Talk:Nuts (magazine)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

United Kingdom

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Fact tags[edit]

I consider slapping fact tags on every factoid as a form of vandalism. Maikel (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If some idiot has the time to go about putting these tags everywhere then they also have the time to find sources for the information. I understand that Wikipedia needs sources but it's getting ridiculous - next we'll be wanting a source to say that a person is male or female for biographical articles or. 213.230.130.56 (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Humourless Feminist[edit]

This magazine is a dangerous publication. It objectifys women and reduces the role of men to neanderthals. If thinking this makes me a humourless feminist then ok - but as far as I can make out calling someone a 'humourless feminist' is the biggest cop out in the book.

Give me specific arguements if you really feel this magazine is wirth defending. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.118.250.106 (talk) 14:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It exists and it is legal. So it have the rights to have a page on Wikipedia.Preip (talk) 12:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate comments[edit]

An encyclopedia is not an appropriate location for `argument`, and the assertions you make ("dangerous", "objectifys" (sic)) have never achieved a consensus amongst feminists and social scientists. Srck (talk) 12:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Version[edit]

When I was in Spain a while back, I saw a Spanish language version. It was the same kind of magazine, but everything was Spanish slanted. I was wondering if anyone knows about this or what it was called. It may have been a version of Zoo or Nuts, I'm not sure which. 81.157.42.84 (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV is not neutral[edit]

Please check latest modifications:

In the introduction paragraph: "Nuts is so sexy." I think it isn't neutral point of view. In the Competition Section: "Nuts has never featured any 18+ content or featured any adult movie stars on its cover, unlike its closest rival." I think we must discuss this sentence. Citation needed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preip (talk • contribs) 12:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section "Nuts is so sexy." was just vandalism and nothing to do with the original article content which has been restored. Keith D (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]