Talk:Men's skirts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Fashion (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Deletion reason?[edit]

Why was this article deleted? Many contributors have put much effort into it. -- 22:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't it be recreated without previously deleted material (for which it was deleted), maybe under more generic name, because it is notable topic? -- 06:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Register a user name and create the article under your user space so it can be reviewed. --Ezeu 07:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Call for help[edit]

This is an urgent call for someone who knows about wikipedia appeal procedures. The authors of this article recieved no notice or discussion prior to this deletion. It appears to have been deleted unilaterally by an anonymous admin, probably for personal reasons. Bards 09:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There are no anonymous admins. You can take the issue up at Wikipedia:Deletion review. --Ezeu 09:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I have identified the admin responsible - JzG - and I am talking with him now. If this achieves nothing, I will follow your link. Bards 10:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
User talk:JzG#Men in skirts names the original articles from which JzG alleges that "Men in skirts" was recreated, including sections of Skirt and dress. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 13:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I give up. Life is too short, and wikipedia is not ready for this - my personal opinion. It was deleted due to similarity with an article deleted last year. The AfD discussion for that is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Male Unbifurcated Garment. The admin responsible erroneously decided that I was a puppet of other users who had caused him trouble, and that I had recreated the article. In fact, I was completely unaware of the previous deleted article. I have other battles to fight in life, and my estimation of wikipedia has taken a slight dive. Bards 15:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

My main concern is the fact that this was speedy deleted - I'd have no problem if it went to AfD and the consensus was to delete.

As for previous articles: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Male Unbifurcated Garment certainly doesn't count, as the problem with that article was that Male Unbirfurcated Garment was a neoglism. Many of the Deletes were based on it being a neologism, and not the content - indeed, I myself voted Delete for this reason, but I'm not sure I would vote to delete this article, and I noted There is an argument for having an article covering "men who wear skirts/unbifurcated garments" - I agree that this does not fit in with kilts (which is just one form of this), nor cross-dressing (since it may not always be considered cross-dressing). However, this article is not about the practice, it is specifically about the term.

Similarly for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Men's fashion freedom - it's clear that people had problems with the term being a neologism, or that it was a non-notable movement (it's true that, IIRC, there were some mentions of "movement" in this article, which I had concerns about - but that can be edited out, that doesn't mean that the article, and any article ever tangentially related to men and skirts, should be speedy-deleted).

As for undue weight in other articles, surely the solution to that is to put it into its own article? I fail to see how deleting this helps, as it just means the content has to go back into those other articles.

One of the editors responsible for these articles may be POV-pushing or have an agenda - but I fear this also means admins may have an axe to grind against this editor; that is not reason to speedy-delete this article. I don't see we can determine that the reasons for deleting the other articles apply to this article - the way to judge is to put it through AfD. That's what the AfD process is for, after all. Mdwh 21:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hang on[edit]

This talk page is aimed at gathering consensus for a deletion review. Please do not speedy it under G8. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 13:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The deletion review was closed as "Overturn and list on AFD". The page is now listed on AFD, and some people have contributed to a rewritten article. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 16:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Old talk page[edit]

Can anybody restore the content of talk page prior to JzG's first deletion? It might contain valuable information for improvement of article. -- 11:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The talk page prior to the article deletion (early May 2007) is now archived here: User:Bardsandwarriors/MIS-deleted-talkpage. It contains a long list of references that I had gathered from the web. Bards 13:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

More Refs[edit]

I have a lot more potential sources, although not studied in depth here. Bards 23:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

  • See WP:ATT and especially WP:RS. Which most of those are not. Guy (Help!) 12:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Metropolitan Museum of Art exhibition responses[edit]

"According to her report, the reactions were wide-ranging," - If they were wide-ranging, do we have any examples of some more positive comments? The problem is that by giving responses from a teenage girl and two old women who found it ridiculous, we give the impression that these are representitive of everyone's views. Mdwh 09:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Destructive editing by Bardsandwarriors[edit]

Crossposted to User talk:Bardsandwarriors

I was taken aback to see this recent edit, where Bardsandwarriors removes a perfectly good scholarly citation for the claim that promoting the wearing of skirts by men has met with little general success, namely Wilson (2003), Organizational Behavior and Gender, and replaces it with Assertion by User:JzG (ha ha). What kind of an edit is that—a silly joke? An attempt to wear down the editors who defend the article's neutrality? In either case, please edit more responsibly. I have restored the Wilson cite, this time with a quotation. Bishonen | talk 11:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC).

Destructive editing by JzG
JzG's repeated attempts to support his personal prejudices on this subject have made me very wary of his edits on that article. You may notice, if you study his edits, that all of them are negative, or seek to diminish the impact of the article; and none are constructive or positive. He has tried - unsuccessfuly - several times recently, to get this article deleted (in this and previous incarnations), and been foiled by the reasonable debate of other people at every stage. But he still considers it his job to reduce it, wherever possible, mainly by insidious methods. He has a habit of quoting WP policies to support his edits, in otherwise rational debates, as if he knows what he is doing - but which, on further inspection, turn out to be irrelevant or deliberately misinterpreted to suit his own agenda.
I was therefore led to a possible error here, imagining that JzG had attempted to add his own assertion into some text attributed to a different (and reliable) source. I was unaware that the same assertion had previously been removed from that attribution.
If you are only here (and there) to support JzG's destructive behaviour, please go away. Please do not crosspost to my talk page - your post there will be removed. Bards 13:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't see this request until I'd already posted on your page just now, sorry. If you would rather be warned on this page, that's fine by me. (And as for your blanking my message, I was fully expecting a repeat of that civil action in any case.) I'll paste in my recent post from your page below, then. Here goes, and sorry again for seeming to ignore your request. Bishonen | talk 14:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC).
I will leave it there, if you like. I don't think it serves any purpose, excet to complicate the debate. Your choice. Bards 15:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Such bile, Bards. Such bad faith. You know, every single time this subject has been discussed we've seen precisely the same behaviour form the promoters of skirts: the absolutely unshakeable belief that only their perspective is neutral and that anyone who disagrees is necessarily the biased one. Am I sick of the POV-pushing of this tiny "movement"? You betcha. Does that mean that every time I edit the article I am enforcing a bias? Not hardly. Fact is, the majority of bias here has been shown by your side. For a long time. Relentlessly. Ad nauseam. And as for unsuccessfully trying to remove this subject, it was successfully removed several times at different titles, and exists now only because another editor much less involved than you did a complete rewrite, removing almost all the puffery and original research in your version. The statement you make that I quote policy "as if I know what I'm doing" - well, enogh people think I know what I'm doing that I have the sysop bit, so maybe I do know what I'm doing. And maybe (really, you should consider this possibility) you are confusing your own biases with neutrality. We've been told before now, with enormous confidence, that male skirt-wearing is a significant and growing movement. But, amazingly, all the reliable sources seem to say the precise opposite, so we have to rely on web forums promoting male skirt-wearing to provide the citations for this fact. I wonder why that is, exactly? Oh, one more thing: I work often in London, a very cosmopolitan city. I have yet to see a man wearing a skirt in London, apart from kilts worn by Scots, and them almost exclusively outside Buckingham Palace. Wikipedia is not the place to fix what the world thinks about your fashion choice. I don't care if the world is right or wrong, what it thinks, as of now, is that skirt wearing by men is an eccentricity. And we are bloody well not going to pretend otherwise. Guy (Help!) 14:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Guy, I wish I could get along with you. But we do seem to have strongly opposing biases in our outlook on this subject. My outlook is probably biased as much one way, as yours is the other way - perhaps because of the history of deletion on this subject, and the way that type of situation tends to polarise people into opposite camps. I don't claim to be an expert on WP, but because of our opposing positions, I am trying to rely on WP wherever possible. But, and this doesn't improve your credibility in my eyes - several times you have quoted one policy after another, and they have been inappropriate or interpreted to your advantage, so I've taken to contesting them. The same has just happened with my links to manufacturers (Menintime, etc). We very nearly reached a 3-revert-rule rv war there. But in finally quoting something that does make sense, you've persuaded me to take out the links.
The reasons that the previous related articles were deleted, from what I can gather, were not to obliterate the subject matter from Wikipedia. They were technical reasons. MUG was removed as a neologism; it could easily have been renamed, but perhaps the main writer of that was not a reasonable person and it wouldn't have been worth it. You may have to modify your outlook, to account for the idea that men's skirts are a notable subject worth writing something about. I don't understand why, in the light of the review and the AfD debates, and then Uncle G's excellent rewrite, you haven't done this. Conversely, I am piece by piece learning the wiki rules and finding out what can and canot be written on controversial subjects like this one. For "puffery" (lol), I read wiki-novicery.
All of your edits that I haven't contested, are ones that I more or less (probably) agree with. You do make *some* sense, *some* of the time.
As for whether the subject is notable, or whether it exists etc - that should not be a reason for editing this article, or attempting to reduce its impact. It has already been decided that the article should be here, at least for the moment. (As a side note - I have only extremely rarely seen a guy in public in a skirt or a kilt; but I have seen them. I have also met them, and been one of them.). Bards 16:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Bards, thank you so much for the no-doubt painful concession that I make some sense some of the time; I would note that I make enough sense enough of the time that I am an admin around here, so perhaps it is more sense more of the time than you credit. The subject was not obliterated, it was integrated into an article, where it sat perfectly happily (give or take the occasional bit of astroturfing) for a while. And actually what this article says is pretty much the same thing, with the addition of a paragraph on an exhibition that happened once - and whose effect was largely to highlight exactly what the section said, which is that it is not a significant movement. Guy (Help!) 19:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What's with the blanking of my message? Aren't you proud of your edits?[edit]

Your now blanked response to my now blanked message makes my hair stand on end. You were "led to a possible error" and "imagined" things had happened, which 30 seconds study of the history would have shown you had not happened? And you take no responsibility because it was all somebody elses's fault...? I'll bring your practices up on WP:ANI and WP:RFCU if you try that again. And no, I'm not here (or there) to support JzG, I'm only here to defend WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Undue weight. Bishonen | talk 14:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC).

Checkuser? Do you suspect a sockpuppet? Or did you mean WP:RFC/U (requests for comment on user conduct)? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 16:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The message in question was crossposted here and on my talk page. After answering it there, I immediately discovered the crosspost, found it confusing and objected to it. So I answered it here instead, then blanked both my answer and the crosspost at my talk page. Bishonen ranted the above on my talk page, then noticed I had replied here. We have agreed to discuss it here instead (see above). It's all a bit confusing, but resolved (I think). Bards 16:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Damian, I meant WP:RFCU like I said. My cards on the table: Bardsandwarriors' voice, style, and bile all remind me strongly of a certain Single Issue Editor on this very subject, who is known to have socked before. But that might all be coincidence. I'm not accusing B, at least not before I take it to RFCU. Bishonen | talk 18:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC).
I can assure you it is coincidence. I am me, and only me. The amount of baggage on this subject is frightening. What do I have to say / not say / avoid / paraphrase / etc in order to not be accused of puppetry around here? Bards 19:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • A very perceptive question. I don't think you are a reincarnation of that particular problem user, because his editing was largely restricted to skirts for men, and light aircraft. But the problem here is the wikilawyering tone, assumption of bad faith, assumption of the assumption of bad faith, and a certain... singlemindedness. Guy (Help!) 19:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikilawyering, I learn something every day! I certainly haven't knowingly been pedantic. But I believe your interpretation of many of them is far too flexible. For instance, when you mentioned "link farm" in the edits, I looked it up. I discovered that a linkfarm is what I had accidentially been doing some months ago - storing up a long list of links below the article. That was correctly moved to the talk page by some other admin. That is not what I was doing there today, or anything like it. I was using links to support the text, directly referencing web pages (in 2 instances) which cited the years; and in the other, referencing a web site because it didn't have a specific page citing the year. That is not a link farm. I do not think I am guilty of wikilawyering, but I think you are (probably as innocently as I have been) guilty of something else. Such rules are, ime, usually written with great care to include or exclude certain things, and it pays to read them carefully to decipher the meaning.
  • External links in text, to commercial companies selling product, are strongly discouraged. Looking for reasons why this might not actually be a problem is wikilawyering. Wikipedia is not here to provide click-throughs for vendors of product. Guy (Help!) 10:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Guy, I didn't go looking for anything as you well know, except to check out, and possibly learn from, the reason you gave for deleting them. I discovered that the reason you gave was bollocks. This is fairly typical from you - deciding what you think should or should not be there; and then, as an afterthought, finding some bullshit WP link to quote in support of your action, which doesn't actually support it. If you quoted genuine reasons for doing things, it wouldn't be a problem. Bards 14:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Now, what else do I stand accused of?! Singlemindedness - only sufficient to oppose your singlemindedness. The rest of the time I relax and sip coffee. Assumption of bad faith - tell me again, why you feel it necessary to continually reduce the impact of the article, preferably to nothing - after it has been decided by the community that the article should be here? As I see it, you are imposing your personal agenda onto the wikipedia community. Bards 20:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Is crossposting permitted, or encouraged, in wikipedia? Bards 19:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
What on earth... what kind of bad faith on my part is cross-posting supposed to demonstrate? I was trying to make sure you saw it! Why wouldn't it be "permitted"? Why would it be discouraged? What on earth is the problem here? Bishonen | talk 20:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC).
I asked a simple question. Crossposting might cause problems of confusion, resulting in frayed tempers. A good solution might be Meditation. Bards 23:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

In Passing...[edit]

This is refreshing! It's nice to see how the truth continues finding a way. I joined this effort a few years back, and left over a year ago. Apparently, the naysayers fall into a trap, fallaciously reasoning it must either a) not exist, b) be inappropriate, c) should be lumped in with sexually deviant behavior (?), or d) be part of a recent move towards fashion change. When that doesn't work, they resort to downgrading (we used to call them "put-downs" in the 5th grade), using such officious-sounding terms as "wikilawyering," and falsely alluding to commercial interests. These two are merely representative of dozens of such slanderings on the part of Guy and others. Regardless, the correct anwer is e) none of the above. They're apparently unaware that skirts/robes/tunics were the norm for men since men began wearing clothes 50,000 to 250,000 (who knows?) years ago, and only recently, in the last 500 years were shortened, just as leggings grew more robust, and pants evolved. However, this only occurred in Western civilizations. The rest of the world (and the majority of the world's population) kept right on, wearing MUGs, and many still do, to this very day. See Mugs Around the World. By the way, I'm the author of the original MUG article. I certainly wasn't attempting neologism, as the phrase had been around for about a decade when I created the article, and it's now 15 years old, so it's hardly "new." It remains the only term out there which encompasses all forms of non-birfurcated male garb. I've little doubt that Guy will rant. So, let him rant - it merely highlights his unique persona. To Guy's credit, he does indeed make sense (most of the time) on other topics. Just not anything to do with male apparel. To the rest of you, please keep up the good work. I appreciate your objectivity, and your continued efforts towards the truth. Good work, people! Ciao! 11:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite proposal[edit]

The various authors of this article have made interesting contributions, but the article as a whole looks a little bit messy and does not present a worlwide view.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art exhibition is rather anecdotical but represents 36% of the article (Not to mention that most of the non-american readers does not know this museum).

There is a paragraph about Wicca (which is also anecdotical, Wiccans representing 0.0001% of the worlwide population) but not about Christianism (which represents 33% of the worlwide population, and has male unbifurcated garments among its ritual clothes).

I propose another structure for this article :

Outside the western world
    Sarong, Djelaba, Kimono, Buddhist monastic robe...
In the western world
    In the past
        Roman toga, Medieval tunics...
        From 14th to 20th : male skirts became shorter, men began to wear stockings, trousers slowly become associated with men’s dress
        In religion : cassocks...
        Traditional dress : Kilts, Fustanella...
        Revival ? Counter-cultural groups (Hippies, Punks, Gays...), fashion...

That's just a proposal, feel free to give other suggestions to improve this article... --Jeremie (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. One suggestion would be that "Today" section also includes movements that tend to make unbifurcated garments socially acceptable for male everyday wear (those are noteworthy and also different from crossdressers because cds like to wear what is socially acceptable for opposite gender only). --Qsaw (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I find this idea and the structure proposed above very sound. As a world traveler, it's clear the revisionist editing (admining?) to date reflects a very narrow, Westernized viewpoint, and one that is, for some unfathomable reason, loathe to recognize that even in the Westernized world many men wear kilts, sarongs, and other skirted garments. Some have recently remarked, "More men wear kilts in Seattle these days than in all of Scotland." Throughout the rest of the world wear of skirted garments and robes is commonplace, if not the norm. Your idea of grouping the customs and behaviors into their respective categories would properly depict various wear for what it truly is within each circumstance, while minimizing the cross-bleeding and mischaracterizations which have been rampant, to date. (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I found strange that there is no mention of Catholic ritual clothes in the article. --Error (talk) 00:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Going to Move 1st Paragraph to new section "Inside Western Cultures"[edit]

The 2nd & 3rd lines are Western-biased (and purposefully or not, are manipulative to the reader). Men wearing skirts in non-Western societies (say the "OTHER" 90% of the planet) generates absolutely no real controversy. I can say this as a Westerner living in Asia, any controversy over something like that is regarded as stupid to most (my experience). My edit will remove an obvious POV from the 1st paragraph.

Clearly Wikipedia Editors, we need to set better standards; the 1st paragraph is placed & slyly worded to give the general notion that such controversy is everywhere (by not including reference to previous isolated location). Note to All WP Editors: if you're going to "set up" your view across more than 1 sentence, then any statements referring to any nouns in the preceding sentences, must to include basic references to such nouns. Use your words; that's why they exist.

Any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that more information on non-Western cultures would be good. But I'm not sure that the 1st paragraph needs to be moved to a new section - we already have a separate section for "In the Western world", and the lead should summarise the article. The alternative option would be to include a bit in the 1st paragraph about non-Western cultures (i.e., summarising the section "Outside of Western cultures"). Mdwh (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Done - is the new version more balanced? Mdwh (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, with the Inside the Western World taking up about 90% of the article, but less than 3% of the wear of skirted garments, I'd say no, it's not balanced at all. If skirted garments in the Western World is relegated to kilts, utilikilts, and hiking/running skirts, then it should enjoy no more than 5% of the article, with the rest being devoted to the dozens of skirted garments and robes worn by men all over the world to this day. Such as this: Video - How Tahitian Men and Women Wear a Pareo. 22:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Updated broken link... 17:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
As I say, more information on non-Western cultures would be good. My question was referring to the lead. Please feel free to contribute referenced material for the non-Western section... Mdwh (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
This 3 percent of the wear makes up more than 3 percent of the controversy. But I agree with Mdwh that the article needs moar non-western material. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 05:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Earlier, someone mentioned "crossdressing." Pesonally, I think we need to stay as far away as possible from that and the transvestism topics for several reaons. First, there's already more than enough confusion among well-intentioned but ill-informed members who believe any modern wear of skirted garments by men is automatically "CD" or "TV." Second, men wearing skirted garments has absolutely nothing to do with either CD or TV, whether the man is in India, Seattle, or New York - unless they're wearing a woman's skirt - but that's precisely what we are NOT talking about here. We're talking about men wearing male skirted garments. Third, CD, TV, and other TG topics are thoroughly covered in their own section. There's no need to bleed over to here, which only adds to the confusion. Mdwh, I'll see if I can't even up the content balance a bit. 17:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's Address The Mishappen Title[edit]

"Men's Skirts" is, for the most part, an oxymoron. First, men's skirted or skirt-like garments have many names, but "skirt" isn't one of them. Second, the immediate connotations are transvestic in nature, which is a systemic bias, and is akin to lumping all cars into an article entitled "Road Cessna." It's simply inappropriate as it just doesn't apply. Third, the use of any single term for male single-sheath wear, whether kilt, pareo, fustanella, robe, etc. merely confuses the issue, as would lumping all cars into an article entitled "Corvettes." It's too narrow, and exclusive of the many varieties of garments worn by men.

I therefore propose a new title inclusive of all male unbifurcated garments, that is precise, without being misleading or introducing obviously negative bias. "Male unbifurcated garments" was tried, and killed for neologism. This is unfortunate, as all the other terms I've heard (including "skirts") are either too narrow (non-inclusive) or lend unwarranted bias.

Any recommendations? 22:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What about "Skirts for Men" as a title, or "Skirts in Men's Fashion". Both choices sidestep the issue about the indended wearer of the skirt as originally conceived, and instead focus on how it is being used in a particular fashion situation.

Since the 14th Century, the term "skirt" has referred to a woman's garment. Thus, the title, "Men's Skirts" is an oxymoron, and those admins or mods who opposed changing it are themselves morons. The ONLY term which correctly encompasses all forms and styles of wear by males around the world is "Male unbifurcated garment," or MUG. If you Google "mugs around the world" the following always rises to the top: The title of this article should be changed to "Male unbifurcated garment" without any further further puritanical, history-befuddled, brain-dead delay. 20:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Making things up[edit]

I have been a Wiccan for years. The section claiming that Wiccans wear skirts as ritual clothing is frankly a blatant lie. We wear robes as ritual clothing. Some Wiccans wear nothing, but wearing nothing isn't wearing ritual clothing of any sort. Wiccans generally have no problem with males wearing skirts, but they are NOT ritual clothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it has something to do with the fact that ritual robes in both Wicca and Christianity have a skirt (an unbifurcated portion that extends below the hip). --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 02:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
If this article is to be about garments that start at the waist rather than the shoulders, should Wiccan robes be included? If so we also need to include the robes of both Christian preists and Buddhist monks. I think it is more sensible to keep this article about garments that start from the waist however, such as skirts, kilts, fustanellas, sarongs, etc. (talk) 10:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree, but we need to preserve the information somewhere until we have a title and enough sourced material for a new article. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 18:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think a good deal of things about men wearing male unbifuracted garments (MUGs) is made up, most often by puritanical, brain-dead mods who'd love to carve Wikipedia in their own image (or beliefs) rather than simply allow it to accurately reflect what's going on in the real world around us. While walking into a Colorado Springs Walmart yesterday for groceries in my skirt, I passed a kilt-wearing gentleman walking out with his wife. THAT'S reality. That's life. Brain-dead comments such as "it's extremely rare," or "associated with paraphilia or transvestic fetishism" come from the back end of a yak, if not some black hole lack of knowledge and experience. 20:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)


How about renaming this article Male Unbifurbicated Garments or something similar. My reasons for this are:

  • More inclusive of world views and less centred on the western world.
  • More inclusive of all types of unbifurbicated clothing mentioned here for men, rather than just skirts.
  • Makes it clear this article is about male garments, and the double standard about male and female clothing, and not about cross-dressing etc.
  • Include bits about gender equality and such and links to that.

Thoughts? Claireislovely (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

There used to be an article by that name until it was deleted for neologism. (But if the mainstream media have picked up the term since them, go ahead and cite 'em.) The most recent AFD might be helpful as well for considering the rationale behind the current name. As I understand it, skirted garments for men fall into two classes: skirts, which hang from the waist, and tunics, which hang from the shoulder. As for your first point, we can first try to expand coverage of sarongs, lungis, and other skirts commonly worn by men in Asia, and we'll figure out where we can put an article on tunics like the thobe, dashiki, cassock, "cote" worn by young boys in the past, etc. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 14:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Great idea about splitting by those from the waist and those from the shoulders. It seems that in modern usage, MUG usually refers to the former, whereas 'officially' speaking, it should refer to both. Maybe we need to find a general word for the former already in common usage. Claireislovely (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur with renaming this article to "Male unbifurcated garment", and what I wrote earlier is worth repeating: Since the 14th Century, the term "skirt" has referred to a woman's garment. Thus, the title, "Men's Skirts" is an oxymoron, and those admins or mods who opposed changing it are themselves morons. The ONLY term which correctly encompasses all forms and styles of wear by males around the world is "Male unbifurcated garment," or MUG. If you Google "mugs around the world" the following always rises to the top: The title of this article should be changed to "Male unbifurcated garment" without any further further puritanical, history-befuddled, brain-dead delay. 21:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

By the way, the idiot who claims he or she deleted it for "neologism" actually deleted it because their narrow point of view (NPOV) requires them to wrongly group "male" and "skirt." It was a pathetic attempt to demean a style of clothing the deleter finds, for some unfathomable reason, offensive. Personally, I find their combination of abuse of power, ignorance, and revisionism offensive. They're what brings Wikipedia down, what keeps it from being the ACCURATE only encyclopedic resource it could be. 21:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

MUG March article[edit]

Came across this article, but not sure how to fit it in, or where. Feel free to do so yourselves: article Claireislovely (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Link to the wrong kind of goth[edit]

Clicking on the word "goth" under Counter-culture links to the East Germanic tribe called goth instead of the goth sub-culture "[...]The wearing of skirts by men is also part of the goth sub-culture." It clearly means the sub-culture, not the old tribe. (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Bringing up a few points[edit]

  1. I don't think the lead properly (read: not sufficiently explicit) explains that the wearing of skirts by men, while relatively rare, does occur. I attempted to clarify this, but my edit was undone by the user who originally wrote the lead. Those facts are neither here nor there, just listing the facts, but since I'd rather not get involved in WP:3RR, I'd like to open it up for further discussion (despite the fact nobody has posted on this page for years).
  2. In the section "Metropolitan Museum of Art exhibition", it states, "Many male musicians have worn skirts...", yet above that, in the section entitled "Revival", it states, "Guns N' Roses' singer, Axl Rose, was known to wear men's skirts..." For the sake of parallelism, I don't believe we need to explicitly state that Axl Rose was wearing a "men's skirt" while simultaneously stating that many musicians wear "skirts."
  3. Throughout the article, there are references to "male skirts." Inanimate objects are neither male nor female, so this is incorrect terminology.

Anybody have any thoughts on these matters? Pikachu (talk) 03:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I agree re: "male skirts", which should all be changed to "men's skirts"
  • Pkiachu's changes to the article which I reverted were not clarifying, they created a misimpression that the wearing of skirts my men is more common than it actually is. See this discussion for specifics.
  • It's a minor matter to move the Axl Rose reference from one paragraph to another.
  • BMK (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Several of the references to "male skirts" were actually to "male skirt wearing", which is a perfectly legitimate construction, since "male" refers to the "skirt wearers" and not to the skirt. For clarity, I have changed those to "male skirt-wearers"
  • Upon looking again, the reference to Axl Rose and the guy from Korn should stay as they are, since the Met paragraph is referring specifically to what that exhibition said about the wearing of men's skirts, and is not an uncontenxtualized general statement.
  • BMK (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Indeed some of the references were to "male skirt wearing", but I wasn't referring to those. Just the ones that said "male skirt" or "male skirts", referring to the noun, were inaccurately worded.
  • I feel the current wording creates a mis-impression that the wearing of skirts by men is less common than it actually is. We can surely agree that is it quite uncommon, but that it occurs. I'm guessing a percentage or whatever couldn't be sourced reliably. But even if it could, there isn't really a good method of determining what word choice, most precisely describes the rarity. That's the unfortunate thing about the English language - its ambiguities.
  • On another note, the lead includes "females" and "males," which I don't think is precisely accurate. Those terms, classically refer to biological sex, although there are some who use those to refer to gender (or gender identity). Since it is not uncommon for male-bodied individuals, who self-identify as women, to wear skirts, I suggest the lead be changed to "women and girls" and "men and boys", from "females" and "males," respectively. Pikachu (talk) 03:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • You last point is quite reasonable, in my opinion.
    As for the frequency of men wearing skirts, I think we'd need a source to establish anything concretely, and we'd also have to set up some parameters: are we talking about men wearing skirts in everyday situations, men wearing skirts in performance, men wearing skirts occasionally in private for a sexual thrill, men wearing skirts to pass as women, or a combination of all those circumstances? The point I believe the article is making is that non-cross-dressing men wearing skirts in everyday situations is very rare. In my experience of 60 years of living and 40+ years working in show business, I'd say that it's much closer to "never" than it is to "common", so I obviously disagree with your objection. I've ssen my share of cross-dressers and transvestites and have worked with drag performers, and am no stranger to drum-and-bagpipe groups, but I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've seen a guy on the street wearing a skirt or kilt as everyday clothing without a gender-bending purpose. BMK (talk) 03:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I made that particular change to the lead, per the discussion above. As for the second thing, I don't doubt that has been your experience in life, but of course, using that has the yardstick is a violation of WP:NOR. Maybe it's a generational thing, or location, or something else, but in my circles men wearing skirts and kilts as everyday wear is far more common than being countable on one hand. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say I see it every few weeks, at least during warm weather. But that is neither here nor there, as it is original research.
Like you said, we would need some reliable source. As for the parameter you mentioned, perhaps that was the reason we disagree(d) on the frequency. I would count men wearing a skirted garment for any reason (just as I would count a woman wearing a bifurcated garment for any reason), but if I'm correctly reading what you wrote, it seems you're thinking of only some subset of skirt-clad men. So I think the parameter needs to be agreed upon first before we take time to look for a reliable source. Pikachu (talk) 04:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I think we must be cognizant of the title of this article "Men's skirts" and not "men wearing skirts". I think this mandates a focus on everyday wear. A man wearing a woman's skirt (i.e. a skirt designed for women to wear) is a related subject, certainly, and should be mentioned to help provide context, but should not be the focus of this article. Nor, I would say, is a man wearing a skirt designed to look like a woman's skirt, but sized up for a bigger frame. The article should focus on skirts designed for men to wear, and taking into account the relatively different proportions of the male human body when compared to the female. BMK (talk) 05:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
An excellent point. Perhaps we actually need a different article for "men wearing skirts" to be the parallel of Women wearing pants that is linked at the bottom. The two articles link to each other, but one is distinctly about an actual garment itself, while the other is not. And with that in mind, I think the lead needs an entire rewrite. The lead is all about "men wearing skirts" not "skirts designed for men." It should also be noted that the term "men's skirts" also refers to any skirt that is owned by a man. The "men's" indicates possessive. But my main point here is that the lead is really about "men wearing skirts", not "men's skirts."
Also, this article is about "Men's skirts", so I think that we need to also flip around some of the text in the lead to "the wearing of a skirt is today usually seen as atypical for men and boys, despite being typical for women and girls" or something to that effect. This article is about skirts for men, so men should go first in that sentence. Pikachu (talk) 06:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
No, the usual goes first, the exception second. BMK (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
No, the topic goes first, the counterpart second. Pikachu (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

References section[edit]

As explained in my edit summary, Further reading sections can confuse readers since other articles use it as a list of extra literature related to the topic. Unless the one entry in ==Further reading== is actually a reference, it should not be entered under ==References==. Also, the hidden comment with the text "spacing" is has notno reason being there.

The POV edits don't seem POV at all, but rather, i rewrote the prose so that it that it would be more balanced and highlight "popularity" less, since it reads as if it was a subjective opinion rather than objective observation. (talk) 05:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hidden comment with the text "spacing"[edit]

I believe there is no reason for such text to occur in the article. The only reason I can see why anyone would include it is to create an extra line between the last line of text in the article. This is subjective, which I disagree with, per my removal of it. Since is of a purely aesthetic nature, I will remove it. (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure, why would you want to improve the encyclopedia, after all. BMK (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
You just removed a "dead link" in this edit. Dead links are supposed to be tagged so that a suitable webpage can can replace it. (talk) 02:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
No, I removed a link to a site which was used as a note in the article making its use as an EL unnecesary. BMK (talk) 02:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
You are mistaken: you removed a bulleted entry under ==External links==. (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I did, that's what "EL" means. BMK (talk) 03:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Further Reading[edit]

I've moved back the single entry in Further reading back into a 2nd level heading. Further reading of the article lends me to believe that Bravehearts: Men in Skirts (book) was not used as a reference but a section in Places of Learning Media, Architecture, Pedagogy on the Bravehearts: Men in Skirts exhibition is. I thereforeTherefore, it was confusing to me why it was under the References section. I've made the single entry into its own section to eliminate this confusion. (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)