Talk:Topfreedom/Archive 2

Minors & Illegal
I have removed all images of (possible) minors and of illegal activities (like nude at mardi gras). Keep it clean and legit people! 83.243.152.55 (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I will make people aware of the fact that you host child-pornography on this site unless you yourself remove all images of minors/possible minors from this site. Child-pornography is NOT acceptible under ANY circumstances!83.243.152.55 (talk) 00:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. Nudity does not equal pornography. Simple nudity is not illegal in the U.S.
 * 2. Please provide links to the exact photos you are objecting to so they can be investigated and explained.
 * 3. If you continue to put warnings on the page or remove content from the page it will be considered vandalism.
 * --StuffOfInterest (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. Nudity of minors in any sexual relation is considered illegal in many countries.
 * 2. I know you do have half a wit, so linking should not be needed. However, here are some:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Namibie_Himba_0716a.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Junge_Hamer_in_Südäthiopien.jpg


 * 3. I consider porn of minors as an assault on said person. Many of these pictures should therefor be removed.
 * I have anyways contacted the US police and made them aware of these images. I hope you get many years in jail to think over this.
 * Further on, image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BannerCarrierLeft.jpg isn't really topfree. Hence, it is not true to the article.
 * And why would anyone need pictures on a subject like this? They are just provocative and disrespectfull. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.243.152.55 (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In order for those pictures to classify as pornography, they need to explicitly depict sexual subject matter. If you can't look at them without imagining sexual activity -- maybe it's not Wikipedia that has a problem? --Cubbi (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * They are sexual as in depicting nudity. As long as wikipedia uses minors for their refernce wikipedia has a problem.
 * No serious dictionary would depict minors this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.243.152.55 (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nudity=sexual is just your opinion, and it's not widely held. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, although one could probably find more than one paper encyclopedia with similar photos. I'm sorry you feel there's something wrong with Wikipedia due to this, but this is really just your personal opinion that clashes with Wikipedia, and not any fact or law.  Equazcion •✗/C • 06:00, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)


 * http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63722
 * I rest my case. So will FBI too soon enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.243.152.55 (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * WorldNetDaily is not a reliable news source. I see no evidence that the FBI is actually conducting an investigation on that album cover. There is a difference between pornography and nudity, after all, and the FBI surely knows that. Moving on... -kotra (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In my opinion these pictures are not pornography. In many African cultures bare breasts are natural and common. You can't mark this as pornography simply because your culture doesn't tolerate them. If someone considers these pictures erotic, it is their own problem. Should we delete everything that could be considered suggestive by someone, we would have very few pictures left in here. --Kotiwalo (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal of certain images
Sorry for removing images without first attaining consensus here, I thought my edit summary would make my edits uncontroversial. First of all, let me preemptively state that I realize that WP is not censored, and I'm not attempting to censor it. However, this article has way more pictures than are needed, and many of them do not even illustrate anything in the article. As the article is now, it may seem to readers that some of the pictures here are gratuitous, and may merely be serving for titillation purposes, not education. I have no problem with any of the other images. One image of a beach where topfreedom has been achieved, one image of a society that has topfreedom as a traditional element of its culture, and some other images that directly illustrate the topfreedom movement (the march/protest images), these are all appropriate illustrations. I am indifferent about Image:RedHooperJacksonSquare.jpg; it doesn't exactly illustrate what I consider to be topfreedom, and it would probably be more appropriate at Toplessness, but others might argue that it illustrates topfreedom. Comments? -kotra (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Namibie Himba 0716a.jpg - This picture is nice, but what does it illustrate? That some cultures in Africa traditionally practice topfreedom? If so, then the Ethiopian picture is sufficient. This is reason enough to remove it, though I am also worried about the possible legal issues associated with it. I realize that the image is not intended to be pornographic, and the age of the girl is not known for certain to be under 18, but since Wikipedia must adhere to the laws of the state of Florida (where the server is located), it might be prudent to avoid legal gray areas like this when there is no significant benefit for inclusion.
 * Image:174363504 c5794acec0 o.jpg and Image:BannerCarrierLeft.jpg - These illustrate bodypainting, not topfreedom. There is no "partial female nudity in which a woman or postpubescent girl has her breasts uncovered, with her areolae and nipples visible" (from Toplessness), or at least no more than a thin shirt or bathing suit would show, and wearing a thin shirt or bathing suit would certainly not be topless/topfree. Therefore, they are not relevant to the topic.


 * I disagree that bodypainted pic is not a topfree pic. A woman with body paint over otherwise uncovered breasts would face the same reaction of public and police as one without body paint. The two african girls do indeed appear carrying the same idea, that makes sense cutting them to one. (I don't know the history of this article though, I'm just watching because of the Bullshit episode) --Cubbi (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * While I disagree that the reaction of the public and the police would be the same in both cases, I think their reaction is irrelevant to whether or not it is considered "topfree". Other things that certainly aren't "being topfree" (flashing,  protesting loudly) could result in a very similar reaction to being topfree. Topfreedom is defined, at least by Wikipedia, not by how the public reacts to it, but as having "partial female nudity in which a woman or postpubescent girl has her breasts uncovered, with her areolae and nipples visible". The definition is strictly technical. And as I noted above, wearing very thin clothing results in the same amount of covering (body paint in this context is even sometimes mistaken as a very form-fitting shirt or swimsuit), yet it would not be considered topfreedom. I'll grant that body paint as shown in these images can be similar to being "topfree", but not the same.
 * As for the African images, I'll remove one after I wait a bit longer for people to weigh in. -kotra (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Cubbi on the body paint. Paint is not clothing. The public/legal reaction is consequential here, because without that reaction, there would be no need for a topfree movement. Ergo, any such partial nudity that triggers a negative reaction can be categorized this way.


 * As for the two African photos, I think they should both stay. The first photo is in the lead, and is meant to depict the subject in a general sense. The second is in the "Other countries" section, and is meant to illustrate that more specific point. This is normal for articles. We could put a different photo in the lead, but to what end? Just so that there aren't two African photos in the article? I don't see the need. If it's an underage issue, that's a non-issue. The picture is not sexual or even pornographic in any way. If there were anything wrong with it legally then it would've been deleted a long time ago. If you do have a legal concern, it would be more appropriate to nominate the photo for deletion rather than remove it from the article.  Equazcion •✗/C • 09:02, 7 Apr 2008 (UTC)
 * Having the african photos is just shwoing how innate the behavior is of women of less industrial societies like America. Also the body paint pictures are statement in support of topfree. Japan use to be topfree and even both sexes use to bathe together in same Onsen bath, no they are seperated. I have traveled many years and been to many countries and women in most countires, even Buddhist, do not think twice when breast feeding their babies. Why America is so hung up on female breast? Who knows, but it is taking way from the freedom of women, it is a violation of First Amendment of the US Constitution and it is a backeward path of woman emancipation. To restrict woman from free expression is same as following Jim Crow laws. Please stop this and even add more pictures from other countries to show that woman are beautiful and should not be ahsamed of their nakedness. Igor Berger (talk) 09:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop the soapboxing, Igor. We add photos to articles to serve as a visual aid to the text, not to make a political statement.  Equazcion •✗/C • 09:53, 7 Apr 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not have a problem with one African photo, my problem is with a redundant second photo. As for the body paint pictures being a statement in support of topfreedom, I would be skeptical of that. In my experience, body paint is typically worn for fun and sometimes artistic expression, not to express support of a social movement. And adding more pictures for the purposes of advancing a point of view would be against Wikipedia policy. -kotra (talk) 10:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If we want to redefine topfreedom/toplessness to include body paint, that's fine, but as the article stands now, it's very clear on what topfreedom/toplessness is, and it's not body paint. Logically, either we should change WP's definition of either topfreedom or toplessness, or the body paint images should be removed. However, I would argue against changing the definition to include non-clothing worn on otherwise naked breasts, because then it would include someone wearing a blanket or duct tape or anything else that's not intended to be clothing. I think we can agree that wearing these things in lieu of clothes does not make one topfree. I would also argue against changing the definition to include "any such partial nudity that triggers a negative reaction", because that would include an even greater slew of things that are obviously not topfreedom/toplessness. I don't think I need to list examples, or elaborate on the problem with how varying reactions can be, culturally and individually. As for the public/legal reaction being consequential to topfreedom, I agree that it is consequential to the topic of topfreedom, but it doesn't define what topfreedom is. Again, the same public/legal reaction can be found in plenty of other things that aren't topfreedom/toplessness.
 * Nowhere in this article are African cultures even mentioned, so strictly speaking, neither African photo should be present. Images are supposed to illustrate the text. That said, this article should probably give some background about societies that traditionally practice what could be considered "topfreedom", so a single image of such a society may be informative even now without any background text. The "Other countries" section would be a good place for such an image, if it actually described something outside of Europe and Australia. Perhaps that will change, so I would be ok with putting the image in that section. However, I don't think it should go at the top, because it really isn't a representative example of topfreedom. The image at the top should be the most representative image available, and I would argue that's one of the protest images.
 * As for the Namibia picture, I said before that I realize it's not intended to be pornographic. However, it still worries me slightly from a legal and publicity standpoint, because others may see it differently. I agree, this reason by itself it is probably not a large enough issue to remove it, but if one of the two images should be removed, all other things being equal, I'd remove that one. That's all I'm saying.
 * The redundancy in images may not seem like a problem to you, but I feel that it is for two main reasons: 1. Readability. There are so many images crammed into this small article that it has started to become difficult to navigate, and images are being forced into sections they aren't even relevant to. 2. Image. Having so many photographs of partially nude women when they aren't needed just looks questionable. This is an encyclopedia, not someplace to get titillation (no pun intended) from, and while I'm not accusing any editors of treating this article that way, it certainly can give that impression. Even breast has fewer photographs than this article, and it's a much broader topic. A third possible reason is to reduce bandwidth costs and page loading time, but I personally don't buy into that reason much. Anyway, these reasons are why I think there is a need to remove redundant, gratuitous, and off-topic images. And I feel that Images supports this view. -kotra (talk) 10:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no question in my mind about the body paint images. Women have gone topless with only body paint on in order to protest nudity laws, and in places where toplessness is illegal, paint doesn't count as a covering. And yes of course that response should define topfreedom. Again there would be no topfreedom movement without that response, so forms of toplessness that trigger such a response should be considered topfreedom. Anyway, of everyone who's commented, only Kotra has issue with the body paint images, so I think that issue can be considered closed for now, unless someone else comes along to back up that objection.
 * I've already explained about the Africa images, why having two isn't redundant. We'd likely have a photo in the lead anyway. We'd also likely have a photo of a topless Africa woman in the "Other countries" section, since that is a commonly known place where toplessness is practiced. If the text needs to be expanded to talk about Africa (and it probably should), then by all means let's do that, but that doesn't mean the photo needs to be removed from that section until the text is added; the photo still depicts toplessness in one of the prominent "other countries".  Equazcion •✗/C • 10:36, 7 Apr 2008 (UTC)


 * I still disagree that body paint = topless, simply because the breasts are covered by something, and that something is opaque (which would make the breasts even less visible than with sheer shirts and dresses, which are translucent). You're right though, what little discussion we have here (3 people) shows that there is currently not consensus, so I'll let that go. However, I don't think that either of the body paint images we have now qualify as topfreedom, because by your own definition, it has to protest nudity laws, and I don't see any evidence of that for either. In Image:174363504 c5794acec0 o.jpg, I see it as merely two sports fans expressing support for a team in a fun and 'daring' way. In Image:BannerCarrierLeft.jpg, I honestly can't guess what the individuals pictured are motivated by, except artistic expression. I think this second image is slightly more appropriate for this article, but I still am unconvinced it illustrates the topfreedom movement. I'd appreciate any thoughts others have on it.
 * Revisiting the Africa images, I also explained why I don't think there should be two. To reiterate, you say that one will exist at the top anyway, but I question that: the image at the top of an article should be the most relevant image to the subject, and that would be one of the protest images, not one of the Africa images. However, I can see why one might be relevant in the Other countries section, so I'd be ok with having one there. -kotra (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say they had to protest nudity laws; Igor said these photos depicted women protesting nudity laws (which I don't agree with), and I said body painting has been used in the past to protest nudity laws. The notion that women with nothing but body paint covering their breasts is not considered topless is merely your opinion. The law, in places that have such laws, says otherwise.
 * I'd agree that a protest image is probably better for the lead, but I actually don't see any such photos in the article (none where the protest is of nudity laws). If you have one in mind I wouldn't object if you replaced the one that's there.  Equazcion •✗/C • 01:15, 8 Apr 2008 (UTC)


 * The local law enforcement agencies where I live constantly harass (arrest & ticket) females who are sunbathing topless. In our annual May Day parade, which is very much an alternative parade, women sometimes wear body paint, duct tape, or some other non-clothing on the breasts to declare "topfreedom" while not getting arrested. It is understood that these forms of cover are not equal to topfreedom, but are utilized to protest the requirements that women cover their breasts. Therefore, I would argue to keep the photos of women in this article who are not legally topless, but are publicly declaring that breast-covering requirements are discriminatory.--Appraiser (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input, Appraiser. In light of this, I'm fine with keeping Image:BannerCarrierLeft.jpg, since it could illustrate what you're describing. -kotra (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (in response to Equazcion) Sorry, I assumed you agreed with me that toplessness doesn't count as topfreedom unless the purpose of it is to advocate topfree equality. In any case, that is what this article defines Topfreedom as. So, merely being topless (with or without body paint) doesn't by itself illustrate topfreedom.
 * I am not aware of these laws you speak of. I've never heard of someone being arrested for wearing body paint in lieu of normal clothing, or of any law that addresses body paint, and I have (many times) heard of women being arrested for not wearing anything on their torso. Can you cite any such laws?
 * I would use Image:613029044_3ef7c42b94_o.jpg at the top because it is illustrative of the movement. They are women that are being topless/topfree for the purpose of topfree equality. A similar picture exists on Dyke March, and it's described in the context of topfreedom as well. If you think that one would be better than the one on this article, I have no objection to using it instead. -kotra (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

← It appears the definition of topfreedom is in question here. Is it a particular movement, or is it toplessness in general? I renew my stance that body paint does equal toplessness, but topfreedom, that is a different story. Perhaps we need to re-evaluate the role if this article. If all of these photos and mention of the state of nudity laws in other countries is just meant to back up the advocation of topfreedom, then this article is one big POV and needs to be cut down significantly. The article on toplessness probably makes most of this redundant anyway; what remains is the information on the topfree movement itself, which is really all that should be here; no justification for the movement is necessary here (such as, "look how it is in other countries, hence the necessity for this movement").  Equazcion •✗/C • 02:27, 8 Apr 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for my slow response. Topfreedom seems to be basically defined as toplessness in the context of gender equality. Personally I don't think these body paint images meet either part of the definition. I guess you feel that they meet the first part, but not the second. Correct me if I'm wrong. If not, I think we agree that the body paint images aren't topfreedom, and so should be removed.
 * I don't think the descriptions of nudity laws are POV in this article, they're merely presented as facts. Similarly, Same-sex marriage lists where it's legal, and that's not POV by itself. I do agree though that this article does seem to have pro-topfreedom bias. I think partially that's due to the overusage of the term "right" (as in the right to be topfree) when "ability" would be more appropriate in most cases. "Right" is a loaded term with positive connotations, whereas "ability" is neutral. I'm getting off-topic though.
 * I somewhat agree about the scope of the article, but I don't think the current topfreedom-related nudity laws should be removed, since they're intrinsically related to the movement. Also, I think the basic reasons for the topfreedom movement should be noted, as well as the basic reasons against (though I don't know what those might be). Other than that, everything else can go. I agree that societies that traditionally accept toplessness for both genders are only tangentially related to the topfreedom movement, so I wouldn't object to the African images being removed. -kotra (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the African pictures do not serve any legitimate purpose here. If you want to show African women in their traditional dress, why do you chose young, sexy girls and not a mother of three whose breasts don't look so enticing any longer? But anyway, these women do not know anything about a movement called "topfreedom", they just dress like they're used to. Also, here in Europe, you see quite a few women on the beach or even at public swimming pools who don't wear a bra when they're tanning. At least in my country (Germany), they haven't heard of something called "topfreedom" either, they just like topfree sunbathing. If any kind of picture is used at all, then that should be a picture of a woman who is conscious of acting in the context of this movement. --Bernardoni (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not a big fan of political correctness or expressions like "sexism", but the pictures of these young African women (actually girls) are IMHO pure voyeurism. Again, why don't you show a regular middle-aged woman if an African woman has to be shown at all? Apart from that, I reiterate that these pictures have nothing to do with the topic. It is well known that in many traditional cultures women did not cover their breasts (and in some places they still don't do it). However, in so-called Western culture this has never been the case (if we don't look back to Neanderthal times). A modern Western "movement" therefore has nothing to do with any kind of tradition elsewhere. Since no one has objected to my previous post, and also in accordance with the opinion of kotra above, I'll remove those pictures. --Bernardoni (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * While at it, I have removed the photo of the two German girls as well. Reason one: Obviously, no one has asked their permission. Reason two: I'm from Germany, and I can assure you that there certainly is nothing called "topfreedom" here. Instead, women are allowed to leave off their bra at swimming pools, beaches etc. A few do it, most don't. No one really cares. That's why it has no political connotation whatsoever. If a picture has to be shown at all, I suggest one of an American or Canadian topfreedom activist - with her explicit permission, of course. --Bernardoni (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Statement
The statement "Biologically there is no particular connection between mammary glands and copulation," under Cultural arguments section, I believe to be incorrect.

Technically this statement may be correct (when solely referencing mammary glands) however the context in which the term "mammary glands" is used implies a synonymous reference to breasts.

In the article "Breast" here in Wikipedia under the section Sexual Role, physiological response to sexual stimulus is described.

"On sexual arousal breast size increases, venous patterns across the breasts become more visible, and nipples harden. During sexual intercourse it is common practice to press or massage breasts with hands, breasts are sensitive to touch as they have many nerve endings.[10] Oral stimulation of nipples and breasts is also common. Some women can achieve breast orgasms. In the ancient Indian work the Kama Sutra, marking breasts with nails and biting with teeth are explained as erotic.[11]"

Additionally under the Wikipedia article "orgasm" the section Breast and Nipple Stimulation discuses how a breast orgasm can occur.

"A breast orgasm is a female orgasm that is triggered from the stimulation of a woman's breast.[10] Not all women experience this effect when the breasts are stimulated; however, some women claim that the stimulation of the breast area during sexual intercourse and foreplay, or just the simple act of having their breasts fondled, has created mild to intense orgasms. According to one study that questioned 213 women, 29% of them had experienced a breast orgasm at one time or another,[11] This shows that it is not common, but it is possible. An orgasm is believed to occur in part because of the hormone oxytocin, which is produced in the body during sexual excitement and arousal. It has also been shown that oxytocin is produced when an individual's nipples are stimulated and become erect.[12]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Landrycameron (talk • contribs) 03:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if simply being an erogenous zone (a very poorly written article there) is enough to consider breasts "sexual organs". Because if one did, lips, neck, etc, would also be sexual organs. But you're right that "no particular connection" to copulation is technically wrong when referring to female breasts, since there is a particular connection, it's just an indirect connection, as indirect as kissing the lips or scratching the scalp. So I've changed the wording accordingly. -kotra (talk) 06:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that we have all graduated third grade and therefore must be aware of the fact that this true statement is true and that breasts actually do have no role in copulation which requires a penis and vagina only. However, it does not matter whether you "think" something is true, nor whether or not it actually is true.  What is true (if sourced) is that this is an argument used by the activists.  Whether or not the argument is correct is irrelevant.  The only valid reason to ever remove such a statement would be if no protester has ever used this as an argument.  (Which, incidentally, seems likely that they haven't since it would make no sense to do so, but if it is sourced then they have.)  And yes, boobs are obviously sexual organs, but this is also irrelevant, both to this article as well as to the original commenter's statement.                     ~Rayvn  22:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Suspect links
I removed several links to GoTopless,org; I'm pretty sure it's not what it appears on the surface, for example; "Gotopless.org congratulates Angelina Jolie for welcoming the publication of a picture of herself breastfeeding one of her twin children on the cover of W Magazine, November 2008 edition. There is nothing shameful about one's body as it was proudly made in the image of Elohim, an advanced human civilization who artistically engineered all life on planet earth a long time ago thanks to a perfect mastery of DNA. (see www.rael.org)"

Um...yeah.--Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 06:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

So many pictures ...
Would I be terribly cynical to wonder why an article this short is so image-heavy? :-) --7Kim (talk) 09:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think you would be terribly cynical to wonder that. I discussed this at length above but we didn't come to a clear consensus. I still think none of the current images are, strictly speaking, examples of topfreedom (toplessness in the context of a gender equality movement). So I think they should probably be replaced with the images we have that do illustrate topfreedom: Image:613029044_3ef7c42b94_o.jpg, Image:Dyke Match 17th Street.jpg, and/or possibly Image:Topfree group at Barton Creek.jpg. The discussion sort of petered out last time without any conclusion, so are there still any objections to replacing these images? -kotra (talk) 05:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

New Orleans, Louisiana
New Orleans allows women to go around topless? Not last time I checked! The law is certainly relaxed around the French Quarter during mardi gras, but they have been cracking down on that. I have these two articles here. First one is about Hurricane Gus, but mentions a state decency law that was passed (http://www.365gay.com/news/082808-hurricane-gus/) and the next one (http://blog.nola.com/mardi_gras_faq/2008/12/is_there_a_lot_of_nudity_durin.html) --71.81.57.27 (talk) 11:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

GoTopless.com
I removed these five edits that added promotional information on GoTopless.com. If anything is salvageable, feel free to re-add it. Powers T 13:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

List of legal states
The list of legal states in very incomplete. I just looked up the laws for all the states and it is completely legal in the following states (the laws only prohibit the exposure of genitals or genitals and anus):

Alabama, Arkansas, Colorodo, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, Pensylvania, Rhode Island, Texas (but not in parks), and Wisconson.

It may be legal in the following states, depending on how one interprets the law (most of these states ban the exposure of sexual organs, but don't define sexual organ):

Alaska, Florida, Geogia, Kansas, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Wyoming.

Emperor001 (talk) 02:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you've taken the time to look up the law for each of these states, then add the states with the appropriate references.-- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't remember the name of the site and even then, I just found out that even though most states don't have laws against topfreedom, the local communities do. Emperor001 (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

On a similar note, I can't find any confirmation that topfreedom is permitted in Manitoba, having searched through the consolidated acts and regulations. I'm going to put a citation needed on the Manitoba portion, and remove it in a week or so if nothing pops up Eltargrim (talk) 04:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Cultural arguments
The entire unsourced section on "Cultural arguments" appears to be orginal research and ought to be referenced or removed. I'll mark it and wait a few weeks to see if any sources can be found.-- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 04:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Contentious blurb
From the third paragraph: "Such women ignore the common knowledge that for a woman to expose her breasts is sexually provocative to men, while that when men expose their breasts to women, there is much less if any provocation."

That seems judgemental and not within Wikipedia's standards for objectivity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.242.173 (talk) 02:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. I placed a "citation needed" tag in the article, and I asked the editor who added it to provide a source. If nothing changes after a reasonable time period, it needs to be removed. Cresix (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): PCherr3. Peer reviewers: PCherr3.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Canada
I removed some of the text from the "Canada" section that implied that OCA ruling applied across Canada, as it is lacking citations. From what I understand, rulings issued by provincial courts of appeals apply only to the province in which the court has jurisdiction, even if it's a subject matter that's constitutionally federal (see gay marriage being leagalized by courts of appeals province by province despite being a federal subject matter) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.21.231 (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Better photos needed
We really need better quality photos, we have several fat girls, or small girls with no breasts. This is an outrage to the article and wikis commitment to excellence. "Jugs.com" has several copyright-free images of topless females, most of which are far better than some of the ones posted now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.114.227 (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had a look through the article and while we could perhaps do with appropriate images for the "History" and "Organisations" or "People" sections, I see nothing wrong with the illustrations we have, other than they are all white and apparently western (with exception of the line drawing about Thai women). We are not "Jugs.com" (I can't see what they offer as it's blocked from where I'm editing) but I'm presuming from your comment that it is a pornographic photographs of slim women with large breasts? However Wikipedia is here to show encyclopaedic images that illustrate an encyclopaedia article about toplessness showing the range of human body types. Thryduulf (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

New York
After reading this very interesting article on the web I decided to add NYC to the list of cities which allow (or at least do not prohibit) being topless in public. I've included a citation with the actual ruling too. Maszanchi (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Duplication - Europe
Hi - this bit appears twice, but I can't delete it (first instance) - please can someone with a better internet connection help ?
 * In several countries in Europe non-sexual toplessness is not illegal. However, private or public establishments can establish a dress code which requires women to wear tops, and deny access or remove individuals who breach these standards. Topless swimming and sunbathing on beaches have become common in many parts of Europe, though the practice remains controversial in many places, and not common in most places. Many public swimming pools are owned by municipalities, which are treated as private organisations.

Thanks ! (Please delete this from talk, too !)--195.137.93.171 (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed this part
"Largely as a result of social conditioning, many people feel uncomfortable viewing exposed women's breasts and regard such exposure to be indecent. Most women do not regard their breasts to be inherently indecent. However, at the same time, most women are reluctant to publicly defy the law and convention to be bare chested. This may be due to their own social conditioning,  social or sexual inhibitions, because of their upbringing or because of the social norm which traditionally expected women's breasts to be covered. Also, most people have an innate, psychological aversion to being the only person who does something in a public context, so that most people are uncomfortable being the only one in a situation who does something, like removing upper clothing."

This is all unsourced claims. It should not be replaced until decent studies/articles by reliables sources are found to back it up. Jacobitten (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The top part reads quote: "Topless swimming and sunbathing on beaches has become acceptable in many parts of Europe, though the practice remains controversial in many places, and not common in most places. Many public swimming pools in Europe are owned by municipalities, which are treated as private organisations and allowed to set their dress codes." That may be seen as correct viewed from inside the US, but does certainly not reflect today's situation. Iwould write "Topless swimming and sunbathing on beaches has long been acceptable in most parts of Europe, though the practice remains controversial in some places, while it is quite common in most places. Many public swimming pools in Europe are owned by municipalities, which are treated as private organisations and allowed to set their dress codes, but toplessness is generally regarded as somethig completely normal." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.235.120 (talk) 08:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thai poster and Asian countries

 * The fact that in Asian countries toplessness used to be acceptable is not reflected in the article. Even the early twentieth century, topless women working in rice fields were commonplace in Japan for instamce. Hektor (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Greece

 * There were topless performers at the 2004 Summer Olympics opening ceremony, due to the fact that topless dress seemed to be commomplace in the ancient Minoan civilization. Hektor (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Reorganization of article to focus on topfreedom movement
Most of the article, as it existed, was about toplessness in general, not about the topfreedom movement. I reorganized the article to focus specifically on the topfreedom movement and activism surrounding toplessness as a political issue. All other material was removed. Unfortunately, none of the existing images were related to topfreedom activism, but if any can be located, please feel free to add them.

Also, the previous version of the article had too much material specifically about Canada. It was overly detailed and comprised about a third of the article (which gave it undue weight). I've reduced this to a summary. If someone wants to restore all of this material, I would suggest using Summary Style and spliting off a separate article for it. Kaldari (talk) 04:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been puzzled about the existence of the two pages for some time. Rather than remove material I would have rationalised the two pages with appropriate redirects.


 * Canada was extensively rewritten by me following complaints from experts - the preferred approach would have been to split. I will see what I can do. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Done --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

18 July 2012‎ edits
The efforts put into this entry recently by are commendable, nevertheless, some of them are at least as controversial as the article subject itself. First of all, the actual photographs of female protesters campaigning to raise awareness about topfreedom for women – which were highly relevant – have been removed... I'm not talking here about topless sunbathers, but specifically about the female activists. Secondly, the presumed logo of the movement (looking almost corporate) was emphasized with the implication that it is widely used, which isn't true. It was added to this article for the first time on June 29, 2012 by, a single-purpose account, who designed it originally. On the same day the symbol was first uploaded to Wikimedia Commons by Commons:User:Ihearttopfreedom - again, the same single purpose account in Commons claiming the CC0 1.0 licence (June 29, 2012).

The logo was offered simultaneously to Topfree Equal Rights Association (TERA) as a gift (June 28, 2012). Their response however, was not all that enthusiastic. Quote from TERA news: "Today we received a surprise: the logo for topfreedom that's below to the left. Although it doesn't express the equality idea {emphasis mine}, which is much of what TERA is about... we find it an imaginative graphic." The graphic, created by Ihearttopfreedom was sent in good faith by Kaldari to Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop with the request for cleanup on July 18, 2012 and somehow reasserted in the process. However, I question it's validity, because it is an original piece of artwork at best, if not an attempt at self-promotion.

Finally, the link to Toplessness was removed from the lede (July 18, 2012)‎ although Topfreedom is most closely related to promotion of topless lifestyle by women. There's the whole Commons:Category:Topless demonstrations and protests which can be used, because it is most relevant to the subject. Thanks. Poeticbent talk  18:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that the link to toplessness was never removed from the lead and none of the images previously in the article had anything to do with topfreedom activism. What diff and/or images are you referring to? This image was of anti-globalization activists, not topfreedom activists. Using toplessness as a protest tactic is not the same thing as protesting for topfreedom. I'm fine with removing the logo image, and thanks for finding some more relevant images to add to the article. Cheers. Kaldari (talk) 03:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the vote of confidence, Kaldari. You're correct about the mostly irrelevant images from before, including the anti-globalization protests. The link to I mentioned was removed with this edit. In the summary, you said: This article is about the topfreedom movement, not about toplessness which has its own article... However, there's no internal link to toplessness anymore, as if the other article didn't exist at all. That's what I meant.  Poeticbent  talk  13:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The word "topless" in the first sentence links to toplessness. See Also links go at the bottom of articles, not at the top. And in this case, there is no need for one anyway since the first sentence links to that article. See Also links are for related articles that are not already linked from the article text. Hat links (links above the lead) are for articles that may share the same title (disambiguation) or be commonly confused with the subject of the article. Kaldari (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

In Australia...
Topless sunbathing for women on most Australian beaches has been well-accepted for many years. In fact there was a case where teenage boys were using their mobile phones for photographing topless women. The boys were arrested for violating the ladies' privacy. The charges were very quickly dismissed on the grounds that an Australian beach in summer is as public a place as you can possibly get, and there is absolutely no expectation of privacy there. 124.183.188.234 (talk) 10:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You will need. sources, case name and dates for all of these assertions. Enthusiast (talk) 10:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Spreading

 * (Continued from User:Pass a Method#Spreading Raelianism) ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Adjwilley if you think something is too specific to be in the lede, why don't you copyedit to he body section of the article instead of deletion? Pass a Method  talk  22:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't think Raelianism (a UFO religion with some 90,000 members) is notable enough for mention here. Raelianism should link here, but this shouldn't link back. If you feel differently, feel free to find a place to put it in the article body. (If you want to add something to an article the onus is on you to work it in properly.) To get back to the original issue, would you mind explaining why you are going around adding all these links to Raelianism in the first place? ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Adjwilley, i have done a little research on Raelians for the past couple of weeks and one of the most recurring points i noticed was topfreedom and the Elohim (from personal observation). Therefore i thought that it would be due. Furthermore, the Raelian movement is probably larger than Bara Bröst. If you were consistent you would remove both Raelian and Bara Bröst coverage right?


 * John carter. Some of the refs i look at are sources on Raelians used on wikipedia. Pass a Method   talk  23:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * First, I think it is in everyone's best interests, and honestly just common sense, for people who "respond" to comments made elsewhere to provide some indication what those comments actually were, so that other editors might be able to follow the discussion. I had raised comments regarding the matter of weight as per WP:WEIGHT here, and I see nothing in the above comment which indicates that the matter was addressed. I think it is also worth noting that the "personal observation" commented on above in no way qualifies as a reliable source as per WP:RS, which I believe it would be in the best interests of certain editors to perhaps become more familiar with, and they most certainly fail WP:VERIFIABILITY, unless those "personal observations" are thoroughly discussed in some source which meets that basic criterion. I think it might be useful if some people read that page too. My own comments were primarily regarding the "Elohim" article rather than this one, but I honestly think "I used the same sources used elsewhere" does not in any way address the matter of weight I raised before. I once again urge people to read that page, and possibly accompanying pages, if they have not already done so. Personal observations, and the opinions made on the basis of them, are more or less addressed in the page WP:POV, which I also believe it might be in the best interests of people to become acquainted with. Honestly, I have to say that the comment above does nothing to address the matter of weight I mentioned, and very possibly the comments made by Adjwilley. I believe it would be in everyone's best interests if some sort of effort to provide reasoning which meets wikipedia policies and guidelines for the above changes were produced so that it could be reviewed by individuals who have not drawn opinions based on personal observations, but rather on the reliable sources which are supposed to be the primary source of information for an encyclopedia. John Carter (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * John, i must say im usually not very enthusiastic to read your posts because they are often very long. Please be a bit more concise in the future per WP:TLDR.  Pass a Method   talk  23:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is the responsibility of any individual who seeks to add information to be able to provide reasoning why. I am sorry that you have apparently refused to respond to any of the points I raised. I would point out that these comments are far less lengthy than those of others I have seen elsewhere. And, honestly, when an individual acts in ways which raise questions regarding multiple policies and guidelines, it is reasonable to ensure that they actually have some familiar with the relevant policies, and how they come into play. And, certainly, the comments objected to are less lengthy than the article itself. I am assuming, by the way, that the article was actually read in advance of the changes made, and that doing so was not found to be too o I am sorry that you seem to believe you can avoid directly responding to direct statements made. I am certainly willing to file an RfC, or possibly request some other form of action to deal with these concerns raised, if the editor who made the changes somehow seems to find that their attention span is too limited to be able to actually respond to the points made themselves. John Carter (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reverted Pass a method's last edit. Bara Bröst shouldn't be equated with Raelian but with GoTopless, which is in the lead. And Pass a method's edit summary was misleading and I will warn him about that. Disclosure, John contacted me because he knows I've been involved in similar discussions in the past. Dougweller (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Girlrillaz: Free the Nipple! (movie)
Not sure when this will be released in 2013.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtr7neV1DTc

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2298394/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girlrillaz

http://girlrillaz.com/