Talk:Nude beach

Please note that this Talk page is for discussion of changes to the Nude beach article. Wikipedia is not censored for minors, and the images used to illustrate the subject matter may be necessary for the quality of the article. Please refer also to Wikipedia's Content Disclaimer. As the talk page guidelines state, discussions which are off-topic (not about how to improve the article) may be removed, so this is not the place for discussions about the acceptability of images of nudity on Wikipedia. Thank you for your understanding.

possible image

I have found an image I think would be a suitable illustration for this article at [1]. I have emailed the contact for the website asking for permission to use it here. Thryduulf 16:13, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

what's worse than arrest?

"Nudity may result in requests to coverup, uncomfortable glares, a fine, arrest, or worse." Where in the world could you get punished by something worse than arrest, simply for being nude at a beach? Until a citation is giver (here), I'm taking that out. Daniel (☎) 16:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Getting assaulted by the locals is worse than a citation. Dandelion1 19:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure going naked on a Saudi beach would be pretty bad. They chop your hand off for some crimes...

simonthebold 16:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

External links

I've removed a few external links per Wikipedia:External links. If any of these are believed to offer a unique resource per the guideline, here's a good spot to discuss it. - brenneman ^{L} 08:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Per my edit summary, a lot of these links seem quite valuable. Why are you removing them? --JJay 18:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, from "What should be linked to" in the guideline, linked above and in the edit summary when I removed them, these aren't official site, references, preventing bias, or textbooks. They should thus be removed unless they provide "A unique resource beyond what the article would have as an example of brilliant prose." Do they provide such a unique resource?
brenneman ^{L} 04:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• The links mostly add valuable information not included in the article. Others were functioning as references, which you would know had you bothered to examine them. If you want to remove links, at least show other editors here a minimum of respect by discussing them individually and explaining why you think they should be removed. Hiding behind the style guide you are writing - which is not policy and in constant revision - is completely insufficient to justify removing all the links from an article. Many editors would see your approach as akin to vandalism, particularly the addition of an unreferenced tag after removing the links. You should expect to be reverted. --JJay 23:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

  Please refer to yet another guideline, regarding the use of civil language. Phrases such as "had you bothered," "minimum of respect," "[h]iding behind," and "akin to vandalism" add nothing to reasoned discussion. If you'd like to make a clear argument pointing out specifically which link is valuable by providing what information, hopefully referring to the guideline at the same time, we can have a discussion. If you continue to make vague statements laced with incivility, this will be difficult.
  brenneman ^{L} 00:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing particularly difficult about discussing the links- one by one. Please explain why you removed each link by discussing their individual merits. So far, it is you that has been extremely vague- in fact, despite your handwaving concerning civility, you have yet to explain the removals. I have already pointed out that the style guide page is insufficient to justify blanket removals...and yes, unfortunately, your actions could be seen as vandalism. Furthermore, the line you keep quoting from the style guide is hopelessly vague to the point of being meaningless. Since you are actively writing the style guide, perhaps you could find a way to clarify it. In the meantime, I would expect an article of this type to link to resources related to nude beaches, including some of the links you removed.--JJay 00:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Disagreements concerning content are hardly vandalism. If you two have a disagreement, follow the Dispute resolution process. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Aaron happens to be right. The article has six links to sites that review nude beaches, none of them really authoritative. Dr Zak 01:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the Fortune Forbes magazine article, for example? Is that not a valid source? In my view, it is a supporting reference for the article - the article in fact quotes from it. There is no justification for its removal. --JJay 01:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I have. It's an article in a business glossy written by a freelance writer listing ten random nude beaches (for convenience, complete with phone number to book the hotel). The author gives no indication what her criteria were nor does she make any serious effort at reviewing. To a link to a newspaper or magazine article by a known, serious travel writer (say, the Independent's Simon Calder) I wouldn't object, but none of those links are compelling. Dr Zak 01:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. The issue as I see it is that Forbes is a valid mass-market source and the introduction to their article lends validity as a reference to our Nude beach article. Whether the author is "serious" or not is beyond my realm of expertise. I should think the answer is somewhat subjective, although if Mr. Calder has written on Nude Beaches, I would not object to his addition as a link or reference. However, it makes little difference to me whether the sources are listed under "external links" or "references". What is important is that the article has some sources. That is policy, unlike the "external links" page, which is a style guide. It is also why I completely fail to see any value-added in the approach taken by you and User: Aaron Brenneman. Removing all the links - stripping the article of any semblance of a reference- is worse than pruning or leaving them alone. A more constructive approach would be to add a reference. Or examine the links and try to use some as references. Certain editors are acting under the misguided belief that "brutally" enforcing their interpretation of the links style guide absolves them of any responsibility for WP:V. That is wrong and highly objectionable. It contravenes the spirit of WP:V. Having said that and in view of your removals, I have created a reference section and added the Forbes article. --JJay 20:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Teminology - suggested page move

A nude beach is a beach without clothes gramatically speaking.
Whilst I appreciate this term is commonly used in the US in the UK and other English speaking parts of the word nudist beach is more common where the preferred naturist beach isn't used. People who follow a clothing-free lifestyle typically refer to themselves as naturists not nudists as the word nude has lewd and sexual connitations which naturist doesn't (most organised naturist beaches tend to prohibt sexual behaviour).

Therefore I propose to move the page and add a redirect unless anyone can give a good reason not to. simonthebold 16:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Opposed. Google search on "nude beach" comes back with 2.9M while "naturist beach" comes back with 1.1M. This doesn't appear to support your assertion that "naturist" is more common. --StuffOfInterest 17:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it was more common, in fact I said "...I appreciate this term is commonly used...". I said it is more grammatically correct and less offensive.simonthebold 09:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

One opposed and nobody supporting the move yet you went ahead and moved it? Please change it back so someone will not have to undo your action. --StuffOfInterest 01:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've undone the move. On a side note, thank you for picking up the redirects when you did your move. Far too many people don't. Anyway, the reason I undid the move is because you didn't have consensus for renaming a long established page. Being that there was an objection you should have followed the procedure outlined on WP:RM. This would include tagging the page to let visitors know about the suggested new name and making a post at the appropriate notice board to allow people uninvolved with this page to evaluate the suggestion and give their comments. This procedure is designed to avoid having a few people square off over the name by allowing those with no vested interest in the page to examine the situation. If you really feel that the name you are suggesting is more appropriate, then please read up on WP:RM and follow those procedures. --StuffOfInterest 11:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

As a long term naturist I feel that 'naturist beach' is more appropriate. Many in the naturist community prefer naturist over nudist or nude and feel these terms are derogatory. Bill Peavey. 18th July 2007