Talk:Wardrobe malfunction/Archive 1

I notice that there are not any men mentioned in this article. Do men not have wardrobe malfunctions? Perhaps the term should be redefined as a defect in an article or articles of clothing of a woman? Gobonobo ^{T C} 23:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Most men wear underwear, and "nip slips" are a non-issue. Plus, there are a lot more men who care about women getting exposed, than there are women who care about men getting exposed. Or, maybe men are just more careful.

Wahkeenah

23:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it's the difference in clothing designs... women's clothes tend to have lower necklines, higher hems, and show more in general (blame the designers, I'm just saying what I see) than men's-- yes there are lots of exceptions. Anyways, it would be harder, for example, to get a shot right up someone's pants or shorts to the genitals than it would be for a skirt. Also, most men's shirts don't show much below the neck, as opposed to the low lines in women's clothes.

And of course, one must also realize that like it or not, a woman's skirt coming down gets a lot more press-coverage than a man's pants coming down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.141.248 (talk) 06:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course there are male malfunctions, especially in sport. There are plenty of pictures of soccer players and other guys hanging out of their shorts. There's a famous picture of a bullfighter with his pants ripped open. Someone just needs to go and collect the stuff, if they are interested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KD Tries Again (talk • contribs) 18:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

US Boxer Riddick Bowe suffered a wardrobe malfunction during a bout when his shorts ripped, exposing half of his buttocks.Chops79 20:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I have heavily cut the list per

Surely BLP doesn't apply to Diana, Princess of Wales? =) Powers ^T 17:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the Jackson incident has its own separate article, nothing remains here except basically a dictionary entry. Might as well delete the whole thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KD Tries Again (talk • contribs) 16:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• http://gridskipper.com/353949/for-rios-carnival-you-may-only-be-999-naked

For Rio's Carnival, You May Only Be 99.9% Naked -- Toytoy (talk) 04:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm returning this page to a redirect. The content added since the last time it was a redirect is original research, unverified claims, and synthesis, unless you can find a reliable source that called the music video a "wardrobe malfunction". If you think this article should not be a redirect, please make an argument for why it needs to be anything more than a dictionary entry. -Verdatum (talk) 07:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing unsourced material is fine, but this article covers many more aspects of WMF than the Superbowl article. 199.125.109.135 (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I would really like to hear the case you thugs have made for removing sourced material including at least one RS describing an incident as a wardrobe malfunction.

Kappa (talk

) 17:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. To be honest, I'm starting to waver on my opinion about this. Although I don't appreciate the implication that any of us are "thugs" just because we request a bit of justification; as Kappa said, there are references to events that are described by reporters as "Wardrobe malfunctions" which arguably could be innappropriate for the Superbowl article.

The only thing I continue to feel strongly about is that this should be an article about the neologism "Wardrobe malfunction" I don't particularly see the need for an article about random accidental celebrity indecent exposures. Such a list could get rediculously long, and not serve any particular benefit that I can see. Instances should only be mentioned when reliable sources refer to the event as a "wardrobe malfunction" so as to reinforce the notability of the term. If other people prefer this as a redirect, they are welcome to argue the position, but I don't think I'm going to revert it anymore. If it changes back to an article, I would however cleanup the article to match the scope I have described. (I'd also modify the appropriate section of the halftime controversies article to conform to

WP:SUMMARY once any lingering editwars subside.) -Verdatum (talk

) 16:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia, where having a whole bunch of thugs on your side puts you in a postion to "request" explanations by brute force while relieving you of the necessity of providing them.

Kappa (talk

) 03:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Work has began only. Everything will need citations and sources, everything that remains unsupported must be removed. There shouldn't be any peacock words or judgmental commentary. But, removing it, like was done quite a few times, will also remove the possibilities of improvement. Whatever you want to remove in large scale, please, discuss here per Wikipedia conventions. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

People can look in the history. Per

wp:blp unsourced about living people has to go immediately. Garion96 (talk)

19:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• WP:BLP is obviously not applicable to people such as Jayne Mansfield or Carmen Miranda as they are dead. Colonel Warden (talk
  ) 20:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think those are indeed the only two deceased people on that list. For those entries there is always

wp:blp. Almost all of the examples stated are of living persons. Garion96 (talk)

20:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, read the policy first then wield it like a weapon, which is what you are doing here. Challenge first, and remove if there is no response. Don't start an edit war, please, it's disruptive. I agree that the stuff needs copyedit and also appropriate sourcing. But, if you remove it there will be none of that. This blunt and dogged approach of removing information without giving it a chance doesn't build an encyclopedia. Not helpful at all. If you don't like it for your personal values, please, there are forums on Wikipedia where you can report. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It has got nothing to do with personal values. Although personally I do think the article does not need a list. I think the article looked great since you improved and doesn't need the list. But if the list stays, all entries have to be sourced. We don't add information about living people to articles and hope that people will source it. We add it and source it immediately. Garion96 (talk) 08:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• The work of adding sources is best achieved by doing so rather than arguing about it. I have made a start. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm a bit pressed against time, but I'll definitely lend a hand there in a couple of days. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 20:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There is some debate as to whether or not it was a wardrobe malfunction or wardrobe sabotage (to coin a phrase). Perhaps the mention should be deleted or re-written. --Dekker451 (talk) 10:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

There is an earlier recorded wardrobe malfunction than 1977. In the 1960's or early 1970's on either a talent show or variety show, a woman's breast came loos from her dress as she performed. I sas this on a highlights show on Australian TV. I believe it was on Channel 9. Given that the film is in black'n'white, it would have taken place on or before 1975, which is when colour TV was introduced in Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lironl (talk • contribs) 03:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

According all reliable sources I have found wardrobe malfunctions can be of many types. Nipple slip is one of them. See this, this and especially this. Many more sources can be furnished, if you need. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm...I see. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 05:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't it have some kind of "Pop Culture Use" section? One entry could look like this: In Futurama's S07E04 there's a mention of "Wardrobe malfunction" on the cover of a magazine Bender is working for.

OK, I presented the idea poorly, but you got the point, right? :) -- TVippy  22:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of the article when a picture is worth a thousand words. Unfortunately the strange concept of fair use makes putting a picture here impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebaychatter0 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that "wardrobe malfunction" is better described as a colloquial term than as a euphemism--does anyone else agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pink jester (talk • contribs) 08:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --Dekker451 (talk) 10:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Second that. An euphemism is a shy replacement of an existing term. There was no term for this other than a long descriptive reference (accidental exposure of body parts). Neither it is a "colloquial term". It is a rather precise technical term. It could have been an euphemism at the beginning (instead of "oops, my tits popped out"), but now it is a generic term. So I deleted the description "euphemism" from the article.

talk

) 20:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

[Concerning the Latin Times and SF Weekly:] Are these two unreliable? Pwolit iets (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to either publication as a whole. I do, however, object to the

original research on which the latest iteration of the "bulge" paragraph was based. Rebbing

09:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@User:Rebbing The first sentence or the second sentence? And what specifically? Pwolit iets (talk) 09:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure thing. The first sentence is original research. It reads: The appearance of a prominent protrusion of a man's genitalia through clothing is also sometimes referred to as a wardrobe malfunction, especially when appearing on celebrities. Yet the supplied reference only discusses a single instance of such an occurrence; the conclusion that such an event is "sometimes" referred to as a wardrobe malfunction is a conclusion not given in the article. Similarly, the second assertion, especially when appearing on celebrities, is also not a conclusion drawn by the author. They are both reasonable conclusions, and, in most disciplines, mine included, that use of sources is acceptable. But not here.

The second sentence, However some analysts have noted that there is a mysogynistic double standard in the reaction to male bulges and female wardrobe malfunctions, claiming men are treated less harshly and with less scrutiny. is problematic in that it talks about "some analysts" but only cites one, but that is an easy fix.

I think this can be rewritten to comply with our sourcing requirements; I believe this would be permissible:

During a 2014 FIFA World Cup game, soccer player Jordan Ayew's shorts were pulled by another player, briefly exposing his genitals.^[1] The incident was referred to as a "wardrobe malfunction".^[1] Journalist Siouxsie Q has argued that there is a misogynistic double standard in the differing reactions to men's and women's exposing themselves, claiming that men are treated less harshly and with less scrutiny than women for similar conduct.^[2]

It still might not be suitable, but I'm not seeing any sourcing issues (

NPOV) with the above. Thoughts, Pwolit iets? Lemongirl? Rebbing

12:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I think your broad point here is one that I would support. An article on wardrobe malfunctions must focus on malfunctions, i.e. the clothing "goes wrong" in some way, other than what it is supposed to do. So tightness of trouser and narrowness of thong are outside the scope, but things popping out when they ought not to are included.

I think men are included here. Trousers can go wrong too, as well as brassieres. And either by exposure or by highlight - men's anatomy being perhaps more 'mobile' in some circumstances than women's. The content should go back in, although some editing might be due. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support. I support Rebbing's version. Pwolit iets (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Rebbing's version is certainly better, but I'd tend to omit: "Journalist Siouxsie Q has argued that there is a misogynistic double standard in the differing reactions to men's and women's exposing themselves, claiming that men are treated less harshly and with less scrutiny than women for similar conduct." for 2 reasons - first, it seems to give undue weight to one opinion expressed by one journalist. If this is worth including surely more than one supporting opinion for this idea can be found? 'Mysoginistic' is a pretty strong term to be throwing around on so little basis. Second, if it's a 'malfunction' it's an accident, and I don't see how that is 'conduct'. Conduct implies conscious, deliberate behaviour to me. That latter point could, of course, be fixed with a copy-edit.-- Begoon 14:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I share your concern about this being undue weight, and I am ambivalent about including it. However—and I'm not sure it's relevant—Siouxsie Q—isn't just a journalist; she's fairly well known in feminist circles.

I believe "misogynistic" is fair in context as it's describing her viewpoint (that there's a misogynistic double standard); it's not saying that such a double standard actually exists (misogynistic or otherwise). However, I support omitting it as it adds nothing of value. I also agree that "conduct" is not the right word.

How do you feel about this for the second sentence?

Feminist Siouxsie Q has claimed that there is a double standard in the differing reactions to men's and women's accidentally exposing themselves, arguing that men are treated less harshly and with less scrutiny than women in similar circumstances.

Rebbing 14:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, much better, thank you. I still would tend not to include it because it does feel a bit like we're shoehorning stuff in just for the sake of saying something/anything, but if we have to have "something" then this is far better. -- Begoon 14:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'm personally not very satisfied with the first sentence. Essentially if we are trying to show that males can suffer wardrobe malfunction as well, the source needs to somehow mention the context of gender. Otherwise, I see this as a cherry picked example. How about using this example about Brad Pitt/Virat Kohli?^[3] This one at least mentions the context about males suffering wardrobe malfunctions. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)