Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:56, 18 October 2009

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 Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 2 months

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.

Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Nudity Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nudity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of nudity and naturism on Misplaced Pages. 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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

TOC

What is the problem with the TOC? Why is it necessary to adjust its placement and wrapping from the default? Powers 12:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, you do have to scroll a whole page to get to the article and that's on a large screen. Biofase | stalk  02:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That's normal. Happens a lot. Powers 13:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

So therefor we should have it take up the screen as it happens a lot? That makes little sense. It also happens a lot that TOCs are hidden or shortened. Biofase | stalk  02:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

What I mean is that the TOC is not unusually long as TOCs go, even in featured articles. I haven't yet found a featured article that collapsed or otherwise modified the TOC, although I admit I haven't checked them all. =) Powers 12:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

new lead

I replaced the lead photo with one that is straightfoward and more generic. I'm moved the previous one down below and used it to replace the German beach photo because you could see the cameraman's clothing and finger in it. 174.124.163.224 (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The previous lead photo (the group shot) is much better. While your choice is indeed "generic", it's aesthetically much less pleasing. And I'm not talking about the individuals' attractiveness. The two figures are posed completely differently with completely different lighting and quality. It looks artificial and poorly assembled. The group shot, on the other hand, while admittedly less clinical, is more representative of day-to-day nudity and displays an array of individuals instead of just two. Powers 15:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Generic or not (and I think not) those two disparate figures pasted together do not hang together as an encyclopedia-quality image. __Just plain Bill (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine but I'm still replacing the other beach photo with one without the cameraman's finger and clothing and the PETA one with one that rests more firmly in the section. 174.124.163.224 (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

That "finger" that you mention in the photo is someones' leg - look closer. Dinkytown (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Not in the lead, but part of all this-- I just changed the English translation of the PETA picture, making it more compact and idiomatic. In the brand of English I grew up speaking, it would be "Mitts off the bunnies!" but I don't know how widely that will be understood. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm still wondering why we changed the PETA ad from one in English to one not in English. Powers 21:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It's because it rests more firmly in the section. 174.124.163.224 (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Bei mir that works, and yet... I like what it does for the layout at varying window widths, but the German text is slightly dissonant, a bit janglesome alongside the rest of the English article. I don't consider it broken enough to need fixing either way. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what "rests more firmly" means, at least not in this context. Powers 22:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The previous vertical-format image spilled over into the next section(s) when viewed in a wide window at smallish text size, is how I read that. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Its more to do with how his browser views it than anything else. Change it back to the English version. Dinkytown (talk) 23:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No doubt. The current image also "spills over" on my screen. I don't see the problem. Powers 23:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

What "problem" there was has now been solved. If anyone disagrees, they can change it - otherwise, this is asinine... Dinkytown (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

PETA image

Not sure that an image of a nude model promoting "animal-friendly" clothing best represents "Nude photography." I don't see much mention in this section, or in the whole article, of the attention-getting effect (or shock value) of nude images in advertising. Room to grow, there... __ Just plain Bill (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right. About about replacing it with this photo since it shows photography in action. Altough it may be too big to fit in the section. Bobisbob2 (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. This was at the top of my short list after a quick search, but that one seems better to me. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Naked people wearing shoes

Can a person wearing shoes be considered as true naked? What is the opinion of nudists about wearing shoes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.46.234.128 (talk) 10:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of Abu Ghraib torture picture?

{{rfctag}} Should a nude picture of an Abu Ghraib prisioner be included in the article on nudity? HiDrNick! 21:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Heyo. In the spirit of bold, revert, discuss, I've removed the picture of the Abu Ghraib torture from the section on punishment. Please don't interpret this as an attempt at censorship, but rather editing, that is, the use of sound judgment to decide what should and should not be included. The image strikes me immediately as tasteless and out-of-place in this context. Thoughts? HiDrNick! 03:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, we now have the Bold and Revert parts covered, so let's now discuss. Right off, I disagree that the image is tasteless and out of place. It is in the Punishment / Humiliation section, and as such, I feel it is well in context. Keep in mind that your sensibilities may not be the same as those of other readers. (I doubt that anyone will find much very tasteful about the subjects of punishment or torture or humiliation, but we are going for informative, not tasteful here.) Do you have a substitute image you can offer for the same section? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a substitute image is necessary, or even prudent here. It’s just that we have an article full of perfectly reasonable images of nude people, and then, bam, here's this unfortunate fella being tortured at the end. I doubt that we really need to add insult to his injury by further publishing his humiliating ordeal on the internet. It would be like if our article on "Germany" had a picture of a trench full of dead Jews smack in the middle, or if our article on "Dogs" had a graphic picture of dogfighting. I mean, sure, the picture is applicable to the subject of the article, but we don't have to select the most graphic, in-your-face illustration for it; sometimes any illustration at all is over-the-top. HiDrNick! 04:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You have personalized him unnecessarily; his identity is not public, his face is covered and his name is not used. The article, with his picture inserted, does not inflict added injury or humiliation to any individual. If you really feel this is a valid concern, you should be petitioning to have it removed not from this article, but from the Commons image pool altogether. As for your analogies, when I went to the Dogs article, I was assailed with an image of a steaming bowl of dog meat, and the Nazi Germany article has a trench full of dead Jews smack in the middle of it. Granted, the same image is no longer in the Germany article, but until we spin off a specific "nudity to humiliate" article, it seems appropriate here. In my opinion, if an article covers a topic, images specific to that topic will improve that content - even if the topic itself is distasteful to some. Would any other editors care to chime in? Xenophrenic (talk) 06:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on the desire for more eyes; to that end, I've requested comments above. Please feel free to make any tweeks to the wording above to make it as impartial as possible. HiDrNick! 21:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Outside comment. The image supports specific text in the article relating to prisoners at Abu Ghraib, who undoubtedly were victims of "nudity as punishment" (incidentally the prose on Abu Ghraib needs to be sourced, not that that's difficult). In that regard it is clearly "useful" to the reader. It's a shocking image as are most of the pictures associated with Abu Ghraib, but I don't think it's inappropriate for the article. This and other images have already literally been viewed all over the world so in a sense the "adding insult to his injury" has already been done millions of times over. Any picture illustrating "nudity as punishment" would be somewhat shocking, but I think it's worth illustrating, particularly since it stands it stark contrast to the other images in the article, all of which are either "positive" or innocuous. If anything I would support fleshing out the text a bit to point out that nudity is particularly shameful for many Muslims (a fact which is hinted at but not really expressed directly earlier in the article), and that it was knowledge of this fact that partially led to the kind of torture techniques pictured in the photo. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with Bigtimepeace. The image is relevant to the topic and inflicts the minimum harm necessary to convey the topic. Powers 15:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• Previously uninvolved RFC comment: This picture seems to have some basis in the text and is illustrative. If I was looking to cut pictures, I would eliminate some of the others which are far more redundant than the photo demonstrating nudity as humiliation. Cool Hand Luke 18:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• RFC Comment:When I first heard that such a photo was in the article I was aghast. However, after reading the article and seeing that it is in a relevant section and that there are so many other photos for various sections, it seems to be alright. Having said that, I would also add that overall there are way, way too many photos in this article and that the entire article overall is in poor taste and the subject has been sensationalized, particularly by the photos. If editors felt to cut back on the photos, then the Abu Graib photo would be in the first group to get deleted. But in the current context of the Punishment section and other photos I do not see any ground for obstructing its placement in the article.-- — Kbob • Talk • 14:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
• Well, it seems I'm pretty heavily outnumbered.  :) Thanks to everyone for your participation. Cheers, HiDrNick! 17:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Image nominated for deletion

Just to inform you commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burning Man 228 (241613953) crop.jpg --MGA73 (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's just replace it with another image of a naked person at Burning Man. While we might have a right to use that image, I don't think it's within the spirit of Misplaced Pages to use photos just because we can when the subject of the photo doesn't want us to use them. Gary (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible for you to provide a link to the specific request made by the identifiable specific subject of the photo in question? I think no one would argue with your "spirit of Misplaced Pages" assertion, if that were all that is at stake - but this seems to be a case example, and the results here may end up being applied on a much wider scale than just this image. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Look in the actual discussion page. The person's username is Stagefrog2. Bobisbob2 (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. Stagefrog2 claimed he was one of the several identifiable people in the uncropped image in a previous (now closed) discussion; a claim that was never actually verified. The image was nominated for deletion based on Burning Man rules, and declined. It was then re-nominated for deletion by an unidentifiable person claiming to be in the image, and declined. Now another unidentifiable person claiming to be the photographer of the image has nominated the image. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. Bob pointed to this statement: "I am in this picture (File:Burning_Man_228_(241613953)_crop.jpg), and I did NOT give consent for my image to be published. Stagefrog2" Re-removing, per Gary.--Elvey (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I support the removal. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 19:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages objectionable content
• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class nudity articles
• Top-importance nudity articles
• WikiProject Nudity articles
• B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• High-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles