Talk:Japanese clothing

message: This should either be rewritten as an article or renamed List of Japanese clothing. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: expand tag

message: This page seems to have been vandalised. Not sure how recently, but it's clearly been tampered with in the past as well. - 1st December 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.121.252 (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: So the dudes have those comedic thong loincloths,  what about the ladies? Eregli bob (talk) 11:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  what about the ladies 

message: Hello, an IP editor  added this untranslated content to the article. I'm moving it here so that editors can help with translation before it is re-added to to the article (contingent on appropriate citations). Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation requested by an IP editor 

message: 古墳時代の豪族たちの墳墓から発掘される埴輪は、当時の服装を知る貴重な資料である。古墳時代の日本人の服は男女ともに上下2部式であり（つまり、現代の洋服の「トップス」と「ボトムズ」のような上・下の構成であり）、男性は上衣と ゆったりしたズボン状の袴で、ひざ下をひもで結んでいる。女性は上衣と喪（裾の長いロングスカート）の姿である。襟は男女ともに左前の盤領(あげくび)という詰衿形式が多い。これらの服装は貴族階級のものと推測される。
『日本書紀』によると、603年に、聖徳太子が、優れた人を評価する冠位十二階を定めて、役人の位階によって冠の色を定めている。これより上層階級は、隋の衣服令に従って中国大陸の漢服を模倣することになる。
On behalf of the ip requesting translation Netherzone (talk) 22:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  古墳時代・飛鳥時代 

message: I've removed a paragraph at the end of the history section, which was sourced with "Japanese Traditional Raiment in the Context of Emergent Cultural Paradigms", published in the "Cogito" Journal of "Dimitrie Cantemir" Christian University, Bucharest, in 2012. Here's the paragraph in question:
I have issues with this paragraph, and looking at the source, particular issues with its characterisation of Japanese clothing. Here's a quote from the source, talking about Japanese clothing before the Meiji period:
The author seems to view the development of Japanese clothing through a heavily Western lens of progress - that "new approaches to clothing were brought up, but the original mindset of a covered body lingered", combined with "the application of the strict dress-code, whose idea was borrowed from ancient China", really,  sounds like more of the same 'Japanese clothing was strict and exotic and ritualistic (but also primitive somehow) until Western clothing came along', which is so many miles away from being the case.
It  true that Japanese women who adopted Western clothing during the Meiji period were more likely to wear high-necked dresses - we know for a fact that the Empress of Japan of the time had a particular fondness for them, and had imported Western clothing modified to have a higher neckline.
But the author seems to take the approach that fashion didn't exist until Western clothing arrived, completely ignoring the fact that silhouette alone is  the only paradigm through which fashion trends can be seen. For instance, throughout the Edo period, fashions for clothing design and colour essentially flipped - from the gaudy, bright designs of the Genroku period, to the subdued development of  as an aesthetic ideal, equally driven by fashion.
By painting Japanese clothing as a "strict dress code" from "ancient China" - almost, if not directly, implying a totally unchanged nature in this time - the author maligns Japanese fashion as straightjacketed by rules, which...I mean, look at the Edo period and tell me everyone followed the rules. The concept of  originated from  patchily-applied clothing edicts. As an aside - "ancient China" isn't defined in this paragraph, but as a friend of mine pointed out the other day, people will call 16th-century China "ancient" if it suits their needs. It smacks of Orientalism.
The idea that social status alone, and not a desire to look good or fashionable, was the only thing that drove what people wore is ahistorical and untrue. The "dress code that was once followed on a daily basis" - which dress code? Mid-Meiji, roughly-defined , informal clothing, versus , formal clothing? Are we talking about the specific invention of many types of kimono, which really only happened in the later Meiji period? Or are we talking about the whole formality shebang, the whole nine yards of rules, that only began to exist after WW2, borrowed from a reconstructed view of the dress of the samurai classes?
This isn't even getting into  (dressing) and how that changed throughout the Meiji period - tell me with a straight face that collars didn't migrate up the body between 1860 and 1910 - but, I rest my case. I removed the paragraph for a pretty ahistorical view of the introduction of Western clothing to Japan, because we can do better than this. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 12:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Ineffablebookkeeper, the last para in the Nara section is the same source and similar content. I split that content by period and shuffled it about but did not check it. The thesis cited heavily in kimono documents the idea that wafuku is fashion-free as a myth promoted by 20th-century kimono merchants. HLHJ (talk) 02:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  - I apologise if it came across as me dragging you; it wasn't my intention, and as always, your work adding content to these articles is incredibly valuable. Not to backtrack, but the Nara-period stuff seems to be fine; it's just the modern-day stuff that seems shaky. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 10:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh no, not at all! Sorry, I was overly-terse and did not compensate enough for the tendency of words to come across in a more hostile manner in text form. I was a bit dubious about that content too, but I was focussed on the more technological end rather than the social end, and I didn't go to the trouble of digging into the source. Thank you for doing that, and please feel free to remove anything you think is unreliable (some of it is also in the kimono article). Nor do I think your criticism is unjustified; I think the thesis I mentioned generally supports your criticisms on dress codes, handwavy ancientness, and the Golden Age of the Past where all was unchanging and done Properly (usually located in the childhood of the speaker, unless it goes mythic), saying they are popular ideas not supported by historical study. The Nara section could have better sourcing (I'm sure someone has done some proper academic studies of the Shōsō-in clothing) and everything after that is fairly sketchy, I haven't even really started on it. The Japanese clothing#Western influence section probably needs splitting up, rewriting, expanding with a summary from Jevella's excellent Japanese clothing during the Meiji period, and expanding with information on other periods. Some of it seems unlikely ("Before the 1860s, Japanese clothing consisted entirely of kimono of a number of varieties"?). You are certainly not dragging me, especially not by pointing critically at all the bits I haven't worked on! There's no shortage of things to work on here, please do whatever you want to without worrying about stepping on my toes. HLHJ (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rmv. of paragraph at the end of the History section 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
* Yayoi people attires.JPG
* Yokohama Silk Museum 043.JPG
* Yokohama Silk Museum 044.JPG
* Yokohama Silk Museum 045.JPG
* Yokohama Silk Museum 046.JPG
* Yokohama Silk Museum 047.JPG
* Yokohama Silk Museum 048.JPG
* Yokohama Silk Museum 057.JPG
* Yokohama Silk Museum 058.JPG
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion