Jump to content

Talk:Grass skirt: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 30: Line 30:
:::::Liku are made of grass as indicated by the Bishop Museum source ("Women's dresses, liku, were made of hibiscus or root fibers and grass") I included. Also there is nothing stopping me from reincluding the hula content. [[User:KAVEBEAR|KAVEBEAR]] ([[User talk:KAVEBEAR|talk]]) 23:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
:::::Liku are made of grass as indicated by the Bishop Museum source ("Women's dresses, liku, were made of hibiscus or root fibers and grass") I included. Also there is nothing stopping me from reincluding the hula content. [[User:KAVEBEAR|KAVEBEAR]] ([[User talk:KAVEBEAR|talk]]) 23:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
:::::A third person has become involved but I just have to say I find this article to have no encyclopedic value and that it is pushing a definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or an indiscriminate collection of information. I will leave the article intact and proceed in a different direction.--[[User:Mark Miller|Mark Miller]] ([[User talk:Mark Miller|talk]]) 23:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
:::::A third person has become involved but I just have to say I find this article to have no encyclopedic value and that it is pushing a definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or an indiscriminate collection of information. I will leave the article intact and proceed in a different direction.--[[User:Mark Miller|Mark Miller]] ([[User talk:Mark Miller|talk]]) 23:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
::::::That is fine if you think the article has no encyclopedic value, I may agree with you a little. But I disagree with the edits and removals made to undermine an article (no matter how problematic it is) to make it an easy delete via Speedy delete or Proposed delete. It is definitely easier to delete an article with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grass_skirt&oldid=852144918 one sentence]. An article that has been around since 2007 deserve more than that. AFD helps pool editors to make a decision to trash or improve an article. [[User:KAVEBEAR|KAVEBEAR]] ([[User talk:KAVEBEAR|talk]]) 23:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


== Additional sources ==
== Additional sources ==

Revision as of 23:54, 26 July 2018

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFashion Stub‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Indigenous names

I was hoping someone would have included some indigenous names for these skirts. Orthografer (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts with article Hula

This article unreferenced since 2007 makes an assertion that the grass skirt is worn by hula girls. Hula mentions grass skirts, but makes no claim they are part of hula dances.

Even if references are discovered for grass skirt, the article is unlikely to grow from this stub. The article should be merged with Hula if there is evidence that one is used in the other. Rhadow (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

Redirect choice of Cultural appropriation#Costumes does not mention Grass skirt and don't see how it is an appropriate one. It is also Hawaii-centric to believe that it only refers to the modern garment for tourist inspired hula since other Polynesian people and African people who wore grass skirts. If this was grass hula skirt that be a different story. I suggest deletion or a rewrite to a more globally minded definition of the term rather than redirect to a non-related article. KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep you opinions such as "It is also Hawaii-centric to believe"...strictly to what the edit demonstrates and not what you may or may not think. What part of the redirect mentioned Hawaii?--Mark Miller (talk) 08:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I object to the use of Hula on this article and believe the mention in the source is too short, and is indeed a cultural appropriation of western influence by exactly what the source says and implies. I think if there is objection we should look to a larger community discussion for consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have merged that content to Hula#Hula ʻauana.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the term "Hawaii-centric" means to focus the subject on Hawaii. I am stating the opposite, that this has little to nothing to do with Hawaii or any other culture.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be redirected or nominated for deletion

For the following reasons. It appears this term is simply a generic translation of different cultural dress and it is possible the revert of my redirect was a knee jerk reaction, looking at the response here on the talk page. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or an indiscriminate collection of trivia.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article may meet criteria for speedy deletion as lacking context to identify the subject.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it must go. It should be deleted via AFD. Any redirect should be globally minded (not exclusively speaking about its use in modern hula). And if the suggested article to redirect to doesn't mention "grass skirt" at all then there shouldn't be a redirect in the first place. There may be hope if someone wants to expand it properly. I can't do it but maybe there is hope that this article can turn out to be something like Loincloth with the proper sources. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah...that article is just as badly sourced as this one and is exactly the same issue of calling something of a traditional cultural dress a generic English term. Where are the expert sources? Are there expert sources?--Mark Miller (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. You need a term for common cultural dresses or else what is the purpose of the words pants, shirts, or shoes. I also disagree with the recent removals. Please bring to AFD instead of whittling away at the article. KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No we do not need an article for a "common" form unless there are sufficient sources that cover it in detail.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Liku are made of grass as indicated by the Bishop Museum source ("Women's dresses, liku, were made of hibiscus or root fibers and grass") I included. Also there is nothing stopping me from reincluding the hula content. KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A third person has become involved but I just have to say I find this article to have no encyclopedic value and that it is pushing a definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or an indiscriminate collection of information. I will leave the article intact and proceed in a different direction.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine if you think the article has no encyclopedic value, I may agree with you a little. But I disagree with the edits and removals made to undermine an article (no matter how problematic it is) to make it an easy delete via Speedy delete or Proposed delete. It is definitely easier to delete an article with one sentence. An article that has been around since 2007 deserve more than that. AFD helps pool editors to make a decision to trash or improve an article. KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources