Talk:Toplessness/Archive 4

Toplessness in India
The information written about Indian North Indian women being topless before Muslim Conquest in India is a wrong information. Indian women and girls were never topless ever since Vedic Civilisation. Indian women used to wear the following clothes to protect her upper body : 1. Saree without blouse, 2. Kanchuki, 3. Antriya with Choli, 4. Dupatta, 5. Ghagra with Choli or/and Dupatta, 6. Lehenga with Choli or/& Dupatta. Indian Dignity (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You contend that it is wrong, but the information is sourced. Do you have any reliable sources to back up your contention? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes I have. Indian Dignity (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Then list them here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_clothing_in_the_Indian_subcontinent Here you are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indian Dignity (talk • contribs) 05:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=G9eHPXL6UE0C Indian Dignity (talk) 05:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Another link : https://www.pure-elegance.com/blogs/arts-culture/the-rich-history-of-indian-fashion Indian Dignity (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, your first reference is to a Wikipedia article. You should read WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source for the reasons that these this citation is not acceptable as a reference. But, even so, what exactly in the article are you intending to point us to that negates or disproves the information currently in this article?  It's incumbent on you to be specific, please.Your second reference is to a 199-page book as listed on Google Books, but you do not provide a page number.  I hope you don't expect the editors here to read the entire book to find out what you intended to point out, so -- on what page is the information that you wish to cite?Also, just a thought, if the information currently in this article is correct, and at some period of time women in certain areas of India went topless, how can that be verified by a book which catalogues the contents of a costume and ornament museum, as being topless would mean that there was no upper garment to be included in the museum's collection, and if the museum didn't have an upper garment, could that simply be a gap in their collection?  For instance, in the chapter for "Costumes and Ornaments of the Naga Period", I do not see a listing for female upper garments.  Is that because those upper garments existed but the museum doesn't have any, or is it because the women in that period did not wear upper garments.In other words, I am not convinced that this book is a source which can prove your point which was, if I understand it correctly, that at no time did women in any region of India conventionally not wear an upper garment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Your third reference, which you posted while I was writing the above, is to a blog. We generaly don't accept blogs as references, for reasons given at WP:Self-published sources - basically, except under specific circumstances, they are not considered to be reliable sources.  But even if we were to accept it, the problem is that unless that blog page covered every period of time in every region of India, it can not be taken to negate the specific information currently in the article.  In other words, while it may well describe upper garments for women, unless it is truly all-encompassing, we cannot know if it is passing over a particular perior or a particular region in which women didn't wear an upper garment.  You need a comprehensive reliable source which says something on the order of "Women in all parts of India at all times never went topless", or words to that effect, something I doubt very much any source would say, or indeed which anyone could say about any region of the world. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Read not just the links but also the texts written in the posts of the links. There are many pictures of women wearing upper garments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indian Dignity (talk • contribs) 06:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You're not getting the point. We have citations which say that at X time in Y region of India women didn't wear upper garments.  Simply showing that at A time in B region of India they did wear upper garments doesn't disprove that.  Can you see that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And yes, in the Article of Toplessness it is clearly written that 'before Muslim Conquest In India women in many parts of North India were topless' which means that at those parts of North India, all women were always topless before the advent of the Muslims. And this statement contradicts the posts of the links I provided. This is because in all these links it has been said that women wore upper clothes like choli and veil throughout Vedic, Mauryan and Gupta period. Though at times in private they were topless when accompanied by other women but in public view they were covered on the top. And Vedic age, Gupta period and Mauryan period comes way before Muslim rule in India.
 * Also, I request you to go through the sourced links Wikipedia link I shared here.   Indian Dignity (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I;m sorry, you are incorrect. The information means exactly what it says, and your interpretation of it is a gross misgeneralization.  It is not making the universal statement you claim it is.And, no, I will not spend my time doing your work.  Please give us exact citations to precisely the information you mean to use, or this discussion is over as far as I'm concerned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My statement is a gross misgeneralization is your statement which you are saying without giving any proof.
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanapatta Indian Dignity (talk) 07:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia article are not reliable sources and cannot be cited in articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * http://nationalmuseumindia.gov.in/prodCollections.asp?pid=34&id=1&lk=dp1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indian Dignity (talk • contribs) 07:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Again, showing that women at some time in sime place in India before the Muslim invasion did wear upper garments, is not proof that at some time in some place they did not. I think you're missing that point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay. If Wikipedia is not a reliable source then why do you all create Wikipedia page on Internet? To misguide the netizens? Indian Dignity (talk) 07:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * if you would just take the time to read WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, you might understand why. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Before this discussion continues, I must insist that you read WP:V, about why information on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable, WP:RS, on what constitutes a reliable source which can be cited, WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, on why Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source, and WP:SPS, on why self-published sources, like blogs, are also not considered to be reliable sources. Once you understand these  mandatory policies and are willing to follow them, then we can have a fruitful discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

From Encyclopedia Britannica: Clothing for most Indians is also quite simple and typically untailored. Men (especially in rural areas) frequently wear little more than a broadcloth dhoti, worn as a loose skirtlike loincloth, or, in parts of the south and east, the tighter wraparound lungi. In both cases the body remains bare above the waist, except in cooler weather, when a shawl also may be worn, or in hot weather, when the head may be protected by a turban. The more-affluent and higher-caste men are likely to wear a tailored shirt, increasingly of Western style. Muslims, Sikhs, and urban dwellers generally are more inclined to wear tailored clothing, including various types of trousers, jackets, and vests.

Although throughout most of India women wear saris and short blouses, the way in which a sari is wrapped varies greatly from one region to another. In Punjab, as well as among older female students and many city dwellers, the characteristic dress is the shalwar-kamiz, a combination of pajama-like trousers and a long-tailed shirt (saris being reserved for special occasions). Billowing ankle-length skirts and blouses are the typical female dress of Rajasthan and parts of Gujarat. Most rural Indians, especially females, do not wear shoes and, when footwear is necessary, prefer sandals.

Indian woman wearing a sari, detail of a gouache painting on mica from Tiruchchirappalli, India, c. 1850. Courtesy of the Victoria and Albert Museum, London The modes of dress of tribal Indians are exceedingly varied and can be, as among certain Naga groups, quite ornate. Throughout India, however, Western dress is increasingly in vogue, especially among urban and educated males, and Western-style school uniforms are worn by both sexes in many schools, even in rural India.

My above information is from Brittanica Encyclopedia. I hope you find that correct. And if you say that my sources state that not all women did not stay topless in North India, that it implies that some women did stay topless back then, then I request you to people to please replace the sentence "Before Muslim conquest in India women in many parts of Northern India were topless" with "Before Muslim conquest in India some womenfolk in some parts of Northern India stayed topless during different times even though custom and norm of wearing chest-band or kanchuki, uttariya, and cholis as well as saris covering a woman's upper body was prevalent at many points of time in Vedic ages, Mauryan period as well as in Gupta period". Indian Dignity (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, although the Encyclopedia Britannica is obviuously a reliable source, there's nothing in the information you posted that supports your position. Once again, proof that women in India at some time -- including now -- wear upper garments, is not proof that in a specific region of India at a specific time, they did not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, because you quoted much more than is allowed either by copyright law or our policy (WP:NFCC), I've deleted everything except the section on clothing, which, as I said, doesn't prove your point at all. Here is what our article says right now: "In many parts of northern India before the Muslim conquest of India, women were topless. Women and men typically wore an antriya on the lower body and were nude from the waist up, aside from pieces of jewelry. This was the standard form of dress unless women opted to wear a sari, in which case they covered their upper bodies with a robe.[5][6] The Malayali people of Kerala required Hindu women other than Brahmins, Nairs, Kshatriya and Syrian Christians to strip to the waist in public until 1858 when the Kingdom of Travancore granted all women the right to cover their breasts in public.[7]Toplessness was the norm for women among several indigenous peoples of South India until the 19th or early 20th century, including the Tamils along the Coromandel Coast, Tiyan and other peoples on the Malabar Coast, Kadar of Cochin Island, Today, Cheruman (Pulayar), Kuruba, Koraga, Nicobarese, and the Uriya.[8]"  Nothing in the Britannica information contradicts any of these statements.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I do think that your request to add some qualifiers to the statement is reasonable, although not in the exact form you requested. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * You are exaggerating your points. I only wish that you add that even though many women of many parts of North India were topless however the norm of wearing choli, kanchuki or stanpatta to cover their breasts was available. Indian Dignity (talk) 08:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-93-85059-69-8 Indian Dignity (talk) 08:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * https://books.google.com/books?id=yn9DAAAAYAAJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indian Dignity (talk • contribs) 08:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I am not exaggerating, you still have not presented the evidence that proves your basic point. Given the way the sentence is constructed, some of the information you wish to add is not properly sourced, and therefore cannot be added, because you are (again) generalizing from specific information, whereas on Wikipeda, a source must directly support the statements made. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I've changed the opening sentence to read: "In some parts of northern India at various times before the Muslim conquest of India, some women did not wear an upper garment.." (The underlined portions were what I changed.) This makes it generalized and less easy to be read in the way that you did.  I chose not to add the specific information about garments because this is an article about "toplessness" and not one about Indian garments.  I did not use "womenfolk" because the article is written in American English and "womenfolk" is not in general use in that variety of English.  I hope this is acceptable to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Now see this as well : The paragraph headed by the word "ATTIRE" in the following : https://www.mapsofindia.com/culture/indian-women.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indian Dignity (talk • contribs) 09:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC) I also earnestly request you to add the clothes "choli, kanchuki and stanpatta with skirt called ghagra" as well in the place where you mentioned "sarees". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indian Dignity (talk • contribs) 09:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

However, thanks for making the changes. Thank you. Indian Dignity (talk) 09:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

But please add the clothes stanpatta, kanchuki and choli since they were vital as well. This is only because not just saree, but garments like ghagra-choli and lehenga-choli were also essential and prominent clothes for Indian women in ancient India. Indian Dignity (talk) 09:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm clearly not getting through to you, because you once again present evidence about women wearing upper garments, but nothing actually countering the statement in the article that at a specific time and a specific place they did not. And no, I'm not going to clutter up that section with irrelevant information which is not pertinent to the subject. I've gone about as far as I'm willing to go, given that you haven't provided any evidence at all to support your point -- Yes, I know that for the most part women in India were not and are not topless, but I knew that before we started that discussion, and that's all you've manage to show -- and that I can't consult the sources cited in the article to see if my changes are actually supported by those sources.  I think they would be, because they're reasonable adjustments, but I can't be certain unless I can get access to them, so I'm actually going out on a limb to make the changes I've already made.  I'm not going out any farther without evidence, and you've been unable to present that.  What you apparently think is evidence of your point just isn't.  I keep telling you that but you don't seem to be listening. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I have provided you with evidences which are appropriate. So I disagree with your statement that they are not. Now, if you say that you would not get access to the evidences or the links because you do not want to get access, then it seems your obstinacy in my eyes. But if there is any genuine reason for you not getting access then it is okay. I am sorry then for misjudging you. Anyway, I told you to mention about choli, stanpatta,kanchuki and ghagra skirt since these were equally vital to many parts of Northern and Western India. Not mentioning them and saying that only saree was the norm with robe is actually an incomplete information in the minds of netizens about India. It implies that either they used to wear saree or they used to stay topless which is not true actually. And also, antriya is not the only ancient cloth. Ghagra skirt was also one. And saree was worn many times just as one piece clothe covering the entire body of women from shoulder to the ankles without exposing the breasts. I request you to go to the paragraph about Korea where it is mentioned during breastfeeding women sometimes went topless. But there, it is mentioned about Korean traditional attires for men and women. Hence I requested you to add about ghagra, choli, stanpatta as well alongside just saree since you said about all Korean attires.

Sorry if you feel annoyed but what I said are all facts. And yeah, no girl or woman except in nude sea beaches or topless sea beaches of places like Goa can be topless in modern times in India even if she wishes to because that is against our Indian legal system of public decency and modesty of women. If any girl or female does so, she faces criminal charges for doing acts of public obscenity. Sorry again if you feel annoyed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indian Dignity (talk • contribs) 10:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * the Bangalore Mirror says that before the British came toplessness wasn't unusual. As does the BBC. Oh hell, we even have an article on Breast Tax with a lead that says:


 * "The Breast Tax (Mulakkaram or mula-karam in Malayalam) was a tax imposed on the lower caste (Shudra) and untouchable (Dalit) Hindu women by the Kingdom of Tranvancore (in present-day Kerala state of India) if they wanted to cover their breasts in public, until 1924.[1][2][3] The lower caste and untouchable women were expected to pay the government a tax on their breasts, as soon as they started developing breasts.[4][5] The lower caste men had to pay a similar tax, called tala-karam, on their heads.[6] Travancore tax collectors would visit every house to collect the Breast Tax from any lower caste women who passed the age of puberty.[7] The tax was evaluated by the tax collectors depending on the size of their breasts.[8][9][10][11] Historian Manu Pillai believes that contrary to popular perception the tax was a uniform tax on lower caste women and not a tax for covering breasts as covering of breasts wasn't a norm in Kerala society of the time."


 * You seem unaware of Indian history, which is odd. Doug Weller  talk 14:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I AM NOT UNAWARE OF INDIAN HISTORY. BREAST TAX WAS A THING PREVALENT ONLY IN A CERTAIN PART OF SOUTH INDIA. BUT TOPLESSNESS WAS ALWAYS A TABOO IN INDIA EVER SINCE VEDIC AGE. AS FOR BBC, I BEING AN INDIAN DON'T TRUST BBC SINCE THE VERY MOTIVE OF BRITISHERS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN TO MALIGN THE IMAGE OF INDIAN AND ALSO TO MALIGN INDIAN HISTORY EVER SINCE BRITISHERS STARTED RULING INDIA. Indian Dignity (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

AND ONE RANDOM ARTICLE OF BANGALORE MIRROR MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO ME. FEMALES GOING TOPLESS IS AGAINST INDIAN CULTURE AND THIS IS A FACT. THE BIGGEST NEWSPAPER OF INDIA IS NOT BANGALORE MIRROR BUT IS TIMES OF INDIA. KEEP THIS IN MIND. Indian Dignity (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

GO DO SEARCH ABOUT CLOTHES LIKE STANPATTA, KANCHUKI AND CHOLI. AND THEN TALK. Indian Dignity (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

ALSO I DON'T TRUST ONE RANDOM INDIAN HISTORIAN SUCH AS MANU PILLAI. Indian Dignity (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

https://www.esamskriti.com/e/History/Indian-History/History-of-Indian-Fashion-1.aspx See this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indian Dignity (talk • contribs) 15:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

https://www.historytuitions.com/ancient-india/ancient-india-clothing/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indian Dignity (talk • contribs) 15:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

https://www.indiaretailing.com/2014/05/01/fashion/innerwear-a-history/ See this Article about history of Indian under-garments and inner wears. Indian Dignity (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * First of all, stop shouting with capital letters. It's uncivil and does nothing to advance your arguments. Secondly, in addition to not understanding Indian history, you don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. You can tell us what you aren't aware of, what you personally don't trust, or what you think we should search from now till doomsday, but that doesn't change the need for reliable sources to back up your claims. Sundayclose (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I have given enough reliable sources. And I ain't being uncivil. And yeah, I being an Indian know much better about Indian history and culture than foreigners like you know. Indian Dignity (talk) 06:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Auto-archive settings
This talk page is set for very rapid auto-archiving, with only 31 days for discussion expiration, no minimum number of discussion threads to retain, and with relatively fragmented (40k) archive files. In fact this Talk page was completely blank before this comment, because everything had been aged out. I tried to change that, but my change was reverted. What settings do we think would be most appropriate? —&#8239;BarrelProof (talk) 05:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The current settings are appropriate. Please don't make a solution in search of a problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Having a short expiration period with no minimum number of threads to retain discourages discussion and makes the older discussions hard to find. I suggest that my settings are much better, and I would like to hear the opinions of others. —&#8239;BarrelProof (talk) 06:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but I will point out that outside of this discussion you have 7 edits to the talk page, all in one discussion in February 2018, while I have several hundred contributions  dating back to March 2012, so it just may be that I have a little better feel for what is an appropriate archiving setting than you do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You have replied twice so far, and performed a revert. But I still haven't noticed you providing any actual rationale for these settings. Just saying that you disagree and that you know better than I do is not a reasoned justification. In my experience, very few articles on Wikipedia use such an aggressive combination of settings like 0 and 40K and 31-day expiration. This is not an especially active Talk page –  it has only 4 archives despite having archives that are only 40K in size. Consider, for example:
 * Talk:Breast (7 archives) has 5 (by default), 80K, and 120-day expiration.
 * Talk:Nudity (9 archives) has 5, 45K, and 60-day expiration.
 * Talk:Penis (11 archives) has 4, 75K, and 90-day expiration.
 * Talk:Vagina (13 archives) has 4, 80K, and 90-day expiration.
 * Talk:Bill Clinton (13 archives) has 4, 100K, and 120-day expiration.
 * Talk:Hillary Clinton (48 archives) has 5 (by default), 100K, and 30-day expiration.
 * Talk:Barack Obama (82 archives) has 4, 150K, and 30-day expiration.
 * Talk:Donald Trump (134 archives) has 4, 200K, and 7-day expiration.
 * What is the actual point of trying to sweep away all of the discussions very quickly here and create an inflated number of very small archive files? Those are all much more controversial topics with more discussion than this one, but none of them use less than 4 or less than 45K, and their median value of maxarchivesize is 90K (more than twice the size used here). Only one of them, Donald Trump, which attracts a lot more attention, has significantly shorter discussion expiration. These settings are exceptional.
 * —&#8239;BarrelProof (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The point is -- as you would know if you actually participated here, instead of just occasionally driving by -- is that leaving outdated discussions on the page simply acts as a "honeypot" to attract unnecessary new comments when an issue has been resolved by the article's editorial community.  I tell you this from experience. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's now two weeks later, and this discussion has not attracted an overwhelming volume of commentary. I take this as further evidence that there is no obvious need for very aggressive auto-archiving here. Also please note that manual archival is also possible in any instances where the automatic process doesn't seem like it's doing enough. We seem to have only one editor trying to justify exceptional settings for the talk page of this article, justifying it with some sort of argument from authority. —&#8239;BarrelProof (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Really? I take it as a proof that your entire point is moot, nobody gives a hoot about your concerns, and there is no burning need to change the status quo. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, if another opinion is wanted, I'll give mine. To me, the maximum size of an archive is largely irrelevant. I don't open archives and read them to look for particular points. I use the search feature instead. 0 does seem aggressive wrt the minimum number of threads, but 4 seems too high given that that would typically have included more than a year of threads on this page. That is too long to have old threads hanging around. Perhaps a minimum of one thread to keep the page looking active? 31 days of no posts before a thread is considered finished is again, somewhat aggressive, but I don't have significant experience (none that I know of) with this talk page so I don't know why that time period was chosen. I believe the auto archiving has been operating under these parameters for many years, so there do not seem to have been any issues. I can certainly understand the desire to keep old threads off the talk page to prevent rehashing of closed issues. If it hasn't been touched in a month it is likely dead. I don't see much practical difference between one month and 45 or 60 dyas. See the recent history of Talk:Motorola 68000 and the resultant threads at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and User talk:Johnuniq for an example of what leaving dead threads around can lead to. Meters (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As this discussion itself is about to get archived away by the settings it discusses, I'll take my cue from "Perhaps a minimum of one thread to keep the page looking active" and call it done. Stale discussions can also be archived manually, of course. —&#8239;BarrelProof (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2022
Spin off the content about male shirtlessness into its own article, it has almost to do the female equivalent. Having a tiny section under "Usage and connotations" makes no sense. 205.155.237.250 (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Revert (revision 1148063744)
Hello, I replaced the in question with a computer generated  (via Stable Diffusion) with it in mind that the individual pictured may not know that they are represented in this encyclopaedia/in this article/in this manner. I'm not censorious, nor am I particularly interested in the topic (mostly doing work on art, architecture, design, and culture related articles), just thought it might be courteous to use an image of a "person" who definitely won't care one way or the other. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * If you go to the Wikimedia Commons file for the current photo, you'll find there's a warning indicating people wanting to reuse the photo need to get the subject's permission. That to me strongly suggests that the uploader did get the subject's permission. If it turns out they didn't, there are avenues for the subject to get the photo taken off Wikimedia Commons – which merely removing it from one Wikipedia page does not do.
 * I might add that the replacement picture is not a particularly apt illustration of the topic, as it clearly depicts a male (hyper-)idealization of a female body rather than anything approaching reality.
 * —VeryRarelyStable 09:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Noted re: source photo and permission (though it seems unlikely that the person depicted is aware of any of this).
 * Also, I wholly and fully agree with your observation about the generated image. The people who write the code influence what it does (consciously or not), after all. There's a lot to say about this elsewhere, but on one level, that may have been something I was evoking with the gesture. All good. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Let me just weigh in here. The page says "may have", as is correct. A photo of someone in the public domain does not carry any restricted use in most cases apart from endorsement because there's no expectation of privacy. It's merely common courtesy not to portray someone in a way they would not want to be but considering the circumstances I doubt the person would mind. I also don't mind it being used for aesthetically pleasing reasons.
 * The use in the article does not fall under restricted use. It's not our or wikipedia's responsibility to consider different use cases so that is where it should end. Biofase flame | stalk 21:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is way out of my lane (both in terms of Commons IP/usage policy and ethics). I stumbled across the article itself and the original photo, had a moment of pause, and then added a (strange, and yes, hyper male-idealized) image, that's all. I didn't mean to provoke any further debate or step on anyone's toes. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Too little citations
In some parts of the article in general there appear to be not many citations with sources 161.50.255.20 (talk) 12:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Care to elaborate on which ones? It appears to be rather well sourced for such a large article with only a few sections that don't have any citations and those are marked. Not every sentence and paragraph in a section needs to be cited as long as it's part of a former or latter cited one. Biofase flame | stalk 13:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi protected
Please remove the semi-protection of the current Toplessness article so that it can be edited freely.
 * The article is protected to prevent both vandalism and censorship - ie removal of images. There is no reason to think that these types of edits wouldn't increase if protection were removed.
 * Also, this is the wrong place to request such changes - you can ask directly the editor who protected it here or ask at Requests for page protection. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)