Summary of dispute by WriterArtistDC

When I proposed this dispute resolution on September first, I was willing and able to participate. However, for at least the next week this may not be possible. It should be noted that I continued to improve the article, so the talk page issues may have been addressed. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:30, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: Since I was not made aware of the NOR noticeboard posting, I took the absence of any action as an end to the talk page dispute, and made significant changes to the article between Sept. 9 and 13.

WriterArtistDC (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

While I continue to be preoccupied by real life, this is a brief response to the dispute. On August 14, Paprikaiser made a series of deletions to the article without discussion or explanation, only edit summaries that did not explain the deletion. Observing "Assume Good Faith" I did not revert them but reviewed each; keeping some, reverting others, and doing research to improve the content to correct the problem. Not satisfied, Paprikaiser indicated that an edit war might be preferable to leaving the article as it was. I replied that dispute resolution was the only option.

There seems to be no understanding that WP has no rules, but guidelines that are the beginning, not the end of a discussion on improving WP content. This is perplexing, as this understanding must have existed for this user in order to have contributed so much to WP in the past. I could speculate as to why this article has come under such scrutiny, including an AfD, but that would be pointless.

These are some of the deletions made, and my response:

1. A reference to an English film in an archive that included a full transcript of the activity depicted. My edit merely stated the facts relevant to the article. The edit summary for the deletion was only "WP:OR" with no explanation of how cited content can be original research, so I reverted the deletion. The film is a primary source. The OR section WP:Primary is not always WP:Synth states - "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Photographs and films are primary sources in this sense; it shows that something happened, but makes no statement of the meaning or interpretation beyond what any viewer would understand. In some cases there are textural sources referring to the same facts, giving additional support.
2. A c.1950 photo of children in a kibbutzim bathing nude outdoors and a citation supporting this as a common practice at the time; both photo and text were deleted with the edit summary "Removed unsupported content". This was reverted.
3. The entire section on Islam was rewritten, improving it, with an edit summary "Updated content according to reference". I might have checked "Thank" but refrained.
4. A paragraph in the section "Late 19th and early 20th centuries" included the fact that LIFE magazine in the early 20th century used photos of nude boys swimming and showering (discretely posed) to illustrate text, noting that today such images would be eroticized. Another correct use of a primary source, this content has not been restored.
5. In the section "Precolonial and colonial eras" a statement about Native American children was removed along with the citation supporting it. The edit summary was again "Removed unsupported content" This has been restored with a better summary from the same source.

It becomes clear that instead of seeking to improve WP by working together to fix content issues, a decision has been made to remove content without discussion or valid justification.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Paprikaiser

Please feel free to relocate this comment if necessary, I am unsure if creating this section is appropriate.

WriterArtistDC's interpretation of the events is dishonest. I removed material providing plenty of reasons in my edit summaries, such as WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:OFFTOPIC, WP:V, etc. Anyone is able to scroll down on the edit history and check by themselves. I also didn't say I preferred an edit war; in fact, I went out of my way to try to reason with WriterArtistDC, and never once did I try to remove again the material that was restored, despite the constant stalling. I haven't edited the page since that day. And I am not obligated to open a discussion to remove material that doesn't comply with our policies; per WP:BURDEN, the responsibility of demonstrating policy compliance lies on the editor restoring disputed material. In the original discussion I provided plenty of reasons as to why the material was inappropriate. I will briefly quote myself.

• A source describing an historical depiction where children happen to be naked is not automatically a source about childhood nudity as an encyclopedic subject. Merely referencing a film's scene without the source explicitly analyzing or discussing it in the context of childhood nudity makes its inclusion off-topic, and relies on editor choice to decide what counts as a relevant instance. Unless a secondary source explicitly connects this specific film to the broader topic of childhood nudity, including it constitutes WP:SYNTH.
• The kibbutzim content and picture are not supported by the source. In the article, the section asserts that this practice was done with the intention of promoting gender equality, but the source explicitly states the ideological rationale was sexual purity and de-eroticization, specifically the belief that physical closeness would reduce sexual desire and encourage abstinence by making peers view one another as siblings. Taking a policy specific to the HaShomer HaTza’ir Shomria school and framing it as a blanket statement about Israeli kibbutzim overgeneralizes the source in violation of WP:SYNTH. And because this work is an educational history focused on kibbutz pedagogy and collective upbringing, pulling out a passing detail about communal showering remains off-topic under WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:DUE. This interpretation of the source was also made by another uninvolved editor recently, who removed the material. WriterArtistDC restored it again, adducing that since the article was undergoing a review, the content should remain as it is. I disagree with that interpretation, as material violating policy should not be kept for any reason. But once again, I refrained from enforcing this to avoid an edit war.
• The LIFE content remains in the article. Citing a single LIFE issue cannot verify a broad claim that the magazine routinely published photographs of naked boys. Using a primary source to assert editorial trends without a secondary source doing so is pure WP:OR. A second LIFE source used quotes a boy calling waiting in line an example of democracy and calls the showers a melting pot; it does not state that nudity itself was symbolic of social equality, which is what the section does. It also fails to mention that this is a quote from a child.
• In the Precolonial and colonial eras section, content was removed precisely because the source did not support it, exactly as the summary mentioned it. The original sentence said In warm weather, Native American children might not wear clothing until puberty. with the source not mentioning this at all. Considering that the sentence was not restored and the source was used to support an entirely different sentence, this indicates that my interpretation was correct.

I am also getting sick of the consistent bad faith interpretation of my behavior as is it clear that I have been extremely patient while dealing with this, abstaining from restoring material and seeking external input in not one but two noticeboards. In the original discussion, WriterArtistDC has made jabs at me implying that because I !voted to delete the article in the unsuscessful AfD, I am unfit to improve it ("The only valid option is unbiased participation. I have observed the guideline "assume good faith" in having any discussion with an editor who recently voted to delete the entire article with little discussion by "redirecting", whatever that might mean in this case. I assume not a merge into, or that would have been suggested.") or that my concerns are not about the content but about them in particular ("This discussion has passed the point of meaningful resolution, and has moved from issues of content and guidelines to speculation about motives"). I will wait for an impartial review of the content. Paprikaiser (talk) 13:00, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Childhood nudity discussion

Zeroth statement by volunteer (Childhood nudity)

I have a two-part question about whether assistance is being requested and can be provided. First, is there an article content dispute? Will each editor please state concisely whether they want to make any changes to the article that another editor does not want to make, or whether they think that another editor wants to make changes to the article that they do not want? If there is an article content dispute, we will begin moderated discussion. Second, is there a request for third-party review of the article and changes to the article. If both editors request third-party review, I am ready to review the article.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, another voice is welcome. WriterArtistDC (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

There is an article content dispute, I want to remove material that in my opinion is not supported by the sources it is citing, or does not belong in the article. WriterArtistDC wants to keep it, although no justification has been provided as to why the material complies with our policies. The article has been edited and new material has been added since then, but the specific issues I highlighted remain untouched. I was clear in the talk page discussion that it was useless to keep participating at that point. Per WP:NOTSILENCE, that cannot be construed as an implicit agreement. I would welcome a third-party review. Paprikaiser (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Childhood nudity)

First statement by volunteer (Childhood nudity)

It appears that both editors are asking for a third-party review. I don't have a standard set of rules for a third-party review, so, for now, please read DRN Rule X. I will ask each editor what parts of the article they want commented on, which probably means the parts of the article that have been edited. Please be concise in describing what you want reviewed, even if the text that you want reviewed is lengthy.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Childhood nudity)

@Robert McClenon: Thank you for following up. I would appreciate a focus on the specific sections where I have identified issues or attempted corrections:

• Cultural differences (Introduction, England, France, Israel, Japan, United States>Precolonial and colonial eras)
• Depictions (In fine art, In popular media)

The material in these sections either fails to accurately reflect the cited sources (violating WP:V or WP:SYNTH), constitutes WP:OR, or falls under WP:OFFTOPIC. I can go into specifics for each section, although I have already outlined concrete examples both here and in the talk page discussion. Please let me know if you would like me to detail them further and I'll be happy to oblige. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

I have explained the inclusion of the content targeted for deletion many times on the article talk page and above. In particular there is a quotation from the OR page about Primary sources not being SYNTH, which applies to content involving photos, film and artwork. Yet no counter-argument is made, "violated" guidelines merely being pointed to by name rather than explanations of how they apply to particular cases. Oddly, one subsection that continues to be deleted, Childhood_nudity#Israel, is one of the best supported by a photo and an academic book: Balberg, Mira (2024). "Here on Earth: A History of the Kibbutz". eScholarship. San Diego, California: UC San Diego. Retrieved 2026-08-18.. Rather than suggesting alternate wording for this content, it is deleted. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Second statement by volunteer (Childhood nudity)

I have reviewed the exchange in somewhat more detail than earlier, though not in depth. I see that another previously uninvolved editor, User:FeydHuxtable, has offered some thoughts. It appears that User:FeydHuxtable has more experience with the subject matter than I do. I am inviting and encouraging them to take part in this discussion, either to provide the third-party opinion that is being requested, or to provide another opinion that I will review, in which case my review will be a fourth-party review. User:FyedHuxtable - Are you ready to provide the third-party review, or do you want to provide another opinion that I will review?

I am reminding the editors to be civil and to assume good faith. The discussion has mostly been collaborative, but there have been minor lapses, so we need to remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise.

I will be reviewing the sections of the article in more detail again.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:

Since User:FeydHuxtable made an edit to Childhood nudity removing the same well-sourced section on Israel that I have referred to above, and then responded on the talk page regarding my reversion of that edit pending the outcome of this review using condescending language regarding me, and support for Paprikaiser, I could not accept any review of the article by FeydHuxtable as a valid third party decision. WriterArtistDC (talk) 08:33, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

There are no questions on my end. Thanks for the reminder, I will do my best to follow your advice. And I would appreciate additional input by FeydHuxtable, if they feel comfortable doing it. Paprikaiser (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Childhood nudity)

Third statement by moderator (Childhood nudity)

I have reviewed the history of the article, and I see that there has been considerable editing of the article, so that it has had different versions, including changes to the cultural differences section and the depictions section. So what I want to know is whether there is a version in the history of the article that represents the version that each editor prefers. Am I being asked to compare one editor's preferred version against another editor's preferred version? If so, can I be given links to the preferred versions?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:14, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I am not unhappy with the current version, but would seek only to clarify WP guidelines in order to continue to improve the content; in particular:

1. Content supported by reliable sources should not be deleted without an open discussion to reach a consensus. Pointing out a guideline is not sufficient, guidelines are not rules. There has never been consensus building discussion on the content of the Israel section, it is just deleted.
2. Primary is not SYNTH: A reliable primary source is correctly used to establish nothing more or less than what is states or depicts.

WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

When reviewing the page, I updated some content based on the references used, whenever they could support some connection to the main topic (for example here, here, here and here). For content that was not supported, I removed it, and that is the core of this disagreement. The removal was reverted and the content remains on the page. For more detail:

• Cultural differences
  • England (diff)
  • Israel (diff)
  • United States
    • Precolonial and colonial eras (diff)
• Depictions
  • In fine art (diff)
  • In popular media (diff)

For France, it was never mentioned in the original discussion, but some of its content is unsupported. For Japan, I mentioned in the AfD discussion how the section spends almost its entire length detailing general Japanese bathing culture, Shinto and Buddhist purification concepts, and the history of public bathhouses from the Tokugawa era onward, none of which address childhood nudity as a topic in their cited sources. Only the last sentence has some connection to the topic.

Lastly, two things: clearly, my point is that the highlighted content is not actually supported by sources. The Israel section was removed twice, by me and an uninvolved editor, for this reason. A detailed explanation was provided in both cases as to why the source did not support it. And the use of primary sources can be appropriate sometimes. But taking a single issue of a magazine that has pictures of naked boys and asserting in wikivoice that they regularly published them, based on that single issue, or mentioning a film based on its synopsis saying that some naked children were filmed, are not good examples of appropriate usage. There are a lot of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS throughout the page. I am also confused by the last couple of edits, one including the England section, when the reason provided for the last revert in the Israel section was that the entire page was under review and thus shouldn't be edited. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Third statements by editors (Childhood nudity)

When reviewing the page, I updated some content based on the references used, whenever they could support some connection to the main topic ... For content that was not supported, I removed it, and that is the core of this disagreement.

This describes a process of edit or delete, but ignores the actual process by which articles with contentious topics are improved; consensus building. The first barrier to consensus is failing to add a talk page comment when making a substantial edit. Building consensus means explaining why the change was made. The second barrier is deleting content entirely, which removes the possibility of consensus building and fails to recognize that Wikipedia is a work in progress. I only delete obvious vandalism without comment, otherwise I add an edit tag, which alerts all WP editors, who may join the discussion.

In this dispute, several times I have reverted the removal of the Israel section which contains a photo relevant to the topic and a reference to an academic source on the practice of communal child-rearing in Kibbutzim. The edit summary used for this deletion, as with several others, is "Removed unsupported content", which is preposterous. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

This is the source for the Israel section:

Balberg, Mira (2024). "Here on Earth: A History of the Kibbutz". eScholarship. San Diego, California: UC San Diego. Retrieved 18 August 2026.

This is the full citation: “There was no gender-based separation in Shomria. Boys and girls lived together, four in a room, and they showered together...As with everything else, there was an ideology behind this decision. In HaShomer HaTza’ir, which heralded sexual purity as one of the commandments that its members should live by (alongside abstinence from alcohol and tobacco), it was assumed that normalizing and naturalizing nudity and physical closeness among peers of opposite sexes would de-eroticize the relationship and actually lead to abstinence. A boy and a girl who live together and shower together would consider each other like brother and sister and would be steered away from sexual fantasies or interactions. Some of those who were raised this way say that the experiment was widely successful—so successful that they later had difficulty forming intimate relationships with anyone and became sexually and emotionally stunted. Others say that this experiment failed entirely and that these educational institutions were sexual pressure cookers where erotic escapades, wanted and unwanted, took place all the time.” (Balberg, 2024, pp. 48-49)

This is my proposed paraphrasing: Unrelated boys and girls lived together and showered together in Shomria, based upon the belief nudity would cease to be erotic, as with siblings. Individuals later reported conflicting results, some finding communal nudity made it hard to form intimate relationships later in life, others that sexual behavior had been frequent. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:17, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

* In popular media section

The two LIFE magazine articles were used as examples:

Current text: "For example, Life routinely published modestly posed photographs of nude boys to illustrate articles on American life. (LIFE|1940) A photograph of nude boys in a communal shower from a 1941 article on high schools included a caption indicating a perception of male communal nudity as symbolic of social equality.(LIFE|1941)"

This could be reworded to remove the generalization:

Life published modestly posed photographs of nude boys to illustrate articles on American life. In 1940 the article on the Olneyville Boys Club swimming pool was illustrated by photographs of sixty boys of various ages, all nude.(LIFE|1940) A 1941 article on high schools included a photograph of nude boys in a communal shower.(LIFE|1941)

The 1940 issue could also be used in the section on Late 19th and early 20th centuries to illustrate nude swimming in US indoor pools; while the 1941 article supports the practice of communal showers in schools referenced in the Schools and recreation section.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: - Rather than participate in consensus building, Paprikaiser repeats demands for the deletion of content that either has been modified by me already in response to their suggestions, or could be modified as I have suggested in this section. Many other demands are based upon the refusal to recognize the valid use of primary sources as specified in the guideline WP:Primary item #3. All of the images, films, and firsthand reportage establish nothing more or less than being an example of the topic of this article at a particular time and place, with no conclusion stated or implied.

A persistent issue is the refusal to either accept, or suggest alternate content for the Israel section, as I do above, which is based upon an academic source which is not the same as I used originally. Nudity as part of communal child rearing is clearly established.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator (Childhood nudity)

We don't appear to be making progress. One of the reasons appears to be that there are multiple different areas in which there are disagreements, including kibbutzim in Israel, and the United States in the twentieth century, and France and Japan. I had said that I was willing to compare different versions and comment on them, which would mean that each editor would have to provide me with a link for the version of the article that they want. I can only compare versions if each editor has a preferred version, not if the versions keep changing. So if two editors will provide me with different versions of the same section, I can compare them and comment. I don't think that we are there, but I am still willing to try, if each editor will give me a version that I can view and review. Alternatively, we can identify one particular area that we want to work on, and defer issues on other areas. If each editor will name two areas that they want to work on, then I will see if there is one area that both editors want to work on. Does each editor have any links to preferred versions? Or does each editor want to name two areas that they are willing to work on?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:14, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Above in "Third statements by editors" I have proposed changes to the Israel section and the In popular media section. WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors (Childhood nudity)

@Robert McClenon: My preferred version for the disputed sections is simply the text with the non-compliant material removed. You can see this contrast by comparing the current live revision against the deletions I linked in my previous statement. To answer your question and go into detail regarding the specific issues in each section:

• England: the current version says A 1940s film is of an outing for Scouts and Girl Guides in which boys to the age of about ten play nude in a small river, while older boys and all girls are dressed. A source describing an historical depiction where children happen to be naked is not automatically a source about childhood nudity as an encyclopedic subject. Merely referencing a film's scene without the source explicitly analyzing or discussing it in the context of childhood nudity makes its inclusion off-topic, and relies on editor choice to decide what counts as a relevant instance. Unless a secondary source explicitly connects this specific film to the broader topic of childhood nudity, including it constitutes WP:SYNTH.
• Israel: the current version says the practice of living and showering together was done with the intention of promoting gender equality but the source explicitly states the ideological rationale was sexual purity and de-eroticization, specifically the belief that physical closeness would reduce sexual desire and encourage abstinence by making peers view one another as siblings. Taking a policy specific to the HaShomer HaTza’ir Shomria school and framing it as a blanket statement about Israeli kibbutzim overgeneralizes the source in violation of WP:SYNTH. The source is an educational history focused on kibbutz pedagogy and collective upbringing, so pulling out a passing detail about communal showering remains off-topic, and does not make the source a study, analysis, or commentary about childhood nudity. I am not the only editor who thinks this, as FeydHuxtable has shared additional commentary on the talk page.
• Precolonial and colonial eras: the source does not mention the topic at all. Current version in the article says The beliefs of early colonists in America varied based upon religion. The Puritans viewed complete nudity, even in private for bathing, as immodest, and limited hygiene to washing the hands, face and regularly changing undergarments. In New England bathing remained uncommon until the 18th century. but the source explicitly states that avoiding full-body bathing was universal across the 17th-century Western world and across social classes. The current paragraph lacks any reference to childhood, relies on an off-topic source about bathing history, and mischaracterizes the source's findings.
• In fine art: the current version says In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, impressionist painters depicted everyday life, which included scenes of nude toddlers or older children swimming and playing. John Singer Sargent's painting of Neapolitan Children Bathing was done based upon sketches done while traveling.[80] Mary Cassatt (1844–1926) often painted domestic scenes, in particular mothers and children, the youngest being nude. The first sentence is WP:OR. The sources are descriptions of paintings with brief details about the painters. They do not evaluate the topic of the article at all. This is the same issue as the description of a random film in the England section. Cassatt's biography doesn't even mention children being nude, it simply says she made a specialty of the mother and child theme. I assume the conclusion that most, or all? of the children were naked is made by the editor observing the paintings included in the source, even though half of the children were clothed in them. A piece of media showing children without clothes does not necessarily make it a source about childhood nudity as a topic. You need a secondary source to make that connection.
• In popular media: the current version says For example, Life routinely published modestly posed photographs of nude boys to illustrate articles on American life.[85] A photograph of nude boys in a communal shower from a 1941 article on high schools included a caption indicating a perception of male communal nudity as symbolic of social equality.[86] Citing a single Life issue cannot verify a broad claim that the magazine routinely published photographs of naked or half naked boys. Using a primary source to assert editorial trends without a secondary source doing so is plain WP:OR. And the second source (86) quotes a boy calling waiting in line an example of democracy and the showers a melting pot; he does not state that nudity itself was symbolic of social equality, and even if he did, that is not coming from the magazine itself. I fail to see how the topic of the article is being covered here. This is, again, a passing or incidental mention in media that does not analyze the topic as such.

To help narrow our focus, I am willing to defer the France and Japan sections for now so they can be addressed later. My request is for the above sections to be analyzed to determine if my rationale for deletion is correct and if so, for the non-compliant material to be removed. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator (Childhood nudity)

We still don't appear to be making any progress. Perhaps I forgot to tell the editors that we are working under DRN Rule D, and that they should read DRN Rule D and the description of gender and sexuality as a contentious topic.

I have been thinking of failing this discussion, without assigning blame, because it appears that no progress is being made, and the editors do not appear to be listening to my instructions, and we are not successfully defining the disagreement in order to work on it. When I say to be civil and concise, I am not asking for a detailed page-long description of the issues, and I am not asking you to comment on the statement that the other editor has made. I have been repeatedly asking for concise summaries and getting walls of text. Before I can try to mediate a dispute, I need to know concisely what the dispute is. I have now given up on trying to provide third-party review, because I have given up on getting a concise description of the disagreement.

I will remind both editors that DRN is voluntary, and that there are other ways of resolving disputes, including Arbitration Enforcement. Either editor may withdraw from this discussion, in which case we will go back to discussion at the article talk page. Read the boomerang essay before filing a report at WP:ANI or at Arbitration Enforcement.

But I think that we may have one last chance to define the disagreement, even if it is not concise. I now see that one editor says that what they really want is to leave all of their additions in the article, and what the other editor really wants is to remove those additions. So the disagreement is about additions that User:WriterArtistDC has made, and that User:Paprikaiser wants to remove. At this point, having spent two weeks trying to get the parties to specify what they wanted third-party review of, I am no longer ready to provide third-party review. I am ready to work to define the scope of the additions by WriterArtistDC, in preparation for a possible RFC on whether to keep or remove the additions.

One editor says that they are ready to defer the France and Japan sections. I think that means that they are ready to work on the popular media and Israel sections. So I will ask each editor what version of these sections they want to leave in the article. I think that this means that WriterArtistDC can specify the current sections including their additions, and that Paprikaiser can provide shorter sections, not including the additions.

Are the editors ready to provide links to the versions that they want?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Fifth statements by editors (Childhood nudity)

The current article contains no recent "additions" by me, but reversions of some of the deletions made by Paprikaiser beginning in August with no prior discussion. Some of this content has been part of the article for a long time, including through a GA review. I have presented here my own revisions as the starting points for consensus building, to no avail. The dispute is ultimately about assuming good faith, content disputes being the result of failing to do so. When two editors have such fundamental differences, some form of arbitration is likely necessary. The article in its current state is acceptable until then.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

The current article contains additions made by WriterArtistDC that I deleted for failing to comply with our policies. Removal under those terms does not need to be negotiated beforehand; per WP:BURDEN, The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. This is all of the material I want removed. I hope that is easier to understand. Paprikaiser (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Half sentences are often false; this is the whole: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing one inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." When the latter condition is met, it is removal that requires negotiation.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

I will only say this once. Anyone reviewing the original discussion can see that I have repeatedly detailed specific policy failures, explaining why the sources used were either misquoted, misapplied, or failed to support the text as framed, while your responses have simply pointed back to the existence of a source without addressing those critiques.

Here you argue that primary sources are valid for straightforward, descriptive statements of fact; but my criticism is not that the content is not supported by the source, but that the source is wrongly used. Just because a film or photo happens to depict children without clothes does not make it a source about "childhood nudity" as an encyclopedic topic.

Regarding the Israel paragraph, another editor and I have already pointed out how and why the text is not supported by the provided source. After weeks, you have proposed a slight change in wording, but the underlying issue remains. Taking a policy specific to the HaShomer HaTza’ir Shomria school and framing it as a blanket statement about Israeli kibbutzim overgeneralizes the text in violation of WP:SYNTH. Cosmetic rewording does not make off-topic material fit for the article.

Passing details about children and nudity does not mean the source addresses the topic of childhood nudity. Paprikaiser (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Sixth statement by moderator (Childhood nudity)

Paprikaiser has identified four items that they think should be deleted, one sentence from the England section, one paragraph from the Israel section, one paragraph from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries section, and one portion of a paragraph in the In Popular Culture section. I think that I will be proceeding on two paths. First, I am asking Paprikaiser to state why they think that the additions should be removed, and am asking WriterArtistDC to state why they think that the items should be retained. Second, I will start work on a possible four-part RFC.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Sixth statements by editors (Childhood nudity)

• England: a source describing an historical depiction where children happen to be naked is not automatically a source about childhood nudity as an encyclopedic subject. If this were an article about the film, then the use of a primary source to describe the film would be fine. But merely referencing a scene without the source explicitly analyzing or discussing it in the context of childhood nudity makes its inclusion off-topic. Unless a secondary source explicitly connects this specific film to the topic, including it constitutes WP:SYNTH.
• Israel: the current text states that communal showering was done with the intention of promoting gender equality, but the source explicitly states the ideological rationale was sexual purity and de-eroticization. The source describes a single policy specific to one kibbutz; plucking an isolated observation about communal living in one kibbutz and inserting it here is pure WP:SYNTH. WriterArtistDC's proposed rewording suffers from the same issue: a source mentioning children and nudity in passing does not make it a source about childhood nudity as an encyclopedic topic.
• Precolonial and colonial eras: the highlighted paragraph lacks any reference to childhood, relies on an off-topic source about general bathing history, and mischaracterizes its findings; the source explicitly states that avoiding full-body bathing was universal across the 17th-century Western world and across social classes.
• In fine art: the opening sentence of the highlighted paragraph is WP:OR. The sources are basic descriptions of paintings with brief details about the artists, not evaluations of childhood nudity. Cassatt's biography does not even mention children being nude; it simply states she made a specialty of the mother and child theme. Asserting that the depicted children were nude relies on editor interpretation, especially when half of the children in that source are clothed. An artwork showing children without clothes does not necessarily make it a source about childhood nudity as a topic; we need a secondary source making that connection.
• In popular media: citing a single Life issue cannot verify a broad claim that the magazine routinely published photographs of naked or half naked boys; using a primary source to assert editorial trends is plain WP:OR. The second sentence is also unsupported; the cited source quotes a student calling waiting in line an example of democracy and the showers a melting pot, but does not state that nudity itself symbolized social equality. This is another passing mention that fails to analyze the topic as such.

I welcome an RfC on these points if necessary. Thank you. Paprikaiser (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

While I have responded to the individual items, the real issue moving forward is whether the content of Childhood nudity or any other controversial topic should be determined by individual editors who delete without seeking consensus. This means tagging, not removing disputed content, image or text.

1) England

As a primary source, the film has the same status as a photograph, showing behavior relevant to the article topic at a particular time and place. It joins images in the gallery "Early 20th Century England", providing visual information as specified by the image use policy:

The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article.

The text in the England section begins with a citation from Visual Anthropolgist David MacDougall that establishes the importance of visual imagery in conveying the meaning of childhood nudity in a culture. While the two images in the gallery depict childhood nudity in the limited context of progressive education and naturism. The film depicts behavior in a more mainstream context, scouting, and a slightly later date, post-WWII; providing the most relevant information.

2) Israel

Although the example I cite is a single kibbutz, the source also refers to Hashomer Hatzair, the youth movement that is the basis for many other kibbutzim. This should be clarified.

3) Precolonial and colonial eras

The issue is whether references citing social norms apply to children. In this case the Puritan norm is extreme modesty, which goes beyond similar beliefs of Western society in general.

4) In fine art

Once again: The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter...

The deletion of images in this section removed information needed to understand the paintings mentioned in the textural citations. Text and images together support the inclusion of Cassatt and other painters. If free to do so, I would restore the image gallery with works mentioned in the text.

5) In popular media

The two LIFE magazine articles were used as examples:

Current text: "For example, Life routinely published modestly posed photographs of nude boys to illustrate articles on American life. A photograph of nude boys in a communal shower from a 1941 article on high schools included a caption indicating a perception of male communal nudity as symbolic of social equality."

These could be reworded to remove the generalization, leaving the plain fact:

Life published photographs of nude boys to illustrate articles. In 1940 the article on the Olneyville Boys Club swimming pool was illustrated by photographs of sixty boys of various ages, all nude. A 1941 article on high schools included a photograph of nude boys in a communal shower.

These references could also be moved to add details to other sections; the 1940 issue used in the section on Late 19th and early 20th centuries to illustrate nude swimming in US indoor pools; while the 1941 article supports the practice of communal showers in schools referenced in the Schools and recreation section.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 11:34, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Seventh statement by moderator (Childhood nudity)

The discussion above focuses on five sections of the article. I have created a draft RFC for review and discussion, at Talk:Childhood nudity/RFC on certain sections. I don't see the questioned material on a kibbutz in Israel. I have not reviewed the history in detail to determine whether the questioned section was removed before this discussion started. So I have only included four sections in the draft RFC. I will include a section E on Israel if the editors can specify what is proposed either to be deleted or to be added.

Please do not vote in the draft RFC at this time, because it is only a draft. Please do not write comments about the draft RFC in the draft RFC itself. Comments about the draft RFC should be made here, in this DRN discussion. Also, since we are planning to resolve the questions by RFC, it will be useful to add France and Japan to the RFC before it is launched.

Are there any comments or questions about the draft RFC?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:18, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Seventh statements by editors (Childhood nudity)

I have decided that rather than wasting time in another review of the content as indicated in the draft RFC, I will not participate. My only suggestion is that editors read The Seven Rules of Trust and decide if they are building an encyclopedia, or not.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

My proposal for the Israel section is to remove it entirely. The article originally had different content that I removed here; WriterArtistDC reverted my removal and changed the section a bit, with the last edit (corresponding to the current version) here.

For France, after reviewing, it I think it should be deleted. The section focuses entirely on a 2014 political controversy started by a conservative party leader attacking a children's book, which depicted people of all ages naked. The book itself is not a study or representation of childhood nudity as a subject. Even the opposition to it was part of a broader backlash against school equality programs, not about depictions of childhood nudity.

For Japan, I think that on its current form, the section should also be deleted. The vast majority of it details general Japanese bathing history, Shinto/Buddhist concepts of purification, and Tokugawa-era bathhouses, none of which address or analyze childhood nudity as an encyclopedic topic. The single sentence touching on modern parent-child co-bathing relies on a viral lifestyle blog that as such is inadequate for broad sociological assertions. In short, the historical text is off-topic padding and the single relevant claim relies on an unreliable source.

Both sections have been removed in my sandbox here.

I don't have any other questions. Thank you. Paprikaiser (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Eighth statement by moderator (Childhood nudity)

User:WriterArtistDC writes: I have decided that rather than wasting time in another review of the content as indicated in the draft RFC, I will not participate. Does that mean that they are withdrawing from this DRN, in which case I will close the case, or does that mean only that they will not participate in the drafting of the RFC? If it is the former, I will close this case. If it is the latter, I will review the RFC and continue this discussion.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

I am not dropping out of the DRN, but do not see the dispute as one resolved by votes on the inclusion of a few paragraphs. I stated the problem in Third statements by editors (Childhood nudity), which has gone unaddressed. I can not honestly vote Keep or Delete when I have already proposed alternate wording for this content. WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Eighth statements (Childhood nudity)

Ninth statement by moderator (Childhood nudity)

WriterArtistDC writes: I can not honestly vote Keep or Delete when I have already proposed alternate wording for this content. I stated the problem in Third statements by editors (Childhood nudity), which has gone unaddressed. I see that WriterArtistDC proposed alternate wording for the In popular media section and the Israel section. Are those revisions acceptable to Paprikaiser? If not, I will rework the RFC to provide a choice of rewording or removal.

There hasn't been an alternative wording proposed for the England, Colonial Era, and In fine art sections. Are those sections of the RFC ready to be submitted to the community? If so, should I split the RFC into at least two parts, one about England, Colonial Era, and In fine art, and submit it to the community while we are working on Israel and In popular media?

I have suggested alternate wording, or explained why current wording should be kept, at other points in the discussion. I can collect and repeat them if necessary.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:47, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Ninth statements by editors (Childhood nudity)

No, the proposed revisions are not acceptable. Cosmetic changes in phrasing do not resolve the underlying policy issues regarding how these sources are being used.

For the Israel section, the source describes a specific, experimental communal living policy at a single kibbutz. A passing detail about communal living in a book about kibbutz history does not make the work a secondary analysis of childhood nudity as an encyclopedic subject, making its inclusion off-topic and WP:SYNTH.

For the popular media section, removing the word "routinely" does not fix the WP:OR issue. Primary sources are still being pulled directly to assert a broad editorial trend. Citing an issue of a magazine that contains photos of boys at a pool or in a shower to make assertions, without a reliable secondary source explicitly analyzing its coverage of childhood nudity, is plain WP:SYNTH and a trivial mention. Just because a source depicts unclothed children does not turn it into a reliable secondary source about childhood nudity as a topic.

Even though I believe these proposed versions are inadequate, I am fine with waiting for WriterArtistDC to present alternative wordings for the remaining sections so they can all be included. My main goal is to gather community input. I do believe a single RfC will be more effective by keeping the community's focus undivided, so my first choice would be not to split it. Paprikaiser (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Tenth statement by moderator (Childhood nudity)

As suggested by Paprikaiser, we will develop one RFC and submit it to the community at once. Since we are working to develop one RFC, should we also address France and Japan? Are the sections of the RFC on England, Colonial Era, and In fine art in final form to go to the community? Is WriterArtistDC ready to provide alternate wording on Israel and 'In popular media?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

What's the rush? Consensus building at best can be a slow process. My suggestions for alternate wording where made two weeks ago, and are only now being addressed. WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Tenth statements by editors (Childhood nudity)

I posted my revision of the Israel section on October 4th. Here it is again, with minor update:

Unrelated boys and girls lived together and showered together in Shomria and other kibbutzim influenced by the ideology of Hashomer Hatzair. One belief was that nudity would cease to be erotic, as with siblings. Individuals later reported conflicting results, some finding communal nudity made it hard to form intimate relationships later in life, others that sexual behavior had been frequent.(Balberg, 2024, pp. 48-49)

New revision:

• In popular media

The two LIFE magazine articles could be reworded to remove the generalization:

Life published modestly posed photographs of nude boys to illustrate articles on American life. In 1940 the article on the Olneyville Boys Club swimming pool was illustrated by photographs of sixty boys of various ages, all nude. (LIFE|1940) A 1941 article on high schools included a photograph of nude boys in a communal shower.(LIFE|1941)

Another alternative would be to move these items, with appropriate rewording, to illustrate other sections:

The 1940 issue could also be used in the section on Late 19th and early 20th centuries to illustrate nude swimming in US indoor pools; while the 1941 article supports the practice of communal showers in schools referenced in the Schools and recreation section.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

• Fine Art

A new source for Mary Cassatt: Broude, Norma (2000). "Mary Cassatt: Modern Woman or the Cult of True Womanhood?". Woman's Art Journal. 21 (2). Old City Publishing, Inc.: 36–43. doi:10.2307/1358749. ISSN 0270-7993. JSTOR 1358749. Retrieved 2026-10-19.

Mary Cassatt painted many children nude with mothers, such as The Caress (1902). This was not simply as a domestic subject but to participate in the high art tradition of portraying the unclad figure, which was generally denied to female artists.(Broude, 2000)

The image of "The Caress" would also be added, in a gallery along with images of the other paintings mentioned in this section--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2026 (UTC).

Just noting for the record that I think all of these new versions are still lacking. I have explained above my reasoning regarding Israel and the popular media sections.

For the fine art section, the proposed wording is unsupported by the new source. The source states that Cassatt sometimes portrayed seductive, Michelangelesque babies in works like The Caress; the proposed text overgeneralizes this to claim she painted many children nude. While the source notes that the broader subject of mothers and children was at first apparently resisted, then later embraced by Cassatt, it says nothing about clothing or nudity across those works in general. And relying on an image gallery of some of her paintings to push the assertion that she frequently depicted naked children would constitute WP:OR. These works are framed as providing one of the few gaps of possibility through which Cassatt navigated her professional identity, rather than asserting that they were not simply a domestic subject. And while the source does mention the high art tradition of the nude and describes these depictions as giving Cassatt the only respectable access to the unclad figure, it attributes this context to her individual career as an upper-class female artist, rather than making the broad, generalized claim that this was generally denied to female artists.

An unnecessary citation: She was not allowed to draw from live models like the other male students and instead drew from inanimate objects. WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Even if the text were rephrased to strictly match the source, it remains WP:OFFTOPIC. Broude's analysis focuses on how Cassatt used these subjects to develop professionally and navigate the art scene, making a point about her career strategy; it is not a sociological or cultural examination of childhood nudity as an encyclopedic topic. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I will begin with the last point, being "Off Topic". A WP article has a topic, and each section has a sub-topic. The fine art section has the topic of childhood nudity in fine art, and is encyclopedic in citing an academic source, the Woman's Art Journal. The source states that Cassatt painted nude children, giving The Caress as an example. It is the source that refers to this as a common theme, not of domestic life but "portrayed seductive, Michelangelesque babies" as a way of participating in a major fine art theme which women artists of her era were denied, being barred access to nude figure classes. This which was not made explicit because this would be common knowledge to readers of this journal.

The reference to an image gallery was misread, I said that the gallery would contain the works mentioned in the entire section, as it previously did. WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Asserting that access to nude figure classes was generally denied to female artists as a universal premise, and that this was omitted because it was common knowledge to readers of this journal is a textbook example of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. This kind of reasoning permeates the disputed content. This is an encyclopedia, and as such its articles must reflect what sources explicitly state rather than relying on assumed background knowledge.

And a source examining why a specific painter utilized mother-and-child compositions to navigate professional hurdles and bourgeois social expectations remains off-topic for an encyclopedic overview of childhood nudity as a subject. The source points to The Caress as a specific example on one level where a baby is naked, but it treats this as a subset of her broader and highly successful production of mother-and-child paintings, not as an independent recurring theme of childhood nudity. Paprikaiser (talk) 07:46, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

This is the text being cited:

On one level, in the surprisingly seductive and even Michelangelesque babies sometimes portrayed by Cassatt in their mothers' arms (1), for example, The Caress (1902), we may be seeing, in a guarded and limited form, this artist's only respectable access to the unclad figure and to the high art tradition of the nude.(2)" (Broude 2000, page 39)

Which is paraphrased as:

Mary Cassatt painted many children nude with mothers, such as The Caress (1902).(1) This was not simply as a domestic subject but to participate in the high art tradition of portraying the unclad figure, which was generally denied to female artists.(2)

(1) is a reference to multiple paintings of nude babies

(2) is a reference to female exclusion from the nude figure as a subject

What would the alternative phrasing be? WriterArtistDC (talk) 10:14, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Eleventh statement by moderator (Childhood nudity)

I think that there is some uncertainty as to how we are trying to address this content dispute. I think that this is illustrated among other things by a statement by User:WriterArtistDC, who wrote: What's the rush? Consensus building at best can be a slow process. My suggestions for alternate wording where made two weeks ago, and are only now being addressed. There are various ways to try to arrive at consensus. Discussion is one way to build consensus. Sometimes there is an impasse between two or more editors, and a Request for Comments is necessary. DRN is normally used when discussion between the editors is not working, which is why most of the rules that we use say that back-and-forth discussion is not permitted, and that the moderator asks the questions, and the editors address the moderator and the community. I wrote, earlier, that we are working under DRN Rule D. See paragraph 8 of DRN Rule D. There has been back-and-forth discussion above, perhaps because I wasn't sufficiently emphatic in saying not to engage in back-and-forth discussion. It was my understanding that we were trying to put together an RFC because discussion was not making progress. So I will ask whether the editors want to engage in back-and-forth discussion to try to reach consensus. If both editors answer yes, I will close this discussion without prejudice so that discussion on the article talk page, Talk:Childhood nudity, can resume. If neither editor or only one editor agree to back-and-forth discussion, we can continue moderated discussion as long as both editors agree that the moderator asks the questions and the editors answer. Also, if we are working under DRN Rule D, I need WriterArtistDC to provide the alternate wording for each section that is being discussed, so that the RFC can be sent to the community.

User:WriterArtistDC, User:Paprikaiser - Do you want to engage in back-and-forth discussion without a moderator, or in moderated discussion?

The last exchange Re:Cassatt is a good example of the need for moderation.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 11:24, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:00, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Eleventh statements by editors (Childhood nudity)

Twelfth statement by moderator (Childhood nudity)

Maybe I don't understand what User:WriterArtistDC has written, or maybe they don't understand what the process is. I wrote that DRN Rule D says that there is no back-and-forth discussion between the parties, because the moderator asks the questions and the parties answer. Five hours later, WriterArtistDC wrote: What would the alternative phrasing be? Maybe they hadn't yet read my restatement of DRN Rule D. Is the question addressed to User:Paprikaiser? Another hour later, they wrote: The last exchange Re:Cassatt is a good example of the need for moderation. If they want to take part in moderated discussion, why are they asking a question to the other editor?

There is a draft RFC which is about at least four parts of the article. We are in agreement on the England, Colonial era, and In fine art questions in the RFC. I can launch that RFC, but we are in agreement that we want to develop one comprehensive RFC. Paprikaiser has said that they are not interested in rewording any of WriterArtistDC's additions. So either provide any rewrites that you want to include in the RFC, or don't provide them. Paprikaiser is not required to participate in the rewriting of the additions. They are participating in a question of whether to remove the additions or to leave them in.

I don't want to fail this discussion, but it isn't making progress. Should I launch the RFC with three sections, or will WriterArtistDC provide any further input?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I posted my question on alternative phrasing and did not read the Rule D message until afterward. WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Thirteenth statement by moderator (Childhood nudity)

Should I launch the RFC in its current state, or are there any changes that should be made to it?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:36, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Is Talk:Childhood nudity/RFC on certain sections the current state? WriterArtistDC (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

The draft RFC is at Talk:Childhood nudity/RFC on certain sections. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Thirteenth statements by editors (Childhood nudity)

Apologies for the delay in responding, I was traveling.

I had intentionally avoided direct back-and-forth interactions with WriterArtistDC for the past couple of weeks, which led to his comment that My suggestions for alternate wording where made two weeks ago, and are only now being addressed. I decided to respond directly to the Cassatt point a couple of days ago to address the sourcing, but I see that this was inconsistent with Rule D, and I apologize for that distraction. I don't want to engage in a back-and-forth discussion, as that has proven unconstructive and is the reason I came to DRN in the first place. My preference remains to proceed with the RfC.

My proposal, as I mentioned some days ago, is to have a single, unified RfC that presents clear options to the community: keep the content as is, delete it, or adopt whatever specific alternative versions WriterArtistDC wishes to propose. The most important thing for me is to gather community input. If WriterArtistDC does not wish to provide alternative wordings for the remaining sections, I am completely fine with launching the RfC as currently drafted. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

If I have not provided alternative wordings, it is because they are not needed, the current should stand. WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Fourteenth statement by moderator (Childhood nudity)

User:WriterArtistDC - The draft RFC asks whether to delete four paragraphs from the article. It does not propose any alternate wordings. I think that you have mentioned alternate wordings for two of them. If you want alternate wordings included in the RFC, please state them here.

It would appear that the deletion recommendations are incomplete, so I find no need for going into a detailed response. Instead, I give a general statement.

No reasons have been given for any deletions, only issues that might need editing, so all current content should be kept in order to do so. Some edits and good faith alterations have been offered. Some content, such as a gallery of the paintings mentioned in the text of the fine art section, have been deleted previously, and should be restored.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

User:Paprikaiser - The draft RFC asks whether to delete four paragraphs from the article. If you want to ask about the deletion of any other additions that have been made to the article, please state what you want to propose be deleted.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Fourteenth statements by editors (Childhood nudity)

Yes, I would also like to include the deletion of the content corresponding to the France section and the Japan section. Both sections were removed in my sandbox here. Thank you. Paprikaiser (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Fifteenth statement by moderator (Childhood nudity)

User:Paprikaiser - I have added the two sections that you mentioned to the draft RFC. It is still at Talk:Childhood_nudity/RFC_on_certain_sections. I have added a notation that those will delete the sections of the article.

Please review the draft RFC. Please comment on it here, in DRN, and do not comment in it or vote in it at this time, because it is not a live RFC. I will move it to launch it when we are ready to launch it, and then you may comment in it and vote in it.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

The order of the sections in the RFC is not the same as in the article itself. Is there any reason for this? It might lead to confusion among those responding. WriterArtistDC (talk) 11:23, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Fifteenth statements by editors (Childhood nudity)

Robert, I just realized the Israel content is also missing. I want to delete the entire current section. The content is the following:

Israeli kibbutzim pursued a program to create a society which included social and gender equality. In some, unrelated boys and girls lived in dormitories and showered together.

Other than that, the draft looks good to me. Paprikaiser (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

The question that should be posed in the RFC is whether each section should be Kept, Edited, or Deleted.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Asking only about deletion makes this a leading question, which does not offer the other options.

WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Sixteenth statement by moderator (Childhood nudity)

I have rearranged the sections of the draft RFC to follow their order in the article. It is still at Talk:Childhood_nudity/RFC_on_certain_sections.

I am willing to revise the RFC with respect to the Israel section to provide an alternate wording. There was some discussion of alternate wordings, and I am asking User:WriterArtistDC to provide the alternate wording that they want included. The Israel question will then have the choices to Keep, to Replace, or to Delete.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Sixteenth statements by editors (Childhood nudity)

Summary of dispute by Moxy

A few posts to a talk page an off to resolution with no other opinions from others yet? ....OK. Longstanding debate at the article is.... do editors want a user rendition of that arms that is not official in the infobox... that some believe misrepresents the arms by way of color and other minor placement issues. The copyright debate is only one of the many arguments putforth over the many RFCs that editors understand frequently clashes with USA copyright framework. Put it simply for 2 decades Canadian editors (those that have written the articles ) have been reluctant to display a user rendition of an official symbol that has an official rendition for many reasons. Not sure how a copyright debate (that longtimers understand) will solve the other concerns as to why its been omitted from the infobox (note; it is in the symbols section were its actually mention in prose. I have said it for many many years I am surprised that RFC after RFC results in exclusion of the user made version in the box. Should copyright be the only consideration for inclusion...of course not.....but thats why we are here? There has been past concerns about this type of "all must have" approach being mandated by the community.Moxy🍁 01:05, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Canada discussion

• Volunteer Question - Has this been discussed at Copyright Problems? If so, what was said there? If not, is there a reason why the question is being brought here rather than to Copyright Problems? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

  Copyright problems is specifically for copyright regarding text, this issue is about copyright regarding an image so it is not within the scope of copyright problems. Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 03:25, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

• Volunteer Question - Has this been discussed at Media copyright questions? The talk page of Copyright Problems has a note that issues with copyright of media should be discussed there. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:19, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

  Ah, I was not familiar with this noticeboard, it wasn't listed anywhere I had looked. Although I am still cautious that this is out of scope, it says that Commons images should be discussed on the relevant Commons village pump however Moxy seemingly concedes that the image is permissible on Commons and the relevant file was kept in a deletion discussion there. Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 12:38, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

  Perhaps I should be a bit more clear with why I'm asking this here; in recent discussions on inclusion since 2025, the copyright status of renditions of the arms has been a key issue. Both Moxy and I have become convinced of our positions on the copyright and so any discussion regarding inclusion will hinge on the copyright status which will hinge on mostly Moxy and I discussing it with eachother which always ends in a stalemate as neither of us are willing to concede. What I'm asking for here is an impartial recommendation on whether it is acceptable to include on enwiki so, if Moxy is willing, we can agree on the issue to settle the matter and discussions on inclusion can develop further towards actual content arguments and perhaps even to a long overdue consensus. Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 13:39, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

  We understand you believe the arms are not copyrighted - However, Crown copyright is generally incompatible with Wikipedia's licensing rules because Wikipedia requires content to be freely licensed under terms like Creative Commons (CC BY-SA) or GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) as to why File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg is only used in 1 article. A good overview of the copyright debate about renditions can be seen at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of Arms of Canada.svg.... but again as seen there in the debate from 2013 copyright is not the only consideration for inclusion in this one article.Moxy🍁 16:28, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - The volunteers at Media copyright questions are much more likely to be able to give you a correct answer to a question about the copyright status of an image than any volunteer at this noticeboard is. The question of whether an image is permitted in the English Wikipedia is more likely to get a correct answer at a noticeboard on the English Wikipedia, but not at DRN, than at Commons. The question of whether an image is permitted in Wikimedia Commons is more likely to get a correct answer at Wikimedia Commons than at a noticeboard on the English Wikipedia. Is your question about the English Wikipedia, or about Commons? I am not closing this discussion at this time, but I don't think that this noticeboard is likely to be the place where you will get an answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

  Seemingly Moxy has conceded it is permitted on Commons so it probably isn't useful to discuss Commons policy now. I still have concerns that it is out of scope for media copyright questions but it may be better to go there first now that I am aware of it and perhaps return here afterwards if such a discussion is closed there per above, although I will probably do this in the morning as it is late where I am. With this in mind I would not be opposed to you closing this discussion for now pending a discussion there. Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

  Would you, User:Coleisforeditor, rather ask for an opinion from editors who might know the answer and might or might not be able to answer your question about media copyright, or ask for an opinion from someone who knows that they don't know about the details of media copyright? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

  Well, yes, that's why I said I'll go there and you can close this for now. Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Pengortm

Ibram X._Kendi discussion