Talk:Pantyhose for men

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fashion WikiProject
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.
Low This article is on a subject of low-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.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on March 19, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Re: medical use

Bear00035,

thanks for your contribution. I pasted your text here to save your work. The subject - medical reasons - seems to be interesting enough to put into the article, but needs more to work on it.

Please view the recommendations how to write for Wikipedia:

- Wikipedia:Verifiability - Wikipedia:No original research - neutral point of view

or just scroll down this page and read our communication with cmh.

And the text: "To add to this some Men also wear Pantyhose out of Neccesity Mainly due to Medical reasons rather than as a choice or fetish , Today Surgeons , Doctors and even Lawyers and Sales people wear them as they are on their legs all day some even reccomend them though a really taboo subject which seems to be changing due to health reasons."

Please verify these statements with reliable sources first.

Best,

harisnya


[edit] Re: Iraq, Army

Yes, there were some news items about it back in 2003 - I don't know if it was/is a widespread thing or not. Here is one article: Pantyhose are a defensive weapon in Iraq. This issue did not seem significant and as I could not find more, independent sources I did not put into the Wikipedia article. If you find more info about please let me know.

Best,

harisnya

[edit] Iraq, Army

I heard a lot of soldiers in iraq are using panythoses...true/false? would be interesting, wrist watches were considered a female item until men started using them in world war I...

[edit] re: vandalising early december 2006

Danny, thanks for removing the spam - I could not watch this page for a week or so.

Regarding removing verification and other data: they were carefully collected by the guidance of cmh during the fall, in accordance with neutral point of view and verification rules. References were also picked up by paying high attention to Wikipedia standards.

If you want to add some information or think that some data are useless I am happy to discuss with you.

Best,

harisnya

[edit] re: Cleanup Nov6

As the cleanup tag was added by an anonymous user I consider it as vandalism. This article has been cleaned up already. If you think it needs more than use your username when adding a cleanup tag.

You might contact cmh for this issue.

Harisnya

[edit] Not verified

I have added the not verified tag to this article. This is because it has does not cite the assertions it makes with reliable sources. This badly needs to be addressed. Also, the article reads like an advertisement, and this needs to be addressed too. -- cmhTC 04:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: not verified

Cmh, Thanks for your notices! It's my first article and I need some help to create a fine entry. So I have added references. Please let me know if you think it's fine now. Cheers, Harisnya.

Hi there, thanks for getting back to me. Welcome to Wikipedia. I will give you some specific suggestions below, but first I think the most important thing is for you to read Wikipedia:Verifiability (one of the three main wikipedia content policies, the others are here and here).
In general things that are statements of fact are things that need citations. Here at Wikipedia we can only print what reliable sources have already said. So if you write: "Men who wear pantyhose do it to improve athletic performance" or "thanks to the internet, it became apparent that many men wear pantyhose" then these statements need to be backed up by a reliable source. There should be a citation right there to prove it, not just at the end of the article. Check out Wikipedia:Citing sources for more on the formats you can choose from.
(By the way, to make links in the article look right just put 2 square brackets around the page name. So [[pantyhose]] creates a link like pantyhose. -- cmhTC 01:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, I am reading through the policies now.
So hopefully I understood how a Wikipedia article should be built up. I corrected the references and put citations into the article body. I will add more verifications during the coming days to some statements. Please let me know if it's better now (or not), and what shall I improve. Thanks again for your help - Harisnya

[edit] Advertisement?

I have been asked by Harisnya to help him with this article, though up till now my involvement has been mainly in applying the odd improvement in the English department.

I would like to clarify what is mean by 'reads like an advertisement'. Are you saying that the problem is with links to commercial sites? It would be very hard to treat the subject of pantyhose for men without mentioning the pioneering work of Steve Katz and comfilon.com. I understand that links to commercial sites can be included if they are integral to the subject matter. I would say, that is the case here.

Or is the problem that you think that the article reads like an advertisement for the idea that men can or should wear pantyhose? There is no doubt that Harisnya and I (in our different ways) promote the acceptance of this idea. But surely it is true to some extent that articles are written by enthusiasts? Harisnya is trying to present an informative article on a subject he has knowledge of. If the admins can let us know where the problems lie, we will attempt to address them.

Geraden 19:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Geraden

Wikipedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view. Advocates of a position must struggle against this tendency in the article and strive for a balanced perspective. Surely it isn't all good news about men and pantyhose.
Encyclopedia articles aren't a place for convincing people, they are for laying out facts and letting others draw their own conclusions. A good start might be to consider what is academically interesting about this topic. Is there a history, references to literature about social norms, controvery over pantyhose as sexual rather than casual clothing item. That kind of thing. Just an article that says 'more and more men are wearing pantyhose' is not enclopedic.
This is the largest problem with this article at this time, and it may well be deleted by others, or merged into Pantyhose if it can't be addressed... not all topics are encyclopedic! -- cmhTC 21:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


You made me think again :) Why I created this article is the point that most men who wear pantyhose are not any more 'fetishists' or 'crossdressers', AND that pantyhose for men is an individual type of pantyhose just like stockings or leggings that may be separated from pantyhose.
As pantyhose used to be a female garment for a long time, it seems to be an important/interesting piece of information. Strictly from an academic point of view the topic is inside 'gender studies', which is part of sociology. Since there is an explicit manifestation - the pantyhose that manufacturers produce for men - it seems to worth it to start with that, from the 'fashion' or, simply, 'practical' end.
So my idea is to illustrate/explain/dig into a bit more to this point - why and how this specific female garment becomes male. What do you think? Harisnya

I think the article is coming along. I think your plans are good. I'd suggest that any article on pantyhose for men should include BOTH information on the fetishism (which should not be cast as negative... it's a legitimate choice after all) AND the non-fetish related uses. That would truly take the neutral point of view. -- cmhTC 23:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I will go on with this direction. Harisnya

[edit] Uses in Vietnam

I've read that during the Vietnam War, the members of the Green Berets and Navy SEALs that went on regular ops out in swampy ares of 'Nam (especially the Delta area) often wore pantyhose as it prevent attachment of leeches, as well as "jungle rot" in their "sensitive" areas. The G.I.-issued cotton underwear just did not hack it too well in the very humid and wet conditions that existed. Rwboa22 14:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I'm merging this back into Pantyhose. Much of this is OR, cites questionable sources, and is a synthesis of material, and it reads like an advertisement for male pantyhose. The fact that a niche pantyhose market for men exists could be summed up in a few sentences, and Pantyhose fetishism (and Transvestic Fetishism) already covers the fetishistic aspects. Krimpet 03:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Merge

This article is citing reliable sources in accordance with Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Please check the sources and indicate if you find any of them questionable.

This article is definitely not about a niche market neither about fetishistic aspects of a clothing item - and this is the point why it is here. It is not originating from the article Pantyhose therefore it's no point to merge into it.

On the other hand it's very important to know if the article still sounds like and advertisement for male pantyhose. Therefore I jump back to an earlier version that was more carefully balanced with the guidance of cmh.

Harisnya 21:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Removing AfDs

Please stop vandalising the Pantyhose for men article. You are actually reverting it to a vandalised version each time. Please read and follow the steps described as "Before nominating an AfD" on the Articles for Deletion page as there are many more do before simply merging it to another article without any discussion.

You are still warmly welcome to discuss or improve the article - but it hasn't happened at all.

Also check Wikipedia deletion policy explains valid grounds for deletion and the usual process.

Harisnya 23:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: delete nomination

This article does meet the relevant content criteria defined in WP:DP . If you feel that is not, however, you are warmly welcome to discuss it here, at the discussion page.

[edit] Merge and/or deletion this article

This article was nominated for deletion and/or merge with the article Pantyhose; and was subject of a five-day period discussion during the 3rd week of March 2007, according to Wikipedia rules of deletion. See the discussion here. At the end Wikipedia administrators decided to keep this article and not to merge with another one.

I am trying to improve the quality of the article further in order to avoid such problems in the future. One of the main complains are that it still sounds like an advertisement for male pantyhose - which I want to avoid "at any price". I am also looking for other sources available more recently.

Harisnya 22:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: men in skirts

Man in a skirt, I removed the link to men in skirts as I believe that the article should not go any deeper to any gender related issues. It was also one of the complains when it was nominated for deletion. My approach is that pantyhose for men is only related to pantyhose from the clothings category, and nothing else. You are warmly welcome to this discussion if you feel it's the place for the link indeed.

Harisnya 12:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Harisnya, I agree that the article should not go any deeper into gender-related issues, but I didn't actually add anything to the article text, I merely added a link in a See Also section. Skirt-wearing by men is clearly an associated topic and I think readers of this article might want to be aware of an article about this related topic. Man in a skirt 15:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change title to 'Men in pantyhose'?

Would 'Men in pantyhose' be a better title for this article? This would address the concerns of those that supported a call for its deletion recently. The title 'Pantyhose for men' does indeed suggest that it is an unnecessary fork of the 'Pantyhose' article, whereas 'Men in pantyhose' would suggest that it is an article about the phenomenum of men wearing pantyhose, detailed discussion of which would be clearly out of place in the 'Pantyhose' article. Man in a skirt 21:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Men in Skirts, thanks for your thoughts! I would answer both of your submissions in one. You are absolutely right that the article could be seen as an unnecessary fork of the pantyhose article; this is an existing danger and we should work on the article to improve it. However, my point is that this article is centered around the clothing item - pantyhose; and not the men who wear it. It's less about the men who wear it, and it's less about the phenomena - though, of course, it touches these topics. But - and here comes my point - it would be really hard to write (and, as our history shows, keep) an article about men wearing pantyhose as Wikipedia needs sheer and clear facts, it doesn't allow original research etc. I have no exact statistics about men wearing pantyhose; I cannot state and prove much of their habits, neither provide enough reasonable and neutral external links. If you go through it you see that it's mostly about the history, production, fetish/no issues.
In a word - to simplify -, it's 'pantyhose worn by men'. But not men in pantyhose.
So it's definitely a different point of view. The 'men in skirt' article would be 'male skirt' according to this approach. And, I think in this case the wiki link would be just fine in the article.
Best,
Harisnya 19:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Harisnya, as you state, the article is about pantyhouse worn by men. But that is the main reason why the article was nominated for deletion. Why have a separate article about pantyhose for men? It's an unnecessary fork. However, the issue about men wearing pantyhose is sufficiently different from the article about the garment to warrant a separate article. Man in a skirt 20:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Men in Skirts, thanks for your thoughts again! Well I believe that the main reason was not the question if it was a fork/not, as it was a rather complex, hmm, thing. You might track it back easily and see all the details. But the article was kept, and it was kept in its present form; now even the admins agree that it's not a fork. So a good test ride would be to create an other article with the title you suggest. What do you think about it?
Harisnya 21:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tone is too informal

I tagged the article with a {{tone}} template because it reads more like a story and/or an ad than a business-like encyclopedia article. I did edit the introduction, at least; it sounds a little better now in my opinion. I welcome any feedback on it. The rest of the article needs a lot of cleanup regarding tone.

Nonarelli, thanks for your fine edit! Please educate me a bit more about tone, and how would you think it would be better - I don't really know how to make it more neutral.

Harisnya 23:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Removal of sexystore link and about commercial and/or erotic links

I have removed sexystore link. Wikipedia is not the place to advertise any businesses. First, as there are plenty of shops selling pantyhose for men, therefore only the most relevant - that is Comfilon - should be kept. Second, it is a shop selling erotic items, which shouldn't mix with this article.

It would have been removed anyway by administrators in a few days. Samsam92, I suggest you to read carefully the relevant Wikipedia rules. This article was built up carefully, please don't destroy the work of many of us. Thank you.

Harisnya 14:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Harisnya


[edit] Removal of Luxelegwear link

I have removed Luxelegwear link. Please see the previous (sexystore) notice. We believe that no commercial pages selling hosiery should be linked into this article except Comfilon, which is the modern day founder/inventor of male pantyhose. Wikipedia is against any kind of advertisement, too - please read WP:SOAP for more info.

Your link would have been removed anyway by administrators in a few days. This article was built up carefully, please don't destroy the work of many of us. Thank you.

Harisnya (talk) 13:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Harisnya