Talk:Naturism/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title: Naturist beauty pagent

message: 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)
thread_title:  Separate pages 

message: 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)
replies: text: For discussion please see Talk:Clothes_free_movement. Dandelion1 08:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge/move suggestion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Why?

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

message: 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)
thread_title: NPOV cleanup! Help!!!

message: 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
:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 13:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clothist and many other good revisions addressed to Dandelion1 and others