Talk:Nude beach

possible image

I have found an image I think would be a suitable illustration for this article at [1]. I have emailed the contact for the website asking for permission to use it here. Thryduulf 16:13, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I removed an image I found on the page which had a computer manipulated woman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.67.28 (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia should not put up nude pics its not right because minors can access it without any warning —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talalqazi (talk • contribs) 02:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

what's worse than arrest?

"Nudity may result in requests to coverup, uncomfortable glares, a fine, arrest, or worse." Where in the world could you get punished by something worse than arrest, simply for being nude at a beach? Until a citation is giver (here), I'm taking that out. Daniel (☎) 16:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Getting assaulted by the locals is worse than a citation. Dandelion1 19:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure going naked on a Saudi beach would be pretty bad. They chop your hand off for some crimes...

simonthebold 16:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

lol "uncomfortable glares" yes they would chop you hand off —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue eyes gold dragon (talk • contribs) 13:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

External links

I've removed a few external links per Wikipedia:External links. If any of these are believed to offer a unique resource per the guideline, here's a good spot to discuss it. - brenneman ^{L} 08:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Per my edit summary, a lot of these links seem quite valuable. Why are you removing them? --JJay 18:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, from "What should be linked to" in the guideline, linked above and in the edit summary when I removed them, these aren't official site, references, preventing bias, or textbooks. They should thus be removed unless they provide "A unique resource beyond what the article would have as an example of brilliant prose." Do they provide such a unique resource?
brenneman ^{L} 04:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• The links mostly add valuable information not included in the article. Others were functioning as references, which you would know had you bothered to examine them. If you want to remove links, at least show other editors here a minimum of respect by discussing them individually and explaining why you think they should be removed. Hiding behind the style guide you are writing - which is not policy and in constant revision - is completely insufficient to justify removing all the links from an article. Many editors would see your approach as akin to vandalism, particularly the addition of an unreferenced tag after removing the links. You should expect to be reverted. --JJay 23:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

  Please refer to yet another guideline, regarding the use of civil language. Phrases such as "had you bothered," "minimum of respect," "[h]iding behind," and "akin to vandalism" add nothing to reasoned discussion. If you'd like to make a clear argument pointing out specifically which link is valuable by providing what information, hopefully referring to the guideline at the same time, we can have a discussion. If you continue to make vague statements laced with incivility, this will be difficult.
  brenneman ^{L} 00:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing particularly difficult about discussing the links- one by one. Please explain why you removed each link by discussing their individual merits. So far, it is you that has been extremely vague- in fact, despite your handwaving concerning civility, you have yet to explain the removals. I have already pointed out that the style guide page is insufficient to justify blanket removals...and yes, unfortunately, your actions could be seen as vandalism. Furthermore, the line you keep quoting from the style guide is hopelessly vague to the point of being meaningless. Since you are actively writing the style guide, perhaps you could find a way to clarify it. In the meantime, I would expect an article of this type to link to resources related to nude beaches, including some of the links you removed.--JJay 00:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Disagreements concerning content are hardly vandalism. If you two have a disagreement, follow the Dispute resolution process. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Aaron happens to be right. The article has six links to sites that review nude beaches, none of them really authoritative. Dr Zak 01:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the Fortune Forbes magazine article, for example? Is that not a valid source? In my view, it is a supporting reference for the article - the article in fact quotes from it. There is no justification for its removal. --JJay 01:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I have. It's an article in a business glossy written by a freelance writer listing ten random nude beaches (for convenience, complete with phone number to book the hotel). The author gives no indication what her criteria were nor does she make any serious effort at reviewing. To a link to a newspaper or magazine article by a known, serious travel writer (say, the Independent's Simon Calder) I wouldn't object, but none of those links are compelling. Dr Zak 01:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. The issue as I see it is that Forbes is a valid mass-market source and the introduction to their article lends validity as a reference to our Nude beach article. Whether the author is "serious" or not is beyond my realm of expertise. I should think the answer is somewhat subjective, although if Mr. Calder has written on Nude Beaches, I would not object to his addition as a link or reference. However, it makes little difference to me whether the sources are listed under "external links" or "references". What is important is that the article has some sources. That is policy, unlike the "external links" page, which is a style guide. It is also why I completely fail to see any value-added in the approach taken by you and User: Aaron Brenneman. Removing all the links - stripping the article of any semblance of a reference- is worse than pruning or leaving them alone. A more constructive approach would be to add a reference. Or examine the links and try to use some as references. Certain editors are acting under the misguided belief that "brutally" enforcing their interpretation of the links style guide absolves them of any responsibility for WP:V. That is wrong and highly objectionable. It contravenes the spirit of WP:V. Having said that and in view of your removals, I have created a reference section and added the Forbes article. --JJay 20:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Teminology - suggested page move

A nude beach is a beach without clothes gramatically speaking.
Whilst I appreciate this term is commonly used in the US in the UK and other English speaking parts of the word nudist beach is more common where the preferred naturist beach isn't used. People who follow a clothing-free lifestyle typically refer to themselves as naturists not nudists as the word nude has lewd and sexual connitations which naturist doesn't (most organised naturist beaches tend to prohibt sexual behaviour).

Therefore I propose to move the page and add a redirect unless anyone can give a good reason not to. simonthebold 16:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Opposed. Google search on "nude beach" comes back with 2.9M while "naturist beach" comes back with 1.1M. This doesn't appear to support your assertion that "naturist" is more common. --StuffOfInterest 17:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it was more common, in fact I said "...I appreciate this term is commonly used...". I said it is more grammatically correct and less offensive.simonthebold 09:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

One opposed and nobody supporting the move yet you went ahead and moved it? Please change it back so someone will not have to undo your action. --StuffOfInterest 01:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've undone the move. On a side note, thank you for picking up the redirects when you did your move. Far too many people don't. Anyway, the reason I undid the move is because you didn't have consensus for renaming a long established page. Being that there was an objection you should have followed the procedure outlined on WP:RM. This would include tagging the page to let visitors know about the suggested new name and making a post at the appropriate notice board to allow people uninvolved with this page to evaluate the suggestion and give their comments. This procedure is designed to avoid having a few people square off over the name by allowing those with no vested interest in the page to examine the situation. If you really feel that the name you are suggesting is more appropriate, then please read up on WP:RM and follow those procedures. --StuffOfInterest 11:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

As a long term naturist I feel that 'naturist beach' is more appropriate. Many in the naturist community prefer naturist over nudist or nude and feel these terms are derogatory. Bill Peavey. 18th July 2007

I disagree, nude beach sounds more part of the vernacular. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 23:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because something is popular doesn't make it correct. People will tell you a Pistachio and Cashews are types of nuts in the vernacular'; however they are in fact seeds. 'Nude beach' is grammatically wrong as the sand itself is the subject of the nudity whereas with 'naturist beach' or 'nudist beach' the people on the beach are the subject of the nudity. To non-Americans 'nude beach' sounds unfamiliar and it is not the vernacular. simonthebold 12:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Simon, please take a read of WP:UCN. Also, again I ask, if you really want a name change please follow the procedure on WP:RM. This is obviously a contested move so there needs to be outside eyes brought in. --StuffOfInterest 12:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible Virus/Spyware in External Link

The first external link listed, the online nudist community, triggers a McAfee warning indicating a Trojan Horse, specifically an IE IFrame exploit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.241.56 (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hot chicks

why are there no pictures of hot naked chicks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koo-koo for Cocoa Puffs (talk • contribs) 03:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Cause there are pictures of naked dudes aplenty, but there are no hot naked chicks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koo-koo for Cocoa Puffs (talk • contribs) 04:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Too many signs

Why are there four images of signs on this page? Too many! User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 06:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Clothing optional

I just want to clarify the text somewhat. It says that all beaches in Norway are clothing optional. I guess what it wants to say, is that all beaches where nude bathing is allowed are cloth optional. Unfortunately, nude bathing is not allowed on all beaches. When it comes to Denmark, as far as I know, nude bathing is allowed almost at all beaches. --Oddeivind (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I certainly cannot imagine it being the case in Norway's Polar north LOL.Cloptonson (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Nude pictures are not appropriate

Minors can access nude pictures and it is not right someone can sue wikipedia for not giving a warningTalalqazi (talk) 02:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. It is the nature of some articles to contain pictures with nudity; this is one of them. —C.Fred (talk) 02:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can sue anyone- no need to censore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.82.176 (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Health issues

Are there possible health issues? Maybe you could get infections by bathing nude? --91.11.86.205 (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Reversed?

Is the horse picture reversed? It looks like the girl is trying to mount from the right side, instead of the traditional left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesTheBold (talk • contribs) 20:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is. There is no mention of it being reversed in the file history on Commons, and if you look at the red banner on the side of the wooden building in the background it looks like the white word starts with a capital letter C (or possibly G) on the left. Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

please remove if no reference exists

"all beaches in Norway are clothing optional". This is, quite simply, untrue. The only country in Europe which has a genuinely different legal position is Denmark. The law in Norway is the same as in practically every other European country. Please remove this remark unless it is supported by a credible reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.29.77.101 (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've marked that statement as requiring a statement, thank you for pointing it out. A very quick google search has not yielded any reliable information either confirming or disproving it, but I've not removed it myself for now as far more comprehensive searches are possible. Thryduulf (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This link: http://www.naturistnet.org/main.php?page_id=527 seems to more or less directly state that the situation in Sweden and Norway is similar and that in Denmark different. This jibes with my experience; I've been to all three countries several times. The pages referenced above are maintained by Scandinavian nudists, so I think that a better source of information probably can't be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.29.77.101 (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

See the comment above from February entitled "Clothing optional". This might explain the confusion, namely (as stated there) that any beach in Norway which ALLOWS nudity does not have COMPULSORY nudity. I believe this is also the situation in Spain. Whether it is the legal situation in Norway, I don't know, but the one described in the text (all beaches in Norway are clothing optional) is definitely, definitely, definitely not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.29.77.101 (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

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

An image used in this article, File:At the nudist beach.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Nude sunbathing.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Nude sunbathing.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nude beach. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071111100520/http://www.cybernude.com:80/beachuse.htm to http://www.cybernude.com/beachuse.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Nackt auf dem Strand.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Related redirects nominated for discussion

Clothing optional (a redirect to Nude beach) and Clothes free (a redirect to Nudity) have been nominated for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 2#Clothing optional and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 2#Clothes free respectively. Editors interested in this article are invited to comment in the linked discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

How is a beach where it is illegal to be nude a type of nude beach?

In the list of nude beaches, this is a type of beach on the list. Isn't this not supposed to be included, since this wouldn't be a type of nude beach? MisterN1C022 (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

If nudity isn't allowed there but people go nude anyway, and the police turn a blind eye or have more pressing things to do with their time, that would be a nude beach where it is illegal to be nude. —VeryRarelyStable 05:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining, I understand now. Have a good day. :) MisterN1C022 (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)