Talk:Nudity

Summary of History of nudity

The statement regarding Judeo-Christian sexual shame is part of a summary of the opening paragraph of the History of nudity section. The prior lead content was unclear, the source being limited to stating that sexual shame regarding nudity was unique to Judeo-Christian societies compared to other Western civilizations, not the entire world. From Mesopotamia to Imperial Rome, nudity could be socially embarrassing but not sinful. There is a citation for this statement in the article body, which was not duplicated in the lead per MOS:LEADCITE. If there is a consensus that this is controversial, and needs an inline citation in the lead, it can be added. WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is an accurate statement. As I stated in my original objection there are many cultures where nudity was associated with shame even Roman culture using it for sexual shaming and as a status symbol for slavery. If we merely reword it for Western cultures then basically the whole Western world associates nudity with shame while just happening to be mainly Judeo-Christian. Except for some European cultures but those also have a significant Judeo-Christian following. It seems to me redundant to make this statement why I would rather support its removal especially as there's already a section on Abrahamic religions I don't think linking it to Western cultures is needed in the lead. Biofase ^flame| stalk  15:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The source "Clothing and Nudity in the Hebrew Bible" (Berner etal, 2019) states that Western civilizations before the Abrahamic religions thought of nudity as socially embarrassing but not sexually shameful. Granted, many do not make the distinction between embarrassment and shame, but it needs to be made to understand the topic. Embarrassment is a short-term emotion that comes from violating a social norm, while shame is a long-term assessment; the difference between doing a bad thing and being a bad person. This is a very important point to make in the lead since it continues today as the basis for globalization of Western culture.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with that. It's just that Western culture has a predominantly shameful attitude towards nudity (which is decreasing and might not be regarded as shameful any more) while Western culture is predominantly Christian so it's an obvious conclusion I don't think is needed in the lead. Biofase ^flame| stalk  17:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

There are no obvious conclusions in a WP article, only what is stated explicitly. I am sure that because of the domination of Christianity, most readers of this article think nudity is and has always been shameful/sinful. Far from disappearing, this assumption is the foundation of the porn industry.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I hear you but to me it's like saying if rain is wet and it's raining then it's wet. Shame in ancient times was based on circumstance of the nudity and not the nudity itself. Forced nudity for adultery was shameful while public bathing wasn't. Indeed today nudity IS more an embarrassment than a shame. If the point is that nudity hasn't always been shameful then referring to the West doesn't really bring that across. It's requires too much of an explanation for the lead which is supposed to be a summary but has already grown rather large. Just my 2c Biofase ^flame| stalk  02:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Re-write of lead

I have made substantial changed which I hope address the concerns recently expressed. Most of all I emphasize the importance of the guideline MOS:CITELEAD, which prevents having to duplicate many of the citations contained in the body of an article. Many of the changed reflect recent changes in the body of the article. WriterArtistDC (talk) 05:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Avoid identifiable non-public individuals

I don't believe it's right to include images that clearly identify non-public individuals in an article like this. At least not if they're from cultures where full or partial nudity is not the norm. Regardless of privacy laws, there's really no benefit in effectively making a nobody "the face of nudity", at least not unless they personally insist on having their pics included in an article like this.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons has safeguards for this kind of thing. Certainly if there's a tag on the page there saying "The subject of this photo may not have given permission for this image to be used across Wikipedia," we wouldn't want to use it.

—VeryRarelyStable 02:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nudity/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LunaEatsTuna (talk · contribs) 03:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Will review by late August. Please note that this is a long article and should take me a while to review. Thanks, ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 03:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking up the challenge, not only word count but 212 sources for 228 citations by my count today. WriterArtistDC (talk) 12:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Just a quick heads-up that I've been told offwiki Luna doesn't have internet access for the next few days, but will be able to resume the reviews after. Vaticidalprophet 16:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Also my "Watch" of this page got unchecked, so I did not see this until today. WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the wait! I can continue this review tomorrow or the day after. Thank you for your patience, ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 22:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Since I have to go back to the library to use some book references, some suggestions will not be addressed immediately.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I have responded to all of the points that have been made so far, all of which are helpful.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Copyvio check

Earwig says good to go.

Files

All images are copyright-free.

Prose Part 1

Terminology

• Wikilink Norman French and Anglo-Saxon language since most readers are unlikely to know what these are.
  • Done.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• I think it would be interesting, if possible, to add some short sentences on the definition of nude in other places. For instance, in the Nordics a person is generally not considered naked until they are stark naked, whereas in most of the United States one is often considered naked when not being properly dressed.
  • Finding reliable sources for differences in everyday life are difficult to find, but I will look.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Origins of nakedness and clothing

• I would remove the See also template for Body modification; it is wikilinked in this section anyways.
  • Done.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• Wikilink body heat.
  • There is no link to what I intend here, the standard English meanings of the words. The Human body temperature article is off-topic (medical). --WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• Are the quotation marks on "dressing" really necessary?
  • Perhaps not, they are "scare quotes" indicating an ironic usage of the word. Perhaps the source used them.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• "According to Leary and Buttermore" – use their full names here as this is their first mention.
  • I think it is the only mention of them in this article.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• "The current empirical evidence" – is there a third-party source which states this?
  • There is this [ https://badge.dimensions.ai/details/id/pub.1026073589 link] to citation statistics that show the Toups et. al. article remains highly cited. I have never cited such a source.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• You can move ref 16 to the end of the last sentence.
  • The last sentence states my calculation of 90,000 years based upon the numbers in the cited sources. While simple math is allowed, I would not want to imply that calculation is actually done in a cited source.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

History of nudity

• "between 7 and 9 thousand years ago" – should be "7,000 and 9,000" for consistency with the dates in the previous section.
  • Done. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• Can a date or date range be added to Mesopotamia and the Middle Kingdom of Egypt (like New Kingdom of Egypt?).
  • The periods before the New Kingdom are more archeological than historical, so similarly precise date ranges are not applicable. Also, I am summarizing a great deal of information with the details in the History of nudity article.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• Wikilink barefoot (relevant enough to an article about nudity).
  • Done. I had no idea there was such an extensive article.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• Curious, did ancient Greece have any noteworthy opinions regarding female nudity?
  • Very little, it was a patriarchal society that valued masculinity. Only Aphrodite was sculpted nude, and only in Sparta did women participate in rituals and sports, often not fully nude as men were.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• I would wikilink effeminacy.
  • Done. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Cultural differences

• "Norms related to nudity are associated with norms" – can norms perhaps be rephrased to avoid using it twice in such close-succession?
  • Omitting "norms regarding".--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• "designated as clothing-optional" – suggest "designated as clothing being optional" for formality.
  • Clothing-optional is the generally accepted term.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• Wikilink loincloth.
  • Done. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• "they also frequented" – specify if this refers to the working population or women.
  • Rewording: "Lacking baths in their homes, everyone frequented public bathhouses where they were unclothed together."
• "A law was established" – do we have a date for this and what did the law stipulate in particular?
  • Added subsections for each country in Asia, sorted alphabetically, and paragraph breaks for Japan. This should clarify that the law was established in the Meiji period. Don't think law was specific, just gave police the authority to fine anyone being "disorderly" in dress as well as behavior.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• Psychology Today is generally not reliable for psychology-related topics (despite its name), so I would remove that sentence. Also, it seems slightly out of place there regardless IMO.
  • As a social scientist, I have different opinion, and WP seems to agree: Psychology_Today#Content_and_standards. Psych Today is one of the few RS's for everday human behavior, as this one is.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• Wikilink ascetics.
  • Done. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• "went naked or nearly naked" – recommend "were naked or partially clothed".
  • OK. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• "feathers tied to the end of their penises" – no need to wikilink penis, honestly.
  • Removed. Someone else must have done that, I don't wikilink everyday words.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• "organized groups of nudists" – wikilink to naturism.
  • Naturism is linked at the top of the article.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• "with few "clothing optional" public spaces" – how about "with few public spaces where clothing is optional".
  • Again, clothing optional is the standard term used in many WP articles because the sources use it, with or without hyphen.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Prose Part 2

• "and death" – death is not mentioned elsewhere in this paragraph, nor do I believe dying is related to either punishment, humiliation or degradation.

The paragraph beginning with "Many of the negative associations..." is listing the categories of associations, one of which is "Nudity and Death" (Barcan 2004a, p.116). Perhaps too terse, I could clarify.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I have re-written the paragraph, and added specific page citations. I hope this is not taken as too much from a single source. I could go back to citing the entire 32 page book section at the end.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• IMO the sentence starting "Those that adopt naturism later in life …" reads like an advocacy for it.

The source for that sentence does see naturism as positive, and the source for the next sentence notes that shame can be functional.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• Looking at other articles, Adam and Eve should be wikilinked.
• Wikilink baptism.
• "Real naked people remained shameful; and become" – should be a comma instead.

Three minor changes done.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• "In one of a series of lectures "Theology of the Body" given in 1979" – missing a word here?

lectures entitled "Theology...

Sex and gender differences

• "1960s-70s" > "1960s–70s" as the norm on WP. Done--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
• For personal elaboration, "Dutch men were more open to the idea of gender equality" is saying that the Netherlands was more open to gender equality in general as opposed to the United States, rather than in relation to nudity specifically?

It is difficult to convey the ideas in the source without too closely paraphrasing. Her premise is that mixed-gender nudity, particularly in childhood, was part of the Dutch being more sex-positive (less puritanical) than the US, which resulted in greater success in promoting gender equality generally. However, there is no attribution of causation, more social evolution. I will go back to the source and think about making it clearer without crossing the line into OR.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 05:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I have re-written this section and added a cite to the first sentence. WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Rereading the section on Gender, I have reorganized the subsections without changing any text except adding a cite for gender equality by country.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• The second paragraph in § Female nudity is too short and also related enough to the first paragraph to be merged into it instead of being standalone.

I am pondering removing the reference to high fashion, which is separate because what designers claim as empowerment has little to do with the everyday experiences of women.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I have removed this sentence as trivial in the larger context of this article. WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• "and the workplace in still others" – still others sounds a bit goofy.

Perhaps archaic, but then so am I.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• Wikilink sunbathing and First Amendment.

Sunbathing redirects to Sun tanning, which is mostly about physiology, so the link is to the subsection #Cultural history.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• The continuity and wording of the paragraph starting "Survey research was done in Australia" reads quite out of place for me.

Its from an psychological research paper, so the language is what I am used to reading. Since a single survey is primary research, and now 29 years old, I have deleted it. It was only there to have something from outside the US, I will look for another source.

• Are there any key arguments or criticisms against the idea of topfreedom that could be mentioned?

Published reliable sources are only about protests and advocacy for change, I have found no defense of the status quo.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• "but with the easier access of the 19th century" – meaning?
• "the mixing of genders became a problem" – to whom?

Changed line to "...with the easier access of the 19th century due to rail transportation, the mixing of genders became a problem for authorities..."

• "elementary school swim public competition" – should be "elementary school public swim competition".

Changed to "elementary school public swimming competition", the usual terminolgy is "swim meet" or "swimming competition".--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• "and quickly following the passage" – how about "and sped up" or "and hasten" etc.?
• "or denied having ever existed" > "or denied as having ever existed".

Going with "and sped up"--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Prose Part 3: Return of the Jedi

Child development

• In one sentence you write "The general advice for caregivers" and the next opens with "Parents and caregivers"; does "The general advice for caregivers is to find ways of setting boundaries without giving the child a sense of shame" refer to only caregivers and not parents whereas the next sentence does? Otherwise I would perhaps use "parent or guardian" or a similar term(s) to avoid any confusion.
• Relatedly, the sentence commencing with "Parents and caregivers need to understand that a child's explorations …" has an argumentative and fairly non-encyclopaedic tone.

• I have reorganized this section into two paragraphs, the first uses citations from the US, the second from Northern Europe (a minimal effort to globalize, given the lack of sources available). In the first paragraph, I have kept the initial sentence that is citing a report addressed to parents, while adding a sentence to clarify that the second source is from an article that talks about daycare, addressing only caregivers.
• The second paragraph combines the European citations, including the citation from Bonny Rough, and attributes it to the author while toning down her advocacy. I hope that the observations that the US could benefit by learning from Northern Europe are not "unencyclopedic", since many child professionals say generally the same.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Private versus public

• "parks, sidewalks, roads" – "and roads" for consistency with the rest of the article. Done
• Pedantry but I reckon "In the absence of visual barriers to being seen without clothes" can be shortened to just "In the absence of visual barriers" given the prior context of the section and this article. Done
• "As a participant stated" – a participant of? Open water swimming
• "continental Europe conceive of privacy" – is conceive the right word here? Being archaic again, changed to "think"
• In § Private nudity, I would wikilink consumerism. Done
• I would rephrase the word order of "Individuals vary regarding being comfortable nude in situations that are private" which feels out of place in comparison with your other sentences written like this, which do not feel that way. > "Individuals vary in their comfort with being nude in private."
• Wikilink ABC News and USA Today. Done Also:
• Instances of % should be changed to "percent" (or per cent) per MOS:%. Done for all (search and replace)
• "which is 15% lower" – here as well.
• I would rephrase "classic examples" to sound more formal. > exemplars
• "they eventually include separate steam" – should be "included". Done
• In § Changing rooms and showers, was nudity in women's locker rooms the same as it was for men's locker rooms in the 20th century? I mention the generational change for women at the end. Its all I can say given the citations available.
• I would remove the quotation marks from art model. Done
• "Saint-Tropez to Sardinia" – specify the countries here for unfamiliar readers. Done
• The percentage symbols in the sentence starting "In a 2014 survey" should be changed to "percent" per above. Done
• Wikilink Nazism. Done

• Completed except as noted above. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Prose Part 4 (last)

Legal issues

• "is only symbolic (glass beads)" – does this mean they get "paid" in glass beads? I would make this explicitly clearer if so.

• Revision: "While many celebrations of Carnival worldwide include minimal costumes, in the French Quarter flashing references its history as a "red-light district", a sexual performance earning a symbolic payment of glass beads."

• I think it is worth briefly mentioning streaking's popularity at sporting events.

• I don't think there is an RS to support popularity vs. random acts by individuals. The linked article has plenty of instances of the latter.

• "police say" reads too much like the title of a news article. Removed
• Does "South Africa" mean the country or the region? The region is usually written as Southern Africa to avoid confusion. Done
• The last paragraph of § Nudity as protest is not cited.

• There are so many wikilinks, citations seemed redundant, but I can pull some in.

• Edit summary: WNBR linked in photo, PETA mentioned in existing citation, FEMEN has no secondary sources to cite.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Depictions and performance

• "In a picture-making civilization" – is there a commonly-used word that can perhaps be used here as an alternative to 'picture-making'? It just seems rare.

• It is the language from the book cited, which I will again have to go to the library to consult.

• The image captioned Attic Kylix, c. 470 BCE depicts sex rather than nudity, no? At least from reading the tone of this section it does not compare sex and nudity, and this image is not associated with a performance either.

• In the opening paragraph, a distinction is made:

  In Western societies, the contexts for depictions of nudity include information, art and pornography. Any ambiguous image not easily fitting into one of these categories may be misinterpreted, leading to disputes.

  This image illustrates a constant dispute: art or porn? It does depict both nudity and graphic sex, but few would call it porn due to its antiquity and current home in a museum.

• Seeking to contextualize the Kylix image as erotic art rather than porn, the first reference I found went into greater detail about Ancient Greek sex practices than I had previously known, and I now consider this image to have been porn in its original context in symposia, so I will remove it and look for another image. This is not censorship, but based upon the Nudity article being primarily about contemporary life. In accordance with summary style there is only enough history here to give a sense of where current practices originated, while details are in the separate articles on the history and depictions of nudity.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
• Perhaps the Hindu temple image will be seen in the same light as the Greek, but it is supported with what is likely the most cited academic book on the nude in art.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Should be done for now but I might respond to some of your above comments (decided to do this after I finished the full review). Thanks again for your patience and the fast responses! ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 14:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I am done except a visit to the library.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I have substantially re-written the section on Depictions, including adding captions indicating the relationship between images and text. WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Nice work! I have just a few concerns left than all that is left for me is the spotcheck (gosh it will be irritating). I started uni during this review so it may take some time.. I am sorry I keep getting delayed.. anyhow:

• Looking at other articles and GAs, Leary and Buttermore should still use their full names even if only mentioned once. While they often use only surnames in journals and other certain academic works, we do not do this on Wikipedia as last names generally imply that a reader is already familiar with said persons. OK
• Re: Psyh Today, for me it would depend upon whether the particular author is a subject-matter expert. The author of the cited article is a Master of Fine Arts; do you think that qualifies them enough for her opinions regarding social nudity and its psychological benefits for women?

• An MFA includes many specializations, but today likely includes some academic study of the role of culture in everyday life, which is exactly what this topic needs.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• "Go through stages during which they gradually learn a new set of values regarding the human body" is just a bit oddly phrased; I would remove the stages part (does every naturist really go through this?) and make it "… later in life gradually learn …" instead.

• I will work on the wording of this passage, and would also like to show my appreciation for your input. Any writer should know that such input is essential to a product that can be read by others not sharing the same background. My background is such that many of the sources I cite seem perfectly clear to me, when they are opaque to most people. That is the reason for nominating articles for GA review, otherwise I get almost no substantial co-editing, only minor corrections.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I have re-written the last paragraph of Moral ambiguity, pulling in citations already used in another part of the article, and naming the authors. The contrast between the psychological and sociological perspectives clarifies what I was trying to say using only the latter. WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Everything else is good—pretty fascinating actually—too many to individually comment on but I really like your good judgment regarding removing and adding content and making changes; I am particularly fond of your changes to § Gender equality and the Asia section and company, the nudity and death additions are wonderful, and great work on improving and clearing up § Depictions and performance and your efforts to globalise the article. § Terminology would be cool to see but nothing to withhold GA status over so that can wait. And yes, it is surprising that barefoot communities exist and are really (perhaps a bit too) dedicated—but from what I could find their beliefs are supported by research and science behind it. (Also maybe Wikipedia has hyperobsessive foot fetishists who have greatly expanded said article). ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 15:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I think these final points have been addressed.

Since this is a vital article (which I think should be level 3, not 4), we are apparently due some brownie points, with you getting the most credit for slogging through in days what I have been working on since 2019. This is my fourth GA, but I have never done a review, and doubt if I could, certainly not for such a large article. Thanks again. - WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Refs

Passes spotcheck on refs 8, 13, 26, 42, 57, 69, 86, 94, 102, 117, 118, 133, 148, 164, 180, 214 and 227. I found only four minor concerns:

• On Ref 35, I did not seem to notice anything regarding the body ornament's non-verbal communications.

• In summarizing the entire Introduction to the book cited (30+ pages), I use the term non-verbal communications for the many references to messages and meaning of clothing and nakedness. This is due to my familiarity with "messaging" in the humanities and social sciences, where it has a usage closer to implicit or non-verbal communications, so I thought that term would be clearer for the average reader.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Changed non-verbal communication to cultural meaning. WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• The first sentence of § Asia is uncited from the page layout changes.

• When I reorganized the Asia section of Cultural differences into subsections, I added the introductory sentence as a summary with the implied support of several of following the citations, and using the term "face" to describe the motivation, although it is not used but conveys the meaning of "dignity and respect" in the Asian sources. Perhaps this crosses the line into OR (Synth). Attaching the Henry and Hansen citations to support the sentence would solve UNCITED but leave the OR problem with "face". I could to use "dignity and respect", but lose the more precise meaning of face, which I assume many Western readers understand. Would it be OR to put face, wikilinked, in parentheses after dignity and respect? Otherwise, I could remove the sentence, letting the subsection content to speak for itself. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it does not read as well, but I have reworded the intro to Asia. WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• I would rephrase "are completely naked apart from a piece of string decorated with bird feathers tied to the end of their penises" for copyvio as it is very similar to the source.

• I can think of no alternative except putting the 20 words from the source in quotations.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• For Ref 128, I could not seem to verify "Early childhood behavior often takes place in daycare".

• The entire article is about the challenges of early childhood behavior in daycare. Changed text to "Problematic childhood behavior".--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@WriterArtistDC: Should be good to pass after your response. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 21:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@LunaEatsTuna: Ready for final check?--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks good! Congrats on getting a vital article to GA. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 17:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

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.

Please delete ambiguous sentence

Please delete this sentence:

The social humiliation of nakedness was not associated with sin or shame regarding sexuality, which was unique to Abrahamic societies.[20]

Reason: It is grammatically unclear what was unique to Abrahamic relations - the sin, the shame, or the sexuality? Obviously Adam and Eve were ashamed to discover they were naked, but they were at that precise point in the narrative neither sinning nor engaging in intercourse. So the second clause of the sentence probably refers to the shame. But it is no use guessing what the editor wanted to say, so please delete the sentence and thus force the editor responsible for this ambiguous sentence to try again. Thank you.46.6.130.84 (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Rather than deletion, the sentence has been revised to clarify it in the context of the paragraph.

Clothing and adornment became part of the symbolic communication that marked a person's membership in their society, thus nakedness meant being at the bottom of the social scale, lacking in dignity and status. In each culture, ornamentation represented the wearer's place in society; position of authority, economic class, gender role, and marital status. From the beginning of civilization, there was ambiguity regarding everyday nakedness and the nudity in depictions of deities and heroes indicating positive meanings of the unclothed body. Among ancient civilizations, only Abrahamic societies associated nakedness with sin or shame regarding sexuality.

WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Please delete ambiguous and potentially ignorant sentence

Please delete this new sentence:

The social humiliation of nakedness was not associated with sin or shame regarding sexuality, which was unique to Abrahamic societies.[20]

Reason 1: It is grammatically unclear what was unique to Abrahamic relations - the sin, the shame, or the sexuality? Obviously Adam and Eve were ashamed to discover they were naked, but they were at that precise point in the narrative neither sinning nor engaging in intercourse. So the second clause of the sentence probably refers to the shame. But it is no use guessing what the editor wanted to say, so please delete the sentence and thus force the editor responsible for this ambiguous sentence to try again.

Reason 2: It is academically ignorant to claim that Abrahamic societies had unique moral views on nudity and sexuality. Julius Caesar contrasts Romans, Gauls and Germans (all non-Abrahamic in 50 BC) thus:

The Germans differ much from these [Gaulish] usages, for they have neither Druids to preside over sacred offices, nor do they pay great regard to sacrifices. They rank in the number of the gods those alone whom they behold, and by whose instrumentality they are obviously benefited, namely, the sun, fire, and the moon; they have not heard of the other deities even by report. Their whole life is occupied in hunting and in the pursuits of the military art; from childhood they devote themselves to fatigue and hardships. Those who have remained chaste for the longest time, receive the greatest commendation among their people: they think that by this the growth is promoted, by this the physical powers are increased and the sinews are strengthened. And to have had knowledge of a woman before the twentieth year they reckon among the most disgraceful acts; of which matter there is no concealment, because they bathe promiscuously in the rivers and [only] use skins or small cloaks of deers' hides, a large portion of the body being in consequence naked. (De Bello Gallico, Book VI, section XXI) 

Thank you.46.6.166.199 (talk) 07:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

To the extent that we can consider Caesar a reliable source, the quote above would support the position that the Germanic people did not associate nudity with sex or shame (whilst still associating sex with shame).

—VeryRarelyStable 09:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Precisely. And the corollary is that the Germans differ from the Roman readership and from the Gauls in those respects. Plenty of diversity of morals in the ancient non-Abrahamic world, nothing "unique" then or now. Schoolboy error, please remove it forthwith from this "Good Article". 46.6.208.180 (talk) 10:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The Germans are said to differ from Gaulish usages in having no Druids and not performing sacrifices. We cannot conclude from this passage that the Gauls or Romans associated nudity with sex or shame, even if it were settled that Caesar was a reliable source on the matter. As a matter of fact, other sources state quite clearly that certain specialist warriors within the Gaulish army (the Geasatae) went into battle naked.

No offence intended, but I am getting the impression you did not do third-year Latin at school, where De Bello Gallico is a standard classroom text.

Ista impressio errat. In schola studui ego operibus Caesaris, Ciceronis, Catulli, Vergilii, atque Taciti. Studium meum linguae Latinae acceleratum est uno anno. Hic, verba "multum ab hac consuetudine differunt, nam neque druides habent... neque sacrificiis student", manifeste reiciunt ad verba anteriora "Natio est omnis Gallorum admodum dedita religionibus, atque ob eam causam... aut pro victimis homines immolant aut se immolaturos vovent administrisque ad ea sacrificia druidibus utuntur" (De Bello Gallico VI:xvi). De nuditate vel coitu apud Gallos nihil in hoc libro Caesar dicit. Also, it is not good Wikipedia etiquette to respond to counter-arguments with irrelevant digs at other editors' experience. —VeryRarelyStable 22:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I may note that the Wikipedia editing process is done by consensus and persuasion, not by stating opinion as fact and demanding that others do our bidding.

—VeryRarelyStable 11:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the "bidding" remark. Therefore please unblock the aricle for general editing so that IPs do not have to beg conservative editors to do their bidding.46.6.199.77 (talk) 12:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

It should also perhaps be mentioned that nudity is not monolithically shameful within the Abrahamic traditions. The Jewish customary purification ritual of mikveh is performed naked, and sources indicate that the Christian ritual of baptism, which likely began as a variation of mikveh, was performed naked for the first few centuries of its existence.

—VeryRarelyStable 11:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I am sure you are right, and I think that adds to the point that the sentence is grammatically ambiguous and therefore useless. Why not just delete it and see how the guilty editor responds with a grammatically clear version? 46.6.199.77 (talk) 12:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Your references to "the guilty editor" somehow being obliged to "respond" indicate that you are not yet adequately acquainted with how things work around here. —VeryRarelyStable 22:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

 Partly done: M.Bitton (talk) 12:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

You are mistaken - no changes have been made. I am therefore resuscitating the request.46.6.199.77 (talk)

 Not done: Please read this comment and this diff. If you still don't agree, then I suggest you seek consensus for whatever change you're after. M.Bitton (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Please look at the diff. You will see that the opaque phrase "associated nakedness with sin or shame regarding sexuality." had not been fixed. If you have understood it, please explain it to me (How does nakedness regard sexuality? What on earth does that mean?). 46.6.199.77 (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template.

I will also ping WriterArtistDC since they are against the deletion and have actually addressed the issue. M.Bitton (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

There has been no discussion here of the actual issue: how WP content is created, maintained, and protected. It is created by collaboration, maintained by continued review which makes changes by consensus, and protected from those acting outside the guidelines that support this process. The need for such protection is demonstrated by the request not to collaborate, but to delete a sentence based upon a personal opinion that it is "grammatically unclear". The text is ambiguous only when taken out of context, this being the last sentence in a paragraph that describes ancient civilizations generally as having a complex understanding of nudity that included positive and negative associations; while the Abrahamic tradition was unique in associating nudity almost exclusively with sin or shame; this observation being supported by a citation to:

• Berner, Christoph; Schäfer, Manuel; Schott, Martin; Schulz, Sarah; Weingärtner, Martina (2019-06-27). Berner, Christoph (ed.). Clothing and Nudity in the Hebrew Bible. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-0-567-67848-5.

In my own recognition of the possibility of being wrong, I did review the sentence and made a change that I hoped would clarify the text, but the unregistered editor added "potentially ignorant" to the discussion, revealing the lack of awareness of another guideline, "assume good faith". WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Dear WriterArtist. "Ignorant" in English means unaware of the relevant facts, it does not imply an accusation of bad faith ("I tipped the waiter too much because I was ignorant of the local customs"). But thank you for finally responding with an explanation of your thought process. You are logically wrong. You cannot argue that a group (here, the Abrahamic religions) have a unique feature, and then split up that "unique" feature into different features via a logical "or" construction (and with exceptions within the group, see comment above by VeryRarelyStable). Please rephrase grammatically what you are trying to say, so that we can begin to discuss the content of what you wish to say. 46.6.199.207 (talk) 05:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. For the last time, please refrain from reopening this (because it won't be done until a consensus has been reached). M.Bitton (talk) 12:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)