Talk:Nudity#Restored content

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)

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)

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)

{{Talk:Nudity/GA1}}

{{edit semi-protected|Nudity|answered=yes}}

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)

{{Edit semi-protected|Nudity|answered=yes}}

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 {{lang|la|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 {{lang|he|mikveh}} is performed naked, and sources indicate that the Christian ritual of baptism, which likely began as a variation of {{lang|he|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)

:File:X mark.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template.

::I will also ping {{u|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:

::*{{Cite book| publisher = Bloomsbury Publishing| isbn = 978-0-567-67848-5| last1 = Berner| first1 = Christoph| last2 = Schäfer| first2 = Manuel| last3 = Schott| first3 = Martin| last4 = Schulz| first4 = Sarah| last5 = Weingärtner| first5 = Martina| editor-last = Berner| editor-first = Christoph| title = Clothing and Nudity in the Hebrew Bible| date = 2019-06-27}}

:::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)

:File:X mark.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Tlx|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)

{{ping|Arllaw}} I am perplexed by the edit citing a journal article (Mapara, 2022) that is a useful addition to the Nudity article, but has been cited following a change to the "Legal issues" section on the 21st century US definition of partial nudity. Since the new article is about cultural practices in Africa, I have moved the citation to its correct place in the References section, and restored the prior text. There is already a section on "Nudity as protest", which mentions Africa, where the new article can be cited. WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

:Sorry, I was trying to find support for an informal definition (which the article provides) and came up short finding a direct, informal definition from the U.S. -- but it's plain language, so the meaning remains the same. Arllaw (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)