Jump to content

Talk:Topfreedom/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

It might be time to give USA its own "Main Article"

It might be time to give USA its own "Main Article" like Canada has, lest the 50 USA states, territories, etc., as activism ramps up, overwhelm the rest of the world in this article.

Phantom in ca (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. There is now a new article topfreedom in the United States. It cut the length of this article to two-fifths of the original - three-fifths of the entire article were about the United States! JIP | Talk 12:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Topfreedom. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 9 September 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved Consensus is against the proposed new title. SSTflyer 12:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


Topfreedom → Topless equality – This is hardly ever referred to as "topfreedom:" a neologism? See GoTopless' press release for GoTopless Day where it is referred to three times as "topless equality" [1] Mark Schierbecker (talk) 08:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Promotion of Raelianism in images

Both of the images currently in the article (File:Right to go topless.JPG and File:Topless protest.JPG) are of Raelians (and probably from the same event). Many people believe Raelianism to be a cult and the use of topless women with nipple pasties to be a recruiting tactic. Moreover, both images show placards featuring a web site that is controlled by Raelians. I'm sure that more appropriate images can be found on Commons that have no connection to Raelianism. If no better images are found, then it would be better to have no images than these particular mages. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. The images seem completely appropriate for this article. They show a topless woman and a seemingly topless woman protesting for the right to go topless. That's what the article is about. I'm not familiar with the group supposedly behind the website on the placards, but I don't think their identity is relevant. Suggesting that the pictures be replaced with generic pictures of topless women is not appropriate, and simply removing long-standing material from the article while suggesting that someone else find replacement images is even worse. Meters (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I have no problem with the article showing pictures of topless women, whether protesting to change their local law or protesting topless to defy the laws or simply exercising their legal right to be topless where it is legal. What I have a problem with is the promotion of a particular "new religion" which many view as a cult. I am surprised that you are unaware of Raelianism and of how Wikipedia works, but now is your chance to learn about both of those things. These images should not be used on this page. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how those pictures promote Raelianism and UFOs, any more than they promote Christianity because there is a cross in one of the pictures. The extensive web site is for an organization that supports Topfreedom. The website does not overtly promote Raelianism. The only mention of it is one line that says the founder is also the leader of the Raelian Movement, and an affiliate link. Meters (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and I'm well aware of consensus. That's why we're discussing this. You made a deletion that I objected to and restored. Now we'll see what other editors think. That's WP:BRD.Meters (talk) 22:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I think this is worth a closer look, but the cult thing is a distraction, and incivility is right-out, also. Gotopless.org mentions Rael, and also promotes Raelian religious material as 'suggested reading'. That doesn't make them a cult (which wouldn't necessarily matter anyway), but it's definitely coming at this from a religious angle. If we're using two picture which are associated with Raelism, it seems reasonable to ask why we're using two similar photos of the same event. Mentioning and wikilinking to Raëlism would plausibly reduce confusion. How significant is Raelism to topfreedom as a topic? In other words, is there a good source directly explaining the broader link? Is this just a passing mention or less according to most sources? The previous discussion above and a cursory glance at sources both seem to say it's not significant to this movement. If that's right, it seems reasonable to at least remove the second picture. These images may inadvertently misrepresent the significance of both the religion and the movement. Grayfell (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Good point. The second picture does not add anything to the article and should go. Unless we have a replacement picture that shows a less controversial image of a Topfree protest (not just a topless woman) I think one of the pictures should stay. Any cult connections are not apparent from the image, and not even from the webpage. You have to read the webpage from the image, go to the webpage, find the link to Raëlism, and follow it before you you get any hint of UFOs. For that matter, why don't we just crop the image https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Right_to_go_topless.JPG to remove the website placard? Wouldn't that make this whole discussion moot? Meters (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I've cropped the image to remove the left-side placard with the www.Gotopless.com webpage but I won't upload it until we reach consensus. Meters (talk) 23:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
The article is about a movement to allow women that same rights as men in regard to going topless. We have images to assist or readers in understanding a topic. There is no requirement that says every article must have an image. In addition, topfreedom advocates seek allowing nursing mothers to openly breastfeed in public, and women to sun bathe topless". So an image of a woman breastfeeding or sunbathing topless would would also work. There is no reason that the Raelian images need to be used, cropped or not. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Here's an image I found in the Commons category that is linked from the article: File:GwenJacobimg811.jpg. It's a picture of Canadian activist Gwen Jacob. If we need a picture here, what's wrong with this one over the Raelians? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the article is far better served with the original image. It actually shows a topfree woman protesting, rather than just a protester, and the placard in the centre of the original picture makes it clear what is being protested, unlike the Gwen Jacob picture. Why are you so insistent on removing the existing picture even if it no longer shows the URL that concerns you?
For that matter, we can't tell which of the two placards the subject of the photo is associated with, if either. She's not holding either of the placards. She might be associated with the group you are concerned with, but she could just as well be associated with the artist's club protest sign directly behind her, or with neither of those groups. Meters (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I am concerned by the use of images of Raelians, a "new religion" who are viewed by some as a cult. Aside from the placards with the website, both images show women wearing necklaces with Raelian symbols. Maybe this article entitled "Go Topless Equality Movement Founded By Sketchy Cult Leader" will be of interest. Perhaps if you mentally substitute "Raelian" with "Church of Scientology" you will better understand why using these pictures in a problem. To turn your question around, why are you so insistent about keeping these images (even when a good alternative has been offered)? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

This discussion brings to the fore an interesting – though entirely unintended – subject. How much of the Topfreedom movement is sponsored by Raelians and weather is was founded by them I ask. Mind you, there's not a word of mention about Raelians in mainspace but if we can prove (just as the photo-illustrations do) that their involvement in the life of this movement is notable, than ignoring it in Wikipedia would be hypocritical. Therefore, I would be against cropping or removing the photographs from this article, because they seem to be telling. I would rather have the article content questioned. Poeticbent talk 16:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a tough question. This is about topfreedom as a larger topic, not gotopless.org, Raelism, or Go Topless Day (which needs work, btw). Explaining the link between Raelism and the larger topic would need reliable sources, but even then would need to be weighed carefully to assess how significant it is to the issue. This article explains the link with the annual protests and gives a brief overview of the issue in California, but doesn't says little about a larger movement.
The photo is a good one and shouldn't be removed without a better reason. The file description doesn't specifically say it was Go Topless Day, but the dates and photographer match the other one, which does say that. We could maybe link to Go Topless Day article in the description, where the Rael link is explained. Again, that article needs work, however.
Cropping seems acceptable to me, since we're essentially removing an element that's more confusing than informative. If it's not a defining trait, but it is distracting, we should remove it if we can easily do so. The crop would accomplish that. Grayfell (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
World's Lamest Critic, I am not "insistent about keeping these images". I have already clearly stated that the second image is redundant and should be removed. And I'm not insistent on keeping the first image either. I have suggesting modifying it to remove the webpage on the placard that you object to, and I no objection to replacing the image with a good alternative, but we have not found one yet. Your first suggestion that we replace it with a generic picture of any topless woman loses the Topfree protest aspect of the existing image, and your second suggested image doe s not show a topless woman and is not identifiably a protest about the right for women to be Topfree. Only a photo of a topless woman identifiably protesting for the right to be topless would be a suitable replacement for the existing image. The claim that an only partially visible piece of jewelery should disqualify this image seems a major stretch. Meters (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
So you are open to alternatives, but only if they meet your very narrow criteria. The existing images are not of topless women protesting for the right to be topless, so I'm not clear on why an image depicting that would be the only acceptable alternative. I am also not clear why a woman breastfeeding in public would not be an acceptable alternative. Or an image of a woman exercising her lawful right to be topless in public. Both of these are mentioned in the article. I don't know why you think it is a "stretch" that anyone will recognize the Raelian symbols that the women are wearing. I did. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

JM2C: I have no more problems w/an image of a topfree gal wearing a Raelian symbol than I would a topfree gal wearing a Jewish Star of David, Islamic Crescent, Christian Crucifix/Cross or Satanic Pentagram. As a matter of fact, having a variety of those images would show the diversity of support for topfreedom and improve the article. (Activist gals, this is where you can help by wearing such and adding pics.) HOWEVER, if the Wiki entry gets flooded w/pics of Raelian gals (or topfree gals of any specific religion), that would be subtly hijacking the focus of the article and should not be allowed. Phantom in ca (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Including two images from the same specific obscure event is disproportionate to the larger topic, isn't it? That is, arguably, the kind of hijacking you're describing.
There's some irony in all of these expectations about what jewelry people should or should not wear in an article which is in large part about women's right to control their appearance. The jewelry is completely irrelevant. Her choice of jewelry is her own business, and is not comparable to the web address written on a protest placard. This has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's specific religious beliefs unless reliable sources say it does. Again, do we have reliable sources specifically linking Raelism to the larger topfree movement? Wikipedia isn't a platform for activism, so this should reflect sources.
I see two actionable problems with these images:
  • Having 2 images of the same thing is redundant to the point of being distracting, and Wikipedia already suffers from a lopsided representation of female nudity and women's bodies. Removing the second image seems like something we can agree on, right? This would improve the problem on this article, even if it does nothing for the larger problem elsewhere.
  • The website address shown in the both images is introducing potential confusion. It's a non-reliable site which is subtly suggested to have central importance due to its location in this article. I think this is a stretch, honestly, since it's barely visible in the lede one, and is pretty clearly just a page set-up by protesters, but it's still plausibly a link that someone could follow for more information. That's not exactly how Wikipedia is presenting it, but it's seems reasonable enough. This site isn't a WP:RS, nor would it meet WP:EL guidelines, nor is the religious aspect explained in the article or any proposed sources.
Including distracting tangents is bad for encyclopedia articles, so cropping one and removing the other seems like a simple fix to these problems. Grayfell (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea how you think that I was suggesting what anyone wear or not wear. The women in the images are wearing jewellery which depicts Raellian symbols. That is simply a fact, not an opinion or a judgment. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
World's Lamest Critic is the only one who thinks the picture, even in a cropped version is unacceptable. I agree with user:Grayfell's proposed changes. Here's the version I cropped Right to go topless cropped. I kept the original cats and expanded the description slightly to say that there are both men and women protesters in the picture, to mention that two men in bikini tops are in the picture, and to say that the original was cropped to remove a placard URL. Meters (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Topfreedom. 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) 20:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Topfreedom/Archive_3&oldid=1168873375"