Talk:American Association for Nude Recreation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Nudity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nudity, which collaborates on articles related to nudity and naturism topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Article still needs more balance

I'm a long-time activist who supports both the AANR and TNS, but is a member of neither right now. I've softened a lot of the biased language in this article against the AANR. It could still use many more pro-AANR facts added for balance. Korky Day 22:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are you you freakin kidding me.

This page is so bias... To the point it's an attack page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministryofhate (talk • contribs) 15:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it definitely does not meat WP:NPOV. Anyone feel like cleaning it up? KiTA (talk) 05:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

After a long review of the article and its sources, I believe the above comments were pretty close to the mark. Much of the article was unreferenced and written in clearly inflammatory language. I have removed all this unreferenced information, but there's no bias against re-including anything that is verifiable in more neutral language. I also had to remove a great deal of information that appeared to be referenced or included a web link -- in those cases, I found that the source absolutely did not support the information in the article and some times directly contradicted in. In other cases, the source discussed something entirely different and a short phrase or sentence was taken out of context to make it appear that this organization was being criticized.

The scary part is, I kept anything that was referenced and the reference actually supported the statement -- even at that, the article isn't even half what it was before. There is no place for an article devoted entirely to supposed criticism -- to those people who started the article or added the information I removed, please make sure you read the neutral point of view policy and other key policies such as verifiability, reliable sourcing and no original research before editing Wikipedia further. Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 10:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)