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)

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)