Talk:Sumptuary law

message: The start of this article makes it sound like, most of the time, these laws are used to prevent poor people from looking rich. Certainly that has been the case. But all the early instances, it was designed as a cap on excess. I wish it was written to express that better.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshNarins (talk • contribs) 16:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial Paragraph 

message: In the first text, it is stated, "that, bravos excepted, no man was to wear a gold compass
," Does anyone know what a "bravo" is? The only thing I can find that might fit the context is a hired killer, but I don't think that makes sense. Should there be a link to a definition or explanation? GBMorris 15:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the citation is Seventh Century BC Locrian code, it could only refer to a macaroni (maccaroni) based on a later translation. Didn't find the word in the original Locrian and think it should be removed for now. Bravo in this context makes no sense: If the purpose of the law was to eliminate excess, why permit excess only among the excessive? Dstlascaux (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

text: A bravo is I think a very old-fashioned term for a stylish young (originally Italian) male - most of the younger male roles in Romeo and Juliet would qualify. What on earth it might have meant in or for Ancient Greece I have no idea. Johnbod 00:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This excerpt really belongs to Wikisource, not here. We are also missing an article about the encyclopedia you mention, but I created an article William Smith (lexicographer) about its author (based on 1911 Britannica). jni 09:25, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: That question is what brought me here.--Smallwhitelight 16:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: School uniforms? To the extent they are supported because they motivated by preventing pupils from wasting their money on expensive and inappropriate clothing. Of course school uniforms have other purposes.DavidBofinger 03:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bravo?

message: The examples of ancient sumptuary laws really adds very little to the article and needs editing. I've placed it here until someone will take the time to do so.
Peter Isotalo 10:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leges 

message: As this article gets longer, should we make two separate 2nd level heads for (1) general restrictions on luxurious dress by status, age or profession, and (2) restrictions based on ethnicity intended to identify "others" (Jews and Muslims in medieval Europe), or to prevent ethnic identification (Ireland in the 16th century and the Highland Dress Act of 1746)? - PKM 17:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure

message: This stuff about falcons is I think just a literary conceit - I doubt any such laws were ever enacted (nor do Emperors seem to have taken advantage of their unique priviledge of hawking with eagles).  I think I will leave it here until referenced as actually enforced by law:".... as well as what types and breeds of dogs or hunting birds an individual was allowed to own (An Eagle for an Emperor, a Gyrfalcon for a King, a Peregrine for a Prince, a Saker for a Knight, a Merlin for a Lady, a Goshawk for a Yeoman, a Sparrow Hawk for a Priest, a Musket for a Holy Water Clerk and a Kestrel for a Knave)."  Johnbod 19:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Falconry

message: References to bans on smoking in public should not be in this article. As far as I can determine, no reliable source has ever linked the two. Adding general criticism and trying to link it to sumptuary laws is  WP:SYNJQ 07:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those references absolutely were reliable sources.  Your insistence otherwise violates WP:NPOV. The section is discussing use of the term "sumptuary law" today. Maclean's is "Canada's leading weekly news magazine", and the article in question did discuss smoking bans as sumptuary laws, also discussing what "sumptuary law" means and how it is applied today. The article from Harper's Magazine also discussed smoking bans as sumptuary laws, and discussed in detail what "sumptuary law" means and how it is applied today. Lastly, despite the title, Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There, by David Brooks, a writer for the New York Times, discusses smoking bans as sumptuary laws in detail, as well as what "sumptuary law" means and how it is applied today. Clearly, all of these use the term "sumptuary law" and do so in the context of smoking bans. There is nothing wrong with that section or that reference. It is properly cited, and it isn't original research or synthesis. Read Brooks's book. Moreover, you deleted any reference to the book Ratification of the Twenty-First Amendment to the United States Constitution, a very comprehensive resource which contains a plethora of information about alcohol prohibition, including the debates, discussions, and resolutions of each state to ratify the amendment, with considerable discussion of alcohol prohibition as a sumptuary law. These reliable sources and references to describe use of the term "sumptuary law" have been restored. 65.28.9.8 12:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sumptuary laws are about conSUMPtion. There's nothing inherent in smoking that makes it a class issue. It's a health issue. The FDA regulations barring certain drugs from being available, for health reasons, are the closest parallel. Hey, when did public health and safety come into the picture? It sure had nothing to do with it originally. JoshNarins (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Smoking bans

message: I've removed the material about the baggy pants law in Georgia.  Sumptuary laws traditionally restricted the use of high status apparel, not low status apparel, and a restriction on low-slung pants may be classed as public decency legislation, which is unrelated.  The source does not call this a sumptuary law so its inclusion violates WP:SYNTH. DurovaCharge! 18:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baggy pants removed 

message: The title should be plural. Being un-wiki-sophisticated, I don't know how to do this. Please someone do. 
I confess that there is no rational defense for this prescription, other than, opposite Latin neuter plural, singular doesn't sound or seem right when describing this phenomenon, even if it may be technically correct. The fact that the entry begins with the plural suggests that the author agreed. Dstlascaux (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a strong preference for singular article titles - no doubt there is a policy somewhere. The plural should be a redirect. Johnbod (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title (Cavil) 

message: I'd just like to point out that many of the laws described in this article are not sumptuary laws, at least as defined in the lead paragraph:
:Laws made for the purpose of restraining luxury or extravagance, particularly against inordinate expenditures in the matter of apparel, food, furniture, etc.
For example, laws about branding slaves don't match this definition at all. So either many of the laws here should be moved to some other page or the lead of the article should state why a broader view is appropriate here. But right now the article is self-contradictory.
-Fenevad (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not sumptuary laws 

message: Is the toga virilis related to sumptuary laws? It seems to me that the connection is wrong. Bazuz (talk) 10:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toga virilis 

message: i read somewhere that Landsknechts were excused from suptuary law and therefore allowed to wear their  elaborate outfits because they had such a short life expectancy. Maybe can be added?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.229.125 (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Landsknecht 

message: There is no reliable evidence of any Roman law that compelled prostitutes to wear togas; and none that those togas should be yellow (iirc, the last is found in Smith's venerable encyclopedia, and it's plain wrong - he may have been thinking of the Galli, perhaps?) At any rate, there is no evidence in Roman sources that this supposed connection between prostitutes, adulteresses and the toga was anything more than one made in the service of poetical and literary invective. If there were evidence to the contrary, that would still not make it a sumptuary law. Haploidavey (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors 

message: The article intro seems to sum up the difficulty. There's a distinction between laws made to limit expenditure on luxuries, and laws made to compel the wearing of certain garments by particular social groups, on discriminatory religious grounds. Or is there? The article seems confused in its attempts to cover both the former and the latter; it seems to have generated several sections devoted to laws on who could (and who couldn't) wear x, y, or z; and who must wear a, b, or c; the most notorious example of which would be the Yellow badge and its antecedents. We also have articles (not very good ones) on Clothing laws and Dress code. Sheesh. I'm getting just as confused about what this article should (or shouldn't) cover; but would really like to clean it up and link to it. Any thoughts, suggestions or advice on all this?  Haploidavey (talk) 11:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: On the whole I think you have to cover the whole lot. I rather doubt whether a difference between "you must not" and "you must" laws cab be sustained. Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Reckon that's right. Ta very much. Haploidavey (talk) 13:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article scope - what is, and what is not a sumptuary law?  

message: Any possible mention of 'strong advisories' by various kinds of ethical and health groups on what should be avoided (e.g. wine and strong drink) and what should be prioritized (e.g. comfortable, appropriate clothing)? MaynardClark (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you cite a source for the type of material you're referring to?--Quisqualis (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sumptuary protocols 

message: His strict sumptuary laws need to be mentioned:
https://wou.edu/history/files/2015/08/Walsh-Devan.pdf
 During the Reign of Peter the Great he challenged Russian culture with his reforms, the traditionalists in particular, opposedhis reforms that morphed fashion becauseit challenged their Orthodox religious beliefs and practices. The aggressive manner withwhich Peter the Great implemented his oppressive social reforms across Russian Society resulted in resistance which was not only justified,but also expected.
etc.
Zezen (talk) 08:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia: Peter the Great reforms