Talk:History of the bikini

Title of article

This is an interesting article but I find the present title rather strange. In its present form, it would seem to refer to the history of the island (Bikini Atoll) rather than to the article of clothing. I would suggest History of the bikini would be more correct and less confusing. Perhaps you could just move it. - Ipigott (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Done in a jiffy. In fact you could do it yourself fine. :) Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

As to the title, I propose that the name of the article be changed to "History of swimwear", as it covers and could cover more than history of bikini. Enthusiast (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Ewawer (Enthusiast), as has been stated to you before, you should be more careful with article moves. Wikipedia:Requested moves has a requirement that potentially controversial moves should be discussed through the Wikipedia:Requested moves process; it states, "Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested." So suggesting an article move on the talk page and then moving the article without discussion, as you did in this case, is commonly not the best route to take. While the term bikini is modern, various ancient swimsuits are also referred to as "bikinis." Furthermore, this article is almost exclusively about women and bikinis, which makes one wonder why a History of swimwear article does not cover men/men's swimwear. With a History of the bikini article, at least it's understandable why the article only or mostly covers women, considering that the term bikini usually refers to a girl's or woman's swimsuit.

WP:Pinging Ipigott and Aditya Kabir, who began this discussion years ago. Flyer22 (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I am currently away from my base and have not been able to make the changes you mention above. By next week I will have access to my computer. Enthusiast (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not just about expanding the article to be more inclusive of men's swimwear or whatever else; it's about discussing whether or not expanding the scope of this article is what is best. Why not just have this article remain an article that is about the history of the bikini, and let the Swimsuit article cover the more general history, as has been the case? Flyer22 (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Because there was as much material on the so-called precursors to the bikini as there was on the bikini itself. If you are going to have a mention of the pre-bikini, I think you should be comprehensive - hence expanding to cover all swimwear. At the moment the history materials are scattered over a few articles, which leads to some inconsistencies. Enthusiast (talk) 02:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

This goes back to my statement that "While the term bikini is modern, various ancient swimsuits are also referred to as 'bikinis.' Furthermore, this article is almost exclusively about women and bikinis." Also, "precursor content" is common in Wikipedia articles; often, this content is the History section. It's common that our article titles are not reflective of everything that is in the articles. Because of this, I don't see a problem with the title you changed it away from. But I'm not going to press this issue. In the future, I hope that you are more willing to discuss potentially contested article moves before moving the articles. Cases like these are why the discussions should happen first. Flyer22 (talk) 02:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Jaynemansfield4.jpg

The image File:Jaynemansfield4.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:MichelineBernardini.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

A problem with content forking. Getting there, along with other NFCC. Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Non-free images

This article uses way too many of them. Will the primary author remove all but those s/he deems most important? Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that only the most important bikini moments have been supported by images, free or otherwise, along with ample critical commentary and context. If they seem way too many, then I would really like to have a few suggestions on how to go about reducing the number of non-free images. Compromises are always possible. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Currently 5 non-free images are being used out of a total of 17. Is that way too much? Please, can someone comment non that? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too concerned about this at GA-level.Pyrotec (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

1947 U.S. image

See File:FourFavorites3101.jpg... AnonMoos (talk) 11:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Now I see the point. But, seemingly these are not bikinis as such. In the early times of the modern bikini, the cut of the garment made it different from similar pre-bikini two-piece swimwear. That's exactly why a visual depiction is so important. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I understand -- the bikinis on the comic-book cover are plenty revealing by the standards of 1947 (strapless etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

How so?

According to this edit, the statement that "Bollywood actress Sharmila Tagore struck a memorable moment in 1967 when she appeared in a bikini in An Evening in Paris" is a POV statement. Can that accusation be clarified, please? Otherwise there may be no reason to keep that inline tag. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"Memorable" is a value judgment, and we don't accept value judgments made by our editors, it has to come from a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Value judgement? Doesn't "every adjective" in English dictionary fall into that trap? I believe Wikipedia is full of adjectives, more so in featured articles. Supporting every adjective with a reliable source source would be, I guess, a bit extreme. "Memorable" is not value judgement. "The most memorable" would have been that, and POV too. That surely would have required a citation. Or would you prefer to have a more bland adjective, like "significant"? That again calls for replacing most adjectives with something similar, and would be extreme again. "Memorable" is an English word that signifies something that has been significantly remembered over time, and that is perfectly supported by cited reliable sources. It indeed is remembered by mainstream academia and media through time, even if we count out popular remembrance. We do accept valid adjectives by any editor, and we definitely don't go slapping tags on every adjective, especially if they make good sense and are properly cited. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I prefer that you follow WIkipedia policy and provide a citation to support a value judgment laden statement, or even that the event took place. Please re-read WP:V and WP:NPOV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, no, I prefer that you keep your preference to you and go by WP:BEHAVE. We work towards a WP:Consensus through discussion, and not citing policies unnecessarily (sorry, if this reads rude, but I surely resent the tone of this discussion). Now with that put aside (assuming that both of us know our core policies, in spirit as much in letters), I believe the the problem here is one single word - "memorable" (correct me if I'm wrong). According to the Webster's Dictionary,^reference it means "worth remembering" or "notable". According to Oxford English Dictionary,^Reference it means "special", "good" or "unusual", therefore "worth remembering" or "easy to remember". With mainstream media and academia referring to the event as a shock, a trendsetter, and a defining point for femininity in Indian films, the most powerful cultural vehicle to the second largest nation on earth, and it's continued reference, do make it "notable", "unusual" and "easy to remember".

I wouldn't mind another word used here, or may be the sentence re-written while preserving the spirit. Please, go ahead. But, that definitely is a matter of WP:MoS, not WP:POV. Alternatively, suggestions can be put forward, and a better word or sentence can be reached that way. I would have made the change already, but I sincerely don't know what would satisfy here. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Aditya, in many points this article parrots the enthusiastic tone of the references it uses, and this is simply not acceptable. We should use sources to draw facts, and a minimum of critical judgment is necessary to identify where a non-encyclopedic tone is being imported. This is what seems to be happening with this passage. --damiens.rf 18:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. If there's a copy problem, we can always fix it. If the text reflects reliable sources, and not a POV, as there's no quarter found to have a conflicting or different opinion, then there's nothing to balance. By WP policies there's hardly anything that's simply not acceptable here. Can you please state what's simply not acceptable, and why? Blanket comments and mistagging are hardly conductive of article development. Make suggestions, attempt explanations, even pick at every single word. But, let's do that within the bounds of WP policies, guidelines and traditions. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Health controversy section

Aditya -- I don't want to get involved in edit warring over this, but that section doesn't really belong on this article (though in a lightly-modified form it might fit on another article)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"Feminist groups published fliers against bikinis in the contest."

There was nothing that could really be called an organized feminist movement in 1951, and the title of the reference given refers to ca. 1970, not 1951. AnonMoos (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarified. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Bikini-like outfits in 1930s Hollywood movies

They were showgirl performing costumes, not generally swimwear, and were not worn by ordinary respectable women. AnonMoos (talk) 03:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Modern Girl Magazine

"Modern Girl Magazine, a fashion magazine from the United States, was quoted in 1957 as saying: "it is hardly necessary to waste words over the so-called bikini since it is inconceivable that any girl with tact and decency would ever wear such a thing" This statement looks dubious to me; it's too convenient to be true. The source for it is only a newspaper article, which mentions it as a bit of a trivia. A Google search for "Modern Girl Magazine" only yields mentions of this alleged statement. I was unable to verify that such a magazine even existed, let alone ever made that statement. Aquila89 (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

"In 1965, a woman told Time it was "almost square" not to wear one. In 1967 the magazine wrote that "65% of the young set had already gone over." - also looks suspect. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Aquila89, I am sure you are right, and that this quote is bogus - I was just going to suggest the same. As someone interested in 1950s design I have collected contemporary fashion magazines for many years. I have never encountered a "Modern Girl Magazine" or found any reference to it except for this quote, which seems to have surfaced about five years ago. I think this is a similar case to the "Housekeeping Monthly Good Wife's Guide" - In other words a journalistic invention. Jellyandjocko (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

18th Century

The whole section is about swimwears and beachwears, not about bikini at all. Does it really belong here? Maybe we need to move to a more relevant article. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I understand -- there's only one fairly short sentence about the 18th century as the article now stands. (By the way, the words "swimwear" and "beachwear" are not generally pluralizable in English.) However, you may be correct that the modern Bikini basically came into existence in the 1940s, so that discussion of the pre-1940s history of western swimwear should be somewhat brief... AnonMoos (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent expansions to the article

Ewawer (Enthusiast), when adding material to this article, such as this content you added because of what was stated in the #Title of article section above, you should make sure that you are adding sourced material. WP:Reliably sourced. No WP:Dead links, nothing with a Template:Citation needed tag. This is supposed to be a WP:Good article. If it does not remain a WP:Google article, it can be validly subject to WP:Good article reassessment. Flyer22 (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

And/or validly reverted to its WP:Good article state. Flyer22 (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Point taken, but I note that the material is being transferred from Swimwear#History, with the links etc that were there. If this material is substandard here, it is also substandard there. Enthusiast (talk) 07:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I know that you were transferring material; not only did you state that in your edit summary (which, as I've told you before, is good form per WP:Copying within Wikipedia), the references partly tell the story; for example, the accessdate. I also know that it's common for you to transfer material from other Wikipedia articles. And, yes, the content should be fixed up in whatever article it is in. My point is that this is a WP:Good article. It should be treated like one. Extra care should be taken with it to make sure it maintains its WP:Good article status. If it does not maintain that status, it will be delisted...whether I seek to do it myself or someone else does. Those who don't know what makes a WP:Good article should read the page about it, especially its WP:Good article criteria spin-off. Flyer22 (talk) 07:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Ewawer, despite what I stated above, you are still adding unsourced material to this article, as seen by this edit. Why? If you are not going to source the material, you should not be expecting others to source it for you. I will give you some time to source the unsouced content. After a week, I will remove it, per WP:Burden. Flyer22 (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)