Talk:Nude swimming/Archive 1

Locations
"Places where skinny dipping takes place"? That's kinda...stupid, how about removing that section? WP:NOT a directory – Paul 15:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. If the locations listed do not exist on the List of public outdoor clothes free places (some are, some aren't), they can be added and the link to the list can be put under See also. – Albert109 05:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

CFNM fetishism
I've removed the reference to 'CFNM swimming' as this is more someone's fantasy than anyone's reality here. The article on CFNM states that this term basically applies to a certain genre of Pornography. I see no reason why this should be mentioned in the Skinny Dipping article. Skinny Dipping is a well-known phenomenon that in fact does occur outside of the internet. "CFNM Swimming" is not a phenomenon I have ever heard of. The information on this particular breed of fetishism can be found in the CFNM article. – Colonel Mustard 12:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * From what I've read (from a nudity forum that used to be on voyforums) it's not unheard of for boys to skinny-dip while girls wear bathing suits. In that sense, "CFNM" swimming does technically exist, but I think the acronym is reserved for the fetish. In any case, I've removed the passage because there's no evidence it's well-known enough for us to care about it. I noticed that CFNM redirects to this page, which I think is misleading since a CFNM situation doesn't necessarily mean swimming, so I changed that too. (Btw, the novel "At Swim, Two Boys" features two teens trying to swim to this island about a mile off-shore. In the novel they swim naked, but, oddly enough, on the cover they're in swim suits.) – 151.203.178.253 21:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC) John S.


 * I agree, and I've reverted the undelete. If someone wants to write something on variations (with references), that's fine, but there's no point making an unsourced speculative reference to these terms, which are both non-notable and not relevant to this topic. (People may also be interested to see the AfD discussion which these articles are now both under.) – Mdwh 22:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

hey guys, i know this might sound dumb, but do you have to be gay to go skinny dipping with a bunch of guys? i mean im not gay but if some guys started skinny dipping and i swam with them..............isnt that a bit strange —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.225.202 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 3 December 2006


 * Only if you equate nudity with sex. While they go well together, the former does not always suggest the latter. —MJBurrage •  TALK  • 01:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I can assure everyone that CFNM swimming was very real a couple of generations ago. I know because I participated. Our neighbors allowed their boys and any other boy who might be swimming to do so in the nude, and almost all of us did. Neighborhood girls swam with us and wore swimsuits. This was all with parental consent and approval. As a teenager, I did it also, though at the later age it was behind parents' backs. And, CFNM swimming is alive and well to some extent today. On the clothing-optional beaches I have gone to, it is not uncommon at all to see couples (usually middle aged or older) where the man is nude and the woman wears a swimsuit. Uncle Al 21:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Image
Whatever happened to the YMCA photo? Was it deleted off wikipedia? It is still referenced to in the article, but it is nonexistent... Does anyone have a copy? – Spudmonster 22:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If I remember correctly, it had to be deleted for lack of copyright-justification, so re-posting a copy without a satisfactory tag wouldn't suffice to restore that fine image. – Fastifex 10:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I have been able to find a miniscule version of the image on answers.com, but if I remember right, the photo posted in this article was about 600 pixels resolution. Does anyone happen to know where I might find a copy of that image in a large format? – Spudmonster 21:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As it is, the article text refers to an image which doesn't exist. That should be changed. But I lack the willpower. – TRiG 13:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

A prime example of USA-centricism

 * Various counties and municipalities may enact their own dress codes, and many have. There is no federal law against nudity. Nude beaches, such as Baker Beach in San Francisco, operate within federal park lands in California. However, under a provision called concurrent jurisdiction, federal park rangers may enforce state and local laws, or invite local authorities to do so.

Why the sudden mention of [US] federal law? Huh? – TRiG 13:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Skinny dipping animated movie
An article about skinny dipping, that had a fun "wish I was there" animated movie of someone skinny dipping, and somebody removed it. That makes absolutely no sense at all. 68.158.149.3 12:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC) hahahhahahhahah nice picture to do................i like this picture too much.................i lover this too
 * I think that the animated gif is refreshing and adds "life" to the article. Including this kind of image (animated gif) to Wikipedia articles is new and welcomed from me. Regular encyclopedias can't give you these kinds of images. I think that doing this is "cutting edge". As far as the statement about people with slower connections, when did we start censoring for connection speed? Did you take into consideration those of us that have faster connections and enjoy this image? 66.191.248.80 05:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to be "overly concerned" with user-made images, but Image:2 Friends Sknydpg.jpg is two guys standing naked in ankle-deep water, not really "swimming" in any sense of the word. As for the animated gif...well it is amusing, but I'm torn. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 13:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Child Pornography??
Arent those pictures of naked boys considered child pornography? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * I doubt it. They're not doing anything sexual. 70.17.136.222 23:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Why does this article need four images of naked boys? There are two paintings which include older boys and two photos of younger boys. That seems excessive regardless of content. Regarding the content, though, aren't there potential legal problems for including photos of those undressed underaged individuals without their parents' consent? Wryspy (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am guessing that skinny dipping has historically been more of a male activity than a female activity. I am no historian so I do not know for sure, and I mean no offense to any women in the world, but I doubt that historically women had any right to skinny dip when around men in a lot of cases. This historical habit would surely have some bearing on skinny dipping habits in the modern age. My only problem is that the last image on the page doesn't mention where or when in the world it was taken. The image can surely not educate anyone on anything if it does not mention when and where in the world it came from. It may as well be a cartoon of animated humanoid bananas skinny dipping, for all the world value the caption provides. JayKeaton 17:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Are the naked children really necessary though, couldn't other pictures be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.194.73.201 (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Image
The image of the two boys standing in ankle deep water is not swimming nor skinny dipping. I am removing the image and ask it not be restored. It has nothing to do with the articles subject. Nevilledad 00:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to agree, they may be naked, they may be wet, but they are not skinny dipping. I am removing them as well.D8a 02:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I enlarged all images to make them more plain Nevilledad 06:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The Movie Section
I removed the list of movies and paintings with skinny dipping as I feel that whole section only cluttered up the article and was usless and irrelevant to the article. Nevilledad 05:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it should be removed, as it is an attempt to show it's affect on modern culture. However, if it could be organized, it would be more useful.D8a 17:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel it needs to be made less list like if you don't want to take it out? Or at least shorten it. It seems too long really, in my humble opinion. 82.108.65.121 (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I came to this article following a link from the featured article The Swimming Hole and I would say that the list of movie references is way too long. I mean, ther article on beer does not have a movie list citing every movie where there is some vague reference to [beer]], does it? I'd suggest to remove every movie that does not have a skinny dipping scene/reference that is actually 'relevant' to the plot or famous for some other reason. --Lagerbaer (talk) 11:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * How about removing every movie reference where skinny dipping isn't specifically referenced by an outside source specifically as notable. For example, the movie "Ecstasy" was famous for its nude scenes that began with skinny dipping.  Most of the other titles can not make the same claim.  Rklawton (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Any other thoughts on this, or can I get to work on it? Rklawton (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, so I've started removing movies. There are a lot, so I figured I start with movies that don't have articles and movies that don't mention nude swimming or skinny dipping in the article. I'll do this in several steps since it takes a lot of time to check each movie article. Once I/we finish with this, we should review the remaining movies and determine on a case-by-case basis if the nude swimming was notable. In a few cases, the nudity caused controversy. In other cases (like Jaws), the nude scene is featured on the book's cover and in movie posters. In a few more, the nudity has very little to do with the movie and only has a brief mention in the movie's article. Rklawton (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe a category along the lines of "Nude Swimming" can be applied to movies featuring this activity. The list is simply too long and too trivial for an article devoted to the topic. Rklawton (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Dukes of Hazzard Episode
I included that line because I felt it deserved to be mentioned, but I haven't seen that in so long my memory fail me. Could somebody put information about the episode name and number?

Visual media
This list is ridiculously long. A few historical and notable examples from movies and television should suffice. Rklawton (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Would it help to split the list off into its own article? Call it, say, List of skinny dipping in TV and movies or something of the sort, and then link to it in the main article. --Nomad Of Norad (talk) 07:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose - but would such a list be useful? Rklawton (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Would it be OK to just delete the visual media section entirely as unsourced list-cruft? Rklawton (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It would probably cut the list down if one insisted in the fact that there is nude swimming to be noted in a reliable source rather than just watching the film. So I'd just stick a cn onto each of them and delete them somewhere between a week and a month if nobody comes up with anything. Dmcq (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Title of Article
I think that the article should be renamed "Nude swimming", which is what it is about. "Skinny dipping" is a colloquial expression more common in the US then outside of it. Ewawer (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's OK by me. Rklawton (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Content
I came to this article and added a photo by Henry Scott Tuke to the gallery in the art section, because I knew about his work. Then I looked at the edits and noticed that it was there a day earlier. Based on the history of the ip address, I gather that this article was edited by somebody generally interested in removing content from articles about nudity.

I was unimpressed by the gallery reduction, which I reversed. However, some of the editor's other attempts at clean-up could have been merited so I left them alone. For one example, I don't think we necessarily need blurbs about particular artist bios in the art section, if one of the images is already linked to an article about the artist. Corwin78 (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Images Censorship
It seems to me that the images here are purposely chosen in order not to show any nudity. Wikipedia is not suppose to be censored. 74.89.58.36 (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What body parts would you like to see? I'm sure we've got articles on them with appropriate labeled images.  Rklawton (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not saying this because I just want to see naked people if that's what your applying. I know their images on Wikipedia and Wikimedia that show more. Shouldn't they be here? I'm not saying there should be a lot here, I just think a couple will fit with the topic better. 74.89.58.36 (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)



A couple of these images should be added to the article. 74.89.58.36 (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think including classic examples would be a good idea. Rklawton (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Trivia and reliable sources
A lot of trivia seems to be creeping into the article. I think the best way of countering that is to require a citation from a reliable source instead of editors sticking in a line every time they see a person swimming naked in a river. I'll stick cn after the various bits of trivia and remove them after a while if they haven't been cited. Dmcq (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - good plan. Or just delete it outright.  Rklawton (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If there were citations for the ones that are actually of note then it would be much easier to do that. At the moment it would be a little arbitrary. SO I'd like some on even the ones which are probably okay. Dmcq (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well... if you check the articles for the notable instances, you'll see they're sourced. Ex:  Ecstasy has a lot about it due to the controversy.  Rklawton (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Then it should be easy enough to copy over a relevant citation. Dmcq (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not how we do it on Wikipedia. If it's sourced in the article, then it's sufficient.  If it's not sourced in the article, then the reference gets removed. In that way we don't have to update the same source across multiple articles, and people can click on the article link and get the details if they want them.  Check out any of our date articles (like February 18) and you'll see that most or all of the entries lack sources in the date article but have them in the subject article. Rklawton (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not right. See WP:CITE right at the beginning "This requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations." Notice the 'inline'. A request to see that things are reliably sourced rather than just what an editor thought they saw while slumped in front of a television is a reasonable challenge. Dmcq (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're reading it wrong. These aren't quotations were talking about here. Furthermore, a user need only click on the linked article to find the appropriate citation. If a citation isn't available, then it's perfectly reasonable to remove the material as unsourced. You also failed to address my point regarding date articles.  The same also applies to city articles that list notable residents, national landmarks, and so on. I'm left now with a choice between believing hundreds of thousands of articles are wrong for not providing redundant sources, or believing you're mistaken. It's much more reasonable to assume you're mistaken rather than tens of thousands of other editors.  Please apply some common sense here.  I suggest you try to see the logic in this, or failing that, trust an editor with significantly more experience than you have editing this encyclopedia. Rklawton (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No you are reading it wrong. It does not only apply to quotations. It says about quotations that they should always have inline citations. For other material it is required if it is challenged or likely to be challenged. That the date articles don't have citations simply means nobody has put in a reasonable challenge. WP:V is the policy and it is pretty clear about this. If you like you can ask on the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Dmcq (talk) 05:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I hit this one up years ago and got the same answer I'm giving you: it's all verifiable because all the user has to do is click on the link and get the detail and the source. Therefore it fully satisfies WP:V - and it's a lot less work to maintain. And as I noted above, if a claim is made that isn't supported in the main article, then it counts as not sourced and can be treated accordingly. Why not request mediation on this for another opinion. But do keep in mind, our articles simply don't follow the convention you propose.  Rklawton (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This goes to the "likely to be challenged" clause. It's not likely to be challenged if all the user has to do is click the relevant link to find the source. Rklawton (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I have challenged it. In fact I looked at Ecstasy (film) first before challenging it and just saw 'Curiously, Extase is celebrated as the first motion picture containing a nude scene, which it was not, rather than the first to show sexual intercourse, which it was'. The internet movie sites did not describe it as renown for a nude swim, in fact they just say she was bathing. But even with that the citation needs to be here because verifiability needs to be in the article itself and not depend on another Wikipedia article. I will raise this at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Dmcq (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have asked for a third opinion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Dmcq (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting the ball rolling. I've seen the movie, and it's definitely a swim.  The controversy is about the nudity which begins with a swim and ends with a cross country run - and the actress' husband's efforts to stop film distribution. The sources I checked out reference the swim or skinny dipping, and only a few mention the run. Though European term is "bathing" - but it doesn't have the same meaning as in American English.  For example, Americans wear "bathing" suits to swim in public pools, but Americans don't bathe in public pools, they swim. Anyway, thanks again for setting up the discussion in WP:V.  Rklawton (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

In the United Kingdom, skinny dipping is sometimes known as "naked swimming".
I live in the UK, always have, and I have never heard anyone call it something that isn't skinny dipping, with the exception of telling someone what skinny dipping means. I don't know if that's local to the south of England, but I think that the sentence is inaccurate and should be removed ... 109.152.42.224 (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Nude swimming
I have been watching this article for years, and seen editors come and go. I have made a few corrective edits over the last month removing some of the more blatant howlers. But the truth has to be faced that this article has a dual focus- and ís a basket of half truths. The first part in an edited clone of the swimming suit article- which in itself may be a copyvio of a Jane Austen Society article-I bagni di mare di Jane Austin. The article is anglo-centric and while discussing a UK legal situation shows no understanding of the UK legal system, precedent, statue law, bye-laws- criminal v civil. Feathery phases like: In some European countries.. I have spoken with Beyond_My_Ken who is busy elsewhere, and attempted to collect notable on-line references, and can recommend:

The basic story is that for the common folk- splashing in rivers and swimming was always done naked by boys and men- girls and women did not have leisure time so it so rarely happened that there was no story. With the quacks setting up spas at Bath and Buxton etc where cures were guarenteed by being dipped by bathing attendant- there was no swimming involved and it was not a social activity. Sea bathing, naked for the men and boys became popular- and the upper class participants went for health reasons- a cold dip and drinking the water was restorative, (changing took place in bathing machines)- some men extended this to swimming in the sea. Seeing them frolicking in the sea attracted sightseers to the sea spa resort.

Moral pressures forced some town councils to establish zones for the women and men to bathe separately as mixing while in the water (promiscuous bathing) was seen as bad for morals. A half hearted attempt to suggest to men that torso-suits would be fashionable. These areas were not policed- under pressure from the church ever stricter byelaws were passed but not enforced. Mixed bathing was a popular activities for families- who took their custom to the next resort along the coast. Few records of magistrates enforcing the byelaws. This was around 1860-75. Commercial pressure defeated the moral pressures and Sea Bathing ceased to be done for health- but for pleasure. As the segregated beaches in town disappeared- bathing costumes for men became part of the commercial package. Nude bathing continued to be practised outside resorts on isolated pieces of coast- a very few of these known beaches and coves got local authority recognition as Nude beaches.

All this was very much an English problem and one of attitude. In France I can assume the discrete nude bathing for both sexes is acceptable anywhere along the coast or on river banks, outside the town or village centre. In Germany provision is made in major city centre parks. zB English Garden (Munich). We have the same silliness in gym changing rooms and even in dressing up in a sauna in England.

Now we come to the title of the article- the colloquial term skinny dipping emerged in North America in 1947 and in England in 1962 and implies a slightly risqué illicit activity. The term used in the UK for such an encounter was a 'Midnight Swim'- it was probably around before it was used refer to any form of naturist swimming. In has never really been a term for all types of Nude bathing or Nude Swimming- thus it make it impossible to give focus to this article. The debates we have had about which films to include illustrate this. So I agree with User:Ewawer in  above that the article needs to be changed to Nude swimming as against Naked swimming which can be a redirect. With that one change, we have scope to define the article in the lead- and the article has focus.

I would suggest: ''Nude swimming is the practice of swimming naked, originally in natural bodies of water, but more recently also in swimming pools. In the recent past boys and men swam this way, but swimming costumes became popular from the 1860s onwards and quickly became the norm in mixed company. For health reasons for most twentieth century, many swimming pools insisted on male nude swimming as chlorination and water circulation was not reliable. Most nude swimming today takes place on nude beaches, or at naturist facilities, and segregated public swimming areas or in private swimming pools. The colloquial term skinny dipping was first heard in North America in 1947 and was used in Europe from 1962. Some countries of Europe are relaxed and nude swimming is permitted in public areas, but some countries there and elsewhere enforce strict public decency laws.''

-- Clem Rutter (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I thought I had changed the title of the article to Nude swimming some time ago. I had moved on since then, and in the meantime somebody else must have reverted my changes. I was drawn back here by you invoking my User name. I agree with the thrust of your points above and with the name change. Perhaps you can also incorporate some of your other comments into the body of the article. Just one point though: you say "swimming costumes became popular from the 1860s" is not exactly right. They became mandatory. Enthusiast (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly, great to talk. I am flagging ideas here as the first stage- and will not write anything without a reliable reference as this is the sort of article that would attract an edit war. The text has to be very tight. I am open to any helpful suggestions. Popular/mandatory- Popular is the wrong word- but I can't find a reference to support mandatory- which is the act of parliament? All I can find is town-council bye-laws which were limited in scope and not enforced- which are towns? State side Federal law or state law- it is an interesting problem. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Useful reference
Memory Lane: communal football baths from days gone by – in pictures -- Clem Rutter (talk) 10:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Eakins painting
The very famous painting by Philadelphia artist Thomas Eakins was called "Swimming" ... not "The Swimming Hole" or anything else. It was called "The Swimming Hole" when exhibited in the very early 20th Century to give it a more innocent and wholesome persona. In other words, to lessen the sexual and/or homoerotic aspect of the painting (see William McFeeley's biography of Easkins "Portrait"). Eakins himself entitled it simply "Swimming." This is the title preferred by scholars nowadays. 76.98.78.125 (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)buddmar
 * That's an interesting point, but it seems like it should probably be discussed at Talk:The Swimming Hole. Since the article about the painting is named The Swimming Hole it seems to me that it's adding confusion to change the link here. Having said that, as an article name, Swimming (painting) is a lot clumsier than The Swimming Hole, so a case can be made that the article's name doesn't necessarily need to match-up with the painting's proper name. Grayfell (talk) 01:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

In popular culture section
The IPC section is ballooning out of control again. None of the TV or movie entries have a source. Way way too many passing mentions. Does every single instance of skinny dipping in a movie, even really obscure ones, need to be mentioned here? Some of these, like Brain Dead, are only of limited interest to a general audience. Jaws is an important movie, but the article barely mentions nude swimming. Child Bride is pretty much only known for its reviled nude swim scene, but the movie itself is obscure and hardly relevant to a topic as broad as this one. A rule of thumb suggested by WP:IPC is to only include entries which have reliable, WP:SECONDARY sources explaining why the reference is significant to a cultural understanding of the topic. That shouldn't be too hard, right? Grayfell (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect definition
I think that most people would agree with the first part of the definition "Nude swimming or skinny dipping is the practice of swimming naked". But why add "originally in natural bodies of water, but more recently in swimming pools or hot tubs"? The idea of wearing clothes while swimming in a pool or tub is a modern one, not the other way around. In any case one cannot swim in a hot tub any more than in the bath.101.98.74.13 (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

reference from OED
The OED (Oxford) reference says the term was first recorded in English in 1947 (ref 1 of article), but the date of the original OED edition (1933) is given (presumably a later edition post-1947 was used!)

social convention
"Wide spread social convention" is really US-centric and doesn't belong in the lead. Rklawton (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Bylaws plural
Failed to get a working link in the comment; I repost it here: Bylaws. 79.53.226.135 (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I notice on the By-law article the existance of the alternative spellings "bylaw" and "bye-law". Nothing prevents "byelaw" to exist. Should you want to revert it back (wasted effort, in my opinion, given the triviality of the question), please be aware that two instances of the word exist in the article. 79.53.226.135 (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Use an edit summary. William Avery (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Films
This is a renewal of a years old discussion. Once again the Film section is starting to become a list of movies with nude swimming as opposed to a list of films made notable because if nude swimming scenes. I'd like to start trimming the list. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What, specifically? I reverted Triivialist's removal of three films because I thought there were legitimate reasons for at least two of them to stay in.  Which films would you remove? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Currently none of the items has a reference at all. How about cutting it down to scenes that have been referred to as notable or iconic? Trivialist (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm with User:Trivialist. Each one needs a source either here or in the parent article that says the scene itself was iconic beyond the scope of the movie. "Something's Got to Give" and "Walkabout" would be good examples - it may be the most notable scene in the movie, but I see no indication it's notable beyond that scope. A simple rule of thumb would be that if the scene isn't noted in the movie article's lead for its notability (or notoriety), it's probably not worth including here, either. Rklawton (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would disagree extremely strongly re: Walkabout: two white Australians, one a teenage girl and the other a yound boy, skinny dip with a dark-skinned Australian aborigine. It's extremely iconic, and extremely important to the film (the scene indeed is the ending of the film). Something's Got to Give: c'mon, Marilyn Monroe swimming naked in a swimming pool at night? How more iconic can you get?  Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Further, I don't think that being "iconic" is the only criteria. Historical value should also be considered. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Walkabout and Something's Got to Give being included. I think sources can be found for those, and they should be found. I think it's a bit harder to justify 2-Headed Shark Attack as being either iconic or historical, at least not yet. If we don't have a reliable, independent source the film's article should at least mention a skinny dipping scene as being significant. Something's Got to Give definitely passes this threshold. The source Beyond My Ken added for Age of Consent (film) specifically says "even if those scenes had remained intact, it is doubtful it would have made a difference to the British critics who were either negative or less than enthusiastic in their reviews" Is that historical? I suppose so, but it's not really explaining how it's central to the film. It's definitely better than no source at all, but that seems like that's setting a lower bar than I would like. Grayfell (talk) 04:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The name of the film is "Age of Consent", and one of the film's themes is what we take to be the growing attraction between Mirren and Mason. Mirren's character has grown up more or less "wild", which is indicated by her having no compunction about swimming in the nude and posing naked for Mason.  The girl is below the age of consent, but will their relationship become a sexual one?  The film doesn't move that way, but that's the tension that's being set up. The removal of the nude swimming scenes in the original release softened, but did not eliminate, that theme, since her posing nude for Mason couldn't be removed without totally eviscerating the film.  Powell was a world-class director looking to extend his career, Mirren was making her screen debut, so the film is significant in terms of cinema history, and the nude swimming was a significant part of that (once it was restored to the film). Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That seems like as good an explanation as I could ask for, but the source you added doesn't go into that as it relates to nude swimming. That would be great if it did. Wikipedia's article doesn't mention the nude swimming scene, either. If a scene is culturally significant to a topic as universal and ancient as nude swimming it should be supportable as significant by sources. I am not really challenging the Powell film specifically, I think this section needs to be held to a high standard for several reasons. The usual WP:IPC issues, but also, this is such a broad topic I think it's pointless and distracting when obscure (mostly American) movies, like Brain Dead (2007 film), slip through the cracks because they had one fan service scene. I never saw that one, actually, maybe it had many that were organic to the plot. Without sources...
 * A semi-objective way I know to curate this list is with context about why the nude swimming scenes matter. Another option is to create nude swimming in popular culture or a related list article. Maintaining that sounds like a headache, and I half-recall already seeing a deleted article along those lines. I get that there are a ton of different views about this. I also am trying to be more aware that many new editors come to Wikipedia to add info to sections like this, and scaring them away might be the worse sin. It's a difficult balance. Grayfell (talk) 05:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced information
, unsourced information can be immediately removed. If you don't like the tag, the information can simply be removed, without your approval or your talk page consensus, as this is Wikipedia policy and it overrules your personal opinion. Bright☀ 10:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Evidently, at least . Both times consensus was to remove the unsourced information. This consensus is not even required, since community-wide consensus in the form of Wikipedia policy already exists. Both times Beyond My Ken simply overrode Wikipedia policy and local consensus and kept adding unsourced information. Bright☀ 10:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * IPC information is sourced by primary sources: the pop cuklture items themselves. It it therefore not "unsourced" and therefore cannot be removed at will.  Like any other disputed information, it must be discussed on the talk page, and a consensus reached. This is not a "tactic", this is following Wikipedia procedures, which I suggest you do as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That is not how you use primary sources; you cannot connect several sources into a conclusion that is not part of any of them; If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article. You cannot say "this work of fiction features X, therefore it is an example of X in popular culture." See also this RfC which you were notified of several times. You're knowingly acting against policy and consensus. Bright☀ 15:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want to follow procedure, then WP:ONUS says the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. This unsourced synthesis is the disputed content, and should be removed unless there is consensus for its inclusion. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here that you can provide reliable third-party sources to support this information; if you can't, the information will be removed. It may even be removed until you provide such sources. Bright☀ 15:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, "there is no consensus" does not absolve you of Wikipedia policy. "Please discuss any items of concern on the talk page, just as with any other disputed items"—the onus is on inclusion. You keep using the "there is no consensus" excuse but every time it's wrong. Bright☀ 01:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please follow BRD and leave the article in the status quo ante whle discussion is going on. Any disputed piece of information needs to be discussed here.  Please cite the specific objections to specific entries, wince the wholesale removal of these section has no consensus.  Please don't revert again, or I'll bring admins in to deal with the behavorial problems you are exhibiting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, there is no policy which supports the removal of material which is supported by primary sources but not secondary sources. The only policy about removals (in WP:V) is about removing material that is completely unsourced, which is not the case here, since each item is sourced by the media item which is quoted or cited. Anyone can pick up that item (or look at its image in the article) and verify the claim being made about it.  Therefore, it fulfills WP:V, and can only be removed by consensus, which you have not established, at least as of yet.I am more than willing to discuss any specific issues you have about any specific items, and if you would take me up on that offer, you would find that I am generally quite reasonable about the removal of trivial entries (which I often remove myself). Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Despite what you put in bold, there is a policy for removing poorly sourced material (WP:V) and an RfC specifically stating that in-popular-culture material cannot be primary-sourced. Removal of unsourced or poorly-sourced material is Wikipedia policy and does not require your personal approval.
 * May I add, with regards to behavorial problems (which you helpfully put in bold italics), you have been put on AN/I and went through many RfCs regarding these issues exactly:
 * Messing up the article layout because you don't like where tags are put or where images are supposed to go. You've been RfC'd about that.
 * Abusing the BRD cycle. You've been on AN/I a couple of times about that.
 * Ignoring WP:V policy and in-popular-culture consensus. You've been RfC'd about that too.
 * Take a look inward and maybe revise your consensus-by-bullying practices. Bright☀ 14:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I have been watching the edits of the last two months and they have been almost entirely unconstructive and not advanced Wikipedia. There is no credit to be gained by quoting the finer points of policy. WP is not about proving your personal expertise - reversions should gain consensus on the talk page then if you have been one on the principal players, get another editor to do the reversion. It is time to move on, and start gathering the missing references and make this section stronger. If this proves too hard move on to a less contentious subject. ClemRutter (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:V is not "the finer points of policy", it's a core policy. RfCs are not made to be ignored, they're made to establish consensus. If you can't provide proper citations for this content, it should be removed, instead of piled up like garbage. "Move on" is just a gentler way of bullying your way out of Wikipedia policy, as BMK is doing. Bright☀ 11:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * (1) Your interpretation of WP:V is oncorrect. Please read it again to properly understand it.  (2) Two editors have now reverted you, and you have reverted back.  You are now edit warring.  Please stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * (1) You've been RfCd about this "interpretation" before and the consensus was almost unanimously for removing unsourced and poorly-sourced information, and that examples in popular culture sections are not adequately sourced to themselves or to sources that merely state that they exist or mention them briefly.(2) Local consensus does not override Wikipedia policy or broader consensus (such as RfC). This technique of reverting policy-backed edits or RfC-backed edits under the excuse of "local consensus" is explicitly negated on WP:CONSENSUS (Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.) and in general is a sign of your bullying tactics to "protect" your articles from the evils of Wikipedia policy, broader consensus, and the Manual of Style. You've been RfCed and AN/Ied about this several times. Bright☀ 18:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Every single one of these items is sourced by primary sources, and therefore they are not "unsourced", which means that WP:V does not apply, and your continuing contention that it is has become disruptive. You're even deleting images which SHOW the nude swimming under the pretext that they are not sourced.  I am at the end of my patience with you, the next time you do this wholesale removal, refusing to discuss specific problems -- which I've invited you to do numerous times on this talk page -- I'm taking it directly to AN/I to allow admins to deal with your disruptive behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your deliberate disregard to the RfC (which you were a part of) and policy (which I have linked and quoted) won't bully me into not following them. If you can't follow them on your own accord maybe AN/I can make you follow them. Bright☀ 18:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Article images
Moe Epsilon, if you wish to remove images from the article, as you did here, it is up to you to gain consensus for that removal. Calton, this applies to you also. I agree that the number of images in the article might have been excessive, but there needs to be discussion about which images should be removed and which should remain. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think "nude swimming" is fairly self-explanatory, so we really don't need many images at all. Whatever images we have should be chosen to show different aspects of nude swimming. If people want an image of a healthy young white person swimming nude, that's great, but let's not have another three or four or seven of healthy young white people swimming nude. If we can't find images of older people or people of color or people with disabilities (etc) swimming nude, don't add more young white people. There's no magic quota of images that must be used in this article. The images should work with the text to help the reader understand the subject. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 04:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not suggest that all of the images should be restored. However, I believe that it would be reasonable to restore the image that was captioned "Skinny-dipping in a lake in 1942". It is relevant for showing that nude swimming is not a recent development, and that even women swam naked in the 1940s, which might surprise some people. I also want the image that was captioned "A couple skinny dipping in Formentera, Spain" restored, as it was one of the best-quality images. Additionally, all of the various paintings showing nude swimming should be restored, as they are of artistic value and it is philistine to remove them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * All the paintings should not be restored, at all. First, one of the paintings was a duplicate, so you had the same image in the article twice. Second, you had four sentences of context and eight photographs. It is excessive and unnecessary. We get it, people paint people swimming nude. One or two at most suffice that point. It doesn't help readers understand anything by putting a gallery smack dab in the center of little context. There is a reason why there is a Wikimedia Commons link at the bottom of the article, to link you to more images that are free. With the rest, we can decide which ones deserve the space on the article, which would be the ones with the best quality. There doesn't need the be more images just for the sake of more images, just the best quality ones that represent the topics. The 1942 is very low quality compared to other images, given the topic it was next to. It would also not be appropriate to just decorate the sections on the Victorian/Gregorian eras with images not from that era. If anything, some paintings from that time-frame could be placed in those sections. The Spain image is of high quality and would recommend it for the lead as the current lead image isn't the best example of swimming but rather standing in shallow water. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  09:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , File:Nude girl swiming in lake1942 crop.jpg isn't a picture of a "woman" swimming nude, it's a picture of a child swimming nude. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That is irrelevant to the point I was making, World's Lamest Critic. And Moe Epsilon, if you look again, you will see that none of the paintings was a duplicate. One image was there twice, but that was the cover of a magazine, not a painting. The point about the Spain image involving standing in shallow water is trivial; the couple shown are about to begin swimming, so the image definitely is relevant to the article topic. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought you were making the point that "even women swam naked in the 1940s, which might surprise some people". The image doesn't illustrate that, since it's not a woman. It is a child. As for the Spanish image, we already have one image showing healthy young white people, why do we need two? How does it help the reader? World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, the image shows that even girls swam naked in the 1940s, which might surprise some people. Changing one word of my comment is not a big deal. As for the Spain image, it is higher quality than other images that might appear similar - that's reason enough to include it, if we want a high-quality article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * One image of a woman or child swimming naked in the °1940s does not mean anything other than that one person swam naked that one time that the photo was taken, under circumstances we don't know. If you want to make some point about women (or children) swimming naked in the 1940s, you'll have to find reliable sources that talk about it. Images should support the text of the article. Images are not decoration. If there are many high quality images, you have to choose which ones work best, not include them all. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, ideally some text about nude swimming by girls and women in the 1940s should be added. I was simply observing that the image could be considered to serve a legitimate purpose and is not simply prurient entertainment for the article's viewers. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * FreeKnowledgeCreator, I think you misunderstood my original comment and would take a chance to re-read. I said the Spain image would probably be better for the lead, as the current lead image is mostly people standing in shallow water and not an excellent representation of swimming, since two of the three subjects are not even in water. Anyways, without any additional content added, you're not really giving a solid reason as to why there needs to be seven more images of artistic nude swimming in the art section. Is there something those images illustrate as to explain nude swimming better? As I said, I haven't checked the dates of the corresponding pieces of art, but one or two of them could be placed in the Gregorian/Victorian era sections appropriately dated. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  05:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

We should not have photos of nude "standing around near water" if the article is about nude swimming. The 1942 photo of a girl swimming is perfectly suited to the topic, whereas the ones with people playing or posing near the water are not. Binksternet (talk) 06:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the images were unnecessarily large. I have removed the PX as WP:IMAGESIZE "do not use px without VERY good reason" three times, but the images keep being re-enlarged with edit summaries such as "Don;t be a slave to guideloknes, the previous layout is fa superior" - Others have also reduced the image sizes, but these keep being reinstated. - Arjayay (talk) 09:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Going back to the first paragraph- we seem to have collected a group of deletionist editors who are determined to change the world to fit their own strong views- who are back each other POVs. I have no intention of editing this page until the hiatus has died down and we can restore then improve the article. Until you have persuaded me otherwise, do not claim there is consensus. There was a consensus before this attempt at censorship. Firstly, thank you for constructively fixing the overlarge image problem.

You may think "nude swimming" is fairly self-explanatory but where is the evidence- it is merely a personally conjecture. Having watched the available images for years now, we are limited on what is available, articles do need to be illustrated. It is fair to say that redirecting 'skinny dipping', a vaguely sensual playful term, here makes it far harder write a structured article that is on focus. I suspect WLC is coming at this from a 'Skinny dipping' mind set not a 'nude swimming' mind set. Suggesting that the one image we do have of a human actually swimming should not be included is bizarre.

I always look at the similar articles to see which sections are missing- Process- Methods-Health effects (Physical)(Psychological)-Social factors (Sociology) {Class) (Caste) (Taboos) -Prevalence-History-Society and culture-Legal-Current research-Locations-Famous participants are sections that could and should be written. There is a lot to do here- and going round deleting is not a positive start. ClemRutter (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , First of all, I didn't say that the article should not be illustrated. I said that there were far too many images. Secondly, I did not say that the image of the girl swimming in the 40s could not be used. I was pointing out the obvious problems in FreeKnowledgeCreator's arguments. It is one of the available options to use in this article (but it isn't a "woman" and it doesn't substitute for sourced text). Thirdly, it is too bad that there isn't a more diverse range of images to select from, but that doesn't mean we should add more showing the same thing. Fourthly, your comments are demonstrating the problem here. When the attention dies down, editors will start adding more images and we will end up with the same situation all over again. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid you are missing the point, telling us that unsuitable images are added here might seem like a revelation but if you check the page history you will see images have be added and removed since at least 2006, it is a regular task performed by the content creators. Checking your personal contribution thoughout the 11 months you have been with us- I see you are heavy on contributions to talk pages but haven't yet created any significant content which is a real pity. In the paragraphs above I have suggested sections you could start to add to this article- but it is not really a good one to start on but you could try. Be aware of WP:UNDUE and WP:POV- but generally if you post you suggested edits to the talk page, and leave them there a week to gather opinions, then post your revised ideas onto the main article, it will save a lot of heartache. ClemRutter (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you intended that as helpful advice, but it might be taken as a passive-aggressive attempt to discredit my opinions. The same policies and guidelines apply to all editors, both new and old. Thanks. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I could agree that at least the 40s image is, at the very minimum, about the topic of swimming nude, and could even be featured on the lead even though it's of lower quality. However, looking at the previous images used in the article, the art section is what definitely needed the biggest culling. One image was a duplicate of a Saturday Evening Post image. I kept "Thomas Eakins, The Swimming Hole" because that is a very notable picture of nude swimming and it is a featured article. Of the remaining art photos, "Charles Shannon, The Pursuit - Nudes Swimming (1922)", is the only one that actually featured someone swimming. The rest are just standing around water nude or undressing. Also, like I mentioned before, the world record skinny dip photo is terrible quality. There's hardly any content about it and a slightly reduced image size makes it look like blurs out in a distance in water, so it should go. After that, there's not much remaining other than what I left (even though the lead image is probably the biggest offender of "not swimming"). Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  17:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I reckon the girl in the picture must be about eighty-six now- I wonder if she is interested in editing a few articles. There are multiple issues here as have been discusses above: the US term skinny-dip that has additional nuances, the lack of structure and possible copyvios, and then there are the waves of inappropriate images that we regularly have had to cull. We are limited for choice- and can't just pop down to the local FKK beach to refresh the stock. The group of images we had been displaying has discouraged the insertion of more sexualised ones- and if we cut back I am concerned that the problem could return.


 * I think this is now a matter of process- if potential deletions and additions are signalled here on the talk page, as you have done above (and the fact that this is now on your watchlist) is the right approach. It also sets a local procedure we can stick too to fight off the love-struck tweenies wanting to post their selfies! "We always discuss images on the talk page" is a strong and simple message for the Edit summary.


 * I have turned away from doing a major rewrite- but have left suggestions above- comments welcome. I have other fish to fry at the moment but will join in the discussion if some one is brave enough. In sorting out the mess at High school (North America) I worked up a parallel article in a subpage, then invited comment. I got another editor to do the transfer and sorting out the 12600 wlinks that needed to be changed. It took months to write and many more months to get the agreement.ClemRutter (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am willing to watch the article and make sure inappropriate images that are more sexual in nature are not inserted. I am all for better quality photos, but not if it doesn't have anything to do with the act of swimming. We could also write a disclaimer on the top of the talk page, or a disclaimer when someone edits the article (like the kind you get when editing a protected article), that new photographs or images should be discussed before being inserted into the article. That could also discourage that behavior. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  18:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And for those interested, I will be later posting a sandbox for what images be included and which ones be excluded by making a mock draft of this article with the same content in my userspace. I will be going through the images and trying to include as many as possible without overdoing it so that some images can be restored and images that are less "nude swimming"-related be removed. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  18:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed change at User:Moe Epsilon/sandbox
Pinging those who participated in this thread and/or previously edited about it: User:ClemRutter, User:Calton, User:FreeKnowledgeCreator, User:World&, User:Binksternet, User:Arjayay, User:Power~enwiki. I have made a draft of the article located at User:Moe Epsilon/sandbox which you can see there. I have went through the images closely and from the previous version which contained 15 images, compared to the present protected version which has only four images and I think I have found a happy medium at seven images. It means eight images would be removed. Here are the original fifteen images and their fates in my sandbox proposal:
 * The seven kept images:
 * File:Kids_skinny_dipping_in_India.jpg makes the lead from the previous three pictures on the lead. The lead only needs one image and this would be the better of the remaining options for reasons explained below when I discuss the other two images. Of the three previously featured as well, this one is actually featuring swimming the most prominently.
 * File:Tuke, Henry Scott (1858–1929), Ruby, gold and malachite, 1902.jpg is moved from the old art gallery to the Victorian section. In an effort to keep as many images without clogging the article, I moved this picture to the Victorian section as the artist, Henry Scott Tuke is an English, Victorian-era painter who painted this piece just after the Victorian era ended. The Victorian section previously had no images.
 * File:Swimming hole.jpg is moved from the art section to the section on American experiences. As The Swimming Hole is one of the most famous American paintings of all time, I find it the most appropriate image to place in this section. It would have been the image of the art section had there been a more appropriate image for this section.
 * File:Nude girl swiming in lake1942 crop.jpg was kept in the outdoors section. This is kept only because it is an actual example of nude swimming (outside in a lake, in this case), one of the few many in this article. Not many pictures we have actually depict swimming at all.
 * File:2014 WNBR Brighton beach.jpg is kept, moved from the lead to the section on the naturist movement and contemporary status. Between this and File:Kids_skinny_dipping_in_India.jpg, this was the better image to discuss the 20th/21st century naturist movement, since this image displays people who were previously swimming after a different naturist movement event taking place. The other image wouldn't necessarily fit that criteria and is used in the lead instead.
 * File:The Pursuit - Nudes Swimming by Charles Shannon.jpg is kept as the lead image of the art section, since it is of the few instances of pictures on this article displaying a swimming motion.
 * File:Saturday Evening Post 19 Aug 1911.jpg is barely kept, since both Saturday Evening Post images are discussed in the art section as well, and the content of the article allows an image to be there without it being much of a visual nuisance.
 * The eight removed images:
 * File:FYN 04.jpg, the current, protected, lead image is removed. This is a poor example of nude swimming and is simply a picture of nudity for nudity's sake. Two of the three subjects are close to being in water, but that doesn't really suffice in an article about swimming. The third is in ankle-deep water. It is a good image quality-wise, but it doesn't have a place in context where the other images that did make it filled it's void.
 * File:Saturday Evening Post 19 Aug 1911.jpg was featured twice in the original article for some reason, so it was a removed as a duplicate. The duplicate is also image #7 that did make it on this list.
 * File:1921-6-4 No Swimming - Norman Rockwell.jpg was removed since it is also a Saturday Evening Post image and once instance of any of the photos is all that is needed on two sentences of content.
 * File:Nudists at Formentera beach 0240.jpg is removed from the naturist movement section, which was replaced by File:2014 WNBR Brighton beach.jpg. The latter is of higher quality as a former lead image and probably a better example of swimming between the two. The Formentera Beach photograph features them in ankle-deep water, again, is probably not the best example of swimming to begin with. There was no additional place in the article where it could be used appropriately.
 * File:BW Summer Festival Skinny Dip 2013.jpg is removed as it is a terrible photograph to begin with. The image is mostly sky and water and makes the subjects of the image blurs in thumbnails. For that alone it should be removed, but also because the content this photograph represents is merely two sentences anyways.
 * The remaining three images, File:Une premiere av Anders Zorn 1888.jpg, File:Eugene de Blaas In the water.jpg and File:Paul Fischer Bedende Kvinder (A Morning Dip).jpg are from the old gallery section. All three of them have a similar problem here. The first problem being that there is no space in the article to simply insert them without being with misplaced context. Second, all three are of paintings of people standing in water. If there was a reason to remove them at all it would be that, because it simply doesn't illustrate swimming in any way whatsoever.

If you feel I missed anything or want to suggest a change between them, I am open to looking at it. To me, this is the most optimal look for the article and the best images to match the content without overloading it with pictures. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  05:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. Paintings like File:Swimming hole.jpg which have verifiable, in-depth secondary (and tertiary) sources that explain their significance should certainly be kept. Less pertinent examples, like File:Tuke, Henry Scott (1858–1929), Ruby, gold and malachite, 1902.jpg can be kept as long as they accompany a relevant section of prose that describes or relates to them. And the list of examples from the in-popular-culture section should be removed as it remained unsourced or poorly-sourced for several years, and frankly a month's heads-up is more than enough to merit removing them (policy merits removing them without a heads-up). The exception is the world record whose significance in relation to the article is actually explained in the provided source. Bright☀ 07:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The content dispute over the IPC section should probably not leak into this discussion which is solely about images. However, with that said, if the section does ultimately end up removed, the two images I have in my sandbox would not have any real purpose or content to accompany it and be removed. That should be discussed separately though. An image about the world record isn't totally out of the question, but the image/content we have isn't particularly good as is. If there was more content, and the image was cropped in a manner that is appropriate, then it would be a different story. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  08:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. Thank you for examining this question in such a reasoned manner. William Avery (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. I have read through the reasoning, and it makes sense. I started to scan the text which I still find lacking and came across the reference to Benjamin Franklin having a copy of the Art of Swimming so I downloaded it is wonderfully quaint and has 40 potential images- also quaint.Commons:Category:The Art of Swimming 1789 I will put them onto commons later this week. Which do you consider is the most suitable plate?


 * I am also irritated by the lack of referencess in the filmography. References need to be added as and when they are found to take this to a FA, but it is not exceptional to see lists such as this even in some GAs. It is a useful list however.


 * The captions of two images need to be changed- the colloquialism Skinny dip was first recorded in 1947, so our eighty-six year old was just swimming, and Brighton Beach is in the UK, where 'skinny dipping' needs to be in quotes.  ClemRutter (talk) 08:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me know once you upload them to the Commons and I'll be able to look at them easier (I'm having technical issues outside Wikipedia this moment to look closer at the link). Personally, I would like the IPC section be turned into prose if possible, but I am focused on other article topics to dedicate myself to it. I feel like you or other editors might be more versed in knowing where and how to look for references to this topic. Thank you for the suggestion and let me know if there are any better captions to add, since I used the previous captions of the old revision. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  08:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Done Commons:Category:The Art of Swimming 1789. Watch out for some woodcuts in Commons:Category:The Art of Swimming 1587, which is the earliest known English Language treatise. I have subsequently changed my objection to the use 'Skinny dip' on reading some of these texts- dipping has been used for centuries, referring to the practice of entering the water for health (immersing or being static),as distinct to propelling yourself forward for fun or exercise. We also have to accommodate the CCBN increasingly popular Great British Skinny Dip Channel 4 GBSD and the research they have amassed. ClemRutter (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - although I would ask for consensus that the agreed images are not to be enlarged. Thanks to Moe Epsilon for providing such a detailed explanation of your reasons for including/excluding each image. - Arjayay (talk) 08:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Arjayay and thank you for your comments. I hope the images in my sandbox are appropriately sized. I am a bit of an old hand when it comes to images and used PX before the protection (I only recently even learned of 'upright'). I'm not sure if consensus is needed for that kind of thing as long as there is a firm manual of style for it. I feel like images were enlarged for not so innocent reasons. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  09:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, as I explained above, certain editors repeatedly ignore WP:IMAGESIZE, whilst the guideline has a get-out clause "Except with very good reason, do not use " leading to arguments like "it is only a guideline" and the enlarged layout "is superior" as a "good reason"- hence my request for consensus. Arjayay (talk) 09:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no merit to the idea that one editor can enforce their own version unless there's local consensus against it... the default position is the one supported by the broader consensus, which is reflected in the guidelines, or RfC, or policy. Bright☀ 11:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. Default, scalable image sizes ought to be used rather than hard-coded larger sizes. Binksternet (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support and thank you Moe Epsilon for tackling this. The article is much improved by your judicious use of images. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Done Since there has been a lack of comments recently and no opposition to this proposal, I have went ahead and completed the change., your reference changes at my sandbox were never implemented by me since you've been working on the article recently, so here is the permanent link to your changes in case you want them back. I'll go ahead and give the other pictures you uploaded a look soon. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  22:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks- I have copied the changes over. As you can see I in the process of restructuring the text.--ClemRutter (talk) 23:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Most of the changes are now in place, you may like to look again at the image placements as both Eakins and Tuke have got explicit mentions in the art section. I can't see how we can justify Shannon now as he is not mentioned in the text at that place. I am limited in my selection of Art books- so art historians may want to add pre 1850s artists into the text. ClemRutter (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Parking a reference

 * Mixed changing roomClemRutter (talk) 14:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)