This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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)
(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?)
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)
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
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)
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 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
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
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)
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." PowersT 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 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 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.
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)
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
Image:Montsdebussypiscine.jpg from Commons Search 'naturist'
would pass the test and be more illustrative.
Or
Image:Port Leucate (Aude), Oasis, plage naturiste.jpg which illustrates the mixed clothing habits leading to French beaches
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.
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 Wikipedia 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)
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)
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.
Hello, I am Michael Zauels, also known as freehorseriding with the website fkk-reiten.de. Most photos of the Arcor-album are made by myself, some other photos are made by friend photographers. The photos should have no titillation purposes, they present only and simply naturism on horseback. If you immagine this girl clothed nobody would think at titillation purposes. Only the fact to be nude is no reason for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.76.43.234 (talk) 09:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
This photo, to me atleast, helped get the point across that this a lifestyle, not just a weekend or vacation thing. When I came to this article I knew it would mostly be about nudist beaches, but this and the picture of the people hiking really gets the point across that naturism is infact about more than just sun bathing and trips to the beach. Plus, its one thing to read about some thing, its quite another to actually see it(An example being most people know what a scar looks like, yet the scar article would be lacking with out images). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.13.171.157 (talk) 08:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Potential Problem: Article Cloned
The Nudism article used to be a redirect to the Naturism article, but the redirect was replaced [1] 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:
(current situation) The Nudism article is cloned from Naturism, then subtle changes are made to both. What for?
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 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.
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.
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.
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. anemone│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. anemone│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. anemone│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. anemone│projectors 20:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Ironically, Wikiquote does have an article named Freedom and another named Liberty. Wakedream (talk) 06:15, 27 January 2008 (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)
Welcome to Wikipedia Wakedream. The reason that this problem is so contraversial is the region specific nature of the language. If I were writing an article for a US specific publication, I would use Websters as my definitive source. It does not however reflect international usage, which is why this topic has been debated so long and so hard. If you would please read the article and follow up the references, particularly Dr Woycke for a state side perspective, and Marc-Alain Descamps for a more European view.
Some of the discussion can be found on in the Archives (above right) of this page, Clothes Free, Social Nudity and alort was on the Nudism archive which is no longer extant. There is also an interesting US orientated article Issues in social nudity. Merging and forking is a characteristic of this page- and also of social nudity in general where most nations have at least two national organisations, and many editors on this article have had experience of this in a previous non-Wiki life.(ref Dr Woycke p61.) In struggling to acheive a consensus they don't want to repeat the experience here. Many cited writers on Nudism/Naturism have been involved in these splits, so cannot be regarded as NPOV on nomenclature, though otherwise reliable.
Coming to the practicalities, the only difficulty in merging the articles is writing the all important lead paragraph. The Nudism article is in effect an earlier version of the Naturism article. Any text that appears to have been edited out, remains, but it has been commented out so it does't appear- and could be restored if references could be found and anyone wishes to restore it.
The sole problem is the title. Nudism->Naturism is red-lined by many editors. Naturism->Nudism is red-lined by the other editors. Nudism->Social Nudity, Naturism->Social Nudity has been rejected in the past- though to be fair, the articles at that point were not as polished. Anything ->Naturism and nudism has been ridiculed, and there is no consensus on the order of the two words. Are there any further suggestions on the way forward?
Thanks for the welcome! I have looked through some of the archive, but admittedly not all. And you are correct that the dictionary I used is published in the U.S.A. It does deal with British meanings and spellings, however, and I suspect that the definitions would apply there as well. However, I don't have verification for that right now, so will try to get hold of a British dictionary, probably the OED (yes, I know even then I wouldn't be covering all of the English-speaking world, but that's just too many dictionaries! Besides, the OED is generally recognized as the most comprehensive dictionary in the English language.) Wakedream (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I looked at a recognized British source, the online and admittedly limited free version of the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary. It defines nudism and naturism as being the same. [2][3]. The American Merriam-Webster and the CALD both agree that nudism is the practice of being nude, whereas the American dictionary gives other definitions for Naturism. Admittedly, these don't represent every English-speaking country in the world. But as Nudism is the term agreed upon on both sides of the Atlantic, I suggest we name the article Nudism or possibly Nudism and Naturism. Wakedream (talk) 08:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. The reference you need is http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/lclogin ( you should get a password from your public library). The Cambridge is a learners dictionary designed for use with non native speakers- it doesn't supply you with the usage references- ie the dates of usage and the Novels or sources where the term occurs. Even so the online version abbreviates For instance the term nudism says:
Nudism
The practice of going unclothed whenever possible; advocacy of this practice; naturism.
The term nudism is regarded as derogatory by some practitioners of naturism.
1929 Time 1 July 23/1 Made in Germany, imported to France, is the cult of Nudism, a mulligan stew of vegetarianism, physical culture and pagan worship. 1931 F. MERRILL & M. MERRILL Among Nudists xvi. 233 In spite of their [sc. the French bourgeoisie's] modesty on the subject, nudism is growing in France. 1935 Punch 19 June 721/1 ‘A real tent... Think of the saving. Hotel bills, nothing. Meals, practically nothing. Clothes, nothing whatever.’ ‘Pamela,’ I said imploringly, ‘not Nudism.’ 1973 Guardian 28 June 6/1 The principles of nudism. 1987 P. FUSSELL Taking it all off in Balkans in Thank God for Atom Bomb (1990) 173 It's a good place to experience,..the manners and unwritten rules governing communal naturism. Or nudism, as it used to be called.
You need also to read the Naturism article.
I may have lead you up a dead end, dictionary definitions really are not very helpful. Naturism (nudism in the US) is still a term in flux. Nudism is redlined in the UK. OED explains in UK usage ::: The term nudism is regarded as a derogatory term by some practioners of naturism. But doesn't define further. Or the last line Or nudism as it used to be called. implies it is no longer the current term- and I was surprised to find that it is still used in Canada and the US.
Looking at the etymology Nudity is the state of being naked, I still cannot reconcile what is Philosophy of being naked is supposed to mean. Naturism has a accepted definition in the 1948 Adge definition. The OED notes that in the British Sunbathing Association replaced Nudism with Naturism in all its literature in 1963. But I am repeating the conternts of the article here- so I'll stop
In the past there have been attempts to reconcile these terms, and opinions being strong, this has been quickly reforked. There is a reason why this debate is on the naturism talk page. If one chooses a compound term that becomes a category not an article.
My advice is:
Accept the status quo, for the moment.
An editor to go back to the Nudism article and remove all POVs and unreferenced statements
Write a page Naturism( Religious philosophies ) in a sandbox,to group together the other usages, then choose a name for it. Here we can group, nature/nuture, Vedic hymns, Brownson, Dunglison et al.
Look again at the Naturism article- and work out a todo list, so that the Nudism article can be merged back in. ( It is mostly still there in inline comments ).
In a sandbox, try a rewrite of the lead paragraph, for the three contenders for the page title
Write an article, Nudism explaining the two uses and it is a derogatory term on one side of the pond and a synonym on the other.
Spend more time improving the article.
I apologise if I had trod on any toes here, but non-Wikilife keeps interrupting this edit, and may deflect what I say from what I intended to say.
Thanks for the info--sounds like you've done your homework! I used the Cambridge dictionary knowing it was very limited and for speakers from throughout the world--I was looking for something that would put it all in a nutshell, so to speak. Personally, I don't much care whether Nudism redirects to Naturism or Naturism redirects to Nudism. But I do think having two articles on the same topic is unnecessary and redundant, and the OED does accept both Naturism and Nudism. Calling the Wikipedia article Naturism and Nudism or Nudism and Naturism might be a good compromise. Of course that can still leave a debate of which order? Wakedream (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
This has been up for discussion now since StuffOfInterest proposed a merger to an article to be called Naturism and Nudism (or Nudism and Naturism) on 12 Dec. 2007. It seems to me that there's been a mix of support and objections for this suggestion. However, most of the objections seem to have been answered (the primary one that seems up in the air is that the articles may be separated again, but that's something we can't really predict). Unless there's strong objection, I would like to begin working on a merger of these articles, probably calling it Naturism and Nudism (if for no other reason than because that puts the two terms in alphabetical order). If anyone would like to help, or has strong objections to this or helpful ideas, please post a note here. Thanks! Wakedream (talk) 07:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is time to do something. My preference is to do a simple redirect from Nudism to Naturism. My second preference is to redirect both to Social nudity, and transfer the Naturism article in total to Social nudity. A poor third is the Naturism and Nudism idea and total oppose to the Nudism and Naturism idea.
the Nudism article is really an older version of the Naturism (lacking rigour, accuracy or NPOV references) with the addition of a few region specific tips also lacking rigour etc). Nothing is lost by replacing it with a redirection.
In effect I believe that the Naturism article has been rewritten to remove the objections that the US anti 'The Naturist' lobby had to the title Naturism. It appears that there is still a split between AANR and the Free beach movement that we no longer experience in Europe. One body uses nude and the other naturist- in a region specific way. I believe the article is clean and regional peculiarities can be explained in the sections on those countries within the article.
If there still is any objection to using the word Naturism for the article, then the neutral term Social Nudity could be used. This would involve adding three sentences to the lead paragraph, and copy editing the whole article replacing the words Naturism with Naturism or Social Nudity depending on context. (This would then be open to scrutiny- and a possible edit war- similar to the previous one that cause us to end up with two articles).
Naturism and Nudity is possible but the lead paragraph then needs to be rewritten to explain the difference between the two terms. As I have said, the word nudism is derogatory in Europe and was expurged from British Naturism officially in 1961. Again the whole article must be copy edited replacing Naturism with Naturism (Nudism in US usage), or Naturism, or Nudism depending on context. This is possible but it is the lead paragraph is the stumbling block. If you think you can write one can I suggest you try one in your sandbox, and when you are ready you give us a link so we can comment before it goes live. Keep the James Woycke, Au Natural:History of Nudism in Canada, book open while you are doing this- it does answer a lot of questions- with copious references.
Nudism and Naturism is a none starter due to the derogatory meaning of Nudism.
So yes, lets get something started. I suggest that you attempt writing lead paragraphs, to verify my analysis, then start a move. All other things being equal, follow option 1 and if that gathers objections follow option 2 and if that fails try option 3. --ClemRutter (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I seem to recall that someone once described "compromise" as a solution which makes no party happy. As much as I hate to say it, I'm becoming more inclined towards Social nudity just because it applies to the above. To me it most important to just get the articles merged as there is no real functional difference between the two, just a semantic difference. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments and advice; they are very helpful. This is a controversial move, although most people do seem to support a merger--I agree with StuffOfInterest on the importance of merging. I do hope that we can at least make most people somewhat happy. I think ClemRutter's idea of working on this in a sandbox and then letting everyone comment on it is a great idea, and might help avoid an edit war. I plan to try incorporating your suggestions and the helpful suggestions of others in this discussion in the next few days. And AnemoneProjectors, you've made several helpful comments too. Thanks for all of your help, and I look forward to working with you! Wakedream (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link! It may not solve our problem, but it does have some useful info! Wakedream (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
OK folks how do we get out of this mess. A new user, who obviously has not read this discussion, in good faith, has moved the Naturism page but not the Nudism page. He has not understood that the lead paragraph needs to be rewritten to reflect the new title per my paragraph above, and the reason that this had not been done was it was it is an incredibly difficult task. Any suggestions? Do we need to ask a administrator to do a roll back?ClemRutter (talk) 09:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
You can move it back without an admin's assistance. But if you need an admin, I'm one. anemone│projectors 20:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I've moved it back anyway. anemone│projectors 15:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I just rewrote the opening phrase to be, "Naturism, called Nudism in some parts of the world...." I think much more work needs to be done, but now that Naturism and Nudism redirects there, I thought a reference to "Nudism" in the beginning of the article was needed. We still have two articles, and much more work to be done, but I hope this little edit helps for now. Wakedream (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I should add that I had planned to do this in my sandbox and ask for comments first; but as the link has already been made, I added it to the article. Let me know what you think! Wakedream (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
All right I did it--I redirected Nudism to Naturism, as per the discussion above. I know there's not complete agreement, but redirecting has already been happening and at least most of us agree there's not a need for two articles. If you don't like it, feel free to chew me out, but please read this discussion before reverting it back to a redundant article. Thanks! Wakedream (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Naturism can also be used as a synonym for the philosophy of Naturalism, Metaphysical naturalism and the worship of nature. seems to be a little clumsy. How about This page is about social nudity, see [[Naturism (disambiguation)|here]] for other uses of the word Naturism. The disamb page could form the redirects to Naturalism etc, and then we could disamb Naturist, which is a term in the (Naturist/Nuturist) debate, where the term Naturism is not used.
I'll consider your suggestion equal to that famous command of Captain Jean-Luc Picard, "Make it so." I've made it so. My little clumsiness is gone, and there's now a Naturism (disambiguation) article. Wakedream (talk) 06:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Russian Nudists
Why was the link I added to the Russian Naturist group at [www.russiannudistnaturist.com ]removed?
--Herut (talk) 09:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this issue here rather than continually posting after a clear notice had been given.
This section is for national organisation which you web site does not represent. If you look at the content, it is clear that this is a report about one group of naturists not a national organisation. National organisation will be affiliated to the INF-FNI see of european organisation for the complete list. RNF Telord is the russian national organisation. Your site promotes another organisation, which may be part of RNF Telord. So this is the wrong place for a posting.
Why is there no link here to RNF Telord. Wikipedia is not a link farm- there are 24 naturist organisations in Europe alone. Some organisations are notable- and have clubs and sites that are regularly used by 1000s of English speaking users. Honestly, there is one other organisation there that I would challenge.
It is self promotion-
As a compliment to the book, the Family Naturist Videos and DVDs are now available with free sample images and descriptions.
Is this a suitable link? In my opinion- No, this link is to Publishling House reporting a genuine Naturist organistion.
Is it notable? No.
It is no different to any promo for a video. No.
It is only notable in that it is the first link we have seen to a organisation in Russia.
I suggest you try to pen up an article Naturism is Russia, if you can speak Russian you can write a fascinating piece- on the early history, naturism through out the Soviet era and relations with other states such as DDR, Ukraine, the breakdown of the CCCP and naturism today.
Then we can link it in with the main article.
What do you mean by "changed"? I'm not in a position to visit that link right now. If you think the link is inappropriate to the topic, then remove it. As it is, the title makes the link look a bit spamish to start, so it probably won't be missed except by the person who first put in there. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I am concerned about the addition of historical black and white images and historic cartoons. If they are available in commons and do not add information to the text I think they could safely be removed.
The B&w Sauna illustration- what is it saying? Shouldn't this go with an article on saunas?
The Aussie troops posed diving display belongs on the skinning dipping article- where it actually occurs as well. If it goes on this page it should be with the skinny dipping reference not in the leader. True?
The Koch book is valid. True?
I will make some changes next week if no objections.ClemRutter (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Link robot
Where did that come from? I have reverted.ClemRutter (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
" " :
{{Citation | last = | first = | author-link = | last2 = | first2 = | author2-link = | title = | date = | year = | url = http://www.veraplaya.info/history.html| accessdate = 2007-11-22}}
{{Citation | last = | first = | author-link = | last2 = | first2 = | author2-link = | title = | date = | year = | url = http://www.nakedeurope.org/riding.html| accessdate = 2007-11-27}}
Discussed in:{{Citation | last = Veltheim| first = Andrew| author-link = | last2 = | first2 = | author2-link = | title = Naturism: Naked Beneath Your Clothing| date = 2000| year = | url = http://www.parama.com/html/naturism.html| accessdate =2/12/2007 }}
I have commented this out pending some references and discussion. If this does indeed exist it should be mentioned, but apart from a link in BN to a Christian Naturist Fellowship that has a contact email and a +44 1550 telephone number I have never seen another reference.
Comments about New Age philosophies (not found in the article) are a POV. The second paragraph though useful is void of references, and confuses nudity (state of dress) with naturism.
Christian naturism is practiced by Christians who also are naturists or nudists. They can be found in almost all branches and denominations of Christianity, and find no conflict between the teachings of the Bible and living their lives and worshiping God without any clothing. However, most have various disagreements with New Age and humanist philosophy which is common among other naturists and wish to be separated from it. (This includes a total rejection of nature worship of any sort.)
Other religions which contain nudism in some aspect of thier faith include Wicca, and a small minority within Hinduism and Jainism. In Buddhism, nudity varies substantially between different cultures and sects, and in some cases may be more of a part of daily life in general than that of Buddhism per se. See also the article: Nudity in religion.
I would point out that the interpretation that Christianity is about the teachings of the Bible is a POV not shared by Catholics, and is bad theology.
ClemRutter (talk) 09:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The "Nudism" article on Wikipedia has been merged together with this one. Both topics are acceptable here. I've made some changes and added references.
Christian naturism[1] is practiced by Christians who also are naturists or nudists. They can be found in almost all branches and denominations of Christianity, and find no conflict between their own Christian faith and living their lives and worshiping God without any clothing. However, most have various disagreements with New Age[2] and humanist philosophy which is common among other naturists and wish to be separated from it. (This includes a total rejection of nature worship of any sort.)
Other religions which contain naturism or nudism in some aspect of thier faith include Wicca[3], and a small minority within Hinduism and Jainism called "gymnosophists". In Buddhism, nudity varies substantially between different cultures and sects, and in some cases may be more of a part of daily life in general than that of Buddhism per se. See also the article: Nudity in religion.
Thanks for your references, I see more clearly your starting point. Firstly this is USA specific, and about a small group fighting entrenched attitudes in their chosen faith group- it must be very difficult for them. Back to Wikipedia:
You can't say
New Age[4] and humanist philosophy which is common among other naturists and wish to be separated from it. (This includes a total rejection of nature worship of any sort.)
I have located this line on the Christian Naturism site and tagged it for citation needed.
- If you buy a copy of Dr James Woycke book, au naturel you will see how misconceptions of other folk philosophies has blighted the Naturist scene in North America. This is also true in Europe. The reference you use is just not notable, it is a reporters perception of the POV of an interviewee in a small town- he is a jobbing hack.
The next paragraph confuses nudity with nudism (see discussion further up this page). Gymnosophists and Skyclad Jains are covered in a separate section in this article.
Christian naturism is covered in the US section here- but not linked I will do that then delete the rest of this post.
User:Timberlake09 hav reverted twice.
I have placed the following comment on the users page. He is still persisting on reverting his first contribution and is being to think that this is personal. For a first time editor it is a well structured- and his edit summary is very direct. This is the closest I get to his source.[4], but this is closed information. What he says is feasible, but I suspect that the sample used in the paper is too small, region specific and self selecting, to be valid. Can someone who has more time than me review his contribution.
Unfortunately you chose to put your posing in the wrong place, so I should have deleted it- but I looked at it and placed it in the best spot in the article. The point you are trying to make is new- and conflicts with the research all previous researchers, so it certainly will need to be checked before it gets a permanent home in the article. The lead (first paragraph) is a synopsis of the entire article and does not contain facts that aren't discussed elsewhere.
Looking at your posting. It refers to research published in June 2009- ie research that hasn,t been published. The journal you quote is not one I have ever seen- so to verify the claim, I need to consult with editors who have got access to a copy which will not happen instantaneously. Googling- I see the source is genuine, but one needs a subscription to view the results. The methodology points out that this was a UK specific survey of 39 individuals taken from 5 different locations- indeed a small sample, Two of the locations could be said to contain some of the more extreme POV within the clothe free and naturist communities. I can't tell if it was representative with out a subscription. From the information I can glean it looks if, when it verified it will have a place somewhere in the article- but that will depend on the view of the community that is editing this page.
Looking for further information, this is your first post under this user name, you have not written anything about yourself on your user page so you are an unknown quantity. It is well written for a first post. If you look at the history of the Naturism page, you will see it was a stormy one- and much diligence is needed to ensure posts are acceptable both side of the Atlantic hindered by an extreme difference of terminology.
To ensure your information is accepted and correctly posted it would have been better if you had gone on the talk page to explain that research had been done, and asked advice on the best way to post it.ClemRutter (talk) 09:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Censoring the definition and the history of naturism on wikipedia
It is one thing to disagree, it is another to blatantly censor both debates and history around the relationship between naturism and sexuality by stating catergorically that naturism does not contain eroticism.
I'm sorry to say but there is no essential definition of naturism - it is not a thing, a scientific positivist fact, an object like a tree - it is a social and cultural construct which has changed and changes throughout its history - it is debatable.
To say it never contains eroticism is simply one person's current opinion (unreferenced too). Even if a majority feel it is never erotic a minority of naturists can argue the opposite, unless of course minorities don't count in naturism? And of course you can't say a social experience can never be experienced in another way.
If naturism proposes to be about freedom and integrity, then it needs to reflect these values in the debates about what it is.
Censoring information because the majority might disagree and even more sadly censoring history is not about freedom or in naturism's interest given the public scepticism of people's motives. Being mature, postive and open about these debates is necessary for naturism to move forward as an idea and in the public's mind. Ignorance is not bliss.
Some naturists on wikipedia are behaving like judge and jury about what naturism is. Who are these self-appointed representatives who know the exact definition?
Wikipedia asks for balanced referenced information, yet despite presenting a balanced view of the relationship between naturism and sexuality that reflects both debates and referencing that with recent academic research, someone keeps changing my line back to "naturism does not contain eroticism", as if that person's version of naturism is the only one, and of course it's unreferenced, a gross generalisation and ignores naturism's history. --Timberlake09 (talk) 09:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Additional info about censoring
I didn't notice your mail until after I posted the section on censoring. It's not personal, but a matter of principle both in terms of how naturism is reported and in terms of wikipedia as a place for people to locate balanced open information and knowledge without it being censored.
I will refrain from changing it until the editors have checked things and discussed this matter further; but even if you disagree with the paper I refer to, it is simply not possible to say that "naturism does not contain eroticism" because to do so ignores an important aspect of its' social history in Germany, and do we really know how all people feel all of the time when they are socially nude? The naturism page on wikipedia has several references to naturism's history but references to eroticism are ignored for political reasons I suspect, which is wrong in a democratic society which we claim to be.
The paper I refer to contains several other academic references and it is not a survey. Instead it uses qualitative methods -which the public are less likely to understand how they work - hence your suspicions of its' validity are based on things like numbers and selection of people, majority viewpoints and regional location, all the things you look for when assessing the validity of questionnaires.
This does not mean such methods are just mere opinions though of extreme views. The arguments and work presented have been peer reviewed for validity and the strength of its' argument, and so the number of participants which you focus on and the region it was undertaken is not as important as the depth and diversity of the experiences and views represented; as against the shallowness of the views obtained in many a naturist survey.
Within naturism there is a real tendency to believe in research that backs up a certain view and dismiss, ignore, devalue and be over-critical of research that counteracts that view. I don't see any criticisms of the methods used in naturist surveys although there are plenty, and most have not had any peer review. I guess because they are all about reflecting a majority view and they don't explore more complex and sensitive subjects like sexuality.
I am pleased you kept my original addition despite it being placed in the section critcisms, although the paper and its exploration of the relationship between naturism and sexuality is not a criticism of naturism but of how sexuality is reported within naturism; the paper actually promotes naturism. Apart from the intro, this research should be added to the section naturism and health as it refers to naturisms' potential in promoting sexual wellbeing in ways that are positive and responsible.
I am well aware of how hotly debated this is etc, but a balance and openess of viewpoints is long overdue within official naturism and those that write on the internet about it. To do otherwise questions the integrity of naturism and naturists and if anything, censoring this subject to obtain legitimacy reinforces the idea that naturists and naturism have something to hide, which in the end will do it no favours in promoting what is a wonderful experience and way of life. --Timberlake09 (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Fine. No offence taken. Your post above answers many of the fears that I had. Your intention introducing extra research I applaud. Research has been hard to come by- and too much of what is written is to promote a POV- minor spats within national organisation have developed into major schisms- the latest spat within the British organisation started about an assumed equiptment and stationery allowance and I hear is now being investigated as frraud. The two books that I had to rely on most heavily for data were Descamps (French) and Woycke (Canada). Good information is hard to come by. I agree that mention of eroticism should be placed somewhere within the existing structure but I dont believe it should be placed in the lead paragraph, until it can be evaluated. If one is not too careful the lead expands like Topsy, and it must remain a synopsis. If your research is as valuable as it sounds, I would like to have a copy- (I am easily Googled) as it may mean that ever subsection needs to be tweaked. Actually probably- and that would be no bad thing, as it may allow us to remove a few bland compromises that had to be left in due to lack of evidence. --ClemRutter (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
My to do pile is very high at the moment- I will get round to it. --ClemRutter (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
H&E- new contributor
I have reverted a couple of interesting edits to this section, made by a very knowledgeable new user. He is trying to make changes to statements made four years ago, that were tagged as needing verification. The problem is that he has not backed up his edits with a satisfactory verifiable reference. If that could be provided, then the sentence should be changed to contain the historical fact but qualified to say this is no longer try. Can anyone help in finding this reference. --ClemRutter (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The "very knowledgeable new user" is a she and is the editor of H&E . Garda40 (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
The comments still stand. WP takes a firm stand about spam WP:SPAM which can get in the way of common sense at times. We do need independent verification of a fact- even if the editor was instrumental in the action. I am happy to enter a dialog on my talk page.--ClemRutter (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Criticism - child pornography/peadophila
Since this statement has been reverted once, maybe someone needs to discuss it :
"Some organisations sell online videos from naturist camps that depicture naked children and teenagers with adults. This kind of material may be attractive to peadophles" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.137.50 (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
j.delanoy has just sent me this message : "The recent edit you made to the page Naturism has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive". Jdelanoy, please use the discussion panel instead of sending me more messages. I'm waiting for you to explain what you find unconstructive in the statement You've deleted. Note that the paragraph "Criticism" has been added before and this Wikipedia article is not brochure for enthusiasts only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.137.50 (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Removal of image on Naturism article
Hi User:ClemRutter, I am having a problem following your rationale for removing the photo that I placed on the Naturism article under the heading "Personal and family nudism". The first line of that sections states "Nudism is often practiced in a person's home or garden, either personally or with members of the family". I found this photo
on Commons that was not being used. It portrays an adult male nude sunbathing on an outside patio with his hat pulled down over his face, as is a common practice while sunbathing in the bright sunlight. It fits the article insomuch as it is a depiction of a person practicing nudism / naturism while sunbathing. I placed it in the article where it was talking about Personal and family nudism in a persons home or garden, which is what this photo looks like, and you removed it. Your posted reason for removing it has me baffled. You stated "Rm image. Model can be identified. Self promotion. Does not illustrate the point of modestly sunbathing at home". Ok, you say the model can be identified ... How? Do you really think the real name of the person in this photo is "Ima Learner" ? And I see no way that the person in this photo can be identified by looking at this photo. You say "Self promotion" ... That is not a photo of me. I found it while looking for appropriate articles to place images that were currently not being used. You say "Does not illustrate the point of modestly sunbathing at home" Are you really serious? How do you "modestly" sunbathe naked? And, wouldn't a person be more cavalier in their sunbathing position if they were sunbathing in the privacy of there own backyard home garden or patio? One major point of sunbathing nude is to have an even "all over" tan. Are you going to sunbathe naked, but cross your legs for modesty? If you sunbathed naked in your home garden, but covered the genitals for modesty, would you still be naked? What would be the point of sunbathing naked in the first place if that were the case ? I know this is beginning to sound rediculous, but I'm sure you are getting my point. I understand that removing the photo is your decision and I respect that. I would just like to have some clarification on the reasons you stated for removing it.
Thank You for your time and consideration. NightFlyer (talk) 05:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I would think any photo coupled with 'modest' is an oxymoron but even so I don't think that should automatically disqualify it. I don't see any requirement that nude sunbathing at home has to be modest and male genitals are naturally more visible than female. It is often complained that men don't feature enough in these articles so it's rather ironic that someone would remove one. I do think however that there's enough pictures in the article already so maybe it can replace the nude hiking one as there is already a nude horse riding photo. Biofaseflame| stalk 16:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Pedophilia and Naturist prepubscent teens
Do videos or pics of naturist children often involved in naked games, competitions, playing with adults enjoy any sort of safe harbour under any laws of US or other European countries? This is because these videos and pics are becoming increasingly populat they only depict naturists engaging in non sexual activities albeit with explicit nudity. So what is the treatment meted out to production and distribution and possession of such videos and pics of young children?123.238.77.183 (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
This is not the best place to be soliciting legal advice. Obviously, this is a very touchy area of law, with very little clear precedent and a lot of case-by-case judgment calls involved. Unless this question has some specific relevance to this article, it's best not to speculate here. PowersT 12:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The best place for this is the child pornography article or a separate article of child nudity vs. pornography but obviously it would differ from place to place so would need to reference country specific case laws. From the naturist purspective simple nudity and pornography have nothing in common so it shouldn't even be mentioned in this article. Biofaseflame| stalk 01:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Well that last statement is incorrect. We cannot focus solely on the naturist perspective, because of our WP:NPOV rules. From other perspectives such imagery would be considered pornographic. However wrong you and I fell that perspective to be, we cannot favor one over the other. PowersT 13:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually I do not see it that way. The neutral view in this case is to deal with the naturist perspective and what most sources say - that it is the freedom to not wear clothing applying to all genders and ages. Everything else is secondary. But what is most problematic is that when law is applied you have to include the laws of multiple countries which would take up more space than the actual subject where NPOV says it should be devoted to the subject. This article is not the place for a few photographs or videos that may be seen by some as problematic. Biofaseflame| stalk 17:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
You misunderstand. I didn't say we must include the laws of multiple countries; I'm saying that questions of whether images of naturists can be considered pornography must be addressed. Obviously we shouldn't go into extensive detail; that would be undue weight. But neither should we ignore the question completely. PowersT 13:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually what I am saying is that whether it can be considered pornography would depend very much on local laws. Therefor if it was treated as a simple yes or no it would be extremely non-NPOV. If naturism was restricted to a single country it would not have been a problem. My conclusion is that it's a question with multiple answers that could be better answered in an article that already states some of the applicable laws, unless you know differently. Biofaseflame| stalk 15:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
No one's suggesting treating it as "a simple yes or no". It is possible to concisely mention that in some jurisdictions there may be questions about legality. PowersT 17:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
A short paragraph saying that the naturist view is that such images are not pornographic, specific others hold the opposite view (assuming that a reliable source can be found to show this) and that the legal position is complex in many jurisdictions, would seem appropriate. If there is an article that goes into more detail about this it should linked to with a {{main article}} link. Thryduulf (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, the best answer to the question You might get by notifying Police when you spot underage nude pic on Wikipedia or anywhere else. There are also anti-peadophilie organisations that will act for you if they receive information78.131.137.50 (talk) 11:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Criticism subsection
Within the last few months the following
Historically the experience and discussion of erotic feelings during naturist activities such as dance and gymnastics played an important part in early Germanic naturism and formed part of its 'positive' connection with nature. However, it was when naturism arrived in the more sexually conservative cultures of the UK and USA that the expression and discussion of eroticism within naturism became frowned upon.[3] Recent research has begun to explore this complex and historical relationship while highlighting how erotic experiences within naturism may actually enhance sexual wellbeing and be a positive force within naturism.[3]
has been added to the Criticism subsection. It is well written, referenced but I feel that this is not a criticism but a description of positive academic research. I don't have a subscription to the journal so can only read the abstract and would like to see this report discusssed further- perhaps British Naturism or HE could purchase a copy and publish a description that is more accessible. At any rate I think this piece should be moved into a section of its own. Where? What should the sections title be? Should it go under Naturism for Health, or Issues in social nudity, ahead of 6.1?
Quo vadis? Comments please. --ClemRutter (talk) 08:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Censored photos on the Naturism article ? I am appalled !
I can't believe that the caretakers of this article would allow censored photos on this page. This photo [[5]] has been photoshopped to cover their bums. Naturism promotes body acceptance ! When looking at the photos on this article, I get the feeling that someone is ashamed to show full frontal nudity. This is a slap in the face as well as an embarrassment to all true naturist ! 98.66.252.17 (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Isn't that just sand? AdeMiami (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
HaHa!! The poster is right! It's the smudge and blur effect in Photoshop. You can see it going above her butt a little. And I agree that all the photos on this page looks like someone is ashamed of frontal nudity. Looks to me like the problem is probably this Clem guy after reading the post above. He must not be a real Naturist. 68.158.160.202 (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not about to enter an edit war. This recent image had caused me concerns, particularly as their was no geotag, and it was unlikely that this wasn't a posed shot. I had assumed that this was sand. I only can speak for Naturism in France and silly as it might sound, I didn't recognise the colour or texture of the sand, it seemed innocuous and within the bounds of some folks definition of Naturism. Today, it is unlikely that two girls would allow a guy with a camera within 25m on a naturist sight where there is a strong etiquette that discourages even carrying a camera The second cause for concern was that the models (which I think now we must believe them to be) are recognisable and there is no mention of 'Photographic Release' having been signed, contradicting Wiki policys. {{personality rights}}. There is a very useful image heading up the the naturism article on German wiki de:Freikörperkultur, that also has personality right issues, which I suspect will have to go. Looking in detail at this image it seems that it has been heavily GIMPed with all sorts of adjustments made, not just the faux-sable smudge.
A further point of concern, is that two editors above are not registered and with their sharp eyes and concerns about censorship it would be very valuable to have them on board, so we have a method of communicating with them using their talk pages. They are right- this image should go- I leave the honour of doing the delete to them, and hope they have some equivalent correctly geotagged and {{personality rights}}frei images to put on commons. --ClemRutter (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I fully agree. I was always uneasy about this picture.AdeMiami (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Away it goes, then. Did it add anything to the section it was in? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
New image
I've propose replacing File:Naturista.jpg with File:Naked Vegan Series 1.png. The latter is more relevent to the section (Veganism ect). Also why do we have to have aton of beach pictures? Bobisbob2 (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
How does that "vegan" picture show anything about veganism? Nice image, but I don't see the connection. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be address veganism itself but a Vegan who chose naturism. Bobisbob2 (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The image shows a woman's back, with foliage and structure in the background. It is a posed shot that says nothing about naturism or vegans. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Bob, your point about too many beach shots is appreciated. However the difficulty of finding other images is immense-The title "Low angle posed shots of two young girls, barefoot (without trainers) by a basket ball net- without any other players or ball in sight- this shot contains a personality warning so could soon be deleted. No date. No location given." Illustrates the difficulty. In European Naturist settings there is now a de facto, almost complete ban on the use of cameras. The personality warning, excludes any shot where the subject can be recognised- so one is limited to long views. To demonstrate the "naturism" rather than vanity shots limit you almost entirely to mixed groups.The paedophilia scare limits it further to mixed groups without children. Yes it is difficult- hence the preponderance of beach shots. I do regualarly trawl the cats to see if there is anything new available that illustrates the points being made in the article. It is worth doing. But this one is too artificial.--ClemRutter (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Nice, a pleasant view of two young females standing around in the sand by a beach volleyball net, one rear view, one almost full front. I call it eye candy. Looks like it is promoting a fantasy ideal of naturism, not reporting the reality of it. Where is the old guy looking like Hubert Farnsworth? He likes to feel the sun on his baggy old nekkid body too, even if hardly anyone else outside real naturist circles wants to see him like that. Since we already have a ton of pictures, what makes this one special enough to add? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
It's meant to be a replacement picture. Bobisbob2 (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Vegan image
Lately an editor has been restoring File:Naked Vegan Series 1.png claiming it is a "consensus" image, or that File:Naturista.jpg is a "consensus" image... Bobisbob2 has objected to the family shot on the beach (Naturista.jpg) and I object to to the vegan picture, so neither one has consensus just yet. I happen to think that "too many beach pictures" is not a bad thing, since that is where a lot of naturism happens. I also happen to like the vegan picture; I would consider framing a copy and hanging it in a quiet spot in my workshop, maybe photoshopped with some violin soundholes, like Man Ray's photograph titled "le violon d'Ingres". My objection to the "vegan" image is about the fact that it is a posed shot in a private place, saying nothing about veganism or naturism. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I totally agree, and have added the image to the thread so we can all see what we are talking about. Photographs are added to the article to illustrate some aspect of the article- and as such add to the readers understanding of the topic. The article is not just a load of hooks, where barely related images can be stuck. Personally, I think we still have a lot more to do with the images. The bike-ride should be in the campaigning naturism section. The naturista image does belong in this section, as it shows family and beach, freedom- naturist ideals. Also it one of the few souther hemoisphere shots we have, and one of fewer from América del Sur. The Carl Larsson shot I like but needs to go- the model is a model, and the fact she is not sitting on a towel really demonstrates the fact. His image of File:Mannus söner.jpg says more about naturism, and one image of his son skinning dipping (not on commons). Back to the point- I would like to zap or move the Cranach, the 1943 image and the blotchy image of the sauna as well. But it is quite clear, that we must guard against eye candy and vanity shots and keep removing them until the uploader gets tired of the game and tries another page. --ClemRutter (talk) 10:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Whether an image is eye candy or of a beach is not really the point - does it illustrate the topic? is the question. As I understand it, Camping, caravanning, are as much about naturism to many adherents as anything else, why not some views of those activities, to replace some that seem to be causing so much discussion? regards, Lynbarn (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine with changing any image, lets just come to consensus first. Naturista is the consensus image until we decide that.
It has been in the article for at least as far back as the last 500 edits
[19]
Continually reverting my replacement of the image until some agreement is reached I consider to be disruptive editing. The image changing back and forth while you argue about it is not useful. Please leave the Naturista image in tha article, and in that placement until it is worked out. Atom (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't mind the naturista image, said so before. Atom, your edits kept putting back the "vegan" image, with naturista nowhere in sight. I will not call your edits disruptive, but they seemed confused. Meanwhile, as a result, World Naked Bike Ride - London 2009 -6.jpg is gone from the article. Anybody care to comment on that one?
@Lynbarn, it is entirely OK if a relevant image with something to add to the article happens to be eye candy as well. Might as well have high quality images, after all. Where I object is when an image does not serve the purposes of the article, and seems to be merely decorative. Might as well put up William-Adolphe Bouguereau's painting, Nymphs and Satyr, claiming it represents "naturism" in some way. After all, those girls are just trying to give the poor guy a bath in a forest pool... obviously that image has no place in this article. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
My apologies for seeming confused. Twice I pulled up the diffs, and it had Naturista on the left (old) and some other on the right. I clicked to revert, and it put in the wrong image. I figured that out and verified the last time, and sure enough it put the wrong image in again. A new tool for me (Twinkle) so it must be going back more versions that indicated in the diff is all I can figure.
I will see if I can figure out regarding World Bike Ride. Atom (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Could not find it in the history of this article -- how about here? Non-Sexual public nudityAtom (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Here is the diff one of its recent disappearances. Possible fit somewhere near "Campaigning naturism"? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Cranach painting
The Golden Age as presented in Lucas Cranach the Elder's painting is conceived as a legendary time when social nudity was a commonplace - and a manifestly positive and happy situation.
There it is on the right, with the caption it had before I removed it. Pasted from my talk page, here is what Atom had to say:
I liked the Cranach painting in the article. Maybe we could make it less prominent, but it does seem to indicate that naturism was a positive thing, and normal from a historical perspective. I mean, it is not that crucial to the article, but it does add value, IMO. Atom (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
There might be some section of this article where this is a relevant illustration, but I think that a better case needs to be made first— the painting is claimed to show a "legendary time when social nudity was a commonplace" but I don't see any source to back that up. Nice painting, nice idea, but how does it fit in a supposedly reliably sourced encyclopedia? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Miniten
I recently added a wikilink to Miniten in a See also section. This was subsequently removed on the basis that if every naturist activity was included, there would be a very long list. Whilst I understand that argument, Miniten is different in that (so far as I have been able to determine) it is a sport exclusively played by naturists, and for that reason, think it is worthy of mention here. I'd appreciate hearing other editors' opinions on this. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I see both sides of the argument. Adding a see also section is just going to become a link farm. I have only ever heard of miniten within English naturist circles- though I have seen a miniten court at Monta and I believe at Agde and have once seen one being used. I take dispute that the game is popular. It should be included somewhere as it does only exist within Naturism- my POV is that it is an archaic relic of the early working class club origins- like am dram and whist drives are elsewhere, and this could lead to a new section exploring social class and naturism.--ClemRutter (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Don't Delete Photos
The photos on the top of the article SHOULD NOT be deleted. They are fine the way they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.171.0 (talk) 08:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Please read the discussions above. If you have anything to add to the conversations- post it here. If you signed in to Wikipedia, you would have a talk page where we could contact you, and a sandbox where you could develop your ideas to help us understand what your POV may be.--ClemRutter (talk) 09:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Female Photos
I absolutely love how almost every video of a naked male on this wiki has his balls showing, however almost no photos of the female genetalia except in diagrams. Sexist much??? Beastly20 (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Quatsch! On this article there are 14 photographs. 11 show no genitalia, one in a historic book cover- that shows a 1M, one a distance shot of two hikers where the F is obscured but the M is't and the other is a group shot where the count in 3M 2F. That is fairly balanced. There are no videos here. It is not this page you are talking about.--ClemRutter (talk) 08:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Naturism and sexual depravation?
Not to be a ball-breaker, but it's interesting something well documented in some nudist/naturist reserved places. In the morning, ok, sunbath and whetever, in the night the 'innocient' nudist/naturism (difficult to understand) set up big orgies inside the hall. This was documented in a nudist/naturist (?) resort, by a tv program (Le Iene), in France i mean, several years ago. But wait, some weeks ago another 'scoop' (Le Iene again) documented orgy and free sex even under the sunlight. Well, i don't believe in the 'innocent' attidute behind nudists(or naturalist? bah), but those two tv scoops really hit a lot. Maybe to have a bikini is not that bad to have a 'sunbath', when without dressing it there are some pigs that come near and want to mate with? So, why in the article there is no word about such attitudes (apparently well developed in some places, obviously not for families)? Maybe that the 'original' non sexual attitude behind nudism/naturism is evolving in something quite different? Another excuse to mate freely? Perhaps nudism is leading to adamitysm? And the more funny thing, while nudyst grows, in the meanwhile topless is going down, because a lot of women found it too herassing to leave uncouvered their breastStefanomencarelli (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
It is not worth rising to the bait. On Wikipedia we require the sources to be reliable and verifiable, Le Iene a light hearted Italian show can not be verified without more details of which show you are refering and the Italian courts doubt its reliability. Please read the substantive article, and then you will understand false stories are not a new occurance . We are here to document the facts. If you do have reliable references that support your personal conclusions about trends in society, please post them here and other editors can assess them for bias and then maybe work them into the article. Your National Federation may be able to help you if you want further reliable information.--ClemRutter (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
European information is wrong
"In some European countries, such as Denmark and Norway,[1] all beaches are clothing optional, while in others like Germany there are naturist sunbathing areas in public parks, e.g., in Munich [26] and Berlin.[27]"
I am a nudist who lives in Germany and has travelled extensively in Scandinavia. The above sentence is at best misleading and at worst completely wrong.
There is a big difference between Denmark and every other country in the world, including Norway. In Denmark, (almost) all beaches are clothing-optional. In Norway and many other European countries, there are officially designated nudist beaches while on others topless is accepted to a greater or lesser degree. In some countries, nudity is accepted to a greater or lesser degree at non-designated beaches. In Norway, Sweden and Finland there are so few people and so much water that it is easy to bathe nude where no-one else is.
Independently of this, areas for nude sunbathing in parks etc, officially designated or not, exist in many countries. The juxtaposition makes it seem like one has either nude beaches or nudist areas in parks.
But you don't have to take my word for it:
"There is a slight difference between Denmark on one side and Norway and Sweden on the other side with regard to nude beaches.
In Denmark there is really no difference between a nude and a textile beach. It depends on whether the people using the beach happens to wear clothes or not.
In Sweden and Norway they have signposted (official) nude beaches or well defined stretches of beach (spontaneous) where you may be nude."
Finally some progress here; at least Norway was removed. But let's make it completely correct. Current text: "In some European countries, such as Denmark,[26] all beaches are clothing optional, while in others like Germany there are naturist sunbathing areas in public parks, e.g., in Munich [27] and Berlin.[28]" Proposed future text: "In most European countries, there are beaches where nudity is optional or compulsory. (Denmark is a special case since (almost) all beaches in Denmark are officially clothing-optional.) In many, there are also naturist sunbathing areas in public parks, such as the English Garden in Munich." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.29.76.37 (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Nice attempt but less accurate than the original. nudity is optional or compulsory - well even on the most strictly patrolled beach many will be clothed- compulsory does not express the concept. You can not use the word most unless you have a source proving over 50%. Do you propose to include Turkey? Now what country other than Germany has sun bathing lawns in public parks? Wording is a nightmare! --ClemRutter (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Why is it less accurate? I address your points in order: "Optional or compulsory" means that nudity is possible (i.e. one can choose whether to be nude or not) or compulsory (all should be nude). What is a "patrolled beach"? Presumably you think that all beaches have someone patrolling them. Even if they don't, there are often no clothed people present at all. What is the basis for your claim? Just have a look at one of the many lists of nude beaches on the internet: you will see more than half the countries in Europe. (As an aside: Turkey is not part of Europe, but even if it were, that wouldn't tip the balance.) Apart from Germany, I have personally seen nude sunbathing in public parks in the Netherlands, Austria, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Questions: Have you ever been to Europe? Are you a nudist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.29.76.37 (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Grüss dich. War ich in Europe- stimmt jeder August für die letzte dreissig Jahre- meistens in Frankreich bei Montalivet. The problem is accuracy in terminology. So in France, the beaches suitable for swimming have lifeguards- and the ones run by Euronet, Monta and Agde are patrolled by security guards to prevent theft and administer first aid- and keep them family friendly: even there, they don't enforce the rule Nudité integrale obligatoire. It is quite possible to share the beach with a visiting textilist friend. Others, such as l 'Éspiguette have the sign but no patrols, though there is a lifeguard (and the Red Yellow Green flag system). This is the reason that you cannot say that Nudity is compulsory, (pflicht) in the same way that you can for a swimming pool at most FKK campings in France. Itś a fine point but compulsory is the wrong word- so to get round it- avoid it and restructure the sentence.
Now, the word most has to have some proof that it is over 50% of European countries. Ireland? Portugal? Poland, Belorusse, Hungary, the Baltic States, Serbia, Switzerland, Vatican City? I can't find the references to justify your claim. I have to edit in a neutral way as this is Wikipedia -even if I may have insider knowledge. I do think that a new article List of naturist venues in European public parks would be useful and well used.
Can't you sign in so we can continue this on your talk page. --ClemRutter (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
,_Oasis,_plage_naturiste.jpg)
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cokinues1.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Nymphs_and_Satyr_(1873).jpg){kind=link}
