Jump to content

Talk:Nudity

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The brief bit on Islam

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

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

hello

why do pacific people enjoy showing their culture to public?

While it's perfectly fine to have so many nudes in the article, I question the ones barely included near the top. Not only does it look like an image repository, but it also has the same pitfalls of a trivia section. Surely you can find a place where you could fit them in the actual article. — trlkly 09:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

Not a single image used is necessary. Nudity does not need to be illustrated -- the meaning is obvious. It's just prurient. 203.218.46.150 (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord, are you that afraid of the human body? Get over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.50.136 (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The tolerant seek to respect and accomodate other views. The intolerant sneer.
Having said that, I object to the picture in the Punishment section. Not because it's nudity, but because the whole point of the photo was the humiliation of the subject, who almost certainly did not consent to the forced nudity. In publishing the photo, Wikipedia perpetuates his continued humiliation, which is at best ethically questionable.
I also question the point of the gallery beyond purience. Surely anyone reading this article already knows what nudity looks like. Do we really need a raft of photos illustrating every possible variation of nakedness? "Here's what nudity looks like from the left side -- at the doctor's office -- in the rain...." Sheesh.
CNJECulver (talk) 02:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The picture at the top right now is pretty useless. It belongs more in the nudism article than the nudity one. And it would be better to replace it with an illustration. Also, why is that random gallery just sitting right there in the middle of the page?71.31.144.109 (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The gallery is in the wrong position, it should be near the end as it's only just below the lead. I will move it.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks.71.31.144.109 (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete the photoes at the top. They are fine the way thay are are. besides, they are good pictures —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.171.0 (talk) 08:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note WP:IG - Wikipedia is not an image repository, an image can be used to illustrate a section - not four images per section.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 11:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Censoring this?

I think the picture for this topic is a bit... awkward, and shouldn't it be censored? Just wondering... 24.186.228.210 (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm.... I note that in all the pictures of naked people in this article, there's a dearth of, say, 13-year-old girls, and that the articles on both bestiality and child pornography are strangely lacking in illustrative pictures. And I'm pretty sure twink photos would be impermissible even in the article on pederasty.
The point is, every culture, every country, every group censors. Even those that claim not to. After all, "the laws of the state of Florida" is really just code for "legally codified censorship".
CNJECulver (talk) 10:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The photos should NOT be sensored. There is no need to sensor them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.171.0 (talk) 08:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skinny dipping photo being repeatedly replaced

An anon from U. Penn. seems rather eager to have one particular picture somewhere in the article (and other articles, by the looks of it). I don't think the photo adds much to the already image-heavy article. I have taken the liberty of removing it, as have several others. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the removal. The image is presently up for deletion. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree for the above reasons. Dinkytown 07:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Concur. Infrogmation (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Ghraib prison picture

Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject was not expecting to be photographed - Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Images

The picture under the Punishment section of this article of a prisoner at Abu Ghraid seems to be in very clear violation of this. Wgunther (talk) 06:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

could be, but as the subject of the photo is unidentifiable, that person is not presented is "a false or disparaging light" The clear difference with a mugshot of course is that Joe public can look at a mugshot and recognise the person. no such possibility exists here. --IdreamofJeanie (talk) 10:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's definitely not as clear as it was when i first saw it last night. But I still think the subject is portrayed in "a false and disparaging light." I do not believe whether the person is identifiable or not plays a role. But, even if that was an important factor, I'm sure some people in the government and some of the soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison are able to identify him. Wgunther (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POSTAL REGULATIONS ON NUDITY VERSUS NAKED

Bold text

MANY YEARS AGO WHEN I STUDIED PHOTOGRAPHY AND ALSO LAW I READ THAT POSTAL REGULATIONS PERMIT MAILING NUDE PICTURES BUT NOT NAKED PICTURES. NAKED PICTURES ARE NUDES SHOWING PUBIC HAIR. HENRY LEE PhD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.90.76.50 (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks. Maybe you can use that PhD of yours to find your caps lock button. I've shortened the section title. Gary (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nudity&oldid=378741402"