Talk:Criticism of social nudity

message: What a mess! --The Cunctator 14:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will now move the info to the AANR article then. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 18:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-AANR bias?

message: Again removing Hall of Shame web link.  This web link doe snot meet wikipedia standards.  In this case, there are many reasons:
*Nikki Craft put the web link here.  I respect her, and her desire to do good.  However, she is an activist, and has an agendum.  See Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided "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"  She does not have a NPOV, which is why she is a great (well known, and effective) activist.
*Second, same link as above "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. "  I have done an in-depth look at the article, and it is in fact a worrisome article that makes one think.  But, it is a long an attack by Ms. Craft, based on her personal experience, and she gives numerous anecdotal data.  None of it is backed by research.  Also, the people that she has mentioned she claims are pedophiles.  No causal link between nudity or naturism and pedophilia has been suggested by anyone other than Ms. craft, or a subject of any research.  So, in fact, the site has factually inaccurate material, and is not considered to be a reliable source.
Please don't add it back in again, or I will need to involve an administrator to help resolve the issue. Atom 01:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the link. I think it is relavent. Go ahead and get an admin involved, it may help resolve the issue. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 19:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Atom, you are dead wrong that Craft added the link.  She might have added it *back* (I don't know) after it was censored, but she was not the original editor on that one.  And frankly, it's rather irrelevant who first added the link, what matters is whether subsequent editors feel that it belongs.  i.e., Once the link has been censored from the article, and I or another add it back, it's no longer Craft adding it to the article, it's somebody else.  As for Craft's site containing "factually inaccurate material", I invite you to cite some that you know to be demonstrably false.  Finally, Craft says that many nudists/naturists have been charged and convicted of child molestation.  This is backed up by court records and newspaper articles.  Your claim that "none of [her claims] is backed by research" is bizarre. -MichaelBluejay 22:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be surprised since she told me that she put it here.  I suppose it could be possible.  I made my decision primarily on an extensive personal review of the site.  It seems my judgement that the site is largely based on Nikki's personal experiences, and then a list of people who she knows to be pedophiles, but at some time or another have been naturists.  Her conclusion is that there is a causal link between nudity, nudism/naturists and pedophilia.  Her words are strong, and certainly her POV.  There is no backing with any research to support her point.  The net effect is that she smears naturists in general because of the acts of a few pedophiles.  I agree with her that the topic of preventing pedophilia is important.  But not her conclusion that we should disparge all naturists because of all the pedophiles arrested, some of them have chosen to involve themselves with naturisim because of their predeliction.  At any rate, the reason we have guidelines, such as Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, is to give us guidance in such instances.  "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research" seems pretty clear to me, regardless as to whether Ms. Craft was the original person who placed it here, or not.  Atom 22:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It appears that the link was introduced by user:Dandelion1 here.  Atom 22:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Atom
* You say, "I [don't agree with] her conclusion that we should disparge all naturists because of all the pedophiles arrested".  Wow, could you miss the point any better?  That is not Craft's premise.
* Here again you say the site violates the policy forbidding sites which contain "factually inaccurate material".  As I said last time, do you care to actually cite some supposedly factually inaccurate material?  If you can't, then stop quoting that part of the policy.
* You say that the site violates policy "regardless as to whether Ms. Craft was the original person who placed it there".  Yet you originally claimed that the link was inappropriate *because* you thought Craft put it there.  You seem to be looking for any excuse to censor this link.
* I note from your talk page that you're a self-described nudist.  It seems that you're taking this personally at worst, and at best have a very clear conflict of interest.  I'm perturbed that you just burst onto this article, censor a long-standing link, start issuing commands to other editors ("don't add it back again"), and threaten to get an admin involved, as though we've done something wrong.  For the record, I welcome the involvement of an admin.  But until that happens, I believe the link should stand, since it was already there, and you're the one who's trying to change things. -MichaelBluejay 22:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: "I just point out that this is a commercial web site..."  This B.S. is the icing on the B.S. cake.  I therefore won't debate with you your misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy.  I'll leave the question as to the appropriateness of this link to the WP community.  You certainly haven't convinced me otherwise.  -MichaelBluejay 03:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No.  As I said, you're the one who wants to change a long-standing link that's already been accepted by the community, so it's you who should wait for a consensus to change the article. By the way, your RfC falsely says that Nikki Craft was the person who added the link to the article. Your RfC is based on a misrepresentation. Also, please stop leaving comments for me on my User page.  Please discuss this article on the article discussion page, not on my personal page. -MichaelBluejay 00:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't object to adding that text, especially as I believe I probably wrote most of it.  However, I emphatically believe that the link in question does not violate WP policy, and that you are misapplying policy in this case.  You seem to be grasping at any justification you can to remove the link, and these rationalizations are a moving target.  First you say that a primary problem was that Craft added the link, then when it was pointed out that she didn't, suddenly it wasn't important who added the link.  After that you wanted to see consensus for keeping the link, but when I suggested that it was more appropriate to require consensus before *deleting* it, suddenly consensus was no longer important to you.  I do not believe your arguments are rational and I will therefore not engage in a lengthy debate with you.  I will continue to restore the link until I see a majority of other editors' agreement that the link does indeed violate WP guidelines, because I am not at all convinced that it does. -MichaelBluejay 16:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: In your zeal to censor a topical and relevant link you apparently did not consider that the link now sources a mostly different idea: that Craft has made certain charges, rather than speaking to the charges themselves.  It is now therefore even more appropriate than before.  I repeat that your claim of "not verifiable" is bizarre, as many of these cases reported by Craft have been reported in the mainstream media, such as the Peckenpaugh case cited in the article.  The link does not violate WP policy and I will continue to add it back as many times as necessary until I see a lot more support on WP for removing it besides just you. -MichaelBluejay 01:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: "Now, what is your point?  What does that have to do with naturism?  Go put it on the list of pedophiles, or sex offenders, not on an article about naturists!"  Yeah, except that Peckenpaugh was a *card-carrying* naturist.  What does that have to do with naturism?  Please. -MichaelBluejay 07:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It is not required that external links and references be NPOV. Only our own articles have to meet that requirement. It is also not required that sources avoid original research, only that we avoid. We do need to present all major viewpoints on issues in order to fulfill NPOV. -Will Beback 05:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: "The original research implying that all naturists are pedophiles..."  The site in question says nothing of the kind.  This is just one of the many, many reasons I will not debate you any further. -MichaelBluejay 22:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To Atom: the ban on original research applies to Wikipedia editors, not to our sources. See WP:NOR. -Will Beback 21:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Will, thanks for responding to Michael's call.  I appreciate your opinion.  You are missing the point.  The citation he makes is an attack web site that (although having some factual information) is a conglomeration of feelings and opinions.  Perhaps well intended.  Maybe even correct -- who knows?  It isn't research though, nor is it peer reviewed, or published by a news organization or a magazine, or any other organization with established credibility.  As such, it is a very poor source. The source of these opinions is a woman who describes herself as a radical activist, and has no university credentials, nor is published (whether she is even notable is arguable).  In fact, a source that does not meet the credibility, or verifiability standards that Wikipedia has set.  Now we can argue about it until we are blue in the face, and it won't make a bit of difference.  It degrades the quality of the article, and the point that is attempted to be made is severely werakened, because of the source.  
What we need are a variety of citations (not one) that are credible, verifiable, and acceptable according to wikipedia policy, in order to support the assertions.  (so that they have a higher probablility of being fact, rather than one woman's opinions and ranting.)  Perhaps with a wealth of sources making the same assertions (naturists or nudists are mostly pedophiles, or at the least, ignore pedophiles in their presence) we might be acting responsibly.  Making a bunch of off the wall accusations against good people with only this one poor source is not responsible.  Certainly if there were some credible information on that external link, it could be brought here with supporting sources.  I've asked for that, and yet no one has risen to the challenge of providing them.  In the absence of a credible source, we should remove slanders accusations until we have real proof.
If the real point that Michael is trying to make here is just to say "Hey, pedophiles use nudists camps as hunting ground. Beware and watch out for them." this article isn't the right venue for that.
Atom 22:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: External links should reflect the full range of viewpoints, as WP:NPOV requires. -Will Beback 10:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hall of Shame no a Reliable Source, per wp:External_links 

message: I have no real knowledge or opinion conscerning what is discussed in this article, but it should be given a title like "Controversies connected with the AANR" to more accurately reflect its content. AnonMoos 20:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Biscuittin (talk) 13:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest Alleged discrimination in social nudity. Biscuittin (talk) 13:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

text: There nothing there to name. The article can safely be deleted. I will demonstrate what I mean by removing the spam Then taking out unreferenced statements, and then POVs. If there is anything left I will remove dated material, and regionally speciofic material. If anyonw wishes to revert me- they are welcome to do if they can quote a valid WP (wikipolicy).--ClemRutter (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

text: delete  this article... it was just an attack page, and now it's nothing.  --User101010 (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Article poorly named