Talk:Dress code

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 February 2019 and 3 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kayla Andr..

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 9 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ValeriaC99, AbbyScott.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 15 October 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brooksilvers. Peer reviewers: MaxenGL.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 August 2021 and 1 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Malinaresma, Jonny Hernandez12. Peer reviewers: Liyahyow, Josue Hernanadez.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Julianoel.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Contradiction ("Business casual" subsection)
This article states "Business casual dress, also "smart casual", is [...]". However on the Smart casual page it is said that "Smart casual (as distinct from business casual) is [...]". Which page is the correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.248.85 (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Smart casual is smarter than business casual. Business casual is what you wear in work on a hot day after ariving in a suit and tie (ie: you take off the jacket and tie). Smart casual has a jacket (eg: sportscoat, blazer, or linen suit) but no tie. FurryAminal (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Poorly Written
This Article's other problems notwithstanding, it jumps from topic to topic, and lists irrelevant information repeatedly. It needs major work, if not a total re-write.


 * Agreed. "Clothing can be a deliberate social message, even if none is meant." That's a contradiction. --Muna (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ethnocentric
Article is extremely ethnocentric; it's primarily about modern American clothing. If you're going to keep the title, suggest expanding the material. Zora 08:16, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Almost universally nudity in a public place is illegal, except in special nudist areas

It should probably be noted that in some cultures (mainly so-called "primitive" ones) total nudity (some indigenous tribes of Brazil) or women's topless (idem, plus some societies in Africa) is accepted or the norm. -- tmegapscm 2005-08-14

Organization
This needs to be split into two articles:- Lumos3 8 July 2005 13:09 (UTC)
 * Dress code - explaining what this means with examples
 * Sociology of clothing - an article thats adequate to this title


 * I've made a new article, Dress code (Western), in order to aid in this process

Biased
Not only is the article ethnocentric, I also think it doesn't hold to a NPOV. After reading it through, I can't help but get a sense that it was written by someone who opposes at least some of the social restrictions of dress code, giving the article a sense that there is an active debate, without declaring it so. Elements such as the incongruous reference to sharia without any explanation seems to be making a point and illiciting a rejection of social dress codes, rather than simply being a reference to a specific kind of dress code with explanation as I think it should be. The examples given also lean towards the rejecting view and seem designed to illicit a "dress codes are strange and silly" response, rather than to illuminate the topic. -: Romann 02:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The article seems quite neutral about dress code. Sharia has a section on dress code, so it is quite appropriate and useful to link to that section.--Patrick 12:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that a link is appropriate for the page as it refers to a dress code, but it's in a section entitled "no shoes, no shirt, no service", which is a dress code with an different context. The last paragraph of this section switches without adequate bridging or justification from commercial dress codes of restaurants to the deliberate breaking of laws. Given the intent of the social aspect, would it not make more sense to link to the society sub-section of trousers instead of the law section and place the link it in a different section of this article?


 * The following statement has no research justification to back it up.
 * "The "no shoes, no shirt" slogan appears so prevalently in some settings that it has become the target of mockery and flagrant disregard."
 * In addition to the lack of support, use of superlatives makes for a more emotional statement than necessary. Overall this entire section is heavily focussed on the north american treatment of dress codes in commercial establishments and needs to be rewritten.


 * Another example from the deficiencies subsection:
 * "Clothing deficiencies may reduce functionality and/or be unesthetical, but may well have social repercussions also."
 * What social repercussions? No further comment is made on the social aspects.
 * Taken independently there might not be a bias in the separate sentences, but taken as a whole there is a sense of specifically targetting conservative dress codes in the first few sections.


 * I would agree with Lumos, that the dress code and social sections should be separated and further justified with adequate references. Most pages that link to "dress code" aren't referencing from a sociological aspect, which could be confusing.
 * - Romann 07:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I made some changes. I don't quite understand what separation you would like, dress code is a social matter.--Patrick 11:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Dress is not only a social matter, but can also have functional aspects such as safety or utility. Something straightforward as the requirement to wear a hard hat and steel toed boots on a construction site can be considered a dress code under the general term. The social aspects of this code are quite distinct from its existence. A hard hat with boots works as an identifiable costume outside of its functional application as a dress code(do I have to mention the Village People?)
 * A dress code article would cover only the functional and historical aspects of dress codes, while the current article would primarily contain the social aspects of dress codes (costumes, religious edicts, conformity, perception). I think this makes the point a bit clearer. Romann 02:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The section Clothing could be expanded, and if it gets large, split off. History can be considered for each, it does not belong to just one of the two.--Patrick 14:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that "dress code" as a topic should be integrated into functional clothing (with the potential to be branched off further)? I don't entirely understand what that would achieve relating to this article.
 * Responding to your suggestion to separate functional aspects from social ones, I meant to suggest that you can add content about non-social, functional aspects to that existing section.--Patrick 14:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that the redirect of "dress code" to this page, instead redirect to "clothing" in general with any expansion of that article to include only relevant and researched information from this page. Romann 02:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Currently this is the page about dress-code, after possibly moving and/or expanding content we can always change the redirect.--Patrick 13:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

No original research
The content needs to be backed up by REFERENCES. Original research will be deleted. 4.250.132.22 15:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Please be more specific about the parts of the text that you have doubts about, because you have searched the internet and could not find any confirmation.--Patrick 15:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Huh... is there a problem with posting one's observations or original research here? I didn't write this article, but I'm certainly an advocate of author's rights. As far as I can see, this is pretty much a decent article and I don't get why so many people are railing against it. --219.77.137.199 16:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Read WP:NOR - FrancisTyers 16:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Poorly organized
As it stands, this article is just a random list of free-floating thoughts on the anthropology of Western clothing. I'm not sure it's salvageable in its current form. Even if there weren't lots of unverified statements and missing sources, the very organization of the article makes it smack of original research, because it seems to just be "1) here's a topic i thought of" "1a) here's an aspect of that topic i thought of" etc. Apollo58 19:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, should we try putting this article up for deletion? I don't think there's anything useful here that isn't already covered in Clothing. In fact, I believe that this article was created after I extensively rewrote the Clothing article and Patrick objected to his material being removed. So he moved it to a new article. Zora 22:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Not that it is relevant, but I did not create this article, as you can see in the page history. Also e.g. dress-code is not covered (not even mentioned) by clothing.--Patrick 00:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

By country
How about moving the relevant portions (which is not everything) to articles like Legal restrictions on public dress (by country) and Commercial restrictions on customer dress (by country). If we don't specify by country, ethnocentrism creeps in. Perhaps there are some books or online resources that treat these issues. Just setting up Dress code would be a poor stop-gap. Zora 01:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see that you have, as a re-direct. Zora 01:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If you use ambitious titles, make sure to add enough content to fit those titles.--Patrick 09:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That means you don't want to do any moves? Zora 10:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The titles suggest there is a section for each country. That would be nice (although I am not sure whether commercial restrictions on customer dress can suitably arranged by country), but a wish for expansion of the content is not enough a basis for these names.--Patrick 20:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

As it stands, all the material you have assembled on dress codes, whether public or commercial, assumes that the only "world" existing is modern urban North American or European. It's profoundly ethnocentric. If we set up dress codes by country, then we've created a space in which other editors can contribute, AND we've established a slot for some of your NA-Euro material. Though it's not clear to me that there's one code for this whole area. We'd have to have sub-sections. Aargh. Zora 21:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Creating empty sections does not seem a good idea.--Patrick 22:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, are you a Brit or a USAian? If USAian, create an article called Dress codes in the United States and divide it into public dress (enforced by government) and commercial (enforced by commercial establishments). Oh, and a section on school dress codes. Wouldn't that cover it? If Brit, ditto but change country name. Zora 22:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It is not about the US or UK in particular. On the whole the content is either general or in the form "this is sometimes the case". If needed you can add in applicable paragraphs "in some countries" and/or "however, in .., ..".--Patrick 23:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You are writing about dress codes based on your experiences, hence your observations are valid ONLY for the social sphere in which you move. You can't just assume that the rest of the world doesn't exist! Believe me, there are different dresscodes out there! In Tonga, showing my calves was provocative; in the US, it's routine. In Tonga, it's ILLEGAL for men to appear in public without shirts; in the US, there is no such law. You are a "native informant", to use anthro-speak, only within the context in which you are native. So you have to tell us what that context is. If you're not willing to specify exactly WHERE these dress codes apply, or do any research to support your observations, then this article fails any reasonable test of encyclopedic usefulness. You're just using Wikispace to put up a personal essay. Zora 01:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If people come up with a very small country for a counterexample, that looks like a confirmation of the content being fairly universal. Anyway, I added a line about Tonga.--Patrick 02:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Holy moly! I mentioned Tonga because I lived there for two and a half years, dang it. I have two anthropology degrees! I tell you your content is not universal! In Japan, it's OK to change into beach togs in hotel lobbies, or to wear flimsy cotton yukatas through town on your way to the public baths. Japanese aren't fussy about nudity the way North Americans and Brits are. In the Amazon, some people wear nothing except a string. In New Guinea, men wear nothing but penis sheaths in public. Women wear string skirts. In Bali, women go topless. In India, women can show belly but not legs. There are thousands of counter-examples to your ethnocentrism. It would be a major PROJECT to dig all the clothing material from the Human Relations Area Files, but the material is there. That's not counting historical examples! See. Zora 06:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It is not clear which text this contradicts. Anyway, you are welcome to add this kind of info.--Patrick 11:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I strongly support the idea because it's US-centristic. In central Europe, there are no dress codes at public schools unless they have school uniforms. Saemikneu (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the most strangest things I have ever read on wikipedia. I doubt whoever wrote this hasn't been to China for the last 80 years or so. It is very difficult to write a paragraph entirely correct, but it is even more challenging to make up a paragraph entirely wrong. My source: Beijing Born and Raised. Check this out :"Chinese people are very conservative when it comes to clothing. No swimsuits on the beach just because they are very conservative. During traditional festival, the Chinese like to dress to join the festival. Middle aged women wear cheong-sam which is a skirt; men usually dress up in a suit and tie. The Chinese feel that wearing an indecent dress will take away your dignity. The younger generation would wear semiformal clothing to fit in the banquet". First of all, Chinese people are not conservative when it comes to clothing. Hot pants and mini skirts are everywhere in the cities in summer time. Second, where you got the idea no one wears swimsuits on the beach in China, and give a legitimate reason "because they are very conservative" ?? Some guy from your local "China town" who actually never been to China in his whole life? Or a really really old book with a publish date in the 1930s. Third, it would be great all women will wear cheongsam or "旗袍" in festival, but that is not true. That part of the dress code history lost in Mao's era 50 years ago. Also, men don't dress up in suit and tie in festival either. The truth is: Chinese people are actually dressed very informally for most of the time, except for those who work in multi-national companies. 99% of the people wear "street wear". You would not regonize any difference between a Beijing girl and a girl from NYC or any U.S. city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.244.80 (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so it may not be neutral
But is there really a need for four hundred banners proclaiming this in the face of the reader? Joffeloff 22:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently since fixed. -- Beland 21:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added a POV-section tag to the "Nudity..." section. Between it's lack of content and opinion-biased second paragraph, the section needs to be reviewed, revised, expanded, or just removed. Wolfraem 02:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Move to "Dress code"
I propose moving this article to dress code which currently redirects to here. It's already about that, dress code is an actual word. This is not heavily visited. Dress code is more important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwarf Kirlston (talk • contribs) 12:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * While an article on the "social aspects of clothing" might be warranted, this article, introduction notwithstanding is primarily about "dress code." —  AjaxSmack   21:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Page moved, per request and comments above. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC) I propose that this article indicates the dress code in school instutions in the United States and other countries also.--KHEnglish (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The sign from Qatar
I had completely forgotten about those signs at mall entrances. While they were largely ignored by westerners, some did abide by the request of the Qatari people. It makes an excellent addition to the article to illustrate different cultures approaches to dress codes in different locales/venues.Wzrd1 (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Personal essay
Who wrote this crap? The entire article reads like a personal essay from the perspective of a middle school kid, jumping from one bizarre opinionated statement to another, with hardly any statements having citations, or proper citations that actually meet Wikipedia guidelines. This is to say nothing of the rampant grammatical atrocities littered throughout.

Can anyone elevate the article to a more urgent class? Maybe a more competent editor will come along and rewrite it from scratch. 98.86.114.104 (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

In what ways does dress code effect gender and gender inequality in the way that women are viewed and looked at. Does dress code play a part in the success or lack of success with women? Julianoel (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Parents against dress code
I suggest we add something to the article that shows how not only kids rebelled against dress code in the “Rebellion against dress code” sections, but how parents rebelled against it too. Madisoncupples (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent Revisons
I have assigned myself this article for a class project and plan to do a lot of major reworking. Edits will be made for tone, quality, and accuracy. If you can find source info please put it in. I will be looking for my own reliable sources and working them in, deleting the biased and wrong information. Kayla Andr. (talk) 04:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Codes
There should be no dress codes 74.96.217.65 (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with 74.96.217.65
I can't stand "dress codes", what a load of rubbish! If I'm going to a fancy/poncy/posh event (with family) I wear what I think is appropriate for it and I've never had any issues. 51.7.117.129 (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

"Laws and social norms" isn't about either but how they vary by location
i dont know what else to write here

maybe it could be renamed or merged into something else? Porcupo (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Writing 10 Dean
— Assignment last updated by AndrewLiu5 (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)