Talk:Nudity/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Nudity. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

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)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia" 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)

Incorrect. Bob did not specify which statement, so it was probably this one: "Furthermore, I am identifiable in this photo, and I did NOT give consent for its public use." On the page about (Burning Man 228 (241613953).jpg) - the uncropped version. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

In the cropped image, that would narrow it down to him/her being one of a couple people - but the point I was making still stands: the claim is unverified. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The photographer indicated that it was the subject that had requested removal. That narrows it down to one person. So the image is, IMO, in violation of policy. Including, but not limited to ones Kbob mentions below. --Elvey (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

...and my point remains: the claim is unverified. As for policy violations, that isn't a matter of opinion. Something is either in violation, or it is not in violation. Which policies, specifically, does the image violate again, just so we are all clear? Xenophrenic (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

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

It is verifiable that of all her photos in the 2006 Burning Man set the photographer withdrew this single image from public viewing. Probably because the subject had asked her. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool. You should bring that up in the discussion, and let the discussion conclude. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Do Some of the Photos in this Article Violate Privacy Rights?

I am not familiar with all the details of each photo in this article. Maybe they have all been properly vetted, maybe not. But just wanted the editors here to be aware of the Wiki policies. [1]

Privacy Rights: When taking pictures of identifiable people, the subjects consent…..is often needed for photographs taken in a private place. This type of consent is sometimes called a model release, and it is unrelated to the photographer's copyright. [These kinds of photos] Normally do require consent: Nudes, underwear or swimsuit shots, unless obviously taken in a public place (unreasonable intrusion without consent).

So I wonder if we have the models consent for the photos of the children in the bathtub and the lady in the laundry room? Any comments on this? -- — Kbob • Talk • 16:36, 24 October 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 ^T 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)
I have modified the text here 'Photographic images were circulated that exposed the posing of prisoners naked, sometimes bound, and being intimidated.' because this is not clear enough, those people were tortured, using electricity and quire more, but someone has removed the changes as vandalism, while it was not vandalism. Wikipedia's purpose is not to sweeten reality removing what's true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.36.200.67 (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Tags for Photos and Non Encylopedic Content

I am not here to start trouble. I'm just doing what we all are doing; trying to create a really good encyclopedic article. All those who have made good efforts to expand and refine this article in the past and in the present, I salute you. I'm wondering though if somewhere along the line this article got off track, particularly in the photo department. In my judgment as an editor I find that both the quantity and the content of the photos in the article to be in need of repair. I have no objection to nudity and Wiki has a non-censorship policy. However even the Wiki non-censorship policy has its limitations. I would like the editors on the page to take a fresh look at the article, just as a Wiki reader would when they see the article for the first time. Looking for information for a report or school paper or just general information on the topic. At a glance does the article have the look and feel of an encyclopdia article? Do the photos flow seamlessly with the content or do they appear to be stuffed in and dominate the text? Are the photos in good taste or do they sensationalize the topic? Do they give academic insight to the topic or do they distract the reader? Personally, I object to many of the images in the article for these reasons:

1. Violation of Privacy Rights--See thread above this one in regard to the photos of two children in tub and lady in the laundry room.
2. Poor Format and Style--Many of the photos expand outside the section they are said to be illustrating. This makes the article look sloppy and unbalanced. Such as the photo in the lead.[2]
3. Common Sense and Moral Issues--Many of the photos appear to demean and ridicule the subject of nudity. For example the woman being photographed on a European street as an illustration of nude photography. Many of the photos in the article have been poorly selected, are in poor taste, do not add value to the reader and are therefore un-encyclopedic. Such as the man at Abhu Graib and the nude woman at Burning Man.

Here are some Wiki policies on the matter:

Not all legally obtained photographs of individuals are acceptable. The following types of image are normally considered unacceptable: Those that unfairly demean or ridicule the subject. These are categories which are matters of common decency rather than law. [3]
Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available....[4]

Thanks for your time and participation in this discussion.-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a big topic. It's hard to address generalities. But one thing I will note is that the text of this article is, frankly, rather bare-bones. Considering a conjectural featured-article-level article, the prose would be much longer and individual sections would be more filled out. I think that's responsible for some of the image-bunching which you point out. I don't think it's necessary to remove images just because we don't have enough text to support them yet, any more than it's necessary to remove text from articles without sufficient images.
As for specific images, I think the only one that's potentially problematic is File:Shanti.jpg. However, it has OTRS permission, which, since the image itself was obtained with a free license from Flickr, is most likely related to the model's permission for use of the image. Each of the images in the article serves a specific illustrative purpose, showing a different aspect or setting for nudity, and the individuals pictured are either unidentifiable or in a public place (or both). Powers ^T 14:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Powers for your intelligent comments. At this time I want to just interject this bit from the Manual of Style, for consideration in the conversation:

Images should be inside the section they belong to (after the heading and after any links to other articles), and not above the heading. [5]-- — Kbob • Talk • 14:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

All of the images appear to follow that recommendation, as far as I can tell. Powers ^T 15:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The images seem to illustrate the article without being overly intrusive or duplicative. If any photo seems questionable in terms of how permission was given, this can be taken up or confirmed on the image page rather than needing to edit the article. As for "moral issues", I think most considerations along these lines fail to meet WP:NOTCENSORED unless their inclusion demonstratively disrupts the article. I count at least five questions asked in the RFC statement, limiting an RFC to one question is normally good idea.—Ash (talk) 02:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Bias in "Functional nudity" section?

An anonymous editor put in a comment saying "this sounds biased..."

Where's the bias? Is it the part about how she "found it necessary to breastfeed her 7-month-old son" ? I've been told that when it's time, it's time to feed the kid, or suffer extreme discomfort. That seems equivalent to "finding it necessary."

Am I missing something? Explain, please. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the editor was biased... Note that that is the only edit that IP has ever made, and yet knows exactly how to put hidden comments into a page. One might suspect an WP:SPA. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a common HTML technique, hardly limited to wikis, so please assume good faith. I suspect the IP was suggesting that "found it necessary" sounded biased against the woman, implying that the only reason she should have been allowed to breastfeed was because it was necessary. Powers ^T 02:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

rewrite

I think the article really needs a rewtite. The word nudity itself is a noun so I think content should consist some small degree of various branch and field coverage e.g. history, idea development. Maybe some etymology and usage coverage.

The current article state is written as if it were a scandal. Why are there so many negative contents and (point, synthesis) religious based content e.g. modesty and citing things like Catholicism shouldn't even exist. I also think suspect the "functional" nudity is entire WP:OR, this Template:Sex in SF should clear up something and fill in the blank along.

As far I know there way more positive things

e.g. History (Clothing: Aegean, Fashion history)
idea (eroticism, naturalism, romanticism...etc.)

anyhow I cleanup some section just to give it a head start. possible suggestion: footer template giving an overview of various concepts in ?branch art, war - thoughts:aesthetics, literature - interaction: cultural, viewpoints.

note: topfreedom was derived from the grativs vs libre --> freedom ---> rights, minor history should be included but don't expand too many paragraph on current conflicting topics of practice, issue, activism, there is already several article covering on that section. --75.154.186.99 (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Nudity in film
- Fetishism, Romanticism
  - — cf. glam

studies

- studies: (cinematography, discography filmography, pornography, videography...in documentary genres)
- Erotic literature (photography)

modern

- - modern: capital, idol, model (person, art, model (fetish)|fetish / Idolatry

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble understanding what you mean. Can you be more clear? Powers ^T 13:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Nudity, sex, whatever

From Children seeing nudity:

"British TV is required to avoid displaying scenes of sex from 5:30am to 9pm (the so-called "watershed") to avoid viewing by children."

Is this sentence needed? I thought this article was about nudity. The sentence reflects the ambiguity (between the two concepts of nudity and sexual activity) that manifests in people's minds when they stop thinking. The referenced Ofcom Broadcasting Code acknowledges this difference between the two things. — An Sealgair (talk) 09:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You have expressed a reasonable concern. I've edited the section you mentioned to be a little more clear. I think that section was meant to convey the very ambiguity, in certain societies, between the concepts of nudity and sex you cited. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"Partial"

How "partial" nudity being defined for this article, and how is the best way to illustrate it? It seems there may be some overlap into Indecent exposure and cultural and historic attitudes. Pondering, -- Infrogmation (talk) 11:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

While you ponder, please do not revert several unrelated edits to the article. I assume it was a mistake, so I fixed it. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict, only ment to do one. Infrogmation (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the wider variety of images of "partial nudity" to the article. If someone thinks different images would be better, some images are for some reason inappropriate, or captions can be improved, discussion is welcome. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Some IP just removed the images, and honestly, I don't see a reason to reinsert them. Having a gallery of naked folks to define a few terms seems like graphic overkill to me: the section needs sources, not pictures. I also don't see rightly how the section on Terminology is not neutral--Infrogmation, it would be nice if you could explain the POV tag and the need for these images, which seem disparate and unrelated, and frankly lack a rationale. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 05:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I restored the images (before you posted this) and blocked the IP, since the user was deleting large numbers of images from many articles without discussion, despite several warnings. I have no opinion on the status of the pictures. --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, I figured that that was your motivation, and I cannot find fault with it--obviously this IP had few words to spare but rode a high moral horse. I didn't revert them for reasons outlined above, but thanks for explaining your rationale, TeaDrinker. Drmies (talk) 05:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

hello

why do pacific people enjoy showing their culture to public?

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

Skinny dipping photo being repeatedly replaced

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

Agree with the removal. The image is presently up for deletion. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree for the above reasons. Dinkytown 07:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Concur. Infrogmation (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Censoring this?

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

Wikipedia is not censored Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... I note that in all the pictures of naked people in this article, there's a dearth of, say, 13-year-old girls, and that the articles on both bestiality and child pornography are strangely lacking in illustrative pictures. And I'm pretty sure twink photos would be impermissible even in the article on pederasty.

The point is, every culture, every country, every group censors. Even those that claim not to. After all, "the laws of the state of Florida" is really just code for "legally codified censorship".

CNJECulver (talk) 10:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Abu Ghraib prison picture

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

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

could be, but as the subject of the photo is unidentifiable, that person is not presented is "a false or disparaging light" The clear difference with a mugshot of course is that Joe public can look at a mugshot and recognise the person. no such possibility exists here. --IdreamofJeanie (talk) 10:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's definitely not as clear as it was when i first saw it last night. But I still think the subject is portrayed in "a false and disparaging light." I do not believe whether the person is identifiable or not plays a role. But, even if that was an important factor, I'm sure some people in the government and some of the soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison are able to identify him. Wgunther (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Photos

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

Good lord, are you that afraid of the human body? Get over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.50.136 (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The tolerant seek to respect and accomodate other views. The intolerant sneer.

Having said that, I object to the picture in the Punishment section. Not because it's nudity, but because the whole point of the photo was the humiliation of the subject, who almost certainly did not consent to the forced nudity. In publishing the photo, Wikipedia perpetuates his continued humiliation, which is at best ethically questionable.

I also question the point of the gallery beyond purience. Surely anyone reading this article already knows what nudity looks like. Do we really need a raft of photos illustrating every possible variation of nakedness? "Here's what nudity looks like from the left side -- at the doctor's office -- in the rain...." Sheesh.

CNJECulver (talk) 02:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The picture at the top right now is pretty useless. It belongs more in the nudism article than the nudity one. And it would be better to replace it with an illustration. Also, why is that random gallery just sitting right there in the middle of the page?71.31.144.109 (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The gallery is in the wrong position, it should be near the end as it's only just below the lead. I will move it. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.71.31.144.109 (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Cresix has advised me not to add silly edits to make a point. Actually, I'd noticed the profusion of imagery in this article, and honestly thought it was fitting to include a clothed person, given all the permutations being illustrated. However, it was foolish to embellish the image with a comment referring to the partial baldness of the subject (a spontaneous response to the image), as well as perhaps my use of a well-known subject.

Does anyone mind if we add a clothed person? (Assuming the comment is plain.)

Tangentially: the concept of "non-nudes" is absent from this survey of nudities -- "non-nudes" in the sense of revealing imagery that is technically not nude, yet may be "titillating would-be nudes" like wet t-shirt competitions, and tight clothes etc. Any remarks? I suddenly feel very exposed by advocating such a thing, but, it seems to be an omission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by You, Me and Everyone Else (talk • contribs) 15:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

YMAEE, thanks for bringing this to the talk page rather than continuing with the silliness. My comment to you was based on the Wikipedia admonition to not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Obviously I don't know what your thoughts were when you inserted the image of a pop culture figure known at least in part for his outrageous behavior and unusual partially bald head, along with your edit summary "it's all a bit trite, isn't it?", but it certainly gave the appearance that you were trying to be silly to make a point. Now, your concern expressed here about adding an image of a clothed person is legitimate, regardless of how people feel about the issue. My personal opinion is that a clothed person serves no significant purpose in an article on nudity. But let's see what others think. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Quite so, excuse me, I was indeed struck with fleeting silliness as I sought a suitable image. However, it was certainly not pre-meditated silliness; and I've hence learned of one of the dangers of open authorship. You, Me and Everyone Else (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC) (Whimsy - that's the word.) You, Me and Everyone Else (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

POSTAL REGULATIONS ON NUDITY VERSUS NAKED

Bold text

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

Thanks. Maybe you can use that PhD of yours to find your caps lock button. I've shortened the section title. Gary (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

External link: http://www.opennudity.com

User:Peter Karlsen believes this external link is appropriate for this article. I'll leave it to him to explain why. I believe it fails WP:EL as it's just a link to someone's personal blog with only a few images copied over from Flickr. I've tried removing the link, but Karlsen has restored it. Specifically, this link falls under "Links to be avoided" #s 1, 11, and 13 (but especially #11). Since Karlsen feels the link is appropriate, I invite him to explain why so we might achieve some consensus among editors. Rklawton (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

On a side note, it looks like this domain has fallen afoul of anti-spamming efforts[6] Rklawton (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur, this link does not help the article. --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Also concur, there is no value added to the subject unless it is a link to reference material regarding nudity rather than photos of nudity. Unless a good reason for it adding to the subject can be provided I support removal. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Although the photography generally is good, I can't say that the link adds much to the article. I am not opposed to removing the link. Cresix (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree the link is inappropriate for this article, although the images are quite well done, and tasteful. Since the images are freely distributable, perhaps uploading one for the article on nude photography might be better than adding a link. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

100% concur..this is nothing other than a blog, which is a clear violation of WP:ELNO. My edit summary was wrong (becasue they're all CC-BY-SA); but I'll correct that. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I restored the link because I regarded it as a valuable source of high-quality freely-licensed photographs concerning the subject of the article, much like the Wikimedia Commons page presently linked. Some amount of flexibility in the application of WP:EL is generally extended towards non-commercial links that aren't copyright or BLP violations. However, if there's a consensus that any website without an identifiable corporate or organizational author is a "personal web page", hence a link "normally to be avoided", and that this particular site doesn't warrant an exception, I will accept that. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the consensus on this matter does not have to be that "any website without an identifiable corporate or organizational author is a 'personal web page'". All that's needed to keep the link out of the article is a consensus here that it does not belong in the article. Cresix (talk) 03:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, I want to add that I strongly disagree with your claim that consensus/flexibility can override the clear prohibition in WP:ELNO. While it is true that WP:EL, like all guidelines, are subject to exceptions and common sense, I think that we should read such a limitations very narrowly. I strongly believe in the idea that, as an encyclopedia (not a general internet resource), we should keep as few external links as absolutely possible--specifically links to the home page of a subject (or sometimes, but not always, equivalent when there isn't such a site), government resources, resources from major national/international neutral groups (like links to UN or NIH, or sometimes things like the American Cancer society), or, occassionally, links to pages that have media that is highly useful but we can't recreate due to copyright reasons. I actually like the fact that you can't just come to Wikipedia and get all the links you need to fully explore the topic--I can use Joe Random search engine for that; when I come to WP, I can, instead, get (ideally) a consensus discussion of what reliable sources say about a topic. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

If you believe that "Links normally to be avoided" should actually be a "clear prohibition" - for instance, "Links that must always to be avoided", then you're welcome to propose a change in the guideline. Absent such an alteration, we shouldn't apply the guideline in a stricter form than it's written in. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I overstate the case a bit, but what I mean by the above is that "generally to be avoided" means "in the vast majority of circumstances." To be an exception, the site would not only need to be of extremely high quality (this is not), and it would have to offer some sort of special resource that another site which met WP:ELYES did not (this doesn't--it just offers a few more photos of people without clothes). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The website is indeed a personal website - not because it lacks any "identifiable corporate or organizational author" but because that's what it is. The website is hosted by "HostGator" for $4.95 a month with a domain registered by "GoDaddy.com". The "website" consists of five very poorly formatted HTML pages with about twenty-five images in total all of which are borrowed from another website (with permission). In short, it's an excellent example of the low standards this encyclopedia has repeatedly eschewed. So what Karlsen needs to learn from this is not "consensus wins" but rather, that this external link falls far below our standards. Rklawton (talk) 03:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Now that's below the belt. Rather than graciously accepting what is essentially a concession that consensus is against the inclusion of the link (unless later shown otherwise), and allowing me to save face, you've decided to misrepresent the site that I sought to include. Isn't an accurate description bad enough? The site actually has seven pages [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] (I'm not counting php-generated pages with single images linked from galleries), and 74 images total. Two of the pages aren't plain HTML, but php scripts for image galleries [14] [15]. Why on earth the identities of the web host and domain registrar, or the amount of money you believe is paid for web hosting, would in any way relate to the objectives of WP:EL, serve as objectionable characteristics of "personal web pages", or affect the value of a website for readers, I have no idea. Your statement that all of the images "are borrowed from another website (with permission)", is technically true, but ignores the fact that Flickr holds an extraordinarily large number of images, and that sifting through search results to find high-quality content could take hours. While I'm willing to accept that this website shouldn't be linked from the article, or that this and similar websites are considered to violate WP:EL (based on the existing discussion), I will not have my name dragged through the mud via the condescending language "what Karlsen needs to learn from this" supported by misstatements of fact. Please try to do better. Peter Karlsen (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

If the website were really "an excellent example of the low standards this encyclopedia has repeatedly eschewed" and "far below our standards", then why was an IP recently blocked for "vandalism" due to the unexplained removal of the link [16]? Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism states that "significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." Therefore, when removing "an excellent example of the low standards this encyclopedia has repeatedly eschewed", 97.123.120.178 wouldn't have needed an edit summary to avoid being blocked, since anyone who visited the site would immediately recognize the problem :) Peter Karlsen (talk) 08:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Because the IP in question repeatedly removed multiple links from multiple articles after warnings not to. Rklawton (talk) 14:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Before this goes any further, Peter, do you have any affiliation with the website under discussion? --StuffOfInterest (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No. That would be kind of like me asking whether someone involved in this discussion had any affiliation with 97.123.120.178... Peter Karlsen (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have clarified the reason for removing this website except that your concession clearly indicated you thought this was only a matter of consensus and a bias against websites that didn't immediately appear to be corporate - and those were indeed not the issues. It was my intention to point out the site's low quality and clear evidence that the site is in fact made by a complete amateur (as opposed to not appearing corporate). If, instead, you had written something like "oh - hey, thanks guys, I had the wrong impression about external links" - then you would have received a pat on the back rather than a kick in the ass. In short, if you use these opportunities to learn, you'll do well here. If not, you'll find yourself banned - (if that hasn't happened at least once already). Rklawton (talk) 12:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

A poorly presented, seemingly random, selection of nudes. Why does the originator think this site should be added in preference to dozens of other random selection of nudes?--IdreamofJeanie (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Because many other websites covering this subject matter are full of advertisements and borderline-malicious javascript. I'm sure there's probably something better that could be linked if I really looked hard enough, except that, based on the discussion above, similar websites wouldn't be considered to meet the external links guideline either. Peter Karlsen (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That's correct. Content is all that matters in Wikipedia articles. Most articles would do just fine without an external links section. This one would never miss it if it went away. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)