Talk:Andrew Martinez

message: Andrew Martinez is a significant figure in the public nudity movement. His actions influenced college rules and city laws and inspired a generation of activists. The speedy deletion notice was posted within minutes of me starting the article and I do not appreciate that. Dandelion1 05:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted the speedy notice while it was about 2 sentences long (which seems odd now, looking at the history, since the very original was longer.  The one I looked at was the 2nd revision), and it made no claims to notability.  Rory096 06:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy delete? 

message: Would titling this article Andrew Martinez with a redirect from The Naked Guy be more appropriate and in line with other biographical articles? -- MisterHand 05:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer that idea. There doesn't seem to be a consistent approach to this; I did find one other example where the better known nickname was the locus for the main article (Robert John Burck aka Naked Cowboy), but I also found that Son of Sam redirects to David Berkowitz. OhNoitsJamieTalk 06:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call.  RIP, Naked dude.  We knew you were crazy, but never that crazy.  --Bobak 17:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So now the article is at Andrew Martínez with an acute accent over the "i". Did he spell his name with the accent? Do his family members? In my experience most Hispanics in the U.S. do not use diacritics in their names where they would be appropriate in Spanish. In that case, the article should be moved back to Andrew Martinez. Angr (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. I actually did some checking on this, and could find no place where his name was spelled with the accent. It should be moved back. -- MisterHand 15:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done and done. Angr (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: i knew him intimately and he did not use diacritics. 47.208.117.241 (talk) 05:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: Removed image as unecessary.  my 12 yo daughter hit the random page button to see some guys cock and balls hanging out...a picture of the dudes face would be fine to show who he is.. dont need to see his penis to get the drift of article...wikipedia isnt berkeley...even nudist magazines are sold from BEHIND THE COUNTER.. -24.61.191.86 (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the picture. Wikipedia is not censored, and while Martinez is naked in the picture, he was famous for public nudity, and it is a high-quality (albeit low-resolution) image. If you know of any other similar quality free-use images without the nudity, feel free to substitute one, but don't remove the image because it offends your sensibilities. He's naked, not aroused or engaged in any type of sexual activity. Horologium (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: From the "What wikipedia is not" that you linked to: "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." we don't need to SEE his nudity to understand it. I do understand your desire for it to be uncemsored, but it is not appropriate.71.195.191.215 (talk) 08:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, If you know of any other similar quality free-use images without the nudity, feel free to substitute one. I have no particular need to see him naked, but I do feel that a photo is appropriate. Removing all images from a page (in this case, there is only one) makes the article less informative. Horologium (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it's offensive and serves no purpose to the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.255.134 (talk) 08:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Horologium, that is faulty reasoning.  Every porn star, by definition, is famous for having sex on camera, but we do not show them nude either. It's completely unnecessary and gratuitous.  WP is not censored, but it is also not intentionally titillating, shocking, scandalous or offensive either.  There is a good reason to have a photo of genitals at articles about genitals, but not at articles about nudists. The Martinez picture on this article can very easily be cropped and re-uploaded to illustrate the subject without offending readers. I do not agree with either complainant here that the image "is" offensive; it is clearly, however, unnecessarily explicit for its purposes here, and has been interpreted as offensive by some readers, who do not appear to have any agenda to push (i.e., the negative reaction expressed here is one any editor here should have expected). We need not use all of the photo if zooming in a bit will stop offending people, and we regularly do use zoomed and cropped images to more appropriately/clearly illustrate article subjects, biographical and otherwise. (PS: If anyone thinks I'm a censorship advocate, you'd be really sadly mistaken, since the Blue Ribbon Campaign for Online Free Speech was my project. Heh.) — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 10:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

text: The photo should definitely be kept unaltered in anyway. Concern over offending people's childish sensibilities is irrelevant. The only thing of importance is to provide the reader accurate information about the subject the article covers. This article happens to cover the subject matter of a nudist. That means providing the reader as much information about the subject in question as is known. In this particular case showing a picture of the person nude is of pivotal importance since it provides the reader with information that simply can't be ascertained from reading the article. Just as one can't know much of anything about Picasso's art without actually seeing his paintings. The matter is perfectly analogous.Chhe (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Censorship is censorship.  Leave the photo as is. Sdiver68 (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Remove or crop There is no reason to show his genetalia. Madman (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Comment I'd prefer that a picture be used that does not show his genitals, but I agree that a picture of him naked is most appropriate. The suggested image from Ajbpearce seems highly appropriate. It shows him naked AND being arrested. That seems to be the two things that he is best known for. Thepm (talk) 11:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to cropping the photo to remove his package. I do have an objection to removing the only photo on the page simply because he's naked. Because Martinez is dead, there is no chance of getting another photo of him. Horologium (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Ok, there was never a complete conclusion to this discussion, but I'm going to remove the picture and replace it with this one http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2006/05/21/NAKEDGUY.TMP&o=0
which seemed to be the most supported option.Ajbpearce (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Nude pic

message: At issue is the interpretation of WP:NOTCENSORED. Above, two readers have expressed appropriateness, even offensiveness, concerns about the image, while an editor has suggested the image is permissible under WP policy, and another editor (filer of this Request for Comments) has challenged this assertion (with regard to this particular article and photo). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 11:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The photo should definitely be kept unaltered in anyway. Concern over offending people's childish sensibilities is irrelevant. The only thing of importance is to provide the reader accurate information about the subject the article covers. This article happens to cover the subject matter of a nudist. That means providing the reader as much information about the subject in question as is known. In this particular case showing a picture of the person nude is of pivotal importance since it provides the reader with information that simply can't be ascertained from reading the article. Just as one can't know much of anything about Picasso's art without actually seeing his paintings. The matter is perfectly analogous.Chhe (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Censorship is censorship.  Leave the photo as is. Sdiver68 (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Remove or crop There is no reason to show his genetalia. Madman (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Comment I'd prefer that a picture be used that does not show his genitals, but I agree that a picture of him naked is most appropriate. The suggested image from Ajbpearce seems highly appropriate. It shows him naked AND being arrested. That seems to be the two things that he is best known for. Thepm (talk) 11:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to cropping the photo to remove his package. I do have an objection to removing the only photo on the page simply because he's naked. Because Martinez is dead, there is no chance of getting another photo of him. Horologium (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Ok, there was never a complete conclusion to this discussion, but I'm going to remove the picture and replace it with this one http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2006/05/21/NAKEDGUY.TMP&o=0
which seemed to be the most supported option.Ajbpearce (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: Should explicit photo be used as-is, cropped or removed?

message: What would clearly be the best compromise is  to use an image that shows him naked but without displaying his genitals. While there is certainly an argument that it is valuable for a wikipedia article on someone who is a nudist to include a nude photograph of him,  but i can see no argument that it is more informative if that photograph is very explicit in any way. The existing image used is not a free image anyway and there are multiple other images that would show him naked or nearly naked without explicitly showing hiss genitals and i would suggest replacement with one of those, perhaps this one? http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2006/05/21/NAKEDGUY.TMP&o=0  (followingWP:NFCI of course) Ajbpearce (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Censorship is censorship.  Leave the photo as is. Sdiver68 (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Remove or crop There is no reason to show his genetalia. Madman (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Comment I'd prefer that a picture be used that does not show his genitals, but I agree that a picture of him naked is most appropriate. The suggested image from Ajbpearce seems highly appropriate. It shows him naked AND being arrested. That seems to be the two things that he is best known for. Thepm (talk) 11:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to cropping the photo to remove his package. I do have an objection to removing the only photo on the page simply because he's naked. Because Martinez is dead, there is no chance of getting another photo of him. Horologium (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Ok, there was never a complete conclusion to this discussion, but I'm going to remove the picture and replace it with this one http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2006/05/21/NAKEDGUY.TMP&o=0
which seemed to be the most supported option.Ajbpearce (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments from previously Uninvolved editors

message: why does the article say he "developed" mental illness after coming back from europe.. I mean hello... he jogged around the neighborhood naked and even had to get arrested for it.. gee someone miss that writing on the wall?  Should the article be more npov..  I mean some would assume a grown man who jogs around the nieghborhood in the nude to be mentally ill.. maybe the article should say..at some point.. he developed a mental illness..as usually you dont just "become" crazy  as for all we know he was nuts all along.. no pun intended -24.61.191.86 (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reworded that section. He apparently suffered (undiagnosed) for quite some time before it was recognized that he was afflicted with schizophrenia. Horologium (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Mental illness

message: The article states he was buried at Agnews Historical Cemetery in Santa Clara.  That's highly unlikely.  That Cemetery is a historical landmark listed on the U.S. NPS site, , and holds only the victims of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake from Agnews State Hospital.  It's a tiny plot of land left more or less undisturbed from the time the Hospital was closed and sold to Sun Microsystems and land developers in 1997.  The only cite for this is ; that site exists, but FAG is a user-edited site and not a reliable source.  In fact, this entry is the only non-1906 death that FAG lists for this cemetery.  See http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gsr&GScid=1984683.   I've searched elsewhere, and FAG and Wikipedia (or Wikipedia derivatives) are the only sources that say he's buried in this cemetery.   Absent a reliable source, I'm removing this. TJRC (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burial site 

message: The table says '73 and the category says '72  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.205.104 (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 1972.  See http://www.andrewmartinez.info/Home.html and http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/31/magazine/31naked.t.html. TJRC (talk) 01:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Born in 1972 or 1973?

message: In the version of the story I have heard about this guy, the Berkley administration only enacted the campus ban on public nudity when female students alleged that the Naked Guy's behavior constituted sexual harassment. Is this true? Do any of the books or articles on the subject mention this aspect of the story? --2610:E0:A040:E0F5:BCBB:B636:8869:16D3 (talk) 02:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual harassment allegations 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Andrew Martinez. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=%2Fchronicle%2Farchive%2F1998%2F03%2F30%2FMN100455.DTL
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060613090556/http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2006%2F05%2F21%2FNAKEDGUY.TMP to http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2006%2F05%2F21%2FNAKEDGUY.TMP
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified