Talk:Nikki Craft

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 01:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Blood of Raped Women??

"In 1980 Craft joined other pageant protesters and over the next nine years conducted other actions, including throwing raw meat on the stage and pouring the blood of raped women across a pageant entryway."

I can't tell if that's vandalism or a poor choice of words. If it's not vandalism, did the author intend to write "blood symbolizing that of raped women?" If the blood of raped women was actually poured across the pageant entryway, then it probably requires a fuller explaination, unless there's a free raped-women blood repository that I don't know about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.119.34 (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

I have added the {{NPOV}} tag to this article, but it reads like a glorification of Nikki Craft and a discrediting of Lee Baxandall. In addition to neutral language, this article needs sources for all the claims. Thryduulf 12:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the NPOV tag since Thryduulf listed this article for deletion and the discussion is now happening there.

This article existed for almost two weeks before User:Nikkicraft came along (see the article history) and it is both notable and true -- and Nikkicraft is not the only significant contributor if you look at the entire history. Considering all of the recent media attention, it should be no surprise that people are trying to correct their own articles. It is our job as Wikipedians to help them learn how we do things and offer advice. Let's assume good faith!

BCorr|Брайен 13:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I saw the screenfull of edits by User:Nikkicraft but failed to spot that this wasn't the only page of edit history. My apologies. Thryduulf 13:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It happens. I would suggest a rollback to before User:Nikkicraft started editing. This would get rid of any self-promotional info and preserve the work to that point. --StuffOfInterest 13:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That would assume Nikki didn't edit under another name or as anon. Rather than assume the user Nikki (who probaby is but may not be Nikki) made all bad edits, and before that were all good edits, the key is to judge what exists based on the evidence of the sources provided - all of which as near as I can tell are not the quality of sources needed for wikipedia; especially for a living person. The whole thing should be deleted as neither verifyable nor noteworthy. WAS 4.250 14:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is shooting from the hip without checking the info for yourself. This version is from just before User:Nikkicraft started editing. It shows both her activities and criticisms of her activities. The user who did most of the early work, Dandelion1, has over 1500 edits across a variety of naturist/nudist related topics. It seems logical he/she would have created an article about someone well known in that community. --StuffOfInterest 14:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You have provided zero evidence against anything I said. It is possible that User:Dandelion1 is Nikki and that User:Nikki Craft is her daughter. The point is that it doesn't matter who they are. What matters is verification of the data from sources adequate for the biography of a living person. Wikipedia has a living person article policy. Have you read it? WAS 4.250 17:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I have re-added the NPOV tag. Nikki Craft (and the ideology she promotes), are extremely controversial, yet no attempt is made to even address the controversy, much less address NPOV issues with the article itself. The article reads as one long piece of advocacy of Nikki Craft's POV. Its also quite apparent that Michaelbluejay has been carrying out some POV warrioring on Craft's behalf, and that the subject of the article Nikki Craft is a significant contributor to the article. The NPOV tag should remain on this article until these issues are properly addressed. I should also point out that the onus is not on the person who tagged the article to perform the needed cleanup; this can be done by anybody who feels like stepping forward. Iamcuriousblue 15:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello. I wrote this elsewhere, but will write it here again in case I entered it in the wrong place. A few weeks ago I was written, via email, by the person who started this page and he requested for me to make additions, and another person who was contributing to the page, suggested it as well. I did not request a wikipedia page, nor did I even want one, but I am making additions to the information so it will be accurate. I am consulting others about the appropriate way to go about this, and do not wish to break Wikipedia's policies in doing so. thank you for your assistance and suggestions. Nikkicraft 17:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi! If everything in this article is true (and I have no specific reason to doubt it), then you seem like a nice person doing nice things. Nice to meet you! We have policies on verification and on biographies of living people (and other policies, but those are the ones most important right now for this article). The problem is I (we) can't find any sources we can use that say or give evidence that you are noteable - that is worth having an encyclopedia article in wikipedia. The bar is pretty low. The big thing is good evidence, not just someone's word, of what is in any Wikipedia article. Can you help us get good evidence from a third party? No original research is allowed, so you can't give a deposition or fax us something. Thank you for helping wikipedia. WAS 4.250 17:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

hi hi : ) thank you for your nice note. I am doing my best to word my additions correctly. I am a long time and well known political activist and yes what I say can be substantiated from many sources and that is what I'm in the process of doing with these entries. And yes I will be happy to work with you and my other allies on Wikipedia to make this page as accurate as possible. Nikkicraft 18:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Verifying Nikki Craft's bio

I have been familiar with Nikki Craft's work for over 15 years. I don't always agree with her positions but I can't believe that anyone would question that she is not a prominent (and prolific) activist. I also didn't see any claims in the article which seem out of place. Also, note that Craft did not start the article (and no, I'm not taking her word for it -- just check the background of the user who did and it will become apparent). Yes, after the article was started Craft did fill up a whole History page with a couple of dozen minor back-to-back edits rather than putting all the changes into one edit, but I've explained to her how that makes it difficult for other editors to see at a glance what has been changed (and makes other Wikipedians lay charges of vanity and self-promotion).

Her websites do count as evidence of some her work, being that the article claims that *the websites themselves* constitute some of her work.

If you search "nikki craft" on Google, in quotes, you get 10,300 results.

Here are just a few references:

• 1977 organizing, Lola Greene Baldwin Foundation
• 1984-85 topfree rights, New York Times
• 1985 lecture, MIT
• 1990 Esquire protest/arrest, Dallas Morning News
• 1992 anti-pedophile work, Dallas Morning News

Also, during the whole controversy with The Naturist Society [TNS] and the top-free rights cases, I read about all that in TNS' magazine Clothed with the Sun (later "Nude and Natural", and then later just "N"). I no longer have these magazines, because that was like 15 years ago, but those issues definitely saw print.

If people want more documentation for specific claims, the proper course of action is to ask for them here, not to jump to putting the page up for deletion -MichaelBluejay 21:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what is true. Wikipedia is about VERIFICATION. Verify. Don't assert. Evidence is needed, not testimony. WAS 4.250 22:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

So the New York Times and the Dallas Morning News aren't good enough for you? -MichaelBluejay 22:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry! I spoke too soon. I glanced at the diff and I didn't realize links where in your message. I looked at the links and [1] indicted that the rest is probably true, its just a mater of gathering the evidence. Can we do that? Gather evidence of noteability? Can someone who is not involved in anyway check the New York Times entries and see if all together they add up to noteability. What I can read is "A longstanding controversy over nudity on Cape Cod National Seashore beaches has flared anew with the arrest of a woman who was sunbathing topless in a challenge to a Federal regulation prohibiting nude bathing. The woman, Nikki Craft, refused to clothe herself when ordered to cover up by a.." and that alone is not "noteable, but the full texyt of all the New York times added to the evrything else will probably be good enough. Can someone who is not involved in anyway check the New York Times entries and see if all together they add up to noteability? (Progress, at last!) WAS 4.250 22:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, being arrested does not constitute notoriety (unless you are Rosa Parks). But that's not all that's contained in the articles I referenced, not by a longshot. Also, my familiarity with Craft's work is not increased by purchasing articles that describe events I am already familiar with. I'm still a little surprised that anyone would dispute Craft's noteworthiness. -MichaelBluejay 01:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Not everybody is familiar with American feminism and the others areas she is/has been active in (would you be familiar with an activist for Aboriginal land rights in Australia?), and so we need to find out from independent, reliable sources about her as per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Also Wikipedia receives literally thousands of vanity articles, which is why we have policies like WP:VAIN, WP:BIO and WP:NOR - the large number of edits by Nikki and the generally non-NPOV form the article was in when it was nominated put people in mind of a vanity article. The sources I have seen so far (and I haven't read the two newspaper ones you've linked to yet, as it is already way past my bedtime (I'm in the UK), so I wont until tomorrow at the earliest) have not shown her to be independently notable. Remember, the article must inform people who do not know about her, and so we cannot rely on statements like "I've been a follower of her work for 15 years therefore how can anyone question her notability" - they are not verifiable. The burden of proof is always to prove that someone is worthy of an article - if they are notable then it is normally not hard to show this. Thryduulf 02:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, not everyone is familiar with American Feminism, but if someone is not then why do they think they can determine who in American Feminism is noteworthy? Wikipedia works best when the editors are familiar with the subject matter. I trust that anyone who doubts Craft's notability will check out the three articles across the two major newspapers I posted. Also, Craft appeared on Jenny Jones' television program, and there's a complete transcript on Craft's site. I don't think the fact that Craft published the transcript herself discounts it. -MichaelBluejay 06:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

How anybody can think appearing on Jenny Jones' TV show indicates noteability is beyond me. Non-noteables are all over TV in game shows, talk shows, reality shows, commercials, as extras in movies, etc. WAS 4.250 08:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

WAS 4.250, can I ask you to not argue straw men? (i.e., arguing against statements that were never made) You say that non-notables appear on game shows, reality shows, commercials, and extras in movies, but when did anyone claim that this was Craft's claim to fame? As for Craft's appearance on Jenny Jones, it wasn't her mere appearance on that show, it was the context for that appearance, i.e., WHY she was selected to be interviewed and what she had to offer -- her testimony about her work which is indeed the very BASIS for this WP article about her. Let me guess -- you didn't bother to read the transcript? I am beginning to think that no amount or style of evidence will be satisfactory to you. -MichaelBluejay 08:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Why should I read the transcript? What does it say that establishes noteability? Quote it. Her testimony about herself? How is what she says about herself on Jenny Jones proof that she did what she said? People go on talk shows and claim all kinds of things. I believe whatever she said was probably true, but her saying it on Jenny Jones is not evidence. Jenny Jones saying she did x, y, and z; now that counts - Jenny has paid fact checkers, like newspapers. But having her on to talk proves only that Jenny's paid experts believe Nikki talking would get ratings. Ratings are why people are selected to be interviewed on talk shows. It is not that no evidence will be satisfactory, it is that none offered so far is satisfactory. Don't blame reality on me. I'm still hoping you guys find something good enough. Call up librarians in cities where her activities would be recorded in local newspapers. C'mon! Try harder! WAS 4.250 11:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Why should I read the transcript?

I rest my case. -MichaelBluejay 20:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know Nikki Craft, but I certainly recognize the name. She was one of seven activists who challenged the NY State law that allowed men to appear topless in public but made it a crime for women to do the same thing. The self-proclaimed "Top-free Seven staged several protests where they appeared topless in public parks in Rochester, NY. They were arrested, and on appeal the law was struck down. The case is People v Santorelli, Schloss, et al (80 N.Y.2d 875, 600 N.E.2d 232, 587 N.Y.S.2d 601) It's a landmark case on the topic of womens rights. --Anson2995 23:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Please visit Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nikki_Craft

There seems to be some sort of campaign -- IMHO -- to get this article deleted, with a number of relativly new users voting to delete. I suggest that people who've commented here ought to weigh in with facts. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 01:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no campaign to delete; just normal Wikipedia process. There is, however a campaign by Nikki to get her friends to help her keep the article. Testimony does not help. Providing well trusted sources that establish noteability helps. WAS 4.250 08:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

WAS 4.250, please do not make accusations about fellow editors, even if they are the subject of the article up for deletion. -MichaelBluejay 08:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Nikki told me her friends were going to help her. Stop accusing me of accusing others. Be nice dude. How come I'm getting along so much better with Nikki than you? And reread what I wrote. Any criticism of friends helping friends is in your mind, not mine. WAS 4.250 10:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Now that the call for deletion is complete, WAS, I wanted to comment on what you asserted here. You said that I said I was going to get my "friends" to help me keep this article. What I said was different. I said that I was going to work with my "allies" to get the page more accurate. During the deletion process I only knew one person here and I meant what I said allies. But most important to point out that when you said to Michael Bluejay that any "criticism of friends helping friends is in [his] mind, not [yours]" it seemed just a little disingenuous. The way I looked at it was you were accusing me of setting up a vanity article. So how do you then claim that me and my "friends" working to save the page--ignoring that I said I wanted to work to make the article more accurate--would not make your case for you by fundamentally misrepresenting what the intent was of what I said? Your insinuation did not seem to me to have been in Michael Bluejay's mind at all. Did you not mean it that way? --Nikkicraft 12:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Activism section needs a lot of work

I would like to take a shot a "neutralizing" the activism section down to "just the facts". The specific rationale for specific actions is less important than the facts. Perhaps her reasoning for specific acts belongs in a separate section. Also: I am noticing smear on concept of one paragrpah into another. Please keep the paragraphs focused. I am going to create some more subsection so we can avoid further access conflicts. AWM -- 68.164.245.60 22:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? Understanding motivations are essential for understanding a person's actions. You can certainly try to make the article less POV if you think it suffers from that, but removing material about motivation would weaken the article. -MichaelBluejay 22:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but we need to synthesize her overall philosophy, not the grueling details of individual actions. If it is so important, then that court case deserves its own article. -- 68.164.245.60 22:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This whole task would be a lot easier if this woman had published a few books along the way. And remember: it is often easy to say "why" you did something 10 years after the fact with a much more plausible explanation that what you were actually thinking at the time. Conflict is like that. The important fact is that she pulled out of the court case because of gender distinctions. If we need to nail it down as "women covering their breasts", fine. Just do not take too much time dwelling on what people were thinking. Let the facts take up most of the room on the page. -- 68.164.245.60 22:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying it after the fact and It is documented from what was written at the time, in our collectively written and released statement entitled Feminist Plainiffs Withdraw From Cape Cod Nudity Case , why we dropped out of the case and it was published which included Baxandall's sexist centerspread of a young woman as well as their alliance with a man who took pornographic images of his child named Douglas Oakes. It is all documented in that public release and it had added a link to it off the page to substantiate it. Nikkicraft 05:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The web site section gets major trim job

A web site is a web site. It is one line item that might say a lot, but it does not do a lot. We provide navigation into her web site. Those sub-sites should be a series of one-liners within the "External links" section. For comparison, please review Sam Sloan. He has a huge and fascinating web site and it gets one line in his bio. If we want to have a NC "philosophy section", fine. I can already tell that it is going to take some effort to orgnanize and crystalize NC's life-lessons message. -- 68.164.245.60 22:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Book dedications

I am finding that Craft is the objec of several book dedications. I will include them for now and see where they lead to. -- 06:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash^talk 22:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to repost this over here since the other page closed down immeidately after I posted it there:

As I said earlier this article was started without my knowledge or permission. When I was asked to add content and documentation to the article by the person who started it, who I did not know at the time, I was not aware there was any option to delete this article. I thought once an article was opened that was it and that is why I did not attempt to get it closed down, though that was certainly my first impulse. However, once it was opened I would not be willing to sit by and accept the article being shut down prematurely, or on false grounds in a way that negates three and a half decades of my work, as some here were attempting to do through misrepresentation of my work and my motivations which have been misconstrued.

Again, I appreciate very much Dandelion respecting my work enough to start the article in the first place, and for all those who voted to keep the page and defending it staying here. It means more to me than I can say for a variety of reasons. However, now that I do know there is an option to delete the article--and I have not made up my mind for sure about what I will do--I would like to know if the is an option for a "living persons" to delete their own article due to concerns about violation of privacy and other concerns. I would appreciate advise on this topic. I have tried to fix it so I can be emailed off my talk page, but it does not work. I did get as far as confirming the email address, but it never allowed the option to send an email on the page, so I don't know what is wrong or how to fix it and I don't want to publish my email address here because of robots and spam. But if you do want to email me about a deletion option privately, perhaps it is not appropriate to post it here, then please go to http://www.nikkicraft.com and email me at the address on that page.

Also, now that it has been established that the article will not be deleted there are many peripheral and inconsequential links that need to be deleted and were there only for the purpose of substantiating this "notability" requirement. Now that that is done they need to be removed. Also, if it's a problem to link scanned articles that substantiate the content on the Wikipedia chronology then we can move them to another website other than my own. I don't care if the links are off my own website, just as long as the documentation is unrefutable. So anyone can let me know the preferred way of presenting that documentation. thanks, Nikkicraft 22:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm responding here to some things that Craft posted to the AfD page, since that page is now closed:

"As I said earlier this article was started without my knowledge or permission."

I'm afraid you don't seem to understand what Wikipedia is. It's an encyclopedia. Nobody seeks your permission to write about you, just as no one seeks permission to write a review of a book, play, or movie. When you become notable, people write about you. This is one of the places they do so. It's certainly not the only place people have written about you and your work -- because if they hadn't then there wouldn't be an article here about you.

"I was not aware there was any option to delete this article....However, now that I do know there is an option to delete the article--and I have not made up my mind for sure about what I will do--I would like to know if the is an option for a "living persons" to delete their own article due to concerns about violation of privacy and other concerns. I would appreciate advise on this topic."

There is no such "option" that I know of. That would defeat the purpose of having an encyclopedia with any integrity. Articles can be deleted if the community feels that the subject is not worthy of an encyclopedia entry, but not just because a notable figure resents their notoriety. If I am wrong about this I am sure someone will correct me (with a link to the relevant policy). I have not bothered to check the policies because I don't see why such an option would exist, but if course you are welcome to look yourself. -MichaelBluejay 01:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Michael, Thanks for your reply. Yes I was aware of those factors and that is why when I learned the page had been put up I didn't even bother to ask that it be removed. What I did instead was began submitting factual additions as Dandelion requested me to do. However after I became aware at how close they appeared to come at deleting the article for a political activist with 35 years in numerous political movements and 50 (!) arrests for civil disobedience--yet wikipedia has an article for some prostitute whose list of life accomplishments is apparently an appearance on Howard Stern--I could easily see that the policies are inconsistent and thought there might be a possiblity of finding a process for the removal, at my request, since I was the "living person". I did check and didn't see anything and that is why I asked. So at this point if necessary I'm resolved to it being here. However, in my opinion, there's a little bit of a problem with claiming this is a "vanity" article when I didn't really want it here in the first place and apparently don't have the option to remove it. --Nikkicraft 00:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, the article isn't even remotely vanity, and anyone who thinks it is simply isn't paying attention. Likewise, those who claim that your name appears on the Internet frequently because you're good at "self-promotion" aren't really being fair, because anyone with even a cursory familiarity with your work knows that what you promote is information about injustice, not yourself. I don't think your article ever came close to being deleted -- the community here is too sharp overall not to simply all vote Delete once an article has been (mistakenly) proposed for deletion. About the porn star, if you feel she doesn't merit an article you can always nominate it for deletion. Wikipedia isn't perfect, but I do think it works better than many would have suspected. -MichaelBluejay 01:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I am one of the 3 men ( I changed the incorrect "four men..." ) of the California Anti-Sexist Political Caucus, who jumped on the stage at the Miss California Pageant to protest sexism. A movie has been made (Miss or Myth, shown often on SF Bay Area Public TV) of Nikki Craft and Ann Simonton's incredible work in organizing the protests and counter pageants over a period of many years. More people (over a thousand) showed up each year at the counter pageants than those who attended the actual Miss California pageant, until it was abrubtly moved out of Santa Cruz, after more than 50 years there. Her contributions continue to educate men and women alike, on a huge scale, on how to stop violence against women. This woman is one of the most effective feminist activists living today. Chaimleib

NPOV

This article has quite a few external links, literally all of which are to web pages written by Craft or which are strongly supportive of her. (Please contrast with the article on Ed Lange, one of Craft's bete noires!) 217.155.20.163 14:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that censoring evidence of Craft's work somehow makes the article more NPOV? If you're complaining about the lack of criticism, then find some credible criticism and cite it. -MichaelBluejay 10:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Arrest Citation Request

Hi, I have noted the request for arrest citations and I will be scanning that documentation today or tomorrow. --Nikkicraft 17:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I have provided one of several citations (Dallas Morning News article, 1990), per request. It can be found in the section that covers the Esquire arrest, and I will be supplying more later today. I removed the citation request. Let me know if these are not sufficient and I'll be happy to hunt up more. --Nikkicraft 23:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Birthdate and year?

Can Nikki or someone please update top of article with this, pref with reference. Thanks - SimonLyall 10:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of changed edits

Since I'm reverting several of Jcuk's edits of 17 March I wanted to provide some explanation:

• feminist political activist >> political activist. Craft's work is obviously much broader than feminism and narrowing this description of her is inaccurate and unhelpful. It's also redundant as her feminist work is described shortly after this sentence.
• alleged predatory sexual offenders (remove "alleged"). Anyone who's actually read Craft's work on this subject knows that one of her whole points is that large numbers of these men have been convicted, but once they get out of jail the nudist/naturist leadership does nothing to keep them out of the community. It's alleged *before* someone is arrested and convicted, not after.
• apparent connections (remove "apparent"). These statements are a matter of fact and cannot be disputed. Again, anyone who's actually read the work knows this.
• (the naturist child rapist sentenced to 30 years). The revision omits Craft's role in putting the offender behind bars, so I'm changing it back.
• (allegedly associated themselves with...Hustler). Again, that they did so is not in dispute.

I'm reminded about the quote of an administrator who said something like, "I'll never defend an attempt to make an article 'npov' by writing, 'Believers in France allege that it is a country situated in what many consider to be Europe.' -MichaelBluejay 00:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"Criticism of nudist/naturist movement" section

This section seems very POV. I think the following claims within the section should have a source, other then the work of Nikki Craft herself, to back them up:

• Reports of apparently widespread pedophilia and child molestation within the nudist/naturist movement - is this supported by other neutral sources?
• She has documented many instances where children have been harmed because of their parents involvement in nudist/naturist environments. - This could be interpreted as implying the nudism/naturalism is harmful to children in and of itself which is POV. If she is really referring to incidents of child molestation on nudist resorts then it should be made clear.
• She further contends that prominent figureheads such as Ed Lange, editor of the monthly magazine of the American Sunbathing Association (ASA) (now AANR) have histories of involvement in child pornography. - What evidence does she cite for this?

--Cab88 20:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not Craft's fault if other sources fail to cover this issue as pointedly as she has. Her documentation about this issue is thorough and massive, and yes, if you'd looked through it you would see that many of the individual cases have been covered in the major media. -MichaelBluejay 06:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If there are sources that can be used to verify things they should be included. If what she says cannot be verified then this needs to be made clear. If she were a scientist who made claims other people were not able to verify it would be worded like "Nikki Craft has claimed that her experiments prove that lead can be made into gold ^[source], but as of 2006 no others have been able to reproduce her results ^[source]". Just because she isn't a scientist does not mean the standards are lower. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Also note that just because it is verifiable that she said something, doesn't mean that it is correct or incorrect, that others agree, disagree or think she's a raving lunatic for saying so. Thryduulf 11:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, if you all would look through her work you would see that many of the individual cases have been covered in the mainstream media. If you want to add these sources, there's nothing stopping you. A cursory review turned up this and this and this, for starters. (And don't even start about how they're reprinted on Craft's site -- I trust you can verify the original publications since this is important to you.) -MichaelBluejay 14:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I've gone over her site to see if it backs up the claims in this section and I've reach the following conclusions:

• I could not in my cursory search seem to find any outside sources that concur with her claim that pedophilia and child molestation are "Widespread" within the nudist/naturist movement? Simply pointing out a number of incidents of pedophilia and child molestation at nudist resorts is does not prove it is widespread." Unless someone can point to an outside source that concurs with her "Widespread" claim, the statement should be rewritten.
• The statement "She has documented many instances..." I mentioned above should be to be clearer. What exactly is it about children's parents being involved in nudist environments that harms the children? Is it nudism in and of itself? It that claimed widespread child molestation? As it is the statement is too vague.
• I could not find support of her website for the claim that Ed Lange was once involved in child porn. I did find evidence of involvement in what could be considered adult porn. Whoever feels this statement should stay needs to show where she contends he had a history with child porn. Also, is she talking about magazines or movies that meet a relevant legal definition of child porn?

At what magic number of convictions does the problem merit being considered "widespread"? -MichaelBluejay 11:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

That depends on how many nudist resorts their are in the U.S. (I assume we speaking of U.S. situation only) and what percentage of them have had members convicted of child molestation. Even if one determines the percentage, at what percentage does it qualify as widespread? 25%? 50%? I don't think, based on the cases that Craft presents, we can draw a conclusion as to how widespread the problem without being guilty of original research which is against Wikipedia rules. If her characterization is accurate then surely someone else should have concurred with her. As such it should not be that difficult to attached to then end of statement a link or printed reference to a article, study, etc. from notable and relevant person or group, other then Nikki Craft herself, that describes it as widespread. Otherwise I feel it would be more NPOV to say either removed the words "apparently widespread" and add "which she characterizes widespread." on the end. --Cab88 01:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

If her characterization is accurate then surely someone else should have concurred with her. Your naivete is breathtaking. The fact that few are interested in replicating Craft's work is not her fault. It certainly does not discount her work. If you want to argue against her work, you'll have to actually argue against her work, not argue against the absence of anyone else's work. As for original research, Wikipedia isn't publishing Craft's research, it's just reporting it -- which is what Wikipedia is supposed to do. Craft has documented case after case after case of convicted child molesters in the nudist movement. That counts as "widespread" to me, and I believe most reasonable people would feel the same way. I certainly have seen no good argument anywhere that the problem is *not* widespread. -MichaelBluejay 09:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me break down the problems with your statements one by one:

• I'm not necessarily looking for someone who has replicated her work, just someone relevant who has examined her work and agrees with conclusions. In Science, you have what is known as Peer review in which others in a field with sufficient qualifications. examine a researcher's study and verify whether they believe the results of the study are accurate. If Nikki Craft's work is notable to mention on Wikipedia then I would expect likely someone relevant would have examined her work by now and agreed with her conclusions.
• If someone who's examined her work and agreed with her findings cannot be located, then at least someone else who has written on the problem, say for a newspaper article, could be quoted as describing the problem as "widespread" in the nudist environments. None of the reprinted articles I looked at on her sight seem to describe the situation as "widespread".
• As far as "If you want to argue against her work, you'll have to actually argue against her work, not argue against the absence of anyone else's work" it is irrelevant as I am not arguing against her work, just the notion that it can be automatically assumed to be accurate/valid without outside sources or peer review to verify it. Her work may or may not be valid but I am not in a position verify it due lack of sufficient scientific training.
• Wikipedia has a policy about against self-published research which is what her work is. It states their are some exceptions such as "Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material.". She fits into neither of these categories. The policy also states "In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." Again, her work fails to meet this test.
• You say "As for original research, Wikipedia isn't publishing Craft's research, it's just reporting it.". When I refereed to "original research" I was referring to any conclusions drawn by Wikipedia authors based on the simply counting the number of cases mentioned on her site and then using that to conclude how widespread it is. Also as I mentioned above, Wikipedia has rules for whether a person's research is valid for publishing in Wikipedia.
• As I've stated before, the statements can be reworded to attributing the characterizations to her. Readers of this page can go to her website and form their own conclusions on her work themselves.
• You say " I certainly have seen no good argument anywhere that the problem is *not* widespread" which is irrelevant. The burden of proof is on anyone who wishes to make such a statement as if it where fact. --Cab88 15:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the "widespread" claim, it is impossible to say whether this is correct or not without knowing the number of cases where it has not happened. Lets work through this point by point:

• lets assume for the sake of this argument that Nikki Craft has identified 25 cases of child sexual abuse within nudism/naturusm (I haven't looked up the actual number). I take this to mean that she has identified 25 individual children, rather than one child who was abused 25 times (or some figure inbetween).
• If all 25 children were abused by the same person, then regardless of anything else this is clearly not widespread. If the 25 children were abused by 25 different people then we need to know what relationship this has to the total number of children involved in naturism.
• If there were 30 children involved in naturism in the relevant area and time period, of which 25 were abused then this would clearly be widespread.
• If there were 100 children involved, and one quarter were abused then this would be widespread according to some people's definition and not according to others.
• If there were 300,000 children and 25 were abused then this is not widespread by any definition (if my maths is correct, it represents 0.008% of the total).
• All this is assuming that there is a connection with the naturism - i.e. if child A is a naturist, but is absued by the priest at their local church then the fact they are a nudist is irrelevant.

You will notice a lot of assumptions in this, to remove these needs access to the figures. From the comments on this talk page, nobody has published research regarding this (I'm not certain it is even possible to know the total number of children involved in clothes free activities), meaning it is not possible to verify Niiki's "widespread" claim. I, or another Wikipedian researching them would be original research, which cannot be citied in a Wikipedia article according to the No original research policy. Thryduulf 22:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

We should include a source if we want to explain nudists' view of her ideas. I've removed all the "weaselly" stuff in the "Criticism of nudist/naturist movement" section. 24.224.153.40 00:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The first words of one of her websites:

• Exposing Nudism & Naturism's Dirty Little Secrets: Pedophilia, Swinging, Pornography and Sexual Exploitation
• Early in my involvement in the upper echelons of the naturist movement it became apparent I was running into a large number of pedophiles, child molesters, child pornographers and their apologists; disturbingly disproportionate for such a small, fringe group.

So clearly she was looking for pedophiles. -Will Beback 00:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You might be right about pedophilia, so I'll leave it there while I explore things some, but the original version contains unsourced, possibly libellous allegations of child porn against a particular person. It shouldn't be readded. The second paragraph still needs sources, too. 24.224.153.40 01:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Acts "she defines as" civil disobedience

I reverted a phrase in the intro to say that Craft has been arrested for acts of civil disobedience, rather than acts she defines as civil disobedience. The latter is silly at best and snarky at worst. Craft doesn't have to define civil disobedience, it's been defined widely, including here on Wikipedia. Of course, the implication is that there is some dispute as to whether her actions qualify as civil disobedience, but if so I haven't seen any such dispute. Her actions are textbook examples. I think newspapers generally report civil disobedience as such, rather than disqualifying it with a "some say it is" phrase. -MichaelBluejay 10:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a genuine issue as to whether her walking into porn stores and magazine shopes and tearing up magazines she doesn't approve of are acts of "civil disobedience" or simply acts of censorship and intimidation. Its a very similar issue to campus groups stealing and trashing campus newspapers they don't like. I'll check out the context, however, before I decide to modify your edit. Iamcuriousblue 16:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. The difference between campus groups stealing and trashing campus newspapers they don't like (and yes, the Left is often as clueless about Free Speech in this regard as those they criticize) and Craft's action is that the former is done in secret as an attempt to stifle, and Craft's action of tearing up magazines was done very publicly and meant to draw attention. Civil disobedience is out in the open. Mind you, I'm not sure I can agree with Craft's action itself, but there's no doubt in my mind that it qualifies as civil disobedience. -MichaelBluejay 12:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

From what I've read it sounds like the actions were intended as a political protest rather than censorship and intimidation. Based on other instances of widely-recognized civil disobedience, it appears that destruction of property, particularly when done on a symbolic rather than massive level, is not incompatible. -Will Beback 21:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality tags - what's that about? Removed.

I have not read this article before, and having now done so, I can't for the life of me see why it's tagged as "Neutrality disputed". Basically the article is just descriptive -- she did this, she said that, and so on. Anyway, it sure seems pretty straighforward and Wikipedian to me.

Then there's the "Criticism of nudist/naturist movement" -- maybe there was some bias, but judging by the talk page, it's been edited out, so the tag seems an artifact. Anyway, it looks pretty OK to me, just reporting what she says and describing the rebuttal. I don't see an bias here. Herostratus 03:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Odd sentence

"This was before such records were kept on computer and the activists transferred all the names on index cards." I removed "painstakingly" as not really relevant, nut I wonder about the whole sentence. Surely the administrative procedures of the group aren't relevant? Rich Farmbrough 11:41 25 August 2006 (GMT).

Craft's use of Political Humor

After working with Craft for many years I can say without a doubt that humor is vital to her work and process. If necessary I will cite many published examples of her use of humor in her political work. Simonton 22:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, please do. It's hard to justify inclusion of that sentence without any kind of sources to back it up. Examples would help. -MichaelBluejay 23:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop reverting

user:Michaelbluejay please stop reverting changes to this article. I made numerous improvements in the article, and requested actual verifiable references (other that the web site of the person in question). I'm sorry we disagree, but you are starting to make this personal, rather than focusing on the quality of the article and the clearly stated policies of wikipedia. In this case, having a biography of a person and using their own web site as the cited reference for all of the things stated in the article just stinks. Can't you find any reference for the things stated outside of a source of the person claiming it themselves? I'm sure that they are all documentable, as Ms. Craft is well known and respected. Instead of reverting my legitimate citing of Wikipedia policy, why don't you just do it the legitimate way? Atom 14:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Michael, you have reverted my changes yet again. I tried to be extremely delicate in my editing as to not step on your toes. Even so, in a different venue I was criticized for not just removing all unsourced, or self sourced references entirely.

Now, I believe the things in the article said about Ms. Craft. It's true that I have my criticism of her web page, but I respect her as a feminist who has tried to do what she feel is important in the world. I *want* the references here to remain, but we can't use references from her own web site to support the statements. Some time back I added a bunch of references here at the bottom of this talk page for future use by you, others, maybe myself when I find time, to support the many things that she has done in her life. What I would prefer is because you are her good friend, to find time to sort through them and make good references. Obviously, at this point anything I do to the article you are going to revert, yet again. My concern is that eventually more experienced editors than you or I will come along and delete the article entirely, suggesting that she is not notable (as she is really only marginally notable). In my view, she doesn't need to have written a dozen books, or have earned her PhD and written a dozen research papers or journal articles. She is a real life feminist who in her youth has tried to take patriarchy by the balls and give it a good shake so that it will change things for the better. That is notable enough for me. I think you will agree with me that her web site may not take the right format, or be expressed the right way, but that she has her heart in the right place. Atom 15:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Atom, WP:RS does not prohibit using the subject as a source, especially if the assertions are not disputed. Can you point me to the guideline or policy you're thinking of? -Will Beback 20:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, first off, any good editor would obviously prefer to get a variety of sources for any information, rather than one source. Also, getting information from reliable and verifiable sources is preferred, versus ones of dubious quality. Additionally, you or I as an editor interviewing a well known person, and then putting that information would be called original research Wikipedia:No_original_research. Gathering the information from a well known persons personal blog, or their web site is essentially also original research. Wikipedia:No_original_research#Verifiability_.28V.29 clearly states "By insisting that only facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher may be published in Wikipedia, the no-original-research and verifiability policies reinforce one another".

You reference Reliable Sources, and it clearly says these things:

• "Wikipedia articles should use reliable published sources. This page provides guidance about how to identify these. The policy pages that discuss the need to use sources are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability."
• 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. 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, and may use them only to make purely descriptive claims. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability.
• "It is always appropriate to ask other editors to produce their sources. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question, and any unsourced material may be removed by any editor."
• "Unsourced or poorly sourced questionable material, whether negative or positive, in articles about living persons should be removed immediately and should not be moved to the talk page."
• "Websites that have numerous footnotes may be entirely unreliable. The first question to ask yourself is, "What are the credentials and expertise of the people taking responsibility for a website?" Anyone can post anything on the web."
• " With any source, multiple independent confirmation is one good guideline to reliability,"
• A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."

So, WP:RS pretty much makes my case, all by itself.

This brings us to my biggest concern. Pages I watch frequently, and which are currently undergoing a great deal of change as I write this is are the Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Attribution. These are all quotes from the Verifiability policy:

• "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons immediately and do not move it to the talk page."
• "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources."
• "In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight."
• "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."
• "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist."

And from Attribution:

• "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought."
• "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; and their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses."
• "questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process, or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist; are promotional in nature; or that rely heavily upon rumor, hearsay, gossip, and personal opinion."

Looking at this talk pages here, we also see comments like:

• "The article reads as one long piece of advocacy of Nikki Craft's POV. Its also quite apparent that Michaelbluejay has been carrying out some POV warrioring on Craft's behalf, and that the subject of the article Nikki Craft is a significant contributor to the article. The NPOV tag should remain on this article until these issues are properly addressed. I should also point out that the onus is not on the person who tagged the article to perform the needed cleanup; this can be done by anybody who feels like stepping forward. Iamcuriousblue 15:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)"

When I stepped forward to do that, user Michaelbluejay, who is the web master of Nikki Craft's web sites, reverts all of my changes. No one else steps in to help out. He leaves you a note asking for help, and here you are.

• "We have policies on verification and on biographies of living people (and other policies, but those are the ones most important right now for this article). The problem is I (we) can't find any sources we can use that say or give evidence that you are noteable - that is worth having an encyclopedia article in wikipedia. The bar is pretty low. The big thing is good evidence, not just someone's word, of what is in any Wikipedia article. Can you help us get good evidence from a third party? No original research is allowed, so you can't give a deposition or fax us something. Thank you for helping wikipedia. WAS 4.250 17:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC) "

Now, I am not arguing her notability. And I don't want the article deleted. In fact, my approach has been to remove the invalid citations, but leave the pertinent information n the article, so that it could be correctly sourced and cited. The very user mentioned in the last quote, user WAS, criticized me recently because I did not delete the quotes, which is policy. (See your WP:RS reference above). I also followed WP:RS policy "It is always appropriate to ask other editors to produce their sources. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question, and any unsourced material may be removed by any editor. However, some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to find a source, particularly when the material is not obviously wrong, absurd, or harmful."

User WAS, correctly, points to WP:RS "Unsourced or poorly sourced questionable material, whether negative or positive, in articles about living persons should be removed immediately and should not be moved to the talk page"

I believe that most of the facts stated in the article are true. I only asked for an interested party (such as Michaelbluejay) to give citations. Certainly it can't be too hard to find a source, other than Ms. Craft, or the web site that she uses as her blog and opinion space, to back some of these facts.

For example:

"Nikki Craft (born 1949) is an American political activist, artist and writer who is known for her provocative and controversial approaches to societal problems and political situations." I am sure any number of newspapers have printed on her art, her writing, especially since it is controversial.

Like:" In the summer of 1975 Craft organized her first anti-pageant action in Dallas at the Miss Texas Beauty Pageant, where the protestors threw raw steak onto the stage during the bathing suit contest. In 1976 she altered a billboard by changing it from "Miss America" to "Myth America," an action covered in the Dallas Morning News and Parade magazine[1]."

Why don't we quote the Dallas Morning News, and Parade Magazine for this?

• "In 1979, Craft helped organize the first Myth California Anti-Pageant in Santa Cruz, California. In 1980 Craft joined together with others, and over the next nine years committed various acts of protest..."

An award-winning documentary called Miss or Myth examines these protests and Craft's role in starting them.

Let's find a source for that. Certainly there is a source for an award winning documentary about protesting that she did over a nine year period. Probably numerous newspaper and magazine articles.

• "She was later nominated for a chancellor's award for "significant contribution to campus understanding of ethical principles" by her arresting officer, the provost of her college and the then mayor of Santa Cruz. The action received widespread press coverage, was reviewed in art journals, and was documented in Diana Russell's book Femicide[7]."

Okay, a chancellors award from a college. Every college has a newspaper. It even says she got "widespread news coverage". I believe that, let's see some of it.

• "One of Craft's major projects involves researching and publishing reports of alleged pedophilia and child molestation within the nudist/naturist movement..." "She notes that the nudist figurehead William D. Peckenpaugh[15], author of Familial and Societal Attitudes Toward Nudity, and the Effects on Children's Development is a child sex offender.."

Okay, so now she by name accuses a person (William Peckenpaugh) of child molestation, and lays it at the feet of the"nudist/naturist movement". Accusations like this, in Wikipedia, are serious, and need to be substantiated. Now, as it happens, I believe the accusation made that Mr. Peckenpaugh was convicted of child molestation, and that he was a nudist. But, there is only one source give. That source is Ms. Craft's web site. I went to that source, and looked at each and every one of the references given by Ms. Craft. This site is sponsored, and web mastered by Mr. Michaelbluejay. She offers no evidence that "the naturist/nudist" movement is complicent, only her opinion, yet here it is Wikipedia.

Looking at her site, specifically at the section on Mr. Peckenpaugh:

• "Man sentenced to 30 years for sex abuse William Peckenpaugh convicted for sexually abusing adopted Romanian boy:"

Her citation is "CARA ROBERTS MUREZ/Statesman Journal" and there is a link attached to the statesman journal. It leads to a site "SilvertonAppeal.com".

I search using their search engine. No reference to "peckenpaugh". No references to "Murez".

• "Prosecutors: Man adopted child in Romania for sex abuse" A link to video, as well as to the news station.

[2] Gives me a 404 - page not found error page. I go to the main www.katu.com" page. No references to Mr. Peckenpaugh, a search of their database "No results found for: peckenpaugh".

• "Videotape shows sex abuse, police say A man is accused of crimes against his adopted son"

She gives another reference to the "Stateman Journal", which still has nothing about Mr. Peckenpaugh.

• "C1/206 PECKENPAUGH, WILLIAM DELOS SID: 12873453 LODGED Lodged: 11/15/2004 18:30 Max: DoB: 11/12/1967"

She gives a link to the [C1/206 PECKENPAUGH, WILLIAM DELOS SID: 12873453 LODGED Lodged: 11/15/2004 18:30 Max: DoB: 11/12/1967 Marion County Jail].

No reference can be found to Mr. Peckenpaugh there.

In short, I checked every single reference on her page, and not one single reference panned out. I then went further to check the sources on the multitude of other things she blogs about on her site. Most of them also are either old, out of date links going nowhere, or references that don't make sense. Lots of opinion, more opinion, concerned opinion, a few other people with opinions backing her concerned opinion. No citations, no references, or references that lead nowhere.

Again, I believe that Mr. Peckenpaugh was a nudist, and was arrested and found guilty of child molestation. But, if something as blatent as this can't be documented or kept up to date, then it makes me feel as if the site has no credibility. I am most honestly uncertain what things on her web site are true, and which things are just strong opinions.

The net affect of this is that it is my opinion that anyone spending any time to look at her site would feel that the site is not credible, and not a good source of information.

I feel that certainly:

• "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." does not apply to that web site.
• "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." (This practically looks as if it was written with this kind of web site in mind.

As usual, I have gone on too long. The simple solution to this? Someone should spend a little bit of time and merely find a few newspaper articles that references the facts from a third party source, and not Ms. Craft/Michaelbluejay's web sites.

Atom 23:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources for future use in the article

Andrea Dworkin does not believe that all heterosexual sex is rape Craft says Tech article fair in coverage of slide show radical feminist take on American Psycho Lola Green Foundation Comments More comments Pornography: Objectification or Free Speech? The Debate Rages On For Christ's Sake! - Blog Clay Art Why Do Femininsts Support Bill Clinton Why I made a Choice to BEcome a Prostitute Nudists/Naturists: A cover for pedophiles? Nudist foto blog "It was people like Andrea Dworkin, Nikki Craft and Mary Daly that gave me my strength." PeTA: Where Only Women Are Treated Like Meat Comment about Dworkin [http://radiance.m6.net/myrrh/doc-mag.html Pro-feminist men's magazines supporting pedophiles" To Choose or Not to Choose: a Politics of Choice

"Gun Women: Firearms and Feminism in Contemporary America" [3] "The Reader's Companion to U.S. Women's History", [4] "Men who believe in Feminism", [5] "Contemporary Perspectives on Masculinity: Men, Women, and Politics in Modern Society", [6] "The Anarchists Convention: The Book for the Non-Conformist" [7]

[Miscellaneous Publications] by Nikki Craft Women's rights; Rape; Women (Crimes against); Preying Mantis Women's Brigade

"Busting Mister Short Eyes"[8] "On the Issues", December 1995 "Craft claims a need exists for civil disobediance in women's movement"[9] MIT "The Tech", May 3, 1985, Volume 105, Number 22 "Craft says Tech article fair in coverage of slide show"[10] MIT "The Tech", November 1, 1985, Volume 105, Number 46

"American Psycho, in my view, was a really powerful critique of American culture; a vicious parody of the emptiness of narcissistic young urban professionals; and a satirical criticism of consumeristic excess. It parodied yuppies, hyper-consumers, and status-obsessed superficiality. American Psycho is a critique of the very attitudes that Terry Baxter and Nikki Craft are imputing to Ellis. "

"Radical feminist "No nation on earth has ever gone to war for women's rights. We are not likely to be the first." [11]

"TO ALL THE WOMEN USED AND VICTIMIZED BY BILL CLINTON". Press Release. Juliette Cutler Page and Nikki Craft. March 1, 1999. ADDENDUM A [12]

""Even in our wildest imaginations, most women are unable to fathom the vicious acts done to women by the pornography industry in the name of free speech, profit, pleasure, and, yes, entertainment. Facing head-on the hatred and contempt for women exposed in visual pornography, as much as it hurts, fuels our anger and a lot of incendiary activism." -- Nikki Craft, Feminist activist against pornography and other forms of woman-hatred. [13]

"If you look at a photograph of a young nude woman or a couple making love, do you see a gorgeous babe or (as Nikki Craft puts it) a disposable cunt?[10]

When Nikki Craft sees a disposable cunt, is this what the photographer presents, or what Nikki Craft sees? Does this tell us more about the photographer's view of women, or of Nikki Craft's? "[14]

"Nikki Craft Not Linked to Portland Osama bin Laden Terrorist Threat: The Willamette Week in Portland ran an irresponsible and sloppily researched article by Chris Lydgate about an Osama bin Laden terrorist threat, linking Nikki Craft by denial. Then, typically, WW did not publish the rebuttal letter. "[15]

Nikki Craft Papers. "Craft, a contemporary radical activist, uses guerrilla theater to protest the media's control of women's bodies: anti-porn, anti-beauty contest, topless rights, exposing sex offenders, etc. Small collection of flyers, photos, and newspaper accounts of her projects." History of Sexuality: Resources in the Special Collections Library at Duke University.[16]

"Why I Made the Choice To Become A Prostitute Copyright © 1996 Nikki Craft. All Rights Reserved "[17]

Heresies : A Feminist Publication on Art and Politics. Vol.6, No.1, Issue 21 Food Is a Feminist Issue "Features in this issue: “Here She Comes, Myth California” documentation of beauty pageant protests organized by Nikki Craft; "

Stop lying about me

Atomaton, you said, "Michaelbluejay, who is the web master of Nikki Craft's web sites, reveerts all of my changes....". No, I am not, nor have I ever been, the webmaster of any of Nikki Craft's sites. I don't believe this is the first time you've foisted this claim, either. If you assumed for some reason that I was Craft's webmaster and are bandying it about as fact even though it's just an assumption, then that's incredibly bad form. If you actually know that I'm not her webmaster but are trying to make a charge of bias stick then that's even worse. This is yet another reason why I will not discuss your censorship with you, in addition to all the reasons I've mentioned previously, including, but not limited to, your misapplication of Wikipedia policy, to serve what I believe is a biased agenda. -MichaelBluejay 12:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

My misunderstanding came from comments that Nikki made, as well as your sponsorship of her web site, as well as the registration entry at Dreamhost (nudisthallofshame.info at dreamhost.com that had you listed). My apologies to you. I'm sorry that you feel that I have a biased agendum, as this is not the case. What is the case is that after having seeing that the web site is not a reliable source I have tried to reduce any reliance that Wikipedia has on it for the obvious reason. I have nothing against you personally, nor Nikki Craft.

As for the application of Wikipedia policy, I have stated it quite clearly. The policy is dead on. It is my opinion, and I mean no offense, that you are the one who has lost objectivity. If it were an article that you were not as closely associated with, you would very likely see clearly and agree that many sources are probably available, and should be used rather than the one source. I understand that you have a vested interest in this article, and are close friends with Nikki Craft, and sponsor her efforts with money. I think your loyalty is admirable.

I am frustrated with dealing with you, as you have said negative things several times when I have put a good faith effort into improving the quality of wikipedia. In this section you titled it "Stop lying about me". In my talk page you titled a section "Stop threating me", in response to what you described as "Stop calling my edits vandalism, stop giving me "warnings", stop threatening to have my editing privileges revoked, and stop leaving me messages on my talk page." In response to you reverting my changes numerous times I left a message on your talk page asking you to stop. I asked for admin intervention (after warning you that I would ask for admin intervention if you continued) only after you violated the 3RR rule, and were given a warning by an admin for violating the rule.

• My first comment to you[18]
• My next comment to you after I placed an RfC to get other people to offer their opinions[19]
• Where I asked you to stop vandalizing, after you blanked many susbstantive edits I had made to the article[20]
• My last comment to you, before you asked me to not leave comments on your talk page.[21]

At no time have I lied about you, or have I attacked you. At every moment I have been civil, polite, and assumed good faith on your part. I would suggest that these have not always applied to your actions in dealing with me. In this message I apologized for my misunderstanding your involvement with Nikki Craft's Web site. Perhaps it is another Michaelbluejay that sponsors her efforts.

Because you seem to be sensitive and offended easily in discussing with me, I have (some time back) stopped commenting on your talk page, per your request. You asked WillBeback to run interference for you, and so I have been talking with him, rather than you. In this article, I added a section and gave a number of references that could be used, in hopes of avoiding interaction with you, but offering something substantive, rather than criticism. I would suggest that continuing to work this through with others, including your friend WillBeback may be a good alternative.

Atom 16:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Atomaton:

1. You imply that Nikki Craft implied that I'm her webmaster. I believe you are either outright lying at worst or obfuscating at best. As for the domain registration record, you've proved my point: You made a ridiculous ASSUMPTION based on flimsy evidence and then repeatedly bandied it about as fact.
2. Will Beback is not my friend, stop making things up like that.
3. I did not ask Will Beback to "run interference", as you falsely claim. I asked for his *input*. There it is on his talk page, in black and white. You're real good about making misstatements and distortions.
4. In your very first message to me, you left a threatening note on my talk page, threatening to involve an administrator if I continued to edit contrary to the way you wanted. You followed that up by labeling my edits "vandalism" and threatening that if I pursued them my editing privileges would be revoked. That definitely set the tone. It is laughable that you say that you have "always been civil, polite, and assumed good faith". Quite the opposite. Nobody on WP has ever treated me the way you have, much less denied it. This is yet another of your many misstatements.
5. You are well aware that I'm not the only one who thinks you misinterpret and misapply WP policy.

For all these reasons and more, I will no longer engage with you. You have demonstrated bad faith. Every time you post, you make more misstatements. I am no longer required to humor you. -MichaelBluejay 12:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Here is where you asked Will Beback to come participate.[22]
• My first message to you was civil. It followed you reverting me something like 8 times on one article. I've never threatened you in any way. I warned you that if you continued reverting my every change that an admin would need to take action. You ignored me. An admin gave you a warning that you would be blocked next time you violated 3RR.
• The only time I asked you to stop vandalizing is when you blanked a whole section of edits I made. The admin that warned you suggested to me that blanking was not necessarily vandalism.
• My only agendum is to improve the quality of the article. If you wouyld like to suggest constructive changes rather than reverting me, then that can be done. When you revert a change I make, and call it "censorship", even after I quote Wikipedia policy, I find that to be unfriendly. You don't own the article. Look, I don't want to discuss this any further either. Please, leave my edits alone, and let other wikipedia editors (such as Will Beback) deal with it. Atom 22:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I asked Will Beback for his INPUT. I did NOT ask him to "run interference" as you charged. STOP LYING. You did threaten me, saying my editing privileges would be revoked if I continued to edit contrary to your wishes. STOP LYING. Your other charges are likewise false, but I will not discuss this in any more detail than I already have, you've forfeited your right to engage with me. Your agenda is transparent, and I will continue to combat your censorship of the article. -MichaelBluejay 10:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Congratulations on describing the reporting of Peckenpaugh as a sex offender as "defamatory". This guy was convicted on the basis of VIDEOTAPE EVIDENCE showing him having sex with a 9-year-old boy he adopted from Romania. There are PLENTY of articles about this on Craft's site, and on the net if you cared to look. When you defend a convicted child rapist on the basis of a lack of evidence, when such evidence is staring you straight in the face, it tells me everything I need to know about where you're coming from. -MichaelBluejay 10:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see my comments earlier on these talk pages. I went to the cited reference (Craft's web site), I followed every single citation and link given on that web site, and not one link worked. None of the web sites had any mention of the person referenced. My point was not whether Peckenpaugh was convicted or not, my point was that the cited reference was unreliable, and that we should find one that actually proves a strong accusation like that. Please provide a reliable citation before making what is considered to be a defamatory claim. Thank you. Atom 19:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"I followed every single citation and link given on that web site, and not one link worked." You say this as though you're making some sort of point. You're conveniently ignoring the fact that THE TEXT OF ALL THE ARTICLES WAS REPRODUCED RIGHT THERE ON THE PAGE YOU WERE LOOKING AT. If you're suggesting that Craft MADE UP the several, professionally-written articles from various sources, that's just insane. And as I said, a quick search of Google for something like "Peckenpaugh sentenced" reveals a whole laundry list of official reports of Peckenpaugh's crimes. I just cited ten of them, maybe that will be sufficient for you, though somehow I doubt it. -MichaelBluejay 08:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No, my point was that none of the sources cited on the web site worked. It is necessary on Wikipedia to cite credible and reliable sources before making what is considered to be defamtory. Putting the text of a citation on the page is not the same thing at all. At any rate, my thanks to you for providing credible sources. I will get around to converting them to Wikipedia style sources, rather than web links when I get a chance. If you can find citations for many of the other things in this article, that would be great too. Atom 21:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Naturists/nudists

Here is my thought process. As it is phrased, it puts emphasis on naturists and nudists. As I understand it Ms. Craft's primary focus is on reducing pedophilia, and that one area of her focus are naturists and nudists. So, my rewording was first of all to focus on the primary subject of the sentence first. Secondarily, it was to soften the sentence to make it read somewhat more neutrally. I'm sure that you will agree that a majority (99.99%) of naturists and nudists are not pedophiles. Ms. Craft's assertion is not that naturists and nudists are pedophiles, but rather that naturists and nudists do not take enough action against pedophiles that are, or may be in their midst. Whether that is true, or not, I have no opinion on. The point being that phrasing the sentence differently changes the emphasis in a way that I think os more accurate. Here is the sentence:

• Before: "One of Craft's major projects involves researching and publishing articles about nudists and naturists who have been accused or convicted of pedophilia or child molestation."
• After: One of Craft's major projects involves researching and publishing articles about people who have been accused or convicted of pedophilia or child molestation and have a history as nudists or naturists.

Now, what could probably be accurately stated would be something like: "One of Craft's major projects involves researching and publishing articles about naturist and nudist organizations lack of action to protect children against pedophiles within their communities." In this case, the subject is in alignment with the section title. Atom 22:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to comment about "Subjects almost exclusively self-identify as nudists and naturists; there's no reason we can't identify them the same way". I don't believe that this states things accurately. Firstly, there are a large number of naturists/nudists, and a small number of pedophiles, convicted or otherwise. I believe that if you were to interview a long list of pedophiles, only a small percentage of those would call themselves naturists or nudists. Looking at the population of all naturists/nudists and all pedophiles, the intersection would be quite small I believe. We want to de-emphasize the appearance of slandering a large number of naturists/nudists in favor of emphasizing criticism that naturist/nudist communities approach to protecting children against pedophilia. The implication that naturists/nudists are pedophiles, besides being untrue, distracts from the statement that needs to be made. Atom 22:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Michaelbluejay attempting ownership of article

Once again, Michaelbluejay is attempting to assert ownership of this article and is engaging in wholesale reverts of edits that he feels are insufficiently lauaditory toward Nikki Craft. His clearly partisan approach to this article is revealed in the comments under his last two reverts:

• 04:14, 1 February 2007 Michaelbluejay (Reverting to 21 Jan version. Craft has many enemies who would like to see her stature diminished or her work supressed.)
• 17:45, 1 February 2007 Michaelbluejay (Revert. I'm not "promoting Craft", I'm combatting attempts to sweep her research under the rug)

Its clear from Michaelbluejay's statements that he sees his role as "combatting" Nikki Craft's "many enemies". Furthermore, he inaccurately considers Craft to be a "researcher" who's findings are being "swept under the rug" by said enemies.

This article was nominated for an AfD recently. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikki Craft.) While their was broad consensus that Nikki Craft was a notable enough figure to be the subject of a Wikipedia article, there was also broad consensus that the article had serious problems and largely read as a promotion of Nikki Craft and her views. It was noted that the imbalance in the article came from a long history of edits by close allies of Craft and even at times by Craft herself. It was agreed upon that the article should be massively trimmed back in order to deal with these problems.

If Michaelbluejay has problems with this, I suggest he take it to moderation or even arbitration. Iamcuriousblue 18:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not attempting ownership of the article. I'm simply combatting the POV that sex and nudist enthusiasts are attacking the article with. I welcome intervention by mediators, arbitrators (or more simply admins), but I don't think the onus is on me to initiate that. As just one example, one of the recent edits changed the statement about Craft's research into "nudist pedophiles" to just "pedophiles". This kind of edit is only made by a nudist apologist and is not made in good faith. Further, it's completely contrary to accurate reporting: Craft researches *nudist* pedophiles *specifically*. She doesn't research pedophiles in general. As long as bad edits like this are made, I will continue to combat them. You can complain all you want that you think I'm trying to attempt ownership of the article, but it doesn't change the facts. -MichaelBluejay 21:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent revert of consensus

See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikki Craft (2nd nomination)

To keep it simple, the discussion there resulted, after discussion to no consensus to delete the Nikki Craft article.

The was a great deal of discussion and criticism about the article, and I think many people felt that the article needed a great deal of cleanup. I myself voted initially to keep the article, as Nikki Craft is notable. (and notability was the argument for deletion, not that the article was poorly referenced). After working with others, I changed my vote to delete, and rewrite. This was based on another persons comment that in the previous AfD, the article was allowed to remain, based on a promise that it wold be rewritten and better sourced, but then was not.

Since the 2nd AfD closed, several people have contributed to the article. Notably editors Dandelion1, 66.173.98.50, Peter G Werner, Threeafterthree, Aaron Brenneman, Atomaton, and Treybien. I believe these changes were made as a result of the discussion on the AfD, and editors focusing on the article as a result of that discussion. Michaelbluejay then reverted removing a number of these edits. His revert was reverted by Iamcuriousblue with the comments "MichaelBlueJay has been excercising ownership of this article in order to promote Craft". Then Michaelbluejay reverted again, a second time. I agreed with Iamcuriousblue, and reverted it back, to allow for the edits made by several editors. Then Michaelbluejay reverted again, a third time.

As I have had difficulty with Michaelbluejay in the past, and he has been warned for violating 3RR before, I'm trying to be cautious here and avoid any further animosity or misunderstanding. I intend to revert back to the version edited by the group of people prior to Michaelbluejay's reverts, but I won't push it beyond that. I'd like to have a dialog, hopefully others can participate, as Michaelbluejay and I have not succeeded at doing that in a meaningful fashion in the past. If you don't think that he shold be reverting the edits either, I encourage you to communicate that to him. Perhaps other voices than mine own will be more effective. Atom 21:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• "he has been warned for violating 3RR before". Please provide any evidence that that I actually ever violated 3RR. I don't deny that I might have done so accidentally, long ago, probably once at most, but I just don't remember it. And since you've lied about me before (like saying I was Craft's webmaster) I don't entirely trust you. I also strongly object to your referring to the recent edits as "consensus". There is no such consensus to those specific edits. The concerns raised in the RfD aren't an endorsement to censor the detail of the part of Craft's biography for which she is most well known (her research into nudist pedophiles). -MichaelBluejay 00:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest that everyone limit themselves to discussion of content not contributors. To do otherwise will almost certainly lead only to acrimony, and will not help to have this article be as good (and professional, and correctly courced, etc) as it can posibly be. That's what everyone wants, right: A good article?
brenneman 01:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. I like the article the way that it is now.

• It has very little unciteable information. The view references to the nostatusquo site are not controversial, and important to establishing her notability. In the first para, it says "She is also known for researching and publicizing cases of pedophilia and child molestation." which others have stated is her latest efforts. It leaves out attacks against organizations that have been circumstantially linked to those efforts, such as naturist and nudist organizations. Yet, her opinion on this is suggested in the para following the 1990's and Onward section "...which reported on nudists and naturists who had been accused or convicted of child pornography or sexual abuse, and her assertion that the nudist/naturist leadership was not taking the problem seriously." Neutral and to the point. I have not been able to find any copies of, or online text of "the Iconoclast". Some kind of proof that it actually exists would bolster that para.
  • Sorry that this is testimony, not evidence, but I was a subscriber to "The Iconoclast," and would testify under oath that it did, in fact, exist. Unfortunately, I don't have any copies to produce as evidence. Esjones 19:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• The article does not seem to be a platform for making a point, or pursuing an agendum, but seems like a good biographical description.

• In several places it indicates that she was arrested. I suspect that she has no problem with this being publicized, but in some BLP articles that would be considered to be a no-no with out a supporting citation. I think to avoid future problems with people not associated with her history or radical perspective, that providing references would avoid removal of the material.

• I wish her connection with Andrea Dworkin were explored in more detail, documented and cited.

• "In the early 1980s Craft became a ceramicist [3] at UCSC. One year she made 500 handthrown pieces and signed them all "Stop Violence Against Women." It would be great of someone who knows her well could make a photograph of one of these to add to the article.

• There is a reference to her publishing "In Defense of Disobedience". Which sounds quite interesting. (A book written by a woman who has spent her life using civil disobedience in the promotion of feminism!) I wanted to read it, but could find no reference to it anywhere.

• "In 1983 Craft founded Citizens for Media Responsibility." I can find no references to support this. I did find these obscure reference to the National Rampage Against Penthouse, where Craft is mentioned. [23][24]

Atom 02:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I will try and focus on content rather than contributors, however, I do think conduct in editing this article is also an important issue here, especially given that the subject of this article was at one point editing this article.

One caveat about "organizations" founded by Craft, such as Citizens for Media Responsibility Without Law (the full name of this "group"), Always Causing Legal Unrest, etc. These "groups" inevitably consist of Craft and a few close collaborators, or even simply just Craft. The only one of these organizations that may have had more than a few members was the Preying Mantis Women's Brigade, the anti-beauty contest direct action group she ran in the early 1980s. Iamcuriousblue 17:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

So, any organisation for which no reliable source exists showing it to be a "real" one get removed from the page? - brenneman 23:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not advocating removing anything currently listed.

I'm not sure what to do about "Women Armed for Self Protection" as it probably was real, in the sense that it was named that, and women, including Nikki Craft belonged. But it probably was never a tax exempt, or legally recognized organization. It was probably very real to the women who participated. This is probably the case for the other organizations. As she was against the system, and authority, these organizations were probably informal, and not legally established. That is not a requirement for us to list them, but some kind of reference in feminist literature, or news archives should be found to support them.

Web sites or organizations that craft has made, and are not reliable, are nostatusquo.com, womenrisinginresistance.org, nikkicraft.com and hustlingtheleft.com.

• Women Armed for Self Protection

"Women Armed For Self Protection is founded by long-time feminist activist Nikki Craft after sitting in on a rape trail of a prostituted Black woman. The defendant, a white man, was acquitted despite a police officer's testimony that the defendant was known to cruise prostitution areas looking for Black women. Craft also founded The Kitty Genovese Women's Project, which released a list of over two thousand men indicted for sex offenses against women in Dallas, Texas. The Project was named after a women murdered in New York in 1964, who had a prostitution history" title=Timeline of the Sex Industry in the United States url=[25]

"Radical feminist Nikki Craft worked with an antirape group in Dallas. After one horror story too many, she founded WASP--Women Armed for Self Protection. Craft explained that she "was opposed to guns, so this was a huge leap . . . . I was tired of being afraid to open a window at night for fresh air, and sick of feeling safer when there was a man in bed with me." One of her posters read, "Men and Women Were Created Equal . . . And Smith & Wesson Makes Damn Sure It Stays That Way." title=Trust the People: The Case Against Gun Control url=[26] Kates, "Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment," p. 218

• Cross Your Heart Support network

Nothing citeable.

• Citizens for Media Responsibility Without Law

title=Reinventing Media Activism url=[27] table 5.1, p 4.

Citizens for Media Responsibility Without Law, "Sex is Not Obscene" Changing Men: Issues in Gender, Sex and Politics no. 15 (Fall 1985), pp. 24-25 -- Calls for civil disobedience against objectification of and violence against women both in the entertainment media and in advertising.

9.2. Myth California: [Citizens for Media Responsibility information packet includes letter from Nikki Craft, 1986] 9.3. Myth California: [fliers, chants, press releases includes Media Watch, 1983-1990, n.d.] Includes reference copies of photographs; originals in #PD.8. See also F D.5. 9.4. Myth California: [clippings, 1986-1992, n.d.] title="Rich, Cynthia. Papers of Cynthia Rich and Barbara Macdonald, 1893-2004: A Finding Aid" url=[28]

• Preying Mantis Women's Brigade

"Preying Mantis Women's Brigade (PMWB): This group's statement of purpose claims, "... We refuse to hold mankind's laws, objects, and positions of power to be sacred, and vow to ... create havoc and ... topple the empire that profits from the rape, death, and psychological destruction of 53 percent of the population." title=Craft claims a need exists for civil disobediance in women's movement URL=[29] circa 1985

• The Iconoclast

All references point to a different "Iconoclast" in canada. Nothing citable.

Based on these, I don't think that Iconoclast, or Cross Your Heart are supportable, at this time. I think the other ones are likely, and may have stronger support than what I have found, given time.

Atom 02:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Uncited text in Biographical article

I agree with Iamcuriousblue.

I have removed several interesting, but unsubstantiated or uncited claims about this person. I point out that it is a biographical article, and we must be accurate as to avoid slander or incorrect information about this living person.

Descriptions depicting Craft as a criminal, and doing a variety of civil disobedience activities may perhaps be true. Without a valid source, or citing Craft's personal web site as the source won't fly. What if she were to remove that information from her web site, and then sue? Or what if she claimed that she invented the Internet, would it be okay to put it here in her Biography? An independent and reputable source, say from a news agency should be cited to support any biographical statement that is in any way out of the ordinary to avoid potential legal action.

Looking at the contents of this talk page, it is clear that other sources are available, it is just that no one seems to have bothered to use them.

Please refrain from editing this article unless you are willing to put the work into finding and citing credible sources for the biographical information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.42.8.124 (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the source "Pornography's Part in Sexual Violence" in Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a WarZone ISBN 1556521855. It would suffice as evidence in such a scenario that Craft has engaged in civil disobedience. If she were to suddenly deny this and sue then even mention of other cases would not be potentially libellous since someone who would think less of someone for such an action would not think less of them than they would after reading this claim than before if they already knew of the cases mentioned in that book. The only potential libel would be if there were a claim about civil disobedience over very different political issues.

So.. wait, what?

So she's anti-nudist but pro-topfreedom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Overhauling the article

Since the last AfD, some vandalism has occurred and it seems obvious to me the article is in need of a thorough scrubbing and sourcing of the content. Some references were removed which seemed to be from Ms. Craft's websites. Closer examination showed that they were photocopies/PDFs of original newsclippings from reliable sources and included clear attributions to the original sources. This is adequate for WP:V sourcing I think. I'm going to put up an "under construction" template and see what I can do to shape the article towards something more cohesive and comprehensive. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 01:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Artist and writer

The article describes her as an artist and writer, but mentions neither published works nor notable artwork. Should these descriptions be removed, since the article only focuses on her activism? Dimadick (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)