Talk:Juliana Pegues

Removal
I used comment markup to conceal for now a sent that concerned an ambiguously incomplete addition about sensational content whose ref is
 * (a) adead link &
 * (b) probably not a WP:RS even when the link is not dead.

Some of that requires no further expln'n, but: -- Jerzy * t (on ip 2601:199:C202:287E:44FC:C704:2793:9F61 (talk)) 10:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) (Even tho i viewed the art'l bcz her last name is "Pegues") it took me 2 or3 readings to pick up on the statement meaning that it was the bearer of the probably-masculine first-name who was said to be in feminine garb.
 * 2) And it took some reflection for me to get past the wording's failure to clarify how thoroly dressed the one with female garb was, and to thus become open to at least the suspicion that the artistic and/or political point intended  reflects a nude male being far more transgressive than a nude female, while the transgressivity of a visibly cross-dressed male and of a stark-naked female differ far less (and the details of costume, and of indvidual taste, and/or genders, and/or  values of the audience could far outweigh the "decent is decent, but anything else is just indecent" paradigm). So The revision i found may suffer more from psychological over-simplification of intent, than from lack of straightforward factual detail per se.
 * If you agree with me, that that bizarre sig gives notice, but does not offer evidence, about the identity of the editor, good for you.  If, instead, i've confused you, the hint you could exploit is that
 * it's easy to fake a WP sig,
 * but i stand in awre of you, if
 * you can fake an edit history that would hide your sig fakery".
 * --Jerzy•t 08:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)