Talk:Nikki Craft

message: WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 01:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: "In 1980 Craft joined other pageant protesters and over the next nine years conducted other actions, including throwing raw meat on the stage and pouring the blood of raped women across a pageant entryway."
I can't tell if that's vandalism or a poor choice of words. If it's not vandalism, did the author intend to write "blood symbolizing that of raped women?" If the blood of raped women was actually poured across the pageant entryway, then it probably requires a fuller explaination, unless there's a free raped-women blood repository that I don't know about.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.119.34 (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Blood of Raped Women??

message: Hello. I wrote this elsewhere, but will write it here again in case I entered it in the wrong place. A few weeks ago I was written, via email, by the person who started this page and he requested for me to make additions, and another person who was contributing to the page, suggested it as well. I did not request a wikipedia page, nor did I even want one, but I am making additions to the information so it will be accurate. I am consulting others about the appropriate way to go about this, and do not wish to break Wikipedia's policies in doing so. thank you for your assistance and suggestions. Nikkicraft 17:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi! If everything in this article is true (and I have no specific reason to doubt it), then you seem like a nice person doing nice things. Nice to meet you! We have policies on verification and on biographies of living people (and other policies, but those are the ones most important right now for this article). The problem is I (we) can't find any sources we can use that say or give evidence that you are noteable - that is worth having an encyclopedia article in wikipedia. The bar is pretty low. The big thing is good evidence, not just someone's word, of what is in any Wikipedia article. Can you help us get good evidence from a third party? No original research is allowed, so you can't give a deposition or fax us something. Thank you for helping wikipedia. WAS 4.250 17:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: hi hi : ) thank you for your nice note. I am doing my best to word my additions correctly. I am a long time and well known political activist and yes what I say can be substantiated from many sources and that is what I'm in the process of doing with these entries. And yes I will be happy to work with you and my other allies on Wikipedia to make this page as accurate as possible. Nikkicraft 18:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hello!

message: I have been familiar with Nikki Craft's work for over 15 years.  I don't always agree with her positions but I can't believe that anyone would question that she is not a prominent (and prolific) activist.  I also didn't see any claims in the article which seem out of place.  Also, note that Craft did not start the article (and no, I'm not taking her word for it -- just check the background of the user who did and it will become apparent).  Yes, after the article was started Craft did fill up a whole History page with a couple of dozen minor back-to-back edits rather than putting all the changes into one edit, but I've explained to her how that makes it difficult for other editors to see at a glance what has been changed (and makes other Wikipedians lay charges of vanity and self-promotion).
Her websites do count as evidence of some her work, being that the article claims that *the websites themselves* constitute some of her work.
If you search "nikki craft" on Google, in quotes, you get 10,300 results.
Here are just a few references:
* 1977 organizing, Lola Greene Baldwin Foundation
* 1984-85 topfree rights, New York Times
* 1985 lecture, MIT
* 1990 Esquire protest/arrest, Dallas Morning News
* 1992 anti-pedophile work, Dallas Morning News
Also, during the whole controversy with The Naturist Society [TNS] and the top-free rights cases, I read about all that in TNS' magazine Clothed with the Sun (later "Nude and Natural", and then later just "N").  I no longer have these magazines, because that was like 15 years ago, but those issues definitely saw print.
If people want more documentation for specific claims, the proper course of action is to ask for them here, not to jump to putting the page up for deletion -MichaelBluejay 21:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter what is true. Wikipedia is about VERIFICATION.  Verify. Don't assert. Evidence is needed, not testimony. WAS 4.250 22:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry! I spoke too soon. I glanced at the diff and I didn't realize links where in your message. I looked at the links and  indicted that the rest is probably true, its just a mater of gathering the evidence. Can we do that? Gather evidence of noteability? Can someone who is not involved in anyway check the New York Times entries and see if all together they add up to noteability. What I can read is "A longstanding controversy over nudity on Cape Cod National Seashore beaches has flared anew with the arrest of a woman who was sunbathing topless in a challenge to a Federal regulation prohibiting nude bathing. The woman, Nikki Craft, refused to clothe herself when ordered to cover up by a.." and that alone is not "noteable, but the full texyt of all the New York times added to the evrything else will probably be good enough.  Can someone who is not involved in anyway check the New York Times entries and see if all together they add up to noteability? (Progress, at last!) WAS 4.250 22:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Not everybody is familiar with American feminism and the others areas she is/has been active in (would you be familiar with an activist for Aboriginal land rights in Australia?), and so we need to find out from independent, reliable sources about her as per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Also Wikipedia receives literally thousands of vanity articles, which is why we have policies like WP:VAIN, WP:BIO and WP:NOR - the large number of edits by Nikki and the generally non-NPOV form the article was in when it was nominated put people in mind of a vanity article. The sources I have seen so far (and I haven't read the two newspaper ones you've linked to yet, as it is already way past my bedtime (I'm in the UK), so I wont until tomorrow at the earliest) have not shown her to be independently notable. Remember, the article must inform people who do not know about her, and so we cannot rely on statements like "I've been a follower of her work for 15 years therefore how can anyone question her notability" - they are not verifiable. The burden of proof is always to prove that someone is worthy of an article - if they are notable then it is normally not hard to show this. Thryduulf 02:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: How anybody can think appearing on Jenny Jones' TV show indicates noteability is beyond me. Non-noteables are all over TV in game shows, talk shows, reality shows, commercials, as extras in movies, etc. WAS 4.250 08:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Why should I read the transcript? What does it say that establishes noteability? Quote it. Her testimony about herself? How is what she says about herself on Jenny Jones proof that she did what she said? People go on talk shows and claim all kinds of things. I believe whatever she said was probably true, but her saying it on Jenny Jones is not evidence. Jenny Jones saying she did x, y, and z; now that counts - Jenny has paid fact checkers, like newspapers. But having her on to talk proves only that Jenny's paid experts believe Nikki talking would get ratings. Ratings are why people  are selected to be interviewed on talk shows. It is not that no evidence will be satisfactory, it is that none offered so far is satisfactory. Don't blame reality on me. I'm still hoping you guys find something good enough. Call up librarians in cities where her activities would be recorded in local newspapers. C'mon! Try harder! WAS 4.250 11:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I rest my case. -MichaelBluejay 20:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifying Nikki Craft's bio 

message: There seems to be some sort of campaign -- IMHO -- to get this article deleted, with a number of relativly new users voting to delete. I suggest that people who've commented here ought to weigh in with facts. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 01:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no campaign to delete; just normal Wikipedia process. There is, however a campaign by Nikki to get her friends to help her keep the article. Testimony does not help. Providing well trusted sources that establish noteability helps. WAS 4.250 08:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WAS 4.250, please do not make accusations about fellow editors, even if they are the subject of the article up for deletion. -MichaelBluejay 08:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nikki told me her friends were going to help her. Stop accusing me of accusing others. Be nice dude. How come I'm getting along so much better with Nikki than you? And reread what I wrote. Any criticism of friends helping friends is in your mind, not mine. WAS 4.250 10:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Now that the call for deletion is complete, WAS, I wanted to comment on what you asserted here. You said that I said I was going to get my "friends" to help me <I>keep</I> this article. What I said was different. I said that I was going to work with my "allies" to get the page more accurate. During the deletion process I only knew one person here and I meant what I said <I>allies</I>. But most important to point out that when you said to Michael Bluejay that any "criticism of friends helping friends is in [his] mind, not [yours]" it seemed just a little disingenuous. The way I looked at it was you were accusing me of setting up a <I>vanity</I> article. So how do you then claim that me and my "friends" working to <I>save</I> the page--ignoring that I said I wanted to work to make the article more <I>accurate</I>--would not make your case for you by fundamentally misrepresenting what the intent was of what I said? Your insinuation did not seem to me to have been in Michael Bluejay's mind at all. Did you not mean it that way? --Nikkicraft 12:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please visit [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nikki_Craft]] 

message: I would like to take a shot a "neutralizing" the activism section down to "just the facts".  The specific rationale for specific actions is less important than the facts.  Perhaps her reasoning for specific acts belongs in a separate section. Also: I am noticing smear on concept of one paragrpah into another.  Please keep the paragraphs focused. I am going to create some more subsection so we can avoid further access conflicts. AWM -- 68.164.245.60 22:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you serious?  Understanding motivations are essential for understanding a person's actions.  You can certainly try to make the article less POV if you think it suffers from that, but removing material about motivation would weaken the article. -MichaelBluejay 22:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but we need to synthesize her overall philosophy, not the grueling details of individual actions. If it is so important, then that court case deserves its own article. -- 68.164.245.60 22:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This whole task would be a lot easier if this woman had published a few books along the way.  And remember: it is often easy to say "why" you did something 10 years after the fact with a much more plausible explanation that what you were actually thinking at the time.  Conflict is like that.  The important fact is that she pulled out of the court case because of gender distinctions.  If we need to nail it down as "women covering their breasts", fine.  Just do not take too much time dwelling on what people were thinking.  Let the facts take up most of the room on the page. -- 68.164.245.60 22:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not saying it after the fact and It is documented from what was written at the time, in our collectively written and released statement entitled Feminist Plainiffs Withdraw From Cape Cod Nudity Case , why we dropped out of the case and it was published which included Baxandall's sexist centerspread of a young woman as well as their alliance with a man who took pornographic images of his child named Douglas Oakes. It is all documented in that public release and it had added a link to it off the page to substantiate it. Nikkicraft 05:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Activism section needs a lot of work 

message: A web site is a web site.  It is one line item that might say a lot, but it does not do a lot.  We provide navigation into her web site.  Those sub-sites should be a series of one-liners within the "External links" section.  For comparison, please review Sam Sloan.  He has a huge and fascinating web site and it gets one line in his bio.  If we want to have a NC "philosophy section", fine.  I can already tell that it is going to take some effort to orgnanize and crystalize NC's life-lessons message. -- 68.164.245.60 22:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The web site section gets major trim job 

message: I am finding that Craft is the objec of several book dedications.  I will include them for now and see where they lead to. -- 06:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book dedications 

message: This article has quite a few external links, literally all of which are to web pages written by Craft or which are strongly supportive of her. (Please contrast with the article on Ed Lange, one of Craft's bete noires!) 217.155.20.163 14:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting that censoring evidence of Craft's work somehow makes the article more NPOV?  If you're complaining about the lack of criticism, then find some credible criticism and cite it. -MichaelBluejay 10:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Hi, I have noted the request for arrest citations and I will be scanning that documentation today or tomorrow. --Nikkicraft 17:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arrest Citation Request 

message: Can Nikki or someone please update top of article with this, pref with reference. Thanks - SimonLyall 10:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthdate and year? 

message: Since I'm reverting several of Jcuk's edits of 17 March I wanted to provide some explanation:
* feminist political activist >> political activist.  Craft's work is obviously much broader than feminism and narrowing this description of her is inaccurate and unhelpful.  It's also redundant as her feminist work is described shortly after this sentence.
* alleged predatory sexual offenders (remove "alleged").  Anyone who's actually read Craft's work on this subject knows that one of her whole points is that large numbers of these men have been convicted, but once they get out of jail the nudist/naturist leadership does nothing to keep them out of the community.  It's alleged *before* someone is arrested and convicted, not after.
* apparent connections (remove "apparent").  These statements are a matter of fact and cannot be disputed.  Again, anyone who's actually read the work knows this.
* (the naturist child rapist sentenced to 30 years).  The revision omits Craft's role in putting the offender behind bars, so I'm changing it back.
* (allegedly associated themselves with...Hustler).  Again, that they did so is not in dispute.
I'm reminded about the quote of an administrator who said something like, "I'll never defend an attempt to make an article 'npov' by writing, 'Believers in France allege that it is a country situated in what many consider to be Europe.' -MichaelBluejay 00:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of changed edits 

message: I reverted a phrase in the intro to say that Craft has been arrested for acts of civil disobedience, rather than acts she defines as civil disobedience.  The latter is silly at best and snarky at worst.  Craft doesn't have to define civil disobedience, it's been defined widely, including here on Wikipedia.  Of course, the implication is that there is some dispute as to whether her actions qualify as civil disobedience, but if so I haven't seen any such dispute.  Her actions are textbook examples.  I think newspapers generally report civil disobedience as such, rather than disqualifying it with a "some say it is" phrase. -MichaelBluejay 10:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is a genuine issue as to whether her walking into porn stores and magazine shopes and tearing up magazines she doesn't approve of are acts of "civil disobedience" or simply acts of censorship and intimidation. Its a very similar issue to campus groups stealing and trashing campus newspapers they don't like. I'll check out the context, however, before I decide to modify your edit. Iamcuriousblue 16:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I've read it sounds like the actions were intended as a political protest rather than censorship and intimidation. Based on other instances of widely-recognized civil disobedience, it appears that destruction of property, particularly when done on a symbolic rather than massive level, is not incompatible. -Will Beback 21:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acts "she defines as" civil disobedience 

message: I have not read this article before, and having now done so, I can't for the life of me see why it's tagged as "Neutrality disputed". Basically the article is just descriptive -- she did this, she said that, and so on. Anyway, it sure seems pretty straighforward and Wikipedian to me.
Then there's the "Criticism of nudist/naturist movement" -- maybe there was some bias, but judging by the talk page, it's been edited out, so the tag seems an artifact. Anyway, it looks pretty OK to me, just reporting what she says and describing the rebuttal. I don't see an bias here. Herostratus 03:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality tags - what's that about? Removed. 

message: After working with Craft for many years I can say without a doubt that humor is vital to her work and process. If necessary I will cite many published examples of her use of humor in her political work. Simonton 22:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, please do. It's hard to justify inclusion of that sentence without any kind of sources to back it up.  Examples would help. -MichaelBluejay 23:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Craft's use of Political Humor 

message: user:Michaelbluejay please stop reverting changes to this article.  I made numerous improvements in the article, and requested actual verifiable references (other that the web site of the person in question).  I'm sorry we disagree, but you are starting to make this personal, rather than focusing on the quality of the article and the clearly stated policies of wikipedia.  In this case, having a biography of a person and using their own web site as the cited reference for all of the things stated in the article just stinks.  Can't you find any reference for the things stated outside of a source of the person claiming it themselves?  I'm sure that they are all documentable, as Ms. Craft is well known and respected.  Instead of reverting my legitimate citing of Wikipedia policy, why don't you just do it the legitimate way?  Atom 14:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Atom, WP:RS does not prohibit using the subject as a source, especially if the assertions are not disputed. Can you point me to the guideline or policy you're thinking of? -Will Beback 20:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please stop reverting 

message: Atomaton, you said, "Michaelbluejay, who is the web master of Nikki Craft's web sites, reveerts all of my changes....".  No, I am not, nor have I ever been, the webmaster of any of Nikki Craft's sites.  I don't believe this is the first time you've foisted this claim, either.  If you assumed for some reason that I was Craft's webmaster and are bandying it about as fact even though it's just an assumption, then that's incredibly bad form.  If you actually know that I'm not her webmaster but are trying to make a charge of bias stick then that's even worse.  This is yet another reason why I will not discuss your censorship with you, in addition to all the reasons I've mentioned previously, including, but not limited to, your misapplication of Wikipedia policy, to serve what I believe is a biased agenda. -MichaelBluejay 12:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked Will Beback for his INPUT.  I did NOT ask him to "run interference" as you charged.  STOP LYING.  You did threaten me, saying my editing privileges would be revoked if I continued to edit contrary to your wishes.  STOP LYING.  Your other charges are likewise false, but I will not discuss this in any more detail than I already have, you've forfeited your right to engage with me.  Your agenda is transparent, and I will continue to combat your censorship of the article. -MichaelBluejay 10:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: P.S.  Congratulations on describing the reporting of Peckenpaugh as a sex offender as "defamatory".  This guy was convicted on the basis of VIDEOTAPE EVIDENCE showing him having sex with a 9-year-old boy he adopted from Romania.  There are PLENTY of articles about this on Craft's site, and on the net if you cared to look.  When you defend a convicted child rapist on the basis of a lack of evidence, when such evidence is staring you straight in the face, it tells me everything I need to know about where you're coming from. -MichaelBluejay 10:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my comments earlier on these talk pages.  I went to the cited reference (Craft's web site), I followed every single citation and link given on that web site, and not one link worked.  None of the web sites had any mention of the person referenced.  My point was not whether Peckenpaugh was convicted or not, my point was that the cited reference was unreliable, and that we should find one that actually proves a strong accusation like that.  Please provide a reliable citation before making what is considered to be a defamatory claim.  Thank you.  Atom 19:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop lying about me 

message: Here is my thought process.  As it is phrased, it puts emphasis on naturists and nudists.  As I understand it Ms. Craft's primary focus is on reducing pedophilia, and that one area of her focus are naturists and nudists.  So, my rewording was first of all to focus on the primary subject of the sentence first.  Secondarily, it was to soften the sentence to make it read somewhat more neutrally.  I'm sure that you will agree that a majority (99.99%) of naturists and nudists are not pedophiles.  Ms. Craft's assertion is not that naturists and nudists are pedophiles, but rather that naturists and nudists do not take enough action against pedophiles that are, or may be in their midst.  Whether that is true, or not, I have no opinion on.  The point being that phrasing the sentence differently changes the emphasis in a way that I think os more accurate.  Here is the sentence:
* Before:  "One of Craft's major projects involves researching and publishing articles about nudists and naturists who have been accused or convicted of pedophilia or child molestation."
* After: One of Craft's major projects involves researching and publishing articles about people who have been accused or convicted of pedophilia or child molestation and have a history as nudists or naturists. 
Now, what could probably be accurately stated would be something like: "One of Craft's major projects involves researching and publishing articles about naturist and nudist organizations lack of action to protect children against pedophiles within their communities."  In this case, the subject is in alignment with the section title.
Atom 22:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naturists/nudists 

message: Once again, Michaelbluejay is attempting to assert ownership of this article and is engaging in wholesale reverts of edits that he feels are insufficiently lauaditory toward Nikki Craft. His clearly partisan approach to this article is revealed in the comments under his last two reverts:
*04:14, 1 February 2007 Michaelbluejay (Reverting to 21 Jan version. Craft has many enemies who would like to see her stature diminished or her work supressed.)
*17:45, 1 February 2007 Michaelbluejay (Revert. I'm not "promoting Craft", I'm combatting attempts to sweep her research under the rug)
Its clear from Michaelbluejay's statements that he sees his role as "combatting" Nikki Craft's "many enemies". Furthermore, he inaccurately considers Craft to be a "researcher" who's findings are being "swept under the rug" by said enemies.
This article was nominated for an AfD recently. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikki Craft.) While their was broad consensus that Nikki Craft was a notable enough figure to be the subject of a Wikipedia article, there was also broad consensus that the article had serious problems and largely read as a promotion of Nikki Craft and her views. It was noted that the imbalance in the article came from a long history of edits by close allies of Craft and even at times by Craft herself. It was agreed upon that the article should be massively trimmed back in order to deal with these problems. 
If Michaelbluejay has problems with this, I suggest he take it to moderation or even arbitration.
Iamcuriousblue 18:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not attempting ownership of the article.  I'm simply combatting the POV that sex and nudist enthusiasts are attacking the article with.  I welcome intervention by mediators, arbitrators (or more simply admins), but I don't think the onus is on me to initiate that.  As just one example, one of the recent edits changed the statement about Craft's research into "nudist pedophiles" to just "pedophiles".  This kind of edit is only made by a nudist apologist and is not made in good faith.  Further, it's completely contrary to accurate reporting:  Craft researches *nudist* pedophiles *specifically*.  She doesn't research pedophiles in general.  As long as bad edits like this are made, I will continue to combat them.  You can complain all you want that you think I'm trying to attempt ownership of the article, but it doesn't change the facts. -MichaelBluejay 21:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Michaelbluejay]] attempting '''[[WP:OWN|ownership of article]]''' 

message: See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikki Craft (2nd nomination)
To keep it simple, the discussion there resulted, after discussion to no consensus to delete the Nikki Craft article.
The was a great deal of discussion and criticism about the article, and I think many people felt that the article needed a great deal of cleanup.  I myself voted initially to keep the article, as Nikki Craft is notable.  (and notability was the argument for deletion, not that the article was poorly referenced).  After working with others, I changed my vote to delete, and rewrite.  This was based on another persons comment that in the previous AfD, the article was allowed to remain, based on a promise that it wold be rewritten and better sourced, but then was not.
Since the 2nd AfD closed, several people have contributed to the article.  Notably editors Dandelion1, 66.173.98.50, Peter G Werner, Threeafterthree, Aaron Brenneman, Atomaton, and Treybien.  I believe these changes were made as a result of the discussion on the AfD, and editors focusing on the article as a result of that discussion.  Michaelbluejay  then reverted removing a number of these edits.  His revert was reverted by Iamcuriousblue with the comments "MichaelBlueJay has been excercising ownership of this article in order to promote Craft".  Then Michaelbluejay reverted again, a second time.  I agreed with Iamcuriousblue, and reverted it back, to allow for the edits made by several editors.  Then Michaelbluejay reverted again, a third time.
As I have had difficulty with Michaelbluejay in the past, and he has been warned for violating 3RR before, I'm trying to be cautious here and avoid any further animosity or misunderstanding.  I intend to revert back to the version edited by the group of people prior to Michaelbluejay's reverts, but I won't push it beyond that.  I'd like to have a dialog, hopefully others can participate, as Michaelbluejay and I have not succeeded at doing that in a meaningful fashion in the past.  If you don't think that he shold be reverting the edits either, I encourage you to communicate that to him.  Perhaps other voices than mine own will be more effective.  Atom 21:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, any organisation for which no reliable source exists showing it to be a "real" one get removed from the page? - brenneman 23:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent revert of consensus 

message: I agree with Iamcuriousblue.
I have removed several interesting, but unsubstantiated or uncited claims about this person.  I point out that it is a biographical article, and we must be accurate as to avoid slander or incorrect information about this living person.
Descriptions depicting Craft as a criminal, and doing a variety of civil disobedience activities may perhaps be true.  Without a valid source, or citing Craft's personal web site as the source won't fly.  What if she were to remove that information from her web site, and then sue?  Or what if she claimed that she invented the Internet, would it be okay to put it here in her Biography?  An independent and reputable source, say from a news agency should be cited to support any biographical statement that is in any way out of the ordinary to avoid potential legal action.
Looking at the contents of this talk page, it is clear that other sources are available, it is just that no one seems to have bothered to use them.
Please refrain from editing this article unless you are willing to put the work into finding and citing credible sources for the biographical information.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.42.8.124 (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited text in Biographical article 

message: So she's anti-nudist but pro-topfreedom?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  So.. wait, what? 

message: Since the last AfD, some vandalism has occurred and it seems obvious to me the article is in need of a thorough scrubbing and sourcing of the content. Some references were removed which seemed to be from Ms. Craft's websites. Closer examination showed that they were photocopies/PDFs of original newsclippings from reliable sources and included clear attributions to the original sources. This is adequate for WP:V sourcing I think. I'm going to put up an "under construction" template and see what I can do to shape the article towards something more cohesive and comprehensive. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 01:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhauling the article 

message: The article describes her as an artist and writer, but mentions neither published works nor notable artwork. Should these descriptions be removed, since the article only focuses on her activism? Dimadick (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artist and writer