Talk:Social aspects of clothing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Fashion Portal This article is within the scope of the Fashion WikiProject. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks!
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article is on a subject of top-importance within fashion.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Problems with the article 1.1 Poorly Written 1.2 Ethnocentric 1.3 Organization 1.4 Biased 1.5 No original research 2 Poorly organized 3 By country 4 Okay, so it may not be neutral

[edit] Problems with the article

[edit] Poorly Written

This Article's other problems notwithstanding, it jumps from topic to topic, and lists irrelevant information repeatedly. It needs major work, if not a total re-write.

[edit] Ethnocentric

Article is extremely ethnocentric; it's primarily about modern American clothing. If you're going to keep the title, suggest expanding the material. Zora 08:16, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Almost universally nudity in a public place is illegal, except in special nudist areas

It should probably be noted that in some cultures (mainly so-called "primitive" ones) total nudity (some indigenous tribes of Brazil) or women's topless (idem, plus some societies in Africa) is accepted or the norm. -- tmegapscm 2005-08-14

[edit] Organization

This needs to be split into two articles:-

• Dress code - explaining what this means with examples
• Sociology of clothing - an article thats adequate to this title

Lumos3 8 July 2005 13:09 (UTC)

I've made a new article, Dress code (Western), in order to aid in this process

[edit] Biased

Not only is the article ethnocentric, I also think it doesn't hold to a NPOV. After reading it through, I can't help but get a sense that it was written by someone who opposes at least some of the social restrictions of dress code, giving the article a sense that there is an active debate, without declaring it so. Elements such as the incongruous reference to sharia without any explanation seems to be making a point and illiciting a rejection of social dress codes, rather than simply being a reference to a specific kind of dress code with explanation as I think it should be. The examples given also lean towards the rejecting view and seem designed to illicit a "dress codes are strange and silly" response, rather than to illuminate the topic. -: Romann 02:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The article seems quite neutral about dress code. Sharia has a section on dress code, so it is quite appropriate and useful to link to that section.--Patrick 12:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that a link is appropriate for the page as it refers to a dress code, but it's in a section entitled "no shoes, no shirt, no service", which is a dress code with an different context. The last paragraph of this section switches without adequate bridging or justification from commercial dress codes of restaurants to the deliberate breaking of laws. Given the intent of the social aspect, would it not make more sense to link to the society sub-section of trousers instead of the law section and place the link it in a different section of this article?

The following statement has no research justification to back it up.

"The "no shoes, no shirt" slogan appears so prevalently in some settings that it has become the target of mockery and flagrant disregard."

In addition to the lack of support, use of superlatives makes for a more emotional statement than necessary. Overall this entire section is heavily focussed on the north american treatment of dress codes in commercial establishments and needs to be rewritten.

Another example from the deficiencies subsection:

"Clothing deficiencies may reduce functionality and/or be unesthetical, but may well have social repercussions also."

What social repercussions? No further comment is made on the social aspects.

Taken independently there might not be a bias in the separate sentences, but taken as a whole there is a sense of specifically targetting conservative dress codes in the first few sections.

I would agree with Lumos, that the dress code and social sections should be separated and further justified with adequate references. Most pages that link to "dress code" aren't referencing from a sociological aspect, which could be confusing.

- Romann 07:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I made some changes. I don't quite understand what separation you would like, dress code is a social matter.--Patrick 11:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Dress is not only a social matter, but can also have functional aspects such as safety or utility. Something straightforward as the requirement to wear a hard hat and steel toed boots on a construction site can be considered a dress code under the general term. The social aspects of this code are quite distinct from its existence. A hard hat with boots works as an identifiable costume outside of its functional application as a dress code(do I have to mention the Village People?)

A dress code article would cover only the functional and historical aspects of dress codes, while the current article would primarily contain the social aspects of dress codes (costumes, religious edicts, conformity, perception). I think this makes the point a bit clearer. Romann 02:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The section Clothing#Functional_clothing could be expanded, and if it gets large, split off. History can be considered for each, it does not belong to just one of the two.--Patrick 14:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that "dress code" as a topic should be integrated into functional clothing (with the potential to be branched off further)? I don't entirely understand what that would achieve relating to this article.

Responding to your suggestion to separate functional aspects from social ones, I meant to suggest that you can add content about non-social, functional aspects to that existing section.--Patrick 14:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest that the redirect of "dress code" to this page, instead redirect to "clothing" in general with any expansion of that article to include only relevant and researched information from this page. Romann 02:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Currently this is the page about dress-code, after possibly moving and/or expanding content we can always change the redirect.--Patrick 13:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No original research

The content needs to be backed up by REFERENCES. Original research will be deleted. 4.250.132.22 15:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Please be more specific about the parts of the text that you have doubts about, because you have searched the internet and could not find any confirmation.--Patrick 15:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Huh... is there a problem with posting one's observations or original research here? I didn't write this article, but I'm certainly an advocate of author's rights. As far as I can see, this is pretty much a decent article and I don't get why so many people are railing against it. --219.77.137.199 16:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Read WP:NOR - FrancisTyers 16:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poorly organized

As it stands, this article is just a random list of free-floating thoughts on the anthropology of Western clothing. I'm not sure it's salvageable in its current form. Even if there weren't lots of unverified statements and missing sources, the very organization of the article makes it smack of original research, because it seems to just be "1) here's a topic i thought of" "1a) here's an aspect of that topic i thought of" etc. Apollo58 19:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, should we try putting this article up for deletion? I don't think there's anything useful here that isn't already covered in Clothing. In fact, I believe that this article was created after I extensively rewrote the Clothing article and Patrick objected to his material being removed. So he moved it to a new article. Zora 22:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Not that it is relevant, but I did not create this article, as you can see in the page history. Also e.g. dress-code is not covered (not even mentioned) by clothing.--Patrick 00:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] By country

How about moving the relevant portions (which is not everything) to articles like Legal restrictions on public dress (by country) and Commercial restrictions on customer dress (by country). If we don't specify by country, ethnocentrism creeps in. Perhaps there are some books or online resources that treat these issues. Just setting up Dress code would be a poor stop-gap. Zora 01:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see that you have, as a re-direct. Zora 01:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

If you use ambitious titles, make sure to add enough content to fit those titles.--Patrick 09:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

That means you don't want to do any moves? Zora 10:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The titles suggest there is a section for each country. That would be nice (although I am not sure whether commercial restrictions on customer dress can suitably arranged by country), but a wish for expansion of the content is not enough a basis for these names.--Patrick 20:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

As it stands, all the material you have assembled on dress codes, whether public or commercial, assumes that the only "world" existing is modern urban North American or European. It's profoundly ethnocentric. If we set up dress codes by country, then we've created a space in which other editors can contribute, AND we've established a slot for some of your NA-Euro material. Though it's not clear to me that there's one code for this whole area. We'd have to have sub-sections. Aargh. Zora 21:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Creating empty sections does not seem a good idea.--Patrick 22:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, are you a Brit or a USAian? If USAian, create an article called Dress codes in the United States and divide it into public dress (enforced by government) and commercial (enforced by commercial establishments). Oh, and a section on school dress codes. Wouldn't that cover it? If Brit, ditto but change country name. Zora 22:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It is not about the US or UK in particular. On the whole the content is either general or in the form "this is sometimes the case". If needed you can add in applicable paragraphs "in some countries" and/or "however, in .., ..".--Patrick 23:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

You are writing about dress codes based on your experiences, hence your observations are valid ONLY for the social sphere in which you move. You can't just assume that the rest of the world doesn't exist! Believe me, there are different dresscodes out there! In Tonga, showing my calves was provocative; in the US, it's routine. In Tonga, it's ILLEGAL for men to appear in public without shirts; in the US, there is no such law. You are a "native informant", to use anthro-speak, only within the context in which you are native. So you have to tell us what that context is. If you're not willing to specify exactly WHERE these dress codes apply, or do any research to support your observations, then this article fails any reasonable test of encyclopedic usefulness. You're just using Wikispace to put up a personal essay. Zora 01:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

If people come up with a very small country for a counterexample, that looks like a confirmation of the content being fairly universal. Anyway, I added a line about Tonga.--Patrick 02:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Holy moly! I mentioned Tonga because I lived there for two and a half years, dang it. I have two anthropology degrees! I tell you your content is not universal! In Japan, it's OK to change into beach togs in hotel lobbies, or to wear flimsy cotton yukatas through town on your way to the public baths. Japanese aren't fussy about nudity the way North Americans and Brits are. In the Amazon, some people wear nothing except a string. In New Guinea, men wear nothing but penis sheaths in public. Women wear string skirts. In Bali, women go topless. In India, women can show belly but not legs. There are thousands of counter-examples to your ethnocentrism. It would be a major PROJECT to dig all the clothing material from the Human Relations Area Files, but the material is there. That's not counting historical examples! See [1]. Zora 06:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not clear which text this contradicts. Anyway, you are welcome to add this kind of info.--Patrick 11:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Okay, so it may not be neutral

But is there really a need for four hundred banners proclaiming this in the face of the reader? Joffeloff 22:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently since fixed. -- Beland 21:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)