Talk:Jodhpurs

Missing some information about older style
This article is inadequate, it primarily addresses the modern tight fitting riding trousers that have inherited the “Jodhpur” name. If anyone knows more about the history of Jodhpurs it’d be quite interesting to see it. I only know a little, how about this:

The style was imported from India during the British occupation in the latter half of the 19th century and became popular for military uniforms, initially with cavalry and only in Britain, but eventually for all the armies of the world and later the air forces too. In the early 20th C until the 40’s Jodhpurs were common work trousers for farm labourers in many parts of the world, including Western and Eastern Europe, America, and Australia; it could be said that they fulfilled a role similar to denim jeans. During WW2 they lost favour as a uniform style but were famously retained by the German officers and such notable figures and General Patton.

After WW2 they only remained as riding trousers in the West, but were also used for motorcycle police uniforms. In Eastern Europe they were still used as work trousers as well as in the uniforms of many Soviet Bloc countries, including the USSR and East Germany.--OzoneO 03:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Regret unsourced text as follows removed as possibly misleading: "In the early 20th century until the 1940s Jodhpurs were common work trousers for farm labourers in many parts of the world, including Western and Eastern Europe, and Australia. After World War II they only remained as riding trousers in the West,". Please re-edit with more clarity (do you mean jodhpur-style breeches or true long jodhpurs?), quoting sources or adding images. Thanks (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC))

Interesting: I'd like to see something about their being worn by early American movie directors, and their association with big game hunters around this time as well.

Maybe add a picture? 71.116.83.87 04:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Nomenclature: Trouser Family or Breech Family?
I suggested by my edit a move to a formal title for this style of breeches. I think it is beyond question that these are indeed a subset of the breech family, simply with longer lower legs. The former baggy thigh style emphasised the breech ancestry. I think it is of interest to the reader to be given an insight into the origin of these breeches, which would therefore include mention of their inclusion within the breech family, as opposed to the trouser family. Perhaps we could start by reaching consensus as to which leg-covering family of apparel they do belong to. I know this sounds a bit pedantic, but it is important if the article is really going to grasp this subject fully. I fully accept that "Jodhpurs" is the term used today, yet that does not mean to say necessarily it should automatically be the title of the article. Permanent re-directs exist for many articles, and can serve as a means of educating the reader. I would argue that an article's title should be the "true" name, and I seek with your intellectual input to discover what that that truth is concerning the Jodphur.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC))


 * I personally don't care deeply enough to start an edit war over the title, but the bottom line is that no one in modern times calls these things "jodhpur breeches," at least, where they are seen most often, in the equestrian world, all the rule books simply say "jodhpurs" as far as I know. (I have heard people say "jodhpur pants" but that's in the USA where the term "jodhpurs" alone is sometimes used interchangeably as slang for the short paddock boots.)  I know that part of what makes them special even today is the narrow leg design that makes them less likely to ride up and bunch at the knee when riding, as the "Kentucky jodhpur" design with a bell-bottom at the end still fits very snug through the knee and calf, though this is a modern design. (I think early saddle seat riders alternately wore either jodhpurs or dress trousers, and ultimately created a hybrid to keep the men's dress suit look that is desired in that discipline, but without the inevitable bunching up that regular trousers would do when used for riding).  The pre-spandex hip flare was necessary for any kind of close-fitting riding pants, as one has to bend at the hip joint quite a bit, especially when mounting or jumping, the whole thing clearly developed with a functional intent.  As far as the distinction between trousers and breeches, I have no background on the history of clothing in general, so my thought is that the best way to settle that is with a respected WP:V source.  Footnotes settle many an issue.   Montanabw (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Montanabw on this, Jodhpurs is a fine stand-alone title.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by edit war - I invited your contributions in the hope that with your input and that of anyone else who's interested this article can be improved. I hope that you will now engage with the issue I have raised: are they Trousers or Breeches? It seems you have accepted that they are called in the US "Jodhpur Pants", which in British English would be "Jodhpur Trousers", so it seems we might be making progress. I suggest you read the WP articles Breeches and Trousers to help you reach a verdict. If you really don't care deeply enough, as you say, about the issue, I do wonder why you have chosen to get involved with the subject in the first place. I would hope to make this into a first-class article and a worldwide first reference for the subject. You do have a lot of interesting points to make on this subject, but please make them in the article itself, that's exactly what readers want to read about! It will help to develop the article. There is a lot of confusion in the "Fashion" section between riding breeches and jodhpurs, which needs to be cleared up. It detracts from the article's credibility. I don't know what sort of trousers the Australians quoted were wearing, are there any sources? Else perhaps it should be cut, as liable to mislead. As for the film-directors etc, I would argue they wore baggy breeches, not jodhpurs, in which they would look ridiculous with ankle boots. This confusion in the article is currently obvious to the reader. I await your reasoned verdict on the Trousers/Breeches issue. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC))
 * I'm not saying there is an edit war, I'm only saying that I'm not going to start one. I care because there is incorrect information being added about something that is used every day in modern times by riders and I do not want to confuse the topic with undue weight given to matters best dealt with in other articles.  And NO they are NOT properly called "jodhpur pants" in the USA, that's occasional slang!  They are called "jodphurs" --but some people are morons and refer to paddock boots as "jodhpurs" and not "jodhpur boots" so sometimes people clarify the two.  Frankly, as a contributor to the breeches article, all I can say is that they appear to be a hybrid design to me, combining elements of both trousers (which are long) and breeches (which stop at mid-calf).  (The flared hip existed elsewhere besides India, they didn't invent the concept, only the cut) And you have yet to provide any evidence that you know what you are talking about when it comes to riding horses, so please start adding more citations.  The burden is on the person wanting to add or alter existing material, so that means you.  This is getting very tiresome.   Montanabw (talk) 03:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we are moving forward with this article, but I do request you cease the unnecessarily hostile tone, please. This process of discussion should not be considered "tiresome" as you state, but part of the correct building of a good WP article, so please let's make it productive. I like the new photo of the Kentucky Jodhpurs, completely unknown in England, so a great addition. I fully support your wish to stop morons, as you put it, using incorrect terminology re: jodhpur boots, that's why the article needs to be somewhat more pedantic than I expect you desire. I note however that you still sanction the use of this incorrect term where you state: "The term can also refer to a type of short riding-boot". No it cannot, at least not correctly, surely? That's what you said above. WP articles exist in part to educate and teach correct usage, not to encourage incorrect usage. Why can you not say "The term is sometimes used incorrectly to denote "Jodhpur boots", which are..." Clearly we are each on opposite sides of the Atlantic, with conflicting US/Brit terminology. Could I suggest we drop reference to "Pants", and replace with "Trousers", the reason being that in Britain "Pants" mean underpants, possibly what you call shorts, unless where used in an obviously American context which this article is not, Jodhpurs being as common in Britain as in the US, I would guess. Use of "Pants" in this article will cause suppressed or even open laughter in British readers, which I wish to avoid. I would like the article to be aimed at both sides of the Atlantic if possible, and trousers seems to be a good compromise. I have now found several sources for "Jodhpur Breeches" as a title, the most authoritative one being from Summerhays' Encyclopaedia for Horsemen, 5th edition, London, 1970. First published 1952 (which I have in my bookshelves). This is the bible of the British equitation world. Page 189: "Jodhpur Breeches: A popular form of riding breeches, named from the Indian state of Jodhpur; the leg is extended, unbuttoned and unlaced, down to the ankle, rendering unnecessary high boots or leggings. They are worn with strappings and either without an opening at the ankle or with an opening held together with elastic or a zip fastener I have also found from the Oxford English Dictionary, (20 volumes), 2nd. ed, 1989, vol.8, p.254: "Jodhpurs: Riding-breeches reaching to the ankle, combining breeches and gaiter". This OED entry lists the earliest literary mention of the word to 1899, quoted by GW Steevens in his book "In India", chap.4: "The Jodhpur riding-breeches - breeches and gaiters all in one piece, as full as you like above the knee, fitting tight below it, without a single button or strap - have been taken up, as I am told, by a London artist, and are on the way to becoming world-famous". This is a very significant passage, which I would like to see quoted in the text, it also gives some very interesting context to the Maharaja's major interest in horses. Steevens was reporting on being shown around the palace and stables of Jodhpur by the Prime Minister who was wearing a pair. See. However, I myself am no longer convinced thatn "breeches" is correct, as these end below the knee: OED, vol.2, p.525: "Breeches: A garment covering the loins and thighs". I now accept the title as is, "Jodhpurs", as per OED, but would prefer "riding-trousers" to be used in the intro., especially as they developed from an Indian garment which clearly is a trouser, not breeches, the Churidar. The distinction between breeches and trousers needs to be explained somewhere in the article. The garment worn in the early 20th.c. by generals & film directors was not jodhpurs proper, but "Jodhpur-style breeches", ending below the knee, as worn with long boots. I think this important distinction needs to be made in the section "Fashion influence". Here also I would like to delete the sentence containing the unsupported claim that Jodhpurs were worn as work trousers for farm labourers, tagged "citation needed". Could be misleading. I am very disappointed you have relegated the link to the absolutely key images of the Maharaja of Jodhpur wearing the original Jodhpurs to notes only. I believe in view of the importance of this primary evidence the link should appear in the text, else it will be missed by 99% of readers. These images are akin to seeing the inventer of the wheel on his bicycle, a dream sight for the Jodhpur enthusiast or enquirer - which I might add took me a very great deal of time & research to find! I know they're not perfect images with "Getty Images" printed on them, but there's no copyright problem with providing a link, and imperfect photos are better than none at all. If these images were in the public domain and not obstructed, I'm sure we'd agree they would go in the page 1 RH top slot. Please explain why you have removed this link from the text. Also, I think you are incorrect to downgrade the historical element, which I believe is what most readers are actually curious about more than anything. Readers will almost all know what the modern garment is, probably most will be riders, and own several pairs, so they require to be told something in addition, to interest them, which they don't already know. There is a section clearly labelled "History", so how can having a full section here distract the reader as you state? If you're not a history buff yourself I would offer to place the history section at the end of the article, but it really needs to go at the start so the jodphur can be explained. I would like to add more historical info on the Maharaja and his involvement with horses and polo which led to him inventing the article, surely interesting to any rider, i.e. the majority of readers of this article. As far as I am aware there is no WP guideline limiting an article to a superficial treatment of just 2 pages, as it stands. I would like to see a 5 page article - if there is 5 pages worth to discuss. What most readers of this article are interested in I suspect will be the origins of this item, and reading about the Maharaja as relates to horses and apparel, so I think you are wrong to downgrade the historical element. Re the "footwear" caption of the rider of the Marwari horse - they are actually closer to slippers than either shoes or low boots. I will find the correct term for them and insert in the caption. I don't intend making any more edits to the article until we reach a consensus here about these issues. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC))


 * When you have read [{WP:CITE]] and WP:UNDUE, we can discuss this further. Length is not the issue, focus and balance is.  You might think "most" readers want to know the history of the garment.  I think "most" readers are people who like horses and want to know about riding clothing, thus a modern focus is needed.  And we cannot break this impasse because I am pretty sure that no one has taken a poll of what readers of wikipedia want to know about jodhpurs.  There is a place for a history section, but there already is a link to the Maharaja, so a lot of what you proposed probably needs to go there.  But for the ref, links to images are seldom accessed anyway,so footnoting is perfectly proper and in line with wikipedia's manual of style. If the actual images can uploaded to commons, then I think adding one good historical image to the article is useful, but otherwise, they are awkward in the text.  I also have no beef with clarifying that they aren't precisely breeches, as they go to the ankle, except that no one has yet provided a dictionary definition or either term.  One problem is that you and I both noticed that flared-hip breeches worn with tall boots get called "jodhpurs" in popular culture (the aviator/Hollywood/Military look), even thought they are technically breeches.  And I don't know the solution because who wants to argue with, say, Ralph Lauren?   Montanabw (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I will deal with your points in order. (1)WP:CITE refers to the process of citing mere footnotes or sources to the text. My purpose in showing an external link in the text itself was simply as an acceptable way around the problem that the image, which surely deserves to be shown in a prominent position, is copyrighted and cannot therefore be uploaded to WP. Would you agree that this is a very significant and rare image? It is the ultimate definition of "Jodhpurs". Why would you possibly wish to deny readers of this article sight of it by hiding it away in the references? I suggest wording such as: "Rare photographs exist in a private collection of the Maharaja wearing a pair of his special riding trousers, ext.link.here." I have also located a photo. of Princess Elizabeth wearing the baggy jodhpurs in 1946, again unfortunately in copyright, to which I would like to give similar treatment. We need to make some effort to illustrate the points made in the article.(2) Sub-section WP:UNDUE is concerned with issues of POV, as revealed by the title of the WP article it appears in WP:Neutral Point of View. I fear you have taken its meaning out of context. Any balance or imbalance between the History of the Jodhpur and a discussion of the modern garment is not an imbalance of POV, merely an imbalance of available subject matter. If every section of a WP article always had to be of equal length, no stub article could ever be expanded. There is unfortunately little to say about the modern garment itself, other than a factual description, but lots to say about its history. That matter of fact is what makes it impossible to have sections of equal length. I suggest as a solution you expand the intro. by amalgamation with Kentucky Jodhpurs, or by further discussion of the modern garment, or if you wish, by placing the History section at the end, that would seem a good solution. I cannot fundamentally see what your concern is that the reader will "loose focus". WP articles surely aren't about narrow and restrictive focus but about expanding the reader's interest to an overview of the subject in all its breadth. I would agree that most readers of this article will "like horses" as you state. How many of them would you guess already own a pair of modern jodhpurs? I would suggest a high proportion. Let's therefore tell them something they do not already know, which will interest them, as well as telling  them what they do already know,  i.e. what the pair of trousers already hanging in their wardrobe looks like. (3) I think we are agreed that the subject of the history of the Jodhpur needs to be fully treated somewhere on WP. You now appear to be suggesting this would more appropriately be done on the biography page of the Maharaja. I do not believe this is correct. So where else can it go? You proposed in an earlier post (19 Oct.)that "the matter would best be dealt with in another article". Perhaps you could suggest a suitable title for this new article which would not at once attract "Suggestion for Merger" tags? (4) I'm really glad we both are aware of  the confusion of flared-hip breeches with true ankle-length jodhpurs so prevalent today. I did indeed provide a dictionary definition of the terms "Breeches" and "Jodhpurs" - please read my previous post again - from the most authoritative English dictionary that exists, the 20 volume edition of the OED! It is surely a duty of this article to educate people away from their error in terminology - yes Ralph Lauren included. Ralph Lauren and journalists around the world refer to this very article as a first point of enquiry before they write anything on this topic. It is our duty and responsibility to give them authoritative, accurate and properly researched and sourced information, so they too can write with accuracy. Tailors like Ralph Lauren are experts in sewing & cutting material, not in researching the history of the Jodhpur, which they don't have time to do anyway. They trust Wikipedia to do that for them. That reminds me, what most journalists write about ad-infinitum concerning this subject is the Maharaja! (actually he wasn't the Maharaja of Jodphur, but a younger son of such, which point I will correct). That does seem to fascinate a lot of people, which is precisely why I want to write about it with a full and authoritative treatment, which has not been done before, all in one article. As we are agreed on the need to distinguish the Jodhphur-style "breeches" of the Hollywood/Military look with the true long jodhpur as worn in the photo of the "Maharaja" I sourced, I propose to make an appropriate edit in the "Fashion" section, also deleting the unreferenced, unreliable and possibly misleading assertion that jodhpurs were used by Australian farm workers etc.- I will move that text to below the first post on this talk page, whose author I suspect originated it (note too that his interest  was in this garment's history, which he requested more info. on, not less!). If he wants to re-instate it, sources will be needed.  I remain insistent that the "History" section needs to be expanded, for the reasons given. I think I have dealt with your objections to such expansion in a full and reasoned manner, but by all means come back on this point with further arguments if you wish, before I start to make my "History" edit. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC))


 * Well, just look at the adjustments I made to the article. I think that there is a need for balance and for wikilinking to other articles for some details. (If I made a red link, you can find the proper article, it's got to be somewhere in here)  And actually, wikipedia has to rely on third party sources and people don't "trust" us as much at they could because at any moment some 10-year old kid can come in and vandalize the thing!  (sigh).  And PLEASE use the advice at WP:CITE because bad format makes your sources totally useless.  I really don't want to spend a lot of time in disussion here except if there is a misunderstanding.  I'll tag what looks odd to me and put hidden text in the article itself to show you my thinking as I went, you can toss the hidden stuff once read. (or insert your own)    Montanabw (talk) 02:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the article is much improved. I have responded to your hidden text annotations, mostly by acceptance, but have added a few of my own, for your response. Please delete those of yours I have responded to to your satisfaction.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC))

Photos needed?

 * I can't tell from this discussion and the main article if the type of riding pants (trousers for you, lobster) Kristin Scott Thomas's character wore in Gosford Park are true jodhpurs or the "hollywood" style you two are referring to. She was actually riding a horse, so I would expect them to be true jodhpurs.  If THOSE PANTS are actual jodhpurs, then I must say it would seem advantageous to have a picture of this type of pants/trousers in the main article.  If you are a riding enthusiast/expert, you already know those pants/trousers are jodhpurs.  If you, like me, aren't, you could read this whole article and never realize that those terribly unflattering pants that make you look you have thunder thighs and pencil calves are called jodhpurs.  After having read the article, I understand their design function.  However, since that "look" is so bizarre and occurs so frequently in media, and it seems that the only way to find out about those pants is to already know their name, and if you know their name, you probably are an enthusiast, it seems a huge oversight to not actually have a picture of them in the article.  I'm expressing this badly, but I'm basically saying that for the average reader who won't be a horse enthusiast, a visual representation of them is almost essential.  Jenandlaw (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Stuff that doesn't need to be in hidden text
Just a couple notes to let you know what's going on in the article. There may be some minor issues between UK and US English, and we clearly have not fully resolved the question of how to balance historical and modern types, but here's where I am going:. First, "snug" is superior to "tight." "Tight" implies inflexible and uncomfortable, you cannot ride in "tight" pants, the implication is that they bind, are too small and will look funny. "Snug" implies the proper nuance of a close fit without binding or restriction of movement. As for the issue of cuffs, as you can see, especially if you click on the "larger image" link of the following examples, and look very closely, nearly all modern children's jodpurs end in a cuff, and have done so for decades (I have books dating to the 1960s :, , , , , .  Montanabw (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Follow up: Here is a historical image from the 1960s of Caroline Kennedy as a child, wearing cuffed jodhpurs:  Note that the cuff reinforces the bottom of the leg and keeps it over the boot. Also, the Kentucky Jodhpurs bell bottoms are quite noticably longer than ground level, particularly at the heel, where they are at least a good three inches longer than the heel of the boot when a person is standing on the grond: to walk around in them off the horse, you have to roll them up so the bellbottoms don't drag in the dirt (I know this firsthand, I have worn and have also custom-tailored these suits) if they are just a bit longer, then they look too short when on the horse. They are cut so they cover the heel of the boot while riding, probably hanging an inch or so below the heel when mounted (and if the heel is down) and thus can give the impression that the rider has their heel properly positioned down, even if they don't.  Montanabw (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)