Talk:Modesty

message: I wouldn't say "taqiyahs are slightly larger than yarmulkes/kipa" rather Kippot(jewish skull caps) range in size depending on the persons style or "sect" (ie Modern orthodox wear small knitted,Chassidim large velvet or knitted resembling a typical african-american "kufi" and Bucharian and russian jews will often wear a rugcap) in fact Kippot and Taqiyahs are often interchangable and you can find the same style same model skullcap on sale at an islamic site as a taqiyah/kufi and at a Jewish site as a Kipa
heres a pillbox style kippa http://www.jewish-history.com/images/store/kippah10.jpg heres a pilbox style kufi http://www.wilsdom.com/store/media/white-kufi.jpg
not much of a difference eh?
it should also be noted that the word kipa and kufi are related as P in hebrew is also F and vowels are unimportant
the modern day prefernce for small kippot is a fashion thing, it doesnt make larger ones(which are more traditional) not kippot  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.241.193 (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taqiyah/Kufi vs Yarmulke/Kipa 

message: Removed this text from the article:
:==Safety hazards of modesty==
:In many situations, modesty is wise, but there are some situations where modesty can cause harm, e.g. it has often been said that "people would rather die than take their clothes off in public".  With the recent bioterror attacks, the ability of people to accept being stripped and washed down may result in the saving of many lives.  It has therefore been suggested that work should be done to help society overcome problems with body image, in order to be better prepared for situations that might require disrobing in less than totally private situations.
This appears to me to be a rather strange paragraph. It takes a POV: "modesty is wise", and then another POV, "work should be done to help society overcome problems with body image, in order to be better prepared for situations that might require disrobing in less than totally private situations", which it intrroduces with the weasel words "It has therefore been suggested that". Who says that? When did they say it? Cite please? -- Karada 16:11, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Section removed to talk 

message: The article seems to completly dodge the first mentioned modesty...
"One meaning is playing down or not mentioning one's own accomplishments, sometimes to the point of "false modesty", a form of boasting through excessive self-denigration.
The other meaning, also called body modesty, ..."
and takes up the rest of the page... Is this first meaning covered well enough by Humility? If so, should there not be a more obvious referal to it? Should I have just done the edit and not moaned about it here?
:I moved the link to Humility to this small paragraph. You are welcome to expand on this meaning.--Patrick 09:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "One meaning..." 

message: Most of this page needs to be moved.  While modesty of the body is a proper definition of modesty, it is a rather recent definition of the word, and applies mostly to a limited group.  Most dictionaries say relatively little about this type of modesty.  I believe it would be good to move the majority of the article to a separate page dedicated to the more limited concept of "body modesty".  This would also make the main article more likely to be improved and expanded. --EthanL 17:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article should be split 

message: There's a big ongoing discussion about the validity of including any links to fisheaters DOT com in Wikipedia.  Seems the author of that site got a bit overzealous about putting up links to her own site.  Now some people have taken to seemingly indescriminant removal of those links.  I believe this one should remain, because of its relevance to the subject at hand.  I restored it, without the second link to fisheaters, which was not as relevant.  I'm not a follower of fisheaters nor am I even Catholic - I just think the link warrents inclusion here.  If anybody disagrees, discuss it here - but be polite and to the point! EthanL 03:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing indiscriminate about removing the Fisheaters links.  See here for my findings on this.  I am pruning the links on this article anyway per WP:EL and the arguments below.  I do thikn that good links to demonstrably authoritative sites, especially for the contentious subject of modesty in Islam, would be an asset, but these seem to me to be mostly spam or POV pushing.
* DOT com/modesty.html The Traditional Catholic view of Modesty is a monograph on a subset of a subset of a subset of religious views
* Modesty in Concept and Dress from a Jewish perspective as Taught by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson chabad.org is spamming a book.
* On the harm of body shame from a Christian perspective is highly POV
* "We'd rather die than take our clothes off." disaster planners say. is a web forum; interesting but if this argument is to be presented we need a reliable source.
** This story is from The Seattle Times, and was reprinted on the web forum.  The original article can be found at , but you need to register. EthanL 12:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Links which illustrate various points of view are fine. Deleting all links is not helpful. You should be more selective in deleting, and perhaps also add some, if the set of links is unbalanced.--Patrick 11:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is, the more links there are, the more likely it is that myspace pages and other cruft will be added and not noticed.  A few good links if fine, Wikilinks to articles discussing perspectives in detail is great, but dozens of links to external sites with restricted POVs really doesn't seeme to me to help at all. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Rubbish links should be deleted. It is fairly easy to see which links are actually relevant. One needs to be weary of POV in external links. JFW | T@lk 13:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: POV in external links can be useful, for instance, to demonstrate a particular take on the matter, or as a reference to material in the article.  Of course, in order to keep the article NPOV, you need to balance out the POV links by linking to opposing viewpoints.  One should keep external links to a minimum, of course. EthanL 08:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone explain to me what the criteria are to be included in a links section? Does the link itself have to be completely NPOV? Yehoishophot Oliver 15:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No, it doesn't.  Here is the Wikipedia links policy; perusing it should help you.  I've found that, in this article, the biggest problem has been the "primarily for selling goods and services" issue. Dgoodmaniii 13:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I did some searching on Google for references to Body Modesty.  They were quite rare - rare enough to possibly qualify this as a neologism.  Also, the vast majority of the top Google links were to copies of this article!  In an attempt to make the article a bit more mainstream, I changed Body Modesty to Sexual Modesty, which has a much wider acceptance, at least according to Google.  This term seems to describe things just as well, if not better.  Any opinions? EthanL 09:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, it does contain POV material, but wouldn't it be better to clean it up rather than delete it?  I'm working on it as I'm able, but I don't always have much time.  Contributions are always welcome! EthanL 03:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't weasel out by saying I don't have time. I'll just say it's not worth the time and effort. This article is the work of somebody who thinks modesty is bad. Plain and simple. There's no getting around it. Wahkeenah 12:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems better to distinguish an inclination to cover the skin from an analysis regarding the possible sexual background of this inclination, and/or an inclination not to exhibit sexual behavior. For example, a nudist may avoid showing affection, and on the other hand a couple in love may show much affection in public but fully clothed.--Patrick 01:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, it's situational. Wahkeenah 12:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Body Modesty

message: The entire presentation of Islam & modesty is so wrong as to merit deletion.  There are no sources cited, e.g. that the death penalty applied under Taliban rule (incorrect), or that "most" Muslims interpret the religion to imply that a women can only expose their hands and face (incorrect, salafist), and so on.  The situation has many aspects, e.g. is "most" counted by Mullahs, national dress codes, or followers?  Does Iqbal, the primary theological scholar responsible for the founding of Pakistan, have the same weight as al-taribrizi or al-banna?  Do the 1 billion Muslims outside the M-E count?  Furthermore, in Iran, the only real islamic theocracy, it is normal to see women who e.g. breastfeed, while this is not usual or traditional in N.America (West) -- no context is given in article, in particular wrt public vs. non-mahram vs. private.  Furthermore, the article states Modesty describes a set of culturally determined values, then goes on to describe religions (Islam, Judaism) that exist in practically every culture on Earth.  Modesty is neither a purely religious nor cultural value, and religion does not equal culture.  Lastly, the entire article has a nihilistic western secular rationalist bent to it.
Is there anyone actually living in the islamic world that wishes to comment? 24.86.203.199 09:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you could help out - you're welcome to contribute, just so long as you provide source references.  The whole article needs attention, as your comment makes clear.  You might just be the one to provide that much needed attention. EthanL 03:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Islam & Modesty

message: I find it odd that Orthodox Jewish opinion concerning a yarmulka is not about modesty, when, in fact, the Jewish code of Law (shulchan Orach Harav 2:6) clearly states that a head covering is due to tznieus. (comment by user:Mordechai7215)
*I don't know why that is even mentioned in the article. I don't know what the word "tznieus" means, let alone how to say it, but as far as I know the yarmulka has to do with "humbling oneself before God", not anything to do with modesty whatsoever. Modesty has to do with humans interacting with each other, not about humans interacting with God. Wahkeenah 15:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He meant צניעות - Churchh 17:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from Talk_talk:Modesty

message: This article is highly Eurocentric, esp. in reguard to the headings.  It should probably be rewritten to remone this bias.12.17.189.77 03:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eurocentrism 

message: The section on "Wearing more than the Western norm" has some problems with the way Islamic modesty is addressed (as already mentioned on this talk page). As such I added a dispute tag. Also the discussion of Catholic and Mormon modesty was somewhat inaccurate. The Catholic paragraph seems to imply, when it says "Catholics, especially women, must dress modestly", that their is some international law that applies to specifically Catholics regarding modesty. I corrected it to make it clear what we are really talking about is the Catholic church's teachings on modesty. The sentence on Mormon modesty gave the misleading impression that all Mormons adhere to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints modesty code. I corrected it so that it states that the church has a modesty code  but not to incorrectly imply that no Mormon ever violates it. --Cab88 17:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wearing more than the Western norm section 

message: I think the problems flagged up on "Eurocentricism" and the wider coverage of some religious / cultural perspectives is because the article collates a number of different views which do not warrant a whole separate page.  I thought the section on Islam was very limited at first, but that is because there is a whole load of other stuff on Wikipedia on the hijab / naqib (btw I altered some of this section as it referred to the burqa which is in fact a specific name for the garment worn in Afghanistan), whereas Catholic modesty seems to have been given a great deal of coverage (excuse the pun) here.  There does seem to be a rather vocal fisheaters contingent, which makes for rather disjointed paragraphs - "Some say this.  Others say this.  However, some yet say this".  I did not delete any of it because it is technically all valid; the point I'm making is that the the whole basis of the article lacks a certain coherence. --SianMycock 00:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coherence of article 

message: I've tried to address some of the repeated concerns of various posters about Eurocentrism.  The complaint seemed well-founded and ought to have been fixed, and since those expressing concern did not fix it, I made the attempt.
I first categorized what was formerly titled something along the lines of "Western Norms" as norms generally accepted in most of the world.  I think this is a just characterization; those general outlines of behavior seem to me (from my experience, anyway) to be fairly widespread, and one appearing in this way would be acceptable in most parts of the world.
I then outlined some of the prominent exceptions to the rules, including Australian and aboriginal Australian cultures, Muslims, Jews, and Catholics.  These were made subsections under the "religious and cultural differences" section.
I wasn't sure what to do with the brief mentions of the Amish, Sikhs, and Mormons.  I finally decided that the information was so sparse and added so little to the article that they should be simply removed.  What had been there told us practically nothing about them and only linked to the Wikipedia article about the group in general, which is interesting but not really topical.  So I took them out.  I would certainly be interested in seeing all of these groups, and more besides, added in, but what was there simply wasn't helpful and I know little or nothing about any of them myself, at least in regards to modesty.  I'd encourage anyone who does know about them to add them back in.
If anyone thinks this judgment was in error, please add them back in.  I won't make a fuss about it.
I thought about beefing up the Islamic section, but as another talker has pointed out, the wikilinks in that section seem to pretty much cover the whole ground.
Dgoodmaniii 05:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heavy Reorganization 

message: this needs to have more anwsers to things.
: Deep. Rich Farmbrough, 23:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  what  

message: I went ahead and changed the article's listing on systemic bias, in light of the corrections to Western bias that have been discussed above.  The article still suffers from such bias, and needs to be repaired, but it's better than it used to be, and I thought that the extremely uncomplementary entry on the Systemic Bias List should reflect that.
Dgoodmaniii 13:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes on Systemic Bias Listing 

message: Okay, not enough source adding.  But a lot, still.
Anyway, in my continuing efforts to get this page removed from the bias list by removing its Western bias, I pretty much completely overhauled the structure of the article.  I removed the "controversy" section, as some of it was related to a specific culture, which I though should be added to the "cultural norms" section, and the rest was just general information that seemed to me to be introductory material.  So I moved those parts to their appropriate places.
I divided up "cultural" norms from "religious" norms, because they're different.  I.e., Western norms vary greatly according to culture (the Finns are different from the French are different from the Canadians etc., independently of the religion), but religious norms also vary greatly even within a given cultural norm.  So I separated them, and moved the Finnish sauna stuff to be an exception to what we've classed as general Western norms.
I added some sources about Finnish saunas; also some additional sources to the Catholic section, and a new "other Christian" section (lest I use the word "Protestant" and someone object, in order to avoid any controversy).  I wanted to add some of the Biblical information on modesty in, but I haven't yet decided where that would belong.  I placed the Catholic and "other Christian" sections as subsidiaries to a "Trinitarian Christian" section, thus avoiding the whole "are Mormons Christians or not" question, because everyone agrees that Mormons are not trinitarian.  I did this also solely in order to avoid controversy, and fervently hope that it doesn't engender any.  If Wikipedia already has an established policy on this question, please let me know and I'll rectify the situation immediately.  I left the Mormon, Jewish, and Islamic modesty sections where they were.
This reorganization also enabled me to remove the "external links" section, which only had one link anyway, as I used the one there as a source in the "other Christian" section, where it seemed appropriate.
If anyone objects to any of these changes, as usual, here's the place to go after them.  Thanks; I hope this helps.  If anybody thinks we're good enough to get out of the bias list, let me know, but I think several sections will need considerable beefing before that happens.
Dgoodmaniii 09:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lots of Reorganization and Source Adding 

message: An anonymous user reverted all these edits, plus several that had come before, returning the article to a much earlier version.  If that person is here, please explain this action; I'm interested in your justification.  If others think it was a good idea, please chime in.  Otherwise, I think I'll revise it all back.  The changes I and these others made aren't perfect, but I think they were still clearly better than the original.  Dgoodmaniii 11:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversion

message: "Children normally stop going to the sauna with their parents by age six or seven though this age has sometimes been higher in the past and has varied regionally."
Didn't see any source for that statement, and being finnish myself, I think that is false. I don't know if there's any statistics for the age, and of course it varies regionally, people in bigger cities probably starting to go to sauna intependently earlier, but me, and most of my friends and relatives have stopped going to sauna with their parents at the age of about 10-14, strongly correlating with the start of puberty, though many girls don't ever stop going to sauna with their mothers. After the puberty is over people usually start to go to sauna with their same-gender family members, though usually they are living on their own by that time and thus have not many possibilities to do so.
Also "This is true even though some sort of swimsuit is generally required in pool areas."
I have to note that in pool areas, going to sauna with a swimsuit is often forbidden. Swimsuits are supposed to be soaked with pool water, which includes chlorine. Chlorine gas being poisonous it's easy to see why it is forbidden.
And "It should be noted that men and women generally do not bathe together in the sauna unless they are related." is generally true. However, for teenagers and young adults going to sauna with the members of opposite gender is not unheard of, at least if the people are having a "sauna night", a typical way of spending a weekend evening: drinking, chatting and going to sauna. This is even more true if the group consists of close friends or at least few people who have mutual attraction. The sauna itself, though, is still a non-sexists place, even if you see members of the opposite gender naked. It is considered really rude to stare.
213.250.104.144 14:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Children normally stop going to the sauna with their parents by age six or seven" 

message: Most of the section labeled "Codification" was clearly from a non-NPOV and I've removed it as such.  Besides that, it was almost entirely uncited, except for sections that were taken out of the "Catholic Modesty" section and transplanted into this "Codification" section.  While the citation to Webster's was present prior to that section being added, it didn't seem to add much, so I removed that, too.  It made no sense to include the "Some Christians writers" part in this section, so I moved that back into the Christianity section.
Regarding the Christianity section, the reason I originally divided it into Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian sections was to avoid a flame war over whether Mormons are really Christians or not.  Everyone agrees that they're not Trinitarian Christians (so far as I can tell, anyway), so I divided it up that way.  No one has objected to it here, so I restored that arrangement.
Having to reintegrate some of the moved "Some Christian authors" section out of "Codification" led to a reconsideration of the format of the Catholic section.  This was therefore edited substantially.
Discussion on any of these changes is, of course, welcome.
Dgoodmaniii (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heavy Non-NPOV Editing 

message: Not to split hairs, especially as I haven't really gone through this article, but after reading through the bullet list at its beginning I notice that the sentence "Avoiding the display of one's body, sexuality especially in public." might be confused as either
: "Avoiding the display of one's body or sexuality, especially in public"
: "Avoiding the display of one's body in a sexual manner, especially in public"
Perhaps it should be slightly reworded in whichever fashion is correct?
Jamestttgrays (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to the first, but with "and".--Patrick (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  General principles 

message: This sentence doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me:
"Fashions and fads at times test the limits of community standards of modesty. People can be subjected to peer pressure, both to conform to community standards or to flout them."
A cited source might help...
Thoughts?Lily20 (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation, please. 

message: I've added a new photo to illustrate intercultural differences in body modesty. I welcome others' feedback.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzanon (talk • contribs) 20:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Photo Illustrating Intercultural Differences 

message: Modesty Blaise could be added.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.182.113 (talk) 03:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  People called Modesty 

message: As it is now, the article states:
"The Church also expects men to dress modestly, but the demands are not as strict for them as for women; this is largely because men are often thought to be more inherently susceptible to sexual thoughts."
The demands are just as strict. There are just fewer culturally accepted violations of it for men therefore it gets less attention. 
It is uncited and without basis so I am removing it. LaRoza (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Catholic Church's expectations on Modesty 

message: Dear various IP, as you did tonight the umptieth deletion of "strangers of the same sex"  stated with the reason "we don't do that" please note that this is not an article on a special cultural oder religious group. So who is "we"? The context reads Standards of modesty vary by culture or generation and vary depending on who is exposed, which parts of the body are exposed, the duration of the exposure, the context, and other variables. The categories of persons who could see another's body could include: …  In some context and situations it is okay for people to disrobe or robe in presence of other people of the same sex or show them parts of the body. Fullstop. --Turris Davidica (talk) 10:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Body modesty 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Modesty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150510043220/http://www.modestworld.com/laws.html to http://www.modestworld.com/laws.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The intro emphasizes girl's modesty expectations more than men's. For example, it brings up what swimwear is considered modest, specifies who women are allowed to talk to to be considered modest, and describes Muslim schoolgirls laxed circumstances. In order for this article to begin from a gender neutral standpoint, it needs to include both male and female definitions of modesty. Kylanmalady (talk) 07:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modesty in Men  

message: In the article under the "Body" section, there are four categories of people who can see someones body without it being immodest, and one of these categories is "people of the same social class." Social class seems irrelevant to whether or not a certain way of conducting oneself/dressing is immodest. For example, it wouldn't make sense to say that rich people think short skirts are immodest while poor people don't. There's no evidence to back it up. If this is a legitimate claim, it needs citations to back it up and examples to clarify exactly what it means.Kylanmalady (talk) 08:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Body Modesty Concerning Social Class 

message: The following are sources about islam, amish, and gymnophobia and can help in adding citations to this article.  
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=12335
http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/21/modesty-part-1/
http://islam.about.com/od/dress/f/hijab_girls.htm
A return to modesty : discovering the lost virtue by Wendy Shalit
http://www.religionfacts.com/amish
Kylanmalady (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources to be used to add citations 

message: The Amish are a well known group of people known specifically for their conservative attire so I think the article should have a larger section on them. 
http://www.religionfacts.com/amish
This article addresses their beliefs practices and history which should be briefly mentioned.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylanmalady (talk • contribs) 19:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amish and Modesty 

message: I was thinking of adding a section for Eastern Norms on this page for a class, however, many of the sources and ideas are western based and referring to nudity. Would anyone else be able to add to it or make changes?TRacer202 (talk) 04:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generally accepted Eastern norms 

message: The "Necessity" paragraph needs to be futher explained and re-written. 
For example "At times of public or private emergency, expectations of modest dress may be suspended if necessary"
This is just strangely written and should definitely be rephrased and elaborated on. Lisfry (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding to Necessity 

message: I've removed the above section, which was added by one of the students I oversaw this past semester. I tried seeing if there was a way to merge or rewrite the content, but it just came across too strongly as original research. If anyone wants to try their hand, I've linked to the revision above. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins of Modesty in Regards to Women 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Modesty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090129185312/http://www.therebelution.com/modestysurvey/ to http://www.therebelution.com/modestysurvey/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Body shame. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 2#Body shame until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Hildeoc (talk) 02:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Body shame" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: I’ve moved this paragraph here (out of the article) in case anyone wants to work on it. It’s currently unsourced and obscurely written. It may be about the way female characters are portrayed when films are made based on fairy tales, but I can’t really tell so I haven’t tried to update it in the article.
—Northernhenge (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph needs source and clarification 

message: This article links to the German article "Bescheidenheit" in the language switcher, which is confusing, as "modesty" as explained in this article sounds more like what most Germans would call "Prüderie" instead. —Feeela (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I beg to differ. Modesty can be translated with "Anspruchslosigkeit", "Anstand", "Bescheidenheit", Sittsamkeit", whereas "Prüderie" ("prudery") has a pejorative character. From the given possibilities I should rather choose "Sittsamkeit".--Medusahead (talk) 09:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  German translation link questionable