Talk:Dress skirt

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  comment on recent edits 

message: 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)
thread_title: Men in Skirts - Edits Complete

message: 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)
thread_title:  Men in skirts 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Trouser Skirt may need repair 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fashion Trend 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vandelism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Men in Skirts Pic 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  More Possible Vandelism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Men in skirts section 

message: 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)
thread_title: Prolific Deletions

message: 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)
thread_title: Djellaba

message: 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)
thread_title: dhoti vs mundi

message: 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)
thread_title: Citations Needed

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Male Skirt proselytizing

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Opinions vs Reality

message: 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)
replies: text: The onus is on the editor seeking to include content, to justify that content.  Guy (Help!) 12:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  So you say.  But you have yet to find another editor who agrees with you.  Guy (Help!) 12:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Opinions vs Reality, Take II

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of non-Western, religious list items from "Male Wear" section 

message: Here is a picture of Phillip III of Burgundy  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)
thread_title:  Question about Men in Skirts and dresses 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Is wiki Western-centric or Global? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Splitting of article into [[Skirt]] and [[Dress (garment)]] 

message: To the gracious user who will complete the nomination, please provide this as the Reason:
It baffles me as to why this article has remained, even as a disambiguation page.  It does not actually reduce any sort of confusion for the reader, and rather further confuses them.
According to the talk page, the page was originally an article, when the topics of skirt and dress were on this page; the topics were separated into the current articles.  A redirect to either page does not work since the title of this page does not weigh to one article or another.  Finally, it does not seem to be the correct use of a "disambiguation" page, per WP:D.96.52.0.249 (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD, unable to create page