Wikipedophiles still skewing articles Options

[jorge]

OK, does anyone think it is odd that the Nudity and sexuality article starts with a a huge section on kids?

[written by he who wrote it]

OK, does anyone think it is odd that the Nudity and sexuality article starts with a a huge section on kids?

Odd indeed, but I think it's innocent. User:Dandelion1 started the article with material spun off from related pages, where it was developed over some years by a wide variety of users. Some diffs: 1 2 3 4. The responsible editor seems to be a devoted nudist but gives no real indication of being a pedophile.

This post has been edited by written by he who wrote it: Fri 7th March 2008, 4:25pm

[thekohser]

OK, does anyone think it is odd that the Nudity and sexuality article starts with a a huge section on kids?

It's no less alarming that this entire section is written from a "how to" POV, and is completely unsourced conjecture:

Responding to erections
Should an erection occur, one can simply cover up, switch over onto their side or stomach, jump into the pool, take a shower, ignore it until it subsides, etc. Flaunting an erection is considered extremely bad manners in most nude groups. Many consider it lewd. Others may not mind personally, but don't want to let such behaviour scare off new members.

Many practioneers of social nudity do not want men to openly present their erection (whether voluntary or spontaneous). However, some believe it should be included as a part of "body acceptance" — a key philosophy of nudists. This has been the subject of much of a mass debate in nudist/naturist Internet forums. For some activities (e.g. water skiing or dancing), hiding an erection might be difficult. In such cases, some forms of etiquette suggest that it be ignored by others.

Public nude beaches tend to be less strict on the issue of erections than private resorts. However, flaunting of an erection is still considered to be sexually motivated behavior and is discouraged.

Although erections cannot be controlled people still find offense if seen in public, even though the erection of a woman's nipples is seen as acceptable.

I also enjoy the word "practioneers". That's a new one on me.

And to think, I recently saw a blog comment exclaiming, "Regardless of this Jimbo flap that I'm choosing to again ignore and hope goes away, don't you agree that most of Wikipedia is dramtically improving?!?!"

Sigh.

[Jonny Cache]

"scare off new members"?

Jonny

[LamontStormstar]

OK, does anyone think it is odd that the Nudity and sexuality article starts with a a huge section on kids?

Well then....... why are there no pictures of kids nude?

I at least am glad it's 100% women nude and no guys (yeck!).

This post has been edited by LamontStormstar: Fri 7th March 2008, 6:15pm

[BobbyBombastic]

It's no less alarming that this entire section is written from a "how to" POV, and is completely unsourced conjecture:

Responding to erections
Should an erection occur, one can simply cover up, switch over onto their side or stomach, jump into the pool, take a shower, ignore it until it subsides, etc. Flaunting an erection is considered extremely bad manners in most nude groups. Many consider it lewd. Others may not mind personally, but don't want to let such behaviour scare off new members.

Funny you bring this up. We've discussed inserting this into WR policy for a few months but got hung up on the details.

[jorge]

OK, does anyone think it is odd that the Nudity and sexuality article starts with a a huge section on kids?

Odd indeed, but I think it's innocent. User:Dandelion1 started the article with material spun off from related pages, where it was developed over some years by a wide variety of users. Some diffs: 1 2 3 4. The responsible editor seems to be a devoted nudist but gives no real indication of being a pedophile.

There still seems to be something odd to me, if you go to the article on Nudity, there doesn't seem to be any specific section for children, but on the fork that links Nudity with sexuality there is?

[Milton Roe]

OK, does anyone think it is odd that the Nudity and sexuality article starts with a a huge section on kids?

Versus starting with a section on senior citizens? Humans start out in life naked, as a result of prior sexuality by somebody else (usually naked too), but it's all part of the cycle of life. Gotta start describing this somewhere.

"When a man and a woman love each other very very much---- the result is nudity and a great deal of dirty laundry."

-- Milt

[jorge]

OK, does anyone think it is odd that the Nudity and sexuality article starts with a a huge section on kids?

Versus starting with a section on senior citizens? Humans start out in life naked, as a result of prior sexuality by somebody else (usually naked too), but it's all part of the cycle of life. Gotta start describing this somewhere.

"When a man and a woman love each other very very much---- the result is nudity and a great deal of dirty laundry."

-- Milt

See my post above. In addition, I would have thought that an article (more of a fork) on "Nudity and Sexuality" would deal specifically with cases where nudity is linked to sexual attraction and/ or behaviour - I don't see why this section on children is necessary or appropriate, and a lot of the stuff that Kohser quoted is ridiculous.

[Peter Damian]

The Peter Damian seismometer registers small tremors, but nothing gale force (?). The strange erection stuff was contributed by Dandelion, who has made about 1,000 edits since 2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...rget=Dandelion1

entirely on the subject of nudism. For example this very strange article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clothing-optional_bike_ride

on the 'clothing optional bike' i.e. nude cycling. Also naked hiking and other barking-but-harmless stuff. What about Christian naturism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=96709775

Nudism, is considered OK if nutty by most people. On the other hand, there have been concerns among nudist organisations that they have been infiltrated by paedophiles.

Note Dandelion makes a series of edits to the Nudity and Children article, e.g. this one which seems to interest him of children in a bathtub.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=91326803

The series of edits are mostly here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...rget=Dandelion1

[edit] On the Kohser's point about the 'how to' being suspicious, well, clearly the editor is a 'naturist', and he mentions websites discussing naturism, and clearly this is an issue that naturists talk about a lot, so, is it really suspicious?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sat 8th March 2008, 9:05am

[thekohser]

On the Kohser's point about the 'how to' being suspicious, well, clearly the editor is a 'naturist', and he mentions websites discussing naturism, and clearly this is an issue that naturists talk about a lot, so, is it really suspicious?

It's neither suspicious, nor encyclopedic.