![]() | This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
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)
"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)
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 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. 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)
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:
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)
So the New York Times and the Dallas Morning News aren't good enough for you? -MichaelBluejay 22:34, 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)
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splashtalk 22:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm responding here to some things that Craft posted to the AfD page, since that page is now closed:
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
Can Nikki or someone please update top of article with this, pref with reference. Thanks - SimonLyall 10:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Since I'm reverting several of Jcuk's edits of 17 March I wanted to provide some explanation:
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)
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:
--Cab88 20:26, 23 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)
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)
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)
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)
"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).
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)
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)
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:
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:
And from Attribution:
Looking at this talk pages here, we also see comments like:
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.
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?
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.
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.
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:
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".
[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".
She gives another reference to the "Stateman Journal", which still has nothing about Mr. Peckenpaugh.
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:
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)
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; "
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.
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:
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)
"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)
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:
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)
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:
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)
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)
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.
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)
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 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
Nothing citeable.
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 (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
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)
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 she's anti-nudist but pro-topfreedom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)