Talk:Naturism/Archive 3

Nudism & naturism are equal terms, and are overlapping groups

Why was I directed to naturism from nudism? I thought the merging of nudism and naturism was complete. It should be locked in or something. Then we can finish the discussion of what to call it. My preference is social nudity. Clothes free (sic without a hyphen) is negative, awkward, and unpopular. Korky Day 01:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You always will keep a bunch of redirects, and especially if you replace general used terms with a new construct. KimvdLinde 13:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Just my own perspective here, but arguing over the usage of the terms "nudism" vs. "naturism" sounds to me like Star Trek fans arguing over the terms "Trekkie" vs. "Trekker/Trekkor"... I've always viewed the two as being synonyms of each other. Kilraven 00:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Please use NPOV language on this page!!!!

Please treat this page as if it were "social nudity" or "clothes free movement" or "clothes free culture" as info on naturism and nudism both are on this page and we are trying to create a NPOV article on the general topic. Please note that a requst to move the page to social nudity has been put foward. Please join the discussion on this topic. Thank you for your NPOV contributions to Wikipedia. Dandelion1 02:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Name change

Name changes should only be carried out if he page is also moved to a that name page, which has not yet been carried out, and is doubtfull if that will happen unless there comes better evidence for the need of that move. I am still completly unconvionced. KimvdLinde 01:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

see also Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Article_titles KimvdLinde 01:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the article should use the same naming convention as the title. Unless there is consensus to move the article, using different words in the article and in the title just looks silly. I also don't understand what is less POV about choosing "social nudity" than "naturism" - the article title should just use the most common English word. Kusma (討論) 01:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

(1) Um, did you notice that there is a huge chunk of this page devoted to this discussion? Please share your thoughts there.

(2) There is no consensus, but there was also no consensus to move the page to "naturism" but someone did that anyway on their own initiative, before commenting about it on the discussion page. Did you notice that? User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 01:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

What others did is not a reason to display the same ad behaviour yourself. KimvdLinde 02:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason to use POV language in this article, do you? User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 03:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I see no reason for that either, we only differ dramatically what is POV language. Besides that, you are now messing the style of the page up. KimvdLinde 03:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Just because one person moved the article to a new page title without consensus does not mean all of the other editors who have so far been contributing within the spirit and tone of the article must now bend to the whims of that person and rewrite and adjust to the new title of the article by changing to POV and biased language. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 04:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are not able to build consensus for the move to Social nudity until now. I am concerned with this article in its current form, not with the past movements and accusations towards other people. That is NOT a reason to do the same. Furthermore, I would suggest that you read WP:POINT, WP:STYLE and WP:3RR. KimvdLinde 04:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Politics and commercial interests

Ok, I have been digging in the history of this page.

On 25 March 2006 Sceptre moved both Naturism and Nudism to Clothes free movement [1] and [2] to repair a crude cut/paste move (cut/paste move fix), a consequence of moving the page content of these pages to the Clothes free movement page by User:Dandelion1 aka User:Dandelion at March 13 see page history dif. Unfortunatly, the page histories of Nudism and Clothes free movement are unavailable for me. Coincedently, the Clothes free movement saw its light just months before at the beginning of Januari 2006 when the commercial The International Naturists Association (INA) changed its name in Januari 2006 to ClothesFree International, Inc. see [3]. This same person is now frantically pushing for the change of the page name from Naturism to Social nudity. KimvdLinde 06:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You are right, it is a coincidence. So what? Use of the term "clothes free/clothing free" and "social nudity" predate the corporate name change. I personally have been using those conventions before ClothesFree Interational made the change as well. It has also been in use by the naturist and nudist community (see sources at bottom of page). Please stop your wild conspiratorial accusations or go find some solid proof that something more is going on. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 19:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Good to know you are not associated in any way with the ClothesFree International, Inc.. KimvdLinde 05:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I associate with many people, naturists, nudists, TFTBY, BFC, SLUGS, ClothesFree International, TNS/NAC/NEF, WNBR, Solstice Cyclists, Body Pride Ride, Hemp Ride, but I am only a member of TNS, SLUGS and BFC. Many of my closest associates are naturists and nudists. I also work with others who enjoy social nudity or select public activities who do not use those labels. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 17:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia headings need not be labels

Encyclopedia headings need not be labels: for instance, an encyclopedia might have a heading Citrus fruits, which would describe navel oranges, Mandarin oranges, pink grapefruit, white grapefruit, tangerines, lemons, limes, etc., plus how they differ and are similar. It's just a handy, logical category. That doesn't mean that every time you eat an orange or a lime, you must call it a "citrus fruit"! In fact, you rarely would. However, that doesn't make "Citrus fruit" a bad heading.

Like unopened pink and white grapefruit, nudists and naturists can be hard to tell apart. That certainly doesn't mean they need separate articles. However, it would be absurd to try to label the citrus article as either "Pink grapefruit" or "White grapefruit"! It would look most absurd to the lime-lovers (like the nude cyclists).

Therefore, let's settle on a comprehensive, accurate, neutral term, such as Social nudity, for our heading. Few, if any, of us will call ourselves "social nudity people", but that's all right!

-- above is a view from Canada, Korky Day 10:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The major difference bwteen your example is that Citrus fruits is a widely used term, while Social nudity is far from that and actually pretty limited to North America where the resistance is much harder. Everything seems to have started with moving most information of Naturism and Nudism and related pages to Clothes free movement and related pages. I have been reading an much older version [4] which looks much better than the current version. It is pretty amazing to have 1140 edits (since 2001) at this page of which almost 500 since the beginning of this year, many by a single user. So, instead of just continuing on this POV pushing related to a commercial website that has decided that Naturism and Nudism are infected terms because of the US situation WP:NPOV, I suggest we go back to writing a sensible article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox for political correct activism WP:ISNOT. Currently, Naturism and Nudism are overwhelmingly used in the world but if and only if social nudity has become the accepeted alternative for these terms (which will be reflected in for example in the largly increased number of hits in google), it will be time to move this article to that name. But until then, I am strongly of the opinion that we should keep it under the most used terminology (see above for google hits). And that is mention both terms directly in the first sentence (as is now), explain that they are "virtually identical" and that it has different conotations and continent related differences in usage. KimvdLinde 14:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't buy that. I Googled for these and found:

orange___486 000 000

grapefruit__83 000 000

lemon____15 400 000

citrus fruit__2 160 000

Considering that, by your Google reasoning, "Citrus fruit" is not widely used enough. Admittedly, some of the orange is for the colour (not the fruit), so let's forget orange.

Then, by your reasoning, I suppose we should call the Citrus fruit article

"Grapefruit and other related species" Korky Day 20:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Try Citrus, it gives back 43,100,000 hits, and that is the name it is under on wikipedia and Citrus fruit redirects to there. So, it works. KimvdLinde 05:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

No, because citrus is still found about half as often in Google as grapefruit, etc. And the reasoning in the new section below is similar and good. Korky Day 07:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Social nudity is only found 1 to 10 to nudism and 1 to 4 for naturism, so it is way less often used. Furthermore, other terms do not come even close. Finally, the two terms nudism and naurism are virtually identical, which is different for lemon and orange and ..... KimvdLinde 07:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You took "citrus" instead of "citrus fruit" in my example above, so I'll take "nudity" instead of "social nudity" for a Google search:

nudity____25 600 000

nudism___3 150 000

naturism__1 560 000

So your choice, naturism, comes in WORSE than 10 to 1, and only half as often as nudism. And you have left many of the criticisms unrefuted, such as that naturism is a euphemism and is partisan.

And a new reason not to use naturism is that so many confuse it with naturalism. "Social nudity" isn't the slightest bit confusing, as you claim. What is it confused with, nudity among socialites!?

But the main argument is that social nudity is more comprehensive. It includes urban nude performance art and urban nude cycling. Naturism, with its wilderness connotations, doesn't. Korky Day 10:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

See below, we are not here to decide for the world what the best term is, we are here to make an encyclopedia and similar to your Citrus example, there is a page describing the general stuuf, and specific pages for the specific stuff. See below.

Whether it is a euphemism and is partisan is irrelevant (WP:NORWP:ISNOT), it is a term used by a lot of people, and for that reason alone deserve to have a page. KimvdLinde 16:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with you, KimvdLinde, on ClothesFree being unacceptable. Worse than being commercial, to me, is that it is a fad. It's also saying what the movement is AGAINST instead of what it's FOR. It's also a euphemism for people too prudish to say out loud NUDE or NUDITY.

But then naturism and FKK are euphemisms, too, which encylopedias should avoid. That's why, even though culturally I fit in more with "naturists", I prefer the word nudist. But I don't want to try to force the heading "Nudism", by itself, on an unwilling group of Wikipedians.

The near perfect solution is the heading Social nudity or Nudity, social, isn't it? Not a euphemism. Even though it's not part of everyday speech, everyone instantly understands it, even quicker than they understand "Citrus fruit". My second choice would be Nudism, naturism, public nudity, and related practices, but that's a bit awkward. Korky Day 21:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC).

I disagree that it is a perfect solution, I think it is a terrible solution. KimvdLinde 05:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Why terrible? You're not answering many of the arguments above and below. Korky Day 07:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Becuase it is a infrequent used term, most people know it either as nudism or naturism. It is ambigious, unclear and confusing. Furthermore, WP is not a soapbox and a place to push new terms, it is to document what are the terms. KimvdLinde 07:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has already refuted all those. Encyclopedias frequently make up headings to describe categories of things. That's not pushing a new term, it's describing current fact. That doesn't mean people should or will describe themselves with the heading. For instance, the heading "Pre-Christian sculptors" doesn't mean those sculptors thought of themselves as pre-Christian sculptors, does it! Korky Day 09:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You said, KimvdLinde, a while back that "social nudity is confusing and can mean various things . . . " like Cultural anthropology (?). If you mean traditionally naked cultures, then, that's not confusing! That's what modern socially nude people are trying to reclaim and recreate, more or less: the constant, innocent nudity of all of our distant ancestors. I relate to the natives of the Amazon rainforest! They are nudists and naturists, in their own ways. They certainly belong in this article, and I've mentioned them in my additions.

"Can mean various things", yes, that's why it's a perfect heading, because it encompasses everything we're trying to include! Korky Day 21:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Naturism is Ridiculously Specific

Naturism is a specific, quasi-religious movement. It can no more be used to describe all efforts to outgrow the nudity taboo than you could just call ALL religions "Christianity". To put all nudism under naturism is, in fact, exactly like putting all religion under "Christianity". A more neutral, wider term needs to be used instead. "Social nudity" is hardly perfect, but much better than "Naturism". --Kaz 02:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. But I do not object to move it to nudism, as that term is the most used anyway. KimvdLinde 07:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Also naturism is a euphemism. See above section. Korky Day 07:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

RfC Comments

Whither to call this topic?

Not Clothes Free Movement, or anything with movement in it - that implies a political, advocacy and/or proselytizing aspect, which is definitely not where all or even the majority of nudists/naturists would place themselves (I would be interested in seeing figures - which of course would be extraordinarily difficult, given the number of 'private' nudists).

Perhaps Nudity in politics might be a better article for certain aspects of the movement and culture, which is very diverse. I can see that the political, advocacy and/or proselytizing aspect can be part of its own distinct section or article. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 02:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Not Social anything either - not all nudists mix social activities with their nudism - those who go to nude beaches or are 'domestic' nudists for instance.

Very often, not everybody, or even a majority of those who goes to nude beaches is a nudist or a naturist. Look at the decline of nudist and naturist clubs in Germany [5] and the increase in public nudity there. IN FACT, many have done informal surveys and found that many do not associate with either movement, especially formally. This is why traditionally nudists in America have not invested much in nude beaches, because there revenue comes from those who are dues paying members in clubs. The american nudist movement has also frowned on the free beach movement (which lead to the creation of the Naturist Society) because they though beach users were just too wild and permissive.

From the article "War of the Naked" at Expatica.com [6]

"More and more Germans are bypassing restrictive conventions of where and when to go naked and not bothering with traditional formal nudist/naturist/FKK associations before dropping their clothes in public areas. What then do the increasingly aging and dwindling organizations have to offer to those who could care less about apparently needless affiliations and their self-imposing restrictions? Will other civilized countries follow? If so, how will this phenomena spread? Will the clubbers continue to attempt to reign in these "wild", free-range, non-dues-paying naked people?

"Germany has become so relaxed about people stripping off and sun bathing in the nude that the only people who seem to be enraged are members of the country's long-established naturist clubs. Barry Whelan takes stock of the crisis that has hit the nation's once-flourishing free body culture (FKK) movement."

Social nudity is a term that is in use.User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 02:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Problematic word - naturism; it does have political/cultural connotations; I'm sure perceptions vary, but in my perception it includes a large preoccupation with outdoor activity & nature.

Nudism - had a look at some other wikis - In germanic languages Naturism appears to be seen as a sub-set of Nudism - in French the reverse seems to be true. Eeeek!!!! Linguistically, English seems to be in line with the Germanic understandings (naturism as a subset of nudism), but it appears that there is a huge political gap here - a little pragmatism might be in order ;-) Please Please Please, don't invent a new label though.....Bridesmill 16:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes! That is why there needs to be a disambiguation section in a neutral article on use of the two terms. Again, we are not pulling "social nudity" out of nowhere. Remember all these terms, including Naturism, Nudism, Jaybird, Naktcultur - Naked Culture (German), Wandervogel (wondering birds - German), Free Body Culture/FKK (in German) were invented out of thin air. The danger I've also noticed is that a nudism article in Europe might better have an equivalent in naturism in the US. Who decides what the proper interwiki link will be? Will it be based on the word? Or its language/regional meaning? What do we call nudity movements outside of naturism and nudism? Where will that info go? User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 02:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

A European perspective I am at a loss to know where to start, but looking at the page on Naturism, it is a mess, and looking at the debate here ther seems to be a real lack of input from anyone who is familiar with Naturism in Europe though many are willing to speculate. I have been visiting official naturist sites in France for 25 years, and using French Naturist beaches on rivers and on the Atlantic and Mediterranean. My neighbours there have been principally Dutch, French and occasional German with the occassional Brit. I have visited Naturist sites in Austia Spain and Former Yugoslavia. I am a member of BN (British Naturism) so I can get my card but don't participate in Naturist activites in the UK. That is my background, this is my opinion.

Naturism is the only term I would use. In the UK, nudism is not used except in a derrogatory manner- I would positively avoid anywhere that described itself as Nudist. In the Uk, nudism has extreme sexual connotations- usually associated with 'Carry On Films'or the socially inadequate. It is commonly said that in North America, nudism is not a negative term, but I have no personal experience. I would warn any North American Visitor that Nudism is not a term to use in conversation like other 'false friends' between the two languages.

A Naturist beach is one that has been official sanctioned, where a clothing optional beach is a beach where textiles and naturist mix, but has not been officially sanctioned. As so much british naturism happens in France, most Brits understand the idea of a FKK beach, or going FKK, and the term 'nudité obligatoire'. So I would ask a friend if a beach was FKK, when I meant was it official or tolerated. I would ask whether a beach was Naturist or Nudist, meaning whether families were using the beach, or whether it was a site of 'free love'.

There is a reference to 'nudité obligatoire' at all times with in naturist clubs- this is just not true, the only places that this is hoped for is in the swimming pool- there are a many reasons that cause members to wish to stay clothed, from the time of the month to skin problem, safety etc. And because the sun has gone down and it is cold!

There is a reference to 'wearing lingerie'at naturist resort nightclubs. At the nightclubs on naturist resorts that my children frequent, they dress as they would at any normal nightclub. The only difference appears to be that younger teenagers are permitted to attend, as a FKK site is a safer environment.

The term 'social nudity'is bureaucracy speak, it occurs on the websites coming from the 1974 Agde definition- as a translation of gemeinschaftlich nacktheit/ nudité communautaire/ gemeenschaapelijke naaktheid ( I would have translated it as common nakedness).

The need for disabiguation pages is irrelevant, it is only needed because so much irrelevant stuff has been cut and pasted from the nudism pages. The Naturism page can be far slimmer and to the point. The principle page could be Nudity, and would link to Naturism through its terminology section.

What should be on a Naturism page.

It should start with the Agde definition- take a copy from the INF handbook. It explain that while in North America it was synonymus with nudism, it Europe it definite was not.

The terminology section should be stripped back removing all nude and sexual references.

The history section needs only to start with the Adamites, then should do a brief bit about Zimmerman in Deutschland and Lecoq and Montalivet in France, the whole 'Nazi' bit can be stripped as it is not relevant (someones hobbyhorse).

At this point there needs to be a regional examination. Much of the history section can be split into 'Canada',Argentina, etc. The legal position for naturist in each of these countries can be examined here- and by reference to the relevant local association.

For instance the legal position, and facilities in the UK can be examined by referral to the British Naturism Page, and in France this can be showm on a FFN page. (French Naturist Federation). I am sure that there are many interesting issued caused by the federal structure of the constitutions on the North American Nations- that can be examined regionally.

There is the link to issues in social nudity that should be kept, and that page can be worked up.

I apologise if I have offended any Wiki conventions, or over posted in the wrong place, I am sure I will be edited and corrected. CR 16 July 2006

Building an encyclopedia

The first purpose here is to build a encyclopedia. An encyclopedia describes what is there (see WP:NPOV), it does not invent things (See WP:NOR), and as such is free of an agenda (See WP:ISNOT specific: WP:ISNOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox). Furthermore, it works by consensus building and information needs to be verifiable by reliable external sources.

With the naming stuff, deciding which name is the ONLY one to use is originalresearch, and undermines the basic idea idea of an encyclopedia to document things.

Social nudity is an umbrella term (see discussion above what it all includes). Having a seperate page to document the wide range in terminology and the different fractions is a good idea. However, deciding that Naturism and Nudism should be eliminated in favour of Social nudity is not, because it suggests that the previous terms are synonyms of the latter, which they are not, they are part of that wider term, but he wider term is not describing naturism and nudism accuratly. This kind of umbrella page-subpages is used very frequently. See for examples Citrus and Germanic neopaganism that descibe things in very broad terms, before they link to various subpages for more detailed documentation of subsequent terms.

My proposal is to use Social nudity as a general introduction page linking to the many version that are around. We can have than a seperate page to document for naturism/nudism or even have two seperate pages for each naturism AND nudism if they are deemed different enough.

This initially sounds like a good idea but I am concerned this may take us down the same troubled path that we have been in the past. I think a lot of people expect that there should be two pages for naturism and nudism or maybe one with both. But what would be the real valuable content, the meat on the bones, on a page on naturism and nudism beyond the core definition of naturism and nudism being without clothes in social, often mixed gender contexts? Would each page have a history section? How would you handle a history independent of the other term? When is one action deemed under the context of naturism vs nudism? What would be in a terminology section for naturism vs nudism? What would be in an external links section? Would naturist links be removed from a page on nudism? I have a very strong bias against redundant information and NPOV language on Wikipedia, and I think opening up two articles or a single article describing both naturism and nudism would result in POV language that is not consistant, resulting in articles looking like Feb 7 (below). I personally do not want to wade through such articles trying to bring it up to snuff to Wikipedia standards everytime some new user throws in unverifiable, POV edits. And believe me, if we move to make articles on naturism and nudism that are not integrated under an umbrella term, this will happen, and the editing nightmare will begin again.

Also, who will decide when activities that are non-naturist or non-nudist are included or not included on a page on naturism or nudism?User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 19:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, there will be always editors who will try to add nonsense. That is part of wikipedia. Secondly, I find the current version as much stronger POV than the old page (that is why I do not object against the POV tag that is on the page, it makes really perfect sense with its current content). And don't get me wrong, the old page needed improvements. Thirdly, wikipedia works by consensus WP:CON, not by ownership WP:OWN. And I suggest that you try to wok more toward consensus instead of dealing with the page as if you are the only person who knows something about this. Wikipedia REPORTS and DOCUMENTS, and as such, is based on good reliable and verifiable sources. In general, discussion resolve themselves very quickly when those resources are used. As soon as you try to add an agenda to it, how well intended, you are on the wrong path here.

Each term has its own history. If there are to many crosslinks between terms, maybe there should be a history page where all pages can refer to. There is no objection to have a short, clear article dealing with the essentials of a term, and then refer for the larger picture to another page. It will require a lot of thinking, editing and working before the group of pages will be a coherent total, but that is what it will take. KimvdLinde 01:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

(continued) For people who came later to the discussion, the last months, the article has been changed beyond recognision by User:Dandelion1, and for those who want to get an idea of the article before that, have a look at the last version before he started to edit this version of 7 February 2006.

This version illlustrates my point fairly well regarding NPOV language. Look at that version. You have a section called "Naturist terminology" and then a section called "History of nudism". Now you could argue that a proper editing environment that is keeping language consistant would prevent such strangeness from popping up, but I am not convinced based on the history of edits. Naturists and nudists will use their own naturist or nudist POV language to make edits on one or both pages if they exists. But is the history of naturism the history of nudism as well? It depends on who you ask. It depends on the time and what region you are talking about. Nobody though could deny that they are not very much entwined.

Let's say that one proceeds and makes a page called naturism and nudism. Ok fine. Naturists and nudists will start talking about public lands activities, and taking credit for them or laying claim that they are on the cutting edge of naturism or nudism, even though, many of those activities are being organized by non-naturists or non-nudists, like the Solstice Cyclists, TFTBY, WNBR et cetera. And any good article about naturism and nudism is going to have a section on manners, etiquette, addressing taboos, children and, et cetera. But the same issues get brought up in broader social nudity contexts, that is the issues get broad up often when people are nude together in mixed gender, social situations. If they are not brought up, then perhaps cultural anthropologists will be interested in how different groups handle similar issues.

Even in that version a claim is made "In Europe, and in particular in France, nudist and naturist have not the same signification." But nowhere does it note that the meaning of nudism and naturism itself differs region and historically, which is what Mark Storey has shown in his article.

Claims like the following, simply are not verified:

"Nudism is the simple pratice of nudity in public, mainly on the beach. Naturism is much more, like pratice of common activities, with also philosophical or ethical content." That understanding might be true to the editor in the region and time he or she is writing, but somewhere else it might be completely different.

Anytime one is having a general discussion, which could also relate to broader social nudity, the editors have used wither naturism or nudism as a noun.

As soon as I really read the "history of nudism" I knew that there was a major problem with this section heading. The history of nudism as claimed goes beyond a nudist context, it is also tightly interwoven into the history of naturism. To avoid having to completely tear it apart and pick apart what aspect is one or the other it seemed obvious to write a broader article that addresses both nudism and naturism and movements that operate outside the labels and anywhere inbetween.User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 19:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

As I indicated above, the old version was not perfect, but the current version is far worse. Many of the things you address here would be perfect additions to a good article about these terms. Make it clear those differences between countries. Nothing wrong with that. KimvdLinde 01:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

(continued) The whole idea about having to decide which term is accurate for the whole movement is irrelevant, we are here to ducument what is out there, not to make decision on how it should been called. KimvdLinde 16:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't object to having a page for naturism and nudism, I actually created a page for Naturism that was not just a redirect. At that time, there was only information being put on nudism. I quickly realized the folly though of having separate pages for naturism and nudism and the folly of trying to use those terms to describe a broader culture that went beyound those two terms. Simply put, one cannot legitimately but activities beyond or outside the scope of naturism and nudism, when the organizations operating outside those labels do not adhere to naturist and nudist labels, sometimes every aggressively criticizing the two (three in Germany) movements or cultures.

I can live with a page called naturism and nudism or nudism and naturism (latter has my preference based on number of google hits, just from more common to less common).KimvdLinde 01:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

(continued) As it was, with two pages describing naturism and nudism, we had two pages with two separate disambiguity sections. As it turns out the disambiguity itself can be contentious, as shown in this debate. I believe this debate about terminology deserves its own sections, that is, I think it deserves to be in a section about contemporary issues in social nudity, or whatever people call it, because people have such strong feelings about it (duh).

But if you really hone down both naturism and nudism to its very core, without the variations historically and regionally, you end up with two articles with definition that are virtually identical. But the fact of the matter is the two terms are used differently, and the differences need to be properly noted. I believe the differences should be noted in an article independent of either naturism or nudism, because otherwise you will end up with two different versions of the issue. Naturists and nudists often tend to choose one term or the other for themselves and then rename whatever they are doing as either within the context of nudism or naturism.

It sounds like there is sufficient material for such a page. Those differences need to be addressed, we document, do not hide and do not judge, we do not choose. KimvdLinde 01:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

(continued) As soon as Mark Storey releases his paper on terminology it will have a profound impact on this discussion, however, I don't expect him to release it anytime soon because he wants it properly published and it is too long to be included in one issue of one N magazine. Anybody wishing to verify that he is in fact revising the article or want to ask him general questions about it can contact him throught the Naturist Society's website/NAC website. He by the way does support the idea of using social nudity as an umbrella term, despite the fact that he personally uses and advocates naturism. He is one of the most prominent naturist figures in the world, as far as I am concerned given the breadth of his work and his political involvement.User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 18:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Untill he releases that paper, we have to dealw ith what is available now. And even after he releases the paper, the word will not evaporate. Mark Storey may be a prominent figure, but his opinion is just an opinion. Until the terminology has changed in common usage, the terminology is as it is. And it is not to ANY editor at wikipedia to judge that a commonly used term should be eliminated from the encyclopedia just because it is an inconvenient term. If you want to use WP as a soapbox, I suggest you go somewhere else to do you activism. KimvdLinde 01:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

(1) Mark's article is not an opinion piece per se, but a research article. That is why it is valuable. His works always are very well referenced/sourced.

(2) I don't want to eliminate references to naturism and nudism, I just want to have a good setup for discussing both without creating two very similar articles, saying similar things (redundancy) on the one hand, and having an environment where people are claiming historical credit for certain actions as being specifically naturist or distinctly nudist. Another thing that bugs me is people who saying nudists/naturists do this or that and have this policy or that policy. Policies vary by clubs, events, organizations, et cetera. Many people have their own working definition of what naturism and nudism means to them. Its much more useful to have an issues section and discuss why one policy is this way or that way, and note if it is controversial and why. I think it can be done, but I think common elements should be put on a neutral article like social nudity. That term is being used by naturists, I don't think its a perfect term, but I like it better than naturism and nudism, because not only is it being used, the phrase also is fairly intuitive for what it means, nudity in a social setting. I can understand the frustration with how it relates to cultural anthropology, I don't really know what to say about that other than to say a non-western viewpoint in this article would be a very valuable thing to have included. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 02:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Moving this page to social nudity with this as a redirect is not good setup, it is a extreme bad setup. People search for the most common term that they know, and they should end at a page that is dealing with that. Your WP policy violating edits such as beginning the article Social nudity are only confusing, and I doubt that any admin is willing to move this page to that page with the lack of consenus that is here. If you really want to get things going on major pages like this one, I suggest you start to work towards consensus, and stop the POV pushing. If you are so well informed about all the nuances between groups, countries, movements etc, making a good article about a specific term containing the needed nuances should be a piece of cake for you. Being bold can be good, but it can also be very counter productive when it results in ill-thoughtout actions such as making every page related to naturim a cloths fee related page. And redirecting common terms to POV terminology that is covering much more than the redirect term implies is just a plain bad idea. KimvdLinde 02:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: I don't think its a perfect term, but I like it better than naturism and nudism, because not only is it being used, the phrase also is fairly intuitive for what it means, nudity in a social setting.. I have two problems with this. 1. In the end, it does not matter what you prefer, it is what is used by the public at large. 2. The term is maybe intuitive for you, but for example not for me. Social nudity is just to ambigious.KimvdLinde 03:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Further to RfC

According to the dictionary (american heritage and websters) nudism & naturism are synonymous. Social budity appears to be a term peculiar to the nudist/naturist subcultures, or occasionally used in describin aspects of nudism/naturism. To have it as the overarching article would - to re-use the citrus examplt - be like having an article entitled 'Lemons' to discuss all citrus fruits. Recalling NPOV & NOR, I would respectfully suggest that this pretty well defines the parameters. An additional obervation: There appears to be a big difference between small-n nudism/naturism and big-N Nudism/Naturism - as in the difference between democratic and Democratic - as an example of the impact, the New Democratic Party in Canada is considerably more liberal (in the US understanding of the term) than the Liberal party - I think that in writing this article, the editors need to keep that distinction of small n (nudism) very clear from big-N AANR/TNS etc. Bridesmill 01:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Using google or american heritage and websters is not sufficient for listing differences between the two movements. Naturism does not equal nudism EXACTLY. Try showing up and an AANR nudist conference and telling them that they are now equavalent to being naturists and you will have people getting pissed. AANR (nudism) does not equal TNS (naturism) in the US. That is why there are two different organizations and why there is often a contentious relationship between the two. Many nudists have very strong feelings about their approach. There is space on Wikipedia to have an intelligent and well-informed presentation on this. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 02:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

My point exactly. Small n they are synonymous - you can't say 'the dictionaries are wrong' - same situation as discussing liberal & democrat with Democrats and Liberals ;-) The other problem is it's very hard, given the subtle differences, to figure which is a subset of which - cf the germanic & romance semantic differences; meaning the arguments you'll get between nudists and naturists will also vary on where you are geographically - I'll bet the US take on the difference is subtly different from the UK. On the other hand, if the nuances get too finnicky, the whole issue becomes a candidate for WP:LAME, which I'm sure nobody wants.Bridesmill 03:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm up to the challenge. If its WP:LAME, we will look at it and change it if it is necessary. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 03:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Not slamming anyone here; but it does look a bit POV-ish from the outside (and potentially offensive/turn-off to non-lifestyle nudists (e.g. those of us that by virtue of -40, blackflies, & bushfires have tanlines) - personally, I would do away with the derogatory terms - as insider jargon, that's cute - but it is neither encyclopedic nor useful - you don't see the definition of 'crispy-critter' on the firefighter article, for instance. The bit that prob really needs a bit of tweaking is the whole naturist/nudist debate - this is always returned to, but it is not really clear in the article just what exactly the problem/disagreement/debate is - which leaves the issue to the textiled reader as something of a mysterious, elitist, insider debate; I realize that you are deadly serious about the work here and I;m not trying to detract from that - just giving you the view of someone who is outside the 'movement' as such yet friendly towards it and reasonably familiar on how this article stands to be perceived.Bridesmill 16:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I am a nudist and live in a nudist MHP. While "nudist" and "naturist" are used interchangeably, the _only_ reference to "clothesfree" I've ever seen has been the website Clothesfree International which exists solely to sell nudist videos and "Naked News." In _no way_ is CFI any sort of 'movement headquarters' or anything of that sort; indeed there is no coherent 'clothesfree movement.' I believe 'nudism' and 'naturism' to be the proper designations while 'clothesfree' moves close to simply advertising the for-profit website.

jbh Minister of Propaganda PascoNudistForum.com

From Korky Day: I go away for a day or so and miss so much!

KimdvLinde has trouble with the word social. She seems to think it has to do with dinner parties on the south lawn with servants or something. Or earnest academics meeting to push vague, utopian theories. No, social just means not alone, among people. Not just someone daring enough to shower or copulate nude, but who can be nude with others, whether in private or public. So it's perfectly fitting. Using social nudity as the main heading is basically to use the word nudity as the general category, but specifying social nudity in order to distinguish it from the nudity which is focussed on sex and eroticism, especially for selling nudity. We could just as easily say nudity (social) or nudity, social. Maybe we should. (Or even nudity, unpaid and unashamed!) Social nudity is not some unencyclopedic invention, Bridesmill. It's like "Pre-Christian sculptors", as I described above: not a term from everyday talk, but most useful in an encyclopedia. That's not original research, either, it's just good diction.

Furthermore, KimvdLinde also said about naturism, "Whether it is a euphemism and is partisan is irrelevant (WP:NORWP:ISNOT), it is a term used by a lot of people, and for that reason alone deserve to have a page." You want a euphemism? Should we should title an article about human excretion, "Going to the bathroom"! No, human excretion or excretion, human is good, even though hardly anyone ever says it that way and it would find few Google hits. A little page for a euphemism, fine, but not naturism as the title of a main article attempting to encompass a broader subject. I'm not saying you can't have an article "Going to the bathroom", only that it shouldn't be the MAIN article.

And partisanship is the core of this whole argument. We should avoid partisan titles for the MAIN articles. Naturism is highly partisan and biased (in that silly Wiki jargon: "not NPOV"). Korky Day 01:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

1. I have no issue with understanding the word social, and I know what it means (And no, not just fancy dinners or utopian theory)
2. I do not think it is an euphemism. And even if it is a euphemism, if it is used so much, it is encyclopedic, and it is not to two editors of wikipedia to change that.
3. And I suggest that you keep the sneers towards me for yourself. That is not the way to deal with each other here.
4. And this way of discussing is not going to change my mind, it is just a good example of what I consider strong and biased point of view, with a lot of original research. KimvdLinde 03:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you thought I was sneering, that was not my intention. (I removed those bits.) Let's be friends. What's wrong, in your opinion, with the word "social" in Social nudity for a heading? Would you accept Nudity (social) or Nudity, social or even Nudity (unpaid and unashamed)?

Naturism is a euphemism, of course. It says nothing outright about nakedness or nudity. Hence the frequent confusion with the word "naturalism", even among socially naked people. The euphemistic label "naturism" was adopted as a political strategy to distinguish a group of disaffected nudists and to blunt public criticism by not really saying outright what they were about, and as a criticism of some nudist resorts which some thought were too expensive, elitist, overdeveloped, and getting too far from "nature". If you won't go for any of my suggestions, I still object to Naturism and nudism. The older, more well known, and non-euphemistic term should go first: Nudism and naturism. In fact, why don't we change it to that now, as an interim solution? Naturism as a heading by itself is so obviously biased. Korky Day 04:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem to bring this article under Nudism and naturism (as I indicated above already) or even Nudism as I agree with you that that is the most widely used term. For social nudity, it is a way to wide term, which does cover much much more than these two terms, and it is typical political correct terminology and as such, strong POV. Furthermore, it is way to infrequently used (19900 hits in google is nothing compared to 4.5 million hits for naturism and nudism combined) to serve as an valid alternative to these two terms, and if it is not to cover these two terms specifically, it is the wrong tem because the meaning is so much wider. Social nudity can be used a a very basic ambiguation page, but not more than that. I can see a seperate history page to link the terms historically. KimvdLinde 04:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Korky, I think you may have misread me, prob as Dandelion inserted replies into the middle of my reply, bit no offence - My big concern with 'Social nudity' is that although it may be iin use, and may be the de-rigeur avante-garde term, it is not one which is likely to be correctly read by the non-nudist/naturist/fkk world (which is after all your primary audience) - it has connotations as Kim implies whihc you don't want people to have to read the whole article to discover are not well founded. Calling the article Nudity (social) may be the best way out - it avoids the whole nudism/naturism squable, and then arguing if it shouldn't be naturims/nudism instead etc etc. - although certainly that nudism/naturism politic 'needs' to be discussed (enjoy NPOVing that LOL).Bridesmill 13:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Social

The major problem that I have to rename pages based on very general used names as Naturism (1.5 million hits) and Nudism (3 million hits) to social nudity (19,900 hits at google), besides the much more common usage of those first terms, is the ambiguity of the terminology . Yes, it can cover everything. Anything that contains nudity and a social aspect falls under it. Sauna, group sex, nude beach, public orgy, skyclad rituals in wicca, whatever. It is a way to wide term and therefore confusing. Maybe that some waht to fit that under it, but it is no synonym for naturism and nudism. KimvdLinde 03:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I already said (way above) that the word nudity by itself shows many more Google results than either nudism or naturism, maybe half of which refer to commercial or strictly erotic nudity. That's why we add the word "social", so it does NOT include group sex or orgies. The 2 words together, Social nudity, needn't be common as long as it sounds encyclopedic (it does) and says exactly what you mean (it does), is not a euphemism, and is less biased than naturism (etc.). It should and does include devotees of Sauna, nude beach, and skyclad rituals in wicca, some of whom claim not to be nudists (though they are)! Social nudity, you're right, is not a synonym for nudism and naturism. It's not meant to be. It's meant to include saunas and free beaches and nude cycling, which can all have their little sub-articles, but which all descend from the historical trend away from clothes compulsiveness. That trend is social nudity--or do you have a better term for that broader idea? Korky Day 05:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm; I'm assuming you're not a naturist ;-) On the other hand, the oppposite of what you say is also true - I have participated in all of what you menton - yet would not consider telling anyone that I practice 'social nudity', except for other nudists. Pushing the 'Social' & 'clothes-compulsive bit seems a bit POVish; it's actually one reason some people shy away from the activity. Bridesmill 13:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Good that we agree that social nudity is not a synonym for nudism and naturism. Than why should we rename this article about nudism/naturalism to social nudity?
2. Public group sex would fall under social nudity, and is not suddenly non-social because of the sexual component. Nudity by itself also includes non-sexual nudity when not in social context. Your definition of social and non-social as including erotic aspects or not the way most people deal with social versus non-social.
3. You might want to include people who perform skyclad rituals in wicca in nudism. That is fine, but not as it is used in general and not how many wiccans see it. That it falls under the ambigious social nudity is clar, under nudism, no way.
4. You write but which all descend from the historical trend away from clothes compulsiveness. Nudity in social context has always been practised, so to claim that everything comes from moving away from the clothes compulsiveness is just wierd. KimvdLinde 15:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, beg to differ on one point - Ritual nudity as in Wicca & other forms of paganism might be an aspect of nudism, it is definitely not 'social nudity', as ritual (esp. skyclad) is generally a very private affair.Bridesmill 02:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.