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

Nudity Top‑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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Sexology and sexuality High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wikipedia is not censored, but there needs to be a consensus regarding when an image crosses a line between being encyclopedic or illustrating the text; or being gratuitous. The image of a group of children on a beach in which one boy presents his backside to the camera, and another of a boy urinating are gratuitous; not adding any useful information. The former is also redundant, since there was already a photo of children on a beach. WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to raise a concern regarding the inclusion of several photographs in this article that depict identifiable minors in private or everyday contexts (e.g. bathing, swimming, routine activities).

While these images may be historically sourced, they do not appear to add material encyclopedic value beyond what is already conveyed in the text. The article’s discussion of cultural or historical practices can be fully understood without visual depiction of real children, and the images are largely illustrative rather than explanatory.

Given Wikipedia’s emphasis on relevance and avoidance of undue content, I question whether inclusion of multiple such images is necessary, particularly when they do not materially increase reader understanding. I therefore propose removing or reducing these images, or replacing them with non-identifying alternatives where appropriate.

I am interested in other editors’ views on whether the current number and nature of these images is justified from an encyclopedic standpoint.

BluePorts (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m raising a question regarding one of the images currently included in this article. Because this is a GA-class article, I wanted to address the issue on the Talk page rather than proceed further without discussion.

The image in question depicts minors in a way that raised concerns for me about appropriateness and necessity under Wikipedia’s image-use policies and general child-protection considerations. I previously removed it for that reason, but it was restored without an accompanying explanation.

Could someone clarify the policy-based rationale for retaining this image, specifically what encyclopedic value it provides that cannot be met by a less problematic alternative? Given GA standards, I think it’s worth ensuring the image choice is clearly defensible. BluePorts (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not being identified clearly, I must assume that the image being referred to is of boys showering in an East German kindergarten in 1987. Since the image was part of the article when I nominated it for GA review, having also created the article, no explanation for its restoration is needed. The opposite is true; without a compelling violation of law, an image should remain pending consensus in support of its removal. The same applies to the protection of "identifiable minors" personality rights. (Note: I was writing an explanation for my first restoration of the images when that change was reverted.) WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am again restoring the content of a GA. Further deletions without consensus will be assumed to be vandalism, an will lead to administrative action. WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify what is meant by identifiable relating also to your above. If an image clearly identified an individual's identity I would agree but if it's simply because a face or comparable characteristic is shown then it amounts more to censorship. As for relevance I also ask, if it wasn't a minor involved would it be seen as adding value to the article? If yes then it seems to be more about being a minor which is also censorship.

On the point of the number of images I can agree in principle that usage should be judicial as too many images turns it into a gallery rather than an article of value. Drew McNish (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Being identifiable refers to personality rights of people in a photograph if they are recognizable, and the photo is being used for commercial purposes. Personality rights generally do not apply to photos taken in public and used for informational purposes. If there is an issue, it can be remedied by blurring the face that might be identifiable, as was done for this image: . None of these conditions apply to the images now in this article. WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]