Talk:Naturism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Nudity (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nudity, which collaborates on articles related to nudity and naturism topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sexuality (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Textile/Textilist[edit]

This edit favours "textilist" but I've only ever heard "textile". This talk page mainly uses "textile". What do others think? SueTwo (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that it is a matter of location. I have heard both- in the past it was always textilist, and more recently it has become more mixed. I am totally tainted as I am French speaker, and most of the FKK conversations I have with the English refer to places in France, and otherwise they are non native English speakers. There are sentences where I would use one rather than the other- I think I would tend to use Textile in a more derogatory sense- and textilist in a more positive way. If Malcolm Bourra is watching he might have some advice to give. --ClemRutter (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Until reading the Wikipedia page, I had never come across "textilist". In UK, "textile" is used almost universally in naturist magazines, conversations and forums, and in fiction featuring naturism (eg Adam Mars-Jones' story 'Summer Lighting' and Alan Palmer's 'The Reluctant Nudist'). Some UK naturists avoid the term because they feel it has negative / derogatory connotations, but I've never seen "textilist" suggested as an alternative. Checking online, a dictionary.com search for "textile" includes one definition "non-nudist", while a dictionary.com search for "textilist" finds no definitions at all for "textilist". Google does find around 6000 pages in English using "textilist" as well as either "nudist" or "naturist", but this is insignificant compared to over 1 million pages in English using "textile" with either "nudist" or "naturist". Perhaps we could have some authoritative citations / examples to support mention of "textilist"? Even if my (and others') experience of naturist/nudist terminology is limited and deficient, and the main article should indeed refer to "textilist" as the primary simple term for a non-nudist or for non-naturist behaviour, why eliminate reference to the very widely used term "textile"? Tim Forcer (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Not a big deal, if you have some references do an edit. If you want to talk about over a glass of wine- asK for me at reception at Monta. Both terms are used so just report it and reference it. --ClemRutter (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. Done. Tim Forcer (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

New suggestion - the level of detail devoted to textile / textilist (etc) is, perhaps, excessive in the main page. Should it be transferred to section "labels, associations and terminology" in Issues in social nudity? Tim Forcer (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I am leaving big decisions until I have boosted by vitamin D levels at Monta and Agde. --ClemRutter (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Parking a reference[edit]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/22/german-nudist-groups-memberships-shrink --ClemRutter (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Criticism (July 2011 comment)[edit]

Criticism subsection is a joke in its current state. Someone should clean it up a bit. 83.5.152.43 (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

File:At the nudist beach.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:At the nudist beach.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Appeal process started[edit]

I have now changed this speedy deletion request into a standard nomination so that it can be discussed here. I imagine most watchers of this page will want to keep it; if so please go to the image talk page and vote to "keep". AdeMiami (talk) 08:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion pictures please[edit]

Rather than having a slow edit war, please discuss changes, --Nuujinn (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

This image does not appear to be about naturism. Neither do the uploader's other contibutions. If an image is not self-evidently naturist, the article should cite evidence that it is relevant. Or putting it another way, what does the image add to an article about naturism? SueTwo (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Could not one say the same of [1]? If I go skinny dipping, am I then a naturist? Or [2], since nude models are a common subject of art? Or [3], as nude saunas are common? I don't have an opinion one way or another, really, but tend to prefer fewer pictures in articles. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks for intervening Nuujinn. The naturism page needs images of naturism as defined in the article. Periodical we get an inappropriate image that a user will claim represents naturism to them (POV), we had one of a woman on a horse that some user was very fond of- but it did not illustrate the article it needed to go. This image is not as naturism as we know it. If you examine the EXIF data you will see it was taken in late October- in weather conditions so foul that a flash was need at midday. The pose, on a easily framed rock suggest that this was a self portrait taken on a time delay, which would explain the need to find some cold damp obscured woodland. There is none of the detritus one would expect in a genuine naturist environment and particularly no sign of a towel which would always be used when sitting down. Look further at the definition in the lead Naturism or nudism is a cultural and political movement practising, advocating and defending social nudity.. this image just doesn't fit the article. --ClemRutter (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Your questions.
  • Photo 1. Social nudity- such was practised while swimming at Manchester Grammar School in the 1970s- demonstrates that single sex social nudity used to be the norm-- the image has a place but is not required and necessary.
  • If you go skinny dipping you are engaging in a naturist activity- if you do it regularly then I would define you as naturist. An interesting borderline case is where a group of friends (20s -30s) regularly skinny dip together, but not when their are others of the same inclination present. Further many youngsters do use the term skinny-dip but would never say they were naturist. Youngsters don't join organisations. Germany is different, kids will undress happily on a beach and cloth to enter the pool- or for a laugh one will not bother. This will continue into adult hood. They have the letters FKK which is broader than naturism.
  • Carl Larsson- I can't see the connection- a better image would be the one of his son diving[4]. Or even [5].
  • The Sauna- yes, it is poor, when looking to remove it I couldn't find any images of saunas to use. Interesting you say that saunas are nude environments- in Germany [6] this is true but France and UK the wearing of clothes is normal. Wierd.
The major difficulty with illustrating this article is that it is an unwritten rule that you do not use a camera in a Naturist area- so no photographs are available. All the land is private and the owners make restrictions to respect the privacy of their guests. The shots we can use are fairly vintage, and limited to lounging on sun-kissed beaches- or non naturist shots that feature paid models. Hope that helps. --ClemRutter (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I disagree that photography (setting aside that of-and-by the photographer) and naturism are distinct. While it is true that some naturists, some naturist clubs/resorts/venues and some naturist locations discourage or prohibit photography, others don't (or will explicitly allow photography of one's own "group"/"family"). Naturist magazines are full of photographs of naturists - even after discounting images taken specifically for publication/advertising/promotion and images showing only one or two naturists. In passing, please note that there is no rule which states that naturists can't be professional models. For the purposes of illustrating this Wikipedia page, I suggest that readers are perfectly capable of visualising solo nudity (eg in the woods, in a sauna), and the main object of the illustrations should be to show "typical" / "example" naturist situations, reflecting the "social nudity" which characterises naturism: a beach, a club, a campsite, miniten, shuffle-board, a resort bar, a venue's pool, a yacht. Such photos, I suggest, would ideally show a mix of ages and bodytypes - the norm in my experience of naturism - which might help to demonstrate to the reader that naturists comprise more than just "lissom lovely" and tanned Adonis types seen in advertising (eg holiday brochures). Like others, I don't feel the solo-in-the-woods photo is a helpful image for illustrating a Wikipedia page about naturism in general. If individuals wish to promote their individual POV, and to illustrate that POV, that's fine, but Wikipedia is not an appropriate vehicle for such promotion (in my view) - so specific illustrations as well as text should be acceptable (nay, welcomed) by several or many contributors, not just one. In that context, the beach photo which someone objected to recently seems to have a consensus in favour, solo-in-the-woods does not.Tim Forcer (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I took the liberty of moving the skinny dipping pic to the section discussing that activity, seems more appropriate there. Regarding the sauna, I think the german pic is more appropriate. In the US, mostly people wear bathing suits and sometimes just a towel, and nude facilities are rare. I'm familiar with German practices. So I think it is safe to say common, not pervasive. The Larsson painting should go, I think. I guess point I'd make is that naturism and public nudity aren't the same thing, really. Kids running about naked aren't naturists, any more than I am when I step onto the deck in the morning with my coffee in the buff, or a model posing nude for a painting. As you suggest, it is a social activity, and I think the pictures should reflect that. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Criticism[edit]

This section has been flagged with a POV tag. Is this because:

  • The user believes all Criticism sections should be deleted
  • The user has found the references to be unsafe
  • The user has located newer notable research
  • The user feels his POV should have been given more weight that afforded by the research quoted.

Opinions please.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the section. Can the person who added the tag explain why he/she did so? --Roly (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
The section has nothing intrinsically wrong with it, except that it is not really about criticism of naturism. I suspect the title may have been correct once, but the content morphed away? Not checked that, though. The content looks adequate, but might be better distributed in other sections where it may be more directly relevant. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

H&E[edit]

What does this abbreviation refer to ?Kdammers (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Health and EfficiencyIdreamofJeanie (talk) 07:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Clothing-optional communities?[edit]

While stub-sorting the TV show Buying Naked I wanted to add a link or two, but Clothing optional redirects to Nude beach. Is there any Wikipedia content about "Clothing-optional communities", or would someone out there like to create such an article, on such communities (as opposed to holiday resorts). PamD 13:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. But do they really exist? Agde and Monta have a high number of most the year round residents- but residence seems to be a spin off from the holiday resort function. The first 10 googles are hardly notable- where is the starting point? -- Clem Rutter (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Restructuring[edit]

I can see what you are trying to do- but the most important line in the article is the INF definition and that needs to be above history. I agree the heading is naff. Any thoughts? -- Clem Rutter (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

There are now significant problems with this article. The content seems to have escaped the structure I am proposing is to spin off some subsidiary articles and tighten the content (cull) of this page. Any thoughts before I start? -- Clem Rutter (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Go for it. Encyclopaedic detail has its place, but I'm not at all sure that this single page is such a place. Can the content be split (sensibly, reasonably, appropriately) into some sort of tree? Tim Forcer (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
My thoughts are that all be country sections should become stand alone articles. The section on social nudity can stand alone as an article- just leaving the bits that fit with in the Agde declaration. I will cull unrefrenced text or try to direct it to a new page. If there is already an article on a topic- I will write a synopsis- and transfer the text over to that article or talk page. Any alternative thoughts? -- Clem Rutter (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
This seems as good a place to start as any. History would be another? Tim Forcer (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Started to tidy the references- and disentangle the structure- more to come. Please comment. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Problem with "Naturist Ideals" section.[edit]

Despite other parts of the article repeatedly stating that the philosophical reasons behind wanting to not wear clothes vary from one naturist organization to the other, this section lists some very specific, often highly controversial, and sometimes not even related to nudity ideals (I.E. favoring a unified world government) as being especially associated with naturism, without citing any sources. I already added a bunch of citation needed tags to the especially questionable statements, but I suspect it may be better to audit and heavily refactor or simply remove the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.198.128.191 (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. They are probably the ideas of one particular individual (who may or may not be a naturist). They are certainly not all my own ideals and are mostly irrelevant to naturism. --Roly (talk) 10:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
This is a problem section- it contains material added 7+ years ago. We are limited to printed sources,this is discussed by Descamps in his 1987 book but I haven't got much else on by bookshelf. I agree it is dated and reflects a moment in time- and worse still it takes as its source, his 1972 work, Le Nu et le Vêtement. Have we got any more modern notable academic source that is not behind a paywall? I see the section as being important but it needs a haircut and references- as we can't just edit by anecdote. As you see I split the article as a first stage to cleaning it up- and have established three Naturism by Country articles- and directed the US section to the Talk:American Association for Nude Recreation. These can be used for more country specific experiences. Wikipedia prefers proses to lists so that is another problem. As we edit this article further the changes are likely to become more controversial and the talk page will become more useful in establishing consensus. So what should this section say? How should it say it?-- Clem Rutter (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd be tempted to remove the section completely, but that might be going a bit far. It could certainly be drastically pruned leaving only those bits that are relevant to naturism and can be shown to be a general concensus among most, if not all, naturists. Not an easy task, I admit. --Roly (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
The temptation is there but I think it is un-important in the UK but was very important in the former DDR, and used to persuade Governments of the benign nature of Naturism thus leading to changes in the law. Also it helps explain why there is a degree of fellowship found on sites, in clubs and on FKK beaches. Some are can be slashed- they are just page fillers- but I think the best procedure is to copy them over here and then invite editors to justify their inclusion- and then seek to back it up with a reference. It comes down to three lists:
All naturist believe / Most naturists believe list/ A majority of naturists also believe/ Some naturists are also passionate about

-- Clem Rutter (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Naturist ideals- resolving the issue[edit]

It is thought that most of this list has little to do with naturist ideals. Please indicate which of these we should keep or delete and offer a suitable reference or reason. Remember this is a discussion of ideals may have been adopted- not just ones personal philosophy though feel free to add that at the bottom

  • Individuals have formed nudist groups for a variety of specific purposes.[1] It is generally agreed by naturist organisations that eroticism and blatant sexuality have no place in naturism and are, in fact, antithetical to its ideals.
  • Keep Clem Rutter (talk)
  • Keep Roly (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - unless these matters fit better with early organised naturism history? Tim Forcer (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Clem Rutter (talk). Research into Vitamin D.
  • Keep Roly (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - note social health benefits (societies which are more naturist have lower rates of negative indicators such as underage pregnancy and abortion rates? Tim Forcer (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, true for some, loads of teetotal clubs. (Personally, I am a great believer in Wine Boxes bought from the local Cave Co-operative, with a choice beween Ricard and 51) Clem Rutter (talk)
  • Delete Roly (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep in association with 'rapport with natural world' information, ie as an indication of an area where some naturists took/take a stronger line on what aspects of 'nature' are implicit in 'naturism'? Tim Forcer (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Rapport with other humans — equality and respect.
  • Keep Clem Rutter (talk)
  • Keep Roly (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral. While, on average, naturists are nicer than non-naturists, there are some stinkers. Naturist forums are no stranger to flame wars. Tim Forcer (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
    • An anti-war,
  • children should be respected as equals instead of being patronised[citation needed]
  • delete Clem Rutter (talk)
  • Keep Roly (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - this should be standard, not anything special about naturism. Tim Forcer (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • delete move to social nudity Clem Rutter (talk)
  • Delete Roly (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Move subject to recognition that this place exists only in some religions. Tim Forcer (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Dress — nudism, as clothes are unnecessary
  • clothes build social barriers.
  • delete Clem Rutter (talk)
  • Keep Roly (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clothes are one form of adornment (as well as providing protection and comfort). Adornment in its broadest sense exists in naturism (hairstyling, shaving, tattoos, make-up, piercings/jewellery, etc, etc). Tim Forcer (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Sports — to develop a healthy body.
  • Arts — should be to develop individual talents, not as a means of financial exploitation
  • Tourism — to understand other peoples' culture, concentrating on camping to remain close to the earth.
  • Liberty — no one has the right to tell others or their children that they must wear clothes.
  • Pollution — less clothing to manufacture and maintain means lower carbon footprint.
Also to be considered
  • Add family bonding, removing body guilt and encouraging children to mix on equal terms with a very wide ethnic, cultural, social, economic community. Clem Rutter (talk)
  • Keep Roly (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Tim Forcer (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

-- Clem Rutter (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Some of these are good ideals to have but are not relevant to naturism so don't belong in this article. --Roly (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Taken on board- some changes made.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

New issues on Naturist magazines pages[edit]

A respected editor wishes to introduce this paragraph: (19:30 GMT version)

Nudists who visit public nude beaches may be photographed by street photographers, social documentary photographers, photojournalists or other kinds of photographers without the nudists' knowledge and in the United States and most democratic countries the photographers have the law on their side as no individual has an expectation of privacy in a public place and photographers are not required to have the naturists' consent before photographing them or publishing and selling the pictures or videos.[2] In many countries there exist private nudist areas in which photography is not allowed and naturists who wish to not be photographed can enjoy their activities there. However, naturists who wish to not be photographed in public nude beaches have found various ways to make the photographers leave the beach, such as photographing the photographer and publishing such photos.[3]

Some nude beaches provide fences that block the view from nearby streets.[4]

In its favour it it is well written and contains material that should be included in wikipedia, the question is where should it go. It gives some useful references.

  • It appears to be very US specific- and goes against many codes of law, written to include the European Privacy Law. Commons:Country specific consent requirements demonstrates that consent to publish is required in 24 countries- and nor in the US and six other.
  • It is too detailed for a top level article and could stand as article in its own right.
  • At this moment we are trying to condense this article so multiple ways of illustrating the same thing eg by street photographers, social documentary photographers, photojournalists is the sort of prose that needs to be condensed.
  • It focuses of Social Nudity not on Naturism- and is in fact more about photographers rights.
  • It contains dangerous advice. UK photographers have to contend with the Terrorism Acts (all embracing and totally misused), law relating to photographing children or possessing photographs of children. At the very least a photographer will have his equipment and computers seized.

Comments and suggestions please. While pending I have included it in a {{efn}}. But recommend it is transfered to a country specific article.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Clem's suggestion. Meanwhile, I think this material sat uncomfortably under the heading Magazines, so have split that into two and beefed up the photo/film element with notes about kiddy porn DVDs masquerading as naturist (and the legal consequences for naturists in the UK). I've also given the magazine material a spring-clean - it referred to a long-defunct magazine, used British Naturism's old title (dropped in 2009) and - in my view - did not classify naturist magazines fairly. To aid readers, I have increased the number of magazines mentioned by name, adding Wikilinks to them or their publisher where possible. It's right that there should be at least mild controvery in regard to magazines and imagery, since this is in the main section titled Issues in Social Nudity. Some of what I removed/replaced I've commented out rather than deleting.Tim Forcer (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Zoro Garden Nudist Colony[edit]

Is there a reason why the reference to the Zoro Garden Nudist Colony was eleted from the article?--Avril1975 (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Issues in social nudity[edit]

The intro paragraph lumps all criticisms of the nudist lifestyle together, presenting -in my view- opinions that are on the fringes of criticism (and ridiculously stereotypical) so as to make any criticism/worries about the actual consequences of the nudist lifestyle seem ridiculous and extreme.

For example, when describing criticism the article mentions that critics say...

"it is only for the physically beautiful; it is too embarrassing; it is against the laws of nature, against the law, or against religion; 'nudism makes me think of sex'; it is for primitive people or animals"

Yes, some people may say/think these things, but to place these as the main criticisms in the intro paragraph of the "issues in social nudity" makes me question whether these were included because they were common criticisms, or if they were included to discredit critics by making all arguments seem irrational and extreme.

There are other, less extreme views on whether nudism as a communal lifestyle is really good for the participants that have nothing to do with embarrassment/beauty/law/religion and this section should be updated to include more sophisticated criticisms/observations that do not paint critics as bible thumping intolerant prudes. There are serious / non-extreme questions people have that are valid and deserve to be mentioned in this section and they should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BD63:19F0:9C7D:A890:C428:8036 (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The difficulty is finding a notable, reliable reference that is not immediately savaged by one or more of the factions that have achieved consensus here. Descamps has stood the test of time- if you have a reliable academic source please share. We have already hived off difficult material to a subarticle. Yes Descamp is dated and does not express my POV but that is what we have to work with. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOT[edit]

I am getting worried that these incredibly useful lists are becoming a Linkfarm and against WP:NOT. I can see why people new to Naturism would want to compile them if the live in a hostile environment- but this is a personal journey, and unless the reference addresses the article directly and add to the content- they are misplaced. There is possibly a need for a more gbeographically specific article where they would become relevant. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 07:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

This is user:waynejayes speaking; I agree with you. I have tried to move all the links that I think are not useful initially to the external links section, in the hope that someone else will kill them completely. I agree that the references section needs to be split into a works cited section and a further reading section and the further reading section needs to be trimmed. The way I like to edit is to reorganise information into (what I think) is a more usable and useful arrangement, and I try not to delete info that someone has put in the article (unless it it is clearly wrong). I do think this article is too long and could be tightly edited. I am willing to give it a go if there is support from other wikipedians. Wayne Jayes (talk) 08:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I looked at your Annie Isherwood article- and the referencing is done exactly the way I would have done it. Leave it a few days for comment then we can start. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 12:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
While the substantial collection of links, references, citations, journal articles (etc, etc) is an excellent resource, much of the material referenced will be unavailable except to those working or studying in an academic institution or major library. The current listing suffers from being 'flat' (ie the quality/importance of an item is not apparent). Is there an argument for a new article on Scholarly or Academic research into / examination of naturism, nudism and social nudity (and, perhaps, one on significant reports about naturism in the popular media)? This could then apply a heirarchy/structure of significance and/or of matters considered and/or based on loose chronological periods, with only the most useful / relevant / accessible works being cited directly in the Naturism article. This restructuring would be part of the general project of turning a single large article into an interlinked mesh of articles. Tim Forcer (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)