Talk:Freikörperkultur

Untitled

Naked ramblers face Swiss fines from BBC. Collected 30 Jan 2009. - This almost seems like a jape, since innenhoden means innere testicles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.138.191.93 (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sex?

It's strange that an article in which it is stated that FKK is a movement that is about nakedness without a direct relationship to sexuality, should be considered to be within the scope of WP Sexuality. It might just as well be considered to be within the scope of WP Fashion... 80.176.88.21 (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I've referred this question to the Talk page of WikiProject Sexuality. --Polly Tunnel (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I speaks German and I aint heard of this?!?!

I don't think this is real. I mean, I think that it is a joke. A parody, if you will. I am German speaking and I ain't never heard of this. It don't add up none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.36.165 (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you ain't speaking German as good you think. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Australia 1

"Anglo-Australians are extremely conservative about nudity. " -- This claim is not supported with any evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.109.220.212 (talk) 02:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge from Kampfring für völkische Freikörperkultur

The Kampfring für völkische Freikörperkultur article is unlikely to become substantial in its own right, distinct from the wider movement of which it was the Nazi organisational manifestation. It would be better merged into the Freikörperkultur#Naturism_between_World_War_I_and_World_War_II section (thereby also improving the breadth of this article's references)? AllyD (talk) 06:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose: Maybe the reference may be useful, but I counsel against overloading a weak articles with well researched Hitlerzeit material. It causes the article to lose focus. It may be different if there was already a link within Freikörperkultur to Kampfring für völkische Freikörperkultur.

An alternative is the c&p the Nazi material from Naturism_between_World_War_I_and_World_War_II into Kampfring für völkische Freikörperkultur and build it up there. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose: If there is such a thing (I have never heard of that and cannot find any sources) such as this Kampfring, I am for including it into the history section and put light on the relationship. A merge is definitely not the right way.SGH wiki (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• See the book reference in that article. Though you have opposed the merge, what you describe is just what is proposed by it: taking the referenced sentence about that organisation into the History section. AllyD (talk) 07:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support. This can never take the article over, but it is worth a passing mention in this article. The proposed target section seems to be the most useful section to place it in. Fiddle Faddle 08:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
• Observationde:Diskussion:Freikörperkultur has a discussion on the subject. DFK has a clearer description of the FKK history and der Dritte Reich than we do- and tell a far different story of the rôle of the KfvF. It is simply not worth mentioning. I am stronger in belief that we should walk away from this one until we have an editor who can do it justice. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorting out the merger

Though opposed by 2 to 1, this factoid has been included. I have removed the unnecessary bolding- and the mistranslation of the title, but remain unconvinced that the polemic that is used as a source is neutral. The analysis of the role of the KfvF seems flawed, the alternative point of view is that after the various Verein were under threat of closure, they combined into a protective collective that satisfied the government and one of the constitutional requirements was to state that membership must be loyal to the state. Whether there was any serious attempt to enact this clause need to be proven. Mention is made dfk history page (deutsch) as I posted above. More detail is found "Der neue Mensch": Körperkultur im Kaiserreich und in der Weimarer Republik By Bernd Wedemeyer-Kolwe. Today this name seems to have been adopted by Neo-nazi and Pro-Zionist organisations in their attempt to rewrite history. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Without direction

I have been attempting to remove the bloat from Naturism, this has resulted in transferring material into some new articles, and keeping a synopsis on the main page. The aim being to keep the top level article clean and just focus on Naturism in General, and allow the fascinating region quirks to be worked up at a country specific level. This piece here is unfocused and unreferenced so I propose a new Naturism in Germany article similar to Naturism in France (still very raw). At first it will duplicate this article - but as it is worked up either they will diverge or this one can be a redirect. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

No opposition so changes started.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Australia 2

Nudity is not forbidden on Queensland beaches. Contrary to many reports, nudity is not illegal on any beaches anywhere in Australia. Indecent exposure, and variations thereof, is illegal. But that requires either indecency or willfulness, or exposure without a reasonable excuse. Sunbathing nude, with no lewd purpose, would not contravene the law anywhere.101.98.74.13 (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I've added a "citation needed" tag at that point in the text - Polly Tunnel (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I've now added a citation about the legality of nudity on Queensland's beaches. However, what I can't find are any sources regarding the FKK movement in Australia (as opposed to the naturism movement in Australia, for which it is easy to find sources). Indeed, I can't find any sources for FKK anywhere in the German diaspora. Since the "German diaspora" section has been marked with a "citation needed" tag for almost a year, I suggest that section should be deleted. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done because there have been no objections raised. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)