Talk:Sari

not a model

"Indian Airlines mannequin"? That's a puppet, not a model on the photo.

Pakistan Saris?

I think we should include that saris are also worn in Pakistan. Zia introduced some strict Islamic policies (wearing Shalwar Kamiz himself, banning saris on Pakistani TV, and generally cutting ties between India-Pakistan) that led to the decline of sari-wearing, but they have always been a part of normal Pakistani dress, especially on formal occasions such as weddings. From what I can tell, saris are finally coming back in vogue again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.208.160.122 (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Source of text

An anonymous user [1] has added many good information on this article. But, I have the doubts over the sources. Could he explains if the content doesn't conflict with Wikipedia:Policy --Rrjanbiah 04:38, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nearly 80% of the article is made of content added [2] by the anon user. Google and Yahoo searches turn up only Wikipedia and its forks. Maybe because it was added long back. Or it's possible anon user picked up the content from books. I plan to list this article at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Suspected_copyright_infringements_without_online_source. Jay 13:40, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

article references and bibliography are listed

The article being largely written by a single author is not a valid reason for suspicion of being copyvio. Instead, it is when reference sources, links or bibliography are not given that one really needs to be vigilant. Unfortunately it is the reverse that is prevailent in the wikipedia.

This leads to hindering people from contributing large information on fear of being listed as copyvio, while many people (and I mean many) get away with POV trivia. This is extremely unhealthy for the wikipedia.

Eg: for several months people edited the article Aishwarya Rai only to be listed on the copyvio. The webpage that had taken wikipedia as the source was itself listed as the original source, while the wikipedia article was calmly deleted. The second version of aishwarya rai is indeed copyvio now as the original contribution have been wiped out. Do people expect everyone to write perpetually several versions. WHY cant one person contribute large info?? is that against wikipedia policy?? Water Fish 12:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Need picture

need a simple traditional picture for each type of saree wearing styles. Now i am not an expert here. hehe --kunjan1029 09:40, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Picture

Shouldn't we put examples on this page? --kunjan1029 07:44, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I wanted to use this picture, but couldn't get permission. I was also requesting permission to use this Guiness Record saree, but couldn't get it yet. More such discussions in my page User_talk:Rrjanbiah#How_to_get_images_permission.3F --Rrjanbiah 06:08, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why are the eyes of the women wearing the sarees blurred out in the picture uploaded by User:David.Monniaux on September 17th? I believe it looks very unprofessional. Also I believe this picture does not correctly represent the grace of a saree.Jbritto

Yes, it's not a good picture. The problem is getting a nice picture that is public domain -- because it WILL be copied endlessly. There are not enough public-spirited photographers contributing to Wikipedia! Zora 19:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Hindi language template

They had this on the Hindi language version... the first being Sari and the second being Kurta. I was wondering if this is a relevant template to have or if someone could translate it or whatnot. gren 03:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if it is relevant, but the chart is translated as (top-bottom, left-right): Indian Clothing (title, or ~ garment(s), ~ dress), Sari | Kurta | Dhoti | Sherwani | Dupatta | Lehnga (or Choli) | Lungi | Turban

Most of these are already covered in the "See Also" section of this page.

I also found it curious that the Hindi root from which sari entered English isn't mentioned on the page: साड़ी [IAST: sāṛī]. Khirad (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Major revision

I'm so busy NOT fixing my computer. I completely revised the article. It was rather confusing, not well organized, and seemed to have been written by someone who had never shopped for, worn, or laundered a sari. The grandiose claims for the antiquity of the sari were doubtful, and I balanced them. The whole section on Hindu philosophy and the sari was POV, so I surgically excised it.

I haven't read any of the references in the list; I'm only a sewer-quilter-textile artist and a demented sari shopper. So it could be that some of what I've introduced is doubtful. However, I think the revision is an improvement, and it offers a lot of scope for filling out stubs.

Pictures, beautiful pictures, would help. I don't own a digital camera, or enough saris to start documenting, alas. Any philanthropists out there can send me LOTS of money so I can buy a camera and lots of saris and start snapping pictures <g>. Zora 29 June 2005 00:59 (UTC)

Anon, you carefully restored a lot of ungrammatical, mispelled, and disorganized prose. You didn't just restore "information" -- you restored what I am guessing was your original composition. I strongly object. It was sub-standard prose.

I don't know what to do about your assertions re the Indus valley civilization object, Tamil epics, and traditional Kerala clothing. Just because a statue depicts someone wearing a wrapped cloth does not mean that the person is wearing a sari! Early Mesopotamian and Persian statues and bas-reliefs also show wrapped garments. Descriptions of flowing draperies in an epic do not necessarily constitute a good case for a sari. Your assertions re the Kerala clothing are somewhat contradictory -- on the one hand there is a wrapped sari without a choli, and on the other hand there is a two-piece garment with gold fringe. (Or was that gold fringe actually a border with zari work?)

I do believe that some women of South India wore a single wrapped cloth and customarily exposed their breasts, having seen plates of such costumes while I was working on a 19th century text for Distributed Proofreaders. Dang, I wish I could recall the title -- I'd try to get a copy and post some of the plates, which are in the public domain now. How this relates to two piece garments I have no idea -- which is why the old plates would help. We could also put in a quote from the Tamil epic IF you can come up with a quote that you believe proves that saris were worn extremely early. A picture of the Indus valley statuette would help, as opposed to simply stating that it existed.

You deleted remarks about the difficulties of wearing sari and the cumbersomeness of wearing the Nivi drape. (The fishtail sari is said to be a lot more comfortable and practical.) I've heard women talking about how difficult saris can be to wear -- and talked to Indian women who'd cheerfully adopted salwar kameez in place of saris because, they said, the salwar suit is more comfortable.

I wish you would take a username rather than hiding behind an anonymous IP, and come forward to discuss things. I don't want to squelch your views, which are probably typical of some segment of opinion about saris as an element of Indian culture, but I'd like to see them more specific and more supported by sources. Zora 3 July 2005 11:51 (UTC)

integration of info with reference and Indus valley pictures

Hi Zora,

I liked the new version on sari that you have made. But I have tried to add those information that were given references. My english might be bad but I dont think that should be the reason to revert an edit. Or may be you reverted it because it was anon when posted. I dont know how I logged off (may be because I was writing for long and it automatically logged off.) anyway I have logged on and posted it again.

Here I give you a link to several pictures from the indus valley including a picture of the figurine that is considered by many Historians as depicting a sari worn by a male Indus valley priest.

http://www.pitt.edu/~asian/week-1/week-1.html

(it is the picture of a male with flower patterns)

I am sad that you have got upset. This is wikipedia and different people are going to contribute and that means several points would be contributed by numerous people. Zora, you have written many nice points but you have not given references for many of the statements that you have made. which could therefore be interpreted as POV. Vagab 3 July 2005 12:53 (UTC)

Again, attempted to edit for clarity

I may get resistance and reversion again BUT -- the version that's been up for a while is written in clumsy English, with mispelling and awkward transitions. It contains much irrelevant detail, re non-sari clothing styles, which would be better put into a History of Indian clothing article. I also removed all the material re navels and Hindu spirituality. That's speculation and POV. It would be as if I were to explain the evolution of Western fashion by reference to Christianity.

I also removed all the material added by anons re sari draping. It's very badly written, in sub-standard English, and it really doesn't do the job as well as the various sites to be found through the external links, which combine directions and pictures. Zora 06:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

If a piece of information is written in clumsy english then it has to be re-written by those who feel they know great english. deleting it is not what wikipedia is about. besides zora you have consistently failed to give references to the large edit that you have made. you are only using the reason of clumsy and bad english as an alibi to delete passages you do not like. If a cultural attire is rooted in its tradition then it has to be accepted not deleted. As long as references is provided for an information it is not Pov and should not be deleted. without references however an edit is Pov even if it is written in great english. Vagab 10:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Vagab, you're reverting to a badly-written, POV version of the article just because it's YOURS. You have removed REAL information, from Chantal Boulanger's web site, to replace it with your previous, sketchy, misleading version. Shame on you. Zora 11:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Give references Zora for all your edits. It works better than calling people shame. Please give references Zora, and then shame people. Vagab 11:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Vagab, I do NOT need to give references for rewriting the first para. It's simply taking clumsy prose and making it clearer. Also getting rid of mispellings like "unstiched". As for the rewrite on the sari styles -- that's a paraphrase of the Chantal Boulanger website linked in the article. That's not a new reference. You're claiming I need references -- all I need is copyediting and writing skill. The only "information" I omitted were the bits re non-sari clothing styles from ancient India -- better covered in a History of Indian clothing article -- and your bits re the philosophy of baring the navel, which are POV. I am sure that there are/were many women who don't/didn't believe in that philosophy who wear/wore midriff-baring saris. It's not a philosophical statement. Also -- there are the tribal women who don't bare their midriffs. Zora 11:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Vagab, the first paragrap (with no change in information) is much better in Zora's version. The styles sections is more informative (and I think it was referenced [3] from the links I've read) Eh, I listed what I thought about every change on User talk:Zora#Sari 2. I think you removed relevant information and went off on irrelevant stuff. I did think some of your points deserve looking... why am I explaining again, see the talk for my comments. gren 13:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Links

We have a lot of external links because they have pictures. We are seriously lacking sari pictures. Any volunteers for taking pictures of the various styles of sari? Zora 08:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, some of the commercial links are not desirable but access to the pictures is more important than that fact. Therefore if the pages have a neutral purpose then they can be used. (I explained better on User talk:Zora) Getting nice free license pictures would be the best answer of course. gren グレン 12:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

You can find some pics at Tamil people. --Pamri • Talk 16:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Another illustration is here: Image:Batik painting.jpg. BTW, Is there any specific picture you want? --Pamri ^{• Talk • Reply} 13:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to have a few more nice shots of women wearing saris in different wrap styles, PLUS shots illustrating zari, resham, zardozi, punkra, PLUS shots of the various regional weaving styles. I was trying to get the lady who runs this online sari shop [4] to give us some of her pictures to put in Wikipedia and the public domain, but she is not enthusiastic. I wish she would. She has lovely pictures, and public interest in saris would only benefit her business. I'm an example of a Westerner who sews, quilts, loves nice cloth, and I've started buying saris just because they're beautiful, even though I don't wear them. I just love the cloth! Zora 19:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Here are some free pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/clodreno/search/text:saree/ Before you download it, click on the picture and check the license under Additional Information. Upload it only if it says cc. And also, please upload them to commons, so other projects can use it too. When you upload it to commons, insert {{Claude|image url}} in the summary field. --Pamri • Talk 06:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

south india -andhra pradesh

If you would like to know how to tie a Sari/Saree, try this: http://www.howvids.com/Fashion/How_to_tie_a_Sari_-_Part_1.ad2 Willy57 (talk)willy57 —Preceding comment was added at 21:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sari ceremony

An anon editor added a para re a sari ceremony, said to be held when a girl dons her first full-length sari. I have removed this pending verification. I have never heard of such a thing, but then I'm a foreigner, so I might not have. Exactly WHERE in India is this a custom? Are there any Indian editors who have heard of this? Any cites for its existence? We can restore it (in a better place) if it's verified. Zora 05:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Intro para

Impumozhi, you added a sentence saying that the sari was the oldest garment in the world. That was unreferenced, and I think it's wrong, to boot. The early clothing of which we have record (even remains!) is made from skins, by tanning and sewing. You don't get draped cloth garments until much later, with the invention of spinning and weaving. Egyptian and Mesopotamian art shows people wearing loincloths, wraparounds/kilts/lungi, and wrapped robes. Those can't be described as saris.

Also, you changed the sentences around so that instead of saying that the nivi style is the most common, you said that it IS the sari. That's just not right, and not fair to the women who wear non-nivi styles. Let's hear it for the dhoti wrap and South Indian styles! Zora 23:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Zora, I must confess I never thought of skins. I suppose there must be Eskimos who still wear them, so that furs qualify as "among the oldest surviving articles of attire", which I don't think can be said about ancient Egyptian clothing (but look at Dhoti!! India beats the world every time!! In inertia). Would you say the "among" word allows the sari to weasel through as being among the oldest surviving? I'm so good at weaseling, I have a weasel word for weasel -- I call it diplomatese.
• I don't understand what I did to make the nivi sound like the only drape. The sentence in the lead which says that one end is draped across the shoulders was present before my rewording, and is present now, after your changes. Except for the mundum style, every other drape can be thus described, so what did I do?
• And the Nivi is in fact a south Indian drape. The para on drapes says it originates in Andhra, but AFAIK, it was the general drape of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka as well, except for certain communities. Can we amend / reference this?
• You have re-introduced the word "choli". This is not an English word (sari arguably is), is used nowhere but in Hindi, and even has an indecent flavour to it. Can we not say "blouse" in English? Everyone in India does.

And do forgive my propensity to write long messages! Regards, ImpuMozhi 02:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You can't use "blouse", because while it may mean one thing in Indian English, it means something entirely different in English English. You say "blouse", I don't think of a tight midriff-baring style. Sometimes with no back, so it's just sleeves and a front piece.

Choli is indecent? Every website I visit to drool over saris sells "cholis" too. Did "Choli ke peeche gahe" have that much effect on Indian thought? :)

Tight midriff-baring sometimes backless blouse, sometimes called a choli? Will that do?

Choli in Maharashtra and Karnataka is used for blouses without buttons in front and end of cloth knotted to keep it in place. Blouse is a more general version of the garment warn with a regular sari.

As for your edits re the sari drape -- I have "generally" -- you dropped that. It's not true that styles always go over the shoulder. The fishtail drape doesn't. I'm quite familiar with those drapes, because I just did a lot of research trying to figure how some saris worn in an Odissi dance performance were draped, and ended up researching Bharatnatyam drapes.

The Odissi dance was marvelous. I'm so used to the so-so dancing in Bollywood movies that world-class classical dancing is a treat. Zora 02:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

 Regarding the blouse perhaps there should be a different section for blouse and Indian blouse.

Question ... my family refers to sari as pavada, not the petticoat... perhaps it's only Tamil brahmins that refer to sari as pavada, and low-caste Tamilians refer to the petticoat as pavada? (My family also refers to the petticoat as the "in-skirt," which may also be a regional thing, but isn't a quibble with what's written here -- but pavada=petticoat rather than pavada=sari is a quibble.) 66.60.241.7 (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)M. Radhakrishnan

---

Hindugal 13:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC) A new pleasing picture has been added; due attribution has been done. The picture is freely available on the product brochures as well as on the website. Administrator, please, please, don't remove it. It is one of the most graceful renditions of the sari!

Removed link to blog

Someone added a link to a blog with some sari material, some dubious material, and ads. I didn't think that we should be sending readers there for info, so removed the link. Zora 02:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Dapper Draper's reorg

A new editor put all the section titles back in caps, probably not knowing that the WP style is to uppercase only the first word (and proper nouns, of course). This editor also moved the history section to the top. I moved it back down. Readers using this article want to know what a sari IS; the history is secondary. It's hard to even understand the history if you don't know what a sari is, or a choli.

I'm also unsure about the gallery; it made the pictures awfully small. One can't see any detail. I think that the gallery needs to be tweaked. Zora 03:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Tags

I moved this to the top. I know Zora had removed it but--if they are going to be on a talk page they belong on the top. As for Zora's removal... it's not that I don't agree that it will get problematic when four or five countries claim this article is part of their WikiProject but I don't yet see any precedent for removal... for instance Talk:Layla and Majnun has a WikiProject Afghanistan template on it... O_o which, Iran, Azerbaijan, and Arabia all seem more closely related to the tale, but STBot has been adding them to many articles. In any case, I don't think this is an issue we will decide on this page since it's an issue that covers all of Wikipedia. So, I'd recommend that kept or removed users cite a Wikipedia-wide precedent for it. If there become too many we can always use Template:skiptotoctalk gren グレン 17:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this will provide an answer of sorts. gren グレン 17:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Rearranged Sections and subsections

I have moved the 'Sari as a cloth' section up before the types because in types it is talking mostly about the types of cloth. Also, I moved the Sri lankan way of wearing sari from type to styles of draping because it wasnt talking about type of cloth/weave/design but of type/style of draping. I also moved Pakistan with the same logic. But now I am not sure about it, as it does not specify the style of draping neither does it specify type of cloth. It might go in history. Can somebody suggest what to do with that part.

Also, styles of drapes is right now a bit confusing. And we need photos of various types of drapes as well as types of sari cloth. The images right now I think are not used to the fullest benefit. Also, the girls wearing sari in Taj Mahal are actually wearing a ghagara choli and odhani. May be we should remove it from here. --Kaveri 17:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Clothing?

Isn't a Sari some kind of clothing? -The Bold Guy- 18:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a kerala mundum neryathum

The girl in photo is not wearing traditional kerala mundum neryathum , but a kerala-saree, or set-saree.. it is a one-piece sari . so i canged the captionShekure (talk) 05:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ramanadha?

The first 2 pictures are labelled "Ramanadha in Sari". What is "Ramanadha"? It doesn't appear anywhere else in Wikipedia...
89.136.53.27 (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It was a Typo i changed it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.223.36 (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sari (female garment) → Sari — This article was moved from the plain title about a month ago, and it never should have been. The garment, being far more commonly known and far more linked to through the term, is plainly the primary topic for Sari compared to the other uses listed at Sari (disambiguation). ShelfSkewed Talk 05:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Agree this is the primary topic. Andrewa (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Better Solution: Move page to Saree

  The word sari has many referents. It would be better to move the page relating to the garment to a neutral yet relevant title of Saree. It would be amicable and yet relevant. thanks Robin klein (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Question and comment: Isn't sari the more common spelling? I think that disambiguating by moving a topic to a less common spelling just because it is less ambiguous is not a sound method. But if I'm mistaken, and saree is as common as sari, then this alternative is worth considering.--ShelfSkewed Talk 14:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: What should have occurred to me: Even if the garment article were moved to Saree, that wouldn't settle the discussion about whether there is a primary topic for the term sari, which is the core of the issue here.--ShelfSkewed Talk 14:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support move to "Sari" - There is clearly nothing else on the dismabiguation page which is as notable as the garment. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 00:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support it seems to be primary usage. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support per nom. But don't forget to add the proper 'otheruses' hatnote -- œ^™ 20:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moving to female garment, to distinguishing it

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move --Parthava (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)overruled...see below. DMacks (talk) 00:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Because GPS applications are unable to recognise the article of Sari, Also many of the Links in the Whatlinkshere are from pages linking to the Sari Page,

Sari itself has too many meanings,
Also many of the pages linked to the Sari (female garment). --Parthava (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Admin here, stepping in to block this move. I strongly object to the way the "discussion" was handled. It's clearly controversial, as evidenced by the very recent discussion in the immediately preceding section that came to the opposite conclusion, so it's pretty inappropriate to WP:BOLDly go against it. DMacks (talk) 00:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Cost of A Sari

Hi, How much does a sari cost in the U.S.A? In dollars not rupees. Where can you buy a sari in Illinois U.S too?

Thanks. ~~Posted by Puffy Puffy~~

Hi Puffy Puffy, this page is for comments on improving the article only. You need the reference desk here. Copana2002 (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

The claim to derive from sattika is unlikely to be correct. Pali English Dictionary directs from sattika > tala "a flat surface, level, ground", here it records talasattika "in talasattikaṃ uggirati to lift up the palm of the hand". Not recorded in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Dictionary. So one wonders where the references point? 86.26.1.194 (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Pls see this edit of mine ([5]) in response to your query. Arjun^codename024 18:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

yes, that's more plausible. Thanks 86.26.1.194 (talk) 09:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)