Talk:Nudity/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

History of nudity, managing linked articles and references

At this point the History section in Nudity is larger and has better references than the entire article History of nudity. While the page size tool yields Prose size (text only): 76 kB (12448 words) "readable prose size" for Nudity; there is a good case for moving much of the history content to the linked article per WP:summary style. Also, the history of nudity is not likely to be the subtopic that generates the majority of pageviews for the main article.

I generally like sfn references, but there is an issue when moving or splitting content: cutting and pasting does not simply move the references, they must be located and copied separately. I thought of something that would make this easier; instead of organizing the works cited by type (books, articles, websites) they could be grouped by topic related to the sections. Thus all the "History" sources would be grouped together. Initially there would be a grouping for each major section plus "General" for works cited in more than one section.

I would undertake the regrouping of the references and the moving of content if there are no objections. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I think you are correct about moving the History section to the linked article; it seems as if the History section is too large given that there is another full article on the same topic. A simple summary section here would be adequate. I presume the Prehistory section would also be part of that transfer. I agree with this idea.

The reorganization of the references into sections that match the article sections is also a good idea. That would make any future article splits easier. Perhaps it might be useful to leave a hidden comment in the source text to alert future editors to change a reference section name if an article section is renamed. Texttramp (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I have already begun the process in my sandbox after considering how it would be done and finding it easy because the majority of citations apply to a single section. The next question is what response there might be to a complete overwrite of the Works cited? Most WP edits are incremental, which allows from reasonable participation by other editors, but I see no way to do that in this case. Supposedly there are hundreds of watchers for Nudity, but I have seen only a handful of participants.

With regard to Prehistory, I was thinking that the major content would remain here, with a summary in History of nudity. To me, why humans are naked and when they invented clothes is more directly relevant to the main topic of Nudity.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia (as an editor), but I would guess that at least a portion of those page watchers might be either readers who've marked the page for reference or editors monitoring for vandalism. I wouldn't think reorganizing the references to make them easier to peruse would be considered detrimental. If nothing else, apply the BOLD, revert, discuss principle and see what ensues. Texttramp (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to attention. @WriterArtistDC: I see you've already put in some good work on this starting a few weeks ago, but am I right in thinking it's still a work in progress? My impression is that the history section of this article is still too long, and still even exceeds History of nudity in detail on some topics. I'd like to see the section get down to like... 10-20% of its current size. As mentioned above, there are definitely WP:SIZESPLIT considerations, but I think the more serious issue is that content can get out of sync - whenever someone fixes an issue to the history section here, they're unlikely to realize that the issue likely also needs to be fixed in the corresponding section of History of nudity (or vice-versa). If there are certain sections of text that we want to repeat verbatim in both articles, we should definitely consider using selective transclusion to make sure they stay in sync. Colin M (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Colin M: Reducing the history section is definitely a work in progress. My plan is to get History of nudity into shape and then summarize that content here. At any point in that process there will be duplication.

I am perplexed by the removal of the prehistoric art images. Art was a prime marker of behavioral modernity, and depictions of the body are directly relevant to the prehistory section. The image of a beaded necklace seems very tangential.

For some reason I never encountered selective transclusion; I will look into it.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Insofar as examples of prehistoric art are relevant, I would say that an image of prehistoric jewelry is more relevant because it's art that is specifically used for body adornment. There is a full paragraph about body adornment in the "Origin of clothing" subsection, which specifically mentions jewelry. But I don't see any mentions of prehistoric art more generally. Colin M (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I had always considered the reference to symbolic interaction as including art, but can now see that a more pointed reference is needed, so I added a new section on the origin of art, which I will expand.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Colin M: Pointing discussion to Talk:History of nudity#History of nudity in main article --WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, when I talked about using selective transclusion, I meant for the articles themselves, not in talk space. It's a way to keep identical content in more than one article without having to deal with them getting out of sync. Colin M (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Colin M: Yes, of course - using transclusion here was just a test, since I had never tried it before. I am wondering if anyone will ever have anything to say about the actual content of these articles...

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

History of nudity, managing linked articles and references

At this point the History section in Nudity is larger and has better references than the entire article History of nudity. While the page size tool yields Prose size (text only): 76 kB (12448 words) "readable prose size" for Nudity; there is a good case for moving much of the history content to the linked article per WP:summary style. Also, the history of nudity is not likely to be the subtopic that generates the majority of pageviews for the main article.

I generally like sfn references, but there is an issue when moving or splitting content: cutting and pasting does not simply move the references, they must be located and copied separately. I thought of something that would make this easier; instead of organizing the works cited by type (books, articles, websites) they could be grouped by topic related to the sections. Thus all the "History" sources would be grouped together. Initially there would be a grouping for each major section plus "General" for works cited in more than one section.

I would undertake the regrouping of the references and the moving of content if there are no objections. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I think you are correct about moving the History section to the linked article; it seems as if the History section is too large given that there is another full article on the same topic. A simple summary section here would be adequate. I presume the Prehistory section would also be part of that transfer. I agree with this idea.

The reorganization of the references into sections that match the article sections is also a good idea. That would make any future article splits easier. Perhaps it might be useful to leave a hidden comment in the source text to alert future editors to change a reference section name if an article section is renamed. Texttramp (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I have already begun the process in my sandbox after considering how it would be done and finding it easy because the majority of citations apply to a single section. The next question is what response there might be to a complete overwrite of the Works cited? Most WP edits are incremental, which allows from reasonable participation by other editors, but I see no way to do that in this case. Supposedly there are hundreds of watchers for Nudity, but I have seen only a handful of participants.

With regard to Prehistory, I was thinking that the major content would remain here, with a summary in History of nudity. To me, why humans are naked and when they invented clothes is more directly relevant to the main topic of Nudity.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia (as an editor), but I would guess that at least a portion of those page watchers might be either readers who've marked the page for reference or editors monitoring for vandalism. I wouldn't think reorganizing the references to make them easier to peruse would be considered detrimental. If nothing else, apply the BOLD, revert, discuss principle and see what ensues. Texttramp (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to attention. @WriterArtistDC: I see you've already put in some good work on this starting a few weeks ago, but am I right in thinking it's still a work in progress? My impression is that the history section of this article is still too long, and still even exceeds History of nudity in detail on some topics. I'd like to see the section get down to like... 10-20% of its current size. As mentioned above, there are definitely WP:SIZESPLIT considerations, but I think the more serious issue is that content can get out of sync - whenever someone fixes an issue to the history section here, they're unlikely to realize that the issue likely also needs to be fixed in the corresponding section of History of nudity (or vice-versa). If there are certain sections of text that we want to repeat verbatim in both articles, we should definitely consider using selective transclusion to make sure they stay in sync. Colin M (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Colin M: Reducing the history section is definitely a work in progress. My plan is to get History of nudity into shape and then summarize that content here. At any point in that process there will be duplication.

I am perplexed by the removal of the prehistoric art images. Art was a prime marker of behavioral modernity, and depictions of the body are directly relevant to the prehistory section. The image of a beaded necklace seems very tangential.

For some reason I never encountered selective transclusion; I will look into it.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Insofar as examples of prehistoric art are relevant, I would say that an image of prehistoric jewelry is more relevant because it's art that is specifically used for body adornment. There is a full paragraph about body adornment in the "Origin of clothing" subsection, which specifically mentions jewelry. But I don't see any mentions of prehistoric art more generally. Colin M (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I had always considered the reference to symbolic interaction as including art, but can now see that a more pointed reference is needed, so I added a new section on the origin of art, which I will expand.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Colin M: Pointing discussion to Talk:History of nudity#History of nudity in main article --WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, when I talked about using selective transclusion, I meant for the articles themselves, not in talk space. It's a way to keep identical content in more than one article without having to deal with them getting out of sync. Colin M (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Colin M: Yes, of course - using transclusion here was just a test, since I had never tried it before. I am wondering if anyone will ever have anything to say about the actual content of these articles...

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

sentence in lead

The sentence in question is: "However, through much of history until the modern era, people were unclothed in public by necessity or convenience when exercising for labor or athletics;" An edit that I made was reverted, with the justification that labor is a form of exercise. But even if that's true, the sentence still does not reflect that view, or make sense according to that. If labor is a subclass of exercise, then the passage is saying that individuals exercised for exercise, so that it is redundant in the mention of labor. If it means to imply that labor is exercise, then it should read: "However, through much of history until the modern era, people were unclothed in public by necessity or convenience for labor or athletics. . ." There's not even a need to mention the word "exercise."Cdg1072 (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Cdg1072: Perhaps exercise and athletics have become synonymous, thus making the meaning unclear. I also want to introduce the concept of functional (non-sexual) nudity, so this would be better:

"However, through much of history until the modern era, people were unclothed in public by necessity or convenience either when engaged in effortful activity, including labor and athletics; or when bathing or swimming. Such functional nudity, not being sexual, occurred in groups that were not always segregated by sex."

Sorry if I was to quick to revert, and thanks for your attention to this article.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

More revisions to the lead

It is difficult to introduce a topic about which readers are likely to have a strong opinion. The lead must summarize what is contained in the sections that follow without bias or original research. The edits by @Enthusiast01: gave priority to being clothed in public as the "universal norm"..."reinforced by laws", and also removed the content on the evolution of hairlessness. This was not a correct summary so I made revisions, but think there is more to be done. There are too many details regarding historical and cultural differences to summarize all in the lead. The opening after the dictionary definition perhaps should be the current closing: "Nudity is culturally complex due to meanings given various states of undress in differing social situations. In any particular society, these meanings are defined in relation to being properly dressed, not in relation to the specific body parts being exposed. Nakedness and clothing are connected to many cultural categories such as identity, privacy, social status and moral behavior."--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Revision complete, the key points being

• Definition
• Physical evolution
• Cultural evolution
• Contemporary norms
• Gender, age, power

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Added colonialism--WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Indigenous

Why should the word "indigenous" be capitalized? It's an adjective modifying the word "people", not a proper noun. --Roly (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

See capitalization of Indigenous one example of the usage. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I'm still not sure I agree. I'm far from being a grammatical pedant but this usage does seem somewhat irregular. It's not important, though. --Roly (talk) 10:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

A more authoritative source and good example, the capitalization of "Black" and "White" when referring to people: "Racial and Ethnic Identity". APA Style Guide. Retrieved November 1, 2021.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

OK --Roly (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Citation of exhibit catalog

I made some minor corrections to the book citation for "Nude Men" added to the References section but not used in the text of the article. If the book is not used, it should be in a Further Reading section if at all. The book is an exhibit catalog for the 2012 show of the same title at the Leopold Museum, and one of the editors is Elisabeth Leopold, one of the directors of this museum and wife of Rudolf Leopold the founder. Unless there are authors of the text of the book or other indications of scholarship, it is not likely a WP:reliable source for this article.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The co-editor is Tobias G. Natter, an art historian, so maybe its ok.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Removed this an a couple of other sources not used as citations in the text.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Removal of globalize tag

A maintenance tag has been in the social nudity section for about a year with no action. I have today added a lot of content based upon a scholarly book on Islam, which tend to support this removal. There cannot be globally inclusive content based upon reliable sources for anything that exists only in certain cultures. It is difficult to find citations for the prohibition of nudity when even the mention of the word is forbidden.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Reorganizing

Cultural differences and Contemporary social practices now have overlapping content e.g. regarding semi-public nudity, so I will do some sorting out.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Reorganization, in which content has been moved, is essentially complete. The next phase is re-writing, and finding new sources to fill in missing content.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Religion

VeryRarelyStable, Anupam: Perhaps there could be a discussion regarding the entire section "Religious interpretations" which has not been systematic, but a place to hold content from sources that I have run across during my general research on the topic of this article. There should be little disagreement that religion has a major role in the beliefs and behaviors of most of the world regarding proper dress, and thus regarding nudity. I began by contrasting ancient societies based upon an art historical reference, and am somewhat surprised that my generalizations regarding Abrahamic religions has remained without comment.

I did more focused research with regard to Islam. The content I have added is sourced from scholarly works intended to explain Islamic law to non-believers. I would not know how to find anything equivalent for Christians, but the content on the conservative holiness movement seems too specific for the level of detail appropriate to the topic of nudity. The appropriate level of detail might be four categories: Catholicism and Protestantism further divided into conservative and liberal. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

User:WriterArtistDC, thanks for pinging me here. In general, most of Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism doesn't have any clothing restrictions, though subsets of these traditions do. Traditional Catholics, such as the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen, often discuss the teaching of Mary-like Modesty, Anabaptists practice plain dress, and the holiness movement has a set of holiness standards (see page 36). This might be a good starting point. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Anupam: This article uses shortened footnotes, with citations in the "Works cited" sections and sfn templates in the body of the article. The WP guideline is to maintain the predominant citation style used in an article, which I have been doing. Rather than converting your citation, I will look for a more recent one, since the Times article is now 22 years old.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Converted the citation style of Times article, since I could not find a more recent source that mentioned both sauna culture and the Lutheran Church.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of sfn citations,

@Iskandar323:: This article uses sfn template citations, which means that many edit must include revision to both the citation and the link to the article content. Your deletion of the "Islam Q&A" source created an error because the article content remained linked to the deleted source. It may be that the source is questionable as an RS, but should not be deleted without explanation. Should both the citation and the article content be deleted? If so, why?--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I hadn't realised that it was a sfn reference, but yes, both the source and the material should be deleted, because it is not a reliable source: it is both an unreliable source, one which uses a Q&A format and which is administered by a single sheikh with a fringe perspective - a triple strike for unreliability. A source would be hard pressed to be poorer. There are dozens of diverse Islamicate countries in the world, so a statement starting with "In Islamic countries ..." is doomed at outset. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I've removed it again properly without repeating the sfn error. I would suggesting visiting the page "hammam" for credible statements on the subject. On a cursory glance it sounds like Moroccan hammams allow full female nudity in the women's section, which already nixes the generalising nonsense found in that previous statemement from Islam Q&A.

I would imagine the hammam page also contains a variety of reliable sources on the subject that can be explored. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Given your expertise, I was surprised at finding the content deleted rather than improved, or flagged for others to do so. This is the only reference in the article on Hammam, which is certainly relevant to the section on public bathing, so I have done the latter.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Other bodily functions

In ancient Rome, citizens not only bathed together, but took shits together in public latrines. Yet there is no mention of it here, and no WP article on the cultural aspects of human excretion; instead it seems to be a medical topic only. There is Culture and menstruation, which should also be mentioned here.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 06:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Isn't this article getting a little bogged down in endless examples already? Shouldn't it be about the theme of nudity, not a list? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no theme, but many, as with any topic that is defined somewhat differently by each scholarly community that touches upon it. This is not a list, which implies a collection of items only superficially related.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Page size

The size and readability of the article has not been discussed, so I never checked. It is over 200k! I take responsibility for plowing ahead with my edits while not paying attention to the need to place content in the related articles, or split content when this is needed. Would anyone like to talk about this? --WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I personally don’t think it’s too long. It’s a huge topic. Dronebogus (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

It is a huge topic, but what you're supposed to do with huge topics is split them into more focused articles, with the general article remaining as a kind of hub. For instance, a year or two ago the article on Phoenicia got cut to about half its length and a new article History of Phoenicia was created to contain some of the details that wouldn't fit. This article has lots of "See also"s; I think it's a good idea to palm off some of the information here onto those – from the §Religious interpretations section to Nudity in religion, for example.

—VeryRarelyStable 03:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Nudity in religion seems too much intertwined with culture to be a separate article.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I am proceeding with simplifying the History section that duplicates too much of the History of nudity article. I added Religious interpretations recently. It is really only about Western religions, and why they are anti-nudity. I have no idea of how to find sources to make it global.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I will likely do the split proposed below soon if there are no more comments.

Is it agreed that the core of this main article is the sociocultural aspects of nudity? If so, there is the question of how to link to the sub-articles. Rather than keeping a substantial summary of each sub-topic, there could be links only, in particular an "about" hatnote--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC).

Suggested split

Re: page size above, the Prehistory section, which includes both the evolution of hairlessness and the invention of clothing, could be a self-contained article linked both here and to History of nudity. There are more details that I could add to the new article.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Hairlessness as a concept seems particularly unrelated and removable. Nudity is a social concept and unrelated to hair volumes. A hairy human is not 'less naked' than a more hairless one. The evolution of clothing should be where the article starts, as this is pertinent to the subject in the sense that it is in the development of clothing that the social concept of nudity would have begun to arise. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Split done.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

FYI, there are certain preferred edit summary formulas for performing splits at WP:CORRECTSPLIT (for future reference), as well as post-op talk page templates. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Reorganizing

Public vs private has been an organizing principle for much of the content, but not carried through properly, a major rearrangement was needed (but nothing deleted). Also retitled some sections and changed the hierarchy for some topics. Colonialism is related to history but runs through many eras and continues. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

"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)

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)

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)

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)

---

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)

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)

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)

Draft of split

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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.

Split section Colonialism and racism

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) 23:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Colonialism and racism may be another candidate for a split into its own article. The new article being Nudity and colonialism would be closer to the current section's content. WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I think a new article is a good idea, but here's a suggestion: let's title the new article something like "Indigenous nudity", and incorporate material both from the "Colonialism and racism" section and the "Cultural differences" section of this article. Then we can cut down both sections here to a summary.

—VeryRarelyStable 02:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps an Indigenous nudity title for the new article would be a good idea, but I think that substantial content should remain in the Cultural differences section here in order to retain a global balance. Otherwise, this would be biased toward the contemporary Western point of view.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

After going over existing and new references, a better title for the article is Nakedness and colonialism, and I have created a draft article with that name - (Draft:Nakedness and colonialism).--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

New article created by moving draft, will now remove content from Nudity article.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

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.

Religion

Since there is already a Nudity in religion article, I plan to move and consolidate the content here on religion that is duplicated there. WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Also removing some content duplicated in History of nudity article.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)