Talk:Going commando

Probable Origin

This term probably originates from the soldier's practice of not wearing underwear in jungle or desert climates. In desert climates, it's more comfortable, and in jungle climates, it's healthier, as it lessens the chance of contracting various crotch rots. It's called going commando because special forces generally have more operational experience than regular troops, and have accepted the advantages of these practices. It should also be noted that normal underwear is often replaced with pantyhose in jungle climates to deter leeches.

• I concur with this. One of my father's co-workers was a SEAL, and confirmed this for me. (Don't ask how it came up)

Photo for lede?

Woman "going commando" with no underpants, holding up skirt for photo.

I added this photo yesterday. Another editor reverted, commenting:

Do no stick gratuitous porn in articles. That's a photo of an exhbitionist or (consentual I hope) upskirt photography this is not that

Aside from the loaded language, as our article states, "going commando" is a form of exhibitionism, and that's what this woman is doing. We have a number of other photos at Commons to choose from. But it's a core principle of our encyclopedia, not to censor content. --Pete Tillman (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, and is still present in the article above. My opinion is that it's impossible to tell whether a person is going commando or not unless you can see up their skirt/kilt or whatever. This will almost always mean some sort of exhibitionism is in progress, and I fail to see why there is such controversy over it.

I note that the reverting editor is the same one who was so against any images being inserted into the article as last time. They need to discuss why they are against the image, and why they feel that exhibitionism is not appropriate for the article. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

My reasons were stated in copious detail before. I’ll repost them if anyone as trouble finding them above. If you want naked women in this article, I have questions for you:

Why does anyone need a graphic image of someone’s nude crotch in order to comprehend what going without underwear means? The article says no such thing, and if it did, then where’s the source?
Do the sources indicate that a typical person who forgoes underwear is an exhibionist?
Why is it that every time an editor tries to force a pornographic image onto this article, the subject is always female? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

As before, it seems that you're the only one who is convinced that an image used to illustrate the article has to be pornographic. There are no naked women in this article, nor is anybody proposing that we include them. By definition a naked person is not going commando. The proposal is that a picture of a person wearing no underwear is included in the article. At least two different images have been proposed - by different editors - and your objection seems to be the same, that you consider them to be pornographic and/or exhibitionistic - and as a result they are inapplicable for inclusion.

I (and others) are proposing an image to illustrate the article topic. That's all. How the image is intepreted is down to the individual person viewing it. You consider it porn, others don't. WP:CENSOR exists for this reason. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Not porn? Not exhibition? Not flashing? The alternative explanation is that this person is being photographed without her consent, which means that under Commons policy, not to mention common decency and the laws of many jurisdictions, it needs to be deleted immediately. What we have is a photo of someone deliberately exposing their genitals. You want the lead image of a topic that does not imply deliberately exposing one's genitals to be a photo of someone doing that? It would be like insisting the lead photo of Car has to be Elon Musk's car floating in space. Yes, a car can be found floating in space. But that is not a helpful illustration of the whole topic.

People wearing underwear can just as easily lift their garments and expose themselves as those without. We have multiple examples. Would those images be the ideal lead for panties or bikini or skirt? Someone wearing any of these things, and much more, is capable of flashing. Someone wearing a skirt, or kilt, or pants, and "going commando" is also capable of flashing. The fact that this is possible, and is perhaps the motive of some people going commando (though we have failed to cite any sources saying so), does not mean this is typical.

What about WP:NOTCENSORED? Should we cite the policy against censorship as a reason for the lead image of Car being a driver exposing his penis? Or the lead image for panties be an image of someone pulling them aside and flashing the public?

Some people do drive around with the purpose of exposing themselves. But if I removed a flashing driver photo from Car, or Driving, it would be because that in no way is an illustration of a common example of driving. If someone cited WP:NOTCENSORED, they'd be ignoring my actual argument -- Car and Driving have nothing to do with exposing one's genitals -- and instead making a straw man argument that the reason I don't want a flasher on the Car article is that I find it objectionable and pornographic.

We have many sources that agree that there are many other motives, such as comfort or health, for not wearing underwear.

Tillman made the head-scratchingly weird, and obviously false, claim that "our article states, 'going commando' is a form of exhibitionism". No, Pete, it says no such thing, and none of our sources say any such thing.

The burden is on you to show reliable sources for why this is an accurate illustration of this article. Your sole argument is WP:NOTCENSORED, even though I have not said nudity is the sole reason for removing it. I've repeatedly explained why, based on sources, that it's atypical and inaccurate, and no one has said anything to address reason.

File:Becky (Unten ohne).jpg obviously is intended to be prurient and titillating. I've asked what useful or relevant information it communicates, and you've failed to answer. It shouln't be that hard for you to say what information the reader is getting from an article's lead image.

Please read MOS:LEADIMAGE:

• "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic;"
• "Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic."
• "Lead images should be of least shock value;" this is, technically, a car. Undeniably true. But readers whould rightly be surprised to find that as the lead for Car. This is a driver, but it fails the least shock value requirement.
• "Sometimes it is impossible to avoid using a lead image with perceived shock value". Why is it impossible to explayin what "going commando" is without showing a woman's exposed genitals? And I still would like to know why it's always a woman. Why not a man, dudes?

The burden is on you. What reasons are there for this? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic;"

• All suggested images are indeed "natural and appropriate representations of the topic" - they perfectly demonstrate the topic.

• "Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic."

• See above. We have multiple easy representations of the topic. It's just that you don't like them.

• "Lead images should be of least shock value;" this is, technically, a car. Undeniably true. But readers whould rightly be surprised to find that as the lead for Car. This is a driver, but it fails the least shock value requirement.

• There is little shock value (apart from what you see yourself) when the image and topic explicitly describe what you see. If you are looking at an article that specifically describes the wearing of clothes without underwear and there is an image on the page, you would be more shocked to find that it did not demonstrate the topic.

• "Sometimes it is impossible to avoid using a lead image with perceived shock value". Why is it impossible to explayin what "going commando" is without showing a woman's exposed genitals? And I still would like to know why it's always a woman. Why not a man, dudes?

• I've never specified it should be a man. You'll note that I use the term "person" in my posts, unless referring to suggested images.

The burden is on you. What reasons are there for this?

• See above. It matters not a jot that exhibitionism is part of the display. Inclusion of one category does not exclude from another.
• And stop being silly with the other example images. Of course nobody is suggesting that we use inappropriate images in other articles. Frankly you lessen your own standing in this discussion by suggesting (even in jest) that we use pictures of naked women as lede examples in an article about driving an so on. It is possible to show examples of those topics without nudity, but it is not possible to show an example of going commando without, ergo it needs to be present. I wonder are you against this image which clearly shows a man with his cock out in an article about a painter? Surely we can talk about the Italian without the image? Or how about we purge this article of the multiple images that show both naked men and women?

Clearly rubbish. We are talking about this article and the appropriateness of showing a person in the act of going commando. The most appropriate image is one of the act, and somebody on this page would expect to see such an act. In reality the fact that the person in the image may be an exhibitionist is not relevant to the topic. They may be white, black, disabled, male or female - also unnecessary to the validity of the image so long as it adequately displays the article topic. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

---

I visited the article for the first time, was surprised to find no photo, looked at the Commons page & picked what seemed the most appropriate one. Clearly, we need a photo to illustrate this behavior. One's personal opinion of the behavior is irrelevant. I'm surprised this is controversial. --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens, you've give the appearance of answering the points I made, without in fact giving any counterarguments.

You point out that some articles do need nude images, a straw man that pretends I said no articles should ever have nude images, scolding me for supposedly wanting no nudes in Michelangelo or David. I didn't say that, did I, Chaheel?

You falsely claim "I just don't like them". You know very well that what I said was this article contains no sources that say going commando is in any way a form of exhibitionism. Everything I have said is based on the fact that we have no sources saying that this is what going commando looks like. We cite numerous sources describing it, and not one of them says or implies "if you see a someone going commando, you can expect to see their nude genitals". Not. One. Source. Says. That. You have not cited anything that disproves what I've asserted. You merely contradict me: "oh yes it does illustrate the topic!"

I've asked you and Tillman several times to tell me what information this photo communicates. No answer. Pete's reasons for wanting a photo is he was "surprised to find no photo". That's not a reason. Again, read the MOS: not every article needs a photo. It tells us do not put an inappropriate photo on an article just for the sake of having one.

Pete, you came to this article and found no photo. And... then? Did you read it? Did you find it incomplete? You found yourself feeling like you didn't learn everything there was to learn? Is that it? I don't believe so. You didn't add the photo because it conveys missing information. It adds zero information, other than the false implication that going without underwear implies a desire to flash people. If it adds missing, information, I ask again, tell me what information it conveys.

Pete, you said "our article states, going commando is a form of exhibitionism". Didn't you? This diff says you said it. But it's not true. No sources say it is exhibitionism, and this article doesn't say that.

Tell me what information this photo adds to the article. Tell me which sources say that a woman pulling up her skirt is a good representation of what going commando is. Show me a source that says going commando is a form of exhibitionism. Do that, and you will change my mind. I oppose these nude photos because they are inconsistent with the sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I have answered the questions. The fact that you don't like the answers given does not lessen them. The images demonstrate that the person in question is not wearing underwear underneath clothing, ergo they are going commando. It's as simple as that. My comments about David et al were in response to your own suggestions of using nudity to demonstrate driving - remember that before criticising me.

There are many images on Wikipedia that were originally inteded for topic "A" but have since found use in topic "B" - these are such.

Clearly you are not prepared to listen, so I'm taking this to DRN. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

RFC on nude photos in Going commando

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should going commando be illustrated with a nude photo, such as someone exposing their genitals? 08:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Examples proposed in the past

• File:Becky (Unten ohne).jpg
• File:Goin Commando.jpg
• File:Going commando 2.jpg
• File:052-Anonym, c.1910.jpg

This means:

• These nude photos meet MOS:LEADIMAGE guidelines and are
  • "natural and appropriate representations"
  • "the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works"
• And per MOS:SHOCK
  • "it is impossible to avoid using a lead image with perceived shock value"
• WP:Offensive images
  • "omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available"
• Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:No original research
  • "reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented", that upskirt or exhibitionist photos are typical and accurate illustrations of "going commando". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

•  Note: The AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Going commando was closed as merge to undergarment, so the question of a lead photo is probably moot, but everything said here is equally applicable to a photo, if any, that might appear in the subsection of that article where the content here is merged to. I think whatever outcome we get should still be applied over there. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Support there is no suggestion that there should be nude images added to the article. The very definition of "going commando" requires clothing. The suggestion is that an image of a person not wearing underwear is included, by necessity this will also require the subject to be showing that they are not wearing underwear. This may include exhibitionism as a by-product, but that is not a reason to exclude any images. File:052-Anonym, c.1910.jpg and File:Pierced_blonde_in_studio_05.jpg are posed shots by models - exhibitionism would not be applicable in these two cases anyway.

Opposition seems to focus on the exhibitionism, this should not be a factor. The article makes no mention of the term, and any implication that exhibitionism is required is purely in the eye of the opposing editor - this is essentially synthesis.

Images proposed meet all the requirements as laid out above, they are the best available examples of the article topic, they meet minimum shock value for the topic. They adequately demonstrate the topic. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of a photograph per guidelines above. Of the selected examples I would recommend File:Going commando 2.jpg for the lead as it looks the most professionally taken, then using File:052-Anonym, c.1910.jpg during the body for a historical comparison. And for the record I read through some previous discussion and I think using any photograph that does not show the genitals is just absurd; how would we know the person is "going commando" if you can't see? You'd be better of with no image at all. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• Update: WhatamIdoing has suggested the possibility of adding a picture of an outer-garment of a design or nature that clearly shows it would be pretty impossible to wear underwear underneath it. For the record I think such an image would be more appropriate than the selected images featured above, though for the record I also don't understand what's so shocking about the human body. Recently I've seen more than a few people blur out the genitals of their pets in photos on social media, lest anyone by offended by a cat's genitals. Opposition to showing either male or female genitals here seems to me to be one step below that on some kind of puritan scale, but if we can clearly demonstrate the issue in an image without showing genitals then I would support that. Images like the one of the girl in the skirt in the 'Image again' section above where there's no indication of whether underwear is being worn or not from the photo alone are useless. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose violates WP:NOR, since no sources describe anything like File:052-Anonym, c.1910.jpg or File:Going commando 2.jpg. Sources clearly say the expectation is that no one knows what you are or are not wearing. Violates MOS:SHOCKVALUE since it is in no way impossible to avoid displaying exposed genitals in this article. No one who supports these photos will tell us what vital information the exposed genitals photos convey, without which the article is "less informative, relevant, or accurate". Tell me what information we're missing out on, and show me sources backing it up, and I'll switch to support. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The staged photos are gratuitous flashing unrelated to this article. Johnuniq (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as lacking informational value. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support Photographs are illustrative and useful. I find the repeated labeling of any picture of genitalia as "pornography" to be bothersome and simply incorrect. Pornography is something with no other purpose than to sexually arouse. These pictures are illustrating a point, conveying information in a visual way. Just because something explicitly depicts genitals does not automatically make it "pornography". I also don't buy the argument that there is generally no way of telling if one is going commando, and that that should matter. Underwear is by definition worn under other clothing, yet we don't just put a fully clothed person at the top of the underwear page because that is how it is commonly worn. If we could illustrate the concept of "going commando" without a person we would, but due to the nature of the concept, a photo illustrating that underwear is not being worn is necessarily going to involve showing a person wearing clothing with no underwear underneath it, that fact will have to be visible. It doesn't have to be in the form of an upskirt shot, nor of a female, but there is no real reason it shouldn't be. Any type of clothing that reveals a lack of underwear would do (Up-skirt, sheer clothing, up-kilt, etc). I don't think that any option is better than any other, but I do think that all of those options are better than having nothing, especially when having nothing is only justified by the incorrect categorization of anything depicting genitals as "pornographic", which is just WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 08:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh, I find that picture from 1910, with that lovely well you know what, in its natural state if you know what I mean, to be pretty smoking hot. OF COURSE that image was pornographic, and very well done. You need to stop thinking that if others disagree "they just don't like"--don't like what? naked women? gratuitous pictures of nudity? Your arguments, by the way, are just amazingly verbose and silly, but I suppose if you need a picture to show you what "going commando" looks like, you also need lots of words. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
    • All I did was look over the talk page and see several years of "stop adding pornography" to any attempt to add a picture, and that reasoning does not hold water for me. Whether the pictures were originally intended to be pornography is immaterial, as that is not the use intended here. Personally I would go with something like this:

• 

as it illustrates the concept of clothes (in this case shorts) being warn with no underwear underneath, and due to the design (sheer panel on side) it is obvious without requiring the lifting of a garment to expose the fact. There are probably even better pictures, if someone is better at digging through commons than I am. I am generally in favor of articles having pictures when available, and give very little weight to arguments exclusively based on what some people may find offensive. Nevertheless, you are welcome to think whatever you want of me, and make whatever assumptions you like about my motives. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Nobody ever said "stop adding pornography" to "any attempt to add a picture". Only to the beaver shots. The strawman that editors (me, specifically) were opposed to any photos at all made discussion all the more difficult. It probably wouldn't have come to an RfC if it hadn't been for all that. I don't think you really know whether this File:See Through Pants (5879658946).jpg is someone without any underwear, just as I said that with File:Pierced blonde in studio 05.jpg and File:Pierced blonde in studio 07.jpg you don't really know. The weird relationship between photographic evidence and WP:NOR is a rabbit hole that we should stay far, far away from because there's no answers, only madness. It's really hard to know by sight what's under anyone's clothing. And why should it be? And why must an encyclopedia have to explain that? At some point we have to ask whether or not we're writing for recently arrived aliens from Mars or Alpha Centauri, or humans from Earth. Illustrations are nice but having an article with no images not a problem that has to be overcome at any cost. And if it really is bothering anyone, why not make a graph with poll data on how many people wear undies? The article would have an image of something. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

And I suppose we don't "know" that those shorts are purple, or that they are shorts, or that that is even a human in the picture? To my eyes, the real strawman argument is your argument that WP:NOR somehow means that images must have third party citations to say that they show something they very clearly show. (And despite your protestations, I see an awful lot of reverts with comments like "Do no stick gratuitous porn in article" or "just an excuse for porn") UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 07:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

None of these were removals of anything but nude photos. There were other photos added and removed at various times, and nobody called the ones without nudity "pornography". Every time the word "porn" was mentioned, it was at least an arguable application of WP:GRATUITOUS. Your statement that "any attempt to add a picture" was called porn is false. You should either provide diffs, or retract your false assertion and instead address the substance of the arguments. There are several editors whose edit history is anything but "puritanical" who have said exposed genitals in this article violate WP:PERTINENCE, WP:SHOCK or WP:GRATUITOUS for specific reasons -- mainly that the nudity doesn't correlate with reliable sources, and nobody will say what information you're trying to convey. Please address the actual arguments instead of making ad hominem attacks for being a "puritan", and strawman fallacies that all photos have been rejected as "porn". This is only about the photos with exposed genitals.

What information do we get from the beaver shots? The bar set by all these policies and guidelines is that the image contains information that we wouldn't otherwise have. Stop with the red herrings, and answer that question. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• Mmmmmm Very much in teo minds, whilst I can see how these might be seen as demonstrating the concept they are also only demonstrating it from one side for the purposes of titillation (not by us, but at least one is a clear porno picture, the other may well be). I suspect I lean towards oppose simply based upon the "upskirt " nature of these. We could achieve the same effect with pictures of camel toes and bollocks , and this would actually be pictures of clothing we explicitly describe in the article.Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
• Don't even know why there's an article, as much of this burbles on about mere etymology. Shouldn't this be a redirect to one short paragraph (on avoidance of undies, not etymology) within some other article? -- Hoary (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Zero need for a shock image to illustrate this. "Going around without underwear" is pretty much understood by anyone in the english language. The phrasing has nothing to do with nudity, and if anything, the image would need to show the visible difference from a clothed person that has gone commando to one that hasn't (which I'm not 100% is easy to show any obvious difference). --Masem (t) 14:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Article - After a quick glance, I'm curious how there hasn't been a deletion discussion for this article under a Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary rationale. NickCT (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Johnuniq and Masem. The article probably should be nominated for deletion but I'm not willing to do the BEFORE at the moment. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, the article would not be improved by adding one of the images suggested. I sort of agree with the opinion to delete article, which in parts is OR and / or rather strange, such as: "This [going commando] also applies for most clothes worn as swimwear, sportswear or nightwear" -- huh? --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

We might as well use the following images of people "going commando":

• 
• 
• 
• 

--K.e.coffman (talk) 04:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Whoa, you're right. So I'm going commando if I don't wear underwear under my swimming trunks? Hot damn I'm hip! Drmies (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose--completely gratuitous, and it seems like this is just an opportunity for some boy editors to put pictures of vaginas in an article under the guise of...I can't tell what guise. And of course there's always someone who yells "Oh it's just WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT". *lesight* And if you want more semantics: these weren't pictures of people going around without underwear--they were pictures of people showing they were going around without underwear, and thus more suitable for an article on exhibitionism. Or voyeurism. Or the male gaze. Please. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion of upskirt images or images of people who are partially undressed. I think the WP:PERTINENCE of an image that shows someone disrobing, to an article whose subject is people being fully dressed, is very limited. But I wouldn't oppose all images. For example, a woman wearing a dress that has decorative cutouts in places that would make it unlikely that she could wear underwear might be acceptable, or perhaps a diagram could be created. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Image is not pertinent enough to the article, since most people who go commando don't expose their genitals to public view. A better image would be of a person wearing "cycling shorts, Bermuda shorts, jogging pants, kilts, [or] men's sarongs", which usually implies that the person is going commando, as stated in the article. — Newslinger talk 02:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
• Pile-on oppose. As much as I enjoy images of the (semi-)nude female body, I can't see how the proposed images add anything to article. They'd be fine for the Exhibitionism and/or Upskirt articles, but their use here is simply prurient/gratuitous. Yilloslime (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
• Irrelevant question. The only question that should be asked is whether any given image adds something to the article: i.e. it either enhances a reader's understanding of the text or conveys something that the text cannot. If an image does add to the article it should be included whether it features nudity or not, if an image does not add to the article it should not be included regardless of whether it features nudity. As for the specific images, none of the posed images listed in this section (whether they feature genitals or not) enhance the article because they do not convey something relevant to the topic that the words do not and so they should not be included. My first thought for an image that would be useful would be a two-part image showing the same person from the same angle, once with their underwear visible through their outer clothing (similar to the image at the Panty line article perhaps) and once wearing that same clothing but with no underwear visible (I have not looked to see if such an image/image pair exists already); alternatively WhatamIdoing's suggestion of a dress with cutouts would also work. Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with you. Additionally, I think it's important for any image added to not have a significant irrelevant meaning. "See? I'm not wearing undergarments when it would be conventional" would be a good image. "See? I'm dressed up like a little schoolgirl, and, oops! I forgot my panties!" is not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
• 'Oppose - not useful and not correct either -- commando is not showing genitals, it's showing outer garments and not having anything under. A nude image is not correct. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, doesn't fit the definition and doesn't reasonably add to the article. It could even be misleading (since the term is specifically not about exposing your genitals.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose not even remotely informative nor accurate. Pincrete (talk) 11:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Can I just reiterate here, that nobody is advocating the usage of nude images. Nude by definition means naked, and (again by definition) for an image to be even remotely appropriate in this article one of the criteria it must meet is that they are wearing something to cover a lack of underwear. I have pointed this out several times, but presume Dennis is going for shock value attached to the term "nude images" based on his continual use of the term. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I think you need access to a much better dictionary. The sense here, from the OED, is "nude 3c. Of a work of art, form of entertainment, etc.: involving or portraying one or more naked or scantily clad people; performed without clothing. Also of an actor or model: that performs or poses unclothed." "Naked or scantily clad". It's perhaps the most frequently used sense of the word. Movies or TV that show exposed genitals are described as "contains nudity". Nobody balks that the word only applies to complete and total nudity; there's a reason the phrase "completely nude" exists. Several editors above referred to the sample files by name. They know exactly which files you wish to add to the article, and they are specifically referring to them when they are telling you, loudly, clearly, that the consensus is opposed.

      I'd still change my mind if I were told what cited, pertinent information these nude photos of women's crotches adds to the article, and why it's always women, and not any of the similar male photos we have on Commons. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

      • Nudity - Nudity, or nakedness, is the state of wearing no clothing. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
        • What you’re telling us here is that it’s pointless to attempt to reason with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis Bratland (talk • contribs) 16:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
          • If that's your interpretation, I see why I have a hard time trying to discuss things with you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
            • If I was the one whose arguments were failing to win consensus, I would have reason to reflect on whether my basic assumptions were flawed. But I'm not, you are. Go to Google News and search the phrase "nude photos" or "nude photo". How many times is that phrase, the same one I used here in the RfC, used to refer to wearing no clothing whatsoever? And how often is it used to refer to partial exposure in such a way as to violate social norms? Social norms are the entire basis for the image policies that are relevant here, the requirements that "lead images should be of least shock value" and "Material that could be considered vulgar, obscene or offensive should not be included unless it is treated in an encyclopedic manner". This is our context, and everyone knows that. Anyone who feels uncertain can look at the actual photos prominent at the top of the RfC. Context is how you know which of many senses to take as a words meaning.

              And even if your red herring claims about the definition of nude were true, we have more than a dozen editors who have overwhelmingly rejected the actual photos that you wanted to add. They saw the photos themselves and said no, regardless of whether or not it's correct (it is, btw) to describe them as "nude photos".

              Being deliberately obtuse is ineffective and self-defeating. The evidence of that is right here in front of you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Should consensus go against my (and others) opinion, then so be it, I have no problem with that - there are some good arguments here, and I bow to them - nor have I ever given the impression that I do. You requested that I find a better dictionary source for the definition of "nude" - so I did, and provided the source from whence it came to back up my interpretation. Who'd have thought Wikipedia as wrong, eh? You're also still obsessing over the fact that I'm apparently suggesting only the inclusion of women. I've never done that, and I've had to point it out to you before as well. I'm supporting the inclusion of appropriate images to improve the article, that's all. I may be in the minority, but that's the way it goes with consensus sometimes. I'll stop now, because (as you've pointed out yourself) discussing things with you never goes anywhere useful. If you want to have the last word, please clarify why you're of the opinion that the lady in our favourite image File:Pierced_blonde_in_studio_05.jpg is in fact wearing underwear, because I'm still really baffled by that one. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Fine. Whatever. Can we move this entire thread elsewhere? It doesn't belong in the survey section, and it's barely even on topic at all. Regarding your question, post a diff of when I said the subject in File:Pierced blonde in studio 05.jpg is wearing underwear, please. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

---

Re; File:See Through Pants. That's not a bad choice, since the guy is clearly not wearing underwear. Or is he just wearing underwear? Hmm. Ambiguous. This is turning onto one of those pointless, interminable Wiikipedia time-wasters. I'm done here. --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

You think you can tell but the fact is you can't. [1][2][3][4]. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support helps illustrate the concept. Џ 01:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is no need to illustrate an article that is not related to pornography with a pornographic photo. As other users have pointed out, the concept is in fact better illustrated with a non-explicit photo. However, I do not think the concept requires illustration. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: the topic doesn't need an illustration, and it's simply being used to shoehorn pictures of genitals into the article. I like pictures of genitals, and where they have illustrative value, I'll strongly support their inclusion, but this article isn't improved by them, because they're irrelevant to the topic. --Slashme (talk) 05:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not only would it add nothing, it would be gratuitous and misleading. Going commando means wearing no trollies under your trousers, not going balls-out. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose and frankly Guy has taken the words out of my mouth. By definition somebody "going commando" is wearing clothes. (Disclosure: I closed the recent AfD as "merge"). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose If you took a photo of the vast majority of people as they were going commando you'd never know it. Most of the time the phrase is used, it's not used in reference to any form of exhibitionism (which is what I'm seeing depicted in the infobox-list of suggested photos above), but to otherwise-fully-clothed people who have -for whatever reason- elected not to wear underwear. Illustrating that would be better done with an actual illustration (a semi-cutaway view, or something similar). I can create one if needed. In fact, if I remember, I'll do it this weekend and link it here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that would make my weekend, Pants :-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think my addition here was brilliant: no shock value and is educational about this practice in public, as most people probably don't know about it, but now they do. Or would have. --90.243.106.152 (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

(+1) to the IP's image. That sort of image is one I can get behind. There's absolutely no need to show anyone's junk, and it certainly hasn't escaped my notice that the only genitals on clear display in any of the offered examples are those of women. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Since there's no nudity, this image isn't in the scope of this RfC; it's more related to the new Jennifer Lopez thread below. I wouldn't oppose it on the grounds discussed here, gratuitous nudity, shock value, etc. I'd suggest merging first to undergarment, then discussing whether or not to addition images of cycling short wearers or celebrity stunt dresses or whatever. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Since there's no nudity, this image isn't in the scope of this RfC Two editors cite that image as an example of what they consider to be a proper image in order to justify their opposition to this RfC and you think that's "out of scope"? Wow. I think you're a little too married to the idea of adding some pussy to this article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be an argument? Let’s say I am too married to something or other. So what? Regardless of what my personal defects are, the decisions here still have to be made based on facts. The RfC asks, “Should going commando be illustrated with a nude photo, such as someone exposing their genitals?” Yes or no. It doesn’t address whether or not to us a photo without nudity. I don’t see that fact as an opportunity for you to make comments about me. Is it?

There’s a strong consensus against nudity. It’s incorrect to extend that to include support for some other kind of photo. Two might want to, but 12-15 others didn’t address that because it’s not the question that was asked. It’s important to not turn consensus on a narrow question into a broader mandate. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not "supposed to be an argument". There is -quite obviously, I might add- no conclusion derived from postulates in that response. My previous comment did nothing except explicate the reason why the IP posted that image and I endorsed it. If you can't handle being corrected when you misunderstand me, then you should probably not respond to me at all. Not understanding something is fine, but getting defensive when it's explained to you is a hallmark of emotive editing, which is entirely unhelpful in these sorts of discussions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

"I think you're a little too..."? "a hallmark of emotive editing"!!!

Weird how people get all defensive when all you do is tell them what is wrong with them, and psychoanalyze their emotions. What on earth could it be that triggers this strangely defensive reaction? Perhaps we'll never know.

Seriously, go down to the other thread below where questions of which non-nude images, if any, should be used, and help resolve that. It's right there. It's not as if you have nowhere else to discuss that topic. Perhaps if nobody gets all strangely defensive when you announce what they're too married to or mention that their emotions are out of control, a consensus could be reached. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I know, it was such a horribly "emotive" thing for me to try to contextualize the only logical reason why my reference to the image would be confusing. If it makes you feel better, next time I'll just assume you're being belligerent on purpose and refuse to explain anything. Sound good? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose The proposed photos misleadingly imply that going commando involves exposing one's genitals in public. Although the subjects are technically going commando, they don't illustrate what it normally looks like when someone goes commando. –dlthewave ☎ 13:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose no information is provided by a photo, and per Dlthwave exposed genitals are not what going commando looks like. valereee (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• I'd be all in favor of one of these types of photos if I was shown that reliable sources consistently tell us that people typically forgo underwear with the intent of exhibitionism or participating in upskirt displays. Or that the typical result of anyone not wearing underwear is that people will see their genitals. On the contrary, our sources say the motives can be health, or comfort, or cultural tradition, but not because they want to or expect to expose themselves.

  It is generally considered indecent, and usually illegal, to peek under skirts, and whether or not they wore underwear isn't a mitigating factor -- that is, even with underwear, it's still and invasion of privacy, and without underwear, the victim was in no way asking for it or should have expected it. We have plenty of examples of people lifting their pants or skirts or whatever clothing, and the underwear they have on, and exposing themselves, showing again that wearing or not wearing undergarments is orthogonal to flashing or exhibitionism. One does not imply the other. Kilt says that this drapery is traditionally worn without underwear, yet an upskirt photo of a kilted man's exposed genitals (yes, we do have them on Commons) is not considered a good illustration of the topic of kilts. MOS:IMAGE says not to feel compelled to stick any old image, even a poor match or an inappropriate one, on an article just for the sake of having an image.

  If we don't have any good illustrations of what going commando looks like, that's fine. Maybe it's because people going commando look like anyone else. Show me sources saying "this is what someone going commando looks like" and I'll support using that as an illustration. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, you yourself added a sourced section about "skivvie check", so maybe an image of a man with no underwear and dropped pants, because that fits the sourced description? (From your cited source: "the girls delighted in screaming 'skivvie check!,' which meant every man jack and mate in the bar would have to drop his pants") UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 07:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The entire point of the literal and metaphorical "skivvie check" is a test of UDT/SEAL impersonators. So you have a photo of an actual frogman with his pants down?

What's really wrong here is the refusal to accept the fact that not every article has to have a photo. If you have time to spend finding photos, why not find them for articles that actually need illustrations? We have lists and lists of such requests. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Hoary: - Looking at your comments above, I'd support an AfD for this article. NickCT (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing as I was writing this. There's a number of these that could be merged into a Glossary of fashion or Glossary of fashion slang, such as muffin top, wedgie, desnuda, male bra, men's underwear index, and many other related stubs found in Category:Undergarments, Category:Slang, and so on. Redirecting to a list of terms doesn't preclude expansion if signficant encyclopedic content turns up later. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Me too, NickCT. But sorry, I'm not going to launch it: I'm too distracted these days with WP-unrelated stuff to be confident of doing a good job -- Hoary (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Hoary and Dennis Bratland: - Ok. I'll AfD it. Standby. NickCT (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• When I think of "going commando" I think of it as being analogous to builder's bum - ie: wearing underwear is possibly counterproductive, and circumstances of the work means that sometimes you get an exposed arse. It isn't soft porn finding an excuse to exist in an article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

  Today I learned that Wikipedia has one article on butt crack and a whole separate article on butt cleavage. Going to merge them in 3... 2... 1... --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jennifer Lopez

All we really need is a photo of Jennifer Lopez like this ; there have to be red carpet photos somewhere on commons that show a dress with see-through panels that clearly can't have undies beneath. valereee (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

This almost does it -- I suppose she could have on a custom-designed g-string, but it makes the point without using a photo that was originally designed to be titillating:

lopez

As I said above, there are several varieties of strapless or stick on undergarments that create the illusion you see here. Please look them up; the C string is one example. You could caption this photo with (your opinion) that this is what it might look like to have no underwear, but you could put the same caption on a photo of anyone in ordinary street clothes. In either case, you can’t tell. Multiple reliable sources say that: you can’t tell if someone is going commando.

The image policy is emphatic that photos are not mandatory. Some articles have no image and that’s OK. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Still lacks informational value. We don't need to illustrate that which needs no illustration. Some articles have no image and that’s OK. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

"Some articles have no image and that’s OK."

Well, yes, but only if we can't find anything that works. Which, so far, we haven't. But you never know..... --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

If someone would answer the question, what information is contained in this image?, it would be extremely helpful in finding the picture we need. Or "need", IMHO. I don't understand why that question hasn't been answered. It's the simplest thing one asks of an illustration. It tells us something. What does it tell us? Easy question. Right? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that's a very good point. There are very few people in the world who need to be shown what it looks like under clothing when no underwear is present. The vast majority of humans can see an example of that for themselves. So no information is really provided. valereee (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

That's correct, and nobody has answered the question after multiple requests from multiple editors. Without a somewhat cogent answer, the rest of the discussion is pointless. I think some editors believe that the burden is on the Opposers to show why there should be no image; but it's the other way around. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree that no photo is better than a poorly chosen photo. I'd rather see a photo of someone in an outfit which is generally worn without underwear, with a caption stating "It is very common for people wearing X to not wear underwear," but if there are serious objections to that, I could draw a cutaway view in Inkscape or something similar. Hell, if there are objections to that, I could still get behind "No image". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Moot

Why is this being discussed given the result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Going commando? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not moot at all.. The AFD close was for a merge, not a deletion. The issue of whether or not to use an image of someone exhibiting bare genitals in this material just gets transferred to the article this is merged to if we don't close this first. Meters (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. Was this in reference to the Jennifer Lopez question? Meters (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Also having an established consensus on a question like this sets a useful precedent for other similar articles. There's a note at the top pointing out the AfD merge outcome, so anyone who thinks it's moot can stop reading and not invest more time in it if they wish. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Merge done

I have merged the content, and trimmed out some trivial and all of the insufficiently sourced health claims. I don't know whether it makes more sense to redirect this talk page there, or to leave it here (for now, at least). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)