Talk:Nudity

Nudity (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 17 March 2021 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nudity article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

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.

Template:Vital article

Sexology and sexuality B‑class High‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology B‑class High‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Nudity B‑class Top‑importance

	Nudity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nudity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of nudity and naturism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NudityWikipedia:WikiProject NudityTemplate:WikiProject Nuditynudity articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

There is a request, submitted by Landlund (talk), for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia.

The rationale behind the request is: "important subject".

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Section sizes

Section size for Nudity (56 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	4,004	4,004
Terminology	1,062	1,062
Origins of nakedness and clothing	3,832	3,832
History of nudity	1,256	6,326
Ancient and classical history	3,054	3,054
Colonialism and racism	2,016	2,016
Cultural differences	606	18,104
Africa	2,467	2,467
Asia	409	4,871
China	848	848
India	700	700
Japan	1,855	1,855
Korea	256	256
Russia	803	803
Oceania	1,153	1,153
South America	1,017	1,017
Western societies	1,297	4,033
Moral ambiguity	2,736	2,736
Abrahamic religions	1,178	3,957
Christianity	2,119	2,119
Islam	660	660
Sex and gender differences	688	7,916
Female nudity	20	3,368
Topfreedom	2,448	2,448
Breastfeeding	900	900
Male nudity	3,190	3,190
Gender equality	670	670
Child development	2,169	2,169
Private versus public	2,287	23,787
Sexual and non-sexual nudity	1,180	1,180
Concepts of privacy	855	1,994
High and low context cultures	1,139	1,139
Private nudity	1,390	5,061
Body image and emotions	3,671	3,671
Semi-public nudity	1,007	7,418
Steam baths and spas	3,939	3,939
Changing rooms and showers	1,679	1,679
Arts-related activities	793	793
Public nudity	2,674	5,847
Naturism	3,173	3,173
Legal issues	3,904	6,471
Imposed nudity	236	1,808
Punishment	413	413
Torture	789	789
Strip search	370	370
Nudity as protest	759	759
Depictions and performance	6,168	6,168
See also	317	317
References	15	51,388
Notes	26	26
Citations	34	34
Works cited	92	51,313
Books	16,573	16,573
Journal articles	24,402	24,402
News	10,232	10,232
Websites	14	14
Total	131,544	131,544

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Additional splits

The section on Performance could be a separate article, "Nudity in live performance".

or "Nudity in artistic performance" to include film and video?

The section on Religious interpretations was noted above, but there is already and article on Nudity in religion. That article needs a lot of work, and I would not like to undertake the merge of the content here to there.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nudity in live performance created, content here reduced.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Progress: total article size below 200K.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

I do not think it is stretching wp:CITELEAD to exclude examples as well as citations from the lead which summarizes article content.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Restored content

"Verbose" describes using more words than needed on a topic. This does not apply since the deleted content was about two topics not otherwise represented in the lead, one of which was a definition. This lead section of a complex topic is appropriately dense.

At far as overlinking, the restored content contains many terms that have their own articles, and thus should be linked on first usage. If they are also linked in the body of the article, then the links should be removed there, not in the lead.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if there are too many links in one sentence, why not remove the links? I double-checked, and find all of them appropriate. The sentence summarized a good deal of article content, so it should not be deleted.

Could a reader be distracted from finishing the sentence due to following all the links? Can't imagine anyone doing this.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some reorganizing and rewording done.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 11:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Can't imagine anyone doing this." --I can, and so does the project: please see the opening paragraph of MOS:OVERLINK, and its notes. "Culture" is one of those words that need not be linked, as is "clothing": if you don't know what clothing is... Plus, "culture" is actually piped from "cultural categories", and if someone doesn't know what "cultural categories" means (which would be understandable), that article is not going to help them. Or, linking "culture" is just silly. Your subsequent revisions improved the readability a bit, but the lead remains overly technical and, in some aspects, puzzling. For instance, yes, the lead should discuss what's in the article--except that the third sentence of the lead, "In any particular society, these meanings are defined in relation to being properly dressed, not in relation to the specific body parts being exposed", is not in fact explained anywhere in the article (except by a massive act of synthesis), nor is it clearly signaled anywhere.

But then, the article is almost 200k--and I see that you contributed 82% of its content--and is full of things whose importance is tangential. One can write an article on nudity without discussing communal baths and prehistory, and we also have History of nudity? Where you contributed over 70%? Anyway, yes, "verbosity" does apply--to the entire article. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My awareness of the concerns you mention is shown by my attempts above to engage in discussion of the page size, and to reduce it by splitting. Rather than joining the request for collaboration, you made deletions that seemed so random I reverted without doing any checking of your status, and was surprised to find you are an admin. Is the goal to discourage participation by subject-matter experts? Communal baths and prehistory are part of the topic, or I would not have included them. I did create a new article Prehistory of nakedness and clothing to reduce the content in this article, and it has been expanded by others.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing how this already huge article keeps growing. I tagged it as excessive, which seems pretty fair to me, esp. given History of nudity. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Bundesarchiv Bild 183-1987-0609-302, Köritz, Duschraum des Kindergartens.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

High and Low context cultures

This is my perspective on the concept. I think that the concept makes room for xenophobia and the descriptions of German people vs French people was particularly strange. Why include this section? 2600:4040:A034:A300:38CD:A1D9:DC04:1A8F (talk) 02:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The concept simply describes a dimension of culture, making no judgement regarding the Germans or French. I will try to explain this more fully including its application in the reference cited.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was split article created. WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After taking a break from making major edits, I am ready to continue reducing the size of this article by doing another split. Childhood nudity seems to be a good topic for an independent article. In addition to the section on Child development, some content from other sections specific to childhood could also be included in the split. WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't think it's a good idea. It would lead to unwanted attention to the new page, would be considered like a justification to remove anything family oriented on here, and the parts on childhood aren't way much longer on here than on several others matters anyways. --Aréat (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its not clear what you mean by unwanted attention. There is already Child sexuality, which is more controversial than mere nudity, or could be if it weren't so poorly written, something I have no interest in correcting. There is no chance that an article would become more or less family oriented than the topic warrants, given WP:notcensored, although I have had to defend this over the years.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft of split

See: Draft: Childhood nudity--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no comments, the draft will be moved to article space this week, and I will remove all but essential content from the Child development section here.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid at the moment it's not very NPOV. I agree with the point of view coming through, which makes me feel awkward about arguing with it; but it is distinctly non-neutral.

—VeryRarelyStable 03:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The new article has the same basic content as the section in this article being split, so I would need something more specific to understand how that content is non-neutral standing on its own. Perhaps it is because the reliable sources, scientific studies and academic documents, all say that non-sexual nudity in childhood is healthy and normal, but I cannot find any citations of equal validity to support any other POV. WriterArtistDC (talk) 05:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is an additional problem with documenting alternative points of view, those opposed to nudity generally do not mention it, or only with regard to adults. It would be original research to assume such opposition can be generalized. WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more content which may improve the neutrality issue, which I frankly did not see. If there are no other comments, I plan to do the move tomorrow.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Split completed, any further discussion should be made at Talk: Childhood nudity--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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