Talk:Naturism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please note that this Talk page is for discussion of changes to the Naturism article. Wikipedia is not censored for minors, and the images used to illustrate the subject matter may be necessary for the quality of the article. Please refer also to Wikipedia's Content Disclaimer. As the talk page guidelines state, discussions which are off-topic (not about how to improve the article) may be removed, so this is not the place for discussions about the acceptability of images of nudity on Wikipedia. Thank you for your understanding.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Naturism article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Contents 1 What now? We need a NPOV space for common elements to avoid redundancy! 1.1 Topics: 2 Nudity terminology 3 Seperate Naturism 4 notes 5 'natural' state 6 Link to the Nudist Naturist Hall of Shame 7 Links to Commercial sites 8 Talk archive

[edit] What now? We need a NPOV space for common elements to avoid redundancy!

So now we have an article called "naturism" that reads like a NPOV discussion about Social nudity, a page which has been redefined to link direct back to naturism. If that isn't a POV decision, it don't know what is.

First of all, the main editing towards a social nudity article and the inclusion of the social nudity POV comes from you. So, start to blaim yourself. KimvdLinde 02:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed personal attacks WP:NPA.

(continued) Well, I think we should move to pick up the pieces and try to come to some consensus about this mess. I think we should have a discussion about what to call an article covering all the various non-sexualized clothing free/social nudity movements/philosophies?

Sounds like a good idea, maybe start working towards consensus. And first of all, I am going to bring the current version in line with existing wikipedia guidelines. KimvdLinde 02:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell us what you are thinking of doing?User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 04:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Topics:

• Naturism
• Nudism
• Social aspects of nudity
• Social nudity
• some concept of a cultural and political movement for the advancement of nude freedoms (what would an article be called on that?)
• Free Body Culture (German)
• Where would a group like The Freedom to be Yourself, Body Freedom Collaborative, The Explicit Players and World Naked Bike Ride fit into this new naturism/nudism construct?

Also, should the NPOV aspects of all of this be better off built off of the nudity page now? Since some people here just can't get a grip of social nudity or feel uncomfortable with that term because it is too broad? That is the direction I'm starting to think about. How about nudity and politics? It seems to me nudity and culture could simply point back to nudity.

I still feel we very much need a neutral place to put overlapping information, history, terminology and all of that. There is no way in hell it is all going to live on naturism and nudism or naturism and nudism. That will not work, there are too many significant movements/events outside of naturism and nudism that are doing more for nudity in culture than those two movements by themselves. If you don't believe me, check out the upcoming edition of Nude & Natural magazine for verification. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 01:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I suggest that you take a few days off from this page and start anew with a littlebit less venom in your writing. I am not willing to deal with the way you are currently smearing people and if you want to achieve something, I suggest that you tone down. Second of all, I think you have to get away from the idea that there should be one major article covering everything. That is where you have been working towards, and that is just not going to be there as you envisioned. Welcome to Wikipedia, The encyclopedia that EVERYBODY can edit. Third, I suggest that we start to make a list of points, terms and organisations that need coverage. Fourth, I suggest that you move all articles with clothes free in the article name to more neutral pages for the time being and remove all the related terminology. KimvdLinde 02:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I will gladly take days off when discussions here are allowed to slow down a bit. What have we decided to replace clothes free with... oh wait a minute... I remember... you were changing those all to naturism right? Well maybe we should wait until we agree on something first before rushing to change article names. Also, You and YourNudeLife.com contributors have to realize I can be just as harsh and bold as you are. I want to see good articles just like you do, believe it or not. If you have a suggestion for more netural titles than "ClothesFree International, Inc People", "ClothesFree International, Inc organizations", I'd love to hear your suggestions. I don't think nudity organizations or nudity people would work. My intent when creating those articles was to relate it to non-sexualized nudity contexts, and thus I can understand why many would like to call them people in naturism or nudism. But I would like to include all those other misunderstood misfits that don't belong to those labels that are still contributing in noteable ways. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 03:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

In light of taking the suggestions serious, I will wait a few days before responding. KimvdLinde 04:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'm tempted to take a break too! :) 04:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I am serious about taking a small break, think things over and come back when the emotions of the last days are less strong. KimvdLinde 04:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Drink lots of juice. I'm going away.... starting now. No wait, one more edit... must... not... ok now... User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 04:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm; there where several (ok, me included) who suggested Nudity (social) as the over-arching title - gets away from the purely nudist/naturist argument, and I think those who have a problem with 'social nudity' can accept it as well. Short sections within that to describe & classify the aspects, perhaps a section to deal with the politic/differentiation, and where required larger 'Main Articles' for specific genres. Is this perhaps a workable compromise? Bridesmill 01:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting idea, I do like the simplicity of it, but when is Nudity (social) not Nudity? User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 04:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Could I suggest a cup of Cafe au lait? ;-) Bridesmill 03:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, and I will take a nice cut of Earl Grey tea... ;-) KimvdLinde 03:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

How about something healthy, like raw food juice? User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 03:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I prefer that in the morning, after a good night sleep! KimvdLinde 04:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Cuppa Earl Grey for Kim, Glass of freshly pressed veg juice for Dandleion, cuppa herbal tea for me, & the pot of coffee is still avail for whoever wants it; enjoy the break ;-) Bridesmill 16:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been away a couple of days, and see some of you are cooling off, like a naked dive into the ocean. I'm getting discouraged with this whole process, how the editing talk pages and user pages are set up. Hard to follow. I'm creating another Web service completely separate from Wikipedia which might be helpful, but it won't be ready for a few months. (By the way, I suggest no caffeine, since you're talking about beverages.) I'm not, though, really ready to quit, in part because I'm getting to like all of you and because we might be close to a remedy. Here's my suggested outline of articles, similar to what I wrote here many days ago:

Nudity (sometimes semi-nudity)

Nude art: not sexualized

Nude painting, drawing, sculpture, quilts, etc.

Nudity in theatre (for attending audiences)

Nudity in film, video, etc.

Nudity, social: either conforming or optional; not sexualized

Nudism, naturism, free body culture, and ancient traditional nudity

Nude communities

Nudity, domestic

Nude resorts, clubs, pools, sport, cruises, etc.

Nude outings to public beaches, parks, and wilderness

Nude religion and ceremony

Nudity on the street

Nude parades, cycling, horse riding, etc.

Nude performance art

Nudity to shock, challenge, or get attention

Nudes, independent

Pro-nudity political and legal movements

Nudity: sexualized

Nude dancing and posing, commercial

Erotica and pornography

Nudity, forced (criminal)

Korky Day 05:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nudity terminology

I'd like to suggest the creation of a terminology page relating to nudity and move references from nudity and naturism/social nudity to that page. Comments, ideas? Feel free to be bold. You know you want to. And I might take a break. There's this cute girl I just met I need to flirt with... User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 04:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

In the line with the stuff above, take the break, in about a week time or so, we all feel much more at ease to start fresh, and maybe we can work towards a consensus about what to do. KimvdLinde 04:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seperate Naturism

I think that there should be a seperate page for Naturism that address the fact that Naturism was part of a literary movement in the late 1800s (see the writings of André Gide) which also influenced the art movements of the time specifically Henri Matisse and other Fauve painters. This movement was based on the french concept of joie de vivre, the idea of revelling freely in physical sensations and direct experiences and a spontaneous approach to life. (see Gill Perry's writing on The Decorative, The Expressive and The Primitive in Primitivism, Cubism, Abstraction: The Early Twentieth Century)

[edit] notes

• exlpain
• the section near this word uses a variety of quotation marks, and in trying to edit it, I thought that I wasn't in a quote and then realized I was. Does wikipedia not use different quotation marks inside quotes to avoid this problem?
• as I can't figure out what's being quoted, I can't be sure if {The words "Clothes Free" points} should say ... "point" instead of "points".
• "the claim that some that the organizations is trying", this needs a rewrite, I can't figure out if it means "the claim _by_ some that ..." or if it means "that some organizations are ..." or "the organization is ...".
• "Some prefer also work nude, etc.", I can't be sure if this shouldn't be "Some also prefer to work in the nude" or "Some prefer also to work nude" or something. It just doesn't feel right. specifically "prefer also" feels awkward, but "work (n) nude" does not seem to fit and (inf-v) work would require "_to_ work nude".
• "temperature and the social situation allows it", probably should be "allow" not "allows"
• "the more warm areas", couldn't this be worder some other way? (warmer instead of more warm?)
• Some of this article seems to use two spaces after periods and some zero, kinda strange.
• partiarchal
• "after missionaries argued that it is more civilized". this mixes tenses without quotes this seems inappropriate.
• practise, practised - these are British spellings, perhaps this is ok, but at least some portions of the article especially the introduction are clearly American.

I'm sorry about the lack of consistency in my notes and the lack of proper wiki markup. I expect someone will respond and delete this talk item.

19:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'natural' state

are all the references to being nude as being 'natural' appropriate? in particular, the history section argues that being nude is a natural state since for the first 100,000 years or so of human history clothes were not worn. following this logic, killing each other with clubs and not speaking a common language is as natural to humans as not wearing clothes.

I'm in agreement. Natural in the sense it is being used here seems to imply that wearing clothes is unnatural. While it may have been 'natural' for humans to be naked during our first 100,000 years, it is clear that it has been 'natural' for us to wear them in the last 72,000. This is borne out in physiological changes and the widespread use of clothing amongst independent cultures. The natural state of humans is surely now clothed. I'm going to change the paragraph discussing the period of time in which humans have been wearing clothes to read that being clothed was our natural early state, not our natural state in general. JF Mephisto 22:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest avoiding the use of the term "natural state" completely, since the term "natural" is basically devoid of meaning. --Gk1256 04:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the term "natural" is being confused with the term "usual" or "common". According to Wikipedia "The term [natural] generally does not include manufactured objects" and since clothing is a manufactured object - clothing is not natural. Hence, in modern society it may be the usual or common practice to be clothed in public and still not the natural state. Of course one could argue whether being natural is superior to being unatural...

Roger Paul

[edit] Link to the Nudist Naturist Hall of Shame

• Nudist Naturist Hall of Shame

Can someone please send me the instructions about how to place a watch on a page for the continued removal of relevant links from a page? Of course the nudists want to censor this link and I'm getting tired of putting it back on this page. What is the proper wikipedia process to stop this type of vandalism? thank you. --Nikkicraft 04:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Nikki, please see WP:RFPP.

Also, you put an external link in "See also", external links for consideration should go under the header "Exernal links". Thanks User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 19:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The link might stand a better chance of remaining if its description weren't written in such a blatantly POV and inflammatory tone (and calling the removal of it "vandalism" is a further example of this). Though I have personally refrained from removing it, the link is clearly described as if it links to indisputable fact. Note I am specifically not talking about the content or character of the linked site, which does reflect POV but is allowed to. I am talking about the character of the link description in the article, which should not reflect POV (any more than the link to the 205 arguments in favor of nudism should be described as "document that proves nudism is the best thing ever"). --Gk1256 04:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There's also the issue that it appears to be your own site, Nikki. Per WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, item 3 is "A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link." Powers ^T 19:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Powers,you ask to see if other editors besides the author of the website will add the link, but they were the ones who added the link in the first place. Craft is just one of the editors who consider the link relevant and important and want it to remain. -MichaelBluejay 03:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

To those who would remove the link, I would suggest leaving the link but making sure the link description is less POV. I suspect that, despite the protest, the author of the site does not so much mind seeing the link removed repeatedly, though that's not to say that putting the link back up again and again would not get tedious. I suspect the author would like to think it is substantive content on the site making nudists uncomfortable (nb "Of course the nudists want to censor this link") rather than the fact that the site is obviously anti-nudist propaganda moreso than a criticism of nudism per se. As such, removing the link itself accomplishes little besides provoking an edit war and providing the author (and supporters) with a feeling of vindication, whether that feeling is deserved or not. --Gk1256 13:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Gk1256, might I ask you to make your comments a little less inflammatory? I'm not sure it's fair to call the Hall of Shame "propaganda" as I've never seen any criticism that it isn't, in fact, factually accurate. It has a POV, sure, but besides Wikipedia, who doesn't? As for your charges of paranoia and delusions of grandeur, nudists were attacking Craft and her work long before Wikipedia, or even public adoption of the Internet. Is it paranoia if they're really out to get you? -MichaelBluejay 14:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed it, again. It doesn't belong here. Criticism against naturism is fair, but there should be section on that criticism, an NPOV approach, and references.

The hall of shame is a POV attack on naturists in the name of people fighting Pedophilia. I'm in support of fighting pedophilia, but should we put a link to a POV article regarding pedophilia on every article in Wikipedia where there is some relationship (weak or stong) between the article and a known pedophile? Should we put a link starting on the Catholicism page? And on every religious page where a priest is referenced? After that any page related to any hobby, interest or lifestyle that any known pedophile can be associated with? Yes, we know that Nikki Craft was abused as a child, and that that person identified as a naturist. I feel compassion for her, and everyone in such a situation.

The basic fact is that there is no known, or claimed link between naturism itself (the practice) and pedophilia, and consequently no facts, studies or citations to suggest that. It just happens that there is one or more pedophile that at one time or another associated himself with naturism. Ms. Craft is a strong anti-pornography activist, and basically feels that all nudity, in any form, results in violence against women or children. She is welcome to her opinion, and to pursue her choice of activism, but 1) That activism doesn't belong here. 2) Nikki adding the link to her own site as a form of activism doesn;t belong here, and is againt WP policies.

The POV article is a disguised attack against naturism and nudism, with the guise of pedophilia.

If you feel strongly that there is a legitimate POV linking naturism and pedophilia, add a section, let all people with facts related to that (pro and con) reference the facts and summarize them in that section. That would be the correct NPOV approach.

An isolated external web article attacking naturism (Strongly one sided and POV) just doesn't cut it from an NPOV perspective. Atom 15:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Your arguments are so disingenuous that I will not discuss them in detail, only briefly. First, Wikipedia must be NPOV, but external links are not held to the same standard. Second, your repeated claims about "one" or "any person" being a pedophile in naturism or any other activity, ignores the fact that Craft's site doesn't focus on ONE convicted child molester in the nudist/naturist community, it focuses on a whole slew of them. Until you acknowledge this I will not discuss this in more detail. Third, why do we need a scientific study when Craft has factually documented dozens of cases? I'm sorry that the social science community hasn't explored this issue, but Craft's work is as close as anyone has come to doing so -- and yet you want to censor it. Finally, criticism of the site in question must be based on the facts. Is it factually accurate? Yes, it is. That's what matters at the end of the day. -MichaelBluejay 16:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion MichaelBluejay. I did not suggest censoring it, i suggested quite the opposite. A POV link affects the POV of the article. Which is why, what I suggested was, "add a section, let all people with facts related to that (pro and con) reference the facts and summarize them in that section. That would be the correct NPOV approach."

A detailed discussion of pedophilia, ways to prevent it, and the causes should be done at Pedophilia.

Ms. Craft is an abuse victim, and an pro-censorship activist, not a social scientist, researcher, or neutral party. I admire her energy, zeal, and blind passion for her work. This is ideal for someone who is an activist, but not ideal for someone who wishes to be a Wikipedia contributor working on NPOV articles. Looking at her history, her edits have not been on neutral topics of interest, but within her areas of activism, attempting to shift the POV towards her view. She has no interest, or time in contributing outside of her areas of activism.

So, again I say. If you feel there is some kind of causal link between nudity and pedophilia, then please express that appropriately. Add a section making that claim, cite the evidence that has been collected and studied. A POV reference to one side of that topic, with no place for people of differing views to state their case sways the article away from NPOV.

Atom 17:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Michaelbluejay, don't misunderstand my "propaganda" comment. For one, at least a few of the pro-nudist links are propaganda, as well, just slanted to the other side (and one of my edits to the nudist article was because the article itself had the sound of pro-nudist propaganda). Two, my point was that the site does exactly what it intends to do: evoke strong responses, but these responses are not necessarily because the content is especially relevant or damning as much as it is because the content is sensational (and, I would argue, intentionally so). Three, factual accuracy has no bearing on whether something is propaganda. Take, for example, the fake propaganda in the dihydrogen monoxide hoax - it lists a number of perfectly accurate facts about water, but it presents them in such a way as to evoke an outraged response from the reader to convince them that H2O should be banned. Much like the dihydrogen monoxide hoax, the Hall of Shame presents a number of facts, but that doesn't mean it's presenting all the information.

I never said Craft was "paranoid," simply using censorship of her work as a "proof" that there must really be something to her claims that the problem she crusades against is highly pervasive and that nudists "have their heads in the sand" about the problem. I would dispute the accuracy of that "proof", but it's unquestionably a useful tactic in the face of censorship. My point here was to say that any nudists who think they're helping their cause by removing the link are not - without some legitimate Wikipedia reason for getting rid of the link, it simply lends strength to the censorship-as-proof tactic. --Gk1256 19:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I do apologize if I have misunderstood any of my fellow editors. In any event, I think the link to the Hall of Shame is highly relevant, and important. The article's value is decreased by removing it. -MichaelBluejay 04:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links to Commercial sites

Could someone make a policy statement about how commercial links should be presented. I can see a value to having a link to someonesfavouritenaturistresort.co but not under the guise of a footnote describing the use of a word. I can see there is an argument for no selfpromotion, but this does remove a lot of value from the article as they describe a world that is far removed from local experience. If this is wrong, is a link to a publication of a collection of links acceptable? Items in the article could refer to locales that are best described by accessing the commercial site of a well known company operating there. Should we come clean, and have a subsection Wikipediaist favourite commercial sites? ClemRutter 09:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk archive

I've archived most of the contents of this talk page. The links to the archived material can be found at the top. I've tried not to remove any ongoing discussion from this page, but if I have, please simply copy the relevant discussion from the archive and repost it here. Robotman1974 22:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)