Talk:Nude swimming

Stating facts is not SYNTH

The content that I have added to the article recently (which I have not finished) is intended to do nothing more than state the facts: that nude swimming in indoor pools was the normal, everyday practice for male sex-segregated groups for at least the first seven decades of the 20th century. This was a practice based upon a recommendation by a nation public health organization. The recommendation was followed by schools and other public facilities in a significant portion of the United States for many years. The practice ended primarily because pool use became coed, and the public health guideline changed.

Being everyday facts, content is largely based upon journalism, not academics. I include no editorials or columnists. In addition to newspapers printing the schedule for swim sessions, there are some articles with details on the conduct of the sessions. Only at the end of the period are there also statements by those objecting to or supporting the practice. Again, just facts as stated by participants at the time, not conclusions, and no current recollections of bygone days. (Note that previous editors were not always so careful, and I may not have verified all the prior content.)--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The other issues of "excessive" citations and example have been addressed somewhat by simplifying the Sheboygan content. The intent is to support the fact that not only did public health organizations recommend male nudity in indoor pools documented in prior paragraphs, but that this locality implemented that recommendation consistently from 1951 to 1961 for prepubescent boys. This is also not synth, but arithmetic, which is allowed.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Additional examples of both official recommendations and implementation have been added.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Split proposed

As I continue to add content, the section on indoor pools in the US may have reached the point of being split into its own article. Perhaps this occured in the UK as well, but in private schools, thus not being publicly documented. WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Five days with no comment, performing split.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Split and cleanup is complete for my part.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

In Movies section

I appreciate the relevance of a list of movies to the topic, but see some issues, mainly regarding original research. The opening statement cannot make any summary judgement about the movies in the absence of a reliable source, so I have made it more neutral.

As far as which movies to include, there seems to be a pattern: only movies that have their own WP article, and thus are notable, also movies in which the nudity is "non-gratuitous" or part of the narrative. In the absence of citations, this could be disputed by anyone who thinks all nudity in film is gratuitous.

There is also the problem of global coverage, since the list includes only English language films with two exceptions. WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit reversion

I reverted the deletion of films from the list that did not cite a source. Since each film has a wikilink to its own article, there should first be a check to see if a source could easily be added. It may be that some of these films do not meet the criteria I listed above, but not all.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Section bloat

This section of the article is getting out of hand; it seems we are listing every single film that has both a nude swimming scene and a Wikipedia page, and in a couple of cases not even a Wikipedia page. I feel the criteria should be tighter; we should include only films whose nude swimming scenes are, in themselves, notable enough to be discussed in reliable sources. —VeryRarelyStable 00:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

As the list expanded, I have been thinking that the solution would be to split this section into a stand-alone list, and add a See also link here. If there are enough entries, this could be done now. Note that the few films with no WP article of their own are on the list because they are non-English, an attempt to globalize. WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's worthwhile for Wikipedia to have a list of every film that happens to have a nude swimming scene in it, still less to describe the degree of nudity in precise detail. Sex in film doesn't list every film with a sex scene, nor link to any separate list of such films. I think we should only list films where the nude swimming scene is an element of the film's notability. I do not think we should list films where nudity is part of the film's notability but the swimming scene is not.

If you want specifics, I would keep

• Tad's Swimming Hole
• Ecstasy
• Child Bride
• Something's Got to Give
• Robby
• Visit to a Chief's Son
• The Blue Lagoon
• Children of a Lesser God
• The F Word
• No Hard Feelings

—VeryRarelyStable 11:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I do not think there is an unbiased way to exclude any film from the list other than the criteria:

1. The film has its own article to establish notability.
2. The listing has enough description of body parts to establish whether it shows complete or partial nudity, and not implied nudity.
3. Swimming nude is part of the narrative or character development, not gratuitous.

WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

1. As I've said twice, and am now saying for the third time, I think it needs to be established that the nude swimming scene within the film is notable, not just the film as a whole; and we use the same criteria we do to establish the notability of anything else. What's biased about that?
2. Why do we need to establish what body parts are shown? This is an article about nude swimming; the Film section is about (notable) nude swimming scenes in film. Let me try to explain this by analogy. In Titanic, Rose poses nude for Jack to draw. Now as it happens, the film shows Kate Winslet fully nude in this scene. But suppose that for whatever reason James Cameron had been forced to edit out the full nude shots and show Winslet (or a body double) only from the back, with the couch interposed, and Leonardo DiCaprio's reaction to seeing her. How would that change either the notability of the scene or its significance within the film? Why would it need to be mentioned? And especially, what on Earth would justify describing the scene in terms of the minute details of which parts of the actress's body were directly visible on camera?
3. Not sure I agree with this one either. If the nude scene isn't part of the narrative but is something the film is notable for, even if that notability is precisely because it's jarring and gratuitous, that's still a notable nude swimming scene and should be mentioned. We're not here to make value judgements.

—VeryRarelyStable 00:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

It should not be split into a separate article unless it can be proven that such a list meets WP:NLIST. Sergecross73 msg me 02:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's going to meet WP:NLIST. Frankly I question whether it's notable enough to exist at all, whether perhaps the whole thing should just be cut. On balance I think it's reasonable to keep a much-shortened list in this article along the lines that I have suggested. —VeryRarelyStable 10:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I will remove the split tag, since I placed it only to get other opinions.

As for the list itself, I did not create it and have not added most of the entries, but instead tried to improve it. As to its existence, it is consistent with the content of other articles that itemize examples of visual media representative of the topic. Often there is a linked article on the subtopic, thus Nudity is paired with Nudity in film, with another article on Sex in film and a further distinction in Pornographic films. Such sub-topics may begin as a list. Since the main topic here is swimming nude, swimming nude in film is a valid sub-topic, but should be distinct from sex in film or porn that happens to include swimming. I think the current list is generally consistent with these distinctions. There are only 44 films covering more than a century, so a stand-alone article (list or otherwise) is not yet warranted.

I have been editing on the stated criteria that any film having a linked article is sufficient is established the scene as notable. Many of these articles have included references to censorship disputes due to the nude swimming scenes, thus establishing the significance of the scene in the film. Often these disputes are due to the specific body parts shown, which justify the details in the text. Otherwise, graphic descriptions are part of establishing whether the nudity is sexualized or natural; gratuitous or part of the narrative. Given the moral panic over nudity in the United States, it is not likely that any of the scenes were included without regard to their importance in the film. As I have said several times, I see no need for a separate reliable source for the swimming scene alone. WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Main vs Broader

The template documentation states: "[Broad] should be used when there should be a link to another article that discusses a subject more broadly, but is not a main article..." Nudity is certainly the main article for all others on the topic of nudity. WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)