edits has altered the sense acceptably or unacceptably. I have explained that I am concerned that the sense was shifted subtly towards an article about campaigns for nudity or nudity being used as a campaigning tool. and I stand by that explanation. I made my initial reversion because I disagreed. The original edit was made because Ewawer had something to say. Each of those acts is valid. Now we are discussing it. That's excellent, and as it should be. It is as it should have been after the first reversion. Now it is happening after the second instead. So, rather than being influenced by either me or Ewawer please form your opinion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion, because the the two wordings and orderings seem basically the same to me. So unless you can actually provide a reason why the change is wrong, it should be changed. Now, if you would like to actually provide a reason why/how it subtly shifts the focus of the article, then maybe I'd be inclined to agree with you. But I don't know until you actually articulate that reason. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, I have no objection if consensus moves it that way. I think we need a couple or more additional opinions before a true consensus emerges. If it seems fine to you then I am not about to attempt to sway you, nor will I attempt to sway others. You can either see what I see or not. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting a little frustrated here, andI feel like I must be explaining this wrong somehow.. You can't revert just because a consensus doesn't exist. If you have a specific reason why you feel it's wrong, then articulate that reason here. Wikipedia is a continually evolving text. There's nothing wrong with reverting a change you don't like, but if you can't actually say why other than a vague "I think it makes a subtle change that isn't good, somehow", then others are more than justified in re-reverting you. You've cited no policy, no guideline, nor even explained what is actually subtly wrong. We don't need any more opinions if there is no actual objection other than "there might be an objection". Qwyrxian (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I share your frustration. I have explained perfectly clearly what I see as being awry with the edit, but you seem not to understand. So I conclude that you do not understand me and you conclude that I do not understand you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image deployment in this article

Over time I have defended the inclusion of individual images in this article on the basis that Wikipedia is not censored. Looking at the article as a whole, however, I am not convinced that all the images are necessary to illustrate the article, and feel that some may be there as pure decoration. Accordingly I would like to open up a discussion where editors consider the images on the following basis:

"Does this image add value to the article?"

The images in the article at present are:

The display of nine image files appears to be a heavy image payload, so we need to ensure that each image serves a true purpose of illustrating a point in the article. If it does not then it needs either to be replaced by an image that illustrates that point, assuming the point to be important, or be removed from the article in accordance with our usual practice in other articles. That the pictures are in an article about nudity and are of naked people does not in any way make them or this article a special case. Fiddle Faddle 06:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that I see the problem. Do we go through every article seriously asking,"Does this image add value to the article?". Maybe there are one or two image that the article could do without, maybe not. Does it matter that much? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, our duty is to go through articles and ask that question. That is the way we improve an encyclopaedia. Fiddle Faddle 17:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with user Martin Hogbin. This is simply not that big an issue. My personal preference is for about this level of illustration, which the requesting user Fiddle Faddle finds such "a heavy image payload". Browsing this site and page on my Android tablet, the images appear only as thumbnails any way, unless and until I should decide to open any of them, so the additional download burden for even nine pictures is very small. In my experience of teaching and writing educational materials, people learn best with enough pictures to (a) get their attention (b) provide variety in a sea of black-on-white text and (c) adequately illustrate the points being made.

My only reservation about the pictures in this article is that providing a picture of naked kids seems to me to perhaps not be protecting them from the dangers of the adult world as well as we might. Yes, I do know that, for their own sexual gratification, paedophiles will easily find much more explicit pictures of children online than this one. And yes, I agree that it's not Wikipedia's place to police the morals of its readers, as per policy. And finally, I do appreciate the beauty of the natural world, including the beauty of animal (including human) bodies, of kids and kittens, and give thanks for the abundant beauty of the world. Yet I still wonder what I would say to one of those kids in a dozen years' time, if I had chosen to publish that picture, and if they were to come to me saying, "I wasn't old enough then to protect my own interests. Why didn't you try harder to do it for me?" yoyo (talk) 06:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had not noticed the pictures of children but I do agree with yoyo that we have a stronger duty to protect children from harm. There was a discussion elsewhere that we should not have pictures of children in WP without evidence of consent. I think that principle should be applied here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the image has been nominated for deletion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link to the discussion:[4] --Auric talk 12:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "children" element is a distraction. I am not considering the age of the subjects of the photographs. I am asking whether an image, as an individual image, containing whatever it contains, adds value to the article. If there are reasons for deletion then it is deleted, but that is a different discussion. Fiddle Faddle 17:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But why this particular article? Have you visited other articles to check that there are not too many pictures? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is an irrelevant question. It borders on WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. This is the article under discussion. Fiddle Faddle 19:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant in so far as it may make others think that you have an unstated motive for wanting to remove images from this page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My motive is simple. In any article we assess the content, including the image content, to determine whether the content adds value to the article. In any article that which adds value remains, that which does not is pruned or edited either to remove it or to make it add value. These pictures are not special pictures unless one considers the naked human form to be, in some way, special. There are simply a great number of them, more, perhaps, than is usual on an article on a topic which documents a ship. So, if they are valid here and add value then they should stay. If they are purely for decoration then they should go. We do not simply decorate article with pictures in the same manner that we do not decorate them with words. Alleging that i have motives other than the improvement of Wikipedia is, at best, unpleasant, at worst something else. What I have done is formalised the opportunity for people to discuss the matter. What you have done is attempted to personalise that discussion in some manner, creating me as some sort of opponent. The matter is being discussed. Consensus will prevail. That is it. Fiddle Faddle 08:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I don't think there are too many images, but I don't think that the distribution or selection is right. Taking it section by section:

Lead section: We have three images here which seems about right. I would though change the Reed Dance image, which doesn't really illustrate the general topic well for one showing naturism, which is discussed in that section. Perhaps File:FKK-Gelande Sudstrand Strandimpressionen (2200637243)-cropped.jpg would work best here.
Legal position and Nudidity and Protest sections: These is not illustrated at all but probably should be. File:Bendprotest.jpg, File:Streaker Hong Kong 1994.jpg and File:Oblation Run.jpg might work well divided across the three sections. I wouldn't put a WNBR image here as we already have two cycling images (lead and sport sections), which is already probably one too many. I'd say the legal position should have 1 image and the protest section 2.
Artistic expression: For a section this size, two images is too many. Of the images we currently have I think File:Imitation of Christ 2 by David Shankbone.jpg is more obviously an artistic statement when viewed at thumbnail size so I'd personally keep that in preference to the Berlin image.
Recreation and sport: As I noted above, we already have a cycling image and it's difficult to distinguish at thumbnail level what distinguishes this image from a WNBR protest image. As such, I'd substitute it for a different one, perhaps File:Nacktreiten.JPG or File:20080803 concluses 73.jpg.
Ritual nudity: I think this section gets is right and I don't suggest any changes to it.
Sexual public nudity: As it stands we have a section ostensibly talking about sexual nudity illustrated with a picture of non-sexual nudity, which isn't right. Either we need to have an image of sexual nudity here, or we need to retitle and refocus the section as "Sexual and non-sexual public nudity" (which it sort of is at the moment anyway) in which case the current image is OK (although perhaps not the best, an image that was more ambiguous about whether it was sexual or not would be perfect but I can't immediately find one). Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly persuaded by this view. I am not sure I understand File:Imitation of Christ 2 by David Shankbone.jpg though; what am I missing? It looks like three topless women with vacuum cleaners rather than public nudity per se. And in the legal position, etc, section I'd like to see a discussion of why the eventual picture chosen is important to the section Fiddle Faddle 08:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not public nudity in the sense of most of this article, but it is public nudity as part of an artistic work (which is the section it is illustrating). As public nudity nudity in art can be quite different from other sorts of public nudity it's definitely worth illustrating. Looking at it again though I agree it isn't a brilliant image for this article - it is more obviously artistic than the other one in that section presently but less obviously public, so probably I think we should find a different one but I don't have time at the moment. As you say, every image must be relevant to the section it illustrates (except in the lead where it should be relevant to the lead or the article as a whole) either obviously in itself or with the context provided by the caption and/or section of the article, but I haven't currently got the time to analyse each image. Thryduulf (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Little overhaul of images, some did not even depict nudity, some were a bit outdated.--Avril1975 (talk) 08:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nudes-a-poppin is a more apropriate example of sexual nudity than Nambassa.--Avril1975 (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted to the previous images that was used before. I cannot see a reason given why this image was changed, especially since a similar one ist posted further down.--Avril1975 (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Public nudity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012081745/http://213.10.84.49/Home/Content/The_Law.html to http://213.10.84.49/Home/Content/The_Law.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120414005441/http://www.movements.org/case-study/entry/ukraines-ladies-of-femen to http://www.movements.org/case-study/entry/ukraines-ladies-of-femen/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.montrealmirror.com/2005/072105/diverscite4.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080125084933/http://www.bodyfreedom.org/guide/essays/offense.html to http://www.bodyfreedom.org/guide/essays/offense.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Public nudity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Issues

The article (a) contains a good deal of unsourced material, including entire sections that are unsourced; and (b) contains a good deal of material derived from primary sources (e.g. worldnakedbikeride.org, www.treespiritproject.com, www.jackphoto.com, http://www.henning-von-berg.com/, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-147623, &c.) and sources that are otherwise unreliable (e.g. https://www.unconstitutionalarkansas.org/, https://www.templetons.com/brad/burn/, &c.). It is being tagged accordingly.

I wonder if the article is even needed at all, or if any useful content contained in it could just be moved to nudity, naturism, or somewhere else. SunCrow (talk) 04:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A little cleanup, more needed

Since I am editing the main article on Nudity, I did a little cleanup here, removing "Nudes-A-Poppin", since it is a private event, and renaming the section that contained no real examples of sexual public nudity.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal (by commenting out) problematic photo

This image is flagged on WP Commons as possibly needing a legal release from the person depicted due to German law, which is not the same as US law.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]