Talk:Childhood nudity

Split of content from main article

The main article on Nudity is large, which I have been working to remedy by splitting out content worthy of its own article. WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Image change

@Aréat:: Your replacement of an image of a Mary Cassatt painting with one by a relatively unknown painter warrants some discussion. I chose the Cassatt to illustrate the section on Depictions as representative of mainstream culture at the end of the 19th century, that a naked child in a domestic context had nothing but positive connotations. The Emil Axel Krause painting from 1910 cannot be read so easily. The painting of children is atypical in including nude girls among the boys. The children are also closer to puberty than the toddler in the Cassatt. Perhaps this scene was a normal occurrence in Denmark in 1910, and also represents innocence, an impression reinforced by the calm presence of the woman. Given the detailed style, it may have been painted using photographic references. Unlike the Cassatt, any such meaning would be conjecture, there being no scholarly references regarding the painter or the work. Rather than being one of two images, perhaps there needs to be a gallery of several images to illustrate the section. WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I did add the image because it represented both sexes, a situation which was lacking on the page. Sorry for deleting the previous one. Let's add both, then, indeed. --Aréat (talk) 05:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

OK, gallery created.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 12:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Legal risk concerns for certain users?

I am aware of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_disclaimers but wanted to mention that something which should be considered is the legal climate facing lgbtq people in many places, including the US where Wikipedia is hosted. Although the images in this article are arguably legal, their presence in someone's browser cache potentially create a huge legal risk for them if they are lgbtq due to all the "groomer" bullshit coming from numerous pundits with influence over politics and regulatory enforcement. Although Wikipedia stays out of politics, and it is probably not legally liable, would it make sense to consider the legal risks that a user could be subject to for researching topics around human cultural norms and childhood development? I am not proposing censorship, but wondering about a disclaimer about the images and the possibility of putting them into a separate article, to avoid the browser cache issue. I was actually trying to do some research on this topic to increase my own understanding of differing cultural norms around childhood development and was shocked with the number of real photographs in this article. (Also, Wikipedia may need to be on the lookout for images like this becoming actually illegal or otherwise restricted due to overreactionary politics?) os (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I am surprised that anyone clicking on an article entitled Childhood nudity would not expect to see the photos included here. "WP is not censored" would be meaningless if it meant excluding relevant images from any topic. If anyone has a personal issue, it would be up to them to take steps to exclude images, such as using Google Chrome which has an option for not loading images, although technically I do not know if this also means the images are not loaded into the browser cache. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Given the contentious legal nature in some jurisdictions, I had honestly only expected a discussion here and no photographs, as WP's target audience is worldwide. Perhaps an artistic rendering or two at most? The guidelines at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Offensive_material are probably greatly debatable around this topic due to widely differing social mores, though I wouldn't consider the content here offensive in a moral way. But given that some readers might argue it is, especially if it puts them at legal risk for trying to read about a topic (a different kind of offensive), I do wonder how it should be approached. *shrugs* os (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

"WP is not censored would be meaningless if it meant excluding relevant images from any topic." I'm not trying to be argumentative but seeking clarification, if an article talks about sexual assault, would images of simulated assault be appropriate in order to communicate to the reader what's necessary to explain a difficult topic? Probably not. This article is topic much less likely to offend readers, but still contentious. It's unclear to me where the line is meant to be, when there is a guideline that images which could be offensive should only be used when necessary or in a limited use encyclopedic way, versus the idea that Wikipedia should not be censored. And I think that poses unique challenges around this topic given widely differing legal standards. (Observational commentary and point of reflection, not meant to introduce debate about WP guidelines) https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Examples mention specifically nudity outside of public areas. (Perhaps the implication being that people consent to their own public presence. Except the children don't necessarily have that autonomy, and may simply be in public because their parents are also there, but not actually be comfortable being photographed nude there, if they can even consent to it given their age. Anyway.) I think at least for Communal nudity - Peer group nudity - Day care and schools, there may have been a reasonable expectation of privacy for https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-1987-0609-302,_K%C3%B6ritz,_Duschraum_des_Kindergartens.jpg so I am not sure about WP:Photographs_of_identifiable_people there os (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Childhood nudity is not a contentious issue, but a normal, positive part of being human. Until recently, no one in most of the world thought kids running around naked was anything but innocent. In a diverse world, offense can be taken at many things, but WP is required to present the point of view represented in mainstream reliable sources, as I have done. Each image has been selected to illustrate the nearby text. In the case of the East German daycare photo (Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-1987-0609-302) it illustrates the section on communal nudity. Images of mere nudity are entirely legal, and there are no privacy issues regarding a photo taken in 1987. If there is a documented case of anyone actually being suspected of a crime for having such a photo on their computer, this fact could be added to the article, but that would not be a reason to remove the image.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

People do sometimes face legal consequences for innocent photos of childhood nudity, https://web.archive.org/web/20070430130150/http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature/2000/01/31/kincaid/index.html as linked from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudity#Depictions_and_performance and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_nudity#Depictions_of_youth indicates that possession of innocent photos has been enough to warrant trial (which may not always go well for BIPOC or people who don't have access to good lawyers due to disparities in fairness in the criminal justice system -- or, as I raised earlier, LGBTQ folk being labeled as groomers) and raised by photo labs in the past, and we know that Apple and Google now scan photos on users' phones and this has resulted in false accusations as well https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/08/googles-scans-private-photos-led-false-accusations-child-abuse (followup from Google refusing to differentiate between CSAM and medically-necessary photos at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/22/google-csam-account-blocked :eyeroll: ) -- and we know prosecutors do use browser cache frequently despite the fact that it introduces major concerns around accidental clicks and intent https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1742287617301524 . And on the change-your-mind-on-consent-later topic, there is also the case of Spencer Elden deciding he didn't consent to the famous Nirvana cover once he was some ways into adulthood https://www.npr.org/2022/09/05/1121124930/a-lawsuit-over-nirvanas-nevermind-naked-baby-album-cover-is-dismissed-again -- a person who was photographed before they understood the potential implications of the photo, such as a child, should always be able to revoke consent during adulthood. (I know Elden originally bragged, so many have viewed the lawsuit with suspicion, but people do process situations outside of their control in many different ways, so I wouldn't necessarily hold that against him deciding later he isn't actually okay with it.) I know "false accusations happen over innocent images leading to trials" and "trials aren't always fair" and "Google's algorithm scans photos on your device" and "prosecutors frequently dig through browser history" is perhaps kind of a stretch to all combine to conclude there is substantial risk here, but the risk is likely nonzero, and may go up for certain legally-at-risk minorities. Maybe WP doesn't have a social responsibility policy around creating these types of legal risks, or maybe the legal risks aren't sufficient to warrant any action/response, but it's definitely something to watch out for, because the legal risks could continue to increase as we enter the age of CSAM-paranoid image scanning algorithms anywhere and everywhere (lots of coverage of this exists if you look -- https://tutanota.com/blog/posts/eu-csam-scanning may not come to fruition but the "AI solves everything!" people will continue to push this stuff). So it's a potential threat on the horizon. os (talk) 04:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

This article already notes in the "Depictions" section the issue of false allegations of abuse resulting from innocent photos being flagged and brought to the attention of authorities. The section on "Moral panic" also notes that the perceived threat of child sexual abuse is a moral panic, the prevalence of CSAM not being supported by evidence, as the Tutanota article states. This is a problem that needs to be addressed by limiting the invasion of privacy and violation of civil rights represented by automated scanning of private information; and ending biased prosecution of LBGTQ individuals if that exists, not by self-censorship either by parents or organizations such as WP. The social science research points to the benefits of normal, non-sexual nudity in healthy human development, and the recognition of public depictions of that nudity being part of a healthy culture. The alternative is the suppression of normal sexuality, which is the cause of actual cases of child abuse.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I normally assume good faith, but this feels to me entirely like "concern trolling." - Jmabel | Talk 02:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

On whose part? I have assumed good faith on the part of the originator (OS). WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Apparently, the source cited at the beginning of the History section is incorrect, so I have hidden the text until I do some research to find the correct citation. As the only reference to the post-classical, it is not essential and could be omitted. Since @TechnoSquirrel69: did not make a talk page entry to match the maintenance tag for the entire article, I can only speculate whether this was the only issue. The NPOV template guideline states:

The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor.

I will do so now. WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion, WriterArtistDC. I was actually pulled away in the middle of writing up some notes about the NPOV issues and forgot to start a section here. I'll finish that up now, so maybe keep the tag on until I'm done. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I had already removed it. By my experience, as supported by the guideline, tags and explanations should be concurrent. WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Here are a few sentences that I have issues with in this article in terms of compliance with the neutral point of view policy:

• "Any sense of shock at seeing naked children is a recent phenomenon in Western societies." Unattributed opinion — in general, statements should not be made in Wikipedia's voice unless they reflect broad consensus among reliable sources. There are several other sentences with similar issues.
• "A 1937 article... makes no mention of the boys being naked..." Pointing out the lack of discussion about something in an article seems like original research to me.
• § History as a whole has a very Euro-centric view, and places undue weight on American perspectives in particular.
• § Moral panic starts off with an unattributed quote.
• "Preschool children have little sense of modesty..." This whole sentence is stated without attribution from an opinion piece. I'm not even sure the source is reliable in this context, as it reads more like a parenting blog than a scholarly discussion.
• "The normal behavior of very young children may become an issue outside the home." This sentence contributes nothing and seems really out-of-context with the rest of the section.
• There are also less overt phrasing issues, such as "...both boys and girls are allowed to play totally nude". Saying that they are allowed to do something implies that they require an exception to the presumed cultural norm of being clothed, which may not be the case at all. A simple "children play together while naked" or something to that effect would be sufficient.

This is not a comprehensive list, just a few examples that I noticed on a quick skim through, but that should hopefully shed some light on the issues I'm talking about here. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I actually appreciate getting any editorial feedback. The articles I contribute to do not seem to attract collaboration.

Some of these suggestions are useful copy editing, however others imply an approach to writing articles I have not encountered before.

1. Any sense of shock... - Are statements in a journal article by an anthropologist (David MacDougall) opinions? Do mainstream statements about behavior in the Victorian era need to be supported by multiple sources? In my experience, attribution is used when the topic is truly controversial.
2. A 1937 article... - Perhaps simply describing the photos serves the same purpose.
3. History as a whole has a very Euro-centric - An argument could be made that the majority of articles on WP should have a Globalize tag, but that is not the same as POV.
4. Moral panic... Again an academic source is cited, in this case for a mainstream definition of moral panic in an online encyclopedia from an academic publisher.
5. Preschool children have little sense of modesty... - Although I linked to the website, Today's Parent is also a print magazine which has been around for a long time. This is typical language used to describe toddler behavior.
6. The normal behavior of very young children... - This is an introduction to the section on daycare issues. I do not see a problem.
7. There are also less overt phrasing issues... - I don't see a problem in your example, but the revised, simpler version is OK.

WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

"The articles I contribute to do not seem to attract collaboration." I feel you on that one. However, like I said above, I didn't provide those examples to be a comprehensive list, but only to paint my argument for the article's NPOV issues in broad strokes. With that in mind, I don't think it would be that productive to counter each of your responses individually. I leave it up to your editorial discretion to make choices about the details of the phrasing. I will say on the usage of Wikipedia's voice that the examples I mentioned are controversial statements. It would be uncontroversial to simply report some fact — say, the number of countries that have legislation about the distribution of nude photos — but it is not uncontroversial to report a statement made by a single scholar about Western cultural norms as if it were fact. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

It has been my understanding for many years that citing scholarship published in peer-reviewed journals is the bedrock of NPOV. The authors and the reviewers are presumed to have done their work of researching the topic and reporting their conclusions as being supported. The dichotomy of fact/opinion does not exist in academia, there are only hypotheses and theories with varying levels of support. A WP editor may verify the credentials of the author and the reputation of the journal, but they do not insert their own point of view by questioning the conclusion unless they have already found equivalent RS's that present a contrary conclusion, which I have not. In example #1, the author, having reviewed the evidence regarding childhood nudity in Victorian England compared to contemporary attitudes, says: "The sense of shock at seeing children naked seems to be mainly a recent phenomenon." I have changed the opening sentence of the History section to a direct quote of this conclusion. I take his "seems" to be a sign of scholarly modesty, not doubt. WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not proposing to use attribution as a way of doubting the author's findings, I just think that the language in the article should be reflective of the level of consensus among the academic community. I might be being a bit conservative here, but consider that the source (MacDougall 2020) doesn't cover any cultures further east than the Soviet Union as far I can see. To me, saying that the phenomenon is isolated to Western societies in recent times is misleading at best. I see that you've edited the sentence to attribute the statement, thanks for doing that. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

No particular statement about a cultural phenomenon reflects a global consensus because no such academic community exists in these disciplines. I try to find sources from as many cultures as possible. When I do, each statement stands on its own based upon those sources. What I say about the benefits of Finnish saunas or Japanese sentō has nothing to do with each other or what Americans think or do. WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I have moved the historical content from the Indigenous section to the History section. Perhaps I can find details regarding particular locations. I could also add historical content about Japan. WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for making those changes, WriterArtistDC, they're definitely a step in the right direction. I'm reading through the prose again now to see if I can contribute any further comments. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

My only comment is that late childhood and puberty had their own sections because there are distinct issues in each stage of development, so each needs to be expanded, not combined. WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

For sure, but a section break can pretty painlessly be added back in if more content is added later. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I do appreciate that your comments have pointed me in the direction of making the article better, but since it has been a week without further comment, I am inclined to declare this discussion dormant, and remove or change the maintenance tag to "Globalize", which has actually been the issue, not neutrality. Unforunately the topic is literally unmentionable in many societies, but I will continue to seek reliable sources.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Tag replaced. I think you've done good work on this article since I began the discussion, and the problems that I identified have been largely dealt with. Thanks for your contributions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)