Wikipedia

Talk:Bikini/Archive 4

< Talk:Bikini
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Kdammers in topic What about the men?
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Recent changes

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

The bikini tan section was removed, and I restored it. The bikini tan is valid, common and established concept. I see no reason for its removal. If anyone finds a reason, please, discuss. If that reason is valid, it may be removed again. Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I also reduced the number of images in the history section. It is strongly recommended that images without a very specific documentary value are not put into the article. I tried one image per section, except for the section that deal with types of bikinis. Please, explain why the removed images need to be in the article. Remember, this article is always in danger of becoming a picture album instead of an encyclopedia entry. If needed I can always get more neutral editors of high repute involved in the decision making process. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The images you deleted are more appropriate to the article than the ones you left in. For example, an image of a two-piece swimsuit of the 1930s is more appropriate in a precursor section than a one-piece. Similarly, an image of Italian swimsuits in 1948 is important and relevant because it shows the "conservative" bikini style (ie with the navel covered) which persisted even after the briefer "bikini" came on the market. Enthusiast (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I made a few changes. I restored the "In antiquity" section removed without an explanation. I also re-shifted the "Continued controversies" section to the History of the bikini article, in accordance to WP:SUMMARY (too much detail to have in this article. I also tried to keep the use of images to highest relevance, keeping in mind that this is an easy article to degenerate into a picture album from an encyclopedic entry. If the editor(s) who made those changes have their rationale that can be stated, I invite them to post here before they revert. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I also have made use of horizontal images only for a synergistic layout. Unless they fail to illustrate the variants adequately, I don't think they need to be replaced with vertical images. Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I am restoring the changes made by Aditya for the following reasons. (1) The Antiquity material is purely historic and is already in the History of the bikini article. It has no relevance to the modern bikini, other than perhaps as trivia. (2) The "Continued controversies" section that was deleted relates to the current attitudes to and views of the bikini or to the most recent controversies. They are not of historic interest, but raise contemporary issues. (3) Relevant images have been removed and irrelevant once brought back in. For example Annette Kellerman's one piece is a swimsuit which has nothing to do with a bikini; otherwise why not discuss the history of swimsuits and perhaps obscenity laws? Also, why change the example of a monokini? Why do all other images of bikini styles use forward shots, while the restored monokini image is a back shot? Is there some agenda behind the choice? The tankini image that was replaced was a closer shot than the one restored. Enthusiast (talk) 06:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Good points there. But...
1. The history section is supposed to have "purely historic stuff", and not "current attitudes", especially if the information representing current attitudes is quite trivial. A major archaeological breakthrough is not trivial, a college banning a jelly wrestling is. If the something is "not of historic interest", it doesn't belong in the history section here, especially because this mother article must carry only a WP:SUMMARY of the history. Further information should go into the History of the bikini article. That is the way Wikipedia works. Slanting a subject with a long history towards minor recent events is called WP:RECENTISM here, and is to be avoided.
 
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Bikini.
2. Kellerman's one piece is another major event and a significant milestone in the evolution of the bikini from elaborate swimsuits, while the "Italian women" image and the Jane Wyman image have no particular historical significance. They are two of many images that can represent this part of the evolution or that, and as such they belong to the commons with a little box leading to further images (shown at right). We need to avoid over-use of images as prescribed by WP:IDD, and therefore we can't start incorporating randomly picked images from a long line of images to represent every point in the evolution of a certain garment.
3. This not an article about the navel or navel exposure, though the navel plays some part in the history of the bikini. WP:BALASPS specifically prohibits undue emphasis of any part of a subject, and, by WP:UNDUE, that includes images, captions and the see also section as well as the body of text.
4. Ironically, if you are looking for "some agenda behind the choice" of the monokini image, check MOS:IMAGES#Offensive images. Clearly, if another good quality image can deliver the same information, you need to choose against the image that can offend. Titillation is not an encyclopedic approach.
I am sure we can agree that accepted Wikipedia policies and guidelines are to be maintained. I am reverting back your good faith edit. Please, discuss and try to reach a consensus before you revert it back. I will be happy to involve other experienced editors with a good standing to reach consensus if you want. This is not an insurmountable disagreement. Aditya(talk • contribs) 16:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Commons have some good diagrams of waxing styles. Highly usable. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

And I just removed this, along with the detailed descriptions of waxing and shaving. The article is about clothing, not hair removal. Keep it focused.
Peter Isotalo 00:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Edits to Bikini tan

Latest comment: 9 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion

BASF's bikini was a failed prototype. Day-Glo was not used. Sunblock factor was not variable. Sanctuary's polymer was not used for bikinis. 1991 invention was not cited in 1983 book. So, the final paragraph was almost entirely incorrect. Let's improve a Good Article by leaving out the bogus info! —Patrug (talk) 06:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Also: The 2009 product was a trivial variation of the 1969 innovation. UVC radiation doesn't reach the earth's surface. 1993–2008 medical references are superseded by 2011–2015. Hope this helps. —Patrug (talk) 06:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The article have them adequately cited and sourced. Do you have any source that supports your claims? If not, then the information shouldn't be removed without another valid argument. Aditya(talk • contribs) 07:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
My claims come directly from your citations. I think you misunderstood the descriptions in the sources. If you take a more careful look, you'll see what I mean. (Then if any of my specific edits are still puzzling you, just let me know here in detail and I'll clarify the science further if necessary.) —Patrug (talk) 07:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The source doesn't say the BASF prototype was a failure. Or may be I can't find where it does. Aditya(talk • contribs) 07:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The Telegraph article said the fabric's commercial use was for "solar resistant trousers and shirts ... for hikers and trekkers." In 2003 the company had just "prototypes of swimsuits and bikinis," and in 2015 there's still no sign of these becoming commercial products. Think about it: A sun-protective bikini would create more-extreme tan lines, which is the exact opposite of what most people want, so it's unlikely this would ever become a commercial success.
Similarly, the Sanctuary Fabric polymer "feels like a plastic tarp," which is why it was used for "hat brims." The marketing director said "the real advantage would be to turn it into swimsuit material," effectively admitting that the company wasn't able to do this. If we ever find a reliable source that reports it succeeding, then we can put the info into the article; but on Wikipedia we're supposed to avoid speculating about hypothetical future products. —Patrug (talk) 09:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
It still isn't out in the market, aye? Good point. We sure it is not out in the market? Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
As far as I've seen, even in 2015, commercial tan-through swimwear all seems to be based on the 1969 "micro pore" innovation. (I certainly don't know anybody who wants to swim wearing a plastic tarp!) —Patrug (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The tarp discussion is irrelevant. You have already managed to prove your point on the Sanctuary prototype. My question is about the BASF prototype. Do you have any support for your claim that it still is not out in the market? Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
A quick google search ("titanium dioxide" bikini) turns up nothing since the 2003 prototype, and my previous observation is confirmed by an expert blog from 2012: "Sun protective clothing is made with specialized fabrics that prevent UV from passing though the weave and designed to provide as much skin coverage as possible... Most warm weather clothing – sleeveless blouses, backless sun-dresses, shorts, bikinis, t-shirts are clearly not designed for sun protection." Of course, I can't prove a negative – but for Wikipedia, the burden is in the other direction. We're not supposed to list commercial products without reliable evidence verifying their existence and notability.
I kept the BASF prototype information (corrected) in the "High-tech bikinis" box of the Bikini variants article, which seems to be the appropriate place for such prototypes. I also added an archival ref for a 1969 deadlink about tan-through swimwear. —Patrug (talk) 10:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Bikini. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Current lede image seems a bit sleazy

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Not gonna change it without consensus, but is that lead image REALLY the best lead image? You can barely see the bikini in it, it's so tiny. It seems to be more the sort of picture that a sex-starved drooling teenage boy would choose for personal pleasure, than a serious encyclopaedic image. Personally, I thought the original lede image was far better - it's far more realistic and representative, and definitely less blatantly exploitative. Mabalu (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Lifeguards

Latest comment: 7 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

Peter, you keep removing a higher quality photograph for a lower quality one, claiming the latter is more neutral, which I think just means you prefer it. But the former is a perfectly valid image of bikinis; it's just not sexual in any way. And you're moving the New Jersey image into "Outside the Western world." SarahSV (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

 
Previous lead image
I'm really curious to know why a photo of a young woman wearing a bikini at the beach is considered inappropriate for the lead. It seems like a pretty rare example of an image that actually shows a fairly normal bikini in a setting where bikinis are actually used by most people. It doesn't strike me as sexualized or objectifying, it shows activity and the person in the image seems to actually be someone who isn't 100% white (which is the norm otherwise).
Peter Isotalo 16:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The woman is a model (this seems to be her too), photographed by a professional photographer, advertising a named bikini brand. The lifeboat image is of ordinary women, but because you kept removing it, I swapped it for an image of bikinis in a store window. The article is about an item of clothing, not about women's bodies. SarahSV (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
You have to look pretty damned hard to actually find that named brand, btw, or that it was taken by a professional photographer. I'm focusing on the image itself, btw, not its meta-context. I'm not sure why you consider participants in the 2013 Longport Lifeguard Races to be more "ordinary" in this case. Having a lead image without an actual person wearing a bikini is a perfectly valid option, but I don't see why the fairly crappy store window photo is a good alternative. Multiple images or a collage seems like it would be a better solution.
I might be off here, but the previous lead image doesn't exactly scream "bikni model", especially when compared to almost every other photo in the article. I'm thinking in particular of the salacious gallery under "Major variants" with its photos of utterly obscure and borderline irrelevant "-kinis".
Peter Isotalo 17:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
How about moving the historical photo of the first modern bikini to the lead? It's probably the most definitive picture of the item in the article. --GRuban (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Peter, she is a model being photographed by a professional photographer to sell bikinis. She is posing. Another one here. An odd choice if your aim is to focus on clothing and stop focusing on bodies. I agree about the gallery. It should go. SarahSV (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm talking about the attributes of one specific image, not the specifics of its background or whatever. I'm generally in favor of illustrating garments that are worn by actual people and I simply don't see any obvious objectification in this particular example. Call my choices however odd you want, but I don't see any usefulness in criticizing images like this based on the existence of completely different images.
Peter Isotalo 21:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I preferred the long-standing lead image as well. Like SlimVirgin, I'm female, but I saw nothing objectifying about its inclusion. That stated, I am fine with this current lead image. I would have objected to the lifeguards one as a poor representation of the topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
On a side note: SlimVirgin, those additional pictures don't look like her to me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
But going by the flickr.com account, it's her. Lighting and hairstyle really make all the difference; can really make a person look different from photo to photo. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Nah, the flickr.com account has different images of women on it, so I'm still skeptical that the two images SlimVirgin provided above are of the same person in the long-standing lead image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I struck through part of my above post because it seems I went to a different account. This picture looks like her. And this maybe looks like her. The others, where is she is wearing shades, confuse me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Who cares if this is model, or if it was taken by a professional photographer? It certainly doesn't clash with any guidelines. If the image doesn't have visual attributes that are problematic, then delving into its background is pure trivia. It's a form of scrutiny that has no substantial relevance to article content based on an unreasonable bias against a certain category of content creators.
Peter Isotalo 10:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
And I never stated that I care. I commented on it because it was already mentioned in this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Bikini variants

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I don't think you can underplay tankinis and monokinis in a section about bikini variants. Too much of that decisions comes from "eye candy" and not enough from mainstream and/or academic sources. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Do we get to discuss changes made to this section? Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I actually looked through some of the sources used for the gallery.[1] Calling references to The Daily Telegraph and People "mainstream and/or academic sources" is absurd. Most of the sources have been used to cobble trivia and random facts together. The most egregious misuse of sources is to establish notability through dictionary definitions and academic works on linguistics like Studies in Etymology and Etiology (With Emphasis on Germanic, Jewish, Romance, and Slavic Languages). Just about everything is a hodge-podge of articles from newspapers, tabloids or gossip magazines. The research here seems to have been limited to googling "bikini" and using whatever has popped up.
One or two additional images of more common variants of bikinis seems perfectly fine, but the information that was attached to the gallery was sub-par. I'm
Peter Isotalo 17:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Both The Telegraph and The People are very mainstream publications. Both has won multiple prestigious awards for fine journalism. What is your complaint against them? Also, you can't discard academic evidence on the basis of argument like "it discusses German etc. more than English". Besides, Sub-par doesn't justify removal. Wikipedia policy is to WP:PRESERVE and WP:IMPROVE. If you want we can work without the "eye candy", which seems to be your real concern your real concern. Otherwise your argument in the four discussions above does not seem to hold against Wikipedia policies, traditions and spirit. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Pubic hair removal

Latest comment: 7 years ago19 comments4 people in discussion

Detailed information about bikini waxing in this article is highly questionable. A brief mention of the phenomenon may be warranted, but extensive information, along with illustrations of actual pubic hair styles is clearly WP:UNDUE. Pubic hair removal is about specific ideals related to women's bodies which is a separate topic.

The issue of women's pubic hair removal is not even specifically tied to just bikinis, but any similarly designed swimsuit bottoms and underwear in general. It's not much more relevant here than in any article on women's garments. It's pretty much the equivalent of expounding on topics like whale tail or camel toe.

Peter Isotalo 08:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Popularity of bikini waxing comes from popularity of bikinis (Dr. Ruth Nemzoff and Ellen Offner, "Vagina dialogue", Starts at 60.com), their stylistic variations resulted from bikini styles (Jennifer Keishin Armstrong, Heather Wood Rudúlph, Sexy Feminism: A Girl's Guide to Love, Success, and Style, pages 19-20, and the bikini industry is a driver of the waxing industry (Hannah Betts, "The bikini is 70 years old today - so why is it still one of the hardest items to buy?, The Telegraph). Impact of the garment on society, body hair, culture etc. do not seem to be WP:UNDUE at all.
Please, let's solve this by discussion, and not a petite guerre over reverts. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Removal of pubic hair itself is relevant to bikini designs, but individual styles are clearly not since they aren't visible other than if the crotch is actually bare. Clothing like this is specifically designed to... well... not display the genitals. Including detailed content about bare genitals here does not make any sense. Readers who wish to read detailed information about pubic hair removal are not going to look for it in an article about a garment. And they are definitely going to look here for illustrations of female genitalia.
As for the sources, the first is specifically not about bikinis (rhe title is "Vagina dialogue" for crying out loud) and the second only mentions waxing once in passing. You're the one insisting that it should be expanded on here, not the refs.
Peter Isotalo 15:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately the first ref is about waxing, and bikini waxing is about vaginas. The second one has three pages of discourse, not a passing mention. But, that's beside the point. The point is that on Wikipedia you are supposed to WP:PRESERVE information, not remove information if possible. It is an encyclopedia and it needs to be WP:COMPREHENSIVE (see also: WP:FA?). If bikini styles are influencing waxing styles, then they need to be here. Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
There's no indication that pubic hair styles or naked female genitals are directly relevant to this topic. It's as irrelevant as expounding on human penis size in articles about underwear or types of pants worn mostly by men.
Peter Isotalo 10:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Naked female genitals? Just curious. Aditya(talk • contribs)juju 12:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
"Bare", then.
Peter Isotalo 14:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

A section on bikini waxing clearly belongs in an article titled "Bikini." As for how much should be in the section, the section should comply with WP:Summary style. It should be an adequate summary of the Bikini waxing article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Shall we seek outside opinion then? PI seem to be coming a bit too strong here, while F22R and I are looking very much like subversive associates. Also there is a clear divide, where both parties unwilling to shift positions. Surely a case for outside opinions. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
That we currently have a section called "Bikini waxing" doesn't mean the article is improved by a lengthy summary of that article. The issue of pubic hair removal is one of several forms of feminine body ideals related to this particular garment. That's the only reason why it's relevant here. These issues should be described together rather than as separate sub-topics in WP:COATRACK fashion.
Peter Isotalo 06:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm sympathetic to what PI is trying to do but I think that his perspective on the reason for pubic hair removal seems to be ideological and not based on sources. One could point out that men typically wouldn't want their pubic hair to be visible either. I think you should go with common sense, consensus in light of F22's opinion, and the sources, and include a summary style section on waxing, perhaps without illustrations. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Not sure how ideology comes in here. This is an article about clothing, not genitals. There isn't any connection made between, for example, various styles of bikinis and completely hairless crotches. And this has nothing to with the fact that it's a garment worn primarily by women. Similar information in an article about men's swimwear or underwear would be equally irrelevant.
I hate to be blunt here, but both you and Aditya seem inappropriately preoccupied with women's bare crotches.
Peter Isotalo 17:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I really am not. I only came here because of the discussion on GGTF which I regret being involved in. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, well you're not doing anyone any favors by spreading the ideological issue to article talk.
Peter Isotalo 17:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, really. It's also only fair to Aditya that he or she understand the context. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I've been editing this and other clothing-related articles long before you got whiff of it. You seem to be commenting here with the intent to spread the GGTF-related ideological bickering here.
Peter Isotalo 07:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Now you are angry. By the way, I had figured out the context already. Though I didn't know that it had such a discussion. Anyways, even a "remove all images unclothed women" approach can not hold. Because, it had only diagrams, not really unclothed women. We can take this to the community, of which S39 is also a part. Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Peter, I came here from a link you provided, in a discussion you started, in a forum meant to draw community attention to an issue. I have told you I regret the ideological bickering, but if it spreads here, I don't think it's reasonable of you to blame me. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I did no such thing. I have discussed article content issues here and I tried to do so at GGTF. You are the one who brought up the issue of ideology at GGTF and now you're trying to do the same thing here.
Peter Isotalo 06:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Recent cutting of the lead

Latest comment: 7 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

SlimVirgin, regarding this, I don't think the slimmed down version is a better lead. This is a big article, and the former lead summarized the most important aspects well. Furthermore, as has been a matter of dispute at this article before (see Talk:Bikini/Archive 2#Men's bikinis), the term bikini can also refer to a man's swimsuit, which is why the word usually was there in the lead sentence, and a hidden note that I created stated the following: NOTE: The term "usually" is used because "bikini" can also refer to a man's swimsuit."

It's also why the following was included later in the lead: "A man's brief swimsuit may also be referred to as a bikini." The "Bikini underwear" section discusses men's wear in addition to women's wear, and there is a Men's bikini section right after that. So to not state anything about men's wear in the lead seems off.

Sure, Aditya Kabir added a lot to the article, but it's a topic that covers a lot, and Aditya Kabir did a nice job bringing the article to WP:GA status. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22, please feel free to restore any text you think should have remained. SarahSV (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The lead needs to be short. What do you want to add back? Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Aditya, the lead needs to adequately summarize the article; right now, I think it's somewhat lacking in that regard. Look at the size of this article. Look at what WP:Lead states. I think a little more of the history and controversy aspect should be re-added. And I've already noted I think that the fact that the term bikini can also refer to certain men's swimwear should be re-added since this is covered lower in the article (in the "Bikini underwear" and "Men's bikini" sections); the lead currently makes the bikini a woman-only matter when it isn't. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
The distinction between swim briefs and "men's bikinis" seems to be quite arbitrary. Even the article content clearly states that it's a matter of using "bikini" as a synonym for briefs in certain contexts. The other aspect is all about the relatively few cases of men wearing full bikinis as a form of cross-dressing, primarily for entertainment purposes. In my view, this info belongs under a heading related to gender roles, not simply "men".
Peter Isotalo 10:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I also could not find anything that shows "men's bikini" to be an established concept. Looks rather like a WP:FRINGE. While it is importantr enough to be in to article, it is probably not important enough to be in the lead. Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
If we have sections in the article noting that types of men's swimwear may be considered a bikini, based on sources like this one, which clearly states, "a : a woman's scanty two-piece bathing suit b : a man's brief swimsuit as applied to men," which we indeed do, then there should be something mentioned about it in the lead. And the lead was quite fine that way. This heading change, which I reverted, is not an improvement since "Use by men" is vague considering that the lead currently states nothing about what this "use" is. It's not men using women's bikinis; it's men wearing swimwear that may be referred to as a bikini or a mankini. Either way, I am not going to fight over this. I made a note on what I believe to be the better lead, and I was clear that it's not solely a matter of the male bikini thing. If other editors are fine with the current lead, so be it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster is generally considered a pretty reliable source. --GRuban (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Support enough, I believe. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
That's the source that was used in the previous lead for that information; that's why I mentioned it above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Graham11, regarding this tag you added, what parts of the lead contain information that is not included elsewhere in the article? Or did you rather mean to add a tag requesting that the lead be expanded? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't seen this discussion until now. But I added it in particular because of the phrase "The Vatican declared it sinful." While the body mentions Pope Pius XII's condemnation of Kiki Håkansson, it doesn't discuss any kind of blanket statement being made by the Vatican about the sinfulness of bikinis. Graham (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

"Full Pelvic" - etc

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've reverted the edit back to the more simplistic definition. I've also removed the reference for several reasons:

  1. a reference isn't required for the lede, as it's a summary of the article proper and anything that exists in the lede must by definition be clarified and sourced in the rest of the article.
  2. as an extension of the above - the rest of the article makes it very clear that the definition of "bikini" is broad, and that "full pelvic" coverage does not exclude a garment from being a bikini - indeed the very source that is being used here includes several pictures of high-waisted bikinis that do cover the pelvis in entirety. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I obviously agree. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bikini. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Good article?

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

How is this still classified as a good article if there is a notice on top regarding the lead section needing improvement? Tinton5 (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Tinton5, because the lead was recently cut; see Talk:Bikini/Archive 4#Recent cutting of the lead. I'm going to go ahead and restore that lead, which is what I was about to do before reading your comment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
A seen with this edit (followup edit here), I restored the previous lead. If someone wants to change the definition back to what it was before I restored the lead, feel free. I removed the "The Vatican declared the design sinful." part from the lead because, as noted in the aforementioned linked discussion, the tag was added because of that part...not because the lead had been drastically cut. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Bikini. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bikini. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bikini. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used in this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The file Tan lines .jpg on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for speedy deletion. View the deletion reason at the Commons file description page. Community Tech bot (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Project removal

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The following projects have been remvoed by the same editor, and reinstated by me. Why should they be remvoed - they seem valid, and the only justification so far is an edit summary of "Bikinis are sometimes worn by preteens" which is utterly irrelevant to the topic. An obvious response is - why does this justify removal from the projects?

{{WikiProject Nudity|class=GA|importance=low}} {{WikiProject Sexuality|class=GA|importance=mid}}

I'll not be reverting again in order to avoid editwarring, but I see no reason for the removal so far. Repeated removal would be disruptive. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

It's been a week with no input from the removing editor(s) - two different IP addresses, but almost certainly the same person. I give fair warning that reversion without rationale and while discussion is ongoing is pretty much tantamount to disruptive editing, and I'll be going straight to ARV and RPP with it.
If you have a valid and sensible reason for your dissent by all means make it here, but remember WP:BRD and that you don't get to keep your altered version while we discuss the merits of it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Woman on skateboards in bikinis

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I was viewing Pinterest, Shutterstock, and Google and other social media sites and saw a lot social media snaps/videos of various women riding skateboards in their bikinis. Considering that we have mentioned surfing in a bikini, I was thinking of showcasing other sports as well because it would be great to promote the article from a good article to a featured article. I am not a skateboarder myself, but a lot of my friends used to be, so hence why I have some decent knowledge on that subject and want to contribute to spruce the article up with some updated information as a lot of them seem outdated to standards. Hope that is ok :). I always want to ask before commmencing action. Trying this new BDR method. If its a problem, please let me know but I like to do my part to help out. Majority of images have not been replaced --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 03:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

James Mellaart on bikinis in ancient Anatolia

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If I read reference 8 (Agrawala, P.K. (1983)) correctly, Mellaart is actually talking about the site Hacilar, not Çatalhöyük. 37.138.65.238 (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Too many images

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

There are around 43 images in this article at the moment. I think it can be just as well represented with less. Do others have an opinion?

Hmmmm...pictures make the article better so no... Elmortisproe (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I see a few too many images here. And by a few too many, I mean the amount of images should probably be halved. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 10:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I totally agree. Too many images. :| MemeMan2022 (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. Meters (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Number of images of "person wearing a bikini"

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is already an image captioned "A woman wearing a purple bikini at the beach" near the top of the article. What benefit does adding a similar image captioned "American fitness model Jennifer Nicole Lee in red bikini" have? Useight (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Removed. Meters (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Australian invented bikini 3 years before 1946

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Australian Paula Stafford designed and released the bikini in 1943 at the Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia. This is 3 years before Jacques Heim released his design in France. See [1] Ptilinopus (talk) 09:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

It's kind of a problem that there seem to be no photos or documentation of these pieces prior to the 1950s, and at least one museum says she introduced it in 1952 [2]. What it looks like is that someone got their years mixed up (1943 is when Paula Stafford married and moved to the Gold Coast) and everyone else ran with it - the 1943 claims all seem to have instantly popped up at the same time as her death and are mainly reported in obituaries and death announcements. I had a search through Trove and Paula Stafford doesn't appear until the 1950s - it seems improbable that she wouldn't have hit headlines sooner if she had been making bikinis in the 1940s, especially given that "Sex Sells" and there is no way the press wouldn't have reported on anything so scandalous. I also looked up bikinis on Trove and the only articles from the 40s are about the Paris and American designs, no mention of anyone doing any in Australia. At the end of the day, given how much has been written about the bikini and how much scrutiny it has received, really, it's extremely unlikely that Paula Stafford, who had been giving interviews and talks and talking about bikinis since the 1950s, and was so famous for being a bikini designer, wouldn't have had her alleged 1943 innovation come to light LONG before now. It's clearly a major misreporting that nobody fact-checked. Mabalu (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

What about the postcard that inspired Arthur Kniebler to create men’s briefs in 1935? It featured a French man in a bikini brief style bathing suit, supposedly Blu Moon (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.9news.com.au/national/australias-inventor-of-the-bikini-paula-stafford-dies-aged-102/fb261d90-958b-4a38-a809-3406ac1aabeb

Annette Kellermann arrest

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The present article states "In 1907, Australian swimmer and performer Annette Kellermann was arrested on a Boston beach for wearing form-fitting sleeveless one-piece knitted swimming tights that covered her from neck to toe, a costume she adopted from England,". In fact, no such arrest took place. There are no contemporary news reports of it or police records corroborating the event. Kellermann herself did not tell the story until the 1920s. Many accounts give a different location (such as New Jersey) or different dates. Several histories of bathing suits agree that the story (even though attested to by Kellermann herself) is not true. I agree -- I researched this for my book Lost Wonderland, which covers Kellermann's visit to Revere (which took place in 1908, not 1907). -- Stephen R. Wilk Stephen Wilk (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

What about the men?

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"Meanwhile, the bikini had become the most popular beachwear around the globe." I assume this should read "... the most popular woman's beachwear ...." And I wonder if it is even correct for women, considering the beachwear in India, the Koreas, Iran, and the many women and girls in Western countries who wear one-piece swimsuits. Kdammers (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bikini/Archive_4&oldid=1151613319"