Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wakedream (talk | contribs) at 06:28, 24 December 2007 (agree). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please note that this Talk page is for discussion of changes to the Naturism article. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your understanding.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

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)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

Separate Naturism

I think that there should be a separate 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)

I don't know who proposed this (I'm too tired to look through the history right now), but I agree, as I commented in Talk:Naturism#Merge_to_Naturism_and_Nudism Wakedream (talk) 06:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

'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 Misplaced Pages "The term 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

Not at all. Natural in no way means "usual" or "common". Its extremely uncommon to go naked in public in many cultures. What people are going for when they say "natural" is some arbitrary sense that being without man-made things is better. Obviously saying that "natural" is better is complete garbage (and subjective as well) - but nevertheless, that is an argument that *is* used not only by nudists and naturists, but by millions of people who don't think through the fact that "nature" isn't all happy and wonderful. If we talk about "natural" on wikipedia, it better be framed in somebody elses words. Fresheneesz 04:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Not only is it "extremely uncommon to go naked in public in many cultures", but actually I can't think of any cultures in which it IS common to go (entirely) naked in public. That tribe in Venezuela (I forget its name) whose members traditionally wore only arm bands, some body paint, and a string around the waist may look "naked" to us, but these tribesmen themselves were embarrassed to the point of humiliation if they were caught in public without their armbands and waist strings. And yes, Japanese men and women used to bathe together in their public baths and hot springs, but it was bad manners not to cover your genitals with one hand when you got out of the bath, even when the opposite sex wasn't around. (Actually, when I think about it, I'm not even sure that counts as nude bathing. A modern nudist would probably think that having to conceal your genitals would defeat the whole point of nudism.)

As far as I've been able to figure out, modern nudists are the only people in history who are into going TOTALLY nude in public with no restrictions.

As far as ancient culture is concerned, there's no way of telling, when we explore fossil remains of early humans, what they wore or didn't wear. Clothes aren't preserved the way bones, stone tools, and other such objects are preserved. We don't have any way whatsoever of telling whether our distant ancestors wore animal skins or furs or nothing at all. Nudists are always assuming our so-called primitive ancestors went naked, but there's no evidence. There are still aboriginal peoples in tropical areas who wear a lot less than we do, but I've never been able to find any evidence of any peoples who go completely nude, except in rather rare ritual or protest situations. For example, there are naked monks in India and there was naked baptism, etc., in ancient times. But those exceptions prove the rule.

It seems to me that nudists don't need any argument about "naturalness" to defend their practices anyway. I say, let 'em take off their clothes if they feel like it. Why should they have to defend themselves? Tom129.93.17.135

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 Misplaced Pages, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Misplaced Pages editors decide whether to add the link." Powers 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 Misplaced Pages, who doesn't? As for your charges of paranoia and delusions of grandeur, nudists were attacking Craft and her work long before Misplaced Pages, 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 don't know if the site is now factually accurate. I do know that it took me many months and tens of hours of effort and repeated requests before a libelous article was removed. If Nikki had been in the UK then it would have been my solicitor who dealt with it. Malcolm Boura 19 Aug 2007.

Factually accurate does not mean that it is not grossly misleading. A similar list of abuse cases can be compiled against any group with more than a small number of members. Malcolm.boura 18:35, 19 August 2007 (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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

Illustrations

I have serious misgivings about the two artistically lovely photographs of young women displayed as though they are both engaged in forms of naturism, the intention of the photograph seems to fall outside the agreed definition of naturism. As a test, I ask myself could I today take such a photograph on a landed naturist site in UK of France- to the horse shot the answer is probably yes with the consent of owner, model and publisher- to the second the answer is probably no.

This

would pass the test and be more illustrative. Or

ClemRutter 11:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

There are three points to bear in mind

• The Images should illustrate points in the article-- not just beautiful young women.
• The images should reflect 'mainstream naturism'-- if they represent 'non mainstream naturism' but an interesting 'aside' they should have a prominence that reflects there importance.
• Naturism strives hard not to be ageist or sexist- images should attempt to do the same.

ClemRutter 23:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles a Mess

Could someone explain to me why it's necessary to have two nearly identical articles about very similar subjects, where one page's discussion link is the other article? This is a mess. Merge the pages or separate them. Don't half-merge-half-separate. This is garbage. If they are indeed separate subjects, their articles shouldn't be so close to identical. Also, the nudism article's discussion page is not the naturism article. Someone fix this. Ayengar 20:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But it was on and around 16th April 2006- please read Talk:Naturism/Archive 3. Everything else is repetition.ClemRutter 19:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Horse photo is clearly for titillation purposes...

How many photos of naked people does this page really need? Wouldn't the several group shots suffice? What does this photo really add to the article? Seethaki 13:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This page is really difficult to start practising your editing skills. If you look at my posts above about the nature of illustrations needed you can conjecture my POV. But my POV is Eurocentric- and even the simplest terms have different nuances to different editors. The poster POV is that the image demonstrates the freedom of naturism- and the natural relationship between the two mammals illustrated. If you look at the history log, you'll see there has been a long debate on what an acceptable caption should be. The image is over dominant as it is in portrait rather than landscape form. The image problem is enhanced as it is custom and practice in INF approved European sites not to take photographs other than of your own family, so CC photos are rare. If you look on Commons you will find a dearth of suitable photographs. If you check Misplaced Pages policies, using photos where a member of the public could be identified is deeply frowned on. To remove a photo needs a solid reason and if you have one you should put it forward for discussion- and keep watching this page.ClemRutter 19:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

ClemRutter 19:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you need photos in this article anyway? To illustrate what nudity is? Doesn't everybody know what nude humans look like? What's the point? Tom129.93.17.135 20:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot in what you say. I see no point in a photo of horse carrying a naked young woman- it doesn't illustrate the article. A photograph that reflects the age/gender balance of a site- or the facilities and security of a site has value. Most naturist venues deprecate the possession of a camera which makes encyclopedic photos difficult even if you wish to take one that omits people. In a shot that leave a recognisable image then a model release form would be essential to the management even if Wikimedia is less strict.ClemRutter 18:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The photo seems to be from http://www.arcor.de/palb/album_popup.jsp?albumID=3729577&pos=18&firstVisit=0&interval=0&noInfos=0&stop=0Wiki3857 00:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If you follow that link, you see a photo with a clear copyright statement- to a Michael Zauels. The site shows a group of women and selected horses in a glade taken on several days throughout the year. Each photo's copyrighted, there are at least 3 photographers. Not one of these names is the name of the uploader- Though Micheal is the forename of de:Benutzer:Freehorseriding ! While together the photos seem to illustrate one aspect of naturism the copyright of the photo seems suspect. The commons shot is the same size as the copyrighted shot- not a crop to remove the copyright. If freehorseriding is M.Zauel he can choose to use different copyrights.

Looking further- there was a lengthy discussion in 2004/5 on de:Diskussion:Nacktreiten resulting in the article de:Nacktsport which defines an aspect of FKK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClemRutter (talk • contribs) 11:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Potential Problem: Article Cloned

The Nudism article used to be a redirect to the Naturism article, but the redirect was replaced with what appears to be an exact copy-and-paste of the Naturism article. Was this forking of the article meaningful or desireable? Discuss. Also, I can see some variations to a possible solution:

1. (current situation) The Nudism article is cloned from Naturism, then subtle changes are made to both. What for?
2. (previous situation) Nudism redirects to Naturism
3. Naturism redirects to Nudism
4. Naturism and Nudism both redirects to Nudism and naturism

1 doesn't make any sense to me so far, #2 and #3 are both good solutions, and #4 has its pros and cons: the title is neutral on word choice (good) but perhaps too verbose (bad). --MangoCurry 22:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I always thought it would be better to name the article nudism and naturism. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 23:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I do see that the forking is sensible (it wasn't me who did the fork)- a lot more work needs to done to separate the articles. Nudism has a wider meaning than naturism, and characters like Spencer Tunnick and Vincent Bethel belong in Nudism but not naturism. I am prepared to be bold, but it will take a little time as I want to use the work Marc Alain Descamps (1987) as a source of references but I need to translate the relevant sections (French) first and it will take a little time. This book gives a well thought out structure for the sub-headings.

So I am proposing

#5 accept the clone but reduce the Naturism article to reflect the definition given in the INF 1974 Agde declaration. Material axed would remain in the Nudism article- which may merge with social nudity if it isn't substantial enough to stand on its own. Specifically naturist material would be purged from the nudism article.ClemRutter 18:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This is all utter nonsense. "Nudism has a wider meaning than naturism, and characters like Spencer Tunnick and Vincent Bethel belong in Nudism but not naturism." Oh really? Please cite your source for that. Vincent Bethell is not a naturist or a nudist. He has been very clear about that. Spencer Tunick is also not a naturist or nudist. Social nudity would be a far better choice to discuss issues that relate to people going without clothes in general in non-sexualized, gender mixed contexts. The INF definition does not reflect how people view naturism and nudism in every country. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 01:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we are far closer than you believe. I agree totally with your comments re ST and VB regarding naturism. (My point is that no sources do demonstrate a link)I agree on Social Nudity being the best place for that discussion. I accept that Agde is not universal and that needs to be made clear as well. It is however the one basic international definition that we have. We are talking about a movement that is riven with schisms/ splits so that is to be expected.

My post supported the fork (I believe you initiated that in February). Your expertise is West Coast US- mine in European DE FR EN which I see as complementary. The problem in hand is differentiating the Naturism/Nudism pages and I believe that it is possible- but as i said in my post, I have a few other nonWiki tasks to see to and a book written in French to digest.

Feel free to continue this dialogue on my talk page ClemRutter 09:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Terminlogy

I have had a look at the specific terms and made some changes. Please don't be offended- they are a starting point. Like every paragraph here, they were badly written so needed to be edited. Dialects and usage may be different elsewhere. Rather than being Bold I have added in line comments- I suspect that some terms are redundant and were very site/age/ specific and really are not notable. ClemRutter 11:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Politics and the Law

I do think that we do need a section explaining the law as it relate to individual countries and we can hardly call that politics. The information is on the net it just needs to collated. ClemRutter 11:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up the article

I have started with the lead paragraph- and removed or move most of it using the principle

   * The lead needs to adequately summarize the content of the article.
   * There should not be anything in the lead not mentioned in the rest of the article.

I have started to edit the terminology section, as mentioned above. I have examined the references given, and was concerned. One appears to be commercial spam- and the companies name infiltrates the rest of the section, and has been introduced into other Social nudity articles. One refers to an author who may be producing an article some time in 2006, but we don't have it, bit difficult to verify! The author appears to be connected to American magazine that is critical of their national organisation. I have inline commented my concerns- can someone help.

The INF references that I have added are sound but confusing- as they are bad translations and vary from one INF source to another. The Social Nudity movement seems to be perpetually at war with itself- which is probably a characteristic of all voluntary organisations. Please contradict me, if need be - but do give a verifiable reference.

I have started to address each of the terms, and I left inline comments on terms that sound plausible- but I have never met.

If there are no negative comments I will 'prune' the Philosophy and Practice section next. That will be bold. I will start by erasing statements that lack citations (after looking for them naturally) then comment out other non supported 'off topic' statements, leave them a while then remove them then I will try and piece the remnants into readable English.

Thinking ahead History Law etc, As so much of the stuff is Country Specific, would it be a good idea to spawn of a series of articles Naturism in Europe, Naturism in Australasia, Naturism and Nudism in North America? I was thinking that Phil Vallack, and David Martins books could be useful source material and the other Wikipedias . ClemRutter 23:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

A update. I have been working on the article in a sandbox. It is a major piece of work. I am currently, cross refering to other FFK type articles in German/French/NL etc. Vivre Nu by MarcAlain Descamps has been very helpful,as has James Woycke's Au Naturel, which is also very entertraining. Though the changes will be bold, I have commented out irrelevant text rather than delete, and as the edit has progressed most has been reintroduced but in entirely different sections ClemRutter 10:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Straw man arguments

This article contains many straw man fallacies. Basically, I object to the implication throughout the article that most people consciously view the body as shameful. This is probably untrue, as most textile traditions are passed down through generations without thought, and to accuse everyone in "the textile world" of sex-negativity and low-body image is absurd. 72.64.142.97 22:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC) See below. Please help to edit. ClemRutter 16:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

New Structure

I have been bold The previous article was a mess and impossible to edit. It was restricted by its own structure. This is the structure I decided to use. I have deleted very little just commented it out. I have included suggestions from the talk page. I have excised padding and stuff that seemed to be off focus.I have referenced from books written in Canada and France, back copies of BN. I have developed this in sandbox. 3.2.1-3.2.5 are from the existing page. Philosophy and Practice has gone. Philosophy as been restructed. Practice has been distributed in Naturism Today and 6.1. All -isms articles have a Criticism section so I have written one.

   * 1 Naturism Today
         o 1.1 Types of Naturism
         o 1.2 Social nudism
         o 1.3 Nudism in the wild
         o 1.4 Individual nudism
         o 1.5 Campaigning naturism
   * 2 Philosophy
         o 2.1 Gymnosophy
         o 2.2 Naturist ideals
         o 2.3 Naturism and the Romantics
         o 2.4 Naturism for Health
         o 2.5 Naturism and Equality
   * 3 History of social nudity
         o 3.1 Historical era
         o 3.2 The spread of philosophy and the rise of formal communities
               + 3.2.1 Germany
               + 3.2.2 France
               + 3.2.3 United Kingdom
               + 3.2.4 United States
               + 3.2.5 Canada
         o 3.3 Free Beaches
         o 3.4 Festival Naturism
   * 4 Demographics
   * 5 Economics
   * 6 Issues in social nudity
         o 6.1 Problems for the naturist community
         o 6.2 Naturist and Nudist magazines
   * 7 Criticism
   * 8 See also
   * 9 References
   * 10 Further reading
   * 11 External links
         o 11.1 National Organisations
         o 11.2 Organization and landed site directories
         o 11.3 Other

Todo

• Copyedit the whole text.
• Rewrite the Lead section so it is a better precis of the page.
• All sections upto 3.3 are relatively complete- but the sections after can be rather thin. Particularly 4, 5, 6, and 7, need to be added to by experienced editors.
• There is no section The Sociology of Social Nudism
• I have refered to the page The History of Social Nudism but I have written one this could be a time line built up from the french page with some FCN imput.
• There needs to be a section 3.2.6 Croatia, and may be ones for South America and Australia
• Georef named sites
• There needs to be a page Naturism and the Law- like the history section it needs to be in geographical subsections. The italian one is written on it:wiki
• There is a need images in Commons to be released by national organisation with a suitable copyright- so we can accurately illustrate the page.
• Many German reference link to de:wiki- these articles need to be translated for en:wiki
• Many references are adequate- but maybe not the most authorative available
• Many language links, link to a Nudism page that back link to en:Nudism which has been reforked.
• To work towards GA status.

ClemRutter 16:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge to Naturism and Nudism

OK, we have two articles with almost word for word the same text. I know there has been battles in the past if the article should be called "Naturism" or "Nudism", or if there should be two separate articles. Let's merge these under a neutral title, "Naturism and Nudism" for now and then if in the future the text has enough details showing differences between the topics then they can be split into separate articles. Of course, if there is concensus, the title can also be "Nudism and Naturism" If something isn't done we are likely to see one of the current articles nominated for deletion as a duplicate. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 13:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

With the greatest respect- have you looked at the two articles since I made my major posting on 3rd of December 2007. The Nudism article was last forked from the article in August is 40 000 characters- the Naturism article is 73,349.

Nudism has 10 reference sources, naturism has 54 reference sources. There is no way that these articles are now remotely similar- as you will see if you read the section above and the history.

The main problems with the old Naturism article, were

• the subsection heading were wrong and were constricting the editors
• unreferenced POVs- plain simple lack of rigour.
• the very real problem of different nuance of meaning each side of the pond.

I have addressed these three issues, and suggest that adding yet another page name is not helpful. There is sufficient work to do on areas of nudity to keep everyone busy as I have suggested.

ClemRutter (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

User:StuffOfInterest, your edit history on Nudism goes back to the 3rd December 2007 when you did a RVV, and you have arrived today on the Naturism page, your intervention may be kindly, but I suggest that reading the discussion pages and history logs would have given you a deeper understanding of the issues. Further, pages with an 'and' like 'rhubarb and custard' always get split at a later date into 'rhubarb' and 'custard', and your suggested title is not seen as neutral throughout the states, nevermind in Europe.

Possibly you could rethink you idea and remove the unhelpful tags.

ClemRutter (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You really should look more than one page back in the history on both articles. Also, your tone is taking on qualities of WP:OWN. Plain and simple, the two articles still have a lot of text which is significantly overlapped and could easily be handled in one article with sections describing any differences between the two terms. My belief is still that for a majority of people the two terms are synonyms. I am not discounting the work you have done on Naturism, which is why I proposed a merge rather than deleting one of the aritcles. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that they should be merged as they are essentially the same subject. I don't know why they were split in the first place. In case of conflict due to the page title, I would suggest putting the words in alphabetical order, and using lower case, i.e. Naturism and nudism. │_projectors 21:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think "social nudity" would be better. We had a huge controversy about this within the last year or so. Look back in the discussion archives. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 01:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandelion1 (talk • contribs)

I remember seeing the past debate but I didn't get involved. I think "social nudity" is the wrong title to use because it's not always social, i.e. home naturism. It's best to use a title that reflects the most common name(s) for it. │_projectors 18:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You have not proven one is more common than the other. The words mean different things in different countries. Using those words also does not cover events like World Naked Bike Ride and protests. Social nudity is far better. Non social nudity aspects can go in the nudity article. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 21:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandelion1 (talk • contribs)

I wasn't trying to prove that one is more common than the other, which is why I was agreeing with the usage of both in the title. See the section on types of naturism, it says "Naturism is practised in many ways; Marc Alain Descamps, in his study written in French, classified the types as: individual nudism, nudism within family, nudism in the wild, social nudism" which implies that not all naturism is social, AND it uses the word nudism. Neither article claims that the words have different meanings in different countries, at least not that I can see (if it is mentioned, please can you point it out?). The articles are practically the same, so the meanings can't be that different, if they are indeed different as you claim. Also, see Oddeivind's comment below. │_projectors 22:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The two words, naturism and nudism, are, as far as I understand them synoymous. However, naturism is the most common word. It would be strange if the article were called naturism and nudism, as the two are the same word. It would be like you had an article named liberty and freedom. The most natural solution would be to call the article "naturism" and then to redirect nudism to naturism. --Oddeivind (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, that does make more sense. │_projectors 20:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

To me, having an article called Naturism and one called Nudism that both focus on being naked in a group is redundant. But the words are different: my Merriam Webster's states that "naturism" is a synonym for both "naturalism" (which is both an art movement and a theory denying the supernatural) and for "nudism." It also means the worship of nature. The word "nudism," however, is only defined as the practice of going nude in sexually mixed groups and in secluded places (I'm paraphrasing). Perhaps we could have Naturism (disambiguation) that could link to various articles including one called Nudism, which would merge the Naturism and Nudism articles. As much of the material and links in each article are duplicated in the other, I don't think merging them will necessarily make an overly large article. Wakedream (talk) 06:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)