This article is within the scope of WikiProject Swimming, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Swimming on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwimmingWikipedia:WikiProject SwimmingTemplate:WikiProject Swimmingswimming
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion
I find the assertion that speedos are more popular than boardshorts in Australia a bit dubious. The linked news story ("Swapping budgies for funkies"*) is no longer publicly available, but sounds a bit like manufacturer's hype. I also haven't been able to find any other reference to it. I think swimwear choices vary widely between cities and social groups in Australia, but I suspect that the boardshort is still more popular. Is this swimwear advocacy? — Moilleadóir 23:25, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The point which is being made of it is more popular in oz than usa still holds true, even if the specifics happen to be wrong, but yeah i was a little curious about what the exact numbers really are Mathmo10:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
budgie smugglers is an Australian name for speedos
It is a legitimate term in popular culture, merge I say! I don't see why people who browse for banana hammock shouldn't be directed straight to the page. I was directed there from the wiki "budgie smugglers", after all! underwaterboy 19.20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I see no reason for it to be merged, it has no place in the Speedos page but should still be here as a humor/culture thing. I vote NO JayKeaton17:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jay; the banana hammock joke doesn't particularly partain to the style of swimsuit generally classified as a Speedo. In truth, it would probably be best to lable it a man-thong if anything else.--CovertSushi02:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, it's just another name for basically the same thing. I've heard "Speedo" in nearly every context I've ever heard "Banana Hammock" used.
No to merging, that picture isnt even really a banana hammock, that should be the thing in question. A banana Hammock is closer to a thong, or g-string.
The Times' article indicates that location may determine where Americans wear speedos. "There's also public versus private swimwear, as in sunbathing at home or on vacation."[There's also public versus private swimwear, as in sunbathing at home or on vacation.]
The last part is obviously a repeated sentence that should be edited, but is it supposed to be a quote from the article or a statement in the speedo entry? Mongoose2211:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
These guys are hot![reply]
It seems one-sided and skewed that the only picture of someone wearing a speedo is a male model. What about a picture of someone at a public beach or public pool or even just a public street, wearing a speedo? You know, as beachwear, swimwear? That was the only way I ever saw speedos until I moved to North America. By all means keep a modeling picture if there is a genuine reputation of speedos as such beauty accessories, but what about speedos in everyday public places? - Gilgamesh (talk) 11:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I get the feeling that the article overates the popularity of swimming briefs in Australia. The article is basing itself on a simple store sales to generalize the popularity of the speedo in Australia as a whole. Plus the reference article about the store sales turns out to be a broken link.
I'm not Australian nor have I ever been to Australia but I've read many blogs suggesting that more Australian wear boardshorts than speedos. That's why I suggest that an Aussie wikipedian objectively involve himself (or herself) in the editing of this section of the article to inform what is truly the bathing suit of choice for most Australian males.
And speaking of section, the "World" section definitely needs to be rewritten. This section emphasizes too much on one time events. For example, the part about the New Zealand TV commercial definitely has to go to make room for more general sentences.
Overall, the "World" section seems to bias favoring speedos. The "North America" section is for the most part factual, but the "World" section should be revised and updated. Farine (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am Australian and as I mentioned a couple of years ago this does seem overstated. I've removed the sentence referenced by the broken link, but I'm not sure what else I could contribute that wouldn't be original research and fairly vague.
My feeling is that (especially as beachwear) popularity varies a lot between states and my guess is that the speedo is most popular where it originated, i.e. Sydney. But it's really impossible to say anything definitive about it, since there would also be a lot of variation between age groups, classes and subcultures.
Some people like to try to make a neat distinction between beach and pool, but I don't think that works either. For example in my experience here in Melbourne, although the majority of (certainly not all) lap-swimmers wear speedos, the average male teenage bomb diver is likely to be wearing boardies.
The NZ TV commercial is actually a good summary of how a lot of people feel about the contextuality of speedos - clothing that's only considered appropriate in a very limited domain. Not sure much is being made of it as it is though.
Actually the vast majority of Australian men wear Speedos to pools and Boardshorts to the Beach, its a matter of where and when —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.93.101 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 1 August 2008
Oh great, glad you turned up Mr. Anonymous to give us the benefit of your omniscience. Sign your post next time and please don't insert it inside mine. ☸ Moilleadóir☎10:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I was in Australia on Bondi Beach in Sydney and Tamara Beach in Sydney, a full 100% of the males were wearing speedos, including lifeguards. This also applies to the Whitsunday Islands and the Gold Coast. This was in 1989 though, have things changed dramatically since then? Also please note that the article says "commonly worn", not "mostly worn" or "majority worn". Facts707 (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You said it yourself. It was in 1989. We're now in 2008.
As an australian I would like to mention that the following artical is not quite correct. In fact most males in australia only wear speedos when they need to EG. If they are racing/swimming laps, but wear shorts when they are just mucking around at the beach. Most men wouldn't own a pear of speedos. I only wore speedos when I was expected to at school swiming classes/events.
"The fashionability of speedos varies greatly in different parts of the world. The style is commonly worn by men of all ages, either at beaches or pools, in regions such as Asia, Australia, South America and mainland Europe. In China and Japan, men almost
exclusively wear speedos as swimwear."
I've heard some people considering square leg suits as speedos just like I've heard as many that didn't considered them as speedos. I, personally, don't qualify them as speedos. For me, speedos are swimsuits that are caracterized by that "curvy arc" look at the upper legs, while not openly displaying buttocks, like thongs or g-strings. But that's just my opinion. But regardless what your stance is on this, you've got to admit that there is a lot of inconsistencies in the article.
For example, the article emphasizes a lot about the bad repuation of the speedo in the US. Yet square legged suits are socially accepted in US beaches, so the article contredict itself by citing a statement that only applies to the racing/triathlon or bikini styles.
Also, the summary of the article mentions that speedos are V-shaped briefs. But many square leg suits (if not all) aren't even V-shaped.
Finally, there is a sentence of the "Square leg suits" section that read as follow: They typically sit low on the waist and high on the thigh, but provide more coverage for the upper leg than briefs. If square leg suits are supposely briefs, then why the article is making these kinds of distinction. Just another contradiction.
As far as I'm concerned, the square leg suits should move into his article. But if we vote to keep it on the article, I think that I speak for everyone when I say that there is some editing to be done in the article to correct the inconsistencies.Farine (talk) 08:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to split. Drag suits and other square leg suits are not really Speedos at all. They are definitely related in that they are tighter, form fitting suits, but so are jammers. —Peco! Peco!TALK03:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Farine, I've reverted some of your most recent changes as you seemed to be adding more unreferenced assertions and removing at least one referenced one. I removed the reference to decades as I think you need something to back up a claim that particular styles became particularly popular in particular decades. E.g. did the board short not exist pre-1990?
Just because you think the current unreferenced text is incorrect that isn't an excuse for replacing it with more unreferenced text. I.e. changing ‘speedos are popular in Europe’ for ‘shorts are becoming more popular in Europe’. This may or may not be true, but adding without a reference is not adding anything to the article.
I also added back a couple of tags as this article is still fairly marginal in terms of properly referencing its claims. A lot of the stuff here amounts to personal opinion which, as much as we might agree upon it, isn't necessarily encyclopedic.
I have reverted two of your changes for now but I'm perfectly open for a revert to their previous states if you can value your arguments.
You have to understand that there can't be a reference for everything, otherwise all sentences in all of Wikipedia's articles would have references when you think of it. For example, we would have references just for stating that the United States is in North America or that the apple is a fruit. Many infos that you read on Wikipedia come from people's personal learnings and experiences. A reference should only be used for statements that are likely to be challenged. EG:The speedo being more popular than boardshorts in Australia nationwide due to a store's sales certainly needs a reference because this is something that can be questionned and it also contradicts many other sources that suggests that Australians generally prefer boardshorts.
The case of mid thigh shorts being popular in the US as a swimwear in the 1990s doesn't necessarily needs a reference because that is something that is true and unlikely to be challenged. Maybe you don't know it because you don't live in North America, but any growned up North American, borned prior to the 1980s, will tell you so. Mind you that there is no reference neither in the article about the boardshort being the bathing suit choice in North America today, because again it is a statement that is indisputably true and cannot be challenged. Also no one ever said that boardshorts didn't exist prior to 1990. The article clearly specify that it is men swimwear that has evolved into boardshorts in 2000s, not that boarshorts were invented in 2000s. But you might consider that the mentionning of the 1990s mid tight shorts is too chronogically detailed and that we should limit it simply to the transition from the speedo to what is currently the norm, which is of course the boardshort. If that's the case then I don't mind that we revert this sentence back to its previous state.
Also there is many reasons why I've replaced New Zealand and Australia for Europe in the part about the "elderly European" not being a problem. First of all, the reference "Briefs fans put their butts on the line" (which the article seems to be more of a 2004 fad than in actual trend to speedos in New Zealand) deals with the topic of the speedos resurfacing amoung the youth in New Zealand. It absolutely never said anything about New Zealanders not minding about the "elderly European" image. So basically what we have here is a gratuitous statement that links to an article that doesn't even deal with the question. Great! Also, if I'm correct, the article strictly deals with something that is happening in New Zealand. So why is Australia even mentionned on the "elderly European" statement then? While I admit that replacing New Zealand and Australia for Europe is a little bit subjective on my part, it is more realistic to say that an overweight elder in a speedo is socially more accepted in Europe where the speedo is ubiquitous, than in New Zealand and Australia where boardshorts are more the fashion norm, as you and User:203.20.35.101 both acknowledged. I've read many blogs and guestbooks about Australians and New Zealanders complaining about old men in speedos, even if their anti-speedo comments are usually more civilized than the ones furnished by Americans.
Also about your comment that I was removing a source. I didn't really removed it since the "Briefs fans put their butts on the line" source is already on the "World" section, where it rightfully belongs. But for the "elderly European" issue, this reference is just off-topic, as already mentionned.
For now, I have reverted two of your changes but I'm always open for suggestions and discussion. Also I would like to specify that I'm not "anti-speedo" by a long shot. As far as I'm concerned, speedos and boardshorts are both normal bathing suits. But a lot of the article seems to have be writtten by a speedo enthusiastic who is trying to popularize the style outside of Europe.Farine (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without sources you guys may as well be discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Instead of spending time arguing I suggest that it'd be more helpful to research sources on the topic. The only source for this whole section is an expired link to a single article. If that's the all that can be found this should be trimmed to a single sentence rather than expanded or spun-off into a separate article. ·:· Will Beback·:·00:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're confusing my discussion with Moilleadóir with my suggestion to split the square leg suit section into its article. This has nothing to do with it. If you're looking for the discussion about the square leg suit, it is a little above the page (#8 in the table of contents).Farine (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point applies to both discussions. Wikipedia depends on having verifiable sources. Unless there are sources for material it may be removed by any editor. ·:· Will Beback·:·00:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm sorry Farine, but I think this article is deeply subjective and I don't think fashion trends or the popularity of a particular form of swimwear is such an obvious fact as the location of the United States. Sure, there are many things that don't need a reference, but unfortunately this article is filled with things that do.
I agree with you that the article does seem to have been edited by someone promoting speedos at some point, which should prove just how subjective this material is and how much it requires references so the reader can get some context.
That's what I kept saying all the time. If it was up to me, this article would be erased and rewritten from scratch. Even the "World vs North America" seems so arbitrary. From my personnal experience on the Web, it would more likely be a "World vs English-speaking countries" thing, but that also would be more of an opinion than an actual proven fact.
I have reverted the decades of the evolution of swimwear in the US to your previous edit. Although I think it would have been better keep the decades in the article, you do bring a good point that there is no reference to it and it is better to remove it from the article for now. If you've questionned it, that means it is something that can be challenged and anything that can be challenged should have a reference attached to it.
Farine (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's routine. WP:NC. Already done. While we're on the topic, here's a list of the names that redirect here:, Competition briefs, Racing briefs, Speedos, Sluggos, Budgie smuggler, Budgie smugglers, Banana hammock, Speedo (suit style), Swim Briefs. ·:· Will Beback·:·07:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that the statement about Americans associating speedos with homosexuality doesn't have a source at the current time. But so are the statements about the speedo being too revealing or unfashionable on some people, but for some reasons you didn't deleted those. If I wanted to do like you, I could have just went and delete these two statements since they are unsourced as well.
It is a simple fact that many people in the United States consider speedos to be a gay attire. It's probably one of the biggest reasons why they don't wear speedos. Go to any webpage that ask Americans why they don't like speedos, you are almost guaranteed to find comments such as "it looks gay" among the answers. I personaly don't agree with this thinking but to many Americans that's how they feel. It is so common to hear Americans associating speedos with homosexuality that I simply didn't find the use of adding a source for it.
If a source is what you want then I can find some random webpage (although they are tons of them on the net) about Americans babbling that speedos are for gays and link it to the article. However, I also think that the two other staments (revealing, unfashionable) should have sources to them as well, otherwise I think it would be better that we just drop this sentence altogether from the article.
Farine (talk) 07:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Random webpage is no good. Gotta be a reliable source. This article is a mess with unsourced inflammatory material. If it's true, it stays. But it needs a source. I have no problem removing the whole of those unsourced comments. Cheers! —Peco! Peco!TALK21:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well in that situation, a random webpage (weither a blog or a guestook) wouldn't have been a bad reference because it would have just proven the statement that many Americans believe that speedos are for gay men. It wouldn't have proven that speedos are undisputedly for gay men, but rather the statement that many Americans believe that speedos are a gay men. That's an important distinction to make. The Wikipedia article never said anything about speedos being for gay men, it simply said that Americans associate it to gay men.
But yeah, I'm not against removing this sentence from the article (although I personaly think it would have been better if it would have stayed in the article, according to my personnal surfing on the web, those 3 reasons pretty much summarized why Americans hate speedos ).Farine (talk) 03:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. Obviously, not all Americans think speedos are for gay men. Not all Americans who hate speedos associate it to gay men either; some might just find it too reavealing or not suitable for older and/or overweight men. The Internet represents what many American think and the sentence on the Wikipedia article never spoke for the totality of Americans.Farine (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Point here is that WP:SOURCE says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Random web pages never count as a source on Wikipedia. Also, unless you can find a good reliable source these kinds of statements count as WP:OR —Peco! Peco!TALK21:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Farine, you need to stop claiming things you cannot source are 'indisputable facts' or similar; if no source to confirm them is available, that is the opposite of indisputable. It's pure conjecture. Smurfmeister (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't this entire repetitive and unwieldy discussion of the popularity of speedo suits around the world be effectively reduced and summarized in a couple of well-written paragraphs? The article as a whole would be improved I think. Markhh (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I took the plunge, so to speak. I hope readers will be happy with my edit. I think it improves the article. The fashion article as it stood was too confusing and contradictory to stand as a wiki entry.Markhh (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There SHOULD be a paragraph about fashion on the article but it shouldn't be that long. Speedos are first and foremost, used for water sports. Therefore, the article should concentrate on that aspect first. The fashion part and opinion disparity between the regions should only be mentionned briefly in the article.Farine (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, while not vandalism, they make assumptions without sources in some cases - budgies being "...a popular pet kept by the elderly in Australia" for example - and by default I'm generally against any edit contrary to BRD. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
