Talk:Nudity and children

message: What is the point of this page? I really don't see why it exists separate from the main "nudism" article.
The anon poster was me not logged in. To me, this page looks like it may be a POV fork. At the very least, you're going to need specific quoted sources for all your "nudists believe..." statements to make it clear that these are not simply your own opinions attributed to a nebulous nudist community.
DanB†DanD 00:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If its POV, lets make it NPOV. The Nudity article was getting way too long so I broke off three to four topics today that could stand on their own. I also created a separate page because the material was strong enough to warrant a special page on the subject. I am not aware of any controversy, however, if there is some it should be mentioned in a NPOV way. Thanks for contributing! I do agree this is a very POV article. Let's make it better! Cheers! User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 05:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I see. Perhaps we can expect you to do some editing soon then, yes? I'm sure there are many "conservatives" out there who could lend a neutral POV to these articles. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 02:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Feel free to edit the article... Thanks. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 20:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section 1 

message: "It is socially acceptable in the United States to be nude in the company of others of the same gender. Requiring school showers within the boundaries of social acceptance is not beyond reason. The fact that a student or a student's parents may be religiously or morally opposed to an open locker room environment does not make that activity socially unacceptable, and schools do not change policy to each student's personal comfort level."
This part seems to have been written by, say, a school personnel member? In fact, all of it pretty much is written from a supporter's point of view. 
Come to think of it...this article I think should just be deleted. That's just my opinion though. If it can be cleaned up (but what's the point of this article anyway?) then by all means, it should be done. Just my two cents...
-WikiFiend90 00:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this isn't really very notable.  Everything regarding child nudity can be covered in the other nudity pages.71.235.155.139 19:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A POV that is so very very wrong. Do I walk into the bathroom, expecting dudes to waddle away from urinals with their pants down? Compulsory nudity is dehumanizing and people who want to impose this situation on children in school (such as the stereotypical insane overweight highschool football coach everyone knows and loves/loathes) to be at best pedophiles, or at worst, jerks. -- 19:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wayyyy toooo POV

message: Is the photo of the naked man necessary? 69.218.230.103 01:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It could discourge people who disagree with the photo from contributing or even reading this article. For some reason I think that image is more porn then any of the other images in this article. 76.183.208.186 04:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think the group photographs of the boys are necessary at all. We know what naked children look like without having to show it. Gunstar hero 19:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the naked man 

message: I think this article should definitely stay and remain on its own because it does address an important aspect of social nudity. Legislation has been passed in the past restricted participation of children in social nudity and it is important to have an opportunity to make arguments behind such legislation and also document trends in different parts of the world regarding the subject. Moving this back into the nudity article would make that article, which is already getting very long, even longer. Thank you for your consideration. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 23:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've copied this comment to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nudity and children. Thryduulf 22:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomination for article deletion

message: As with any encyclopedia article, you only need one photo and/or drawing for a given topic unless multiple pictures substantially improve the article.
Examples of photos that would add value to the article:  Communal showers in Europe, either 1 of the 2 the nude artworks already present, Benin ritual scarification on a small child, etc.  The rest add little or no value to this topic.  Dfpc 00:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. — Emiellaiendiay 21:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I also agree; there are too many pictures. Gunstar hero 19:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has no photos of naked girls (NOW I AM NOT SAYING THAT THERE SHOULD!!!), Boy has a photo of naked boys, but Girl does not have a photo of naked girls. Is this some kind of gender stereotype? 76.183.208.186 08:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  call for discussion:  remove non-exemplar photos 

message: Many of the citations contradict the article text.  I plan on removing them and possibly the article text around them.  Feel free to do it for me.
Several unreferenced or poorly-supported assertions seem dubious and I marked them as such.  They should go.  This whole article would benefit from a rewrite, sticking to properly-cited or universally accepted "the sky is blue" facts. This article is under consideration for deletion.  It should not be deleted.  Dfpc 21:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many citations inaccurate, consider trimming; dubious facts 

message: my sandbox has ideas for a replacement article.  I'll cobble something together over the next week or two and ask for opinions then.  If you have ideas you don't see there, please write to me here. Dfpc 21:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have uploaded a first draft.  Did I leave anything important out? Dfpc 04:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the fact that you're a pedophile and have enlisted your fellow pedophiles to your cause: http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:YL7cCx_0hzcJ:www.boychat.org/messages/1073015.htm+site:boychat.org+wikipedia&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=46&gl=us - source. The question remains... why are pedophiles taking such an active interest in promoting their views through this article... and moreover, does this article only exist because they voted "keep" in an organized fashion during this article's votes for deletion? XavierVE 18:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite - ideas wanted 

message: The disputed pic adds nothing to the article, illustrates nothing and is in no way helpful to the article. Or am I missing something? SqueakBox 23:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It illustrates other events in which nudity is considered appropriate for children. Joshua Zelinsky 13:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that references in the text to such events are perfectly sufficient. Gunstar hero 19:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pic of live child

message: Image:NRT6 2001.jpg should stay for the time being on this page for the following reasons:
*(1) No good reason for deletion has been presented. 
*(2) The image clearly resonates with a number of people because it shows family-friendly social nudity in a public setting and it challenges some taboos many people hold. These taboos are addressed in this Nudity and children article and there should be an image which visually depicts a real life example from a real-life context of what is being discussed.
*(3) Images depicting families/children participating in social nudity events help illustrate visually arguments that casual nudity is embraced by many cultures across the globe and they reinforce arguments that non-sexualized nudity is harmelss and even beneficial for children. See articles at the bottom of the Nudity and children page. This isn't some kind of imaginary concept, people advocate and live a body-positive lifestyle that also includes incorporating family-friendly social nudity into their everyday lives. Images like this make these discussions far less abstract. Arguing that these kinds of images are immoral or irresponsible are being put foward by people who believe that social nudity in the family is inappropriate. Public displays of this lifestyle are a very visual and tangible validation of this that some people just are not willing to accept. That is why these topics deserve a space on wikipedia. The law is different in different parts of the world and these issues are being played out in different events. It is true... a picture is worth a thousand words. 
*(4) Nackt Radtour is a public event, just like World Naked Bike Ride and all other clothing-optional bike rides. We have children participate in our Seattle ride too and those pictures are also live currently on the internet. We have large people, skinny people, democrats, republicans, asian, white, latino, you name it. The more diverse a ride looks the more it will attract a diverse set of potential riders. These photos in Germany were uploaded so participants and outsiders could have some idea of what the ride is like. The fact that participants of all ages and families participate adds a sense of safety for those who might be deciding if they want to participate or not. If families did not participate then these events it would be harder to classify as family-friendly events. People of all ages participate in these events all over the world. Diversity in age, sex and ethnicity is represented in popular events such as these. Family-friendly events involve participants of all ages.
*(5) Permissions cleared. 
**(a) I spoke personally with the owner of the image who knows the people involved and everything was cleared and also cleared through Wikipedia licensing process. 
**(b) The German film "Radtour-Classics 2001: Nackt-Radtour in und um Karlsruhe am 14. 6. 2001" from this ride was also cleared by filmmaker to screen at the Naked Freedom Film Festival taking place in Seattle in 2004 at the Seattle Art Museum and 911 Media Arts Center and persons depicted in the image were all present in that as well. It was removed at the last minute due to a German -> English translation dispute and because an early trailer screening suggested that a 45 minute film on the subject was just boring. http://www.bodyfreedom.org/nfff/lineup.html . The ad for the festival itself featured persons of all ages, including children. See http://www.bodyfreedom.org/media_projects/NFFFstranger3C.jpg 
*(6) The image is entirely legal in the United States and in the State of Florida.
*(7) The image has alreay passed one nomination for deletion and is headed towards being cleared a second time.
*(8) The image is non-sexual and family-friendly in nature, just like something you might see in National Geographic Magazine. It really scares me that some here are trying to argue that these images are lewd or sexy or exploitative. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 05:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, the image that needs to go the most is :Image:NRT6 2001.jpg. 76.183.208.186 03:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree; that image is unecessary and likely to generate unwanted controversy regardless of its other rationale for use. Gunstar hero 19:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Which image is the disputed image more than another?  Generally, in an article, discussion is good; discussion + image is better.  What criteria are you using to determine which images are sufficient and which are excessive?  The bike tour photo, while it does depict an event involving nudity and children, doesn't seem apecific to the subject of the article, since its focus appears to be a nude adult. --Ssbohio 15:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The significance of the "live child" image

message: I agree that this article has major problems and something should be done about this. A true discussion of the subject would be welcome that includes how damaging and shaming forced nudity can be. What is the historical truth about nudity in public schools? In some public schools, segregated swim class for boys was done without swim trunks -- in Buffalo NY, for example, until the early 80s. What was the policy around the country and did it change? Was Buffalo unique (the YMCA had it until the 70s)? It seems beneficial to shine the light on this practice. It could be valuable to educate people to the shaming language used by abusers to young children "if you are uncomfortable with being naked, there is something wrong with you." There is a language used to silence those uncomfortable with communal showers which needs to be identified. This is NOT to say that nudity is wrong or dangerous or abusive in itself, however the CONTEXT -- requiring students and shaming them for their modesty CAN be abusive. For example:
"A small percentage of students have always objected to communal showers; however, after the first few days of school showers, these students very frequently overcame the initial embarrassment and were fine.[15] In most cases, the objections to school showers are actually from the student's parents, while the student in question does not object to having to take showers.[10]" 
I seriously double this. I would bet that the MAJORITY of children in public school are very uncomfortable with nudity in public school, but this is my opinion. It would be very beneficial to shine the light on this, and get some facts.This "fact" was taken from an interview of a principal which also claims that girls are justifiably shy and deserve the opportunity to have private showers, but  boys do not -- the implication is that "normal boys" would not feel uncomfortable with nudity in front of their peers or teachers. I think this is a ridiculous and an old "macho" attitude from the 50s which does not take into account the very fragile self-esteem of children and their bodies in a public school setting.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.38.160 (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  article should include a discussion of possible abuses 

message: For one thing, it doesn't decide what it is. Its lead refers to "nudity of children" and "children seeing nude people", which raise very different issues. The "United Kingdom" section is largely unsourced original research. The "Nudity in physical education" section is disproportionate to the body of the article.  The "Non-western cultures" section is also largely unsourced original research. The "see also" reference to child sexuality is nothing whatsoever to do with the topic, except in a pedophile's dream- and that should be addressed, although it won't be easy. Having said that, this article, having survived deletion, now needs a massive encyclopedic rewrite. I propose to tackle that, unless anyone has any strenuous objections. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is a mess

message: I have taken the liberty of making some changes to the UK material to remove some of the worst misleading emphasis, to make one correction and to improve the citation. As noted above this page has value but it needs significant work. If anyone would like assistance on citations please get in touch as I can probably help. Malcolm.boura (talk) 10:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor modifications

message: Let's stop the edit warring and discuss this please. I say the photo doesn't belong, at least in its current location and with the current content of the article. The section it's contained in is about the controversy over communal showers, which the photo has nothing to do with. This photo belongs amongst content where child nudity in art and photography is discussed. It either needs to be removed or moved to a more appropriate place. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's a nice photo, but completely off-topic and gratuitous.-PetraSchelm (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

text: For once, I agree with Petra, and my comments above show, I hope, how desperately unfocussed this article is. It is better than I first saw it, but not much. It's a tendentious title to start with, capable of many interpretations, and misinterpretations. The acid test is "What is this article meant to be talking about?" Not pedophilia, although some might want to hijack it for that purpose. "Art"? Then let's have an article about child nudity in art, and deal with that from reliable sources. As it is, I doubt the article knows where it's going. "Sociology"? I doubt there's much research out there to support a viable article as currently constructed. I'm open to persuasion, however, and addressing that issue is probably more worthwhile than gribbling over images. --Rodhullandemu 00:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is up for deletion, so the deletion discussion is probably the place to make known your thoughts on the article's existence. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I haven't removed photos cos I want them deleted. i removed because i do not want them here. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll need a better reason for removing them than simply not wanting them here, SqueakBox, if you'd like to contribute constructively to this discussion. And, I did not suggest the deletion of the image, I hope no one else here assumed that's what I meant. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Ideally it would, but it doesn't. The sentence currently there that doesn't involve communal showers is about parents having to destroy home photos, and has nothing to do with an artistic photo by a professional photographer. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The photo 

message: See here for the closing merge decision. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD