Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Male Unbifurcated Garment

Comments unrelated to voting

 * Guy - I'm the author of Male Unbifurcated Garment. If you want flare, please relegate it to either your own posts, your personal page, or to a separate website.  This topic is under scrutiny for deletion and is not the place for your personal "flair."  Thank you for your considerations.
 * Comment I have just restored JzG's signature for the third time after Dr1819's repeated vandalism. If you can't be civil, don't post. You have no right to determine what someone else's signature is, nor do you have any ownership of anything on Wikipedia. You certainly do not own this discusssion. Fan1967 20:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Response I strongly resent and ojbect to your use of the term "vandalism," Fan1967," particularly given the extremely limited nature of my singular edit (involving reverse highlighting).

Nevertheless, I'm leaving JzG's signature as is, despite the fact that my previous posts requesting that he keep his "flair" to his own pages has been ignored. Quite frankly, I find that his "flair" on a discussion page for a topic that I spent more than two days researching falls well within the bounds of "vandalism!"

I'm quite sure that if I were to edit his page, introducting my own flair, that it would be flatly squashed as "vandalism." In short, do unto others as you would expect them to do unto you. Administrative rights do not grant you the capability to squash what you don't approve or understand indiscriminately. Rather, they empower you with the responsibility to accurately and correctly research the issues to the nth degree, and decide fairly, and unambiguously, the nature and the ramifactions of those issues.

Anything less than this is an affront to all Wikipedians.


 * Ownership I created this article less than three days ago.  Without me, it wouldn't exist on Wikipedia, even though it exists throughout numerous websites across all nations on the Internet.  As a member of Wiki, I fully subscribe to Wiki's policies of ownership.  As such, I ask that you and the other administrators show the SAME respect towards those of us who've travelled the globe collecting Wiki information as you expect us to show you.  Reciprocity among professionals is both normal, and expected.

I think this level of recipricity is simply self-explanatory, and hope that Wiki administrator's haven't fallen down the rabbit hole of being "gods" as have a few errant administrators of electronic bulliten board systems of the past. We're all part of the Wiki community, and I've been a sysadmin of more than 7 BBSes since 1985. In short, I'm not new at this game. I'm also a long-term contributer to the IEEE, helping to establish descent Internet practices and policies, electrically speaking, which help us all. I ask the Wikia staff simply respect the rules and rights we've worked very hard to establish over the last three decades in order to protect the rights and responsibilities enjoyed by us all. Thank you.

In short, let the articles and the links posted therein speak for themselves. Please leave all personal biases at the keyboard before you enter Wiki. The world is not quite as what you've been lead to believe. Wiki is all about helping correct myopic misperceptions. This is an opportunity to learn, so please don't waste your time and effort railing against what's considered "normal" throughout the world. Doing so simply makes you look silly to the worldwide Wiki viewers.


 * Check your "hits" My count on Google hits for all variations of "male unbifurcated garments" numbers in the Millions.  See "More Comments by the Author", below for detailed information. Additionally, I would appreciate your not using vulger language on your user page.  Many children have access to Wiki - let's keep it clean, please! Dr1819 19:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I get 8,710 certainly not millions - I'm not sure how you get that many. Also, whilst 8,710 seems a reasonable number, note that Google only lists 56 of these - it seems that the rest are repeated hits on forums (possible spamming, or maybe in someone's sig?) I can't find any combination that gets more than a few hundred hits. Mdwh 20:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

"Male Unbifurcated Garements" - 8,710 hits "MUGs" - 77,000,000 hits "MUG" and "skirt" - 643,000 hits "MUGs" and "skirt" - 347,000 hits "MUG" and "skirts" - 1,240,000 hits "MUG" and "kilt" - 99,400 hits "MUG" and "kilts" - 42,900 hits "MUGs" and "kilt" - 174,000 hits "MUGs" and "kilts" - 113,000 hits "men wearing kilts" - 351 hits "men" and "kilts" - 977,000 hits "men wearing skirts" - 15,700 hits "men who wear skirts" - 3,690 hits "men who wear kilts" - 130 hits "kilt-wearing men" - 130 hits "skirt-wearing men" - 112 hits
 * Response - You're obviously not a Googler. Here are the results:'''

'Hmmm... The total number of hits for all variations certainly meets the "Millions" qualification.  More than a millions, in fact, including the duplicated entries. Please feel free to verify/disclaim each and every link, if you feel like you have millions of minutes of time (a millions minutes is 1.9 years, so before you embark on a foolish adventure, you may wish to reconsider).


 * I've already commented on the 8,710 hits for "Male Unbifurcated Garements". As for the rest, are you seriously suggesting that the majority of hits for "Mug" is going to refer to "Male Unbifurcated Garment"? Mdwh 20:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Searching on MUG and kilt includes the following in the hits within the top 10. 'Large logo Mug', 'Smaller logo Mug', 'Mugs, Glasses & Thimbles...'. and 'Gambrinus' Mug - The Brewery's Recipe Exchange'.  Vegaswikian 21:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Additional Comments by the Author
As I've previously mentioned on the article's Talk page (which I highly encourage you to visit so that you'll know why I wrote the article in the first place), the term "MUG" is not a made-up word (ergo, there's no neologism as some errantly claim). It's an acronym standing for Male Unbifurcated Garment. The reason this term was coined more than a decade ago is because of it's breadth in scope - it encompasses the more than 70 types of skirts and dresses commonly worn around the world by approximately 40% of the world's male population. That's 1.4 Billion people, folks, which is extremely signficant. The terms "skirt" and "robe" simply don't cut it, as they exclude most of the various types of MUGs. Furthermore, a "kilt" is but one type of MUG, and although it's perhaps the most common one known to those of western culture, by sheer numbers it ranks about 20th on the list of MUGs, so that's not the correct term, either. Given these considerations there was a clear need for a term or acronym which accurately encompasses and describes the many non-bifurcated garments worn by men throughout the world. Hence the acronym, MUG.

Furthermore, given the considerable, dare I say, "ignorance", of those throughout the minority Western culture with respect to men who wear MUGs throughout the world, there was a clear need for a Wiki article that addresses this issue, hopefully to educate/enlighten, apparently primarily those from Western cultures, that the concept of men wearing skirts, kilts, robes, etc. is strange only to those from Western cultures. To the other 90% of the world it's fine, and to at least 40% of the world, it's a normal form of dress for men. This doesn't mean that men from other cultures always wear MUGs. But it does mean that they often do, as is entirely accepted by their societies, which, in toto, outnumber the Western societies by about 10 to 1. Given the 40%, those societies that commonly wear MUGs outnumber western societies by approximately 4 to 1.

While Wiki is indeed housed in the US, please keep in mind that it's accessible to far more non-Westerners than Westerners. In fact, the country with the highest Internet access per capita is Korea, not the U.S. In Seoul, Internet connection speeds are currently 10 Mbps. Compare that to 1.5 Mbps for the average US city. Even in the US capitol of Washington DC it's only 1.5 Mbps. Other cities with more forward thinking, such as Las Vegas, it's between 2.5 and 5 Mbps.

The point isn't to slam America. It's to point out that Western culture is only ubiquitous to Western civilization, which is but a small (1/10th) percentage of our planet's population. There is a lot more out there than most people from the West realize, in terms of culture and fashion. Although I'm an American, I live and work in Germany. While most of the fashion/styles are very similar, some things acceptable in the US aren't accepted here, and vice-versa. In other countries, fashion is very restrictive, while in others it's quite open. Just because something is different does not make it "weird". It might seem weird to you, but to someone from Tibet the concept of men wearing pants is not just "weird" - it's illegal.

The point is that everyone views this topic from their own experiences. I ask that you put those aside for a moment and at least attempt to view them from a more global perspective.

Finally, before slamming this entry simply because it's outside the scope of your particular culture, please remember that many cultures have access to Wiki, and in most of those cultures the concept of men wearing MUGs is perfectly normal.

Thank you for your patience and understanding as we strive to ensure Wiki isn't just about thrusting Western civilization on the rest of the world, but instead becomes a way for everyone to increase their understanding of everyone, and everything, outside their normal perspective.

In closing, if you need proof that MUGs actually exist, here are dozens of pictures from around the world: MUGs From Around The World. Please note that the most commonly seen MUG by Western civilization is the robe worn by Catholic priests and other members of the clergy. Dr1819 19:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Even more comments
NOTICE Please don't strike my comments. That's illegal and against Wiki standards. Simply state your own. Strikes removed.
 * Comment It is normal practice in these discussions to strike out additional votes from someone who has already voted. Strikes replaced. Also, editing someone else's signature is also against Wiki standards. Fan1967 20:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Response Strikes left in place due to your comment as it's understandable.  Yours and other objections to this topic, however, remain unfathomable.  They're without basis of fact, rationale, and fly in the face of known information witnessed by billions around the globe.  I fail to understand what the underlying issue might be.  Does it have it's roots in homophobia?  If so, I can assure you that the vast majority (like 99%+) male skirt/dress wearers are heterosexual.  Perhaps it's a Hollywood indoctrination issue.
 * Response Your remarks are so grossly off-base that it is quite clear you have not actually read, or attempted to understand, what others have posted in this discussion. Fan1967 21:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Seriously - WHAT really is the issue, here? As a traveler through more than 30 countries around the world, in every major continent, having met thousands of men and women in a very wide variety of forms of dress and having lived among them for a total of four years, a bit spent in each country, I thought I had a pretty good handle on world-wide cultures and styles of dress. Apparently, those who've been to just one or two countries know better! Not!.

The underlying issue is clearly one of sub-cultural gender stereotypes. The very fact that's it's garnered so much response is, in itself, clear justification for it's inclusion in Wiki, if for no other reason than to educate the masses, bringing them out of tribal prejudices and into the realm of the normal, global, human world.


 * Speaking of which, the vast number of comments here inciting "delete" are proof themselves that the article should be kept. It's clear this is an educational issue, informing the ignorant of common practices outside their sphere of experience.


 * This is what Wiki is all about - to expand upon the realm of human experience. It's not about squashing information outside of people's comfort zones simply because something's "different."  Wiki is about ensuring fair and accurate representation of the world at large.  MUG is an acronym coined decades ago to describe non-bifurcated garments worn by nearly half the male population on the planet.  That's highly relevant, regardless of what the uninitiated 10% of the Western population might say.  To them, protecting their fashion norms may be of supreme importance, but to the other 90% of the world which has different fashion norms, it appears childish.  Dr1819 19:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Seconded!: Although pertinant to qualifying one's votes, the articles talk page should contain 90% of what's posted here.  Furthermore, it should have been discussed there, first, for at least several weeks, before being thrown up to the delete page!  I'm not sure who jumped the gun in violation of Wiki policy, but I will find out!  Dr1819 22:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Observation

 * Observation - The very fact that there has been such a drastic response against what's considered a normal practice throughout the world absolutely underscores the dire need for a Wiki article to educate those of the narrow-minded Western culture that their particular viewpoints of things are not ubiquitous, and that men and women throughout the world, who're also Wiki readers and participants, choose their own paths to follow, without the West's approval. Key Point - I'm a Westerner, a US Citizen, but I'm a well-travelled one, having visited 35 different countries over the last 15 years.  Furthermore, I'm a straight heterosexual male!  This topic has nothing to do with gender issues.  It's simply a reflection, and a much needed reflection at that, judging by the volume of responses, about the various styles of dress worn by men throughout the world.  Since it's not elsewhere on Wiki, here's the best spot to put it!

Why is everyone making this so ridiculously complicated? "trying to change western culture," etc. Phooey!

I'm simply writing about a what type of clothing is worn by 40% of the world's male population. I've dug through Wiki's standards half a dozen times, and there's absolutely nothing supporting the deletion of this article, and absolutely everything supporting it's inclusion into Wikipedia. In fact, the first time I saw a man in a skirt was in my 1966 World Book encyclopedias, in an article about the Turkish Army. I'm absolutely befuddled that anyone associated with Wiki would protest this, except for personal stereotypical issues. Dr1819 22:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm simply writing about No you're not, you're writing about some made-up term. There are plenty of Wikipedia articles focusing on male-skirts such as kilt and sarong, so no one is trying to prevent this appearing on Wikipedia. If you think that a article summarising the different forms of skirts is needed, then go ahead and write one. But you haven't written one here. Mdwh 09:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Response There is no Wiki article that deals with the term the fashion industry and countless special interest groups and wearers of skirts, kilts, (etc., ad nauseum for more than 70 different names) came up with that was inclusive of all forms of "male unbifurcation garments."  This acronym (hence, not neologism) was coined at least as early at 1996 by Tom, late of Tom's Cafe, but recent hits indicate it had owes its existence to discussions of fashion through the fashion media as early as the 1970s.  Regardless, it is a modern-day acronym which accurately describes the style of fashion worn by 1.4 Billion members of our world's population.

Let's put that into perspective:

Total number of people in the United States: 298,444,215 (July 2006 est., according to CIA World Factbook).

Total number of people in the World: 6,525,170,264 (July 2006 est., according to CIA World Factbok).

Total number of men who wear Male Unbifurcated Garments: 1,305,034,052. this is 4.4 times the number of people in the entire United States of America.

Is any of this sinking in, that this isn't a "passing fad," "neologism," "weaselism," and the other terms that have been thrown at this very real issue in pathetically ridiculous attempts to discredit what happens to be simple reality? That "Scotland" is but a very small country of which we're aware men wear these garments, but is but one of many countries where these garments are routinely worn, outnumbering Scotland by many hundreds to one?

I'm really growing tired of trying to educate Wiki administrators who should by now posess at least a rudimentary understanding of the wide variety of cultures and practices around the world, particularly since they're responsible to content from some 170 countries. Their apparently gross lack of understanding of even a basic form of human dress casts serious doubt as to their ability as administrators to effectively, and most importantly, objectively, administer this very global website known as Wiki.


 * Please provide evidence that the term "Male Unbifurcated Garments" is used "the fashion industry and countless special interest groups and wearers". I don't follow your logic that making an acronym out of a phrase stops it being a neologism. And the rest of your comments about how many men wear skirts are irrelevant to this discussion. Until you provide evidence for widespread usage of the term, instead of irrelevant stats about men wearing skirts, no one is going to be convinced. Mdwh 21:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Neologism
I've clearly debunked the "neologism" myth in my posts above. Please stop attempting to redress it in future posts. Thank you.

Googling
I've clearly demonstratrated that Google hits for this particular topic number in the millions. Against, please stop attempting to desecrate the importance of this article by posting non-effective, inappropriate, or intentionally misdirected Google searches. Thank you.


 * Response Non-notable response.  Seriously, folks - this isn't a flash in the pan - nor is it something that's "all over the Internet."  I'm a world traveler, having visited more than 35 countries over the last 15 years.  This is simply human observation.  For people to sit back at their computers at home and rail against what people have been doing for centuries is absolutely absurd.  Ignorant, at best, deceitful at worst.  Do you honestly belief those of us who've visited or who live in various countries where MUGs are the norm for men will simply cast a blind eye to your comments?  At the very least you're rude, an affront to the normal styles of menswear for many countries.

My developing this Wiki project was determined precisely in response to the extremely myopic comments posted herein. It's abundantly clear that most Westerners havent' a clue when it comes to men's fashion throughout the world. Instead of objectively examining something slightly different from their own upbringing (one opening, not two), they tend to slam on it, using the many comments and suggestions given below in an attempt to "discredit" manners of dress that have been existence for tens of thousands of years for no other reason than it's not been in existence during their short 20 to 50 year lifespan, and then, only in their very limited part of the world.

This is a pathetically ridiculous excuse to use while recommending the termination of an article which stands to signicantly broaden most people's understanding of male apparel around the world.


 * Yes, there are millions of hits for Mugs, which we already have an article for, so no need for this one. Mdwh 09:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

More comments

 * Comment: This page was getting extremely hard to follow, given that its purpose is for people to vote on whether or not the article should be deleted. I moved discussion unrelated to voting onto the talk page. Please, if you've already voted on the fate of this article, continue any discussion on the talk page. Catamorphism 22:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote. Just zis Guy you know? 23:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I left a note with Catamorphism - Hopefully he can sort things out while I grab some sleep Dr1819 23:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC):

Comments added at the top of the article
Having travelled the globe over the last 15 years, I've seen many things. But it's clear that the most ridiculous things I've seen are the opinions of those who haven't. The following comments are laughable to anyone who's been in my shoes, as I printed out and shared with several US, UK, and German friends of mine who are also world travellers. We've been there. We know what's right and wrong, and it's becomming increasingly clear over this article just how myopic and secluded the rest of the non-travelling world really is when it comes to even simple matters such as styles of dress, even when the wide variations are clearly referenced here on Wikipedia.

Keep arguing the point if you feel you must - just be advised you're simply underscoring your own ignorance as to what men actually wear throughout the many cultures here on our planet, as clearly and unambiguously documented in journals ranging from National Geographic to the Encyclopedia Britannica to World Book and Encarta.

I'm really finding it quite amazing how close-minded people are to what's normal overseas! It's like they live in a little glass house, and anything outside of what they've been told is normal is somehow taboo.

Well, gosh - I'm sorry reality upsets you so much. Take a trip overseas and see for yourself that life isn't so Norman Rockwellian as you've been lead to believe. Gaagh!

The topic/article exists because there are many more people out there who're as ignorant as those who've posted herein! Your own posts solidly underscore the need to keep this Wiki article alive, to educate the masses concerning things beyond their normal realms of experience.

Note to the administrators: I sincerely hope you don't believe that the "general consensus" is the most correct answer. By way of arguement I give you Gallileo, who by "general consensus" was considered a crackpot. I also give you nearly all of the leading scientists and explorers of our time, from Darwin to Einstein. I may not be of their caliber, but I have been to many countries over the last decade and a half, during which time I've seen many styles of male dress. As such, I find it extremely laughable when people respond to my article with a "No!" when I've personally witnessed things otherwise.

Well, it's late here, so I'm off to bed. I'll check in tomorrow. Hopefully, more enlightened heads will have prevailed.

more comments

 * Response Why people keep trying to pin the term "neologism" on an acronym is beyond me, particularly when it's been in use for two decades.  You people can't possibly be that ignorant!  Dr1819 00:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Additional Comments by the Author
As I've previously mentioned on the article's Talk page (which I highly encourage you to visit so that you'll know why I wrote the article in the first place), the term "MUG" is not a made-up word (ergo, there's no neologism as some errantly claim). It's an acronym standing for Male Unbifurcated Garment. The reason this term was coined more than a decade ago is because of it's breadth in scope - it encompasses the more than 70 types of skirts and dresses commonly worn around the world by approximately 40% of the world's male population. That's 1.4 Billion people, folks, which is extremely signficant. The terms "skirt" and "robe" simply don't cut it, as they exclude most of the various types of MUGs. Furthermore, a "kilt" is but one type of MUG, and although it's perhaps the most common one known to those of western culture, by sheer numbers it ranks about 20th on the list of MUGs, so that's not the correct term, either. Given these considerations there was a clear need for a term or acronym which accurately encompasses and describes the many non-bifurcated garments worn by men throughout the world. Hence the acronym, MUG.

Furthermore, given the considerable, dare I say, "ignorance", of those throughout the minority Western culture with respect to men who wear MUGs throughout the world, there was a clear need for a Wiki article that addresses this issue, hopefully to educate/enlighten, apparently primarily those from Western cultures, that the concept of men wearing skirts, kilts, robes, etc. is strange only to those from Western cultures. To the other 90% of the world it's fine, and to at least 40% of the world, it's a normal form of dress for men. This doesn't mean that men from other cultures always wear MUGs. But it does mean that they often do, as is entirely accepted by their societies, which, in toto, outnumber the Western societies by about 10 to 1. Given the 40%, those societies that commonly wear MUGs outnumber western societies by approximately 4 to 1.

While Wiki is indeed housed in the US, please keep in mind that it's accessible to far more non-Westerners than Westerners. In fact, the country with the highest Internet access per capita is Korea, not the U.S. In Seoul, Internet connection speeds are currently 10 Mbps. Compare that to 1.5 Mbps for the average US city. Even in the US capitol of Washington DC it's only 1.5 Mbps. Other cities with more forward thinking, such as Las Vegas, it's between 2.5 and 5 Mbps.

The point isn't to slam America. It's to point out that Western culture is only ubiquitous to Western civilization, which is but a small (1/10th) percentage of our planet's population. There is a lot more out there than most people from the West realize, in terms of culture and fashion. Although I'm an American, I live and work in Germany. While most of the fashion/styles are very similar, some things acceptable in the US aren't accepted here, and vice-versa. In other countries, fashion is very restrictive, while in others it's quite open. Just because something is different does not make it "weird". It might seem weird to you, but to someone from Tibet the concept of men wearing pants is not just "weird" - it's illegal.

The point is that everyone views this topic from their own experiences. I ask that you put those aside for a moment and at least attempt to view them from a more global perspective.

Finally, before slamming this entry simply because it's outside the scope of your particular culture, please remember that many cultures have access to Wiki, and in most of those cultures the concept of men wearing MUGs is perfectly normal.

Thank you for your patience and understanding as we strive to ensure Wiki isn't just about thrusting Western civilization on the rest of the world, but instead becomes a way for everyone to increase their understanding of everyone, and everything, outside their normal perspective.

In closing, if you need proof that MUGs actually exist, here are dozens of pictures from around the world: MUGs From Around The World. Please note that the most commonly seen MUG by Western civilization is the robe worn by Catholic priests and other members of the clergy. Dr1819 19:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

"male gender panic"

 * Response - What in the world is "male gender panic," and how does it have any possible bearing on the term "MUG?" Dr1819 19:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that the only reason why someone would call a skirt a "male unbifurcated garment" is that they wish to wear one but are insecure about their gender identity. Skirts are notable, a term used by a small percentage of neurotic men in Western culture isn't. By the way, replying to every single comment is really not going to sway people in your favor. WP:NOT a soapbox. Catamorphism 20:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You're comments that men who wear skirts are experiencing gender identity insecurities are totally unfounded, and totally off-target, as men have worn skirts since the dawn of mankind. Furthermore, the term "skirt" is but one of more than 70 subsets of normal male dress found throughout the world that falls into the overall category of MUG (Male Unbifurcated Garment).  Kilts are not skirts, and neither are the many other terms used to describe other forms of MUGs worn by men, hence the term MUGs, which accurately encompasses all unbifurcated garments worn by men throughout the world.

Finally, why do you and others persist in throwing out terms like "neurotic?" This isn't a homosexual issue. It's not a gender identity issue. It's not a psychological issue. It's a fashion issue, and I'll thank you and the other administrators of Wiki to familiarize yourselves with global fashion trends before you make any further ridiculous comments along these lines.

Post-note: My replying to every comment isn't intended to "sway people in my favor." It's intended to highlight a clearly obvious deficiency in Western culture comprehension about the normative practices throughout the rest of the world, which happen to outnumber we Westerners by about 10 to 1. If we can't get with the program when it comes to simple styles of male dress, how in the world are we supposed to become the world connoisseurs that we believe ourselves to be? Turning back the clock 15 years, I can see how uninitiated I was as to the variences throughout the world. But I cannot turn my back on 15 years of experience, either, experience which the vast majority of Westerners do not possess, I might add. I'm not saying I'm better, but I am saying that after having visited 35 countries, I know a BIT more about variations in fashion throughout the world than most people slamming their uninformed opinions on this page seem to know. It's these ignorances which cause people to leap at terms like "silliness" rather than take the time to examine the issue. Dr1819 00:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Dr1819, as I said elsewhere, I lived for two and a half years in one of the countries (Tonga) that you've doubtless enrolled in your "skirt-wearing" stats, and I can tell you that you're grossly exaggerating. Cheap used Western clothing is ubiquitous in the Third World and men who wear tupenus, lavalavas, or lungis on some occasions wear cheap pants on others. It's true that they see "skirts" as a fashion option in a way that many Westerners don't, but that hardly merits the excited language you're using. Accusing us of ethocentrism if we don't fall in line behind you is over the top. Zora 21:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Mug Wearing
MUG has become a common term on the internet. Basically meaning 'Man Skirt'. Perhaps Man Skirt is a better term, but people seem afraid to use the 'skirt' word when it comes to describing blokes' clothing. I wear skirts myself and am a man, my skirts are Man Skirts! More about mens fashion freedom at http://www.imff.net

Response to Zora
You and others continue to erroneously splate the term "neologism" although I've clearly shown on several sites that this acronym cannot be neologistic (because it's an acronym - duh!), as well as the fact that it's been in use for more than 20 years.

STOP flaming this topic, ZORA. Reality will continue to prevail over your personal preferences of the world as you would like to see it. Wikipedia is all about expanding one's knowledge of the world as is. It has absolutely nothing to do with attempts to corral world perceptions into extremely small Western Stereotypes.
 * Comment (1) MUG is an acronym. "Male Unbifurcated Garment" is not. (2) A neologism remains a neologism until it becomes a commonly used part of the language. A word (or phrase) that's rarely used by very few for twenty years is still a neologism. Fan1967 22:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Acronyms used by the very few are, nevertheless, acronyms. Countless acronyms exist in Wiki which are used by far less than %1 of the population.  Innumerable specialties exist where the acronyms might be known by less than 1/100,000 of the population.  I've seen Wiki articles in good standing supporting this, so commonality has no basis in fact with respect to an article's relevancy.  More 99% of all encyclopedic content is not directly known by any given user.  Lack of familiarity should never be considered as cause for deletion.  84.166.181.73 16:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Local vs Global Ideals
It's clear there's some resistence to this concept. I think it's time for you to ask yourselves "Why?"

It's an acronym, so it's not "neologism." Furthermore, the individual terms have been around for hundreds of years, so they're not guilty of neologism, either. The other comments have been fully addressed, above, including the gross understatements of Google hits.

I found many of the comments above highly irrelevant, and some to be quite disrespectful. I liken it to an artist who attempts to correct a physicist that colors aren't additive. If the last didn't make sense to you, you're obviously not a physicist!

My point is that I've travelled the globe, lived in several countries, visited more than 30, have seen quite a few things in my 40+ years, and am merely attempting to document several rather sizeable phenomenon with respect to the numbers of individuals involved. It's not neologism (as discussed above). As I'm but one of 1.4 Billion men who wear MUGs, it's not "original thinking/authorship" etc., either.

Please take a step back, realize the world is a much larger place than your limited sphere of understanding, and that Wiki caters to hundreds of nations, not just the Western few who wrongly believe men wearing anything but pants is somehow Biblically, and therefore wrong. Take a look at the plates in the back/front of any Bible and you'll find Noah, Jesus, Moses, etc., all wearing a MUG (male unbifurcated garment). The words aren't a new term. They're simply a collection of three words used to accurately describe, and encompass, this particularly form of fashion. Wiki even has a long-standing entry for "unbifurcated" which briefly mentions clothing. These terms, in the English language for hundreds of years, were collected into the acronym MUG more than a decade ago as an alternative to saying "skirt-like garments" and "robe-like garments," particularly when some MUG wearers are highly offended at the term "skirt," which they equate with women's clothing. But they're quite happy with MUG, as it's both an accurate description, as well as one that's not offensive.

I hope in the future people here take the time to more thoroughly research the voluminous history behind Wiki articles before merely marching in crusade against them, for what appears to be personal, regionally-associated feelings against what's quite common throughout the world. Remember - Wiki is global, not regional. Please do all Wikipedians a favor by refraining from trying to stamp local ideas onto the global whole. Thank you for your time. Dr1819 18:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No, there is absolutely no resistance to the concept, only to your assertion that this term is the dominant one used to describe the concept. Your consistent failure to appreciate this, despite multiple editors having pointed it out, is becoming wearisome.  You have yet to supply a single reliable source to back your argument that this term is the correct one to describe this kind of garment, your original research notwithstanding. Just zis Guy you know? 10:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * JzG, it's continued uncivil comments like this that really tempt me to put this on DRV. You have claimed numerous times now that this is OR- in fact, it was the basis for your whole nom. In that case, considering that I added four references that confirm the usage of the term, please explain why you continue to believe it is OR. -- JJay 20:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I would have to second this motion, JzG. You appear to be on a vendetta to erase anything that's not in strict accordance with some form of Victorian or Edwardian sense of style.


 * Consider yourself on report, JzG. I will shortly be posting comments on the appropriate pages concerning your conduct and it's deletarious affects on "copyrighted and verifiable" Wiki articles that soundly adhere to each and every tenet of Wiki policy.  Dr1819 15:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me know if you need help finding the appropriate process pages. I am at risk of being kicked out of the rouge admin cabal for failing to have a single RfC or RFAr registered against me.  Just zis Guy you know? 16:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * While I'm not so headstrong as the above, I, too, have noticed a several personal vendettas, primarily by JzG against dr1819's contributions. So sad, givin Wiki's supposed objective viewpoint of world happenings.  It appears there's a lot out there that you're railing against, for no good purpose.  Perhaps your status as a Wiki admin was premature...  Mugaliens 16:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)