Talk:Nudity/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

revert of Ewawer's "cleanup

I reverted that cleanup; while I definitely support the idea of cleaning up the article, since right now it's a big morass of uncited info, that change was not accurate. This was Ewawer's text:

A society's attitude to public nudity varies depending on the culture, time, location and context of an activity. For example, nude sun tanning in areas designated as nude beaches is unobjectionable, while in situations involving children it is generally not tolerated. In general and across cultures, sexualised public nudity is not tolerated.

First, the second sentence doesn't logically follow the first; in order to have a "for example", the previous sentence needs to have said "nude behavior is tolerated in some places." Second, the latter part of the sentence is flat out wrong in very many places. For instance, nude beaches generally don't restrict behavior based on age, nor do nudist camps, allowing people of all ages; furthermore, as discussed later in the article, children themselves are allowed to be naked in situations adults are not. Finally, the last sentence doesn't have a clear meaning--what is "sexualised public nudity"? The prior version I referred to talked about how nudity prohibitions tend to focus on body parts linked to sexual arousal, but that's not the same as being "sexualised" (which I take to mean doing something for a sexual purpose). In any event, it's not true "in general and across cultures." Qwyrxian (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Rklawton (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Child nudity

There is a picture in the article depicting child nudity. Depictions of nude children are not to end up in the hands of a "you-know-who". (And you most likely know what kind of people I refer to) And what responsibilty does Wikipedia have to keep child nudity away from the site and the hands of a "you-know-who", you will most likely ask. Such pictures may lead to defamation of Wikipedia in the press, it has already happened. [1] And from the educational point of view, is child nudity really that differing from adult nudity? MikeNicho231 (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the removal, although I suspect there will be some push back. For example, this image at one time was described as a "girl", but later changed to "woman". You have to wonder, was that done just to avoid the prohibition against child porn? And could the fact that the image is still in Commons be a reflection of the fact that the person is from Africa rather than Europe or the Americas. I'm not arguing for or against having the image in Commons, but it does make me wonder where the line is drawn. Another example is File:BlindFaithBlindFaith.jpg; I'm sure many would make a case for artistic necessity, but again you have to wonder where the line is drawn. Cresix (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED. Also, this image is about as innocent as they come. If you are titillated by that, you might want to consult.CyrilleDunant (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Note that WP:NOTCENSORED does not take precendence over Wikimedia policy about prohibited content. Cresix (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but pictures of partly visible children removed on the grounds that they might be titillating to someone have nothing to do with prohibited content. It is about having no sense of proportion, and removing a picture which is a very good (and artistic) illustration of the pictures parents have taken of their children ever since it became technically feasible. No genitalia are visible. The picture is of a completely non-sexual nature. The genre of the children in the picture is indeterminate. The picture is artistically interesting. It illustrate a point of the article. One could even argue that the censorship of this picture is an attempt at making it titillating.CyrilleDunant (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually I find the grounds for the removal deeply disturbing. Many pictures of this article are of dubious interest and are gratuitously sexual nature. A couple of them are actually illustrative, and this is one of them. Sophistry, prudishness (or more sinister motives) and self-censorship are not helping the project.CyrilleDunant (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Look, when there is disagreement about an edit, it is decided by consensus, even if you think you are right or you find it "deeply disturbing", prudish, sinister, or a dozen other adjectives. That's basic Wikipedia policy. Read WP:CON. There is sufficient grounds for disagreement because of Wikimedia (not Wikipedia) policy. Please stop edit warring and wait to see if a consensus develops. Cresix (talk) 01:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. The state of the article for the longest time invalidates the argument for the removal. Also, this picture is perfectly fine on legal grounds, unlike, say, that of the Namibian woman who is most likely underage per the US standards which apply. I am not edit warring: only merely making clear there was no consensus for deletion in the first place. If you establish consensus for the removal of the image, I will, of course, agree to it.CyrilleDunant (talk) 02:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not needed for removal. Read WP:BURDEN. Consensus is needed to restore. And YES, you are edit warring. Cresix (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Why do we need a picture of a nude child? Is a nude child so differing from an nude adult that it needs a depiction for itself? A nude person is a nude person, no matter what size, color, ethnicity, age, nationality, religion, bla bla bla... MikeNicho231 (talk) 10:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, as this article concerns the wide and important subject of human nudity, multiple images are in my opinion preferable. As the article already has pictures of human adults without clothing, why not add some diversity that illustrates the point of being without clothing better and add images of naked people of different age, race, built etc.? With your reasoning, we could as well remove all the pictures with naked adults and use one of a naked child as the sole illustration, right?

And as others have already pointed out, child pornography (which happens to be strictly illegal in most places) is an erotic depiction of an underage person. There's nothing inherently "erotic" in removing your clothes so that for example you could wash them from time to time nor in other day-to-day nudity that we all practice. Depictions of such nudity, or nudity in general without sexual themes are not erotica. They are, well, just depictions of people not wearing their otherwise quite handy and protective clothes at the said moment which in itself is quite natural act and commonly practiced at all ages. JJohannes (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yup. That's pretty much the line of reasoning pedophiles use to get what they want. Rklawton (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Without calling anyone in particular a pedophile, I agree that is the kind of explanation pedophiles give: it's "natural"; there's really nothing wrong with it; it's just somone without clothes, nothing more. Cresix (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Even worse, pictures of nude children also serve as a tool for pedophiles to create new victims. By showing children photos of other children and presenting them as "normal" a child can be more easily manipulated into believing that whatever the pedophile wants is probably OK. Rklawton (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Children in bathtub picture

The image of the children in the bathtub does not violate Wikipedia's carefully considered policies concerning nakedness or children. It is an innocent image that was originally downloaded from a US Government website as a work by a US Department of Agriculture employee. The source was impeccably respectable. But the image can be considered in isolation, on its own merits, irrespective of its source.

The image passes the Dost test, which uses the following criteria:

“

• Whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child's genitalia or pubic area.
• Whether the setting of the visual depiction is sexually suggestive, i.e., in a place or pose generally associated with sexual activity.
• Whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in inappropriate attire, considering the age of the child.
• Whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude.
• Whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to engage in sexual activity.
• Whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer.

”

No genitals are seen; no bottoms are seen; no breasts are seen; the image is not sexual in nature or intent; backs and chests are all that can be seen; the poses are not unnatural; there is no hint of sexual coyness; it is not obviously staged to sexually arouse.

The image also passes the Miller test, which has three parts:

“

• Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
• Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,
• Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

The work is considered obscene only if all three conditions are satisfied.

”

There is no evidence of lascivious or prurient intent; it is not patently offensive; and it has scientific (i.e. illustrative, educational) value.

It is important to fight for the open display of innocent pictures. To yield to panic over the mere sight of skin is to invite neurosis into our hearts and into our way of structuring our reality and its presentations. The creation of unnecessary taboos diminishes us and creates mental illness through psychic distortion. Nothing can be gained by prohibiting this innocent image, and much of our freedom and innocence can be crushed with no benefit in return, by abolishing this picture, and its like. It is psychologically and socially unhealthy to advocate removing a portrait of such patent innocence. If the unselfconscious innocence of the children makes you uncomfortable, then you must ask yourself why, and address your difficulties—but not by abolition of something inoffensive.

It is an ironic curiosity that in an illustrated article about nudity, the most innocent image of them all—the one which "shows" the least—is the one that someone wishes to delete. — O'Dea 08:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You make some reasonable points, although I don't quite agree with your last comment about the irony. Regardless of how "innocent" you might perceive the picture, childhood nudity must be held to a higher standard than adult nudity, for legal as well as ethical reasons. I'm not arguing the specifics of how innocent this image is, just that it is quite reasonable to express more concerns about any child with any degree of nudity on a website that arrives at these conclusions by discussion rather than one person's editorial oversight. Nothing ironic in the least about that. As I wrote in the previous section, where we draw the line is a point that should be discussed, not dismissed with comments about prudishness or accusations of sinister motives (and I'm not referring to O'dea's comments). That being said, thank you for your input. Cresix (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I should note that just because a picture can be used doesn't mean that it necessarily should. Whether the content and context of the picture is best suited for Nudity, however, is debatable. A picture that simply contains nudity (or implied nudity) might not be sufficient enough to necessarily warrant its inclusion, as articles are not supposed to be image galleries. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a battleground to "fight for" things. If a user reverts your contributions, discuss—don't edit war. The reasons for their reverts may be shared by others, and you should work toward building consensus over what should/should not be included in the article. --slakr^\ talk / 19:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Well said. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The point is that the reasons given for the removal of the image were extremely weak. They are not remotely about the encyclopedic nature of the image (one of the minority of images in this article which make sense in that respect -- the lead picture is particularly egregious), but about how WP might be misrepresented, using this article as an example. This picture should stay because:

1. It is a clear pictorial description of the different standards of allowable nudity between adults and children
2. It is an archetypal "bathing children" picture, which is very common representation of nudity
3. It is a clear pictorial description of different standards of nudity amongst children
4. The arguments for censoring this picture make no sense at all. They literally are: "there are bigots who might hold strange opinions, we should bow to these opinions so the bigots are appeased. That'll show them."
5. WP:NOTCENSORED. And it is really sad that I should invoke that for this particular picture.CyrilleDunant (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The image was removed again with a rather nonsensical rationale "adult nudity, child nudity, same thing." I see no real objection in the discussion above to inclusion of this image; in fact the comments look like neutral/support, so I have restored the image. Sufficient evidence and background has been given above to support keeping the image. I think the burden is on those who want it removed to explain exactly why, addressing the points made above. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the rationale for removing the image is obvious enough. It pander's to Wikipedia's well known and well publicized cabal of pedophiles. Rklawton (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you actually look at the image and read the eloquent arguments above. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I've seen the image and read the comments above - and suggesting I haven't fails to assume good faith. You asked for the rationale for removing the image, and I provided it. If you believe there is some other rationale for removing the image, please add it to the list. Rklawton (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't think of any valid rationale for removing it. I asked for a rationale, yes, but I asked that it address the points made for keeping removing the image, and what you offered doesn't. I apologize for not noticing earlier that your rationale may have been intended as sarcastic or tongue-in-cheek. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll ask Rklawton to correct me if I'm wrong. Amatulić, I don't believe Rklawton's comments were sarcastic or tongue-in-cheek; I believe they were serious. And you did not "ask that it address the points made for keeping the image." You said, "I think the burden is on those who want it removed to explain exactly why, addressing the points made above"; that's asking for a rationale for removing the image, which is exactly what Rklawton provided. It might not be a rationale you agree with, but he did provide a rationale for removing the image. Cresix (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

But that rationale for removing the image (which still seems sarcastic to me, based on my prior interactions with Rklawton, whom I consider a rather thoughtful and intelligent person) does not address the points made above, which are all for keeping the image, as I said. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, let's not assume that someone is saying something other than what he actually said unless that person tells us we are misinterpreting his comments. That can create a lot of unnecessary confusion. And again, he gave you what you asked for, i.e. "those who want it removed to explain exactly why". Cresix (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Quite so. I provided a rationale, one I believe favored by opponents of the image, per request. A quick search on the terms "Wikipedia" and "Pedophiles" brings up numerous reports that would appear to support my assertion that this is a very likely rationale for the image's exclusion. Rklawton (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Gallery

I propose that we remove the gallery section. Photos to illustrate particular points are okay as they have potential educational value, but a general album of nudes is pointless in this generic article as there is no particular inclusion or exclusion criteria and the resulting trivia collection has no clear educational justification and is out of scope. Fæ (talk) 11:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the gallery is pointless, and the article already extensively illustrated.CyrilleDunant (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I also agree, although I felt some of the pictures had value (particularly the one about the Brazilian funeral ritual) so I moved them into the article. What remains of the gallery can probably go and not be missed. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. If people want a gallery of nudity then they can go to Commons:Category:Nudity and find them all.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Doing so, I don't see the use of this either. And I'm not a prude WB Frontier (talk) 09:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Christianity in Nudity Paragraph...

I had to look up the passage in question (maybe the first time in twenty years that I looked one up...

John 21:7 (English Standard Version)

"That disciple whom Jesus loved therefore said to Peter, "It is the Lord!" When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his outer garment, for he was stripped for work, and threw himself into the sea." (bold mine)

My interpretation is that Peter was nude. Comments? Dinkytown talk 09:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Interpretation is not necessary as the King James version is explicit and uses the word naked: Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea. (My emphasis.) I have amended the article to cite the unambiguous version. — O'Dea 12:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I clarified more specifically that the passage is from the KJV, as there is a legitimate translation issue. Cresix (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Page protection

It surprises me that this page is not semi-protected. May I suggest that it should be, given a quick look at the frequent vandalism and other unhelpful edits in the History? Tbmurray (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I was about to semi protect it indefinitely when I noticed another admin put the article on pending change protection (PCP). Note that (a) PCP was a trial that is over, so I personally wouldn't add it to non-BLP articles until PCP is established officially, and (b) PCP does nothing to hide vandal edits from registered users who still have to deal with the vandalism. However, I do see some constructive anonymous edits in the history, so I'll let it stand. Give it a couple of months -- if PCP isn't working out here (and it often doesn't for vandal-magnet articles), please request that the protection be changed to indef semi at WP:RFPP. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.210.248.200, 26 March 2011

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Student expelled‎. (non-admin closure) Ryanisgreat4444 (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Nudity

Nudity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My class of first-graders love to explore Wikipedia in recess, and I shockingly found this article when browsing one day. If any of my students find out that a phenomena called that exists, there will be mass-panicking and a moral panic so huge that I will be fined into debts unheard of by the local authorities, and the entire school district will be forced to file for bankruptcy. Please, delete this article so none of our innocent kids can ever find out its existence. And, while you're here, delete this nomination as well to stop them from being even more curious. Won't someone please think of the children? Totally real kindergarten teacher (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Agree with nom that we must protect the children from this; they certainly weren't born that way. BBQboffin^{grill me} 06:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't seem like an appropriate article for Wikipedia. I mean, there are kids on this website!

TheWikiCyclone (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• Block on your district network. Sorry, but this looks like a your district problem. — 3PPYB6 ^{(NOW / FOUR'S / SLAVE)} — 23:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

request that images depicting nudity in the article be removed and banned unless depicted through classical art or to show native rituals. Please remove torture and naturists. Specifically those posted by user: Cataloni Minors should not be exposed to such examples!

98.210.248.200 (talk) 05:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please see WP:NOTCENSORED. — Bility (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

As I have said before, the images are not on English Wikipedia, they are all on Commons. If people come looking for images, they won't come here, more than likely they will go straight to Commons:Category:Nudity and find them all.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

David

I replaced the Budapest image with statue of David as it is a more historic and iconic work and add we could use more depicts of the subject in sculpture. LittleJerry (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with this change. This provides a little variety for the page, is equally representative of nudity in visual art, and is certainly an iconic nude. I don't think as the poster in the section above says that we should replace all nudes with classical artwork, but in this one case, it seems a reasonable change. In any event, since we have so many pictures to choose from, it seems like we can rotate them on occasion. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That's sound reasoning, but nevertheless I reverted it back to the Budapest image. The sculpture of David is so well known and obvious, including that image in this section seemed perfunctory, a non-value-added addition. The Budapest image, on the other hand, is unusual and interesting, adding extra emphasis to the variety of artistic expressions that include nudity. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

What if I find a work of nude art that is less well known? LittleJerry (talk) 03:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with the Budapest image already there? Why is a less interesting historic work more appropriate than an unusual and interesting modern depiction of artistic expression? ~Amatulić (talk) 06:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Because we already have enough photographs. We could use some more depictions of nudes in different mediums. Also whats so unusual about that image? Its a good-looking naked woman standing in the street. Hardly unusual as far as art is concerned. If you want unusual, how about this, this or this. LittleJerry (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe the point is that it's not so well-known as the sculpture, and as it is an actual model it is more relevant to the conversation. Also, the image is tasteful, and I agree that it is better suited for this article than a sculpture would be. MXVN (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

What is nudity?

what is nudity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.207.11.24 (talk) 09:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

As the article itself states, in the very first line, "Nudity is the state of wearing no clothing". Qwyrxian (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Abu Ghraib photo

I'm not sure if this picture should be used on Wikipedia, for the simple reason that in all other pictures, the people were nude by choice. Using the Abu Ghraib photo seems more akin to using a leaked photo of a celebrity, when it is known that the celebrity in question would not have wanted that picture to have been made public. Please let me know what I'm missing, or simply disregard this post if the issue has already been discussed at length and resolved. MXVN (talk) 06:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this. I don't think that the marginal educational benefit of having that image here offsets the harm done by showing it. The picture seems acceptable in an article specifically about the scandal, or the prison, or possibly even the Iraq war, but not here. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It's been a few days with no further objections, so I removed the picture. If anyone has a solid reason why it should be replaced, please mention it here. Thank you. MXVN (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it shows a very different aspect of nudity than the other photos. The article is not only about nudity in pleasant situations. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Bear with me, this is going to be a little convoluted. First - an anonymous picture depicting the use of nudity as a form of torture would be appropriate for a section on torture (or punishment) as it's topical. The "celebrity" argument fails since the man featured isn't identifiable through the photo. HOWEVER, the section on "punishment" as it currently appears represents a terrible case of WP:synth and should be removed in its entirety until or unless someone adds some reasonably academic sources that specifically discusses the use of nudity as a form of punishment (or torture). At present we have a broken link to a self-published website and a book title: "Substantive and Procedural Aspects of International Criminal Law: The Experience of International and National Courts" - which might only mention this subject in passing. Rklawton (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not following the rationale in the comments above. The original concern was that the image is not of someone nude by choice. That fact is the very reason such an image exists in this article; the reality is that not all nudity is by choice, and this article is not just about consensual forms of nudity. Another comment appears to imply that having the image in this article, rather than in other Wikipedia articles, causes some sort of "harm". That harm isn't explained, and I'm certainly not seeing it. The last argument makes the points that the image would also be appropriate in an article about torture - I agree - and that the individual in the image is not identifiable - I agree; and then asserts that the section containing the image needs better writing and sourcing. All articles can benefit from better writing and sources, but I strongly disagree that the subsection in our article is synthesized. It is quite well established that, depending on cultural and social factors, forced nudity can be traumatic, humiliating and even used as torture or punishment, as evidenced by a quick search for "forced nudity" in books and academic publications. The image isn't pleasant, but then many of the most informative images in use by Wikipedia articles aren't. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

A question, and a couple comments. First, does the inclusion of the photo really give that much of a boost to the educational value of the article? Does seeing the image truly enhance one's understanding of the subject matter? I don't see how it does, personally, unlike most of the others which are included in the article. Also, the point about the person not being nude by choice is, I think, why we should attempt to be somewhat tasteful in what we include in our articles or not. I don't think the celebrity argument fails because my objection isn't that the man will be identifiable, but simply that it seems completely inappropriate to post pictures of rape victims, etcetera, without some sort of consent. Reporting on issues of abuse is one thing; showing the images is another. Not that I think anyone here plans to do such a thing, but I'll make a more extreme example to illustrate the point. If someone were to molest a child and take pictures of the crime, would those possibly be considered for posting on Wikipedia? Besides the fact that they would be images of children, I would think there would be another line that would also be crossed. I don't think all images on Wikipedia should be pleasant, but I also don't see how we have the right to decide to post this man's image, given the circumstances of how the image was obtained. MXVN (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

So basically you're saying that using the image perpetuates the victimization. I'll buy that. Rklawton (talk) 02:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. This is the harm that was mentioned before. We, in a way, become victimizers ourselves. MXVN (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Displaying the image is not the "victimization" that individual suffered. The victimization was the forced nudity and the accompanying humiliation and treatment when it occured.. The image (and others like it) have since been in the public domain for almost a decade, and an image search shows that it exists in many dozens of sources. When a photograph of a critically wounded hit & run victim is published in a newspaper, one does not say that "perpetuates the victimization". And how is publishing the image of an unidentifiable man in one Wikipedia article okay, but it is "victimizing" to publish that same image in a different Wikipedia article. I must be missing something here. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure it should be used at all; someone else suggested that it might be more appropriate in an article about the event itself. As for the image of a hit-and-run victim ... well, you may have a point there. I see the two as very different, though, because the hit-and-run victim was not injured specifically so that the criminal could take pictures of the victim in an "embarrassing" position and laugh about them. It's also possible that the victim or the family would give consent to the publishing newspaper, but I'm not sure. As for the image not being a form of victimization, we may just have a difference of opinion here. I would argue that the victimization wasn't only the abuse at the time, but also the taking of the photographs. I don't see the difference, and in fact, were the pictures *not* taken, the damage caused wouldn't have been nearly as severe. If the victims wouldn't have wanted to be nude in a prison, why would they want the pictures of their treatment plastered on the web?
As for what other sites are showing, there's nothing we, nor anyone else, can do about that. But I'd think an encyclopedic article would take things like this into account. Or would an article on "rape" actually show battered rape victims, so long as their individual identities were secure? Drawing out the suffering of a prisoner in this way, even though he perhaps was guilty of serious crimes, seems the same to me as putting rape victims' images on that article, and just seems wrong. I actually checked, and there are no such images on the "rape" article, despite whatever supposed "educational" benefit they might serve. There are also no images of hit-and-run human victims, only a car. I believe this article should be held to the same standard, and I'm honestly not sure why this notion is so contested. MXVN (talk) 00:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You aren't the first to question the image. I recall other instances when the very disturbing nature of the image has prompted editors to post here, and at least one Request for Comment was submitted (Sept. of 2009, June of 2010, and others prior to that) and the consensus has been the same. The image is in the public domain, so consent by the individual or family isn't an issue. There is no "drawing out the suffering" involved here, as the individual is unidentifiable. It could be me in that photo. And you are incorrect: there are photos of hit & run accidents that include the victim(s) in newspapers. I can agree with you that the photographing of the Abu Ghraib individual in that state added to his humiliation, and there exist photos of him without the hood, but you won't see those on Wikipedia -- the "unidentifiable" nature of the image is key here. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment below. MXVN (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I would say that it's not OK to publish the image in any of our articles. The "it's available elsewhere" argument, if valid, would lead us to publish child porn, too, but that's obviously not OK. The logic behind the victimization perpetuation is obvious. And no, newspapers, at least not in the country where Wikipedia is published do not publish images of hit and run victims or rape victims without their permission - and certainly not pictures of the criminal act of humiliation in progress. Rklawton (talk) 00:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The image is in the public domain, so yes, it is available everywhere. The primary reason child porn isn't displayed on Wikipedia is because it is illegal, so your analogy is inapplicable here. While Wikipedia is "uncensored", it is still bound by laws - none of which are broken by the unpleasant, but quite legal image we are discussing. There is no "perpetuated victimization" by the use of that image. And finally, of course newspapers (and magazines, and internet sites, etc.) have published this image, including the Washington Post, The San Diego Union Tribune, Guardian, Salon, Associated Press, et al. ([2], [3] [4] ...) Xenophrenic (talk) 07:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can't see any consensus from this particular discussion, but it may have been reached in the past, and if that is the consensus, then fair enough. I disagree with your assertion that there is no perpetuated victimization. You state it as a fact, but I don't think stating an opinion as fact necessarily makes it objectively true. Also, newspapers (none of which I've seen use the image, but perhaps the ones you mentioned have) will do whatever they can in order for people to buy *their* paper as opposed to someone else's. Wikipedia isn't, to my knowledge, competing for shock value with other encyclopedias. I note again that the editors of other articles seem to have a very different mindset than those of this one (the article on rape, again). In fact, through most of Wikipedia they're more focused on removing unnecessary content than adding it. True, Wikipedia can't remove everything which might offend somebody somewhere, or there would be nothing left except politically-correct drivel that would be drained of substance. But in this case, it seems a lot of people are, or may be, bothered by it for legitimate reasons, and it comes back down to "well, we *can* show it, so it's there." Not that it actually needs to be there for any particular educational reason (as is the case with the other images), but simply that nobody can tell you that it can't be. There are always considerations to be taken when putting something like this together. Think about it this way: does the mere fact alone that we are legally **able** to show an image mean that we necessarily **should**? MXVN (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I also found this in Wikipedia's guidelines: "Wikipedia is not censored. However, images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner. Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." The question remains if this image adds any significant understanding to the article. Would its removal hamper the article in any way? I don't see how it would make much of a difference in that regard, since seeing the image doesn't really add to one's understanding of the content, and nobody has yet offered a reason why it actually *should* be used, given the circumstances. MXVN (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't think of a reason why any image *should* be used in Wikipedia articles — if we want to make that argument. While it has been said that a picture is worth a thousand words, surely we can replace all images with mere words, no? I can't think of a single image used on Wikipedia where the image couldn't be replaced with enough words to convey the same information. I realize some people consider some images "offensive" ... they would rather not see a images of geniltalia ... or images of war. I mean, why bother to insert an image like this or this anyway, when a capable wordsmith can convey the same information? Right? The fact is that some people have tried to get certain images censored not because the image itself is inappropriate or offensive, but because the viewing individual is personally disturbed by a particular context relevant to that viewer. The image we are discussing, for instance, is not disturbing because it is of a man ... or because he is nude. There are billions of men that look just like that. Even the bag over the head and the wrist chains aren't that outrageous. The particular objection some people have to the image is not that it is of forced nudity, or of torture, but that it conveys a possible association to the viewer of an inhumanity. A nationality association, perhaps; the subject is Iraqi ... the 'photographer' American. The association to the objecting viewer may be even more specific than that; a military person, for instance.

You have asserted that, "seeing the image doesn't really add to one's understanding of the content". I disagree, and would assert that compared to just reading the words about forced nudity & humiliation in that section of the article, having those words accompanied by such images brings the reader to a whole different level of understanding. If it did not, we wouldn't be having these repeated periodic discussions about such imagery. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Children seeing nudity

'In the U.S., the safe harbor rule forbids depictions of nudity between the hours of 6am and 10pm. ' This implies nudity is shown in the United States on broadcast television at other times, which is not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.119.128 (talk) 13:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It states a fact. The safe harbor rules are set between these times. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Meaning

The expression of nudity is best design to some people, but to other meanings for users, please give your opinionated facts.--74.34.87.191 (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you're asking. Sorry. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia endorses Pornography

This is an urgent matter. The fact that Wikipedia has a ton of articles that show naked body parts, I have known some people that have been getting into serious issues with pornography. This should be stopped. These pictures should be removed. Everyone already knows what they look like, no one wants to see these gross images. I am trying to pass this off. Please do something, and do it quickly! It is our job as Wikipedians to stop endorsing pornography. -Mallen22 (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The policy of not censoring has been around for a long time. It's not going to change just because some people are prudes. Eeekster (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

None of the images used in this article are pornographic. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Nudity as a Weapon

I strongly feel like Is Anybody Down should be mentioned in this article. - 75.70.221.14 (talk) 07:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The original poster (above) likely would think that as he is the proprietor of the site - which specializes in posting nude pictures and personally identifying information of people without their consent or copyright permissions and then charges them "legal fees" through another company/website (http://takedownhammer.com/) to have them removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.200.37.234 (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Layout

No absolute pixel values or html-tags should be used for the text body.--Luzica (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

San Francisco

The passage dealt with this city, I don't see while swapping the pic with one from London is regarded an improvement?--Avril1975 (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)