From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Comments moved from Talk:Nudism 1.1 Rather POV 1.2 The Quote 1.3 "Major nudist organizations" and "External Links" 1.4 is this picture necessary? 1.5 Picture caption and NPOV 1.6 Goth nudist movement? 1.7 Retraction of my apologize 1.8 Removed material 1.9 The Pic... 1.10 Too many external links? 1.11 NPOV issues and Nudism is not sex section 1.12 Organization of text 1.13 Nudism history 1.14 From the ankle up 1.15 The Nudist Man is an Exhibitionist 1.16 When can non-sexual full nudity be considered nudism? 1.17 Picture discussions 1.17.1 Image:Nudists37.JPG 1.17.2 Image:Nudist-aerobik1.jpg 1.17.3 Image: - 12nohair.jpg 1.17.4 Image:Nudist man.jpg 1.17.5 Image:Human.png 1.17.6 Image:Z140.jpg 1.18 Ancient Egypt 1.19 Defining nudism 1.20 Criticism of nudism 1.21 Merge/move suggestion 2 Comments made originally on this page (Talk:Naturism) 2.1 Naturist beauty pagent 2.2 Separate pages 2.3 Merge/move suggestion 2.4 Why? 2.5 Reconcile with nudity article 2.6 NPOV cleanup! Help!!! 2.7 Interwiki chaos 2.8 Move content to Nudism? 2.9 "movement" 2.10 Clothist and many other good revisions addressed to Dandelion1 and others 2.11 Move to Social nudity 2.12 Nudism & naturism are equal terms, and are overlapping groups 2.13 Please use NPOV language on this page!!!! 2.14 Name change 2.15 Politics and commercial interests 2.16 Encyclopedia headings need not be labels 2.17 Naturism is Ridiculously Specific 2.18 RfC Comments 2.19 Building an encyclopedia 2.20 Further to RfC 2.21 Social 2.22 What now? We need a NPOV space for common elements to avoid redundancy! 2.22.1 Topics: 2.23 Nudity terminology 2.24 Seperate Naturism 2.25 notes 2.26 'natural' state 2.27 Link to the Nudist Naturist Hall of Shame

[edit] Comments moved from Talk:Nudism

- I have just read this page and feel that it gives the impression that all nudist activities occur within the confines of clubs and management? Beaches etc. don't generally have these rules. Nudists are people who like to have no clothes. Some choose to go to nudist places. They are nudists first. Also, there seems to be way too much going on in the article about erections - it's a non-issue, mention it in passing, but way too much in this article. Cached 10:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC) (Australia)

- Nudists often use sun protection lotions and will wear clothes if the weather demands it. For some reason, volleyball actually is played by some nudists.

vs.

+ Nudists often use sun protection lotions and will wear clothes if the weather demands it. Because it does not involve protective gear, nor does it involve much contact with the ground, volleyball is played by nudists.

Oh well... I was the author of the original tongue in cheek reference to volleyball. Because of bouncing body parts it is a favorite shot to include in naturist documentaries. In fact however, one can find it really played by some naturists. I believe that the dry technical reasoning that is now part of this article leaves out the humor and sense of mischief that infused this passage. Feel free to further adjust it. --Reigh 00:37, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I did think it was funny. However, I figured some people would not get the joke about nudists and volleyball!

--GABaker, who by, the way, is a card-carrying nudist

Nudists carry cards? But they don't have pockets!

[edit] Rather POV

At the moment it reads like a leaflet from the FKK or something.

It doesn't matter how it reads so long as the message still remains.

New person: I disagree that an erection isn't an issue. Look on nusit message boards for starters, it is one oof the most worried about problems. And considering the absolute likelihood of a spontaneous accidental erection, I would certainly worry bout it and about the reactions to it, considering tha fact that many women don't seem to believe that there is actually such thing as an accidental erection that has nothing to do with any sexual stimulus (such as sexual thoughts).

[edit] The Quote

• (added by User:Patrick) Quote: I really think that laws should simply be changed so that the entire world is a nudist resort 24/7".

It would probably be useful if the article said where this quote was from. (Also, does anyone have a better way of quoting italicised text?) Elektron 18:32, 2004 May 2 (UTC)

I have added the source, but someone deleted the quote anyway on the ground "Obscure reference from a board, hardly a reasonable source of information". As source of information I would agree, for a quote it may not be a problem.--Patrick 08:05, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

I just don't see what this quote was trying to show. Of course you find opinions on everything on the net, and this one seems not in any way special. Unless it's from some sort of authority on the field, I simply doubt it provides any information. --Laca 17:17, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Major nudist organizations" and "External Links"

I think that since the list of "Major nudist organisations" consists of external links that some reorganisation with the "External Links" section would be good. For instance many of the external links point to organisations that are specific to one country or area. I was thinking that renaming "Major nudist organisations" to "Regional..." (I originally thought "national" but that would have excluded the worldwide region, if you could call it that) then floating some of the organisations from the external links up to that section so that it is easy for readers to determine the region. Then the links remaining in the "External links" section would just be miscellaneous items. Or should there be duplicates? Or should the External links just be tided up a little to organise them better?

Anyway, I just thought I'd flag this up to see what people thought before I rearranged anything. Let me know if you think this is a good idea or not or if you have a different idea... --Colin Angus Mackay 02:15, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not all of them seem to classify as 'organisations' though (judging by the link names). If you can figure out a way to organise them, feel free. The "external links" aren't organised at all, anyway. Elektron 18:53, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)

[edit] is this picture necessary?

I find the picture featured in this article to be pointlessly explicit! everyone knows what nudity looks like! this photo should be removed. [unsigned]

I don't agree. Some people do believe it's about sex, or at least eroticism, or exhibitionism & voyeurism, or other nasty things, which is in fact lacking at nudist resorts, as it can be clearly seen in the attached picture.

--Adam78 09:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Concur. I personally think most naturists go *too* far off the "no sex, please; we're nudists" cliff in an attempt to salvage what popular acceptance they can, myself -- and that this is almost as bad as the hangups textiles struggle with -- but I don't have any problem with the picture.

Baylink 04:50, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also concur. The illustration is explicit enough to represent what a naturist venue actually looks like, but is not exploitative. It demonstrates that mixed gender casual nude interactions are normal in every way, and shows people who are comfortably nude and apparently enjoying the experience - exactly the attraction and the point of naturism. The viewer sees that naturists activities are neither sexual encounters, coy or shameful, embarassing or furtive. Its message is quite different from most of the often pornographic or sexualized images of nudity that are inflicted on North Americans by the various media. It would be a shame for this article on naturistm to have to loose this illustration.

Reigh 19:35, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If everyone is pro-picture, where is it?

rmed by 4.224.237.171 yesterday, it would seem. Consensus seems to be to leave it in place? aec

In my opinion, this is an article where a photo of nude people can be appropriate and encyclopedic. The one we have on the article currently, however, has no information as to the source or copyright. (See Wikipedia:Images for info on Wikipedia's image use policy.) Perhaps someone could find a substitute with properly doccumented source, either public domain or licenced under GFDL? -- Infrogmation 16:39, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---i do not concur. this picture is all together too explicit for young researchers. perhaps have a link to the image on the page but not the image itself

thank you for your comment User:66.213.25.12, but at present there is no picture in the article, either linked or inline, so I honestly fail to see how it can be too explicit. Thryduulf 22:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---when it was there, it was there last time i looked

There's a new picture up but i don't think it's a very good one. This seems more like something found on an exhibitionism page than nudism. Perhaps one of the more common sports pictures could be used? -Superslash

---I've seen the picture (the one with the naked bearded man and the woman in a red shirt) distributed elsewhere and described as Bay to Breakers, San Francisco, May 2005. --concept14

--- Why is it so hard to find a decent picture? So far we've had child porn, anatomical drawings, goatse, exhibitionism, and now a playboy photoshoot. Somebody needs to just go to Voyeurweb and ask if they can borrow some of the "What I've Seen" section. --Superslash

[edit] Picture caption and NPOV

I don't understand how this change results in a more neutral point of view. It certains reduces readability. I feel we should change it back, so I will revert it for now to make it more readable and then wait to see how much support there might be for the new version.

(The caption used to read 'Naturism can be both enjoyable and relaxing' but has been changed to 'Naturists find the practice of going without clothing both enjoyable and relaxing'.) Chris Jefferies 20:46, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

IMO, the caption which attributes to naturists a position which they do in fact take in public is a more appropriate approach than the current(ly reverted) shorter version, which positions that opinion as that of the entry itself. I vote for "Naturists find..." Baylink 20:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If it's too long and awkward, how about "Naturists find going without clothing both enjoyable and relaxing"? I happen to agree with the naturist POV, but I understand that other people do find it unpleasant or awkward. The previous caption reads like a standard sales pitch after the legal department substitutes "can be" for "is"... a bit of phrasing which doesn't make your average TV commercial NPOV. It's just a sales pitch that won't get the advertiser sued. By attributing the opinion to someone, the longer version is a more objective statement of fact.

I like the new wording suggested above so I'll modify the caption to that in a mo'. Losing 'the practice of' makes it flow a lot better. Thanks guys! Chris Jefferies 12:26, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Goth nudist movement?

I have a problem with the inclusion of the paragraph on 'the goth nudist movement'. I have familiarity with the Goth scene from several cities, and this mention in wikipedia is the first I've ever heard of it. A google search for +goth +nudist turns up 140,000 pages, of which wikipedia is first. However, other than for a link for a goth nudist mailing list on a local city webpage, I come up with nothing pertinent to this growing moment in a casual reading of the first 30 or so links. Most of the links are just hitting on the search term fodder that sex-themed sites add to the bottom of every page. Ultravoices 22:14, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I also had never heard of it, and was extremely excited. I live in San Francisco, and if there's a Goth Nudist movement, it'd surely have a large following here. A long, long Google search later, and I'm empty-handed. I think someone's just having a little fun with us here. PhiloVivero 09:12, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I admit there is showing of flesh in the Goth scene, but it is mostly do to revealing clothing, or crossovers with the S+M scene. It doesn't have anything to do with nudism as far as I know. As I stated, the best I can come up with is one link to one mailing list. Ultravoices 09:18, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Goth nudist paragraph now has a place of honor on Wikipedia:Oh, no! More bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. —tregoweth 18:27, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Retraction of my apologize

I thought I wrote the correction about Sandy Hook National Park not existing but apparently it was written by 141.150.107.19 so I want to retract my apology because I have nothing to apologize for because it wasn't my mistake. Misterrick 01:08, 08 December 2004 (UTC).

[edit] Removed material

I objected to the early introduction of mention of pedophilia and sexual concerns, so I moved them further down and reworded the base article. The eye-level comment is just wrong, as is the men vs women conversation with a minor "rule".

Most nudists automatically avoid looking at each other beyond breast height except in passing. And due to fears of pedophiles, most US family-oriented clubs have very strict rules against any adult male talking to any child that isn't their own for anything but a very short verbal exchange. This rule, though, normally doesn't apply to adult women.

70.25.236.234 Sorry, wasn't logged in. I am Reigh

[edit] The Pic...

One thing about the pic...if it's to make a more realistic impression about nudism, perhaps it should be something that doesn't resemble yet another nude beach pic, where even non-nudists go once in a while. How about a pic showing people going about their everyday life (in a non-private setting) nude? Kaz 17:15, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Something like a photo of Cap D'agde then? Thryduulf 17:38, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A new photo was just added by User:Dp2005, Image:- 12nohair.jpg. As the image has no source nor copyright information, and the subject appears to be under age, I removed it from the article pending information on the source and feedback on the appropriateness of using this image. -- Infrogmation 06:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

imho this image is not suitable as it doesn't really illustrate the social aspect of nudism, which imho is a key thing to show. Also, while I don't have a problem with the apropriateness in another context and it is completely legal (as I understand the relevant laws), given the current political climate regarding paedophilia we really ought not have an image that some overzealous member of the "moral majority" could misinterpret in that way. (Note that I don't think there is anything wrong with the image, but when parents have been questioned for many hours for taking photos of their children in the bath, its best (imho) to be extraordinarily cautious). If theres consensus I'm tempted to slip it quietly through IfD as OR UE to try and avoid the furory (sp?) that has surrounded an image that shows one of Kate Winslett's breasts slightly out of focus in the context of a much larger image. Thryduulf 09:26, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Infrogmation, and removed the pic again after an anon put it back. But I think there should be some picture here. Shanes 10:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I also agree there should be a picture here, but not this one. I've been keeping an eye out, but on the one occasion so far I've seen something suitable the copyright holder never got back to me :(. Thryduulf 12:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've just come accross a site that claims to have over 7,900 naturist photos [1] and so I have emailed the webmaster asking for permission to use a suitable image. Thryduulf 13:02, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Too many external links?

I've just gone through and alphebetised all the external links on the article, but there are a very large number. I think that it would be worthwile going through and removing all of those that aren't notable. As it is I think its in danger of becomming a link farm. Thryduulf 10:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV issues and Nudism is not sex section

Older (now current) revision of "Nudism is not sex" section reads like nudist marketing (very clearly nudist POV). Edit summary for revert says opinion was described as fact and one POV was replaced with another. However, the only thing I can see that suggests such a thing is "Many non-nudists consider it an obvious fact" -- if this is the statement in question, then I would argue that the statement as such is a fact. Many non-nudists do think it is an obvious fact. Perhaps better than "consider it an obvious fact" is simply "believe," but the meaning is roughly the same. I'm comfortable with a change to "believe." The rest of my wording I believe was unquestionably NPOV, though please elaborate if you disagree -- helps me in the future :) --Gk1256 03:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Went ahead and made the change. I can see how the previous wording could give the appearance of a non-NPOV. I also think these revisions remove some excess baggage and read better. --Gk1256 05:05, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Organization of text

Portions of the discussion about erections I thought were more appropriate for the "Manners" section, since they were clearly describing matters of etiquette (should "Manners" section be retitled "Etiquette"?). I moved the bulk of this text to that section. However, since erections do also relate to the "Association with sex" section, I think some of the discussion does still belong there. The question is how much. I left some of it there, but I still do not think it is all appropriate for that section.

There are also somewhat irrelevant issues in the "Manners" section such as the statement about nudists wearing clothing when weather demands it. While certainly worthy of mention, that doesn't seem to be a matter of etiquette but rather a matter of practicality -- perhaps better suited for the "General" section. Also, the text has a few tricky NPOV issues that may require the sentences to be completely rewritten, specifically statements such as "nudists are generally accepting people..." In an earlier revision, I rewrote one of these to say something along the lines of, "Nudists describe themselves as accepting...", but I do not consider that very good wording. I'm not going to say that the statement as such is not fact, but they sound like nudist POV opinion. --Gk1256 18:09, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nudism history

I believe the history section, although accurate as far as I am aware, is not complete. It seems to be something missing in between the Roman and Greek attitude towards nudity and the 20th century when the organized movement was sort of created. There are several examples of nude activities taking place in between these two periods (like nude swimming in UK, mixed genre groups saunas and bathings in scandinavian countries, etc.). Also, it seems that oriental forms of dealing with public nudity are not included (like japanese public baths). In this case, I believe it should be pointed that although nudity is usual and accepted in western societies on genre segregated locker rooms, the act of public bathing in the nude is not accepted even at genre segregated pools in the west. Vitor Cunha

[edit] From the ankle up

In images of naturism I've seen, it seems that a lot of them wear nothing but shoes. To me, that doesn't properly constitute being nude. So why is it so common? It would seem logical if a lot of nudists are barefooters as part of it. If I ever came out, I know which sort I'd choose to be.... -- ClosetNaturist 12:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Sand gets hot, rocks are everywhere, and lots of people don't have tough feet. I do admit we had a great time at Avalon in West Virginia when we discarded the shoes, but I wouldn't do it everywhere. We wear sandals. GABaker

True up to a point. But sometimes it seems pointless, e.g. keeping the shoes on indoors (like in the image that used to be here). Moreover, while some may choose to start by going nude except for the feet, I'd think most would soon develop into full-fledged nudists, and so nudity from head to foot would be the 'usual' form in which nudism is practised. -- ClosetNaturist 17:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Nudist Man is an Exhibitionist

As illustrated on the main Wikipedia page for "nudism" imho the nudist man is an exhibitionist. Is this the best the nudists can do for a graphic? To show a man by himself with be taken as Gay and to put a woman will be sexual exploitation because the movement is predominately white men? But can't you do better than this?

There are lots of much better images of nudism than we have here; however all the ones I have seen have been copyrighted. I have asked several webmasters to release a picture under an apropriate liscence and only one has responded (they said that they were not the copyright holder and could not therefore release the image under a different liscence, and did not now how to contact the person who does hold the copyright). I will keep trying, and encourage others to do so as well. Thryduulf 13:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Would like to suggest as an intermediate solution the Voyager picture

nude people

-- Test-tools 11:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

What does that have to do with nudism? And what "nudist man" are we talking about? Powers 20:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When can non-sexual full nudity be considered nudism?

Is nudism simply "non-sexual full nudity" or does it have to be associated with a certain industry, club membership or nationality? Below are some fully nude non-sexual activities. Which of them can be considered nudism?

• massage therapy (patient covered by a towel, but nude underneath)
• male-only YMCA swimming pools, back when nudity was required
• changing clothes, using the bathroom, or taking a shower in a lockerroom
• showering at home
• at home, surfing the web / trimming the lawn in the nude
• nude tribes, past and present, that lives / have lived in a tropical or subtropical region
• skinny dipping in a secluded pond
• gender segregated public baths in Ancient Greece or the Roman Empire
• gender segregated public baths in present day Korea
• mixed gender public baths in rural Japan
• other Japanese public baths with required nudity (onsen, sento, outdoor, indoor, mixed or segregated genders)
• Scandinavian saunas

Maybe creating Category:Nudism would be a good idea? —MangoCurry 03:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Picture discussions

I propose people mention the image's name, so we know which image we were talking about even after the image is swapped with another one. This might be less confusing than referring to an image as "the image" when the article keeps changing images.

For reference, see Child pornography and US code title 18: part I: ch. 110: § 2256 --MangoCurry 22:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Nudists37.JPG

(Introduced: 11:50, 25 October 2004. image link)

07:00, 25 February 2005 Infrogmation deleted "Image:Nudists37.JPG" (WP:PUI listed and tagged for deletion 30 + days)

[edit] Image:Nudist-aerobik1.jpg

(Introduced: 20:33, 23 March 2005. image link)

23:24, 23 March 2005 Thue deleted "Image:Nudist-aerobik1.jpg" (image uploaded by vandal)

[edit] Image: - 12nohair.jpg

(Introduced: 20:18, 16 April 2005. image link)

16:25, 17. Apr 2005 Petaholmes "Image:- 12nohair.jpg" deleted (Image may be considered child pornography in some jurisdictions)

Imho this image wasn't pornogrpahic, but because it was a full-frontal picture of a naked human female under the age of 18 (presumably 12, based on the image name) it was highly likely to come under the definition of "Child Pornography" in some jurisdictions.

Tagishsimon cited "image title & content lead to suspicion that we are carrying what in many jurisdictions would be considered child pornography" as a reason to speedy-delete the image.

Petaholmes evidently agreed and deleted the image. The image also had no information on its source, which would now make it a speedy-deletion criteria, regardless of content, but this was not the case when it was uploaded. Thryduulf 23:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Nudist man.jpg

(Introduced: 23:25, 29 June 2005. image link)

• One unsigned user decided that he was an "exhibitionist." No explanation given to support his/her claim, doesn't sign his posts. --MangoCurry 22:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Human.png

(Introduced: 07:52, 18 August 2005. image link)

• The image based on the Pioneer 11 plaque is less interesting since it is black and white, non-photograph and looks more like a diagram from a medical textbook rather than individuals enjoying nudist activities. --MangoCurry 22:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, this is so, and maybe intentional so, if so. In absence of a better a better illustration, I have added this again -- Test-tools 10:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Z140.jpg

(Introduced: 01:30, 17 September 2005. image link)

04:20, 19. Sep 2005 Zscout370 "Image:Z140.jpg" deleted (as per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=23398569)

• In my opinion, the nude image does not depict sexually explicit conduct as defined by US code: Title 18 Sect. 2256, hence it does not violate US child pornography law. IANAL--MangoCurry 22:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• I agree, although imho it also doesn't illustrate nudism brilliantly. Thryduulf 23:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient Egypt

There's a curious statement in the article: "In ancient Egypt under Pharaoh Akhen-Aton (1385-1353 BCE) public nudity was not at all uncommon". I wonder what is the source for this. And should we conclude from this one reign being singled out that nudity was uncommon in the rest of the very long history of ancient Egypt? --rossb 07:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to removing that single sentence add-on. That sentence would be useful perhaps when describing Egyptian historical art and lifestyle, perhaps, but doesn't serve much of a purpose in the current article, and there's also the question of verifiability. It's also very vague as to what it means by nudity.--MangoCurry 08:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence in question. --rossb 15:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defining nudism

Oxford American Dictionaries, which is a Mac OS X widget, defines a nudist as follows: "a person who engages in the practice of going naked wherever possible." I sort of like this definition the most. To the earlier question I posed of whether locker room showers is nudism, the answer would be that a naked activity is a nudist activity to a nudist and not to a non-nudist. So it's more of a state of mind. I think this is a more successful definition rather than coming up with criterias such as "must be mixed gender," or it must be "for reasons of health," "originating in so-and-so movement," etc. What do others think? --MangoCurry 08:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm adding a link to the "issues in Social Nudism" page from the iniitial definitions section, because some users may arrive trying to find the difference between naturism and nudism, and all that's said here is "they're the same", whereas the other page gets into an attempt at defining them separately. That might be best if it actually were on Naturism, but I'm not going to try a change of that magnitude. Moilforgold 13:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of nudism

The link for The Nudist Hall of Shame has been repeatedly deleted from the external links area. I would like to know how to prevent this censorship of criticism, please? Nikkicraft 17:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that that link is relevant to the article. In the short term, just keep adding it back. I've added this page to my Watchlist so I can keep an eye on it too. You can also file an RfC (Request for Comment) to invite other Wikipedians to weigh in on whether the link should be there. See the Help link in the left-hand sidebar of any page for more. -MichaelBluejay 06:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not deleting the link, though I don't think it belongs. It's not NPOV. The reason why it's not NPOV is that the pedo problem isn't unique to naturists. The "hall of shame" moniker could also apply to the Boy Scouts, kid’s sports coaches (like Little League), and school teachers. I haven’t checked, but I doubt those articles are subject to a “Hall of Shame” type link that lists child-sex predators that have been affiliated with those organizations. As a result, singling out naturists exhibits an unfair bias. Readers might incorrectly observe that only naturists and not other adult-child organizations have these problems and incorrectly conclude that there is something basically wrong with running about undressed. I would withdraw my objection to this link if folks would add similar links to the aforementioned organizations. However, I think anyone who tried would find their links expediently deleted. As a result, I think it’s equally fair not to include such links in this article as well. Rklawton 00:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge/move suggestion

I would like to propose to move common sections of naturism and nudism as well as related issues to a new page called Clothes free movement. Dandelion1 23:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Implenting above. For discussion please see Talk:Clothes_free_movement. Dandelion1 08:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments made originally on this page (Talk:Naturism)

[edit] Naturist beauty pagent

I strongly disagree with this picture. It depicts women in a non-naturist environment. If you are rating someone else's beauty (or nude body), you are violating the whole concept of free naturist as such. Everybody is equal and all body types are beautiful - this is what naturism seems to mean. There is erotic underlying here which, sincerely doesn't surprises me considering american views towards nudity in which even naturists tend to gravitate towards a more adult environment. This article should be more focused, towards INF directives. VC

This picture is not suitable for a naturism page- these activities do not happen in a European Naturist context being counter to the whole philosophy. Current practice is that any image used must have the written consent of all the participants- and photographer that does not observe this convention is merely a voyeur, and will be asked to hand over his film and leave. Suitable legitimate images may be obtained from the press officer of each of the relevant National Organisation.

The whole page seems to be written from the point of view of an outsider looking in from a considerable emotional distance. It would be better to consult the national naturism organisation who through the INF have been considering questions of definition for over 50 years. For instance the British Naturism Site (Google Naturism)is a good start if you cannot read German, Dutch or French

Naturism, often called nudism, has as many definitions as there are naturists. The International Naturist Federation, which represents millions of naturists around the world, including all members of British Naturism, describes it as:

"A way of life in harmony with nature characterised by the practice of communal nudity, with the intention of encouraging self-respect, respect for others and for the environment."

This is a development of the 1974 Agde definition.

"Naturism is a lifestyle in harmony with nature, expressed through social nudity, and characterized by self-respect of people with different opinions and of the environment."

Looking at these definition you will see the importance of encouraging self respect which the 'Erotic Image' violates.CR

We can't censor the more scandalous parts of the nudist/naturist community just because they're embarrassing. I agree that beauty pageants are contrary to the spirit of body acceptance, but that means the fact that many American nudist camps hold these pageants is to their disgrace. That fact ought to be reported. On the other hand, it need not be illustrated with a photo. -MichaelBluejay 23:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separate pages

Several western countries have separate pages for naturism and nudism. This should be reflected by creating separate English pages for the two terms because in English-speaking countries people generally associate with one or the other, or neither. That phenomena should be recognized. Dandelion1 01:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge/move suggestion

I would like to propose to move common sections of naturism and nudism as well as related issues to a new page called Clothes free movement. Dandelion1 23:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

For discussion please see Talk:Clothes_free_movement. Dandelion1 08:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

Page created due to an incredible amount of redundancy and overlap of content between nudism and naturism. Also provides a more neutral area to discuss disambiguation between the slightly different movements. Dandelion1 07:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Now that similar info is in one place, it will be much easier to remove crappy info, edits, stupid external links, and other silly things.Dandelion1 08:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reconcile with nudity article

Information on this page needs to be reconciled (moved, merged, added) with nudity. Dandelion1 08:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV cleanup! Help!!!

OK. Because majority of text came from naturist and nudist sources, there needs to be a major NPOV cleanup that does not show bias. Please help! Dandelion1 08:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki chaos

Well, I'm not going to comment one way or the other on merging Nudism and Naturism into one article (still, I would like to read the discussion leading up to the merge). A big issue does need to be addressed. Currently there are numerous duplication in the interwiki links being that this article is pointing towards both Nudism and Naturism articles on other wikis which still treat the two as separate subjects.

A decision needs to be made as to which article on each wiki is more closely related to this one now. Someone who can read the other linked languages needs to make a quick scan and remove duplications. --StuffOfInterest 18:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

There is so much overlap between nudism and naturism that is very difficult to have any article realistically trying to separate them. Another problem is that in each country, the principles of naturism may be more like another countries version of nudism. Its very odd. There is a difference though, and some long acadademic articles have been written that have brought some clarity to the issue. Germany has three basic versions including FKK, and then they have something called progressive or modern nudism which even gets more confusing. If we were to just pick one of those movements or labels/articles and say that one best represents the clothes free movement in general would not do any justice to the subject. Unfortunately, I believe they should establish the same tactic, and then have a disambiguition section like this article does. The problem was people here were creating entirely different movements called naturism and nudism, with similar discussions about overlapping phenomena being written differently, and one side claiming more credit in one area than the other, which is slightly misleading and non-NPOV. There are differences in the US and many other countries, but it kind of has to be laid out in a historical, country by country approach. It was a massive headache to try to reconcicle them without adopting the merge and disambiguation approach.Dandelion1 18:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there should only be one article. My main headache is that the term "Clothes free movement" looks a little too PC for my tastes. I'd say to use the Google test. Naturism draws 1.59M hits. Nudism draws 3.39M hits. "Clothes free movement", in quotes, draws a whopping 92 hits and several of these are links to Wikipedia clones. With that, I'd have the content under "Nudism" with redirects under the other two. Inside the article there could be a section describing differences between the two but the bulk of the article would probably pertain to both. Also, based on the above Google results, I'd remove the interwiki links for Naturism on languages where a Nudism link exists.

(See response in next section)

Regardless of all that, you've been doing a great job cleaning up the various nudity related articles. Thanks for the efforts. --StuffOfInterest 18:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. There is plenty of room for improvement. The articles are still quite bad. I see some of the same problems on related sites in other language wikipedias.Dandelion1 20:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "clothes free movement". To change the titles to some made up term, especially once that benefits a commercial website is not in the least being neutral. I would bet that Dandelion is somehow related to the clothesfree website. I could not believe it when I'd seen what was done to the naturism entry. To have even a mention of anything with the term "Clothesfree" is bogus. On doing some research, it appears that these changes were made by someone that has their site hosted by Clothesfree. Impartial? Cyndiann

[edit] Move content to Nudism?

StuffOfInterest has suggested moving content at Clothes free movement to nudism (see discussion above).

(1) Concern over a non NPOV article title. I would be concerned about moving all content to nudism, it is not an umbrella term, even if we just look at the US, for all clothes free activities and philosophy. As an example, many consider naturism and the free beach movement to be distinct from that. AANR, the main US nudist organization, has historically had a contentious relationship with the free beach movement and naturism.

Concern on the effect on the portal. Would the same pertain to the Portal:Clothes free? What if I named the Portal:Nudism? The nudism movement is mainly of interest to people who associate or are interested in that label, not a broader movement, and certainly not to those who identify heavily with naturism.

As a personal example, I am not a naturist or nudist, and I have been boycotting nudist resorts for four to five years now because of their lack of support for public lands initiatives, see criticism of the clothes free movement (which I changed from its former title criticism of organized naturism and nudism). I also resigned from The Naturist Action Committee because I felt that their insistance on speaking to naturists in their action alerts was counter-productive as it alienated nudists and other that do not associate with labels, such as those who frequent clothing-optional beaches (whom are often unaffiliated with formal groups and labels).

(2) Clothes free is an emerging NPOV term for clothes free acitivities among major naturist/nudist organizations. A very major clothes free/naturist organization, ClothesFree International (formerly the International Naturists Association) has recently adopted the term clothes free so it doesn't have to choose sides between naturism and nudism. They are arguably one of the most influential organizations in the US based on the fact they produce webcasts and generate an enormous amount of income, compared to AANR (main US nudist org) and TNS (main US naturist org). This is a very significant development in moving people towards using NPOV language when discussing a broad range of family-friendly activities. In a discussion about the name change they wrote:

Some people don't like being labeled.

Just like a person who periodically works in their garden might not want to be labeled a "gardener", the words "Clothes Free" doesn't label the person as does the word "nudist" or “naturist”. "Clothes Free" is catching on as the new friendly replacement to "nudist". Many resorts are now calling themselves clothes free resorts instead of nudist resorts. The words "Clothes Free" points at the clothes that are gone, instead of pointing at, or labeling the person.

As always, we fully support and belong to great organizations like the Naturist Society, the American Association for Nude Recreation, Federation of Canadian Naturists, and the International Naturist Federation.[2]

(3) Google results can be misleading. I am concerned about using google results to shape how things are labeled and categorized at Wikipedia. A lot of searches for nudist, naturist, public nudity will yield a lot of sexually-oriented material, even though nudists and naturists say that being naked isn't a sexualized activity. I did move Clothing-optional activities on public lands to public nudity because the first term was a bit too much even though making a page called public nudity might conjure up commerical sexually-oriented associations given internet searches. Many sex sites using nudism rather than naturism or clothes free in their meta data and web pages to draw people looking for that material to look through pictures, some or all of which are sexually oriented, and do not represent the clothes free movement, naturism, nudism, or the free beach movement. Dandelion1 21:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding issue 1 - I need to read a good definition of the difference between nudism and naturism. How much overlap and difference is there in the two?

Yes, I can provide this in a recent article written on the subject in N magazine. Give me a bit of time to fetch it.Dandelion1 21:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I just found out from the author Mark Storey that in fact the article has not yet been in print in N magazine (it is too long), but it was online for a while on the TNS website, however it has been pulled as he is working on it again. I might be able to get you a draft if you contact me privately. Dandelion1 08:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about sending the whole article. Can you paraphrase the basics of the difference in a few sentences? If so, it should really be included in the article as it helps to clear up the taxonomy of the various groups and pursuits in how they overlap and diverge. --StuffOfInterest 21:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I see there is some definition in the article already. My fear is still that the casual reader could be left with some ambiguity. If time permits in the next couple of days I may play around with creating a bubble chart showing the basic premise and overlaps of the different communities. Maybe going on the picture is worth a thousand words concept will help me and possibly others keep the issues straight. --StuffOfInterest 21:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure the divisions are that simple. There are indeed several overlapping communities within clothing-optional culture. If I could name them here, they would be:

1. Those who are comfortable in a social nude setting, versus those who remain solo (at home alone only, or closet) nudists.
2. Those who are younger with less confidence and income, versus the traditional older, well traveled nudist.
3. Those who believe clothing should be optional, versus those who would enforce full nudity wherever appropriate.
4. Those who set up nudism as a voyeuristic business opportunity (usually selling images or access to images), versus those who are opposed to exploitation and pandering.
5. Those who enable or deny child exploitation of some type within nudism, versus those who believe it exists and are willing to be activists against it.
6. Those who spend considerable time and resources to promote the public acceptance of clothing-optional culture, versus those who do not.
7. Those who participate in activist nudist organizations, versus those who would rather remain a non-joiner for various reasons.
8. Those who fight actively for more public places for nudism, versus those who limit their support of social nudism to private places behind locked gates at nudist clubs.
9. Those who advocate aggressive grass-roots lobbying, versus those who insist all the government relations be left to professionals in private meeting.
10. Those who stay home to be nude in the home and backyard, socializing there, versus those who would travel to be nude.
11. Those who would pay to be nude, versus those who prefer not to pay for use of public places such as wilderness, beaches or parks.
12. Those who would pay to be nude, and prefer upscale resorts, versus those who would seek inexpensive nudist accomodations.
13. Those who would pay to be nude, and prefer an urban setting, versus those who would prefer a rustic setting.
14. Those who practice a religion (see skyclad) or life philosophy requiring nudity, versus those seeking nude recreation and camaraderie.
15. Those who encourage a study and return to natural ways, called "naturalists" and sometimes erroneously "naturists", versus those whose only interest is being nude outdoors, also called "naturists".
16. Those who would rather be an online visitor or even an Internet troll on a discussion forum, versus those who enjoy nudism in person.
17. Those who believe nudism should include varying amounts of open sexuality (hedonists, perhaps), versus those strongly opposed to sexualized social nudism.
18. Those who believe nudism can harmlessly include limited sexuality, such as the wearing of lingerie in a nudist resort night club, versus those who believe this is inconsistent with mainstream nudism.
19. Those who believe the less rules the better (anything goes), versus those who protect clothing-optional public places by opposing such behavior.
20. Those who argue for the open display of spontaneous erections in the name of body acceptance, versus those who support more modest nudist etiquette.
21. Those whose secondary motivation towards nudism is to seek new sex partners (swingers, or those practicing polyamory), versus those who only practice non-sexual social nudism.
22. Those who have an active interest in voyeurism, versus those who believe voyeurism is parasitical to social nudism.
23. Those who support examples of exhibitionism for personal, political or artistic reasons, versus those who prefer to be never offensive to anyone.
24. Those comfortable around children in a nudist setting, versus those who would prefer they not be present for various reasons.
25. Those who have a need for safe environments for nudist families with children, versus those who have less concern for safety.
26. And last but not least: those who would be called nudists, versus those who would prefer to be called naturists. (I personally believe this is an illusionary grouping, arising generally from overlap of the will-pay vs will-not-pay and support-public-places vs support-private-places group divisions).

Trouble is, most of the dichotomies listed above have two groups at odds with each other. Clothing-optional culture includes such a wide grouping of people—nudists, naturists, solo nudists, hedonists, exhibitionists, activists—some of which really can't find consensus with their counterpart. I believe any of the various participants of clothing-optional culture will tend to fall to one extreme or the other of each category, illustrating the complexity of categorizing this subject. It would be interesting to go down the list and see where the reader falls in each category. BareWire 23:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding issue 2 - Wikipedia strives to describe the work as it is not how it may somesday be. If "clothes free" or "clothesfree" becomes the dominant term then the article names can be rearranged later. One nice thing with Wikipedia is that names (and often facts) are not set in stone and can be revised later.

Regarding issue 3 - very true. As a semi-outsider to the whole issue I have trouble seeing the difference between nudism and naturism, and I had just barely heard of "clothes free". One article, whatever the title, needs to strive to help people understand the differences. Hopefully a few more people will join in with opinions on this. Now, back to researching if Mar Bella beach in Barcelona is a good place to plan a vacation for this summer. :) --StuffOfInterest 21:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Use of term "clothes free" to suggest ClothesFree International: As something to consider when putting things into perspective among nudist organizations, while CFI (formerly INA) may have contributed in some positive ways to the public's perception of nudism, they "generate an enormous amount of income" partly by way of offering one of the Internet's largest collections of nudist photography. From July 1999 to October 2002 INA's banner ad said "See Photos Of Freedom" with pictures of little kids on it. See the 2002 banner They may have revised their strategy, but regardless, I tend to discount the huge amounts of income generated by such maneuvers. Reference: Early 1999 "Photos of Freedom" page c/o the WayBack Machine Here are direct links to some of the free teaser content featured on that page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Not all photos were of young nudists like these, but it is clear they will be included prominently in the collection promised to number in the thousands. Some feel feel this is exploitation and pandering, and not necessarily reflective of true nudism.

Re: Google results can be misleading - yes, but in this case, I lean toward acknowledging the preponderance of "nudist" and "naturist" over "clothes free" as a general term, and in my opinion "clothing-optional" seems to work even better, as it reflects the reality of nude beaches and many resorts. "Clothes free" is a term I personally refrain from using, due to the extra branding efforts CFI has been making to press the term into broader service, even with possible copyright issues notwithstanding. Google shows currently some resorts using the term "clothes free" on their websites, but very few abandon the term nudist entirely. Google link Similarly, AANR has used "nude recreation" as the umbrella term, also switching their byline recently to "the credible voice of nudism" in order to move closer to branding that term exclusively. "Naturist" suggests The Naturist Society, and rather not AANR. And this illustrates the problem: Wikipedia moves toward non-partiality. "Clothing-optional culture" is the most neutral term I can think of that isn't a part of someone's branding strategy within my knowledge. And I agree that certain terms bring bad connotations, due to the several parasitical industries that were built on the terms "nude beach", "nude celebrity", "nude gallery", "nude photos", etc. BareWire 23:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "movement"

I'm pretty sure that there is a large number of nudists/naturists out there that wouldn't characterize themselves as being part of a "movement," so I'm not sure if it's fair to merge them into a title that uses that name. IT seems like "movement" should be more about attempts to change things, like topfree equality, and less about historical nudism which operated under a very different philosophy. Night Gyr 16:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What specific changes are you proposing? Dandelion1 18:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

A move to a more general title would probably be best. I'm not sure what would be best, but "Clothes-free" just doesn't have the same connotations as the older terms. The biggest problem I think is the lumping together of many independent activities into a "movement." Why not something like "Clothes-free activity" or "clothes-free activism" or "history of clothes-free activity" as opposed to "history of clothes-free movement" because that title implies that there is a single grand movement. The motivations behind early nudism and modern topfree equality are so disparate that they shouldn't be lumped into a single grand movement. Night Gyr 19:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

And what connotations does older terms as nudism have? Activism? I think generally this has not been the case, especially in the US, and especially as it relates to the free beach movement which has had a contentious relationship with organized nudism in this country. Using that term to lump everything would piss off a lot of naturists, and many others, including myself who do not affiliate and who are working hard within the movement. None of the aggressive, larger scale clothing free activities are being organized by completely (or sometimes even partially) by nudists. This would include World Naked Bike Ride (not nudist), the Freedom to be Yourself (not nudist), Painted naked cyclists of the Solstice Parade (not nudist). Free beach movement (partially nudist, partially naturist, partially neither), Bare to Breakers (partially nudist, partially naturist, partially neither). Spencer Tunick, not a nudist, his participants, majority probably not nudists. Nudist activism in the US would generally focus on defending clubs.

A history of clothes-free activity sound more broad than clothes free movement. "Clothes free activism" might work (but I think movement might encompass some of the quieter variations of advocacy and practice). You are right there is no single grand movement, but there is a lot of shared philosophy and approaches which I think could be lumped under a broader category. Trying to straighten all this out among separate articles "naturism", "nudism", "free beach movent", "non naturist/nudist clothes free activism" would be a total nightmare and might be near impossible and impractical given differences among movments between different countries. The current title is much better than having separate articles with similar shared content, making various claims against the other as done earlier. To me, "clothes free activity" is so broad that it could simply equate to nudity. Topfree equality is definitely in a category by itself, however news relating to the movement is often covered and supported by naturism/nudism, and other clothes free supporters, so to leave it out completely would not reflect the reality of the relationship between the two. Many prominent activists in TERA, a prominent topfree equality organization, are prominent naturists or clothes free types, such as Judy Williams, Morley Schloss and Paul Rapoport. Other clothes free activists which are also topfree activists include Debbie Moore and Terri Sue Webb. Dandelion1 20:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't saying to put this under nudism, since apparently that term is contentious. I think maybe what we need first is some sort of hierarchy of nakedness so we can figure out which movements go together with connections in history or philosophy and then merge them into the largest branches that make for coherent (but not bloated) articles. Night Gyr 21:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. Hmmm... Without the terms already discussed on this page, I'm kinda drawing a blank about what to suggest. A big part of the problem is that the naturist nudist community has not agreed on a common term, each community using their own language to describe their own world. Naturists will say that many events are naturist-oriented, such as WNBR, but it is not a naturist event. The general public might think people who go naked in public are nudists, but they might not be, and the major nudist organizations may very well cringe from associating with aggressive activists. So there you have it. Its a problem. That is at least one reason why ClothesFree International changed their name (see discussion above). Dandelion1 22:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not put general information in Nudity (most of it seems to be there already), information specific to the modern clothes-free movement here, and information about naked people before the present day (i.e. historical nudist movements) in a history of nudity article? -- Night Gyr 03:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• What is "modern" though? Much of the current "nudist" culture in the US, for example, is more or less following the same strategy and activities seen at the turn of the century.
• On the other hand, the free beach movement started in the 1960s through 1980s. Really significant approaches to free beaches developed in the 1970s and 1980s that are still being tried today, so I would hate to move that to a historical article since it is so relavent.
• The public nudity thing, in urban areas, more or less got going in the 1960s through today and is still developing.
• A history of nudity would probably have to include "social nudity" baths, cultures, "nudity in vernacular culture" might include other things like streaking, but I don't know.
• "clothes free movement" would probably need to include clubs, beaches, resorts, public nudity (political, recreational, artistic).
• Could you make an outline of what you are thinking with topics?Dandelion1 06:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the subject, so I can't tell you what's out there to write about, I'm just trying to throw out ideas and see what works. As it is now, the organization is a bit of a mess with little clear demarcation of each article's domain and lots of overlapping and redundant information. Night Gyr 14:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

actually, how about "Social nudity" as a title? It's not as limited as public nudity, and it lacks the connotations of nudism, naturism, or clothes-free (as a neologism). Night Gyr 03:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting suggestion. Hmmm.... that also overlaps with nudity and clothes free movement. Thinking.... Dandelion1 04:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"Social nudity" sounds like a cross-cultural thing, which could be independent of any movement or philosophy, even as broad as the article clothes free movement. So I would think it is best discussed on nudity, since clothes free movement suggests a political intent to foster growth and development of general freedoms in society. What do you think? Dandelion1 06:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest "culture" in place of "movement". It's much broader, and doesn't require political activism. Reference: Definitions of Culture at wikipedia, which include

"...a 2002 document from the United Nations agency UNESCO states that culture is the "set of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features of society or a social group, and that it encompasses, in addition to art and literature, lifestyles, ways of living together, value systems, traditions and beliefs". UNESCO, 2002 "

So I suggest clothing-optional culture as the all-encompassing term. I'm no fan of hyphenated culture definitions but that's the best one for me. Let's hear some more input. I'll be happy to help with the editing if someone could tell me where it's needed. So to create this "hierarchy of nakedness" (nice term, Night Gyr) what do we need, an entirely new article, or to make everything existing fit some kind of logical structure like the one I've created above? BareWire 23:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems much more like a culture than a movement to me. -MichaelBluejay 02:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[[FROM KORKY DAY:]]

2006 April 6

Dear Wikipedia people,

I just signed up today for Wikipedia for the first time. I want to help edit because you need it so much, and I am an expert in social nudity. I have not attempted to edit anything yet.

I have been a nude activist for 36 years.

I'm uncomfortable with most or all of you being anonymous but will try to tolerate it. Here in Vancouver, BC, people know me face-to-face as Korky Day. I am about as well known as some of the people listed as prominent practitioners of social nudity.

In 1970, I led a movement which made nudism acceptable again at Ulksen Beach, better known as Wreck Beach. It is now Canada's most renowned beach--of any kind.

Nudism and naturism mean the same thing but are prefered by two somewhat different groups which should merge but which are too stubborn and foolish to do so. Those two groups are less divided in Canada than in the notoriously cantankerous USA.

The term "clothes free movement" is a poor choice for a broad category for many reasons, including some mentioned by some of you already.

Further reasons:

1. "Clothes free movement" is basically a euphemism. It's for people embarrassed to refer directly to nudity. Euphemisms are often handy when communicating with hostile authorities, but when used at other times they tend to be harmful to the self-esteem of practitioners. These terms are also euphemisms: naturism, clothing-optional, private parts, intimate parts, etc. More accurate, honest, and proud are the terms nudism; nude-optional; organs of reproduction, nurturing, and elimination; etc.

2. The term is also a misnomer. Nudists are not free of clothes. We don't advocate the elimination of clothes. I've never known a nudist who did not both possess and wear clothes frequently, although there are some such people in the wilds of the Amazon and New Guinea and maybe Berkeley. I've read about one in Florida. On the other hand, nudism is not a misnomer because it doesn't imply a lack of clothes, just a propensity for removing them. Would you call every cycling club a car-free club? No, many cyclists are also drivers.

3. One organisation may have recently adopted the term, but it has not caught on yet, and I hope it doesn't. They should have said "social nudity" if wanting to appease naturists. Or a term I believe I coined: nude-friendly. Your best choice now is to call the category social nudity, as suggested by "Dandelion" 2006 March 23 (metric dating, which Wikipedia should use, by the way).

4. Two words such as "clothes free" are hyphenated when preceding and modifying a noun such as "movement", unhyphenated when in a sentence such as "She was clothes free."

5. As some of you argued, it's not a movement, though it includes movements.

So the solution is to replace "Clothes free movement" with "Social nudity".

One of you suggested that we need an outline for arranging all these related topics. The way it is now is a huge, confused jumble. How about this outline below? (Sorry that this Web site added the pink boxes.)

OUTLINE OF NUDITY CONCEPTS by Korky Day

Nudity (with references in some categories below to near nudity, to exposing forbidden parts of the body, and to opposition to nudity)

I. Solo nudity (unseen by others)

II. Social nudity (non-sexualized, except generally to lessen shame of the body, its functions, and its shape; it is also intentional, voluntary, and non-commercial)

   A.  Private places
       1.  At home
       2.  Places allowing nudity or nude-optionality
                (resorts, clubs, beaches, parks, ships,
                       communities, etc.)
   B.  Public places restricted to one sex 
   C.  In public (mixed sex)
       1.  Isolated places unlikely to be noticed
       2.  Places allowing nudity or nude-optionality
            (beaches, parks, communities, including places
             established for thousands of years in traditional
             societies)
       3.  Among people who do not generally accept or expect
             it--in order to emphasize points political, social
               religious, sexual, artistic, whimsical, etc.
           a.  To amuse the nudes and/or the viewers
                   (nude group bicycle rides, for instance)
           b.  To shock or challenge the viewers (such as PeTA
                   and, in Western Canada, the Freedomite
                   Doukhobors, and, in many countries, teenagers
                   showing disdain for prudish norms)

III. Non-sexualized media

   A.  Art
   B.  Education
   C.  News

The people advocating the above activities generally take pains to sharply distinguish themselves from the following activities.

IV. Nudity or exposure for overt sexual gratification (intentional and non-commercial)

   A.  With consent (sex parties, for instance)
   B.  Without consent (flashers, for instance)

V. Sexualized commercial nudity (usually paying models)

   A.  In person, such as stripping and erotic dancing.
   B.  Reproduced (movies, photos, statues, Internet, etc.)
       1.  Erotica (supposedly liberating and respectful, more or less)
       2.  Pornography (exploiting and degrading, more or less)

Of course, sex and porn can occur without nudity.

I have tried to construct those categories above to be logical, not the artificial, arbitrary, localized, and ephemeral divisions of social movements we see at the moment. Nudists, naturists, nude-optionalists, and naked people who resists labels can all fit themselves into one or more of those categories, I expect, without too much discomfort.

One or two of you seemed to imply that naturism and naturalism can mean the same thing or similar. False. Wikipedia should state clearly in the naturism section that naturalism is the study of nature. Naturism is the practice of being in a "natural" (nude) state socially.

Sincerely, Korky Day Korky Day 08:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC) 07:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This is Korky again a few minutes later. I'm new at this. I don't know why my formatting got totally messed up. Who put in those stupid pink boxes and made the column much too wide? I have no idea how to fix them. Korky Day 08:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

This is Korky a third time. I experimented and found out what's happening. It seems that Wikepedia punishes people like me who properly indent our paragraphs! So I'm removing the indentations, but under protest! Maybe I should strip. Korky Day 08:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Korky again, after editing some "clothing optional" pages. For some reason, not all of the updates I submitted were credited to me, but I wasn't trying to avoid detection--it was a glitch. The updates between my first and last credited updates are all from me. Hope you like my work. Korky Day 08:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clothist and many other good revisions addressed to Dandelion1 and others

From Korky Day:

Now I can't find my note to you, "Dandelion1". It's somewhere here in Wikipedia.

I said "clothist" could be included, even if rare. I'm not proposing it as a category or heading, so I'm merely provides more information. Is that bad?

The only error of mine that I can see now is that I failed to indicate that the AANR calls a club non-landed if it leases its land. (Very misleading to the public and to AANR members!)

You say I showed bias in favour of nudist language? Where?

To which other of my edits did you object? There are quite a few: compare 04:44, 8 April 2006 and 21:35, 7 April 2006.

Unless someone says otherwise, I'll assume the other edits are acceptable--and put them back in. How long should I wait? --KD

[edit] Nudism & naturism are equal terms, and are overlapping groups

Why was I directed to naturism from nudism? I thought the merging of nudism and naturism was complete. It should be locked in or something. Then we can finish the discussion of what to call it. My preference is social nudity. Clothes free (sic without a hyphen) is negative, awkward, and unpopular. Korky Day 01:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You always will keep a bunch of redirects, and especially if you replace general used terms with a new construct. KimvdLinde 13:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Just my own perspective here, but arguing over the usage of the terms "nudism" vs. "naturism" sounds to me like Star Trek fans arguing over the terms "Trekkie" vs. "Trekker/Trekkor"... I've always viewed the two as being synonyms of each other. Kilraven 00:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please use NPOV language on this page!!!!

Please treat this page as if it were "social nudity" or "clothes free movement" or "clothes free culture" as info on naturism and nudism both are on this page and we are trying to create a NPOV article on the general topic. Please note that a requst to move the page to social nudity has been put foward. Please join the discussion on this topic. Thank you for your NPOV contributions to Wikipedia. Dandelion1 02:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name change

Name changes should only be carried out if he page is also moved to a that name page, which has not yet been carried out, and is doubtfull if that will happen unless there comes better evidence for the need of that move. I am still completly unconvionced. KimvdLinde 01:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

see also Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Article_titles KimvdLinde 01:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the article should use the same naming convention as the title. Unless there is consensus to move the article, using different words in the article and in the title just looks silly. I also don't understand what is less POV about choosing "social nudity" than "naturism" - the article title should just use the most common English word. Kusma (討論) 01:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

(1) Um, did you notice that there is a huge chunk of this page devoted to this discussion? Please share your thoughts there.

(2) There is no consensus, but there was also no consensus to move the page to "naturism" but someone did that anyway on their own initiative, before commenting about it on the discussion page. Did you notice that? User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 01:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

What others did is not a reason to display the same ad behaviour yourself. KimvdLinde 02:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason to use POV language in this article, do you? User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 03:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I see no reason for that either, we only differ dramatically what is POV language. Besides that, you are now messing the style of the page up. KimvdLinde 03:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Just because one person moved the article to a new page title without consensus does not mean all of the other editors who have so far been contributing within the spirit and tone of the article must now bend to the whims of that person and rewrite and adjust to the new title of the article by changing to POV and biased language. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 04:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are not able to build consensus for the move to Social nudity until now. I am concerned with this article in its current form, not with the past movements and accusations towards other people. That is NOT a reason to do the same. Furthermore, I would suggest that you read WP:POINT, WP:STYLE and WP:3RR. KimvdLinde 04:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Politics and commercial interests

Ok, I have been digging in the history of this page.

On 25 March 2006 Sceptre moved both Naturism and Nudism to Clothes free movement [3] and [4] to repair a crude cut/paste move (cut/paste move fix), a consequence of moving the page content of these pages to the Clothes free movement page by User:Dandelion1 aka User:Dandelion at March 13 see page history dif. Unfortunatly, the page histories of Nudism and Clothes free movement are unavailable for me. Coincedently, the Clothes free movement saw its light just months before at the beginning of Januari 2006 when the commercial The International Naturists Association (INA) changed its name in Januari 2006 to ClothesFree International, Inc. see [5]. This same person is now frantically pushing for the change of the page name from Naturism to Social nudity. KimvdLinde 06:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You are right, it is a coincidence. So what? Use of the term "clothes free/clothing free" and "social nudity" predate the corporate name change. I personally have been using those conventions before ClothesFree Interational made the change as well. It has also been in use by the naturist and nudist community (see sources at bottom of page). Please stop your wild conspiratorial accusations or go find some solid proof that something more is going on. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 19:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Good to know you are not associated in any way with the ClothesFree International, Inc.. KimvdLinde 05:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I associate with many people, naturists, nudists, TFTBY, BFC, SLUGS, ClothesFree International, TNS/NAC/NEF, WNBR, Solstice Cyclists, Body Pride Ride, Hemp Ride, but I am only a member of TNS, SLUGS and BFC. Many of my closest associates are naturists and nudists. I also work with others who enjoy social nudity or select public activities who do not use those labels. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 17:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedia headings need not be labels

Encyclopedia headings need not be labels: for instance, an encyclopedia might have a heading Citrus fruits, which would describe navel oranges, Mandarin oranges, pink grapefruit, white grapefruit, tangerines, lemons, limes, etc., plus how they differ and are similar. It's just a handy, logical category. That doesn't mean that every time you eat an orange or a lime, you must call it a "citrus fruit"! In fact, you rarely would. However, that doesn't make "Citrus fruit" a bad heading.

Like unopened pink and white grapefruit, nudists and naturists can be hard to tell apart. That certainly doesn't mean they need separate articles. However, it would be absurd to try to label the citrus article as either "Pink grapefruit" or "White grapefruit"! It would look most absurd to the lime-lovers (like the nude cyclists).

Therefore, let's settle on a comprehensive, accurate, neutral term, such as Social nudity, for our heading. Few, if any, of us will call ourselves "social nudity people", but that's all right!

-- above is a view from Canada, Korky Day 10:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The major difference bwteen your example is that Citrus fruits is a widely used term, while Social nudity is far from that and actually pretty limited to North America where the resistance is much harder. Everything seems to have started with moving most information of Naturism and Nudism and related pages to Clothes free movement and related pages. I have been reading an much older version [6] which looks much better than the current version. It is pretty amazing to have 1140 edits (since 2001) at this page of which almost 500 since the beginning of this year, many by a single user. So, instead of just continuing on this POV pushing related to a commercial website that has decided that Naturism and Nudism are infected terms because of the US situation WP:NPOV, I suggest we go back to writing a sensible article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox for political correct activism WP:ISNOT. Currently, Naturism and Nudism are overwhelmingly used in the world but if and only if social nudity has become the accepeted alternative for these terms (which will be reflected in for example in the largly increased number of hits in google), it will be time to move this article to that name. But until then, I am strongly of the opinion that we should keep it under the most used terminology (see above for google hits). And that is mention both terms directly in the first sentence (as is now), explain that they are "virtually identical" and that it has different conotations and continent related differences in usage. KimvdLinde 14:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't buy that. I Googled for these and found:

orange___486 000 000

grapefruit__83 000 000

lemon____15 400 000

citrus fruit__2 160 000

Considering that, by your Google reasoning, "Citrus fruit" is not widely used enough. Admittedly, some of the orange is for the colour (not the fruit), so let's forget orange.

Then, by your reasoning, I suppose we should call the Citrus fruit article

"Grapefruit and other related species" Korky Day 20:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Try Citrus, it gives back 43,100,000 hits, and that is the name it is under on wikipedia and Citrus fruit redirects to there. So, it works. KimvdLinde 05:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

No, because citrus is still found about half as often in Google as grapefruit, etc. And the reasoning in the new section below is similar and good. Korky Day 07:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Social nudity is only found 1 to 10 to nudism and 1 to 4 for naturism, so it is way less often used. Furthermore, other terms do not come even close. Finally, the two terms nudism and naurism are virtually identical, which is different for lemon and orange and ..... KimvdLinde 07:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You took "citrus" instead of "citrus fruit" in my example above, so I'll take "nudity" instead of "social nudity" for a Google search:

nudity____25 600 000

nudism___3 150 000

naturism__1 560 000

So your choice, naturism, comes in WORSE than 10 to 1, and only half as often as nudism. And you have left many of the criticisms unrefuted, such as that naturism is a euphemism and is partisan.

And a new reason not to use naturism is that so many confuse it with naturalism. "Social nudity" isn't the slightest bit confusing, as you claim. What is it confused with, nudity among socialites!?

But the main argument is that social nudity is more comprehensive. It includes urban nude performance art and urban nude cycling. Naturism, with its wilderness connotations, doesn't. Korky Day 10:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

See below, we are not here to decide for the world what the best term is, we are here to make an encyclopedia and similar to your Citrus example, there is a page describing the general stuuf, and specific pages for the specific stuff. See below.

Whether it is a euphemism and is partisan is irrelevant (WP:NORWP:ISNOT), it is a term used by a lot of people, and for that reason alone deserve to have a page. KimvdLinde 16:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with you, KimvdLinde, on ClothesFree being unacceptable. Worse than being commercial, to me, is that it is a fad. It's also saying what the movement is AGAINST instead of what it's FOR. It's also a euphemism for people too prudish to say out loud NUDE or NUDITY.

But then naturism and FKK are euphemisms, too, which encylopedias should avoid. That's why, even though culturally I fit in more with "naturists", I prefer the word nudist. But I don't want to try to force the heading "Nudism", by itself, on an unwilling group of Wikipedians.

The near perfect solution is the heading Social nudity or Nudity, social, isn't it? Not a euphemism. Even though it's not part of everyday speech, everyone instantly understands it, even quicker than they understand "Citrus fruit". My second choice would be Nudism, naturism, public nudity, and related practices, but that's a bit awkward. Korky Day 21:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC).

I disagree that it is a perfect solution, I think it is a terrible solution. KimvdLinde 05:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Why terrible? You're not answering many of the arguments above and below. Korky Day 07:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Becuase it is a infrequent used term, most people know it either as nudism or naturism. It is ambigious, unclear and confusing. Furthermore, WP is not a soapbox and a place to push new terms, it is to document what are the terms. KimvdLinde 07:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has already refuted all those. Encyclopedias frequently make up headings to describe categories of things. That's not pushing a new term, it's describing current fact. That doesn't mean people should or will describe themselves with the heading. For instance, the heading "Pre-Christian sculptors" doesn't mean those sculptors thought of themselves as pre-Christian sculptors, does it! Korky Day 09:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You said, KimvdLinde, a while back that "social nudity is confusing and can mean various things . . . " like Cultural anthropology (?). If you mean traditionally naked cultures, then, that's not confusing! That's what modern socially nude people are trying to reclaim and recreate, more or less: the constant, innocent nudity of all of our distant ancestors. I relate to the natives of the Amazon rainforest! They are nudists and naturists, in their own ways. They certainly belong in this article, and I've mentioned them in my additions.

"Can mean various things", yes, that's why it's a perfect heading, because it encompasses everything we're trying to include! Korky Day 21:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naturism is Ridiculously Specific

Naturism is a specific, quasi-religious movement. It can no more be used to describe all efforts to outgrow the nudity taboo than you could just call ALL religions "Christianity". To put all nudism under naturism is, in fact, exactly like putting all religion under "Christianity". A more neutral, wider term needs to be used instead. "Social nudity" is hardly perfect, but much better than "Naturism". --Kaz 02:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. But I do not object to move it to nudism, as that term is the most used anyway. KimvdLinde 07:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Also naturism is a euphemism. See above section. Korky Day 07:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC Comments

Whither to call this topic?

Not Clothes Free Movement, or anything with movement in it - that implies a political, advocacy and/or proselytizing aspect, which is definitely not where all or even the majority of nudists/naturists would place themselves (I would be interested in seeing figures - which of course would be extraordinarily difficult, given the number of 'private' nudists).

Perhaps Nudity in politics might be a better article for certain aspects of the movement and culture, which is very diverse. I can see that the political, advocacy and/or proselytizing aspect can be part of its own distinct section or article. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 02:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Not Social anything either - not all nudists mix social activities with their nudism - those who go to nude beaches or are 'domestic' nudists for instance.

Very often, not everybody, or even a majority of those who goes to nude beaches is a nudist or a naturist. Look at the decline of nudist and naturist clubs in Germany [7] and the increase in public nudity there. IN FACT, many have done informal surveys and found that many do not associate with either movement, especially formally. This is why traditionally nudists in America have not invested much in nude beaches, because there revenue comes from those who are dues paying members in clubs. The american nudist movement has also frowned on the free beach movement (which lead to the creation of the Naturist Society) because they though beach users were just too wild and permissive.

From the article "War of the Naked" at Expatica.com [8]

"More and more Germans are bypassing restrictive conventions of where and when to go naked and not bothering with traditional formal nudist/naturist/FKK associations before dropping their clothes in public areas. What then do the increasingly aging and dwindling organizations have to offer to those who could care less about apparently needless affiliations and their self-imposing restrictions? Will other civilized countries follow? If so, how will this phenomena spread? Will the clubbers continue to attempt to reign in these "wild", free-range, non-dues-paying naked people?

"Germany has become so relaxed about people stripping off and sun bathing in the nude that the only people who seem to be enraged are members of the country's long-established naturist clubs. Barry Whelan takes stock of the crisis that has hit the nation's once-flourishing free body culture (FKK) movement."

Social nudity is a term that is in use.User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 02:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Problematic word - naturism; it does have political/cultural connotations; I'm sure perceptions vary, but in my perception it includes a large preoccupation with outdoor activity & nature.

Nudism - had a look at some other wikis - In germanic languages Naturism appears to be seen as a sub-set of Nudism - in French the reverse seems to be true. Eeeek!!!! Linguistically, English seems to be in line with the Germanic understandings (naturism as a subset of nudism), but it appears that there is a huge political gap here - a little pragmatism might be in order ;-) Please Please Please, don't invent a new label though.....Bridesmill 16:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes! That is why there needs to be a disambiguation section in a neutral article on use of the two terms. Again, we are not pulling "social nudity" out of nowhere. Remember all these terms, including Naturism, Nudism, Jaybird, Naktcultur - Naked Culture (German), Wandervogel (wondering birds - German), Free Body Culture/FKK (in German) were invented out of thin air. The danger I've also noticed is that a nudism article in Europe might better have an equivalent in naturism in the US. Who decides what the proper interwiki link will be? Will it be based on the word? Or its language/regional meaning? What do we call nudity movements outside of naturism and nudism? Where will that info go? User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 02:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

A European perspective I am at a loss to know where to start, but looking at the page on Naturism, it is a mess, and looking at the debate here ther seems to be a real lack of input from anyone who is familiar with Naturism in Europe though many are willing to speculate. I have been visiting official naturist sites in France for 25 years, and using French Naturist beaches on rivers and on the Atlantic and Mediterranean. My neighbours there have been principally Dutch, French and occasional German with the occassional Brit. I have visited Naturist sites in Austia Spain and Former Yugoslavia. I am a member of BN (British Naturism) so I can get my card but don't participate in Naturist activites in the UK. That is my background, this is my opinion.

Naturism is the only term I would use. In the UK, nudism is not used except in a derrogatory manner- I would positively avoid anywhere that described itself as Nudist. In the Uk, nudism has extreme sexual connotations- usually associated with 'Carry On Films'or the socially inadequate. It is commonly said that in North America, nudism is not a negative term, but I have no personal experience. I would warn any North American Visitor that Nudism is not a term to use in conversation like other 'false friends' between the two languages.

A Naturist beach is one that has been official sanctioned, where a clothing optional beach is a beach where textiles and naturist mix, but has not been officially sanctioned. As so much british naturism happens in France, most Brits understand the idea of a FKK beach, or going FKK, and the term 'nudité obligatoire'. So I would ask a friend if a beach was FKK, when I meant was it official or tolerated. I would ask whether a beach was Naturist or Nudist, meaning whether families were using the beach, or whether it was a site of 'free love'.

There is a reference to 'nudité obligatoire' at all times with in naturist clubs- this is just not true, the only places that this is hoped for is in the swimming pool- there are a many reasons that cause members to wish to stay clothed, from the time of the month to skin problem, safety etc. And because the sun has gone down and it is cold!

There is a reference to 'wearing lingerie'at naturist resort nightclubs. At the nightclubs on naturist resorts that my children frequent, they dress as they would at any normal nightclub. The only difference appears to be that younger teenagers are permitted to attend, as a FKK site is a safer environment.

The term 'social nudity'is bureaucracy speak, it occurs on the websites coming from the 1974 Agde definition- as a translation of gemeinschaftlich nacktheit/ nudité communautaire/ gemeenschaapelijke naaktheid ( I would have translated it as common nakedness).

The need for disabiguation pages is irrelevant, it is only needed because so much irrelevant stuff has been cut and pasted from the nudism pages. The Naturism page can be far slimmer and to the point. The principle page could be Nudity, and would link to Naturism through its terminology section.

What should be on a Naturism page.

It should start with the Agde definition- take a copy from the INF handbook. It explain that while in North America it was synonymus with nudism, it Europe it definite was not.

The terminology section should be stripped back removing all nude and sexual references.

The history section needs only to start with the Adamites, then should do a brief bit about Zimmerman in Deutschland and Lecoq and Montalivet in France, the whole 'Nazi' bit can be stripped as it is not relevant (someones hobbyhorse).

At this point there needs to be a regional examination. Much of the history section can be split into 'Canada',Argentina, etc. The legal position for naturist in each of these countries can be examined here- and by reference to the relevant local association.

For instance the legal position, and facilities in the UK can be examined by referral to the British Naturism Page, and in France this can be showm on a FFN page. (French Naturist Federation). I am sure that there are many interesting issued caused by the federal structure of the constitutions on the North American Nations- that can be examined regionally.

There is the link to issues in social nudity that should be kept, and that page can be worked up.

I apologise if I have offended any Wiki conventions, or over posted in the wrong place, I am sure I will be edited and corrected. CR 16 July 2006

[edit] Building an encyclopedia

The first purpose here is to build a encyclopedia. An encyclopedia describes what is there (see WP:NPOV), it does not invent things (See WP:NOR), and as such is free of an agenda (See WP:ISNOT specific: WP:ISNOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox). Furthermore, it works by consensus building and information needs to be verifiable by reliable external sources.

With the naming stuff, deciding which name is the ONLY one to use is originalresearch, and undermines the basic idea idea of an encyclopedia to document things.

Social nudity is an umbrella term (see discussion above what it all includes). Having a seperate page to document the wide range in terminology and the different fractions is a good idea. However, deciding that Naturism and Nudism should be eliminated in favour of Social nudity is not, because it suggests that the previous terms are synonyms of the latter, which they are not, they are part of that wider term, but he wider term is not describing naturism and nudism accuratly. This kind of umbrella page-subpages is used very frequently. See for examples Citrus and Germanic neopaganism that descibe things in very broad terms, before they link to various subpages for more detailed documentation of subsequent terms.

My proposal is to use Social nudity as a general introduction page linking to the many version that are around. We can have than a seperate page to document for naturism/nudism or even have two seperate pages for each naturism AND nudism if they are deemed different enough.

This initially sounds like a good idea but I am concerned this may take us down the same troubled path that we have been in the past. I think a lot of people expect that there should be two pages for naturism and nudism or maybe one with both. But what would be the real valuable content, the meat on the bones, on a page on naturism and nudism beyond the core definition of naturism and nudism being without clothes in social, often mixed gender contexts? Would each page have a history section? How would you handle a history independent of the other term? When is one action deemed under the context of naturism vs nudism? What would be in a terminology section for naturism vs nudism? What would be in an external links section? Would naturist links be removed from a page on nudism? I have a very strong bias against redundant information and NPOV language on Wikipedia, and I think opening up two articles or a single article describing both naturism and nudism would result in POV language that is not consistant, resulting in articles looking like Feb 7 (below). I personally do not want to wade through such articles trying to bring it up to snuff to Wikipedia standards everytime some new user throws in unverifiable, POV edits. And believe me, if we move to make articles on naturism and nudism that are not integrated under an umbrella term, this will happen, and the editing nightmare will begin again.

Also, who will decide when activities that are non-naturist or non-nudist are included or not included on a page on naturism or nudism?User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 19:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, there will be always editors who will try to add nonsense. That is part of wikipedia. Secondly, I find the current version as much stronger POV than the old page (that is why I do not object against the POV tag that is on the page, it makes really perfect sense with its current content). And don't get me wrong, the old page needed improvements. Thirdly, wikipedia works by consensus WP:CON, not by ownership WP:OWN. And I suggest that you try to wok more toward consensus instead of dealing with the page as if you are the only person who knows something about this. Wikipedia REPORTS and DOCUMENTS, and as such, is based on good reliable and verifiable sources. In general, discussion resolve themselves very quickly when those resources are used. As soon as you try to add an agenda to it, how well intended, you are on the wrong path here.

Each term has its own history. If there are to many crosslinks between terms, maybe there should be a history page where all pages can refer to. There is no objection to have a short, clear article dealing with the essentials of a term, and then refer for the larger picture to another page. It will require a lot of thinking, editing and working before the group of pages will be a coherent total, but that is what it will take. KimvdLinde 01:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

(continued) For people who came later to the discussion, the last months, the article has been changed beyond recognision by User:Dandelion1, and for those who want to get an idea of the article before that, have a look at the last version before he started to edit this version of 7 February 2006.

This version illlustrates my point fairly well regarding NPOV language. Look at that version. You have a section called "Naturist terminology" and then a section called "History of nudism". Now you could argue that a proper editing environment that is keeping language consistant would prevent such strangeness from popping up, but I am not convinced based on the history of edits. Naturists and nudists will use their own naturist or nudist POV language to make edits on one or both pages if they exists. But is the history of naturism the history of nudism as well? It depends on who you ask. It depends on the time and what region you are talking about. Nobody though could deny that they are not very much entwined.

Let's say that one proceeds and makes a page called naturism and nudism. Ok fine. Naturists and nudists will start talking about public lands activities, and taking credit for them or laying claim that they are on the cutting edge of naturism or nudism, even though, many of those activities are being organized by non-naturists or non-nudists, like the Solstice Cyclists, TFTBY, WNBR et cetera. And any good article about naturism and nudism is going to have a section on manners, etiquette, addressing taboos, children and, et cetera. But the same issues get brought up in broader social nudity contexts, that is the issues get broad up often when people are nude together in mixed gender, social situations. If they are not brought up, then perhaps cultural anthropologists will be interested in how different groups handle similar issues.

Even in that version a claim is made "In Europe, and in particular in France, nudist and naturist have not the same signification." But nowhere does it note that the meaning of nudism and naturism itself differs region and historically, which is what Mark Storey has shown in his article.

Claims like the following, simply are not verified:

"Nudism is the simple pratice of nudity in public, mainly on the beach. Naturism is much more, like pratice of common activities, with also philosophical or ethical content." That understanding might be true to the editor in the region and time he or she is writing, but somewhere else it might be completely different.

Anytime one is having a general discussion, which could also relate to broader social nudity, the editors have used wither naturism or nudism as a noun.

As soon as I really read the "history of nudism" I knew that there was a major problem with this section heading. The history of nudism as claimed goes beyond a nudist context, it is also tightly interwoven into the history of naturism. To avoid having to completely tear it apart and pick apart what aspect is one or the other it seemed obvious to write a broader article that addresses both nudism and naturism and movements that operate outside the labels and anywhere inbetween.User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 19:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

As I indicated above, the old version was not perfect, but the current version is far worse. Many of the things you address here would be perfect additions to a good article about these terms. Make it clear those differences between countries. Nothing wrong with that. KimvdLinde 01:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

(continued) The whole idea about having to decide which term is accurate for the whole movement is irrelevant, we are here to ducument what is out there, not to make decision on how it should been called. KimvdLinde 16:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't object to having a page for naturism and nudism, I actually created a page for Naturism that was not just a redirect. At that time, there was only information being put on nudism. I quickly realized the folly though of having separate pages for naturism and nudism and the folly of trying to use those terms to describe a broader culture that went beyound those two terms. Simply put, one cannot legitimately but activities beyond or outside the scope of naturism and nudism, when the organizations operating outside those labels do not adhere to naturist and nudist labels, sometimes every aggressively criticizing the two (three in Germany) movements or cultures.

I can live with a page called naturism and nudism or nudism and naturism (latter has my preference based on number of google hits, just from more common to less common).KimvdLinde 01:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

(continued) As it was, with two pages describing naturism and nudism, we had two pages with two separate disambiguity sections. As it turns out the disambiguity itself can be contentious, as shown in this debate. I believe this debate about terminology deserves its own sections, that is, I think it deserves to be in a section about contemporary issues in social nudity, or whatever people call it, because people have such strong feelings about it (duh).

But if you really hone down both naturism and nudism to its very core, without the variations historically and regionally, you end up with two articles with definition that are virtually identical. But the fact of the matter is the two terms are used differently, and the differences need to be properly noted. I believe the differences should be noted in an article independent of either naturism or nudism, because otherwise you will end up with two different versions of the issue. Naturists and nudists often tend to choose one term or the other for themselves and then rename whatever they are doing as either within the context of nudism or naturism.

It sounds like there is sufficient material for such a page. Those differences need to be addressed, we document, do not hide and do not judge, we do not choose. KimvdLinde 01:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

(continued) As soon as Mark Storey releases his paper on terminology it will have a profound impact on this discussion, however, I don't expect him to release it anytime soon because he wants it properly published and it is too long to be included in one issue of one N magazine. Anybody wishing to verify that he is in fact revising the article or want to ask him general questions about it can contact him throught the Naturist Society's website/NAC website. He by the way does support the idea of using social nudity as an umbrella term, despite the fact that he personally uses and advocates naturism. He is one of the most prominent naturist figures in the world, as far as I am concerned given the breadth of his work and his political involvement.User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 18:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Untill he releases that paper, we have to dealw ith what is available now. And even after he releases the paper, the word will not evaporate. Mark Storey may be a prominent figure, but his opinion is just an opinion. Until the terminology has changed in common usage, the terminology is as it is. And it is not to ANY editor at wikipedia to judge that a commonly used term should be eliminated from the encyclopedia just because it is an inconvenient term. If you want to use WP as a soapbox, I suggest you go somewhere else to do you activism. KimvdLinde 01:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

(1) Mark's article is not an opinion piece per se, but a research article. That is why it is valuable. His works always are very well referenced/sourced.

(2) I don't want to eliminate references to naturism and nudism, I just want to have a good setup for discussing both without creating two very similar articles, saying similar things (redundancy) on the one hand, and having an environment where people are claiming historical credit for certain actions as being specifically naturist or distinctly nudist. Another thing that bugs me is people who saying nudists/naturists do this or that and have this policy or that policy. Policies vary by clubs, events, organizations, et cetera. Many people have their own working definition of what naturism and nudism means to them. Its much more useful to have an issues section and discuss why one policy is this way or that way, and note if it is controversial and why. I think it can be done, but I think common elements should be put on a neutral article like social nudity. That term is being used by naturists, I don't think its a perfect term, but I like it better than naturism and nudism, because not only is it being used, the phrase also is fairly intuitive for what it means, nudity in a social setting. I can understand the frustration with how it relates to cultural anthropology, I don't really know what to say about that other than to say a non-western viewpoint in this article would be a very valuable thing to have included. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 02:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Moving this page to social nudity with this as a redirect is not good setup, it is a extreme bad setup. People search for the most common term that they know, and they should end at a page that is dealing with that. Your WP policy violating edits such as beginning the article Social nudity are only confusing, and I doubt that any admin is willing to move this page to that page with the lack of consenus that is here. If you really want to get things going on major pages like this one, I suggest you start to work towards consensus, and stop the POV pushing. If you are so well informed about all the nuances between groups, countries, movements etc, making a good article about a specific term containing the needed nuances should be a piece of cake for you. Being bold can be good, but it can also be very counter productive when it results in ill-thoughtout actions such as making every page related to naturim a cloths fee related page. And redirecting common terms to POV terminology that is covering much more than the redirect term implies is just a plain bad idea. KimvdLinde 02:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: I don't think its a perfect term, but I like it better than naturism and nudism, because not only is it being used, the phrase also is fairly intuitive for what it means, nudity in a social setting.. I have two problems with this. 1. In the end, it does not matter what you prefer, it is what is used by the public at large. 2. The term is maybe intuitive for you, but for example not for me. Social nudity is just to ambigious.KimvdLinde 03:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further to RfC

According to the dictionary (american heritage and websters) nudism & naturism are synonymous. Social budity appears to be a term peculiar to the nudist/naturist subcultures, or occasionally used in describin aspects of nudism/naturism. To have it as the overarching article would - to re-use the citrus examplt - be like having an article entitled 'Lemons' to discuss all citrus fruits. Recalling NPOV & NOR, I would respectfully suggest that this pretty well defines the parameters. An additional obervation: There appears to be a big difference between small-n nudism/naturism and big-N Nudism/Naturism - as in the difference between democratic and Democratic - as an example of the impact, the New Democratic Party in Canada is considerably more liberal (in the US understanding of the term) than the Liberal party - I think that in writing this article, the editors need to keep that distinction of small n (nudism) very clear from big-N AANR/TNS etc. Bridesmill 01:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Using google or american heritage and websters is not sufficient for listing differences between the two movements. Naturism does not equal nudism EXACTLY. Try showing up and an AANR nudist conference and telling them that they are now equavalent to being naturists and you will have people getting pissed. AANR (nudism) does not equal TNS (naturism) in the US. That is why there are two different organizations and why there is often a contentious relationship between the two. Many nudists have very strong feelings about their approach. There is space on Wikipedia to have an intelligent and well-informed presentation on this. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 02:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

My point exactly. Small n they are synonymous - you can't say 'the dictionaries are wrong' - same situation as discussing liberal & democrat with Democrats and Liberals ;-) The other problem is it's very hard, given the subtle differences, to figure which is a subset of which - cf the germanic & romance semantic differences; meaning the arguments you'll get between nudists and naturists will also vary on where you are geographically - I'll bet the US take on the difference is subtly different from the UK. On the other hand, if the nuances get too finnicky, the whole issue becomes a candidate for WP:LAME, which I'm sure nobody wants.Bridesmill 03:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm up to the challenge. If its WP:LAME, we will look at it and change it if it is necessary. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 03:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Not slamming anyone here; but it does look a bit POV-ish from the outside (and potentially offensive/turn-off to non-lifestyle nudists (e.g. those of us that by virtue of -40, blackflies, & bushfires have tanlines) - personally, I would do away with the derogatory terms - as insider jargon, that's cute - but it is neither encyclopedic nor useful - you don't see the definition of 'crispy-critter' on the firefighter article, for instance. The bit that prob really needs a bit of tweaking is the whole naturist/nudist debate - this is always returned to, but it is not really clear in the article just what exactly the problem/disagreement/debate is - which leaves the issue to the textiled reader as something of a mysterious, elitist, insider debate; I realize that you are deadly serious about the work here and I;m not trying to detract from that - just giving you the view of someone who is outside the 'movement' as such yet friendly towards it and reasonably familiar on how this article stands to be perceived.Bridesmill 16:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I am a nudist and live in a nudist MHP. While "nudist" and "naturist" are used interchangeably, the _only_ reference to "clothesfree" I've ever seen has been the website Clothesfree International which exists solely to sell nudist videos and "Naked News." In _no way_ is CFI any sort of 'movement headquarters' or anything of that sort; indeed there is no coherent 'clothesfree movement.' I believe 'nudism' and 'naturism' to be the proper designations while 'clothesfree' moves close to simply advertising the for-profit website.

jbh Minister of Propaganda PascoNudistForum.com

From Korky Day: I go away for a day or so and miss so much!

KimdvLinde has trouble with the word social. She seems to think it has to do with dinner parties on the south lawn with servants or something. Or earnest academics meeting to push vague, utopian theories. No, social just means not alone, among people. Not just someone daring enough to shower or copulate nude, but who can be nude with others, whether in private or public. So it's perfectly fitting. Using social nudity as the main heading is basically to use the word nudity as the general category, but specifying social nudity in order to distinguish it from the nudity which is focussed on sex and eroticism, especially for selling nudity. We could just as easily say nudity (social) or nudity, social. Maybe we should. (Or even nudity, unpaid and unashamed!) Social nudity is not some unencyclopedic invention, Bridesmill. It's like "Pre-Christian sculptors", as I described above: not a term from everyday talk, but most useful in an encyclopedia. That's not original research, either, it's just good diction.

Furthermore, KimvdLinde also said about naturism, "Whether it is a euphemism and is partisan is irrelevant (WP:NORWP:ISNOT), it is a term used by a lot of people, and for that reason alone deserve to have a page." You want a euphemism? Should we should title an article about human excretion, "Going to the bathroom"! No, human excretion or excretion, human is good, even though hardly anyone ever says it that way and it would find few Google hits. A little page for a euphemism, fine, but not naturism as the title of a main article attempting to encompass a broader subject. I'm not saying you can't have an article "Going to the bathroom", only that it shouldn't be the MAIN article.

And partisanship is the core of this whole argument. We should avoid partisan titles for the MAIN articles. Naturism is highly partisan and biased (in that silly Wiki jargon: "not NPOV"). Korky Day 01:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

1. I have no issue with understanding the word social, and I know what it means (And no, not just fancy dinners or utopian theory)
2. I do not think it is an euphemism. And even if it is a euphemism, if it is used so much, it is encyclopedic, and it is not to two editors of wikipedia to change that.
3. And I suggest that you keep the sneers towards me for yourself. That is not the way to deal with each other here.
4. And this way of discussing is not going to change my mind, it is just a good example of what I consider strong and biased point of view, with a lot of original research. KimvdLinde 03:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you thought I was sneering, that was not my intention. (I removed those bits.) Let's be friends. What's wrong, in your opinion, with the word "social" in Social nudity for a heading? Would you accept Nudity (social) or Nudity, social or even Nudity (unpaid and unashamed)?

Naturism is a euphemism, of course. It says nothing outright about nakedness or nudity. Hence the frequent confusion with the word "naturalism", even among socially naked people. The euphemistic label "naturism" was adopted as a political strategy to distinguish a group of disaffected nudists and to blunt public criticism by not really saying outright what they were about, and as a criticism of some nudist resorts which some thought were too expensive, elitist, overdeveloped, and getting too far from "nature". If you won't go for any of my suggestions, I still object to Naturism and nudism. The older, more well known, and non-euphemistic term should go first: Nudism and naturism. In fact, why don't we change it to that now, as an interim solution? Naturism as a heading by itself is so obviously biased. Korky Day 04:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem to bring this article under Nudism and naturism (as I indicated above already) or even Nudism as I agree with you that that is the most widely used term. For social nudity, it is a way to wide term, which does cover much much more than these two terms, and it is typical political correct terminology and as such, strong POV. Furthermore, it is way to infrequently used (19900 hits in google is nothing compared to 4.5 million hits for naturism and nudism combined) to serve as an valid alternative to these two terms, and if it is not to cover these two terms specifically, it is the wrong tem because the meaning is so much wider. Social nudity can be used a a very basic ambiguation page, but not more than that. I can see a seperate history page to link the terms historically. KimvdLinde 04:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Korky, I think you may have misread me, prob as Dandelion inserted replies into the middle of my reply, bit no offence - My big concern with 'Social nudity' is that although it may be iin use, and may be the de-rigeur avante-garde term, it is not one which is likely to be correctly read by the non-nudist/naturist/fkk world (which is after all your primary audience) - it has connotations as Kim implies whihc you don't want people to have to read the whole article to discover are not well founded. Calling the article Nudity (social) may be the best way out - it avoids the whole nudism/naturism squable, and then arguing if it shouldn't be naturims/nudism instead etc etc. - although certainly that nudism/naturism politic 'needs' to be discussed (enjoy NPOVing that LOL).Bridesmill 13:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Social

The major problem that I have to rename pages based on very general used names as Naturism (1.5 million hits) and Nudism (3 million hits) to social nudity (19,900 hits at google), besides the much more common usage of those first terms, is the ambiguity of the terminology . Yes, it can cover everything. Anything that contains nudity and a social aspect falls under it. Sauna, group sex, nude beach, public orgy, skyclad rituals in wicca, whatever. It is a way to wide term and therefore confusing. Maybe that some waht to fit that under it, but it is no synonym for naturism and nudism. KimvdLinde 03:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I already said (way above) that the word nudity by itself shows many more Google results than either nudism or naturism, maybe half of which refer to commercial or strictly erotic nudity. That's why we add the word "social", so it does NOT include group sex or orgies. The 2 words together, Social nudity, needn't be common as long as it sounds encyclopedic (it does) and says exactly what you mean (it does), is not a euphemism, and is less biased than naturism (etc.). It should and does include devotees of Sauna, nude beach, and skyclad rituals in wicca, some of whom claim not to be nudists (though they are)! Social nudity, you're right, is not a synonym for nudism and naturism. It's not meant to be. It's meant to include saunas and free beaches and nude cycling, which can all have their little sub-articles, but which all descend from the historical trend away from clothes compulsiveness. That trend is social nudity--or do you have a better term for that broader idea? Korky Day 05:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm; I'm assuming you're not a naturist ;-) On the other hand, the oppposite of what you say is also true - I have participated in all of what you menton - yet would not consider telling anyone that I practice 'social nudity', except for other nudists. Pushing the 'Social' & 'clothes-compulsive bit seems a bit POVish; it's actually one reason some people shy away from the activity. Bridesmill 13:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Good that we agree that social nudity is not a synonym for nudism and naturism. Than why should we rename this article about nudism/naturalism to social nudity?
2. Public group sex would fall under social nudity, and is not suddenly non-social because of the sexual component. Nudity by itself also includes non-sexual nudity when not in social context. Your definition of social and non-social as including erotic aspects or not the way most people deal with social versus non-social.
3. You might want to include people who perform skyclad rituals in wicca in nudism. That is fine, but not as it is used in general and not how many wiccans see it. That it falls under the ambigious social nudity is clar, under nudism, no way.
4. You write but which all descend from the historical trend away from clothes compulsiveness. Nudity in social context has always been practised, so to claim that everything comes from moving away from the clothes compulsiveness is just wierd. KimvdLinde 15:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, beg to differ on one point - Ritual nudity as in Wicca & other forms of paganism might be an aspect of nudism, it is definitely not 'social nudity', as ritual (esp. skyclad) is generally a very private affair.Bridesmill 02:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Removed personal attacks WP:NPA.

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

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

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

[edit] Topics:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nudity (sometimes semi-nudity)

Nude art: not sexualized

Nude painting, drawing, sculpture, quilts, etc.

Nudity in theatre (for attending audiences)

Nudity in film, video, etc.

Nudity, social: either conforming or optional; not sexualized

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

Nude communities

Nudity, domestic

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

Nude outings to public beaches, parks, and wilderness

Nude religion and ceremony

Nudity on the street

Nude parades, cycling, horse riding, etc.

Nude performance art

Nudity to shock, challenge, or get attention

Nudes, independent

Pro-nudity political and legal movements

Nudity: sexualized

Nude dancing and posing, commercial

Erotica and pornography

Nudity, forced (criminal)

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

[edit] Nudity terminology

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

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

[edit] Seperate Naturism

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

[edit] notes

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

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

19:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'natural' state

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

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

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

[edit] Link to the Nudist Naturist Hall of Shame

• Nudist Naturist Hall of Shame

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

Nikki, please see WP:RFPP.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Atom 17:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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