Talk:Toplessness/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

topless body doubles source request

someone has placed a "fact" tag against the statement that some famous actresses use body doubles rather than appear topless themselves. Does this page from IMDB qualify as reliable? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0235280/trivia ? IdreamofJeanie (talk) 13:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No. IMDb generally is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, especially trivia sections or pages because they have very little editorial control. Furthermore, the page you link refers to a couple of doubles in one film. The phrase in the article "some prominent actresses" suggests much more than that. Ward3001 (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thanks IdreamofJeanie (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting article

I highly recommend taking a look at the following article: [1]. Apparently, transwomen in Philadelphia (and presumably other places, too) are allowed to go topless in public (even if they have breast implants) as long as they still have male genitalia. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Broader use of the term topless in the media

The term topless is seems to be sometimes used in the media these days to refer to women who simply have no clothing covering their breast (i.e. shirt, dress, bra/bikini top/one-piece swimsuit) but who's breast/nipple/areola is otherwise still covered by something such as a sheet, their hand, physical object, etc.). For example, when a Milly Cyrus (as an underage teen) poised a number of years ago for a photo in Vanity Fair magazine that had her wearing nothing but a sheet covering her breasts/chest, she was describe as posing topless by many critics in the media. Thus I wonder if the article should not include a mention the broader use of the term as the current definition of toplessness in the article states that the nipple and areola must be visible for it to count as toplessness. --67.101.209.98 (talk) 07:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Contradictory statements regarding attitudes in Sweden

Earlier in the article it is stated in the Social attitudes section that:

'A online poll found that 99% of Germans and 93% of Britons were accepting of toplessness on a beach, compared to 92% of Swedes, 91% of Italians, and 67% of Russians.'

While later the Sunbathing section adds regarding Sweden:

In some parts of Europe including Sweden, toplessness is unpopular and uncommon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.114.174.194 (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I have restored the sourced material you deleted, while re-writing the statement to more accurately represent the source. Please do not remove sourced material without discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Usage of "Third World"

I think the expression "Third World" should be replaced by "Developing countries". The usage of "Third World" is not common nowadays and it is considered to be a pejorative expression, which may offend some readers. Jgsodre (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I've made the change (which you could have made yourself), but you know that such things tend to be a moving goalpost. Ten years from now "Developing countries" will be considered to be offensive, and someone will be here to ask it to be changed to whatever is the politically correct term then. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

A preposition

As User Beyond my Ken has still not offered any reason for his recent edit I am reverting again to the established version: version before BMK edited – Attitudes toward toplessness have varied considerably across cultures and over time. Version dated 1 June 2010 – “However, considerable variance has existed in attitudes toward toplessness, both across cultures and through history.

Wikipedia article on attitude (psychology) says - People can also be conflicted or ambivalent toward an object, meaning that they simultaneously possess both positive and negative attitudes toward the item in question” Encyclopedia Britannica uses “The sum of the products of these two ratings provides a measure of the individual’s attitude toward the group.”

User BMK: The preferred preposition used with “attitude” is ”toward”. This is the established consensus for this page, having stood for over two years and 500 edits. In spite of your inflammatory comments on my talk page, the onus lies with you, as the editor proposing a change, to demonstrate that the existing version is either incorrect, or that consensus has changed, and so far you have not offered one word to show that that is the case. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

What preposition is BMK trying to use? Powers T 20:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
"About" as in "Attitudes about toplessness...". But if IdoJ thinks I'm going to debate with him or her about a freaking preposition, they've got another think coming. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't see much different connotationally or stylistically. Both seem to work equally well. As such, Jeanie is correct that the status quo until there is a consensus to change it. Powers T 22:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
The difference is that "toward" is directional, while "about" surrounds the concept. In any case, the long-standing status quo (dating from July 16, 2008) was "attitudes towards", which IdoJ changed to "toward", so if we're going to stick with the consensus status quo, 4 years of editors not changing what was there says that's it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
According to this:

Toward and towards are equally acceptable words. The main difference is that, while both of these directional words are used in all varieties of English, toward is preferred in American and Canadian English, while towards is preferred in varieties of English from outside North America.

(This is confirmed by this, this and this, among others.])

Since this is the case, IdoJ's change of "towards" to "toward" is in violation of WP:ENGVAR, which says not to change from one variety of English to another without good reason to do so. Absent any good reason, and givem the 4 years of consensus status quo with "towards", I'm reverting to "towards". Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record: I did not change "towards" to "toward", I reverted BMK's edit of "toward" to "about", for the resons given earlier. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 10:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
My error, you are correct. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
This is the edit that changed "towards" to "toward". For the record, I support that change; having the two (seemingly) plural words in a row ("Attitudes towards") reads awkwardly. Powers T 14:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, both "toward" and "towards" read as stilted, which is why I changed it to "about", but if we're saying that we're going with consensus, then "towards" is the status quo. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Commons category

The article contains a link to commons:Category:Toplessness. This category is for toplessness of both sexes. However, the actual article only deals with female toplessness. Shouldn't the category link be changed to commons:Category:Female toplessness? JIP | Talk 06:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Good point, I've fixed that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Wow, that was fast. Thanks! JIP | Talk 06:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
No problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

paparazzi paragraph

Recently I added a new paragraph about the paprazzi connection to the toplessness. From some reason, this paragraph was removed, with no explanation. This is my first edit in the english wikipedia, and I worked hard to create this papragraph. there is no controversy that the paprazzi influenced this subject (from Middleton to the routine in france), so I'm writing this paragraph again. Please write in the talk your objection! BTW, I'm adding the tumblr site that fights the topless photos of the paparazzi. It was removed although it's one of the most important websites which talk about this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gogo8200 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed your edits for the reasons I gave in the edit summary: that they seem to convey YOUR opinion on topless photographs,they are poorly written, and in respect to the Vilkeviciute photos are far too detailed. Why have you picked these three? there are papparazzi pictures printed frequently, what makes these three noteworthy? The Duchess of Cambridge photos (NOT Kate Middleton) did cause a flurry in the news, and might possibly be noteworthy. As I said they are poorly written, which would be understandable if English is not your first language, but the whole piece needs rewriting, in a more neutral tone by someone who does speak English. I fail to see enough usable content worth keeping. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Toplessness

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Toplessness's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Slate":

  • From Mooning: Forrest Wickman (June 27, 2012). "Mooning: A History". browbeat: Slate's culture blog. Slate.com. Retrieved July 11, 2012.
  • From Bikini: Turner, Julia (May 31, 2011). "A Brief History of the Bikini: How the tiny swimsuit conquered America". Slate. Retrieved August 15, 2013.
  • From Bikini in popular culture: Curtis, Bryan (February 16, 2005). "The Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue: An intellectual history". Slate. Archived from the original on October 27, 2007.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed Removed. Appears to be a minor copy/paste error from bikini. Thanks, robot. Grayfell (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Glitch or hacker in the system

I did not make the changes on Sept. 16, 2015 that were later reverted. Someone else did that and somehow used my account name. This has happened a dozen times or so -- odd changes made to random pages (some of which I've never visited) in my name. Then I get an alert saying I did this or that nonsense. Why does this keep happening? Ghost2011 (talk) 12:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Change your password and change any email address that Wikipedia uses to communicate with you. Sundayclose (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Toplessness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 17:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

What happened to the male bare chested page?

This page used to include disambiguation that pointed to the bare chested men page, but this is now gone. Also, this page didn't used to be automatically redirected to when "bare chested" and "shirtless" were searched for. The page on male barechestedness seems to have been deleted, even though it existed for a long time. What on earth is going on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.246.241.2 (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

It appears that that article was deleted - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barechestedness. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Toplessness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 22:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Toplessness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 22:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion re. "Traditional Societies" section

I suggest adding more historical pictures (like these, for example: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CcPKcRwW0AEt7Ly.jpg:large ), to the "Traditional societies" section to show that, historically, topfree was the standard in most of the non-Western world. Photos from the various Pacific island peoples (Polynesia (e.g., Hawai'i), Micronesia, etc), peoples in southeast and southern Asia, Australian Aborigines, Central & South Americans.

At that point, the "Traditional societies" section should be subdivided by geographic region.

Phantom in ca (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like a good idea. However, the photos which we can use need to be available in a non-copyright form on Wiki Commons before they can be used. It would be great if you can locate some. Enthusiast01 (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

What Happened to the Page on Male Shirtlessness?

The former articles on "Shirtless" and "Barechested" have been eliminated, and they redirect to this page. Who is responsible for that? Shirtlessness among men is common and, for the most part, socially acceptable, while most societies consider a topless woman to be immoral, and in some cases, a criminal. Have the neurotic radical females taken over Wikipedia? John Paul Parks (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

not that I have had anything to do with it, but as you say, male shirtlessness is common, and socially acceptable. It is in fact very much non notable, so hardy deserves an encyclopedia entry, any more than glovelessness would warrant an article. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

not

"While neither women nor the law in most western countries generally regard breasts as indecent, most women are reluctant to go against the social norm of wearing a top in public. " Shouldn't this be "...norm of not wearing..."? 5.34.83.100 (talk) 06:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

no Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • It's certainly a rather convoluted sentence with multiple negatives. I'm not sure that inserting "not" would solve it, as that would leave "not wearing a top in public" as a "social norm". How about replacing the sentence with:

    Women and the law in most western countries generally do not regard breasts as indecent. However, wearing a top in public is a social norm and most women are reluctant to go against it.

  • Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Barechesed photo dispute

Here is the barechested photo at the size it was inserted into the article.

An editor is attempting to add to the article a large image of a barechested man. This article is not primarily about male barechestedness it is about female toplessness. (Although barechestedness is mentioned in the article, as it should be in comparing the separate social shibboleths applicable to women and men.) I don't see the need for the image, as it is not pertinent to the primary subject of the article, and have hold the editor to get a consenus for it here before attempting to put it in the article again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Civciv5 I've added the image here so it can be seen, at the size it was added to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Editors can see what the image looked like in the article in this version. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand why you object, it's relevant to a particular section of the article, and since there is no seperate article for barechestedness I think it's appropriate. Civciv5 (talk)
There's a single section on barechestedness, about 120 words in 6 sentences arranged in two paragraphs. It's a very minor part of the article, and does not require an image. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Even if it is a small section, the section is important enough, and I believe an image is appropriate because it is relevant to the section. But clearly you're not going to agree with me. Civciv5 (talk)
No, not until you provide some real arguments. How is the small section "important enough"? If it was important enough, it would be a larger section, or the subject would be woven through the article, which it's not. The article is about toplessness in women, the section on men is simply there to cover all the bases, not because male barechestedness is a major topic of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Another dispute

In what might be related to the dispute above, an IP editor is attempting to soften the lede's focus on female toplessness by syaing that "toplessness" only generally refers to females, and including in the opening graf a mention of barechestedness. This looks to me like an attempt to lay the groundwork for the image above to be included in the article, but it's not justified, and distorts the purpose and focus of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Toplessness. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Misandrist Invasion?

What happened to the article on male shirtlessness? Male shirtlessness and female toplessness are entirely different topics in terms of legality, society, and culture, at least in the United States and other civilized countries, and neurotic exhibitionist misandrists should not have been permitted to destroy the article on male shirtlessness or cause the word "shirtless" to redirect here.John Paul Parks (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Way to assume good faith, champ. If you think there should be an article, start one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Toplessness. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Toplessness/Archive_2&oldid=1137261079"