This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Nudity High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nudity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of nudity and naturism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NudityWikipedia:WikiProject NudityTemplate:WikiProject Nuditynudity High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Sexology and sexuality Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Visual arts This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts

Target already has extensive history section. Much of content is duplicate. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The impressive size of History of nude art and the number of sources suggests a separate article is warranted. Most of the content is clearly not copied from the main article. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should the current section on history be shortened, the rest merged into the other article, and a hat note added to direct readers interested in more to go to the other article? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why we can't have a large history section here, as well as a separate article with more detail. We do that for most countries. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now. History of nude art is yet another poor translation of a poor article from the Spanish Wikipedia just plonked onto en:wp. I wish I knew who was organizing this. Each one has a new new editor. Sorting it out would be a major job. Johnbod (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is the same guy who translated the very low-quality Sculpture in the Renaissance period. This new one is 338,167 raw bytes, which is just too long. Neither of them are very high quality, but Nude (art) is better. The original Spanish text is quite good (much better than the sculpture one), & the refs ok (but all in Spanish), but the English phrasing, linking & so forth is poor. Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per reasons already given. Indeed there is a case to delete the new article as a redundant WP:FORK. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's too much extra in the History one to do that, I think, but it does work as a subsidiary article. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I wonder if a better (or at least more conventional) title might be History of the nude in art or History of nudity in art? The term "Nude art" seems a strange construction to me. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - the English idiom throughout is shaky. I'd prefer the former. But let's leave that for now. Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be picky so soon after my last proposed name change (to History of the nude in art) was accepted but, looking at the article again, would it not be more honest to call it History of the nude in Western art? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tucked away at the bottom there are actually sections on India (long, quite good), Japan and Africa. And Egypt & the Ancient Near East are covered. Johnbod (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Going nowhere! I will close this now. Johnbod (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia shoudl take a neutral stance, and a consensus has already been made on the section being named criticism instead of "issues" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.241.155.164 (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

??Criticism seems less neutral than issues to me. Johnbod (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2025 and 5 May 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Megdeets (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Megdeets (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Edelseider, the reason I replaced so many of the images with others was to mitigate the obvious bias that the entry demonstrates toward female iconography. I don't see why Michelangelo's male nudes should receive a single line of discussion in the course of the text, despite the fact that his David is the most famous nude in the world and is used as the main illustration in the article, while the female nudes of the much less celebrated Giorgione receive an entire paragraph. I also don't know why the entry redirects the reader to The Swimming Hole's page if it doesn't want to show the painting here, despite its historical weight. It seems that after having settled on the use of David as the main illustration, some users decided to call it a day and that they could just bombard the article with frankly repetitive images of "reclining Venuses" without us realizing what was happening. I figured some of these images could very well go away and be replaced with others without any detriment to the visual richness of the article (quite the opposite!). The text of the article is equally biased, but that is harder to change. StopRejectingMyUsername (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is nice and good, but you removed some paintings that should very well have stayed. Especially the following, which is notable for its naturalism in depicting a Biblical subject:

And if you found it not generous enough in its depiction of unshaven pubic hair, I suggest we also add that one, by Eduard Wiiralt:

In any case, there is always room for some more artworks, provided that they are adequate illustrations of the subject. Edelseider (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But please keep MOS:IMAGEREL in mind: images should illustrate the text, not decorate it. And WP:think of the reader, most of whom use mobiles. Wikipedia is not a gallery, we have Wikimedia Commons for that. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]