Talk:Surf culture/Archive 2

Inclusion of image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In the current version of the article, there is a photo of two women sitting on the beach, used to illustrate the term "beach bunny". There is a disagreement about whether or not to include this. On the one hand, I have argued that this picture does not necessarily show "beach bunnies" (the article suggests that a "beach bunny" is a person who spends a lot of time on the beach, which is not something that can be demonstrated in a single image; for all we know, the two people shown in this image may only have ever gone to the beach once, so there's no way to be sure they actually are "beach bunnies") and that a picture is not needed to explain this simple concept (there's nothing about the picture that helps the reader understand the concept better than what they can already read in the prose). On the other hand, User:Evrik has suggested that the image should be kept because it has been on this article a long time.

Any opinions on whether or not this should be kept?

Full history of the edits:

• I remove the image, with the edit summary giving the rationales I described above (this edit is from a different IP but it's me)
• Evrik reverts without providing any rationale
• I revert Evrik, pointing out that they have not given any rationale for their edits
• Evrik reverts without providing any rationale (just saying the revert is to "restore the article to a previous version")
• I leave a message on Evrik's talk page asking them to discuss their rationale rather than edit warring without providing any reasons. A day or so later I revert the article again
• A couple days later Evrik reverts again, saying that the picture should be kept because it's been at the article for a long time. Shortly after that Evrik responds to my message on their talk page to say "that's not edit warring" (it is; see WP:EW) and promptly removes the discussion.

152.208.24.217 (talk) 12:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it should be removed because, as you say, the picture isn't needed to illustrate the concept, and it doesn't really do that anyway. It does't matter how long a superfluous image has been in the article. I live a few blocks from the ocean, and I haven't heard anyone use the term "beach bunny" since the late '60s. I don't think I've ever heard an actual surfer use it. In the '70s, "bitches" was often the term used by the more immature surfers around here, sad to say. Carlstak (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The image File:Beach_bunnies.jpg when it was transferred from flickr was titled "Beach bunnies." This gives the photo some credibility. It is illustrative and not overly gratuitous. Beach bunny is a term closely associated with surf culture. The first paragraph by IP 152.208.24.217 suggests that the photo does not illustrate the subject because 1) One picture can't be expected to illustrate the subject; 2) we have no idea how long the women were on the beach. This logic is laughable. By that standard few picture would make it onto articles. The photo should be kept. As for the subject, Beach Bunny has a number of uses and it is also in wiktionary.

152.208.24.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and their alter ego 61.10.67.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) make pointed edits and use aggressive and critical language in their edit summaries. While not vandalism, is it any surprise that editors don't respond the way they want. IP 152.208.24.217 has a total of nine edits to their name. Of those nine edits, four were on substantive issues, one was to vote on a subject, three were to warn editors on bad behavior, and one was the post above. Two of the warning were against me, so one third of their nine edits were about me. - Evrik (talk • contribs) 00:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Your comments about me and my editing history are patently irrelevant to the discussion. The fact that I am editing without logging in is not against any Wikipedia rules or guidelines (see Wikipedia:IPs are human too), the fact that I have edited from multiple IP addresses is not evidence of any nefarious goals or attempts to hide under an "alter ego" (again, see Wikipedia:IPs are human too; it's just how IPs work, and in any case, I have been open about disclosing that both those sets of edits were from me), and the fact that I happen to have only made edits about this topic during the brief period of time my edits happen to be appearing via this IP has no bearing on the logical validity of any of the points I described above. Therefore, I see no need to continue discussing that point.

As for your points that are actually about the image in question, I refer again to the arguments I already raised in the OP, which address them, and User:Carlstak also appears to make (before raising other arguments about whether or not "beach bunny" is a common term, which I don't think is a relevant question for this discussion).

Since a week or so has gone by without further comment and it seems unlikely that other editors will get involved, and I don't see much value in us continuing to go in circles on this, I have posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure requesting an uninvolved editor to make a judgment on closing the discussion. 152.208.24.217 (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this is going in circles. --evrik ^(talk) 17:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, I still support removal of the photo per IP's comments. I think the whole section on beach bunnies should be removed because it cites no actual sources, and just refers to other WP articles. "Beach bunnies" is an outdated term that seems to be used now mostly in the context of referring to depiction of surf culture in cheesy movies from the early 1960s, or in books written by non-surfers. Carlstak (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I fixed the citation, if that makes a difference. It seems that the original website from 2009 has now been blacklisted, but I left it in the template. That said, you are now addressing the whole section, and not just the photo. The subject is notable:

See also: Beach bunny (disambiguation)

--evrik ^(talk) 17:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No disrepect to Waddie96, but there is no consensus to remove here. There are two registered editors who disagree, and an IP address that started this. If anything, the weight of the discussion is keep. --evrik ^(talk) 15:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

[NB: I am the same person as 152.208.24.217] What you just did here is very inappropriate. First of all, you deleted another editor's comment from a talk page that is not your own, which is against WP guidelines (see WP:TPO); just because I'm editing from an IP doesn't mean I'm unaware of WP policies and guidelines. Secondly, as far as I can tell you tacitly agreed to third-party closure (see [1], where you said "I agree this is going in circles", in response to my comment saying that I requested third-party closure because us talking to each other was going in circles), so you can't just suddenly override the third-party decision because it wasn't the one you were hoping for. That is extremely inappropriate.

It's clear by now that there is a strong consensus to remove the image: in terms of just !votes, it's me and two other editors (User:Carlstak and the uninvolved editor who closed the discussion) in favor of removal, and only you in favor of keeping. You seem to think that my opinion doesn't count because I'm editing from an IP: as I explained in a post above, that's not how Wikipedia works. In fact you seem to have a track record of behaving inappropriately and not knowing how WP works; e.g., I see a stupid and flippant reply you posted in another discussion showing your blatant disregard for WP:CITE, one of the core guidelines of the encyclopedia. Given your failure to raise any valid arguments for why the image should be kept, all other participants' raising of valid arguments for removing it, the strong consensus for removing the image, and your clear lack of understanding of how the encyclopedia works and how editors are supposed to behave, I'm going to go ahead and remove the image, and I expect you to abide by the decision that was made here. 61.10.67.14 (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Two registered users who disagree and one user whose IP keeps changing is not consensus. --evrik ^(talk) 15:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • You seem to have no idea what you're doing or how WP works. Before making claims about what does or does not constitute consensus, I recommend you read WP:Consensus, and particularly Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, which is what you're doing ("Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal"--note how I have repeatedly attempted to open discussion and to seek other opinions, whereas all you do is repeatedly insist that your opinion is the only right one, and repeatedly undo others' edits that you disagree with). I also recommend you stop harping on the irrelevant fact that I'm editing from an IP, which I have already explained (two or three times now), with links to Wikipedia guideline pages, has nothing to do with the validity of the points I raise.
    Note: I have now posted another request for outside comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Water sports#Dispute at Talk:Surf culture#Inclusion of image. 61.10.67.14 (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
    • There is no consensus to remove here. There are two registered editors who disagree, and an IP address that started this. --evrik ^(talk) 17:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Spirituality

Does anyone want to clean up the Spirituality section? --evrik ^(talk) 17:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted; the section consists of nothing but unsourced original research. It's absurd to have a "spirituality" section for surf culture anyway when there isn't any common spirituality for surfers—this isn't an ethnic group. There's nothing to write about: there are as many forms of surfer "spirituality" as there are individual surfers. Carlstak (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

We could, however, write about the spiritual side of Native Hawaiian surfing in the context of ocean sports. This academic article would be a good place to start reading. Carlstak (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

There was actually sourcing for large parts of that section. I like the idea of adding the source you suggested. There is also this: Susan Enright (2015-11-09). "The soul of surfing and paddling: UH Hilo researcher explores the spiritual side of indigenous ocean sports". UH Hilo Stories. University of Hawaiʻi at Hilo. --evrik ^(talk) 01:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

There was no sourcing for the "Spirituality" section when I made my comment here; you added it afterwards. If we're going to keep the section, it needs rewriting, and expansion—it's negligent to talk about spirituality in surfing and not to even mention the ancient religious aspects of surfing among native Hawaiians. The lack of coverage of surfing in Hawaiian Native culture in this article is its most glaring deficiency; except for the short section on the Wolfpak, it talks about surf culture exclusively in terms of mainland US and Anglo-Australian surfing. That amounts to almost criminal cultural appropriation. There are academic sources for the topic of spirituality in surfing, better than these news sources. Here's one for starters I've got Jstor access. I've found several more, and will add them here later. I will begin working on a rewrite of the section today. Carlstak (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

To be clearer, there were sources, and I added them. I agree that the section could use copy-editing and expansion. Thanks for taking on this section. I agree that it is important. --evrik ^(talk) 17:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

There are sources now. As I said, they weren't there when I made my comment. Carlstak (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

And please stop changing the links in my comments; it's a violation of policy, and you have no right to change them anyway. If you want to add a fully-formatted link to a ref, do it in your comment, not mine. Carlstak (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The "Beach bunny" section should be removed

The entire "Beach bunny" section is a detriment to the article, along with its silly, generic picture of two young women on the beach, and should be removed. We have no source here that can be consulted to support the text (the misformatted ref is a poor-quality article from ehow, a non-reliable source), and besides, the term "beach bunny" is anachronistic and sexist. No one has produced any evidence that "A beach bunny is a general North American popular culture term" currently, so this unsupported information should be removed. Note: the Merriam-Webster cite says only, "a girl or young woman who spends a lot of recreational time on the beach". That doesn't quite do the job. Carlstak (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Disagree, there are may things related to the Beach Bunny. Expand or rewrite the section, but it should stay. 00:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

That's just a link to a disambiguation page, and it makes a sadly pathetic trivia list of things related to "Beach bunnies": A rugby league club, an indie pop band from Chicago, a 1976 erotic film, a 1993 comedy featuring Jim Hanks, an unreleased Warner Bros. animated short, and a role-playing game, Beach Bunny Bimbos with Blasters. You must be kidding. Carlstak (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• The link to the disambiguation page adds credibility of the topic. There are at least three movies with the term in the title, and some of the other things you noted above. Hardly pathetic. --evrik ^(talk) 17:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

They're just trivial mentions and lend little credibility to the use of the term "beach bunnies" in a surf or beach culture context. Only the movies have anything to do with the subject, actual so-called "beach bunnies", i.e., young women who hang out on the beach. Carlstak (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Moving the "Beach bunny" section to the "Women in surfing" section is an improvement. Carlstak (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree as to the triviality. It is a thing. Per that reference you added, it's the equivalent of Beach Bum. --evrik ^(talk) 20:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I know, that's half the reason I added it, of course. Removing or retaining the "beach bunny" info is not a big issue to me, I just want to make clear what my position is. As long as it's there, though, it should have decent sources, so I added one. Carlstak (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)