Talk:Skirt and dress

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.

It is requested that one or more images be included in this article to improve its quality.

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.

The See also - upskirt link has no value in an article about clothing type...Glenlarson 07:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can I ask the people (or person), changing the image to stop doing it. The original image is PD, wheras the new "Woman in short skirt" image currently gives no source info. It seems to be a copy of an image on this page. Unless permission is given, then this is a copyright infringement, and arguably a violation of privacy, given that the website is a personal website, and not a commercial one. Silverfish 11:39, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

There are requests for dress patterns, definitions of types of dresses, etc., floating around, and it would make sense to me to combine these with the current article - but this article is protected.

I'm new and I don't know how to ask someone to unprotect this article, so I may do a related article that we can fold into this later.PKM 17:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi there! I have unprotected the article - I assume it was protected because it has been the scene of some prolonged and pointless content wars in the past. It's on my watchlist, anyway, so if there are any problems I'll sort them out. —Stormie 02:02, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

How Skirts and Dresses are Worn Today

Thanks, Stormie. PKM

Okay, I added much of what I think is needed. This could still use fleshing out and more styles. I am not really happy with the section title "How skirts and dresses are worn today" - if anyone has a better idea, please fix! PKM 07:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PS The current picture is very likely a skirt and bodice, not a one-piece dress, but I think I covered that option in the text... - pk

[edit] recent addition - men in skirts

I'm not sure that the following addition is really suitable, but it is possible I just don't understand it.

Response - The problem isn't men wearing skirts. The problem is that most people from Western Civilization have not seen it. Please bear in mind that Western Civilization is but a small part of the World's population (about 1/10th). The other 90% of the world's population have no issues with it, and about half the men in non-Western cultures wear skirts and dresses on a routine basis. In many countries, they wear the same cut and style of fabric as do the women, with the difference between men and women being defined by the body, not the clothing. Dr1819 16:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The disputed edit: It is necessary of course to ask why, as thinking people don't just arbitrarily accept cultural rules and many other gender specificities of costume have been broken. Unless they are ground length with is unpopularly cumbersome, the shape of skirts results in a difficulty over ensuring the wearer remains decent. It has been accepted by the arbitrariness of immemorial social custom, that women are not breaking decency laws even when minor failings of decency occur. However, opponents of school uniforms contend that this results in skirt uniforms being an immoral sexploitation of children. This would imply that skirts are a fundamentally illogical and unreasonable garment, despite their long history. It follows logically that men, not being socially established as skirt wearers, have cause to fear the decency problem arising, so they can't break the gender rule.

Response - I'm usually able to make sense of almost everything I read - please help me with the preceding paragraph! Dr1819 16:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This was a paragraph that was added, that I was disputing. I'll find the edit in the history if you want. It was by User:Tern I think. Silverfish 16:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be one person's opinion, and rather speculative, and I don't think it actually explains very much. Firstly, the decency problem would seem to apply equally for men and women. The argument seems to come back to men not being skirt wearers, which is rather circular, and I'm not sure how we get from this to decency being more of a problem for men in skirts than women in them.

Response - Can you specify what "one person's opinion" is? Are you referring to men wearing skirts or the paragraph immediately above yours? If it's that men should wear skirts, it's the opinion of approximately 1.4 Billion men (and presumably their wives) that men should wear skirts, because that's 40% of the world's male population, the same 40% who wear skirts, dresses, and similar garments on a regular basis. Dr1819 16:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

My comments were all about the disputed edit, which I quoted above. I've marked it in italics now, to seperate it from my comments. Silverfish 16:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, who calls skirt uniforms sexploitation of children? I'm also not convinced that this means that skirts are illogical (what does it mean for a garment to be illogical?). Silverfish 11:03, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Delete it. PMA 08:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

It may be relevant to note that Tern is a new arrival to Wikipedia, but he apparently has a long and chequered online history. See Talk:Asperger's syndrome for interesting comments by other editors. Zora 11:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

You might find this even more interesting.

[edit] comment on recent edits

Some recent changes mention skirts and dresses as sometimes being men's clothing in the intro. These seem to be very similar to what we already have in the section on how they are worn today. I think it best not to have them in the intro, as it makes it a fair bit longer, and also I think the intro should give a general impression of what skirts and dresses are, and then later fill in the details. If we do want to mention men in skirts (or skirt-like garments), I would prefer something short more like a sentence, rather than an entire paragraph. Silverfish 22:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it has anything to do with dresses, but I have seen workmen wearing canvas kilts and I saw the exhibit at the Met. I'm not planning to give up my pants any time soon, but this sort of thing is definitely going on. Whether it's a fad or a trend, I wouldn't know. But I think it deserves more than a mention. –Shoaler (talk) 00:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it's worth including, but not in the intro, or at least not in much detail. Before the new content (that added after my revert) it said that dresses and skirts were women's garments. In the intro, I think if we want to acknowledge male skirt or dress wearers, then we should just briefly acknowledge that briefly there, and go into more detail later.

That's the problem, I think the new content goes into too much detail for an intro. As I point out, there is a section that covers this, that I think would be more suitable. Silverfish 11:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The comment is never going to be "suitable" for everyone as it's a new concept. It's just not something that the western world is very used to so that's why you said it's not suitable. Drinking alcohol by children isn't seen as suitable but in the past it was much better than the drinking water available.

[edit] Men in Skirts - Edits Complete

I reworked these issues to address the duplication of men in skirts information and to accommodate the recommendations above. Dr1819 16:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Men in skirts

I reverted all the edits glorifying men in skirts and exaggerating the number of men who wear them. There is a huge global trade in used Western-style clothing. The items thrift stores can't sell are baled up and sold to exporters, who then resell to shopkeepers and peddlers in poor countries. Old T-shirts and torn pants are replacing the "national costume" in many countries. In Tonga, many men wore pants for working in the fields, and only wore wrapround skirts for relaxing at home, or on formal occasions. Hence it is misleading to say that because some men wear skirts sometimes, the whole country should be enrolled in the column "Men wear skirts". It's a lot more complicated than that. Zora 20:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reality vs Wishful Thinking

I edited the article to reflect reality. I've visited more than 30 countries, and despite the comments above, reality is quite a bit different than certain members of the fashion police and Western civilization would have you believe. The truth is that throughout the world, many men wear skirts regularly, not just at home, but at work, whether that be in an office, university, or in the fields. This hasn't changed for tens of thousands of years, people. Please stop trying to impose your limited view of what's acceptable for men to wear on the rest of human civilization. Wiki isn't about re-editing reality to suit your limited perception of what's acceptable. It's about reflecting reality as it exists.

No, Zora - I've never been to Tonga.

I have been to Korea, Japan, Phillipines, US, Canada, Mexico, France, Germany, Panama, Honduras, Columbia, Peru, Costa Rica, Austria, Switzerland, UK, Oman, Bahrain, Dahran, Iraq, Kuwait, UAE, Egypt, Italy, Greece, Turkey...

The list goes on. My comments aren't wishful thinking. They're obvservations.

Please stop deleting reality! If your experience doesn't include men wearing skirts, simply admit the fact that your experience is limited. I've provided numerous links of pictures of men wearing skirts throughout the modern world, yet you keep deleting the links, too. Why not educate yourself, instead?

Stop! Your privalages as an admin carry significant responsibilities to ensure the truth and accuracy of what's posted. Your limiting your resources to your own experiences in Tonga hardly constitutes any minutia of a reasonable research. Just because you come from a third world country does not make you an expert on fashion as it exists elsewhere in the world.

As for the rest of the ignorants who keep relegating these articles to the dustbin, take a vacation! You'll see for yourself that reality isn't quite what you and the Western media have lead you to believe it is. 84.166.180.34 08:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe men wear skirts. I believe men wearing skirts can be very very sexy [1]. I don't believe your website or your movement are notable. Please stop trying to use WP to propagandize for them. Zora 10:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the Men and skirts section. You may be a fashion expert, and perhaps the world's leading authority on skirts, but when it comes to Men and skirts, your claims run strongly counter to the reality experienced an entire subculture, that has been using certain terms (not "neologisms" as you and others claim). As for your other claims concerning "my website" and "my movement," I have neither. I became loosely affilliated with alternative clothing styles and the men's fashion freedom movement in 2001, when I first donned a skirt (handed to me by my wife because all my pants were in the wash). "Nice!" I thought, wore it the rest of the afternoon, and was hooked. But the movement, Zora, was codified seven years earlier, and had it's beginnings in the late fifties, courtesy of a lot of beach movies and the move away from conservative culture experienced primarily in Southern California and other progressive urban population centers. In short, I'm still learning about it! It's far, far more vast than just me (and began long before I was born).

In closing, please refrain from discourteous/disrespectful accusations about ulterior motives which simply do not exist. It's not my website. It's not my movement. There is no "propaganda" being spread, here, Zora. Unfamiliarity does not magically translate into "propaganda." Any such conclusion is a non-sequitor and quite erroneous. Thank you for your understanding.

By the way, by attacking me with comments on ownership, you're employing Ad Hominem arguments (Argument To The Man), which is a logical fallacy. Put simply, it's "attacking the person instead of attacking his argument," and it's both bad form, and semantically null. You're also employing what's known as "attack by innuendo." Both attacks are well known to trial judges, and do not stand up in court, nor do they stand up in any intellectually capable society or subsection thereof. Dr1819 19:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Links to commercial websites do not constitute spam when they're provided as evidence/reference/example of a particular phenomenon, particularly one about which many may be unfamiliar, such as companies that market skirts for men. Link jusifiably restored in accordance with Wiki policy. Dr1819 19:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I also restored the link to the website depicting numerous examples of the subtopic of discussion at hand, Men and skirts. The link is highly relevant as it provide an outstanding visual example, not only of men wearing skirts, but of the various styles worn throughout the world, the various names, and the countries in which they're routinely worn, again leading to a growth in knowledge and understanding - what encyclopedias are all about, even Wiki. Dr1819 19:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Finally, I restored content removed because of claims of it being "not notable." Notability isn't a Wiki requirement for content, nor are personal opinions of notability valid in deciding the fate of content, again, IAW Wiki policy. Furthermore, Wiki policy strongly supports keeping content that may not be notable to some, even most, provided such content is indeed notable to others. In support, Wiki maintains countless pages of content notable only to a select few, some with less than 100 Google hits - yet the content remains, so Ghits are obviously no indicator of notability/retainability. Rather, the notability arguement is used as an illogical attack against content because the attacker has other reasons for removing it, such as they find it personally distasteful - again, not a valid argument for removal of the under Wiki policy.

Please adhere to policy, folks. Dr1819 19:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trouser Skirt may need repair

I thought a trouser skirt was still a true skirt (one opening), but with pockets and belt loops like a normal pair of trousers. A quick search through stores like Lands End and Chadwicks confirms this. But the link to trouser skirts doesn't exist and is instead redirected to coulletes, which are flaired shorts (two openings) - not the same thing at all. Someone with page creation experience might wish to fix this. Mugaliens 08:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fashion Trend

Kilt sales have skyrocketed in the last ten years, with more than twenty thriving companies conducting online and storefront sales to customers around the world, so I restored the comment and added a reference. If you need more, I can oblige. Mugaliens 09:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work on condensing the sarong entries, Zora! Mugaliens 09:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandelism

Who keeps deleting the reference to kiltmen? That site correctly depicts, describes, and portrays (with pictures) the many unbifurcated garments currently worn by men around the world. Also, other deletions have occured without showing up in the History pages, including several key variations of the sarong. Someone with an apparently narrow POV is trying to reshape the world. All such "permanent" and/or "ghost" deletions have been recorded for future reference, if need be." Mugaliens 10:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Men in Skirts Pic

The foustenella pic isn't applicable, as it does not depict current skirtwear by men. Choose another. Thousands abound on the Internet. If you need help finding one, let me know here or on my talk page. Mugaliens 10:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Put the references located in the Notes section back into the References section where they belong. Mugaliens 11:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Possible Vandelism

There are a lot of red links that didn't use to be red when I last visited. Why were articles on the sapeta, djellaba, and galabiyah were deleted? Wikipedia doesn't belong to the US. It's a global Encyclopedia. These entries appear in Britannica, they should appear here. They were good articles, complete with pictures. Mugaliens 12:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Men in skirts section

I removed the commercial references. WP is not a linkfarm. I also condensed a number of the examples. The same garment can have different names in different countries. There were several duplications. I left the reference to dhotis, but ... the dhoti is usually worn as a bifurcated garment. It's more convenient for work that way. The back is pulled forward and tucked up into the waist. The dhoti worn as a skirt is called a "priest's dhoti" in Boulanger's work on saris. It's more appropriate for men not doing hard physical labor. Zora 19:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Good work on the cleanup, Zora. I think a couple of references were removed altogether, though. By the way, I included the "notable exceptions" section because it's a valid phenomena in many outdoor events. Been there, done that, seen many others, etc. In a recent kayaking expedition in Oregon, a third of us men wore Macabi skirts in the evening. The links were included as examples. I included two links to reduce the notion that I was promoting any particular store. Since this entire section deals with men in skirts, it's quite appropriate to note the extent of skirt-wearing among normal, non-crossdressing males. Mugaliens 13:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

A better link would be one that affirms that, as you say, in a recent kayaking expedition in Oregon, a third of the men wore Macabi skirts in the evening. Linking to sites that sell products only tells us that such products are for sale, not that they're being used or how. And what about other MUG usage? –Shoaler (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You mean like these www.kiltmen.com/Kevin-boston.jpg, a www.kiltmen.com/Dave-krgyzstan.jpg a US soldier relaxing while on deployment in Krygyzstan during "Operation Enduring Freedom," this www.kiltmen.com/strand-pbteam.JPG paintball team from San Diego, or these men attending a wedding? As for other MUG usage, www.kiltmen.com/photogallery4.htm here's a link to 36 celebrities known to wear MUGs. Lot's of men wear both kilts and other skirts, and that's just one example. I've found thousands of images on the Internet. Here's a video on the subject. Why are people are surprised, shocked, or reject men wearing what men have worn since the dawn of clothing? That's amazing. Mugaliens 17:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prolific Deletions

I restored the Kiltmen external link. Don't let the title fool you - it's about far more than kilts. It's about any unbifurcated garment worn by men, which occurs about 33% of the time men around the world get dressed. That's pretty significant, and certainly belays a deletion.

Furthermore, it's a non-commercial website, and provides a plethoral wealth of information regarding skirt/dress worn by men throughout the world. As such, it's entirely relevant to this entry on skirt and dress. I'm not sure why it was deleted, although I surmise it was because someone was watching too much "Leave it to Beaver," or because they were raised with an incorrect notion that only women wear unbifurcated garments (not true to the tune of about 1.5 to 2 billion men). Regardless, it's a highly valuable resource as the wear of non-Western men's clothing, much of which (about a third, world-wide), involves one form of skirt or dress. Plus, it has numerous pictures which provide detailed examples from around the world as well as additional links to other websites depicting the same. Because of the very high value of that link, I'll consider any further deletions of that link to be vandalism or due to a very narrow point of view, and will raise the issue in the appropriate Wikipedia section for others to evaluate. This is not a threat - I just want Wikipedia to reflect reality, as it currently exists throughout the world, and not some extreme editor's personal and apparently very limited experience and/or set of morals. I sincerely hope you understand. Mugaliens 19:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Djellaba

The Wikipedia article appears to have disappeared for this item of clothing, and I'm not sure why. It's a common form of dress for a people who're often in the news. I'm a US citizen, but I believe it's only fair to accurately represent the dress of all peoples, without resorting to deletions on the basis of personal or political bias. I'm not pro-anything, except for the truth. Whoever deleted the entry, I'd like it brought back, please, as it's just the right thing to do. Mugaliens 18:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dhoti vs mundi

It's a dhoti, which is an unbifurcated garment worn by men in India, not a mundi which is a town in the middle of India. Change reverted. Mugaliens 20:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations Needed

Although this may be happening, given what I've experienced among adult wear of kilts, skirts, and other male unbifurcated garments, I've not seen it myself, save at one highland games where a father kilted his entire clan including three sons (they loved it). But it's not substantive Wikipedia material until it can be verified by several reputable third-party sources. The [kilt] entry is a good resource as to how to properly cite references. Newspaper articles, books, anything that's reasonably verifiable from previously reliable resources (such as the New York Times, CNN, Fox News, etc.) should be good, provided they're cited in the appropriate format. Mugaliens 22:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Male Skirt proselytizing

Zora wrote: "Removing male skirt proselytizing. NO evidence whatsoever that teen boys are wearing jean skirts."

Actually, there is evidence:

evidence

This incidient in Chicago is quite siginficant, as it details the fact that the principal felt like he had to make daily announcements over the PA system because it was becoming a significant trend. Principals don't make daily PA announcements reminding male students not to wear skirts to school unless unless they're actually doing it.

So yes, Zora, this phenomenon does exist in the US, and it's not just limited to Chicago.

The next one is an isolated incident in the UK, and was done for temperature control. Nevertheless, it did happen, and the boy's head teacher supported him:

evidence

In the next one, a UK school specifically changed its dress code and is specifically "allowing boys to wear knee-length skirts and white socks." (third paragraph)

Guardian Unlimited article

Pic of teen in skirt, admittedly not necessarily at school...

My point is this: It's not proper to delete content with claims that "there is NO evidence" when there clearly is. Three days hence, if considerably more substantive justification cannot be provided, I'll restore the edits long with the appropriate references/sources. - Mugs 14:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

As usual you are giving undue weight to a ver very minor issue. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

When a third of the men around the world wear these garments, it's not a "ver very minor issue." By the way, please watch your spelling. - Mugs 19:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a minor issue even to the men who wear skirts. When I was in Tonga, where men do wear skirts, sometimes skirts were worn, sometimes pants. No one was stressing about it, or talking about it.

So then why is 90% of the article devoted to women in skirts? Are they stressing, or talking about it? Of course not. Yet the female-oriented content is still there. Arguing that the male content should disappear because, like the females, they're not stressing about it is a two-edged sword. It would be more appropriate to have each section of the article sized reflect relative numbers of males and females around the world who wear unbifurcated garments. - Mugs 19:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Men tended to wear simple tupenu (a wrapped rectangle of cloth) for relaxing, pants for hard physical labor, and tailored tupenu for very formal occasions. "Tended." It was a matter of personal choice, not a matter for comment unless the dress chosen was WAY too formal or informal for the occasion. That had less to do with the skirt/pants choice than with the material used, the kind of tailoring, and the condition of the garment. Mugaliens, you're very very interested in the subject and tend to proselytize; most people just don't care. Zora 19:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Mugaliens - yes, I know that there are vast numbers of men around the world who wear these garments, that is why it is such a non-issue. I have edited the article on several occasions to precisely that effect - but at the same time we need to avoid pretending that wearing a skirt is seen as anything other than eccentric by modern Western society, and we absolutely must not stray over the line into advocacy or special pleading, especially when it involves original research. The principal effect of your argumentation (and edits) is to make it seem more of an issue, not less. And actually my spelling is generally excellent but, as my user page explains, I burned the fingers of my left hand very badly when I was a toddler and have bone-deep burn scars across the knuckles of my left hand so my typing is full of characteristic errors caused by the fingers of my left hand being unable to move at more than about half the speed of those on my right. I did try to fix this but the surgeon said it could not be remedied surgically. Does Bishonen make the same kinds of errors? Is that how you so cleverly identified Bishonen as my sockpuppet? Guy (Help!) 22:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Section edited to reflect reality. I respectfully disagree, Guy. By the way, the "reality" link is to an artical written by a fashion designer, fashion model, and fashion writer. He has both more knowledge and credibility concerning this trend that either of us. Eccentricity is in the eyes of the beholder. You think it's eccentric. The tens of thousands of Western MUG-wearers don't think it's eccentric at all. There are far more obscure entires in Wikipedia, which perhaps 20 people, worldwide, might take an interest. To me, that's eccentric, but I don't see you hunting those down, for despite their obscurity, they don't offend you sensibilities. I grew up in the mid-late 60s and 70s. By the time I hit college, I'd have thought the idea of a man wearing a skirt was gay, gay, gay. Having lived in several different countries and visited many more, I no longer think that at all, as it's quite common elsewhere, and many Westerners living abroad adopt local customs and have brought those customs back home to the West. By the way, Wikipedia is a global product, and not just for the West. It should reflect global happenings, not just a narrow, strictly Victorian Western point of view. I'm sorry about your hands - I wasn't aware of you situation, and I apologize for criticizing your spelling. Please forgive me. On another note, I never claimed Bishonen was your sockpuppet, and I responded to your accusation of such on my RfA page. - Mugs 19:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's another article about just how far this trend has actually penetrated into Western culture, while detailing the issues surrounding how and why some people recoil at the very idea. From an Indian perspective. I thought Zora might appreciate this. - Mugs 19:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opinions vs Reality

That is your opinion, Zora, but you've not provided any evidence, references, or substantiation to back up your reversion, merely an empty claim. Meanwhile, independant, third-party articles such as this and this confirm that your opinion is not based on fact, but rather, on a narrow point of view. Want more? I have about fifty on file. I thus reverted the article (leaving in about half your edits) to restore a neutral point of view. Furthermore, the wearing of skirts made for men is neither cross-dressing, transvestism, and your allusions as such border on homophobia. It certainly has nothing to do with one's sexual orientation. Some men simply prefer wearing a skirt! About a third of us on the planet, last time I checked... Fashion has no room for narrow-minded Western rhetoric, particularly on a global product like Wikipedia. I hope you understand I'm trying to ensure Wiki articles reflect reality, WHAT ACTUALLY IS, rather than what some people would rather reality to be. The reality is that many men around the world, even in the West, wear MUGs, and that phenomena deserves accurate, unbiased representation in Wiki. I've provided countless links to photos, newspaper articles, and other substantiating evidence, yet some people continue to slash valid material and throw around terms like "cross-dressing" when they haven't the slightest clue as to what they're talking about. A man wearing a bra and breast forms is cross-dressing. A man wearing a skirt made for men is not. I hope you understand the distinction between the two. - Mugs 19:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Mugaliens, you're filtering everything anyone says through a schema that says "If anyone opposes me, that person must be prejudiced against male skirts." Any attempt to restrain your proselytizing and soapbox behavior results in a spate of accusations re prejudice. If you persist in this behavior, our options are an RFC on your behavior (long overdue, I should think) and ultimately an Arbitration Committee case to get you banned. Do you want to force us to that route? Zora 19:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Zora, I respectfully request you stop trying to rewrite history and the present, and refrain from threats of banning only because you disagree with the information I'm presenting. Over the last five months, I've posted numerous links to verifiable, objective reports substantiating what I've posted. I'm sorry you disagree with that information, but clearly, it can't all be wrong. Occam's Razor, it must be right. Also, referring to this as an ethnic trend in the article is inappropriate, as ethnicity has nothing to do with male skirt wear, which occurs throughout most ethnic groups. Furthermore, your use of the word "proselytizing" in your accusation is incorrect, as that has to do with one's religion, not accurate details on the variations of people's choice of fashion. This has nothing to do with presenting my idea or your idea. There's no soapbox, and it's not a topic for an RFC. It's simply about accurately portraying verifiable reality. Please do not twist this issue into something it's not, and I respectfully request you refrain from trying to start an arguement, much less a war. If you disagree with the information presented, please provide verifiable evidence which supports your stance. If you're unable to provide that evidence, please refrain from commentary such what you posted above. Thank you. - Mugs 08:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opinions vs Reality, Take II

You still have not provided anything of substance to back up your opinion, Zora. I certainly won't engage you in a revert war. However, because you continue to revert well-documented and substantiated content back to unsubstantiated opinion, this evening I will be adding your name to the RfA I created for Guy and Sandstein's issues involving the same inappropriate behavior. - Mugs 12:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The onus is on the editor seeking to include content, to justify that content. Guy (Help!) 12:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You're well aware that I've done so countless times, Guy, via links to many (20+) articles (written this century, not last), in many countries (including the UK), and countless websites, also in many countries, each with hundreds (some with thousands) of members. Ignoring the vast plethora of evidence while claiming "what evidence" merely underscores the narrow point of view, personal bias, lack of information (apparently willingly kept that way, too), merely highlights the gross lack of objectivity behind the slash and burn deletions of the content and supporting references. This kind of behavior is not welcome here, or for that matter, anywhere. The fact is, guys wear skirts, and by all accounts it's a growing trend, not a "vogue trend back in the late 1990s." On the one hand, you say that's not the issue, yet you and two others continue to slash content that reflects this well-known and established fact. - Mugs 15:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

So you say. But you have yet to find another editor who agrees with you. Guy (Help!) 12:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it's a "growing trend" but I have seen young men wearing Utilikilts on a construction job. But not very often. If sales of Utilikilts, etc. are increasing, I would prefer to see some statistics. –Shoaler (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of non-Western, religious list items from "Male Wear" section

I removed a number of items from the Male Wear section. The items were unsourced and many were counterfactual--Korean traditional dress for men, hanbok, includes trousers for example. Calling the liturgical vestments dresses is at least a private definition of the term "dress" and at most completely risible. Calling various non-Western garments by Western names views these garments through Western eyes and should be discouraged per WP:CSB. You know, I thought this was mere sloppiness/inventiveness until I read the above discussion. It now seems to be sloppiness/inventiveness with a purpose. JChap2007 15:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about Men in Skirts and dresses

Here is a picture of Phillip III of Burgundy [2] and it looks to me that ALL the men in the painting are wearing dresses (some have shorter hemlines of course). This was long after William the Conqueror. So is the history section off a bit?--Filll 13:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is wiki Western-centric or Global?

Having read the debate between Zora, Guy and Mugs, I have a question. Is wiki intended to discuss content at a global level, or is it meant specifically to be western-centric?

If it is supposed to be written primarily from a western point of view, I have nothing to add, except that a section should be added about male skirts as a 'foreign' issue, explaining how it is much more common in non-western cultures. The existing section about male skirts in western culture could be kept as it is, or shortened. Note that there is a separate article to discuss this - Men in skirts.

If it is supposed to be global, I propose we aim to completely overhaul this article to reflect the dominance of male skirts around the world. The extreme female bias is highly unrepresentative of reality, and should probably be reversed. The existing content could be separated into another article entitled something like "skirts and dresses in western culture".

To anyone who considers replying - This is an honest question. Please give a rational and unbiased answer. Bards 06:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How Skirts and Dresses are Worn Today

There is lengthy discussion here about the comparatively minority issue "male skirts" here, but a far more contentious, and important passage has escaped unscathed.

"Outside the U.S., however, higher-status women (judges, cabinet ministers, physicians, corporate executives et al.) generally avoid wearing trousers in public. Conversely, women at the lowest socio-economic levels often do not own skirts or dresses."

Is this true? I think not. At the very least "the UK" (where I live) must be added to "the US" on this, as it is just quite clearly false. Whilst "the avoidance of trousers" for professional women may be slightly more predominant on the European continent, I suspect this is outdated too. "Conversely", i think you will find most working-class women have the odd skirt and dress or two too.

To summarise - this statement is rubbish:- please get rid.

Joseph 2.10.07

[edit] Splitting of article into Skirt and Dress (garment)

I have reverted a change by User:Tatterfly to split this article into separate Skirt and Dress (garment) articles, since it seemed a bit of a drastic change to make without discussion.

So, please, discuss! --Stormie 00:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well the two distinct articles have already been created - what purpose will this page serve if not as a disambiguation page? -- SiobhanHansa 00:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The question is whether there should be two distinct articles or one. I actually have no opinion, this page is only on my watchlist due to vandalism sometime way back in ancient history. I just think that you should have at least a little discussion before splitting a page. --Stormie 03:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually like the idea of these articles being split. As I have heard from other Wikipedians, it is customary not to have an article titled "blank and blank." The general practice is to either use a title without the word "and" title that encompasses both, or else have separate articles. Besides, the "skirt and dress" article is so long that it just naturally would be better off as separate articles. I am not planning on going through the hassle of changing back each of these pages, but I did revert the dress article to the way it was before. Shaliya waya 14:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Tatterfly suggested the split in August. Since no one seemed concern enough to comment in over a month, it seems like Tatterfly should be able to continue with his/her boldness. People can always propose a re-merge if it doesn't work out. -- SiobhanHansa 18:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems there may be some kind of small revert war going on. But for now, though I had mentioned on that page that the article had been split, the original Skirt and Dress article is a full article as such, and the separate articles on each that I created seem to still be there. The dress article is currently titled "Dress (garment)" as I named it, and it is accessible from the "Dress (disambiguation)" page, which "Dress" redirects to, as I had made it. As a compromise, let's leave it as it is. Tatterfly 13:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It was certainly not my intent to get into any sort of revert war, just to say "whoa! let's talk for at least a moment before doing this". I actually have no particular opinion as to which arrangement is better, and everyone else seems to agree that yes, two separate articles make more sense than one Skirt and dress article. So I invite you to revert my revert and go ahead with the split, or I can do it myself if you like. :-) Cheers! --Stormie 00:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

As you said, I finally did revert it to this disambiguation I had made. It does seem pointless after all to have two articles describing the same topic. Tatterfly 14:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)