Talk:Nudity/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Edits

WriterArtistDC, I just made a series of edits. Many are relatively minor. A few are more significant:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nudity&diff=932783882&oldid=932783775 (seemed POV to me)

NPOV applies to the article as a whole. If any content is an accurate summary of a source, it is up to other editors to find other sources that provide balance, not remove content they find biased. It is actually POV to apply personal judgement in this case, so I plan to revert this edit.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

No, NPOV applies to all encyclopedic content on Wikipedia (see WP:NPOV, first line). If the author of a given source takes a political potshot, that doesn't mean that the encyclopedia should take the same potshot. If you believe the information contained in this sentence is important, please reword it. Otherwise, it should stay out. SunCrow (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Your interpretation of NPOV leaves out the first line in WP:RS "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered". If a source is reliable, an editor can only establish whether content it supports is questionable by citing an equally reliable source, in which case both viewpoints stay in to show there is a difference of opinion. Even if you think someone is taking a "political potshot" you must find a source that supports that opinion. Individual items can be removed only by establishing that the source itself is not reliable, which was not done here. Instead, as in Child development, you deleted parts of content without any reason that I can see except your personal opinion, such as the last line regarding the Norwegian sex ed video. The source is "The Daily Beast" which some may see as nothing but liberal bias, but I do not, any more than the NY Times. Some other changes have been to replace complete, clear language with words which drain the content of meaning, as in the controversy regarding the French children's book, the source for which was the publisher's website. I also have a news source for the controversy which says the same thing, but did not think I needed it.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nudity&diff=932864036&oldid=932863770 (seemed off topic)

I needed to add background information from the source to establish that rules of proper dress applied only to "respectable" women, while some degree of nakedness was not only allowed, but expected with regard to other women, so this is on-topic. Again a revert, with rewording to make the meaning clearer.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I am open to compromise on this. If you clarified the final sentence, that would certainly help. SunCrow (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I have simplified this considerably.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nudity&diff=932791956&oldid=932791662 (lacked foundation in body of article and did not add much)

There is foundation, very clear with regard to China. It adds a great deal to the lede given the general lack of non-Western content.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any foundation for the statement regarding India. Also, the statement itself is so nebulous that I'm not even sure I know what it means. Any way to clarify? SunCrow (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I will need to find another source to clarify what I am saying here, but it should not be a mystery to you, it is the difference between societies that view being naked as sacrilege vs those that see it is a breach of etiquette. The permission given to Hindu and Jain holy men who practice nudism indicates to me that in India being naked or clothed is the matter of social convention, although a strong one as it is in most of Asia. For China, this is explicitly stated, reflecting a culture where "saving face" is a powerful social force.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nudity&diff=932784329&oldid=932783882 (seemed off topic and a bit controversial)

Not controversial, all studies of sex ed in Scandinavia vs the US conclude we are doing it wrong. Failure to provide complete and accurate information results in young people finding the wrong answers, resulting in higher rates of teen pregnancy and STD's.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I maintain that the content is off-topic. The article is about nudity, not sex education. Also, the article has gotten very long and needs to be trimmed. If this content belongs anywhere, it belongs in Sex education in the United States. SunCrow (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Nudity cannot be separated from sexuality, and the nudity in this video is one of the reasons it is such a contrast to American sex ed.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Any thoughts? SunCrow (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

SunCrow: The edits to the Child development section were more significant that any of the above.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The section was disorganized. My edits improved it. SunCrow (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Working from the top by section rather than addressing individual edits, I have done the lede and History sections, reverting most of the changes because they are deletions of what is needed for complete coverage.

WriterArtistDC, I appreciate your many contributions to this page and am more than willing to work collaboratively in an effort to reach consensus on these issues. With respect, I ask that you keep WP:OWN in mind. SunCrow (talk) 02:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Two things I have not changed (re: breasts and bathing) relates to what to do when something crosses the boundary between eras. For me, when it begins determine which era it is part of even if it continues into another era. You made the opposite choices.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

SunCrow: Generally I recognize that my contributions need another editor's refinement, and I have previously stated my appreciation for your willingness to do this. However, if you have a contradictory opinion on what the article says rather than how, you need to find RSs to support your view. Since 2006 I have been accused many times of "owning" an article while adding content supported by the best reliable sources. Administrators and most other editors have supported my interpretations of NPOV and RS guidelines, including while working on highly controversial topics that are now Good Articles.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Post-merge article size

Currently at 99,229k, I am trying to remove/summarize content. Worked on the History of nudity article to make it worthy of sharing the load, but it was in poor shape and still needs work. Not being a history buff (being only interested in the social/cultural aspects not the details of events in chronological order); I had never looked at a standard categorization of time periods. Found one on WP that makes sense, so I applied it here also. Nothing is perfect; "Traditional cultures" which have remained unchanged for thousands of years don't fit the classification, so there is a separate subsection.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Related question - What is the definition of "depictions". Here I have included live performances perhaps because "performance art" has become a valid part of the visual arts. An even narrower definition is "representations in word or pictures" which some might see as excluding film also. I art schools, they distinguish between the visual and performing arts, the visual now including video.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

WriterArtistDC, why do we have two different subsections on photography? SunCrow (talk) 05:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

SunCrow - I was sorting out content that seemed distinct: photography as a depiction and taking photographs in public as a clothing optional event. Perhaps the latter should be re-named.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Done, the latter is now "Public photo events"--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for explaining. SunCrow (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

We are now at 107,753 bytes, WriterArtistDC. Any thoughts on material that could be condensed? SunCrow (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I removed the excess from the Depictions section, and separated the Performances section. Did not help much, still close to 107K--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Edits 2

User:SunCrow - Unfortunately I plan to revert all of your recent edits:

1. The source did not say "some", but all right-wing politicians/parties attacked the book, and the changes are generally unnecessary.
2. The women in the new photo are not topless, but nude.
3. The paragraph break between content on different continents was intentional. I often view the page on differing devices, and find that short paragraphs are more readable.
4. Although not perfect, the group photo is a better illustration of the topic as a whole. Racial diversity is maintained with the other photo in its original location, where it also illustrates the topic.
5. This will change because rather than individual reverts I am going back to the version prior to all. I don't care about alternate sides for images unless they are too close and compete.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Systematic bias beyond WP

Much is said about systematic bias on WP, but with regard to this topic, the bias exists in the world. To begin with, it is basically impossible to include "nudity" as an internet search term and not get porn. Even when I use google scholar, sexual references contaminate the results; articles on pathological behaviors overwhelm what is normal or healthy.

Then there is the deeper cultural bias in the publication of reliable sources: the topic is literally "unmentionable". Publications about what people wore do not include nudity or related terms as keywords or in indexes. The past is whitewashed, leaving out the prevalence of women not covering their breasts and men (sometimes women) being nude when circumstances required (bathing, working) no matter what the social norms. The class bias of history makes it difficult to determine the norm for the majority when only the behavior of the upper classes is recorded. A particular historical blind spot is slavery; workers mere nude, house servants might be clothed, but not always.

Normal behaviors that I experiences myself (I am 70 years old) have been recast as deviant. In the 1950s children played naked on the beach until they were as old as 6; pedophilia never entered anyone's mind. I had swim class in college in 1968, and we had to be nude (boys only); everyone now thinks it was weird or wants to deny it ever happened. We also had to take showers after gym in HS, now that is going away. I am of the generation that skinny-dipped at Woodstock, but that innocent freedom has been completely sexualized.

With regard to editing, I am trying to reduce the article size, beginning with moving the historical content here to History of nudity. That article is in such poor shape that it needs to be worthy to receive these additions, and it is a struggle. Not being particularly interested in history as a discipline, I don't know how to find the level of reliable sources that I am accustomed to using in the social sciences, and not always understanding what I do find (every field having its own terminology). The few references I have indicated historical facts that I cannot fully substantiate or connect to other time periods. History does not record the everyday lives of the majority, only the ruling classes, who dressed not to cover their nakedness but to display their worthiness to rule.

Historical documents do not address the underlying forces that the bare facts (no pun intended) only imply. For example, I have read that public nakedness in ancient Rome was socially unacceptable, but they socialized at the baths. This reflects an entirely different conception of public/private, but the word "privacy" has also been hijacked on the internet to mean something entirely different. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Categorization

User:SunCrow I don't know the reason for the re-categorization of articles, since it was not discussed.

Perhaps you assume that a categorization scheme is a branching structure (tree), with any particular article located at one level, but not simultaneously in a category and a subcategory of the same tree. Nude (art) is in the sub-category Nude art so it cannot also be in the super-category Nudity.

I see categories as radial, defined by overlapping concepts, or family resemblances, with no obvious hierarchy and fuzzy boundaries.

The article Nude (art) is the overlap between Nudity and Art (the definition of which not even experts can agree upon). The overlap is fuzzy, so the categories cannot be mutually exclusive. Nude (art) is connected to Nude photography (art) by the category Nude art but also connected by the category Nudity to depictions of nudity that are not art.

The article Model (art) is about the overlap between the concepts Model, Nudity and Art. It is about the activity of posing nude for a class or artist, so it is directly in the category Nudity (things people do without clothes); but Model (art) is also in the category Nude art because models participate in the creation of nude artworks. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

"The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics."

Given the above my description of radial categories is NA, since categorization on WP has little to do with the relationships between topics on a conceptual level, but is a navigation schema for readers. However, the implementation of the "defining characteristics" schema is typically hit-and-miss. Although the guidelines state that as with any WP content, defining characteristics should be supported by reliable sources, none of the category pages I have looked at have any.

Category:Nudity seems to rely upon this article to define it, which is now very problematical since my editing has changed the definition from a human state of being without clothes to something that recognizes the socially constructed meanings of naked as being improperly dressed depending upon a social situation.

Category:Nude art is a sub-category of Category: Art genres which is a sub-category of Category: Visual arts; all of which ignores that Art is the prime example of an essentially contested concept, which has no agreed upon set of essentially defining characteristics.

Perhaps the distinction between diffusing and non-diffusing categories is a way of including a page in multiple categories, but this would violate the hierarchical requirement?

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

CE vs. AD

I can remember no specific dates in the history sections of this article before I added them in the past months, and I chose to use CE/BCE rather than AD/BC. I had thought that this was the preference on WP as part of global neutrality, but the guidelines merely calls for consistency within each article and no change without consensus. There was a recent change to dates in one subsection while leaving the other CE dates as they were, so I reverted that change. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Restoring content to Naturism section

User:SunCrow - While summary style is needed to keep articles from becoming too large, this cannot be done by deleting content from a main article that does not exist in a linked sub-article.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Very problematic lede

The lede makes gross generalizations, it makes references (both historical and present) to large regions (ie. "in Europe", "in Asia", "in Africa", "in the Western World") as if these regions are/were monolithic. The views on nudity (as on pretty much anything else, as a matter of fact) have varied by place (you could/can have one view in a village and a different view in a nearby city), but also by class, even occupation. Also the lede implies the West has only been influenced by two (opposing) schools of though: the ancient Greek culture and the Abrahamic religions, and that's it. In fact, this is an oversimplification, as countless factors have influenced social norms regarding nudity. And much of the lede is unsourced WP:OR. Lede must be rewritten from scratch.2A02:2F01:5CFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:41DF (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD doesn't have to go into much detail. That is presented later in the article, some of it sourced. But please point out the parts of the lead that are not discussed (and sourced) later in the article. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

While recognizing that non-Western content is thin, there is nothing in the lead that is not a summary of sourced content in the article; combining both historical and contemporary sections. The generalization regarding Western society having two major traditions has a specific reference, Barcan, Ruth (2004). Nudity: A Cultural Anatomy.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Lede

WriterArtistDC, I have the following concerns about the second paragraph of the lede.

Sentence: "Nakedness, or the loss of body fur, was one of the factors in the evolution of anatomically modern humans from their hominid ancestors".

Concern: This assertion is more definitive than it should be, and more definitive than the analogous material in the article body.

Sentence: "For many thousands of years, humans wore no clothing..."

Concern: The body of the article doesn't exactly say this.

Sentence: "The need for clothing only occurred as people migrated to other climates which required protection from the elements".

Concern: This is stated as a theory/hypothesis in the body of the article, not as an established fact.

Sentence: "When societies developed from hunter-gatherer to agrarian society clothing became part of cultural evolution as societies became differentiated by status and class".

Concern: Unless I am missing something, the body of the article doesn't say this.
Thoughts? SunCrow (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC) SunCrow-

Concern #1: The section "Evolution of hairlessness" is entirely about hominid evolution, so I do not see an issue. A summary is going to read as more "definitive" than the full text, but I do not think it misrepresents the content.

Concern #2: The opening paragraph in the "Origin of clothing" states that humans evolved 260,000 to 350,000 years ago; and clothing originated 83,000 to 170,000 years ago. We are allowed to do the math and find that humans were naked for many thousands of years.

Concern #3: The date range of 83,000 to 170,000 is presented as a theoretical estimate, but the adoption of clothing as protection from the elements is stated as a fact.

Concern #4: This was an attempt to summarize both the last paragraph of prehistory and the beginning of section on ancient civilization. Obviously much too brief, I will try again.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

WriterArtistDC, thank you. We are on the same page on concerns #2 and #4. Regarding concern #3, the text does not state as fact that clothing was initially worn as protection from the elements. That seems logical, but it's not in the body of the article and it needs a source. Regarding concern #1, there is an issue. The language in the lede is too definitive. This is a hypothesis or a theory, not an established fact. I'd like to take two existing paragraphs in the lede, combine them, and revise them as follows:

Nakedness, or the loss of body fur, may have been a factor in the evolution of anatomically modern humans. For many thousands of years, humans wore no clothing, and nudity continues to be the norm in some isolated indigenous societies in tropical climates. The widespread adoption of clothing only occurred as people migrated to other climates which required protection from the elements. As societies developed from being hunter-gatherers to being agrarian, clothing became part of cultural evolution as individuals and groups became differentiated by status and class. In early civilizations such as Egypt, slaves, children, and others with lower status often continued to be naked.

Thoughts?SunCrow (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

SunCrow- It appears that your objection to the language in #1, "This is a hypothesis or a theory, not an established fact.", and your persistent placement of cn tags throughout articles, indicates an orientation to science (and editing Wikipedia) that I do not share. Science does not establishing facts, it tests hypotheses to support theories, which seek to become paradigmatic within a field of study, which is what science means by "truth"; a long process of discovery that never ends. A particular source may include a general discussion of the theory being tested, but being written for an audience of fellow researchers, it does not explain or justify something paradigmatic, such as people beginning to wear cloths for protection from the elements.

An encyclopedia is a collection of articles that seek to present the current state of theoretical knowledge to a general audience. This requires a collaboration between experts capable of finding and understanding reliable sources and other editors that can translate these understandings for non-experts. We have generally had such a collaboration, however at some point rewording becomes misrepresentation of the sources. I have already, and will continue to work with you regarding presentation, but not always about content.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

WriterArtistDC, which part of the language I proposed do you believe misrepresents the sources? How could the language be improved? SunCrow (talk) 04:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Your proposed wording includes "may have been" for the premise that hairlessness is of evolutionary significance. All the references begin with hairlessness as the observable characteristic to be explained, and evolution is the paradigm within which that explanation will made. The current wording merely states this.

Clothing as protection from the elements (including sand and sun as well as cold) does not need a citation, all the current references also begin with this as a given, with studies working out the details of when and where clothing was invented, not why. Perhaps this is not obvious because the technology for clothing; such as sewing and weaving, was invented pre-migration to make other things both decorative (necklaces) and useful (belts, sacks).

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, then. How about this? It is generally accepted that anatomically modern humans evolved from being mostly covered with fur to being mostly hairless. For many thousands of years, humans wore no clothing, and nudity continues to be the norm in some isolated indigenous societies in tropical climates. The widespread adoption of clothing only occurred as people migrated to other climates which required protection from the elements. As societies developed from being hunter-gatherers to being agrarian, clothing became part of cultural evolution as individuals and groups became differentiated by status and class. In early civilizations such as Egypt, slaves, children, and others with lower status often continued to be naked.' SunCrow (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The current wording of the first sentence, the only part you want changed, is correct. Loss of fur began with earlier hominids who left the forests for the savanna, evolution proceeding to effective hairlessness with the emergence of anatomically modern humans. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, —PaleoNeonate – 15:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Simplification of Evolution of hairlessness section

After finding additional references for hair loss and reading the previous sources, I went back over the section to provide the clearest presentation of generally accepted science on this topic as a minor subsection of the general topic of nudity. That topic is mainly within the social sciences, so there is no need for the coverage that would be appropriate in the scientific article on human evolution.

It is clear from these sources that humans are hairless because their evolutionary ancestors moved from shady forest to open savanna, and evolved more efficient means of cooling their bodies. All the the sources dismiss the old "aquatic ape" theory, so I don't even mention it. The parasite theory has a good source, but this does not cast any doubt on the primacy of the cooling theory.

In general I have removed all the "may have beens" from the content. When a theory is uncontested, and supported by multiple sources, there is no need to imply doubt that these sources do not contain. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

That topic is mainly within the social sciences, so there is no need for the coverage that would be appropriate in the scientific article on human evolution. a single sentence may be appropriate but I generally agree. I also agree about not mentioning the undue aquatic ape hypothesis. Thanks for working on this, —PaleoNeonate – 15:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

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 not to merge, but instead to WP:SPLIT the "Sexuality" section from this article into Nudity and sexuality, replacing all the content there. Polly Tunnel (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

---

I propose to merge Nudity and sexuality into Nudity#Sexuality. "Nudity and sexuality" is a stub article that has never successfully grown. Its small size would allow it to fit easily into the much larger "Nudity" article. This article already has a "Sexuality" section which deals with much the same subject as that article. It would be a good place to put that content. Polly Tunnel (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Sexuality is a subtopic of Nudity worthy of its own article, so perhaps the movement of content could go the other way? This is in keeping with my take on wp summary style, general topic articles should be at the center of more detailed linked articles.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

WriterArtistDC, what exactly are you proposing? SunCrow (talk) 06:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I support the proposed merger. SunCrow (talk) 06:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

SunCrow,Polly Tunnel: I agree that Nudity and sexuality as it stands is so poor it could simple be a redirect to the subsection here. However, unlike "Carpentry and fish"; "Nudity and sexuality" are highly related, so I created the subsection as somewhere to locate the content on non-sexual nudity and sexual pathologies that did not fit elsewhere. This content certainly needs expansion and clarification, and I can foresee its becoming worthy of being split into another article. Perhaps that is the reason the PROD was rejected. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

WriterArtistDC, I hear you. I would recommend that we go ahead with the merger for now. If the subsection gets improved and expanded at some point, a new article could be created at that time. SunCrow (talk) 03:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Polly Tunnel,SunCrow - Having read the little content that remains in "Nudity and sexuality" and the five references, it is my opinion that there is nothing there worthy of merging in this article. Some statements have no reference, others have references that have nothing to do with the content. There is a blog post that seems to have been written by someone after taking one art history class. There may be a relevant topic regarding gender differences in sexual arousal in response to nudity, but better references would need to be found. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

WriterArtistDC - That's pretty much my opinion too (and I suspect it's also SunCrow's). I'm trying to figure out what to do with the "Nudity and sexuality" page while it's devoid of any useful content. If a merge is not the way forward, how would you feel if we simply remove the largely valueless content from "Nudity and sexuality" per WP:STARTOVER? Then we could, for the moment, turn that page into a redirect to the "Sexuality" section here. I'm hoping this is where the subject can be expanded, if at can be expanded at all. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I never said I was in favor of the merge/delete, only that the other article is currently not worth saving. There may be admin reasons for doing so, since it was created in 2006. I am only interested in keeping this article within the bounds of reasonable size and readability. My initial proposal remains, doing a split from here instead.

There is a topic for "Nudity and sexuality" that emerges from this article. Nudity includes many subsections that are not about sexuality defined narrowly as sexual feelings and activity. There is a definable difference between sexual and non-sexual nudity. If "Nudity and sexuality" contained the details of the former, "Nudity" could be about the latter except for a summary section and wikilink.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you're proposing a WP:SPLIT which would involve moving the entire content of this article's "Sexuality" section to the "Nudity and sexuality" page, leaving a WP:SUMMARY section here, and completely deleting the existing content at "Nudity and sexuality". While this isn't my first choice, I'd happily support this to get things moving. We could go ahead now with WP:CONSENSUS unless SunCrow has any objections. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 11:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Polly Tunnel - Yes, if you and SunCrow agree, I will put a draft of the new content for "Nudity and sexuality" in one of my sandboxes and do a complete replacement of what is there, then trim the subsection here to a summary. I will let you know when it is ready for review, may be a few days.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@WriterArtistDC: SunCrow appears to have been indefinitely blocked by User:Seraphimblade so may not be able to respond here. Something to do with edits to articles about politics I believe. MPS1992 (talk) 11:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up about SunCrow. I guess that means we have consensus. I'll WP:MERGECLOSE now so we're ready to move forward with the split. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2020 (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.

This closure is a violation of Closure procedure, which requires an "uninvolved editor". (It may also have been closed too soon.) Polly Tunnel, you are a very experienced editor, and should know this. I'm not challenging this closure for now, but in the future, please avoid taking part in closures of discussions with which you have been involved. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing my attention to this. I'm sorry for the mistake. I think I must have been misinterpreting the text in WP:MERGECLOSE. And thank you for the links to WP:CLOSE, which I'd actually never read before, and which makes it much clearer. As I may have closed the discussion too soon, I'm quite happy to revisit the conclusion if anyone has any further comments. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Polly Tunnel: I have been working on the split described above. Discussion of the future content and structure of Nudity and sexuality should continue on the talk page there.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Undo of photo deletion

The standard response to such a deletion is "WP is not censored", but that generally implies that the disputed content is objectionable. That is not the case here: the topic is nudity, so images showing non-sexual nudity need no justification. The image illustrates the adjacent text, and also the cultural differences regarding nudity.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Sexuality vs Excretion as the source of shame

There is a bias that is hard to address because of the assumption that the "shame" of nudity is sexual, when it may also be about excretion, which is the more universal reason for covering some parts of the body.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)