Talk:Kebaya

Untitled
Is that the best Kebaya pic we could find? --Merbabu 13:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of better pics, better representatives of Kebaya, but it's not easy to find one without copyright issue..... Matahari Pagi 02:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

kebaya and baju kurung
Is baju kurung a kebaya?Aren't they different? I doubt the baju kurung variety of kebaya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.247.22 (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

A culture is an ensemble beautiful collection of societal norms, values, languages, clothes, food and various styles of living. Almost every region in the world has its own unique culture whether it is dressing, food or language. Asian countries are rich in cultural values. If we see then dressing styles are a way of identifying people from different countries. Unique dresses mark the identity of people living in specific regions. Similarly the dressing styles of Malaysia (South East Asian Country) is famous for its dresses which are known as Baju Kurung and Kebayas. Baju Kurung is a long sleeved blouse worn with a skirt and a scarf. It is made from traditional fabrics Malay textiles also imported from other Asian countries. If we see historically then in 15th Century both malay men and women wore fabrics to cover their Lower body then women started use of sarong to cover their chest. Also Baju Kurung was popular in the reign of Malacca Sultanate. Then due to trade with China, innovations were made in the dresses and now we see the modern day Kurung and Kebayas. Kebayas and Kurungs are often used synonymously but there is a slight difference in older days Kebayas were used by women for everyday use but today it is worn only in occasions and weddings. There are various types and styles of the Kurung and Kebayas. Types of Kurung are Baju Kurung Teluk Belanga, Baju Kurung Cekak Musang, Baju Kurung Kedah, Baju Kurung Pahang and Baju Kurung Perak. All these types except Baju Kurung Perak differ from each other on the basis of collars and number of buttons whereas Baju Kurung Perak is modern day replacement of Sarong and is worn with pants in Thailand. Similarly there are distinctions in Kebayas based in the regions. Different types of Kebayas include Kartini Kebaya, Malay Kebaya, Kutubaru Kebaya, Javanese Kebaya and Keraton Kebaya are differed on the types of fabrics and styles and are worn in various regions of Indonesia and Malaysia. Kebayas and Kurungs brought a revolution in the world and provided a separate identity to south East Asian women. Although it is a Malay national dress but other innovations are also being made by various designers and it is being promoted and publicized by Indonesian government globally. I think that Kebayas and Kurungs are way better then western dresses because they make your personality stylish as well as it is compatible with your full body coverage. I prefer that if you ever visit Indonesia or Malaysia then do try this stylish dress. I’m just in love with this. What’s your opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adil taimoor (talk • contribs) 11:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

"Modern kebaya worn by Indonesian women" pic
Errr...Excuse me, but that's not a modern kebaya, that's a Nonya/Nyonya Kebaya, traditionally worn (and popularized) by the Peranakan Chinese (Strait Chinese who've adapted themselves to their new home and culture in Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore), and I don't think the ladies in that particular pic are Indonesians either.Matahari Pagi 08:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Change. As requested.Serenity id (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Plese Put Miss Universe in Kebaya .. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/361343570074380901/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.94.224.134 (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

From Malaysia?
I've edited this part "The kain-kebaya came to Indonesia from Malaysia and gained... " Reference, please. Matahari Pagi (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the reference at the end of the next sentence - i've now listed it twice. The whole article should be checked especially after User:Starstyler's edits which often don't bear much resemblance to the references he produces. --Merbabu (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Kebaya Malaysia
What kind of kebaya are there in Malaysia? Hati Kama (talk) 12:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC) (Sockpuppet )

Malaysia
Hi, I already put all the references correctly but some editors just like to revert them without reason... MrCattttt (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for your edit. I was reverted that anonymous edits because the information (narration) is contradicted with the stable version. Plus the history is already mentioned in the etymology and history sections. So that, no need to make it double and raising ambiguity. —Ibra Bintang (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

This is like sock account Xcelltrasi (talk) 08.16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I do suspect as well. He/she/they does/do not just socking once, yet in many times. If it's unsettling, we could ask for semi-protection edit request and open the case. —Ibra Bintang (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

What do you meant by stable? MrCattttt (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Kebaya origin
Most of refs mentioned that the origin of kebaya is from Majapahit court of Java, circa 14th to 15th century. As mentioned in    Some refs suggest other possible origin such as in Portuguese Malacca as pushed by user:MrCattttt. This debate on origins is best kept in history subsection, instead of cluttering the lead.  Gunkarta  talk 03:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, for opening this discussion. I have watched the back-and-forth editing yesterday (don't forget, it takes two to tango), so this is overdue. I have comments/questions about the five sources you have listed here in support of the statement that "the origin of kebaya is from Majapahit court of Java, circa 14th to 15th century".


 * 1) Welters & Lillethun (2018, pp. 118–21) clearly backs it up.
 * 2) I have no access to this source, so unfortunately I cannot comment on it.
 * 3) The Encyclopedia of Clothing and Fashion has an entry "Kain-Kebaya" in Vol. 2 on pp. 294–95 (unfortunately, Google Books has no snippet view of the second volume). The section "Origins of the Kebaya" says: The kebaya has its origins in a garment brought over by Moslem traders from India. Prior to Moslem influence, women wore flat textiles wrapped about their body; Moslem influence required that women cover their arms and torsos. They brought over cut and sewn garments. The baju panjang, a long-sleeved, knee-length gusseted garment still worn in the early 2000s in the south coast of Sumatra, was the forerunner of the kebaya up until the late nineteenth century. The Moslem presence remained in the coastal regions of Java and nearby islands from the fifteenth century, but a central Javanese sultan was aggressive in his spread of Islam by the seventeenth. While no certain evidence exists, it’s possible that the baju panjang was being worn even then. – While less explicit about the exact period and Majapahit, it also clearly comes in support of the Javanese origin.
 * 4) Why does this URL lead me to the page as hosted by AirAsia, including the copyright "© 2021 AirAsia Group Berhad"? In any case, the page refers to another link to IDN Times. Since we have better (and (international) sources with 1. and 3., I suggest not to use this here.
 * 5) Lynch & Strauss (2014) actually supports the multiple origin version in the "History" section on p. 171. Or have I overlooked a mention of its specifically Majapahit origin?


 * Upon reading source 3, I had the idea that the debate might stem from the fact that the word kebaya might not originate from Java, but the clothing named so certainly does. I suggest we should dig deeper in this direction for clarifying the debate. (It's pretty much like Nasi goreng: while nasi goreng simply means "fried rice" in Malay/Indonesian, and obviously fried rice was neither invented in Malaysia nor in Indonesia, the dish that is globally known as "Nasi goreng" originates from the Indonesian variant of fried rice.)
 * As a novel user you may not be aware of it, but the talk page is the place to discuss, not edit summaries. And per WP:BRD it is best practice to engage in a discussion immediately after the first revert. So please present your material here so we can discuss it. –Austronesier (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for engaging in discussion. I do agree with you, that the problem is actually stemmed from the naming or etymology of kebaya that some sources traced it was loanwords possibly from Arabic through Portuguese intermediary cabaya. While the object/dress itself was already worn by Javanese ladies when Portuguese arrived in the archipelago. As mentioned in some sources, thus the dress itself is older than Portuguese arrival in early 16th century. I conclude the Portuguese possibly gave the name, but not "creating" or "brought" the dress to archipelago, it is already there. Simply put, they arrived, found it being worn by local ladies, identify and named it, but not created it. From there, unfortunately MrCattttt write his addition, took his source, and run away with it, slap it on the lead. I actually did not remove or delete his competing possible origin opinion and refs, but moved it to history subsection. I don't mind if someone presenting competing suggestions and opinions as long as they are well referenced. What I do not appreciate is, he put a relatively fringe theory and slap it on the pedestal right on the lead. Sure he may put it, but it is better in focused history section, not cluttering the first paragraph lead and misslead as if it is widely supported. Then after that challenging addition by MrCattttt, I dig into the sources, and present the fact that most of fashion writers/historians/sources did support the Javanese (some even pin pointed it to Majapahit) origin, thus kebaya is actually predates the Portuguese Malaccan took over in 1511. Then I added other response/competing/debunking details supported with refs (that kebaya predates Portuguese arrival things). But unfortunately MrCatttt seems didn't bother to check the refs and carelessly accused me of "original research" in his reverts edit summary. Things went heated and the rest was ugly edit war.  Gunkarta  talk 17:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * About the sources above, some are presenting multiple origin (I don't mind that) most are supporting/mentioning Javanese origin, while the first ref (Fashion History) is strongly and clearly mentioned Majapahit. Actually if examined clearly, some sources tried to be objective and presenting possible multiple influences and origin, even as far as possible influence of Ming dynasty tunic as the possible precursor of the dress. I don't mind them, bring it on! But don't slap them in the lead as MrCattttt insistly done, that thing is better go to history subsection.  Gunkarta  talk 17:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi and, thank you for engaging in discussion. As I mentioned before, the problem is not with the credibility of the sources or which one is correct. There are two main theories of the origin of kebaya and both should have equal opportunity in this page. I believe what you wrote on the history section is your own original research (OR) which has violated No original research. This includes any analysis of published material that serves to imply a conclusion not stated by the references. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that directly support the material being presented.
 * Here is your sentence:
 * However, this theory is discounted since kebaya in Java predates Portuguese arrival in the archipelago. When Portuguese tried to assume the spice trade in Indonesia in early 16th century, some women in Java already wore kebaya on their upper body.


 * Here was the adjustment made by me before the edit war
 * Nevertheless, some argue that the kebaya in Java predates Portuguese arrival in Indonesia. When Portuguese tried to assume the spice trade in Indonesia in early 16th century, some women in Java already wore kebaya on their upper body.
 * On second thought, "argue" was actually not the right word. I would say "some sources stated"
 * Here is the sentence in the book
 * As a cross route between the Indian and the pacific ocean.... When Portuguese tried to assume control of the spice trade in Indonesia, some women in Java already wore a kebaya on their upper body.... How the kebaya come into use to Java remains unclear...


 * There is a gap between the Portuguese arrival in Malacca and Portuguese arrival in Java that could impact your "thesis" statement. The author did not mention any statement that he has “debunked” the Malacca/Portuguese theory. I believe you have combined material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Please let me know if the author did conclude such an argument in other section of the book since I don't have the full access.MrCattttt (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The time frame of Portuguese arrival in archipelago and their effort to control spice trade mentioned in the ref Fashion History: ... When Portuguese tried to assume control of the spice trade in Indonesia, some women in Java already wore a kebaya on their upper body.... is the same, which is early 16th century. In fact, the reason behind Portuguese take over of Malacca in 1511 was in order to took control the spice trade in the archipelago (highly possible targeting clove and nutmeg in spice island Maluku in Indonesia). Most of Portuguese account/report on the archipelago (Malaya, Sumatra, Java, and Maluku) are taken from Suma Oriental which was written by Tome Pires in 1512 to 1515 in Malacca. Thus, the soo called "gap" between the Portuguese arrival in Malacca and Portuguese arrival in Java is actually quite short and quite negligible. If the Portuguese Malacca kebaya origin "thesis" was true, was that short time enough for Portuguese to arrive in 1511, bring the kebaya from Middle East to Malacca and introduced them to local populations, then suddenly when they arrived in Java, between 1511 and before 1515, their product kebaya dress was suddenly got adopted in the Javanese court as prescribed etiquette? The source meant the same time frame, which is between 1511-1515 (early 16th century). The prevailing data from numbers of refs mentioned that kebaya (or some dress that similar with/or possibly prototype of it) already wore in the court of Java prior of Portuguese arrival in 1511/1512. Then the source described ...As a crossroads between Indian and Pacific Oceans, and proximate to Southeast coast of Asia, Indonesia's culture reflect many influences prior to the arrival of Portuguese ships in 1512.... When Portuguese tried to assume control of the spice trade in Indonesia, some women in Java already wore a kebaya on their upper body.... How the kebaya come into use to Java remains unclear since several cultures were potential contributors to the transfers of the style to the island.... In conclusion, this ref (Fashion History) argue/support that kebaya did predate Portuguese arrival.  Gunkarta  talk 17:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Your argument is a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. This is because a "summation conflict" has arisen.


 * Take care to avoid characterizing, implicitly or overtly, the accuracy of otherwise reliable sources in any article. We do discuss and evaluate sources as part of our work in researching material for inclusion in articles, but the policy no original research prohibits combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. There are times that a reliable source is simply incorrect, but it is inappropriate to imply or state that is the case without a reference to a reliable source. You may not, using the examples above, say "Source A asserts the town's population as 5,000; however, this is disproven by the following sources and circumstances, and the true population was at least 7,000 in 1990."


 * Isn't it similar to what you wrote? If you still don't understand what is wrong with your sentences, we might need to go to Noticeboard.
 * However, this theory is discounted since kebaya in Java predates Portuguese arrival in the archipelago. When Portuguese tried to assume the spice trade in Indonesia in early 16th century, some women in Java already wore kebaya on their upper body.
 * It is important to keep in mind that in cases of apparent contradictions, both sources may in fact be correct in their own contexts.MrCattttt (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Kebaya materials
Kebaya blouse is traditionally made of thin and sheer materials, sometimes made of brocade. This fact is well referenced and supported in parts of this article. Then the user MrCatttt through his edit add this section In some areas of the archipelago, kebaya is traditionally made of locally produced textiles such as songket or tenun. in lead, which is unref and do not suits the common traits of kebaya, which is sheer and thin materials. Then insistently recovered here and here. My argument is songket and tenun (and to some extent, actually batik too) is traditionally used as the lower part (kain/sarong part), not for the kebaya blouse itself. Kebaya is thin and sheer, sometimes intricate brocade blouse. The use of thick woven materials such as songket and sarong-like woven tenun as kebaya materials is relatively a "new" creation that actually not in accordance to the traditional kebaya. As the matter of fact, the use of printed batik as kebaya blouse materials, as it has been done by Singapore and Malaysian Airlines, is actually a rather new creation and thus not in accordance to a traditional kebaya style. MrCatttt argue that Kebaya in Malaysia has always use songket or tenun. Refer to Varieties in Malaysia section. Well then, please move that sentences to the Malaysian section, and do not put them in the lead. Since this uncommon practice is not shared by the whole of kebaya traditions.  Gunkarta  talk 06:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing this, instead of reverting my edit every time for different reasons. I'm not sure why is this so controversial. The lead should be as "general" as possible and sometimes would not even need a citation How to create and manage a good lead section. Not all kebaya are made of thin and sheer materials. For instance, kebaya labuh, kebaya riau Pahang, kebaya Selangor, kebaya setengah tiang are made out of songket or tenun (especially for wedding), while kuyu Kebaya, keraton or Solo kebaya are made out of velvet. Where did you get the idea that kebaya, in general, is sheer and thin materials.? Nevertheless, I already put a reference just in case.MrCattttt (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

OR
I have checked most of the article and removed sentences/claim that don't bear much resemblance to the references aka OR. I will update this page from time to time to fulfil the good article requirements.MrCattttt (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Puteri Indonesia 2018 Coronation Night-3.jpg

A little additional information regarding the Sundanese Kebaya
Hi everyone, I'll just be making a small edit in the Sundanese kebaya section.--CarmenBanks (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Puteri Indonesia 2018 Coronation Night-3.jpg

The article is god damn long
Why all of a sudden the article about Kebaya is this long? probably it already violated some Wikipedia rules. 2001:448A:10A2:1723:FCC6:5382:D9FA:4927 (talk) 09:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Need Reference
"... The Kabaya is worn by Portuguese Eurasians in Australian Cocos Islands and Christmas Island, coastal India and Sri Lanka, Macau as well as South Africa." Can anybody cite this with a reference?