Talk:Leggings/Archive 1

Socks over or under?
I've noticed, at least in New England, that women wear leggings with socks over them as stated in the article, but men wear leggings over their socks. Should this go in the article?

Removed
I removed this line: "Since socks are normally worn over the top of leggings, rather than underneath, stirrups prevent the leggings from becoming untucked from the sock." as I and most of my friends wear socks underneath our leggings, even stirrups. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.178.88.168 (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Pro-British usage
Everything I read in this entry relates solely to the use of the term in the U.K.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.127.174 (talk) 03:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're kidding right? Even the bits that refer to leggings outselling "pants" in the US?  And the section on US soldiers being referred to as "Legs", hence leggings?  Or the photograph of "Native American leggings"?  Don't they count? Even the "See Also" section has United States Army uniforms in World War II  Perhaps you should actually read the article before commenting on the content.   a_man_alone (talk) 06:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

What is wrong with a man in leggings?
This has flip-flopped a few times recently, with Jamie removing it with different rationales each time - "Crap photo"/"terrible photo" and "Adds nothing." PM800 has also removed it, but without edit summaries, so I don't know why.

My opinion is that it does add, as it's the only photo that shows a man wearing leggings in modern times. What exactly is wrong with the image? Why is it "crap"? Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Spandex. It's crap because you can't see the leggings clearly, they're just black pants-like items.  The guy in the photo has fought to keep the image in various articles.  I'm removing it again. BMK (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please do not restore the image against the obvious consensus to remove it. BMK (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The obvious consensus was to remove it from the Spandex page. I even joined in over there and agreed that the particular image was not best suited as a lede image.  However, there has been no consensus here, and the reasons for its removal there are not the same as the reasons for removal here.  The image adds value to the leggings page because it is the only image of a man wearing leggings, and the subject is clearly discussed in the article.  They are clearly leggings, and the definition of the guys legs is clear enough to be representative, in exactly the same way as all the other images are on the page.  I put the same argument to you - please do not remove the image while discussion is ongoing.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Since two editors here have removed it, and you are the only unconnected editor who has restored it, the consensus here is to remove. (The others are the owner of the image and his sock.). Please do not continue to edit war against consensus. BMK (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * When they join in the discussion, we can talk about it. BRD unless you feel you're not bound by that.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Huh - you've restored the picture at least six times, against the attempt to remove it by at least two other editors. I guess you don't feel bound by WP:CONSENSUS.  As far as WP:BRD goes, you should read it someday, since you seem to violate it pretty much on a regular basis.  It specifies that the article is to be left in the status quo ante while discussion on ongoing.  In this case, the status quo is without the photo, since it is only by you anti-consensual edits that it's in the article at all. BMK (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have quite clearly stated that I am willing to listen to reason. Each time I've reverted it has been with unhelpful or no edit summaries.  You can see that I opened the discussion back in January asking for reasons as to why the image was being removed from this page.  No answers were forthcoming - even from you when you removed it.
 * I agreed that the image was not suitable for the Spandex page, but this is not the Spandex page, and criteria for inclusion are slightly different - I come back to my argument that this is the only image of a man wearing leggings, when such an act is mentioned in the article.
 * Please show where I've violated BRD "pretty much on a regular basis" That almost sounds like you're commenting on the contributor, not his contributions.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You're willing to listed to reason? OK, let me repeat: The picture is so dark that you cannot tell that the guy is wearing leggings, only that he is wearing black pants-like objects. I've already stated that just above, and also on Talk:Spandex.)  I tried my best to adjust the image so that the legging could be seen but the picture just isn't good enough to allow that. BMK (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Black pants-like objects"? You mean like leggings?  Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, like leggings, tights, mantyhose, spray-painted legs - you just cannot tell from the photo. BMK (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I replaced the original "man in leggings" image - in which, I contend, one cannot tell what the man is actually wearing - with one from Flickr in which I can see the seam, the texture and the shape of the leggings. If the only concern here is that we need a picture of a man in leggings -- and I don't disagree with that -- then this should end this discussion. BMK (talk) 03:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That is a much better photo.  Calidum Talk To Me 03:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That was indeed my concern - as I've always said - so I'm also happy with the outcome. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree that the newer photo is better, and have no objections to using it in the article. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

a comment
how about leggings fetishism to the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.254.245 (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * My spidey-sense is tingling here. The behaviour of the above editor in removing their sig when automatically added is extremely similar (as is the IP address itself,) to behaviour seen here on the Talk:Underwear fetishism (and others) page.  Given the subject and tone of their edits here for example, I'm not sure that the best interests of the encyclopedia are intended, albeit they do fall short of out and out vandalism.  Comments there were removed by yours truly under WP:FORUM.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. BMK (talk) 10:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Article name is wrong
This article incorrectly names TIGHTS as "leggings". Leggings only cover the calf from the ankle to the knee:Google Image Search Displays Leggings From 1980's
 * Could you clarify what you're talking about? The lede makes it clear that the term "tights" when used in the American sense can refer to what are also known as "Leggings" - this usage is covered by wp:engvar.  As to your link, I'm unsure what a gallery of Olivia Newton-John images is supposed to help reinforce.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Floral vs. paint pattern


With regard to this image:

Looking at the image in full resolution, it clearly shows flowers make up the patterns, not a random "paint splat". It's particularly obvious on her left leg, just above her ankle where a large white flower can be seen, with smaller blue and white flowers above it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I beg to disagree, there are no "flowers" in the patterm, just random splotches of color. BMK (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've changed the description to the neutral "colored pattern". BMK (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you being deliberately obstructive, just because we've disagreed in the past? The design is quite clearly, and obviously of flowers, and if you've really looked at the image in high resolution, you would be able to see this.  I can only assume that you're unable to admit you were wrong in a discussion with me, so are being stubborn.
 * There's no point in being "neutral" in a description when we can be "correct" in a description.   I'm going to ask for another opinion on this, ridiculous as it may be.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Logged at Third_opinion Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are both. Flowers AND splotches.  Quite artistic.   Scr ★ pIron IV 13:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I see flowers, splotches, a snowflake, what appears to be The Rolling Stones "tongue" logo, a targeting reticule, and a donkey wearing a hat. So yes, flowers are there, so is other stuff, how about we just call them "patterned"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yunshui (talk • contribs) 09:58, July 15, 2015

Well the issue is down to BMK's refusal to accept that there are flowers in the pattern. If he accepts that he was wrong to insist there aren't then (even though I still think it's inaccurate) I'll go with that. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I've kind of changed my mind, having thought about it. ScrapIronIV agrees that he can see flowers, and despite being facetious, Yunshui also agrees that there are flowers in the pattern. That makes three editors who agree that the pattern is made up of flowers, four if we include the original IP editor who made the change that prompted this. Why should the image description not say that it's a floral pattern, when consensus (and I use the term loosely) agrees on this? Just because one editor refuses to see it? Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is clearly a floral print, with some kind of multi-color background. It is also not very important.  Scr ★ pIron IV 17:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Your memory is clearly better than mine, because I do not recall any disagreements between us in the past, but I'll take your word for it. Given that I don't recall them, I can hardly be described as being "deliberately obstructive", which I never am anyway. I don't see flowers -- obviously others do. I think the current "colored design" is sufficient, given that one has to enlarge to picture to full resolution to tell otherwise. And I agree with whoever said that it's not really all that important in the long run. BMK (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Leggings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203004150/http://www.thescore.ie/hurling-skins-under-armour-1200997-Dec2013/ to http://www.thescore.ie/hurling-skins-under-armour-1200997-Dec2013/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

lede addition
It's my understanding that the lede is to summarise the contents of the article - it would make sense then that the entire paragraph is not suitable for the lede, and should be in the article elsewhere. Once in the article itself it can be referenced in the lede, but not as it currently stands. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * See current revision. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused now? I think the paragraph is a valid addition, but not that it's suitable for the lede.  If you take it out completely then my compromise is now unsupported by the rest of the article and should also be removed?  Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Didn't realise you had removed a double-entry! Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was some confusion because editing was going on simultaneously. I initially moved the paragraph to "History", but then read "Types" more closely, saw that the content was not just about types, but about the legging's role in fashion, so I changed the section title to "Fashion and types" and moved the paragraph back there.  I EC'd with you on part of this, including a new single-sentence mention in the lede, but what you've done there is fine with me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I did read the section and felt it didn't seem that bad a fit despite the name. It definitely seemed a better fit than the history section. I thought of mentioning this, but then thought it would be obvious to anyone who read it in context if they appreciated it had to go somewhere other than the lead. And thought people would work out where it belonged before trying to move it somewhere else. Nil Einne (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * (EC) Yes precisely. I never said that nothing belonged in the lead. But that whole long paragraph definitely doesn't, per WP:Recentism etc. The article is significantly worse off with that long paragraph in the lead, so I moved it somewhere else. Especially since the the lead is supposed to summarise what's in the article, but there was zero content about the controversy in it.  (This isn't exactly an uncommon problem. I very often come across articles where someone has dumped a whole bunch of what is ultimately minor minutae into the lead and left zero content in the article about whatever it is. Worse than that, sometimes whatever it definitely does belong in the article. But someone will come along a while after whatever it is blew up and see a lot of unnecessary minutae in the lead, think this definitely doesn't belong and remove it without checking to see if the content was ever actually added to the article as it should have been. So the content which should have been in the article, but not the lead, is now gone completely partly because the person who added it didn't spend a few seconds figuring out where it actually belong and instead just dumped it in the lead. Most of these seem to involve people with limited experience with wikipedia, so I was surprised to find this wasn't the case here.)  If someone wants to wrote a decent summary for the lead I won't remove it. I didn't do so myself, because I believe this needs a lot more work. I'm unconvinced this single instance belongs in the lead. But this is hardly the first time there has been controversy over the suitability of leggings in various circumstances has come up e.g.   (technically about yoga pants but I think it's clear they were referring to leggings kind) . I mean heck 'leggings are /not pants' will find a whole bunch of stuff    .  Not all of these are RS, but the point stands. Undoubtedly something could be written about the various cultural issues surrounding how leggings are perceived in various circumstances, and it probably should. And there may very well be merit to include a brief summary of this in the lead. But what we should not do, is add a whole bunch of detail over one single viral instance to the lead which realistically most people would have forgotten 3 months from now and makes for a shitty lead. Someone coming to this article to learn about leggings, is most likely going to find a whole bunch of other things which aren't in the lead, more significant to their understand of leggings than the fact 3 women were asked to wear something over their leggings in one United Airlines flight because they were the companies travel passes and that regular passengers would be fine etc; and so is going to be asking themselves, WTF am I reading about this crap in the article summary/lead?  I'm not even convinced we need all that detail about a single kerfuffle in the article proper. But at least it isn't as messy as leaving it in the lead. Even leaving a small section on this single instance in the lead isn't IMO ideal, but at least it's better than the unholy mess of that long section in it until someone can deal with it properly.  Nil Einne (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The incident does not even belong in the article at all per WP:RECENT. The point here is to develop an encyclopedia article describing the topic at hand (leggings). The incident in question is an overblown media "extravaganza" about an irate woman that wanted to make a big deal over an issue that is not even an issue, since the girls in question were flying on passes that included a specific dress code that they did not follow. The airline was right to not allow them to board. They were just following their rules. The article is about someone trying to push a point and not really about the legitimacy of the dress code to begin with. Mention of the article need not even be included because it's not our purpose to add fuel to their fire. Just let it die, please. WTF? (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Disagree. As has been pointed out above there are many, many articles that discuss whether leggings are "real" clothing or not.  At some point the topic should be introduced into the article, and that point seems to be now.  This specific story may have prompted it, but there are (as Nil Einne has helpfully sourced) many examples, which all could be bunched together into a section and sourced.
 * The point about this specific story is that while the airline may have been "right" not to allow them to board the rules do not say "No Leggings", but they "...have the right to refuse transport for passengers who are barefoot or not properly clothed" - the term being "properly clothed" And that's open to intepretation.  There appears to be a considerable number of people - including notable people in their own right Christine Teigen, Patricia Arquette and LeVar Burton - who consider leggings alone to be properly clothed.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not so sure that I would include that material where you put it. It probably ultimately needs its own section. But if it is to be included, including just one isolated incident covering the appropriateness of leggings is really lending undue weight to one incident (see WP:UNDUE). This really needs a more broad treatment than just one incident on a single airline on a single flight. I am certain that editors can find more information to write a proper treatment of this subject.


 * Be careful also when covering specific celebrities (Christine Teigen, Patricia Arquette, Levar Burton). Mentioning that a particular celebrity supports the wearing of a particular item of clothing simply by wearing it is misleading and probably does not follow WP:NPOV guidelines. It could be misconstrued as an endorsement of a specific product by that celebrity. So any celebrity names mentioned definitely needs a citation by a reliable source. WTF? (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Is the NY Times not a reliable source? It's hard to keep track sometimes. And the context, which is clear by reading the article, is that they do indeed support the wearing of leggings sans covering - or at the very least disapprove of the decision that uncovered leggings are not proper clothing, and that the interpretation of the rules is questionable. It's not NPOV if a claim or statement is backed up by a reliable source.
 * Anyway, I agree with the emerging consensus that this addition should not be the focus, but more the catalyst to a paragraph that discusses - with multiple sources - whether leggings are appropriate clothing or not. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That depends. If the NY Times is reporting an actual news event, it's most certainly acceptable. But if you're discussing an opinion article in the NY Times, then you're probably just talking about the opinion of one editor, and almost certainly not the Editorial Board of the NY Times. So be careful. WTF? (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a news item reported in many news outlets, not an opinion, and the fact that you don't seem to know that is disturbing, considering your activist editing here.  I have no objection to a section about views about leggings, but we don't have that yet, so until we do, the place it's in is fine.  Anyone who wants to write a new specific section, fine, more power to you, but the article as it exists now is the article as it exists now, and the item is properly placed. WTF, please stop trying to push your own personal POV about the item against the consensus on this page.  Clean-up tags needs to be supported by talk-page consensus, and yours is not, so please do not restore it.  The news item is neither recentism or undue in weight, it just happens to be a recent incident that points out that views of the propriety of the wearing of leggings are still in flux.  Please be careful that your editing does not become WP:DISRUPTIVE.  Discuss, get a consensus, then act. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What? Or to be topical, WTF? I'll give you a chance to read the article before you comment further upon it, because now I'm not sure you have.  By definition publication by something such as the NY Times makes it a news article, and even if you do want to argue the point, the fact that it contains Tweets directly attributed to the named celebrities, making very clear statements is undeniable.
 * I've repeatedly said that I would have no issue with this becoming a generic paragraph about the "Are leggings clothing or not", but also as BMK has said - until that happens then there is no reason why this news item cannot be used as the catalyst and a placeholder while it gets fleshed out. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The addition of cleaning tags do not need to be supported by talk page consensus. The REMOVAL of cleanup tags DOES need to be supported by talk page consensus. Removing tags without fixing the issue is actually being disruptive. The tags are not a statement of opinion, other than letting others know that there is an issue with the text. Fix the issue, then remove the tags. WTF? (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That is completely incorrect. The addition of a clean-up tag, especially the tag that you added, is no different from any other edit, and can be disputed by another editor, which I have done. Once an edit is disputed, you are obligated to get a consensus to re-add it.  Please do so and stop edit-warring to insert your own personal opinion, which is running counter to the consensus on this page.  If you continue, I will bring this issue to AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have already brought this to WP:ANI and the page is now protected for two days from editing. This probably wise for everyone to cool-off, and hopefully for the media articles to die down. Your assessment on the proper removal of various clean-up tags is actually incorrect. Articles may be tagged for various issues and the person tagging should ideally include something on the talk page of the article for why they are tagging it (although few people actually do). The issues in the article pertaining to why the tags were added need to be cleanup FIRST, before the tags are removed. If tags are removed and the user re-tags the article, clearly the issue was not addressed. Removing tags without fixing the article is disruptive, and will result in page protections such as what just happened.
 * To clarify, the only tag I actually added is the "undue weight" tag, due to undue weight being added to the article by only covering a single isolated (albeit cited properly) about the appropriateness of wearing leggings on an airplane. A full treatment of this needs to be done with additional citations and information, and perhaps expanding this out to its own section. So that issue has not been resolved. It would be improper to remove the tag at this point.
 * I did not add the citation tag -- only moved it from the references section to the top where more editors and readers can see it. The NY Times article referencing the current issue is fine. I have no issues with that. But there are other areas in the article that are deficient in references that I don't think that issue is resolved either. WTF? (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I know exactly what you added, and it's my continuing contention that, not having gotten your way in this discussion, and with consensus clearly against you regarding the UNDUE WEIGHT issue, the tag does not represent the consensus here, simply your opinion. It's your way of subverting consensus and gaming the system. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * WTF - you brought this to AN/I but did not inform the involved editors. That is a BAD THING, and hardly endears yourself and your viewpoint to the rest of the contributors to this article.  Moreover, you are (as BMK points out) completely incorrect to assume that addition of something does not require consensus, only removal does.  Everything requires consensus if it goes against the stable version or is dusputed in some way.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should the UNDUE WEIGHT tag be removed from the article?

 * Should the UNDUE WEIGHT tag be removed from the article as not being supported by consensus?

Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * Yes - The consensus on the talk page is clearly that adding the information is not undue, and that we should work towards creating a section on societal viewpoints on leggings, but that until then it should stay in the "Fashion and types" section. The only editor to disagree with this is the editor who added the UNDUE WEIGHT tag, Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Let's see. An article about a piece of casual clothing. An interesting and much talked about controversy. Seems to me it should be covered (with apologies for the inadvertent pun), and that the amount of coverage (uh oh) seems appropriate (I give up!). --regentspark (comment) 00:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Since I have already been mentioned in here, I will register my opposition. But I also think it's important to note my reasons. I really don't have any opposition to the specific text about the United Airlines story itself being included in the article. The issue is that it is a single story, while it is from a reputable source, covering an issue about the appropriateness of a particular piece of clothing on a single airline. This DOES NOT provide a broad view of the issue and more references and more information is needed adequately approach the subject. This should be done by identifying additional sources in the news media and the literature and writing a proper section covering this topic for the article. The tag should not be removed without adequately addressing this topic if only on single source is included that addresses a single isolated incident.
 * Furthermore, it is helpful to read Help:Maintenance template removal, which discusses when and how maintenance tags are added and removed. Tags should not removed because editors agree that the tag should simply be removed. Tags are removed when consensus is reached that the issue(s) have actually been resolved. WTF? (talk) 01:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I just thought that I would add to the growing consensus that if that tag is removed, the information about the United airlines issue should be removed entirely from the article since it is not particularly relevant to the topic. WTF? (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no such consensus. At the moment there is an even split of contributors - even in the world of alternative facts you cannot say that because you've just gained a vote and are now level pegging you have a "growing consensus" Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes and remove the entire couple sentences regarding United. Wikipedia is not a newspaper to report on every little thing. And this has little to do with leggings, is mostly a United problem. . L3X1 (distant write)  02:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes - and that the specific incident has its import toned down, but is also supported and expanded by other instances of the debate from reliable sources. Until that section is ready to be inserted, I also advocate keeping it as is, with the incident included.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Additional, having read through Help:Maintenance template removal as advised, I see that is includes the comment "Alternatively, you have made a considered determination that the template is not, or is no longer, applicable?" in this case, multiple editors are of the opinion that the template is not applicable, and agree that it should be removed. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes I also believe that the section related to United should be removed from this article entirely as it is not particularly relevant to an encyclopedic article regarding leggings on its own. -- Imminent 77   (talk)  14:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I also believe that the section related to United should be removed from this article entirely as it is not remotely relevant to an encyclopedic article. This is a single instance in the US

Question on relevance
Three editors have suggested that the incident is removed with the rationale that (to paraphrase) the incident is not relevant to leggings. I would seek clarification on why three girls who were barred from travel because they were wearing leggings is not relevant to an article on leggings - more specifically the argument of whether leggings are clothing in their own right - which is what we are discussing. I accept the RECENT position, but would the opposing editors not agree that any news article can be categorised as RECENT - would they therefore accept the addition if we wait three months before adding it? How do the other editors feel about this incident? Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Example: School bans Yoga Pants This article is good, because it specifically states the opinion that "Leggings, tights, yoga pants and any other extremely form fitting apparel are considered an accessory and must be worn with dress/skirt or shorts."  It's also from 2015 - so no worry about RECENT either.
 * That this is a stupid short-term irrelevant story that nobody will remember in 48 hours and doesn't deserve a single word in this or any other article except perhaps misogyny, slut shaming, or bullying. --24.76.103.169 (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. You've got me convinced.  Incidentally, you may be interested to note that the argument for leggings being "proper clothing" or not is already reliably sourced in slut shaming, with a source attributed to Time.com
 * You haven't answered the question of why the incident is not relevant though.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I do find it odd that editors are arguing here that a well covered incident regarding a piece of clothing is not relevant in an article on that piece of clothing. Are we to assume that the only things relevant to leggings are descriptions about what they look like and a couple of (admittedly lovely) photographs of women wearing them? This is an encyclopedia, not a catalog or a dictionary and when a policy regarding an article of clothing becomes the subject of discussion, particularly when the discussion also relates to social norms, we should include something about that in our article. To argue that incidents where girls are denied boarding because they were wearing leggings has no relevance to the topic "leggings" is a tad ridiculous. A WP:1E argument is worth exploding but relevance? --regentspark (comment) 17:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The Huffington Post Canada article is not really good at all. While it's from 2015 and gets you past the WP:RECENT issue, the article is, at best, a tertiary source and not a primary source. There are numerous references in that article to several other news stories, and they are also citing some teenage girl's facebook page. So that article is really just a poorly-written tertiary synthesis of other sources designed solely as clickbait to bring readers to the Huffington Post so that they can increase their advertising hit counters and make more money. As an academic source, it sucks.


 * The United Airlines NY Times article that's been used is a better, more reliable source. But the issue at hand isn't necessarily about leggings themselves, but more about slut-shaming and dress codes, and their just using the leggings as an example of this. The information would be more appropriate for an article about dress codes than an article about the clothing itself. WTF? (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll give you bonus points there for arguing that to be relevant it needs to be a primary source not a tertiary source. You'll have to imagine it, but I'm genuinely shaking my head at this point.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * My thoughts are that in the current state of the article that is that including the United event is too much of WP:RECENT. However, if the article was modified to include a section about the debate/controversy on the acceptability of leggings as clothing with included multiple incidents from a variety of sources, then having the United event included in that section would be relevant. In its current state I feel that it is giving too much weight to this single event due to how recently it has happened when there has been other coverage of this debate that is not included. -- Imminent 77   (talk)  18:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder to all editors (and the closer) that WP:RECENTISM is neither a Wikipedia policy nor a guidelines, so citing it as a reason for not including the item in the article is less than persuasive. After all, we have entire articles on recent events, so adding a short paragraph on a occurrence relevent to the subject of the article doesn't seem like much of a problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My point, although possibly not well-made is that we are not actually discussing something that is recent. Whether leggings are clothing or not is a discussion that has been going on for years - it's only this particular incident that has proven to be the catalyst to include the topic in the article that is recent.  I have provided another news report that is several years old that discusses the same issue, and right at the beginning of the post Nil Einne posted four links that do the same:


 * - elle.com, 2015
 * - undated, but refers to a 2016 article in Glamour.com
 * - Huffington post, 2015
 * - Good Housekeeping, 2016
 * and my contribution:
 * - Huffington post, 2015


 * In short; we are discussing a recent incident but not a recent topic. The topic has enough coverage to warrant inclusion - and that's why it belongs in the article, United airlines incident included. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, this is simply the most current incident in an ongoing societal discussion about the propriety of wearing leggings as uncovered outerwear. That is a topic our article should certainly cover. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's my suggestion to replace the current paragraph:

Pants Vs Accessory
There has been considerable debate in the fashion industry whether leggings are clothing on their own, or are an accessory only to be worn with other items such as skirts, dresses or shorts. In a 2016 poll of its readers Glamour Magazine stated that 61% of its readers thought that Leggings should only be worn as an accessory, whereas a similarly dated article from Good Housekeeping concluded that "...Leggings do, in fact, count as pants - provided they are opaque enough that they don't show your underwear."

There have been several instances of people wearing Leggings as pants who have been restricted or criticized for their actions, - in 2015 a Massachusetts school specifically classed Leggings as an accessory, banning students from wearing them as clothing, and in March 2017 three children were barred from boarding a United Airlines flight, after it was decided their leggings were inappropriate. United Airlines defended their position, while rival airline Delta stated via Twitter that leggings were welcome on their flights.

Restrictions on wearing Leggings is sometimes linked to slut shaming or body shaming, with critics noting that "...not being able to wear leggings because it’s ‘too distracting for boys’ is giving us the impression we should be guilty for what guys do."

Comments
Although there are a number of copy edits I would make to it, I think this is a good start. I am going to be WP:BOLD and add it to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, I added the section, with copy edits and expanded references, under the header "Use as outerwear". I removed the earlier paragraph about the United Airlines incident, and also removed the "undue weight" tag as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added some items. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I was expecting some work to be done - either by myself or others. That was just a skeleton upon which we could put some meat.  Or Leggings.  I'm not sure about the word "promulgated" - I know it's correct in context, but a simpler definition might work - "enforced", "introduced" or similar.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Citations needed
More important than due or undue weight is the general lack of citations. Entire sections have little or no citations which leads to the general low quality of the article. What's more, the notice for lack of citations has been tucked away. Out of sight out of mind, eh? Bright☀ 00:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The recent "tag bombing" is a result of BMK's on an article that has been largely citation-less since 2009. Actually finding sources for this article would solve its NPOV/UNDUE issues very fast. Bright☀ 01:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Your tag bombing was over the top and almost totally unnecessary. The lede does not need citations. Information which includes the source of the information in its statement does not require a reference, as it is inherently referenced. A single reference can cover an entire paragraph, so not every statement needs an individual reference.  Your "tag bombing" was in no way forced by my actions, you are responsible for it, and if you continue to be unreasonable and disruptive, this is going to end up at AN/I. So, be selective, use better judgment than you just showed, and tag only those statements which actually need to be referenced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Information which includes the source of the information in its statement does not require a reference - this is plain wrong. You object to the article being tagged; you object to individual sections being tagged; and now you object to individual unsourced statements being tagged. There is no such exemption for "information that includes the source in its statement". Cite it. Bright☀ 01:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm outta here, I don;t haqve time for this bullshit. This article has turned out to be a pain to watchlist and keep in shape, and this editor is clearly a WP:DICK.  Someone else can deal with him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You cite WP:WHENNOTCITE as your reason but there is no such exemption in it. Looking at your contribution history, you usually cite policy and when asked for specifics you avoid. You ignore policy and guidelines in favor of your preferred version of the article, and you quickly deteriorate content disputes to personal lines. Bright☀ 01:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Information which includes the source of the information in its statement does not require a reference, as it is inherently referenced - looking at your talk page and discussions, it appears you've made this argument several times and each time you've been told this is not the case, and you've never actually provided a policy that backs your assertion. On the contrary, WP:V states "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." There is nothing that is "inherently referenced". Bright☀ 18:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, that's a massive overuse of tags, and incorrect usage in some places as well.  As BMK points out, there is no need to request CN for the lede, as the lede summarises the main body of the article - this is clarified in WP:LEADCITE and WP:WHENNOTCITE; "Citations are often omitted from the lead section of an article, insofar as the lead summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article".  You also removed the quote "  " and replaced that with a CN, despite the rather obvious huge debate over that particular section here on the talk page which resulted in a brand new section being added only a week or so back.  Which is weird, because you know that section is there, because you tagged it with a "primary source" template, despite there being no primary sources in there (so I'm removing that template as well).
 * I'm reverting and replacing it with a generic article top heading. My main reason for doing so is that by using pointy edits in an effort to irk BMK, you've made the article worse.  Far worse.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to draw attention to the following, from Citation needed:


 * A "citation needed" tag is never, in itself, an "improvement" to an article
 * and
 * If you feel an article, or a section within an article, needs more than one or two tags, then consider adding a Unreferenced, Refimprove, or Unreferenced section tag to the article or section concerned -- it reduces the clutter on the page.


 * There were way more than "one or two tags" in those edits, none of which improved it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * there is no need to request CN for the lede, as the lede summarises the main body of the article - this is not true, and when the lead section makes claims not found in the body of the article, you should cite its claims. As it stands the lead is full of uncited information, none of it summarized in the body of the article. You too refer to WP:WHENNOTCITE but you don't bother reading it: "there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads", particularly when the lead does not summarize information from the main body of the article.
 * there being no primary sources in there - let's check that claim, shall we? The first paragraph cites Glamour and Good Housekeeping, those are secondary sources, right? Wrong. WP:PRIMARY: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." The Glamour article is reporting a poll they conducted directly, hence primary source. Good Housekeeping (quite a low-quality article that quotes unsourced material from Wikipedia) is reporting on the opinion of "several articles on the Internet", hence a secondary source, but not a very good one. I would gladly tag the instance itself instead the entire section.
 * WP:POINT - you can clearly see I was attempting to put message boxes on sections, but BMK insisted on per-instance tags. I was attempting compromise.
 * Finally, I'd like to note the article is severely unreferenced since at least 2009, and has been tagged so since at least 2015. Bright☀ 11:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Regardless of your comments, you were still pointy in your excessive tagging. You could have come here to the talk page and discussed it, but instead - by your own admission - you bombed the article.  That is pointy editing.  That is bad behaviour.  I make no comment on BMK's behaviour, only that you could have collaborated, but instead were combative.
 * That's an interesting claim that a poll run by a magazine and used in an article in the magazine is a primary source. I've not come across such a claim before, even when editors are grasping at straws in their claims.
 * Finally, I've removed the section tagging, because it's not necessary when there is a main article tag - which you know about because you changed it. In other words - stop being pointy with me as well as BMK - it's not helping your case.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As you can see I'm happy to compromise to improve the article; now if people would take the message boxes to heart this article could improve by adding citations to it, as I have done, instead of making broad uncited statements, as the vast majority of the article (including the lead) does now. Bright☀ 11:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

"instead of accusing me of making the article worse by requiring citations, you simply provide citations, as is required by Wikipedia policy" - you could also provide the citations you know? However, I'll do both. You did make the article worse, not by requiring citations, but rather by the manner in which you did so. There's a difference. But I'll abide by the current compromise, and work on some citations by the by.

If only this much effort were actually taken on the article itself, eh? Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * How many years have you been editing this article? Eight years? I've been editing it for one day and I've provided more citations than you, making the lead fully-cited and outlining all the uncited material in the article. So please, improve Wikipedia. Provide citations. Endless arguing about NPOV/UNDUE and message boxes when the article almost completely lacks citations is actually what's counter-productive. Bright☀ 14:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Good for you. Get a barnstar.  It's just a pity you took such a tortuous route to be able to proudly declare you've put in more citations than I have.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It was only tortuous because Beyond My Ken (and possibly you too) knowingly edits against Wikipedia policy and consensus. For example:
 * RfC where Beyond My Ken is told the location of the refimprove tag must be at the top; yet he placed it at the bottom. (He does this in many other articles too)
 * Discussion where there is consensus Beyond My Ken's "interpretation" of WP:V is wrong and there is no inherently referenced material; yet he removed the "citation needed" tags because the material is "inherently referenced". (He also keeps editing against the consensus of the RfC mentioned in that discussion)
 * You see, it really shouldn't be tortuous if you follow Wikipedia policies and consensus instead of knowingly editing against them. Bright☀ 23:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I simply repeat my previous comment: This is really what started it.  You could have carried on discussion - which I would have been happy to get involved in - but instead carried out an edit which was pointy, disruptive, antagonistic, and quite obviously was not an improvement to the article.  You seem to be an experienced editor in other respects, so I'm pretty sure that any breaches of procedure were carried out by you with as much cognizance as BMK and myself had.  You're just as guilty.
 * You could have just looked at the article and said to yourself "Hm, this article needs verification. I know, I'll look for them." - but instead you said to yourself "Hm this article needs verification.  I'll tag it to oblivion, irritate couple of editors, and then I'll add the sources.  Yes, that's a good idea."
 * Yes, the article is now in better shape than it was. Yes, you've done some good work - but the way you went about it to get those results was poor.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't like you assigning guilt and I don't like you attributing the "start" of this dispute to my per-instance cn tagging.
 * I tried, several times, to use per-section tagging but was reverted each time against general consensus which I linked in the edit summary. BMK insisted on per-instance tags, which I warned would be excessive, because almost the entire article is unreferenced.
 * "Lead does not need cites" is wrong, policy says the lead can dispense with cites if the material is cited in the body of the article (it is not).
 * BMK the refimprove message at the bottom, which is wrong. BMK was made aware of this in an RfC specifically addressed to him.
 * Removing cn because the information is "inherently referenced" is wrong, there is no material that is "inherently referenced" on Wikipedia and BMK participated in several discussions, one of them an RfC, enlightening him to this matter.
 * The excessive cn tags were made at the repeated insistence of BMK; I attempted to use per-section message boxes and was reverted several times.
 * In short BMK was knowingly going against policy and consensus. I was trying to put refimprove where it belonged (according to consensus), and when that was obstructed, I tried putting cn where they belonged (according to policy). I was open to compromise but was met with reverts and the above knowingly wrong behavior. Bright☀ 22:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes, you've done some good work, and BMK was indeed incorrect in many of his actions. But you have also been pointy, and antagonistic. Had you left it once reverted, and come to carry on discussion I would have happily and enthusiastically supported your cause to sections, or indeed the entire article - in fact as did happen when I 'd the article at the top. You decided on direct action - and to repeat it, rather than to discuss it. If you were correct in your assessment, then you'd get your way - as has pretty much happened - but as I repeat myself; the way you got here is poor showing from an experienced editor.

Your insistence that you're whiter-than-white, and that other editors are ganging up on you ("...(and possibly you too) knowingly edits against Wikipedia policy", is humorous when you are doing pretty much the same thing - borderline edit warring, and intentionally making an article worse just to prove a point.

I suppose I could have a look at the article and improve it, but you seem to be doing a smashing job all on your own. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not editing the article at the moment; it's sad that you'd let an article you actively edit languish unreferenced for eight years or so, then use me an an excuse not to improve it. I happened by the RfC and C'ed, then put up message boxes where they belong by RfC and guidelines. You're spreading the blame around to make both parties "just as guilty", even though one was knowingly reverting against RfC and guidelines. Be here to build an encyclopedia as part of a community. Don't be like Beyond My Ken who hears what the community says through policies, guidelines, RfC, and consensus, and then ignores it and goes against it. Bright☀ 15:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you're truly unable to see that your actions of shotgunning the article with tags was against policy and not an improvement - regardless of your motives for doing it - then you are already in the same boat as BMK, (and me, if you so desire) and paddling just as hard as he is, albeit in the opposite direction.
 * I don't think I've laid any blame for my inaction at your feet. That would be poor form, much in the same way as another editor crowing over somebody's inaction for eight years (just to pluck an example at complete random from the proverbial hat) could also be seen as poor form.
 * Anyhoo - I'd love to continue this discussion, as much fun as it is, but I'm too busy being here to build an encyclopedia as part of a community. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I warned Beyond My Ken that peppering the entire article with cn is excessive and explained multiple times that per-section message boxes are preferable when the entire section is unreferenced, but was repeatedly reverted and told to use per-instance inline tags.
 * I'm not crowing over your inaction, I said your inaction show that this article could have been improved with reference but wasn't, and instead its editors turned to arguing over WP:DUE. WP:DUE needs references to show if weight is due or undue, so putting in references, or at the very least not hiding away the refimprove tag at the bottom (knowingly against sweeping RfC consensus) would have done a lot more to improve the article.
 * Thank you for being here to build an encyclopedia as part of a community. Can't say Beyond My Ken is doing the same thing, he's, . Bright☀ 18:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leggings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100714135336/http://www.kmike.com/Marines_In_Korea.pdf to http://www.kmike.com/Marines_In_Korea.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Mixed topics
Seems the article is combining at least two different clothes items with the same name: 1) the pants-like item currently popular with women; 2) an ankle and calf device for supporting, protecting, etc, the ankle, shoe/boot, and calf. They have different histories, different purposes, and someone searching for one probably is not looking for information on the other. Maybe the 2nd type (the older item, though, less likely to be searched for) should be separated into another article with a clarifying note in parenthetical round brackets in the article name. — al-Shimoni  (talk) 05:26, 7 November 2020 (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): Carleyblanchard3. Peer reviewers: Mtstace.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)