Talk:Nude swimming/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Pollyanna opening

ClemRutter added this text based on no source at all, while citing a terribly unreliable blog from a pervert in Australia, and supplying a link to Youtube footage of Pollyanna. ClemRutter's textual analysis was not based on the blog, nor on any other source, so it has no place in Wikipedia per WP:No original research, which is a hard policy. Following the first removal, ClemRutter restored the entry. Following a second removal, ClemRutter restored the entry with slight changes, adding a link to IMDb's "Trivia" page, which is not reliable as it is user-generated. Finally, after the third removal, Andrew Davidson restored ClemRutter's textual analysis while adding a news piece about the Press Democrat. The news piece supports the bit about William Betz filmed jumping naked into the river at age 7, but it does not support the ClemRutter analysis. Everything about the "motif", the "small American town," and the Disney reputation for moral conservatism must be removed because it is a violation of the "no original research" policy. Binksternet (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I am disturbed by ClemRutter's description of his original choice of reference as "fairly anodyne". It is from the personal blog of a man who seems obsessed with naked children and uses the site to share his fiction about pubescent girls and advertise his self-published book. It is about as far from a reliable source as one can get. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Self-sourcing examples

@ClemRutter: not this again. It was JUST on AN/I where almost everyone agreed that the examples need sources. There is also a broader community consensus that they need sources. Beyond My Ken attempted the SAME THING you're doing - claiming you need local consensus, ignoring broader consensus. Well, he solicited the opinions of AN/I and guess what? There was consensus there that the examples need to go. Please stop going against consensus and Wikipedia policy. Bright☀ 09:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Putting this under the above talk section because it seems ClemRutter has some issues with properly sourcing the material they add or restore to the article. Bright☀ 10:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

To keep the discussion focussed- can you give a link to the AN/I. Talking in a cooperative manner is far more constructive than 'slash and burn'. It is normal to discuss your POV on the talk page, then leave it for a reasonable time before acting, not doing it the other way round. If the AN/I had any conclusions other than make sure your edits are referenced- than doing a brief summary here may elucidate. Editors who don't flit around the admin pages may reflect.

If I recall, all the work you have deleted had two sources: one from the production company and one from a review site. Things had been improved since the original list was criticised- to reflect the criticisms which were in the main valid.ClemRutter (talk) 12:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

ClemRutter, the recent ANI discussion is archived here. You participated in it. It may also be helpful to review the earlier discussions still on this talk page about "in popular culture" and films in particular. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference, I would never of dreamed of searching for such title. As I have said I am here to build an article, this one was badly structured and I hope I have gone some way to cure that. I still do not see a definitive decision, but a lot of angry editors who were saying three editors were gaming the system, and should desist from doing deletions, and were asking for sanctions. The issue that was bei9ng discussed was images. Moe came up with a system to diffuse the debate that worked. The issue of a Popular culture section was not discussed (apologies if I missed it- there was a lot of personal abuse and settling of previous unrelated issues that clouded the debate). So we have several issues here-

1. one editor is a serial deleter who has not created any significant content
2. one editor says movies should not be in the list unless the the topic, here 'nude bathing' has some significance within the movie- I agree with that,
3. and then there is my personal campaign to ensure each movie is referenced.

When they were previously removed then restored- there were no references. I went though and found referencing of movies is easy to do- certainly to a GA standard, I did the ones that were on topic, and left the rest. Getting the second reference is a lot harder if you are not a movie buff. There was one notable omission- a Disney movie that came up on a google. What seemed to me to be an anodyne comment on common knowledge suddenly becomes OR! An explanation of why the movie was notable enough for inclusion ignites previous battles. If it were not suitable for mainspace- then it needs to be inline commented out. Another way but not a big deal. So 'Self-sourcing examples'? They are now doubly sourced so they go back in- how does that conflict with the ANI?. Whats this suggestion that this is about local consensus? I'd appreciate it if you would look again at the sourced list, and when you see that it is not the same unsourced list that was removed, you could copy edit it, and restore. ClemRutter (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The issue of a Popular culture section was not discussed... sigh... I'm getting severe vibes of refusal to get the point. David Eppstein, John, Wehwalt, MASEM, Cullen328, and myself supported the RfC and policy (which didn't need any further support). Beyond My Ken opposed. Apparently this is not sufficient for you, but that doesn't matter, because there's an RfC, policy about disputed content, and now the discussion on AN/I, as well as several older discussions on the talk page. Very convenient that you're not aware of any of those! Bright☀ 20:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

So we're all on the same page, here's the section:

In popular culture Films A number of films have become notable in whole or in part due to reaction to their nude swimming scenes. 1918 – Tad's Swimming Hole, was a 1918 silent comedy film by King Vidor, it had frontal shots of nude boys that were censored in some places e.g. Chicago. 1933 – The film Ecstasy was banned in many places and censored in others. The film included a nude swimming scene with Hedy Lamarr in her film debut. 1934 – Tarzan and His Mate featured the female lead (played by a double) swimming nude. However, religious groups lobbied to have the scene removed. Three versions of this movie now exist. 1943 – Child Bride featured the female lead, 12-year-old Shirley Mills, swimming nude. It is considered the most notable scene on the film. 1960 - The opening credits of the Disney film, Pollyanna start a close-up of a nude 7 year old blond boy, William Betz, on a rope swing dropping into White Sulfur Springs, Santa Rosa, California, his mother was an extra on the film. This motif showed that Harrington was a normal 'small American town' where the 'folk' enjoyed normal activities. Disney has a reputation for being morally conservative; thus boys swimming nude was an everyday event. 1969 - In director Michael Powell's film Age of Consent, an extended scene shows Helen Mirren, playing a teenage girl, swimming underwater in an Australian reef. 1971 – Walkabout, an Australian/British film directed by Nicolas Roeg, shows actress Jenny Agutter and actors David Gulpilil and Luc Roeg swimming nude. The nude swimming scenes are set in several water holes in the Australian outback, during an extended time disconnected from civilization. References

The problem is not verifiability; the problem is with the quality of the sources. For example the Polyanna example is referenced to IMDb and YouTube, both of which are inappropriate sources in this context. The other sources, likewise, show that the examples are verifiable, but don't actually support them as important or "encyclopedic", per the RfC. Bright☀ 20:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Is this correct?

In the "Indoor pools" section says "During the 1960s, as baby boomers were entering high school, there was a growing backlash against enforced nude male swimming and by the 1970s, it had largely been phased out along with gender integration of pools." Is this right? Shouldn't it say "segregation" rather than "integration"?

I took the liberty of changing the word "imposed" to "forbidden" in "Mixed bathing was a popular activity for families, who would take their custom to the next resort along the coast if mixed bathing was imposed". The sentence doesn't make sense otherwise, and reading the source, this seems to be what occurred. If I got it wrong, the sentence needs to be rewritten rather than just reverted. Hypershock (talk) 13:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

No- integration means that where previously pools were open only for men, and later only for women, these sessions were fused and men and women were able to bathe at the same time. It was laer in the nineties that a limited number of women only sessions were reintroduced.

I have checked again the wording difficulties in "who would take their custom to the next resort along the coast if mixed bathing was imposed". Firstly the reference does not cover the statement. Secondly the reference articles applies only to mixed bathing. This indeed was opposed as it forced men to cover themselves which in the main 'traditional upper class bathers' ignored, this led to segregated bathing. Segregated bathing which was then opposed by 'sixpenny dipper' families who were happy to wear costumes. The reference article needs to be read in its entirety - p26 -29 are interesting. We are writing an article about Nude Swimming- so cannot investigate fully the commercial and moral pressures of the time, but they should be included. Please have a go at changing the English. As you see I am available for help.--ClemRutter (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Issues

I have tagged the article because it needs more sources and lacks a worldwide perspective. I have also reorganized it. SunCrow (talk) 04:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Strange sentence as the introduction of the History section

"The history of all swimming, including naked swimming, is gendered, and women's experiences of naked swimming have been different from men's."

What, on earth, is the sentence supposed to (i) mean and (ii) contribute?

Anything and everything can be described as 'gendered', based on the point-of-view of the observer. To say that something is 'gendered', without further expansion and evidence, does not contribute anything useful to the article (expert, perhaps, creating the impression that the person who added the text might have a predilection for adding 'gender' to anything and everything).

The sentence belongs as much in an encyclopaedia as a sentence such as:

"The history of all walking, including naked walking, is gendered, and women's experiences of naked walking have been different from men's."

Suggest the sentence be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.212.60 (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup and definition of topic

I have re-written the intro as the first step in clearly defining a topic, while doing some re-writing. An immediate issue is the distinction between swimming and bathing, which is clear but often blurred. Bathing for hygiene and therapy are always nude, so "nude bathing" is redundant. It makes sense to remove content on public bathing (spas, saunas, etc.) and focus on nude swimming for exercise and recreation. WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Nude bathing isn't redundant. If it were one would not wear a bathing costume where nude bathing is forbidden. Bathing is what one does at the beach, etc. I think you have confused bathing (a as in hay) with bathing (a as in father) DuncanHill (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The article on Bathing does not use the word "beach", but mentions sea bathing as a historical activity that ended in the early 20th century.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Removal of content on Bath, England

After editing, this content will be added to the Bathing article.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@Grandtubetrains: - Part of what I removed as being off-topic; about bathing (washing, not swimming) has been reverted, but in the absence of an edit summary I do not know why.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Merging history sections

Given the difficulty of finding reliable sources, history can be condensed. WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Newspapers as reliable sources

Newspapers are reliable sources when they report facts, not opinions. I am the primary editor of two GA articles on a controversial contemporary topic that are almost entirely sourced from newspapers and magazines, and the use of these sources has never been questioned. The topic of nude swimming is not of academic interest, but is not trivial. As a social scientist, what interests me is the recent behaviours, which my additions have addressed. The details are necessary to describe what was common practice in the recent past, which is now often disbelieved. My intention is only to present the facts. I am continuing to do research to cover the transition to contemporary practices.

In addition, after looking into the definitions of swimming and bathing, I added the paragraph to clarify the topic. WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

• Your sourcing and content are trivial. What interests you is one thing, what's encyclopedic is another. A general cultural swing against nude swimming in America, for instance, should be discussed by secondary sources, and that content is encyclopedic. Decisions made for a pool in Michigan or Iowa is not, and putting that in the USA section is actually just synthesis. Oh, near my hometown is a recreational area, where one area is set off for nudists and nude swimmers. Here is a source. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)