Talk:Criticism of social nudity

Anti-AANR bias?
What a mess! --The Cunctator 14:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like 80% of this is the work of someone disgruntled with AANR, and not any particular criticism of the CFM. And what's with that note about Godwin's law? Tagged for complete rewrite. -- Scott ei&#960;  11:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Does this article even qualify to exist? Any thoughts? HighInBC 00:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No. Criticism should be included in the context of the main article itself. This article should really be included in the AANR article. At the very least, there needs to be a serious review of this article. Bosola 19:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I will now move the info to the AANR article then. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 18:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hall of Shame no a Reliable Source, per wp:External_links
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 External_links "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)
 * 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)

Thanks, let's do that. I made my points earlier, no need to do it again. The topic is relevant, the web site is not, for the reasons given. We need a scientific study, not a personal crusade as referenfces, especially for such important topics. Atom 21:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)


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

I asked for RfC to help us resolve, please see: Requests_for_comment/Society%2C_law%2C_and_sex


 * 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)

Michael -- To clarify:

I stated my objection on two points:
 * regarding Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided point #2 "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources."
 * regarding Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided point #3 "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."

I based the latter on a discussion I had with Ms. Craft, and that she has pushed this link into several other articles. You suggested that she might not have been the originator, in this article. My research (see above) indicates that user:Dandelion1 was the originator. It is hard for me to believe that someone other that Ms. Craft would consider this site to be neutral, or anything other than POV, but perhaps that is the case.

This still leaves the first objection.

I don't think either of us disagrees about the importance of the topic Ms. Craft discusses, Pedophilia. Certainly everyone should do what they can to prevent any child from being abused. My view:
 * The first thing I see is an anecdotal story from someone molested as a child, at a nudist camp.
 * Several sections about convicted or charged child molesters, who Nikki suggests are naturists.
 * Mentions of naturist magazines that "shockingly" have had pictures of nude children in them. Looking into that, it appears that in the 50's and 60's they actually took pictures of nude people and nudist camps, including children.
 * At the bottom of the site there is a request for donations.
 * I look, and look, and look for a government, or private study, report, or research on ths issue, and I can find no links to any of these.

There is no doubt that there is a wealth of information on her site, and that the topic is a serious one. Consider though, of you can visualize this, taking each of those stories, one by one, and moving them into the Wikipedia article.
 * Stripped of Personal Freedom: Collette Marie tells her story of being molested by a pedophile at a nudist camp. (more...)
 * David Glenn defends the trading of nude photos of children.
 * Jonathan M. Tampico: Nudist and convicted child molester.
 * Busting Mr. Short-Eyes. Joseph Wanner, long-time and vocal member of the Naturist Society, was arrested and charged with 230 counts of sexual crimes, most involving children. (more...)
 * Nudist Pedophile Ring. How many pedophiles does it take to ruin a child's day at a nudist camp? A whole slew of nudist men roamed nudist camps molesting children with impunity while the national nudist organization bragged about how safe nudist camps were for kids. (more...)
 * With a father's love? Hannah Bennett tells the story of her father forcing nudity on her. (more...)
 * Joseph Henry:"My Life of Molesting Children" Joseph Henry Part I; Joseph Henry Part II
 * "Family Nudity" & Pedophiles
 * William D. Peckenpaugh:Willamettans, Christian, Family Naturist, Anti-Circumcision Advocate & author of "Familial and societal attitudes toward nudity, and the effects on children's development" adopted child in Romania for sex abuse

What would be the problem with that? Each and every one of those articles would be removed because they did not meet Wikipedias standards. Which is why linking to her attack piece should also not be listed here any more than the individual elements. No research, just an activists personal attack, and a request for donations towards the cause.

Now, in reading her page, you can't help but feel that she is attacking naturists and nudists. Over and over she sems to imply that they are pedophiles, or at least passive observers to pedophilia, and that she claims a link between naturism and pedophilia.

If that is your concern, and your premise in this article (the article is a criticism of naturists, after all) then why not just make a section that says that? ==Naturism linked to Pedophilia== and bring in all of that data that Ms. Craft has collectedand well, any research on the case? Give a list of all of the pedophiles that she lists on her site, by name, and show that they are naturists too? My guess is that such a section could not be created, because none of the "data" on her web site would be considered to be valid for Wikipedia.

What are we looking for here, directly, or indirectly thorugh an external link? Wikipedia:External_links What should be linked to:
 * See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Sources available in both web and print editions should have a citation for the print edition as well as a link.
 * On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other.
 * Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article.

What are Wikipedia:Reliable sources?
 * A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. The term most often refers to a document produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event. It could be an official report, an original letter, a media account by a journalist who actually observed the event, or an autobiography. Statistics compiled by an authoritative agency are considered primary sources. In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material. Most primary-source material requires training to use correctly, especially on historical topics. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, or historic documents that appear in edited collections. We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher. See No original research and Verifiability
 * A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources. Secondary sources produced by scholars and published by scholarly presses are carefully vetted for quality control and can be considered authoritative.
 * A tertiary source usually summarizes secondary sources. Encyclopedias, for instance, are tertiary sources.

'''Her web page article doesn't fit the criteria for Primary, secondary or tertiary sources. It does sound a heck of alot like whats described in No original research.'''

An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is, if it does any of the following:


 * It introduces a theory or method of solution;
 * It introduces original ideas;
 * It defines new terms;
 * It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
 * It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
 * It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
 * It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

The fact that we exclude something does not necessarily mean the material is bad — it simply means that Wikipedia is not the proper venue for it.

My last point, is you suggest that I, as a "self-described nudist", am not objective. I remind you that I have discussed this civilly with you, and placed an RfC asking for other opinions (rather than involving people I know). I do note that on Ms. Craft's web site that you are mentioned prominantly as a "sponsor" of her site ("Welcome to the crazy world of MichaelBluejay"). I checked out your site, and it looks much like Nikki's wacky site, full of POV and acitivism. I'm not critical, everyone should be able to express their opinion -- and we need activists. I just hope we won't be using your site as an external Wikipedia reference anytime soon.

Did it occur to you that Ms. Craft is a professional activist. That she makes a living being an activist, and on donations and other sources for being an activist? I say, more power to her, but we need to recognize that fact.

On her web site "nostatusquo" She seems to be asking for donations for:


 * Stop the Occupiers (Sharon tear down that wall -- US out of Iraq)
 * Jews against the occupation
 * No blood for oil
 * Stop McDonalds
 * Against the ACLU
 * Against Pornography
 * Combat Media Violence, Kill Your Television
 * Feminista!
 * It's impossible to put a price on a tree -- save the trees.
 * SUV Heaven (satire against SUV owners)
 * PeTA: (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals)(Against)
 * Andrea Dworkin Online Library
 * Andree Dworkin Memorial
 * Teaching About Being an Oppressor (Male Feminists)
 * Praying Mantis Womens Brigade (Radical Feminists)
 * Women Rising in Resistance (Rqadical Feminists)
 * Rape Song and Rape Song Remix (Anti-Rape)
 * Feminists for Nader
 * ACLU Marketplace (Mugs, T-shirts and Mousepads)
 * Naturists Hall of Shame (Anti-Nudism)

I don't criticize her for having so many worthy causes. I just point out that this is a commercial web site, and she is in the business of selling her activism.

Atom 00:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "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)

Please leave the link off the page until our RfC is responded to. Per WP:EL the site is not a reliable reference, and does not belong here. The RfC, or action by an admin will determine if the innapropriate site can remain. Atom 23:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

Just because the link was there for a few weeks doesn't really make it "long-standing", or accepted. It was just a matter of time until someone read the link, and realized that it did not meet the WP:EL standard. The web link has never had "consensus", and consensus would not overide it violating Wikipedia policy anyway. My RfC did claim two things. I have already established that She was not the original person putting the link here. That is documented here several places. I am not allowed to modify the RfC. It will all come out in the wash. The second objection, to the link being POV, and not a reliable source, per WP:EL, still is sufficient for it to be removed. I'm sorry if I offended you by posting on your user page. I didn't realize that you don't want people posting there. Since it was personal communication, I thought it best to put it there like I do communicating with everyone else. Best regards, Atom 00:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Michael, as I said on your talk page, you seem like a fine fellow. It seems that your fight is more about your concern about the importance of the topic, than whether it really is a good link, or not. I've suggested that you migrate the NPOV, reliable portion of the web page to this document, as that would not be disputed, especially given the importance of the document.

In the article "Issues in social nudity" the matter is handled gracefully. There is no, what you call "censorship" the matter is addressed head on. Obviously we agree that the topic is important, and relevant to Naturism. But in the example below, there is no unsourced or unreliable external links, no emotional POV attacks on naturism without credible evidence. Here is the section, reproduced below.

"Handling incidents of sexual abuse and exploitation Nikki Craft, a political activist, artist and writer, has been involved in a major project researching and publishing reports of pedophilia and child molestation within the nudist/naturist movement and what she contends is their leadership's failure to address those issues. She contends that the American Association for Nude Recreation (AANR) and The Naturist Society (TNS) have not done enough to investigate offenders, remove offenders, report offenders to law enforcement, establish even one single national policy, or modify club procedures for dealing with problem behaviors and abuse. An example she cites is William D. Peckenpaugh who was charged with multiple sex crimes with a child. This reporting was initially published in her newsletter "The Iconoclast". While many naturists and nudists acknowledge problems in the community, many believe Nikki Craft seems bent on inciting an unnecessary amount of fear into peoples' minds about what they believe is a safe, family-friendly activity. Her critics contend that many private clubs do check the criminal histories of visitors to make sure they do not have documented histories of criminal activity that would be of concern in a family-oriented community. They also point out that sexual predators are everywhere in society and all must be equally vigilant to making sure that both individuals and organizations take initiative in establishing protections against abuse and exploitation. Craft counters that the fact that sexual predators exist elsewhere in society is no excuse for the fact that nudist/naturist leadership fail to take easy and common sense measures to protect the children in the movement."

What do you think about using this text. Or, putting in text of your own design that says this from your perspective? We can accomplish your primary concern, I think, while avoiding the use of an external link that violates Wikipedia guidelines. Atom 13:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

Michael, Your latest edit looks very nice. In response to your comments (above), I will point out that initially I objected to the link for two reasons. It was pointed out to me that the first was incorrect, which I immediately agreed. The second point has been the same, and unwavering throughout. One does not need consensus to enforce Wikipedia policy, and any editor can remove it on site without discussion. It is not my job to suggest what you should, or should not do. I merely point out that re-adding it still does not make it a reliable NPOV source. What could be a more productive use of your time might be to influence Ms. Craft to help you make the new web site NPOV, and citable. Best to you, Atom 18:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

I think you are right, Peckenpaugh is a convicted pedophile. 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!

Regardless, WP:EL still applies. The web site is an POV attack site against naturism. Get real. Just because amidst all of the information there is an article that has a reference, does not make all of the other information referenced. Again, if there is information there that is valuable, and also pertinent to THIS article, bring the information, and its citation INTO the article here. Regards to you, Atom 01:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "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)

And he was probably a Catholic and a Republican. Maybe he was a boy scout leader too. Why not trash those institutions as well? We already suspect that pedophilia is a problem with catholic priests, and who can make sense of Republicans, that should be enough reasoning to trash them.

In all seriousness, if there is a causal link between naturism and pedophilia, could you just say so and support it with facts instead of innuendo? Have you considered that maybe pedophiles are attracted to places where there are naked children? (That doesn;t make naturists pedophiles) It is a good reason for naturists and nudists to be concerned, and to look out, but hardly crusade material. You could just express the need for concern, as the extreme hyperbole presented on the web site actually distracts from your goal of informing and making people aware. Don't you think that family naturists and nudists are aware of that possibility, and watch their children carefully?

If your criticism is that naturists and nudists should be aware, or more aware that their environment may attract pedophiles, that is worthwhile. But, I think you've said that in the section you wrote. Atom 15:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason that the web site violates WP standards is because it presents a great deal of material, most of it POV, without a counterbalancing POV. The POV stated is primarily anecdotal, primary research, and just plain opinion. It isn't a scientific study, and dosn;t pretend to be. It isn't a journalistic exposé, backed by infomred sources. It isn't a college text book written by an expert in the field, and peer reviewed. These would all be potential good sources for using in an article. The WP standards.

What should be linked to: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article..." The article you include is not neutral, and as most of the content (not all) is unverified original research, do we have a reason to believe it is accurate, and not just someone opinion?

Links normally to be avoided:
 * "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources"  (Primarily unverified original research is the issue in this case.)
 * "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"

(Aren't you the maintainer of the dreamhost NudistHallOfShame.info web site you have included in the article?)

Please see Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information

No original research Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position: Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Reputable publications: Ask yourself some questions when you are evaluating a publication. Is it openly partisan? Does it have a large or very small readership? Is it a vanity publisher? Is it run principally by a single person, or does it have a large, permanent staff? Does it seem to have any system of peer review, or do you get the feeling that it shoots from the hip? If you heard that the publication you are about to use as a source was considering publishing a very negative article about you, would you (a) be terrified because you suspect they are irresponsible and do not fact-check; or (b) feel somewhat reassured because the publication employs several layers of editing staff, fact-checkers, lawyers, an editor-in-chief, and a publisher, and will usually correct its mistakes? If it is (a), do not use it as a source. If it is (b), it is what Wikipedia calls "reputable."


 * 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)

Thanks for your feedback. Based on what you said, I went to read the Wikipedia standards again, to be sure. We can't require anything of external links, but we do have standards on what external links are appropriate. external links that are POV, and by reference, inject opinion, rather than data that meet our reliable standards criteria are listed as not appropriate. The suggestion, as I indicated above, is that information pertinent be brought from the external reference, into the article, and appropriately cited (with a quality citation). Consider an article on the assasination of JFK, that gave links to several external links with wild conspiracy theories. The correct think to do would be to creat a new section on conspiracy theories, bring in the claims made in various places, and reference those theories in the article, and give proper citations to back those claims. Or, if they were unsubstantiated, POV, opinion, speculation, (original research), to leave them out entirely. In this case, an editor points to an external link that it a long laundry list of original research, mixed with a few valid facts. The facts should be brought into the article and properly referenced. (and not to the bad external link -- but good cites) and the speculation and opinion left behind. Bringing into the article the fact that a pedophile was arrested, and that he had links of some kind with naturist/nudist organizations is proper, and then citations backing his arrest (should be easy enough) and citations backing that he was/is a member if naturist organizations(should be wasy enough). The original research implying that all naturists are pedophiles, or that family nudity is somehow flawed, or even that naturists and nudists turn a blind eye to child abuse shoud all be left behind. (unless there are facts to back up those theories, and those facts can be backed by something other than this article.) Atom 12:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * External links should reflect the full range of viewpoints, as WP:NPOV requires. -Will Beback 10:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Article poorly named
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)
 * I agree. Biscuittin (talk) 13:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest Alleged discrimination in social nudity. Biscuittin (talk) 13:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * delete this article... it was just an attack page, and now it's nothing.  --User101010 (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC) I was sexually abused and raped repeatedly in two nudist camps my parents joined in Roselawn, Indiana. There is no screening process or police protection in nudist camps.