User:Bardsandwarriors/MIS-deleted-talkpage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a copy of the Men in skirts talk page, deleted by the almighty User:JzG along with the article in early May 2007 (with no warning or discussion).

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Men_in_skirts&oldid=124633836 (copied on Sat 19 May 2007)


Contents

[edit] comments go on the discussion page

removed this (This article requires an accurate guess as to the proportion of the world's male population who are permitted to wear unbifurcated garments for everyday activities. Wild guess: 70%?) not encyclopedic tone, wikipedia is not a crystal ball original researc... sorry, you may be actually correct, but this needs a reference and encyclopedic tone. User:Pedant 20:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I should have put that comment on the talk page to begin with. Thanks Bards 20:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] images required

Has anyone got some good public domain pics? Must be impressively stylish or attractive, to win people over. Bards 20:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added two images of male skirts. --Allyn 23:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Mark! They look really good! Bards 06:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

We could still do with one or two which would not look out of place as casual everyday wear. Bards 06:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I could clean up the pic on the left of myself in a Middle Eastern style robe and put it on commons under my tri-license; would that do? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 14:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Not really, but thanks for offering. Have a look at the Menintime site (under 'news'), for some good examples. Ideally, the photos should be out in public, or on a catwalk, and stylish enough to impress people. Once the article is looking professional, we could email some of the fashion houses. Bards 15:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Movement?

What sources are there referring to "Men in Skirts" and labelling it as a "Movement"? Mdwh 22:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Google dictionary http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A%20Movement describes a movement as "a group of people with a common ideology who try together to achieve certain general goals". Therefore, MIS is a movement per se. If you don't believe me, refer to external links, and read them, to find those people; and you will see them discussing their ideologies and plans for social change. I have been a member of those groups, I am a member of the movement, and I know what I am talking about. Bards 01:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
PS. If you want more links, to more forums and ideological web pages, I can provide them. Bards 02:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
What I mean is, has it been given the name "Men in Skirts Movement" by reliable sources? Even if a name "makes sense" according to dictionary definitions, Wikipedia should not be used to make up new labels for something. I'm not criticising the article as a whole, just the labelling of it.
On a similar note, the correct article name would usually be Men in skirts, unless "Men in Skirts" with a capital 'S' is actually a proper name given to this. Mdwh 05:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The external links, which were removed by User:Aaron_Brenneman, have been restored. They contain plenty of supporting references for why the title of this article should be capitalised to describe a movement, rather than a mre phrase. Bards 05:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

In general, Wikipedia prefers references attached to particular claims made in the article (see WP:CITE and WP:FOOT) over bare external links. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 23:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This article was not created long ago, and is under development. I have invited contributions from interested people both within and outside wikipedia. The links serve as a useful reference until they can be incorporated into the text. Perhaps they should be moved into the Talk page - but would they get archived (and therefore lost) if they were moved here? It is important not to lose them, as it took me several hours to find them. Bards 23:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Lost? No. Except in rare cases involving clear violations of law, Wikipedia keeps old versions of an article. View the article and then click "History" at the top. To learn more about talk archives, visit Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#When pages get too long. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 23:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for those links. I know that all old versions are stored. But it would be very easy to 'lose' a whole list of carefully found links in an old version. Deleting them prevents other people from being aware of them, and using them to improve the article; and seems unnecessarily ruthless. I don't know about wikipedia guidelines on such matters. Bards 23:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
If you want to keep track of links without having to worry about them remaining on the article page, I'd suggest pasting them into Talk here. Mdwh 00:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Aaron_Brenneman has also changed the name of this page, without any consultation or warning, to "Men in skirts" from "Men in Skirts". I have requested that he changes it back immediately. Bards 06:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

On what basis? Wikipedia style is that the first letter of only the first word should be capitalised, unless the word is a proper noun. Mdwh 23:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding references - can you point me to a reliable source that describes this as the "Men in Skirts Movement"? I apologise that I haven't had time to look at every single link there, but looking at a few of the main ones I can't seem to find the references. Mdwh 23:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Give me a day or two, and I'll get back to you on that. Bards 01:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subject bibliography

Bards provided the following list of links to pages related to the phenomenon. It should prove useful for backing up claims about the movement. It was originally posted in the article; I moved it here. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 02:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Active forums and resource centres:

Interesting articles and recent events:

Historical information:

Activist legal organisations:

Related legal cases and discussions: (Please remember that laws may be very different, between countries)

[edit] Please leave comments in this talk page if you feel you need to remove non-vandalism edits or pictures

Hello:

I have noticed that some pictures of men in skirts were removed from this article without any notes left in this talk page nor my own talk page.

These pictures are now restored.

Thank you for your consideration.

Truly,

--Allyn 03:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about those two pictures. They look too... costumey, more so the first rather than second one. In addition, they look more like dresses or robes than skirts, at least until you look a little closer. The definition of the skirt vs. shirt is so... vague, so it doesn't give off the proper impression on the first look. And as I said before, they look more like costumes rather than everyday wear. How many people would truly go out in either one as normal everyday wear? If you were to go grocery shopping or to your workplace, would you wear those?
Doesn't seem like the proper photos for the job, in my opinion. We need something more... neutral in tone I guess. Something just normal, regular, you know? I'll let group majority or whatever decide what is best in this case, but I personally think that these images should be removed and eventually replaced with more proper images for the subject matter at some later date.
— Alchemist Sashi 08:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the pictures currently in place look more like costumes for a specific event than clothes designed for everyday wear. That they also look more like dresses than skirts results in a significant loss of value for the pictures. I think that photographs of skirts being worn in "the real world" would be far more valuable in the context of an article about the re-adoption of skirts as an everyday wear choice for men.194.203.249.130 11:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that these skirts may be a bit out of the 'norm' in some places, but can I please inform you that both of these works were commission that I performed for people who wear them 'out' and not just for parties.
I had put them in the article because there were no other GPL or LGPL photos available. As I own both the photo as well as the design of the garments, I can fully and legally release them to be used here. As you know, I cannot simply take pictures off the web and use them due to copyright restrictions. Further, simply taking pictures of someone else's art, or creation, is also copyright-dicey. I felt it was best to do professional photos of myself modeling my own work for the safest legal and copyright friendly way of putting some pictures on the article. --Allyn 13:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

As I understand copyright law, if Alice is taking pictures of clothing that Bob was wearing that was designed by Charlie, then Alice needs a model release from Bob, the subject of the photo, and can release it under a free license. No permission from Charlie is needed. In the United States, there is no exclusive right to photograph clothing, as the law generally deems clothing a useful object rather than a sculpture. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 14:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You have a point there. As I am the model in the photos on this page (and all other of my photos here in Wikipedia, I felt that it is the safest way to put some pictures here. If anyone can find any photos where the model has given the okay and that can be GPL's, the more the better.
Tell you what, when my sewing machines come back from the repair shop, where they are undergoing preventive maintenance, I will try to find time to get something together, model it, and send it on up to Wikipedia under appropriate license. --Allyn 02:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Mark - Since Jan has kindly added a photo aswell, I think you should remove one of yours. Bit by bit, we are getting a good, balanced range of images. Bards 14:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Yipeeeeeee! Finally, we got a more representative picture that is GPL'd!! I removed both my pictures; if I have time when I get my machines back, I put together something more 'non party/costume'. --Allyn 17:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kilt Paradox

Never heard of this before, and google shows nothing. It seems to be based on personal experience, rather than documented fact. Any objections to deleting it? Bards 14:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with it. The "kilt paradox" has been my experience as well, and might well be generalized to just about any traditional male unbifurcated article of clothing, but searching online has brought up little in terms of sources to back it up. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 16:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Nevertheless, it is personal experience. Wikipedia is not supposed to contain personal views, even if they seem to be correct. If it stays in, an assertion as vague and debatable as this has to be supported by verifiable external sources, eg. books, papers, studies, articles, etc. My own experience does not agree with it, for instance. I understand it is easier in the USA; but in the UK I have often risked violence. However, I don't want to discuss this: except to demonstrate to you, that personal experience, no matter how right it seems, is not solid enough to write into wikipedia. Bards 18:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry if that wasn't clear enough: I was agreeing with you. Without verifiable sources, it shouldn't be included. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 18:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Could we cite Kiltmen.com - Bravehearts in Kilts? The four or so paragraphs starting at "not nearly as traumatic" explain the typical paradoxical reaction. But unfortunately, the page doesn't have any named anchors in it. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 20:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm no expert on the rules of wikipedia. But the gist of it is strongly against this. What goes into the article should only be universally accepted facts. The ref you give for instance, is just something that someone has written in an evangelical spirit - and it represents their view, nothing more. This scope of wikipedia is limited to simple facts, descriptions and provable things. Such that anyone could read it and dispute nothing; or if they wish to dispute something, they can look up solid references which very clearly explain how the text is correct. It must not be used to persuade anyone of anything. Bards 22:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Also: Stating "This is known as the 'kilt paradox'" is clearly a lie made up on the spot. A Google search returns *nothing*. This article must not be used as a soapbox for anyone's personal opinion or evangelism. Bards 22:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've edited that section now. I've left the link and retitled as "Sources of advice", to point newbies in the right direction. Other sources could also be added. Bards 23:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Good start. I did clean up the tone a bit. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 04:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "unfortuately" in "Television" is unfortunately non-neutral POV

I'm sorry to chime in with this but, though I empathize that it is unfortunate even though I'm not a member of this movement, "Unfortunately, this uniform was never worn by any leading male actors..." seems to violate NPoV, and thus "unfortunately" should be dropped. I actually think doing this would bring more respect to the article, avoiding the perception that it's some fluffy platform for advocacy. Any objections? --bntrpy 14:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

None here, well spotted. Bards 16:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC) (original author of this article)

[edit] Dresses

I see that the lead sentence has been changed to include dresses as clothing which members of the MIS movement would like to make acceptable wear for men. While there are undoubtedly some men who would like to wear dresses more freely, isn't the main focus on skirts, kilts, and other similar garments? I don't see any mention of dresses anywhere in the article except in the first sentence. –Shoaler (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You could take it out, if you like - and see if anyone objects. I am ambivalent about "dresses". Strictly they are merely a shirt, and a skirt, attached together to make a single garment. But it does blur the line between MIS and freestyle, so perhaps it shouldn't be there. Bards 22:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
An A-line dress more closely resembles a tunic than a fused shirt and skirt. MUGs Around the World on Kiltmen.com has photos of the caftan, cassock, dashiki, djellaba, and thobe, which may look like dresses to the uninitiated. Do these blur the line between "braveheart" and "freestyle" approaches? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 23:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't think they do. Good point, though they may be called robes rather than dresses. Bards 23:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs work

I hate to say it, but portions of this articel are a MESS. Things that immediately come to mind are the speculation about the HRA, the British coverage gap that introduces, some questionable phrases (EG. The bit about the school administration "supporting the bullies"), and the fact that the figure of 70% openly admits it's a "(Guess)".

I don't know the subject very well, but I would try just wiping most of the articel out and starting over from a basic explanation-stub and working from there. 68.39.174.238 09:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree it needs work. Work is in progress, and the article continues to improve. The examples you quote are true, but require more precise data and explanation. Your suggestion to wipe the article is both unnecessary and unhelpful, and suggests a personal agenda. Bards 13:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copy-editing tag

I've read through the article and have made some improvements to the grammar and punctuation etc. I'm removing the copy-editing tag, because I think the standard is now reasonable. Man in a skirt 22:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice job, thank you! Bards 09:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-up tag

The clean-up tag states that the article needs to conform better to the Manual of Style. As far as I can see, it is now in reasonable compliance, so I am going to remove the tag. Man in a skirt 22:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)