Talk:Nakedness and colonialism

Draft article for proposed split
See the discussion at Talk:Nudity. WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Personal essay/OR tag ?
- This article is a split of content that has been part of the Nudity article for more than a year, and reflects a point of view supported by the cited sources, many of which state the premise: the nakedness of Indigenous peoples was taken by colonizers as proof that they were at best primitives that needed to be "civilized" or more often sub-humans who could be enslaved or killed. I would need specifics regarding how it has now become OR as a stand-alone article if this tag is to be addressed. WriterArtistDC (talk) 05:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The basic thesis of the article is taken from the introduction of the book Dirt, Undress and Difference by Adeline Masquelier.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * - Soon after the request for specifics above, you removed the maintenance tags, now one is back. My request for an explanation is also renewed. I present the pov of the sources I cite, not my "personal feelings or ... an original argument". The sources are largely from academic publications, and the paraphrasing is neutral--WriterArtistDC (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Upon further investigation, it appears this article has been a victim of Tag bombing, so I have repaired the damage.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @WriterArtistDC, apologies for apparently dropping the same tag into the article mere weeks after it had been tagged by someone else! It appears though that there is a major issue, given that now two independent editors have tagged the article for (presumably) the same problem. I’m going to put the tag back, but don’t worry I’m not tag bombing and I will hang around to help clean the prose up! (It is the sort of thing I regularly do, but the lead needs more time than a mere run through, and I was editing at a work computer—so not quite an appropriate page to be editing in visual!) I have no doubt that much of the material is not original research, but the tag is more about the specific way that the article is written. — HTGS (talk) 02:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't count a tag placed by someone who drops dozens every day as corroborating the existence of a major issue with this article. I have been editing for over 15 years, mainly creating content, and I have placed a few maintenance tags, but would never do so without making a talk page entry at the same time to explain the issue. I also take the time to check if there is an active editor, and ping them directly. Since I created the article by split only weeks ago, this should be obvious. As I say above, the core of this article has existed for a long time as a section in the main article on Nudity, so I don't understand how that content has become problematical.

Perhaps the problem is the lead section, which summarizes that content. I have always followed the guideline MOS:CITELEAD, which seems to have changed since the last time I read it. Before, minimal citations in the lead were recommended. Now, it states that citations should be included to support any controversial content, even at the risk of redundancy. Since the entire article is controversial, this could mean repeating most of the citations in both the body and the lead. This does not seem to be likely to produce readable articles. The purpose of an introduction has alway been for me a brief summary of the main points that follow, which prompts the reader to continue, not feel unchallenged.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I may not have been clear enough: I don’t have much issue with the verifiability (or veracity) of the lead, but with its tone. I will do some review, but unfortunately I am not abundant with free time these days.
 * I think it’s unlikely that this article has “become problematical” so much as it was always problematic, and has now only been tilled for new eyes. Think of this as a good thing; we are all here to improve the encyclopedia. And of course, none of this is an attack on your efforts. The tag, at worst, is a good hint towards how to improve the article. — HTGS (talk) 05:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The current "tone" of the article reflects the language of the sources I cite. If this has been done with veracity, how could it be otherwise?--WriterArtistDC (talk) 12:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Hiding content on East Africa
Finding conflicting sources on the initial colonization of the region, I have temporarily hidden the section on East Africa by using comment delimiters. WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * On second thought, moving section to my sandbox.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 05:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

East Africa again
Found a source on contemporary Uganda, which generated a warning due to its being a blog hosted by WordPress. I added it anyway since I had a corroborating source and is seemed consistent with other sources.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Removal of maintenance tag
Per Help:Maintenance template removal item #3: If it reasonably appears that the template did not belong when placed or was added in error.

Given that I created this article only weeks ago, there is no claim for it's not needing improvement. To the contrary, I would appreciate any substantive discussion of the content. Before and since the placement of the "personal essay" tag I have been working to improve it, as I have on many other articles, by research and adding cited content. I will not speculate on the reason for placing the tag, and have been participated in the discussion above. The response seems to boil down to an assessment of the "tone" of the article as not being encyclopedic, without any concrete justification, such as particular passages of text being unsupported or biased.

None of the text I have added are personal reflections or argumentative, but are supported by peer-reviewed journal articles or books written by authors with academic credentials. Academics in the disciplines that write about colonialism and racism do so formally, without personal bias or emotion, stating the facts about the conditions and behaviors that constitute the social phenomena. The main thesis is that the nakedness of indigenous peoples of the tropics had a particular effect on the outcome of contact with Western civilizations. This is explicitly supported by several sources, the first being Dirt, Undress, and Difference: Critical Perspectives on the Body's Surface edited by Adeline Masquelier. - WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm going to weigh in here. I'm replying to the section above as much as to this one. I'm sorry, but I have to agree with  and  on this one: this article reads like a personal essay, not an encyclopaedia.
 * Let me pick out the clearest example, with the caveat that this is not an isolated instance but a symptom of something pervasive:
 * From the 17th century, European explorers viewed the lack of clothing they encountered in Africa and Oceania as representative of a primitive state of nature, justifying their own superiority, even as they continued to admire the beauty of Greek statues.
 * Justifying their own superiority is a value-laden interpretation of the explorers' attitude. Even as they continued to admire the beauty of Greek statues is not a factual description of their behaviour; they were not admiring Greek statues and responding to African and Oceanian nudity at the same time. Rather this is commentary on the inconsistency, indeed hypocrisy, of these Europeans.
 * As commentary, I must say, it's perfectly reasonable. I agree with the thesis being advanced. But commentary does not belong in an encyclopaedia. An encyclopaedia should not be in the business of advancing theses. This article is not argumentative in the sense of being quarrelsome, but it is argumentative in the sense that it is aimed at advancing an argument, and that's not what an encyclopaedia is for. An encyclopaedia is a collection of facts that people can draw upon in order to make arguments elsewhere.
 * A Wikipedia article should reflect the content of the sources it cites, but if those sources are critical essays or polemics of any nature, it should take care to avoid reproducing their tone. Wikipedia's business is to state facts in plain language. The commentary must either be left to the reader, or else reported (if it's part of what makes the subject notable) from a disinterested standpoint without taking sides.
 * —VeryRarelyStable 22:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The "commentary" that you find reasonable and correct was made by Philippa Levine, a historian whose doctorate is from St Antony's College, Oxford, currently a Professor at the University of Texas at Austin. I cite two of her journal articles in support of my text, the first being:
 * "A lack of clothing among colonized individuals has connoted primitiveness and savagery since at least the seventeenth century. While the sculptures and the statuaries of ancient Greece that celebrated the heroic, naked male body were, and often continue to be, read as the pinnacle of a civilized aesthetic, the unclothed African, Australian, Aboriginal, or Pacific Islander signified rather an absence of civilization."


 * Surprise: the colonizers were "admiring Greek statues and responding to African and Oceanian nudity at the same time".
 * The second article supports the same thesis, extending the time period into the 19th century, when nude "ethnographic" photography of Indigenous people was being requested of colonial official by British scientists to support their theories of the racial inferiority of tropical peoples while continuing to admire classical nudity in the fine arts; although Victorian attitudes had begun to erode the appropriateness of displaying such work in galleries for general public viewing (e.g. by young women).
 * The entire issue of "tone" is not really relevant, given the more fundamental issue of NPOV. How should the content of reliable sources be summarized on WP when the topic of the article is one aspect of racism? Professor Levine is asserting that hypocrisy, or having a double standard regarding black or white skin, is racist. The historical facts are that nakedness was used to justify racism, and I have yet to get to the less pleasant aspects, the justification of genocide and slavery. I disagree that "An encyclopaedia is a collection of facts that people can draw upon in order to make arguments elsewhere." WP articles present the mainstream consensus of experts on a topic. Having done the research, the consensus of the humanities and social sciences is that the topic of Nakedness and colonialism is an example of racism, a topic which includes value judgements by scholars. Each source could be attributed to its author, but that would be misleading; implying that there is no consensus. WriterArtistDC (talk) 07:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * - Sorry, it was late last night, so my wording was incorrect when I said "value judgements by scholars". It should have been "scholars in humanities and social sciences report the value judgements of others as facts, based upon their behaviors and statements". When someone in the past argues that they are superior not only in their way of life but biologically due to their special creation as white, they are proudly proclaiming themselves to be racists.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 12:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "Failure to respond to talk page discussion"? Really? After, what, 28 hours? My time, for one, is not as fungible as that, and we have not reached consensus yet.
 * —VeryRarelyStable 03:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * —VeryRarelyStable 03:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The edit summary was not addressed to you, but who replaced the tag most recently, and has never participated in this discussion. Sorry for the confusion. I was planning to make an entry here to explain, but got distracted.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
WP:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard has been opened. WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The dispute has resulted in a decision to remove the maintenance tag, noting that drive-by tagging is disruptive.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Short description
After the unexplained blanking, I decided to change the short description to "Indigenous adornment and racism" which removes the partial redundancy between the article title and old description. WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I don’t think that a short description with the word racism in it is helpful. If you insist on your article having a short description, then the previous one is better. — HTGS (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)