Talk:Clothes

Formal dress codes

Especially for non-westerners and for people with a mother tongue other than English a little more of explanations would be very useful.

Now the codes are just mentioned: "White tie: The highest level of dress code. White tie for men, ...", "Morning dress is rarely mandated, but can be seen ...". I happen to know white tie, but for morning dress I'd have to look at pictures from the Royal Ascot.

Anyone should understand that the highest level of dress code involves something more than a tie substituted for the fig leaves, but that the code is well defined is not obvious. For tuxedo this is clearer, as that word does not have other meanings. For females the list gives even less help: "long dress" is not clear about what kind of long dress is expected.

Are the four mentioned dress codes to most common (western) formal dress codes? Are these likely to be relevant for a traveller (what traveller)? What about non-formal but well defined other dress codes? I suppose somebody going on a business trip will know what he or she is supposed to wear at the meetings (and hopefully what to expect in the evenings), but are there audiences that would be in real need of advice from us?

--LPfi (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I know I'm a bit late coming into this, but does anyone have a suggestion on how to improve on my additions to this section. I know this sounds contradictory but "informal" does traditionally mean suit and tie, while "semi-formal" traditionally requires a three-piece suit. I know this sounds counterintuitive because we typically associate a suit with formal events in modern times but traditionally, that's what it has been. The dog2 (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I suppose these codes are used in invitations and when requesting advice for suitable dress at occasions where the dress code hasn't been specified. Is there a risk of contradictory use, such that your acquaintance would tell you dressing is informal, and when you appear in suit and tie you notice the others being there in Bermuda shorts (or other less extreme but still awkward misunderstandings)? If so, and perhaps in any case, it would be good to specify when these codes are used and interpreted as stated. --LPfi (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I'm concerned about. Older people (up to the baby boomer generation, and possibly some in Gen X and Gen Y) in the main Anglophone countries would know that "semi-formal" means three-piece suit, and "informal" means suit and tie, but I highly doubt many millennials will know that. I think a millennial would interpret "informal" to be a synonym of "casual", and 'semi-formal" to perhaps mean "business casual", but I can't speak for everyone, so could any millennial editors here please provide your two cents on this. The dog2 (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm a 53-year-old American from New York, and I don't know about this meaning for "semi-formal". I understand that to mean good shoes (no sneakers) with formal or semi-formal slacks (no jeans) with a button-down shirt (tie optional, but I like ties and would probably wear one) and a nice sport jacket. I take "informal" literally to mean where what you like and think looks good. I should add that I'm a musician, so I possess two suits, one tuxedo (though I haven't worn one in years because there's nowadays so little call for one), some sport jackets and a selection of suitable button-down shirts and ties, and of course a pair of acceptably formal shoes, so I do know how to dress for the occasion, but I suppose the "Formal dress codes" section is for invited guests at galas at the Plaza Hotel or royal banquets or something? Please explain. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

My dad told me that when he went to university in America and England (in the 1980s), semi-formal meant 3-piece suit, and informal meant suit and tie for university events back in those days. And this exact same description is what is found on Wikipedia. The dog2 (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I went to college 1983-87. I actually don't possess a vest and have never had call for one. Did he go to some upper-crust university like Harvard? I don't think these definitions are in general use in the U.S. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

MIT 1978-82 to be exact. But anyway, if my edit is wrong. Please go ahead and change it to something that is more correct.

By the way, if any British editors see this, it would be much appreciated if you can comment on this so we can know what the situation is in the UK. The dog2 (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

It's clear to me that the edit is not wrong, but the issue is in what situations this code applies. And the answer on my part is none that I've been aware of in the last 53 years as an educated New Yorker from a "middle-class" (both parents professors) background. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘As an educated middle-class Singaporean, I will say this code never applies in Singapore either. In fact, most Singaporeans, including my parents, have never even heard of "white tie", and while my parents do know what "black tie" means, there are many Singaporeans who don't, and you will often see people (arguably wrongly) dressed in a regular business suit and tie at black tie events. In fact, the reason why my dad mentioned it to me is because he only learnt the "proper" definitions of "semi-formal" and "informal" when he was living in America and England, so that is actually very much an oddity from a Singaporean perspective. Of course, to people in my dad's generation, it was considered to be a sign of how "unsophisticated" Singaporeans were compared to the British and Americans (as Singapore was still a developing country back then). The dog2 (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I have expanded this, but I wanted to leave a note here that the systems vary significantly by, well, everything you could imagine. For one thing, Miss Manners has declared that semi-formal doesn't exist as a category (in the US), and for another, at least for women, the distinction between daytime and evening clothing, and business vs social, is much more important than the distinction between any of the informal categories. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Expanding

Packing list#Wear links here as See also. I'd suppose such a link to lead to some discussion on what to pack and what to wear, which is mostly absent now. I'd suppose one could include some advice from Packing list#Wear, Cold weather#Clothing, Hot weather#Clothing and Sunburn and sun protection#Clothing, mostly as summaries of those, and elaborate on dressing sensibly for different activities while getting away with little weight etc. Laundry should be linked somewhere.

Quote revert

AndreCarrotflower just reverted my switch of:

“ Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves ”

—Bible, Book of Genesis

to:

“ Sweater, n. Garment worn by child when its mother is feeling chilly. ”

—Ambrose Bierce

with the edit summary "nope".

I changed this quote because I find it most unpleasant to be hit over the head with a biblical quote while looking for travel advice. I don't see any reason why Wikivoyage should have quotes from Judaism or Christianity on pages unrelated to those topics, especially since the same Old Testament calls for the death penalty for me personally just for loving who I love, people are using the very Genesis story being quoted to discredit evolution, climate change, and who knows what else. The replacement quote keeps the page lively and has the benefit of being humorous in addition to being considerably less divisive. -- Beland (talk) 05:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion is going on in the travellers' pub, but the main reason is that those religious texts are well-known literature. If we cannot have them, what about Samuel Beckett, whose play could not be performed by a student theatre over here because the actors were women? And a thousand other authors who have had opinions upsetting (with good reason) some of our readers. I kind of understand your feelings, but I think that path is troubling. --LPfi (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Beland, I figured it was fine to use a different quote in Electrical systems, because "Let there be light" wasn't so obviously relevant. In this case, the quote is directly relevant, and I oppose removing it. If you consider every sentence from a religious text an assault on your being, I don't think it's our job to shield your eyes, and spare us the sound and fury about the punishments for sexual sins as laid out elsewhere in the Bible - they are not being quoted here. I am personally offended by your personal campaign to excise all Biblical quotes from this site, just as I would be if your target were the Odyssey or any other text that's been considered sacred, beautiful literature and widely influential, and I would respectfully suggest that you concentrate on more important things, like improving content. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

This is not a theatre group that's making deep-thinking art that aims to sometimes make people uncomfortable with challenging material. This is a travel guide that is aiming to give people helpful information. This quote is not helping deliver that information, it's just adding a little decoration to the page. How does choosing a divisive quote when others are available help travellers? It seems like it's going to hinder some by distracting them from the content of the page. If this quote isn't "important", then it shouldn't be a big deal to change it.

On the merits of the particular quote, the Bible quote is a bit boring and cliché, whereas the Bierce quote is funny and fresh - I'd never heard it before. Using the quote here is promoting a story that contains a false narrative of how humans came to wear clothes. In Genesis, the presence of clothes is the sign God uses to uncover the original sin of Eve - eating the apple - which caused Adam and Eve to become shameful of being naked for the first time. This part of the story is quite sexist, blaming women for the fact that humans have to suffer, and also tells all of us that we have inherited something broken inside of us that needs to be repaired, which is rather demoralizing. With respect to clothes specifically, it's promoting the idea that being naked is shameful. This is the product of a conservative, pre-birth-control culture that views sex and the resulting children to be dangerous, and advocates covering up so as to avoid temptation into sin. In real life, people starting wearing clothes because they invented the technology to make them, and found them useful for things like protection and warmth. People should not be ashamed to be naked; that message is offensive to nudists, and is sending a psychologically unhealthy message to everyone about their own bodies. -- Beland (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to belabor the points made above by Ikan Kekek, but I am going to say that if Wikivoyage is not "a theatre group that's making deep-thinking art that aims to sometimes make people uncomfortable with challenging material", neither is it a forum for people to feign outrage about innocuous Biblical references for the benefit of fellow offended readers who do not exist outside their own imagination. You're free to believe or not believe as you see fit, of course, but you'll have to forgive the rest of us who are too busy writing a travel guide to be impressed about how woke you are. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

My point was not what the theatre group tried to do (setting up a famous play), but that a famous author apparently made a very sexist decision (maintained by his heirs). That sexism could make people uneasy with reading quotes from him. Likewise, authors having had slaves or not condemned the practice, many authors of the colonial era, many current authors having the wrong view on Iran, Ukraine or Israel, you name it, could be banned on equally good grounds. We should avoid quotes where we are seen to endorse somebody's wicked opinion, but I think few take the Biblical quote as historic truth, and those who do, do so without our help. --LPfi (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, this Biblical quote is just a beautiful passage from a piece of classical literature. In the same way that I appreciate the aesthetic beauty of religious music by Mozart, Handel and Vivaldi despite not being a Christian, I can also appreciate the Bible (and for that matter, the Tanakh, Quran, Vedas, Guru Granth Sahib, etc.) as classical literature without believing that the Biblical account (or the accounts in any of the other holy books in existence, for that matter) is historical fact. I am a scientist, and I most certainly believe in evolution, climate change, and all the stuff that religious fundamentalists are trying to use the Bible to discredit, but that doesn't mean we should censor the Bible from WV. There are already enough problems with excessive PC and outrage fetish on Twitter, YouTube and other social media sites, and I do not want this problem to ever spread to WV. The dog2 (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

LPfi: I think you're imagining some sort of ideological purge I'm not arguing for. If a quote is from a personality whose views are so controversial that readers find it distracting or offensive, I think that is definition a reason to swap it out. I looked through all the quotes on the site; I didn't find any quotes from controversial contemporary figures (like say, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump), nor any quotes from non-Judeo-Christian religious books except for pages related to that religion (where it seems more appropriate to celebrate the beauty of those texts). LPfi and The dog2: It's perfectly possible to find beauty in a sculpture depicting a Confederate general from the American Civil War, but I don't think that's an argument that should be sustained in the face of African-Americans complaining that its presence in the town square (and not a museum on the war) supports and legitimizes the continuing oppression by the descendants of the people that general was fighting for, and makes them feel less than completely welcome. Saying, "hey, if you find that racist, you came to that interpretation without our help" or "well, I'm only thinking about the beauty of the statue, not the reason it's here" doesn't make the statue's presence any less hurtful. The dog2: I'm not arguing that the Bible should be censored from Wiktionary. I have no problems with the article on Christianity and related pages exploring the literary and religious aspects of the Bible. I have no problem including religious attractions in the guide (though personally I avoid them), and adding special guidance for Christian travellers where needed (for example in countries where advocating Christianity is illegal). I just think that using quotes from this highly controversial collection of books to flavor articles unrelated to religion to be unnecessarily distracting and disturbing to some travellers, especially when there are many other beautiful and witty quotes to choose from. -- Beland (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The Bible is not "highly controversial" anywhere other than your own mind, and the existence of "some travellers" who are offended by the Bible quotes is unproven and, in light of the fact that not one traveller has taken offense at the quotes in over 10 years of this site's existence, dubious to say the least. Now, again, please stop the concern trolling and either contribute constructively or be on your way. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘And for that matter, I'd like to point out that Ikan Kekek is Jewish, and yet, I have never even once seen him demand that we remove all mentions of Richard Wagner on the account of Wagner having espoused some anti-Semitic views (and Wagner was often cited by Hitler to justify the atrocities that the Nazis committed). Wagner is actually controversial because of that, so if a Jew can deal with Wagner being mentioned in our articles without being "triggered", an atheist should be able to do the same with the Bible, which is not nearly as controversial, being quoted. Get over it and actually contribute constructively to our articles. The dog2 (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I've been contributing constructively to articles; this discussion only started because one of my edits which I thought was an improvement got reverted. I'm sure there have been readers who have grumbled at the Bible quotes, just like people grumble at Christmas music in stores in October. I'm sure must of them wouldn't know how to register a complaint if they decided they wanted to, but for most people this is just a minor annoyance. The quotes certainly haven't been there the entire time the site has existed. "Triggered" is a phrase from the culture wars which is pretty demeaning to people who experience anxiety attacks in response to reminders of traumatic events. My reaction is far from trauma, more like vehement disagreement. I have no problem with Christians and no problem with the quote from MLK invoking the Almighty on Postwar United States. I really don't understand why people give zero weight to whether or not the quotes are offensive, when it seems there's very little downside to changing them. If the sweater quote had been put in first, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, because there's no editorial reason for it not to be there. -- Beland (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Since when is the Bible not controversial? People have been getting killed over differing interpretations of it for hundreds of years. I don't know if you live in the U.S., but in cities here you'll see people walking around with signs with Bible verses, knocking on doors, and yelling at people on the subway to repent or experience eternal hellfire. Religious affiliation played a huge role in the last presidential election, especially Christian vs. Muslim issues. The very story that's quoted here is used to deny climate change and assert women should obey their husbands. -- Beland (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Split the difference

Maybe we should find a different quote, maybe something like

“ we're all naked under our clothes ”

—smartass saying

Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

No. This has become a matter of principle. If there were a valid rationale for changing the quote beyond one user's non-travel-related personal crusade to scrub Wikivoyage clean of any Judeo-Christian references, we would hear him out. But the user has been pretty explicit about his reasons for doing what he does, and Wikivoyage is not going to participate in the charade. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. And the Biblical quote is much more beautiful. Shall we start changing all the pagebanners and photos that include Christian houses of worship or depictions of Biblical scenes in them, too, to humor this one reader who just can't stand any references to Judaism or Christianity? I guess Rome/Vatican is out? No fucking way! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

AndreCarrotflower: What principle are you defending? That Christianity is good and should be spread? That travellers are aided by choosing controversial quotes over neutral ones in general-topic articles? As I said above, I think references to Judeo-Christian religion are perfectly fine in articles about those religions, in attraction listings, and in special guidance for people of those religions. I'm not sure what type of "charade" can happen when everyone plainly states what their motivations are. Yes, I find the Bible to be a bigoted collection of books, and I don't think it's appropriate to have quotes from it peppering pages of the travel guide unrelated to religion. I don't see why the project has to be protected from elimination of them, especially given I've been finding fresh and neutral quotes and not just leaving empty holes. -- Beland (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hobbitschuster: How do you feel about the sweater quote I originally tried to add? -- Beland (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Ikan Kekek: 1.) I'm not the only non-Christian in the world who's bothered when they run into Bible thumping; most such people just roll their eyes and are quietly annoyed. 2.) As I said above, I would definitely argue to keep religions attractions and all the content that goes with them. The idea of removing everything Judeo-Christian from the project is simply a strawman argument which is easy to poke holes in. -- Beland (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not a controversial passage, and you don't get to individually determine that every passage from the Bible is controversial or edgy, let alone that it should be censored here because you have such goddamned tender eyes. It's there simply because it's beautiful and apt. You aren't going to get anywhere with your crusade here, so I suggest you quit while you're behind, as this discussion is wasting time at this point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I added the quote. As with other Biblical quotes, the intention was not to proselytize Christianity or creationist belief. Currently the Bible is widely quoted on Wikivoyage; partially because it is a piece of classical literature well-known in the English-speaking world. I would welcome illustrative quotes from other sources; let them be religious, anti-religious or neutral towards religion. /Yvwv (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

We can't take away quotes because some people don't like the quote or in this case, don't like the source of the quote. The Bible doesn't represent my own beliefs and values but that doesn't mean it should be censored whenever a quote fits well with a particular article. This will create a slippery slope where every quote would have to be removed, because every quote or source would offend somebody in the world. This is getting out of hand. The only reason why a quote should be replaced if there is another more relevant quote that will make the article more interesting or informative for the traveller. Otherwise it stays. Gizza ^(roam) 00:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Gizza: That's a slippery slope fallacy; there's a big difference between "Joan Rivers once said something offensive" and "millions of people are arguing over this book all the time, and it nearly ruined my life", and saying the latter is a good justification does not imply the former is a good justification.

I don't think the original quote here would pass standards and practices muster at a professional mainstream travel publication. At least here in the U.S., you don't get Bible quotes in neutral national newspapers, magazines, TV shows, or radio programs; usually religion doesn't come up unless it has something to do with an attraction, cultural celebration, or history. To add those in as random bits of entertaining fluff would give the publication a distinctly conservative feeling, which is to be avoided if the publication wants to be perceived as fair and balanced. If those publications removed everything that was potentially offensive to anyone, they wouldn't have much to say about where the best things are. I think it's a bit disturbing to say "our publication shouldn't care about avoidably alienating minority groups", but it also doesn't fit with the project's goal of being a travel guide for everyone.

If you want to ignore all that and decide this on artistic grounds, then I think this swap is still defensible. I find the Bierce quote above more interesting and relevant, which is why I chose it above all the other clothing-related quotes I found online. The old quote refers to a fictional story from a culture different than my own, and involves making clothes from plants, which is not something I'm going to do when getting ready for my trip. What's the takeaway from this quote? Don't be naked? The Bierce quote makes an interesting observation about our reasons for wearing clothes. The takeaway I get from that is that we should think about why we are wearing what we are wearing, which is great advice for a traveller. For me personally, if I pack my clothes mindlessly, and if I don't consider the conditions at my destination realistically rather than fearing what might happen on my trip, I tend to overpack. For readers that skip past this deeper thought-provoking lesson, the new quote has the benefit of being funny. The old quote isn't funny, and I'm not sure what entertainment it provides to casual readers. For me, it reminds me that Christian influence is the reason I can't safely travel to places like Jamaica or southern Nigeria, which is sad. How do you feel about the Bierce quote on artistic grounds? -- Beland (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Bierce's line is already used at Cold_weather#Clothing, though it is not attributed there as a quote & correcting that might be a good idea.

I'm getting distinctly irritated both by User:Beland's apparently generic objection to biblical quotes & User:AndreCarrotflower's "No. This has become a matter of principle. ... Wikivoyage is not going to participate in the charade." I'd say such quotes should definitely be deleted where they are irrelevant or only marginally relevant — e.g. Talk:Electrical_systems#The_Bible_quote_isn't_even_remotely_about_electricity.

Elsewhere, I do not accept either Beland or Andre's apparent notion of the principles involved. As for any other edit, if someone can replace a quote with a better one, that is fine. Otherwise, leave it alone. Pashley (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

With what seems close to a consensus, I will say that at first, I supported the Genesis quotes on both the Clothes and Electrical systems. However, I have to say that there is a clear difference between the two quotes. The Genesis quote for electrical systems isn't really about electrical systems, and the Adam & Eve quote about clothes is definitely related to clothes and is truly shown as a masterpiece quote when you consider the article's context. The only thing I'm worried about with Biblical quotes in general is the difference between KJV/NIV, but I would stick with KJV because, at least in my opinion, its use of the English language is far superior. Selfie City (talk) 23:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Cultural appropriation

Is the issue of cultural appropriation really relevant to a traveller? I have not been to the United States since the controversy emerged; but whatever its extent, it seems to be a domestic issue, and not travel-related. /Yvwv (talk) 09:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I would say there are two possible travel-related scenarios - 1. If you are an American travelling overseas, let's say to India, and you saw this sari you really loved and decided to buy it. If you wear it back home, you could offend an American of Indian descent and be accused of "cultural appropriation". 2. If you are travelling to multiple countries including the U.S. and let's say you travelled in South Korea and decided to buy a hanbok that you really liked before heading to the U.S. You could potentially offend a Korean-American and be accused of "cultural appropriation". In both those cases, someone actually from India or South Korea would not be offended, but it is a much more touchy issue among American millennials. If you remember the case about Katy Perry wearing a kimono on stage, or the girl wearing a cheongsam to her prom, people actually from Japan and China respectively were not offended, but it offended Japanese-American and Chinese-American netizens respectively. It's true that wearing a white ethnic costume (eg. French or Bavarian) would not produce the same controversy as wearing a non-white one, but that's too much detail for us to cover here.

Of course, we can't possibly provide a full political commentary here, and neither are we here to use WV to advance any particular political position. But given that the two incidents I mentioned made news headlines and cause a massive controversy on Twitter, I feel that not mentioning this is like ignoring the elephant in the room. Of course, we don't want to overstate the issue by saying that all Americans will be offended, or even that all left-wing Americans would be offended as that is simply not true, but I think we should at least mention the possibility that you could offend someone in the U.S. by wearing an ethnic costume that is not from your ethnicity. The dog2 (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Wait, when did East Asians become not white? And what about white Latin@s? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I am just turning into a curmudgeon as I age, but I see nearly all the "cultural appropriation" stuff as whining which we should take pains to explicitly ignore, much as another discussion suggests ignoring objections to biblical quotes. I'd say most arguments based on various sorts of political correctness should be ignored or mocked. Pashley (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think WV should give undue weight to a marginal phenomenon. Serious incidents related to cultural appropriation have made news headlines just because they are so unusual. The article has yet to mention many risk scenarios which are at least as likely; including Buddhist/Jainist swastika patterns worn in the Western world, intentionally explicit logos such as FCUK, counterfeit brand clothing confiscated by customs officers, or logos which cannot be displayed at televised sport events. / Yvwv (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care what people want to wear as long as it's not something blatantly bigoted like a T-shirt with a "F*** black people" slogan on it. And as a Singaporean of Chinese descent who speaks Mandarin fluently, I was not offended by the girl wearing a cheongsam to the prom, and when the controversy broke, and what I was actually offended by was the fact that she was subject to all that abuse on Twitter over such a non-issue. But I have spoken to American university students, and it is true that a significant number of people (although I would not say a majority, as I have not surveyed the entire American university student population and therefore can't be sure) in this demographic are offended by people "culturally appropriating" the traditional costumes of other ethnic groups. In fact, some universities, such as Yale, have issued advisories to students to avoid wearing non-white (white as in European, to be clear) ethnic costumes for Halloween as that would constitute "cultural appropriation" and thus be racist. As much as I agree with Pashley's sentiments on this issue, let's also not forget that our job at WV is to inform people about local sensitivites where they exist, and we're not in the business of writing commentaries on whether the local sensitivities are reasonable or not.

With regards to Yvwv's comments on swastikas and the like, I most certainly think it would be a good idea to cover those things here as well. The dog2 (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

According to WV:OBVIOUS, we should expect readers to exercise common sense. There is however lots of room for confusion. A related case is the straw goat in Gävle, bizarrely famous as a target for arson. While most suspects have been local, at least once a foreign tourist was deceived to burn it down, in the delusion that he got an honorable assignment. Should Wikivoyage discourage readers from burning the goat? Not according to the last edit. [1] /Yvwv (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

In this case, the potential for offence would not be obvious to a foreigner. I've worn Malay and Indian ethnic costumes back in Singapore, and nobody has ever been offended by it. And as I mentioned, nobody actually from China was offended by the fact that the girl wore a cheongsam; it was only Americans of Chinese descent that got offended. The fact that a significant number of American university students will get offended by such things, while virtually nobody else, even from the actual countries of origin, does, makes this a very American issue, and not necessarily obvious to travellers from elsewhere. The dog2 (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The concept of cultural appropriation was brought up in Sweden a few years ago, with reference to the American debate. Getting offended was a bit of a fad among progressives and hipsters; but today, actual concerns are unusual, and most people look back at the concept as a joke. And even when it comes to wearing non-Western traditional clothing, my impression is that these incidents are very unlikely (travel from country A, buy traditional clothes in country B, and causing offense by wearing them in country C). /Yvwv (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Damn edit conflict! I wear batik shirts often in warm weather and have gotten nothing but compliments, and I look like a white guy, so I don't know where the danger is coming from in the U.S., but I think it's OK to cover this in a single sentence. However, this is a way, way less serious problem than wearing the colors of an opposing gang or locally hated football (i.e., soccer) club, which could get you killed or assaulted in some places. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Billy Connolly (now Sir Billy) has a fine standup routine about the two Glasgow teams, Rangers & Celtic. Pashley (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Second-hand and vintage clothing

Can any general advice be provided on second-hand and vintage clothing? Any connection to nostalgia or art and antiques shopping? /Yvwv (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

See also Shopping_in_the_Philippines#Second_hand_goods. Pashley (talk) 06:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Sport clothes

Casual sport clothes such as baseball caps, tracksuits and running shoes are common everyday clothing in most of the United States. In many parts of western Europe (as mentioned in the article) adults usually wear them only for sport or spectator sport. In Europe, sportswear might also be associated with subcultures (such as the chavs in Britain); though careless American tourists who wear them, might be framed for being just careless American tourists. Do you know any sources for the etiquette of wearing sport clothes in public? /Yvwv (talk) 11:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

A proposal to ban religious quotes.

Since religion and politics are quite sensitive topics in many parts of the world, controversial content, like religious quotes (or anything that may be perceived as proselytizing) should be avoided, unless the page is specifically dedicated to the topic in question, as such content can be seen as jarring, offensive, and can constitute religious propaganda, which is controversial in itself, and in some jurisdictions may be illegal altogether.

It hurts the feelings and infringes the rights of irreligious and hierophobic people, who do not want to encounter religion in their everyday life and violates the principles of secularism. There are people who detest religion and who may see stances like this as an undue intrusion of religion into the public sphere.

Also, to many people religion may actually represent oppression and hostility (for example, most major religions promulgate, among other things, sexual discrimination (including discrimination against LGBTQI+) and asceticism, as well as a plethora of other unwanted restrictions), and some religious activists are known to go to great length to convert people to their faith, sometimes against their will.

Religion can occasionally lead to open violence against irreligious people, as in the case of murder of John Lennon or the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East.

In some parts of the world such content may be met with outright hostility or otherwise promote negative attitudes and prejudices towards other nations, people, cultures or communities rather than encourage mutual respect and cooperation, especially as the world is getting increasingly polarized nowadays, which is definitely a bad thing, and quite contrary to the goals of the prominent international and multicultural online communities, such as Wikivoyage.

The content in general should be as neutral, respectful and unprovocative as possible, rather than being biased towards a specific culture, to show respect to the readers from all parts of the world, regardless of their cultural and ideological backgrounds.

Therefore it is strongly suggested that all such content be removed wherever possible.

—The preceding comment was added by 37.145.61.204 (talk • contribs)

See #Quote revert above.

These quotes are not religious propaganda, and if some jurisdictions or some people see them as such, we should not let them decide.

I argued above that there are too many authors who have been associated with horrible views for us to avoid all of them. I don't think readers that get offended by just seeing a quote from a text such as the Bible are too common, and I think they rather really need to get more liberal than as to adjust. There is no right to be protected from seeing religious text, from seeing people praying or from hearing church bells (or muezzins). Some may see this as an undue intrusion of religion into the public sphere, but others, like most of those who commented above, see beautiful biblical texts as part of our cultural heritage, which should be appreciated as such (a majority of those who commented are non-Christians).

If our site seems biased towards a specific culture, we should get more impressions from other ones rather than suppress ours. A culture of suppressing anything that is not shared by all does not work towards cultural diversity, but rather towards a dull nothingness. If there are too many biblical quotes, we can replace some, for which we find better alternatives. I think that has been done.

–LPfi (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

In any case, an edit conflict should preferrably be resolved here, on the talk page. If we cannot reach consensus by discussion, we should look for some arbitration. Edit wars are pointless. /Yvwv (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

IP user: Thanks for starting a thread here. We aren't quoting from parts of the Bible that prohibit men to lie with each other as with their wives or other things you object to; if there are still countries that make religion illegal (where?), we aren't bound by that; and otherwise, I would agree with everything LPfi stated above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply Mr. Ikan Kekek. As far as the subject goes it may be fairly assumed that a respectful and well-meaning person would probably refrain from taking such a liberty as to frivolously employ e.g the Nazi symbols, or other extremist or otherwise unsavory materials for purely ornamental purposes merely because they may seem visually appealing to them. Whether the text in question is 'beautiful' or not is a matter of personal taste and the quote that some people may perceive as eclectic may be found by others to be specifically wanting in merit. And since Wikivoyage (or any other Wiki for that matter) is not a personal blog it would probably be advisable to keep the content less biased than it is necessary. 37.145.61.204 18:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

No, as on all Wikis, it's necessary only to achieve a consensus. So see if anyone else agrees with you and would like to propose another quote. Also, Nazism is not a religion (though it used some quasi-religious imagery), and we absolutely do display images of Hindu/Buddhist swastikas on this site where they are relevant. I think your anti-religion position is very extreme and not likely to be shared by many readers. If we can't display this text, would you also suggest that photographs of religious buildings or an article about the Vatican are offensive? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

And you'll see this was previously discussed above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The suggestion was to remove the objectionable content wherever it is off-topic. Having such content in dedicated articles is perfectly acceptable. The purpose of any encyclopedia is to plainly present relevant information, not to artistically express oneself. 37.145.61.204 20:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The quote is clearly relevant to the topic of clothes, and this is not an encyclopedia. If you're interested in improving the travel coverage of this travel guide, spend some time on that, instead of grinding an axe. As I mentioned above, I'm offended by these kinds of extreme attacks on the entire text of the Bible because some very small subset of people have violently anti-religious viewpoints. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

This talking point has been brought up before. I have added many of the travel topic quotes, and a large portion of them are Biblical or Christian. There is a point in the argument that the Bible is not universal, and we should have other illustrative quotes which represent other spiritual movements, as well as non-religious ideas. /Yvwv (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure. But I don't like reading a long extreme anti-religious rant because someone doesn't like a quote and wants to delete it instead of suggesting an arguably equally vivid alternative. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

And this is a proposal on banning them altogether from pages not explicitly about religion. That's like you couldn't sing a Christmas carol at a non-religious event. I acknowledge that I dislike parts of my choir's repertoire for ideological reasons, but too much of our heritage is burdened with sins of yore for me to make a fuzz about it. Like last time (?), I think we shouldn't be changing any Christian quotes to worldly ones in the near future. Adding new quotes, any one can try to find types of sources that haven't been used too much already. –LPfi (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll gently demur by saying this is a Jewish quote. :-) But while I always objected to Christmas carols being sung by the students at the assembly (the audience, not performers onstage) in my public high school, I never object to playing them or their being sung at Christmas season concerts that I am hired to play at or people volunteer to be in the audience for. As a matter of fact, I always feel sad when I can't play on Christmas, because it gives me joy to make other people's holidays happier. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

:-) Nothing to object to in that.

For Christmas carols, that is an issue in some contexts, I agree, but I wouldn't object to a spontaneous wish to sing a carol or some other song with religious connotations in a sing-along or private gathering, or individual pieces at a profane concert. It would be a problem if those came to dominate, as it would if overly patriotic songs did (the civil war of 1918 has left some scares that still show, as do some traces of the extreme movements of the 1920s and 1930s – I'm very happy Mannerheim detested the German for personal reasons). –LPfi (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy to sing them with my Catholic girlfriend and her mother. Christmas is not my holiday, but singing the carols brings good cheer, and they're good music (the ones we would sing - there are some awful Christmas songs, too). Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Yeah, I don't think we should just ban religious quotes. Like it or not, religion is part of our heritage. In the same way that I would not be in favour of banning Mozart's The Magic Flute, even though it is somewhat racist and most definitely sexist. The dog2 (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• I've read the above discussion and I strongly support removing that quote and I'll make it clear upfront that my personal beliefs as an agnostic has nothing to do with this nor did it influence my opinion. Wikimedia projects should not aim to promote a certain group or religion – it is for the same reason why a Wikimedia project promoting the Bible was unanimously rejected. If Wikivoyage wants to stay as a secular wiki, then either that quote should go or this travel guide should be filled with religious quotes which will start a long debacle on whether these should be included. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  But if we really want a quote, why can't we just replace it with another non-religious quote instead? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

If you can find a better quote, then sure. But in no way is Wikivoyage meant to be a platform for leading an atheist crusade against religion. And for the record, I am not a Christian myself, so this is nothing to do with my personal religious beliefs. Simply quoting something from a religious book does not mean we're proselytizing. And if people want to quote verses from the Quran, Vedas or whatever that are relevant to the topic, I don't see any reason to object to them either. The dog2 (talk) 02:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I know, but Wikimedia isn't a place to promote a specific religion either and is against its mission + goals. Why can't we just use the quote suggested by @Beland: above? To me, it fits the context better and doesn't promote a specific religion. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 03:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Beland's suggestion was lame. Wikimedia isn't anti-religious, either, and the quote in an article about clothes is not promoting a religion, just quoting from the Bible on the subject of clothes. Suggest a more vivid alternative quote if you'd like us to change the quote. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I should also be clear that 37.145.63.155's edit summary was unacceptable and in no way or form was that acceptable; I don't think it needs to explained why. As for a better quote, here are a few that I may suggest:

1. "Fashion is the armour to survive the reality of everyday life." – Bill Cunningham
2. "Style is a way to say who you are without having to speak." – Rachel Zoe
3. "Clothes mean nothing until someone lives in them." – Marc Jacobs
4. "And what an example of the power of dress young Oliver Twist was!" – Charles Dickens

I'll try and go on the hunt and look for more in the meantime. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The Bill Cunningham quote is good, and I'll look forward to seeing whatever else you can come up with. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The Bill Cunningham quote looks nice to me too, but let's see what everybody else says. The dog2 (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Some more quotes that I tried to find:

5. "You can have anything you want in life if you dress for it." – Edith Head
6. "Being well-dressed hasn't much to do with having good clothes. It's a question of good balance and good common sense." – Oscar de la Renta
7. "Style is something each of us already has, all we need is to find it." – Diane von Furstenberg
8. "It's better to have fewer things of quality than too much expendable junk." — Rachel Zoe
9. "The most important thing to remember is that you can wear all the greatest clothes and all the greatest shoes, but you've got to have a good spirit on the inside. That's what's really going to make you look like you're ready to rock the world." — Alicia Keys

If I find any more quotes, then I'll list them. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

My two favourites in order are 1 followed by 6. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

7 and then 1 for me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

1 then 5 for me. The dog2 (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I do not support a general ban on religious quotes, but I do think this one should go. As I see it, #Quote revert above was a mistake. Of the above, I like #6 and #8 best, but 1, 2 or 3 would also be fine & I've no objection to any, Pashley (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I like the sweater quote in #Quote revert (it would be a good fit for Cold weather, but there is already the Amundsen quote). However, the question was also then on whether to replace all religious quotes. The revert was made out of principle, not weighting the quotes on their own merits. –LPfi (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

It is already mentioned at Cold_weather#Children's_winter_clothing Pashley (talk) 11:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Time to replace the quote with the Bill Cunningham quote (1)? It's the only quote that all of us here are in favour of. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Let's wait at least a couple more days. User:AndreCarrotflower, if you're still reading here, would you like to express a preference or opinion? My feeling is that a couple of the suggested quotes are more apt for this topic than the beautiful quote from Genesis, and changing to them would have the refreshing side effect of preventing the occasional ugly outburst from a militant or oversensitive atheist in this case, but if you have a principled objection to a change or believe none of these quotes is good enough, I'd welcome your participation if you choose to participate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: Pinging @Andre Carrotflower: instead as that's the account they regularly use on Commons. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I cannot really relate to the Cunningham quote, but perhaps it's just me. Of the listed ones I prefer the Zoe quote (nro 8), which can be interpreted as especially relevant to travellers. –LPfi (talk) 10:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

This nonsense again?

So if my opinion is being sought out, I would start by noting how unlikely it is to be a coincidence that a user with a minimal contribution history consisting mostly of random Wikignoming came to this page, griped about the allegedly offensive presence of a benign Bible verse as a quote about clothing, and got shut down, and then four years later another user, an anonymous IP with no previous contributions at all, just so happened to show up and make a beeline for this exact same obscure article and make the exact same complaint about the exact same quote. I think the odds favor this being the same user hoping for a different outcome the second time around, and were I still an admin here, it's likely that I'd have reverted the OP for that reason alone.

I agree with, but won't belabor, the points that others have already made that Wikivoyage does not promote secularism over religion any more than it promotes one religion over another, and that part of maintaining a neutral stance is acknowledging that religion can be an integral part of experiencing a destination and its culture, and that it's okay to acknowledge that religious texts have things to say about topics unrelated to religion, and we can quote the Bible without necessarily endorsing its positions, and blah blah blah. But an aspect that maybe hasn't been considered is what removing the Bible quote would signify in a broader sense. While the OP has the right to his opinion about religion, he very clearly came here with an agenda unrelated to travel. And as editors we must be concerned with our content first and foremost, which quickly becomes poorer when we open the floodgates for every thin-skinned zealot to wipe the site clean of their personal bugaboos simply by claiming to be offended. (The bit about "the rights of irreligious and hierophobic people, who do not want to encounter religion in their everyday life" particularly gave me a chuckle. I wonder if, whenever leaving the house, the OP carefully routes himself to avoid ever passing by a house of worship.) Of course it goes without saying that we steer clear of things like racial slurs, threats of violence, hate speech and the like, but it equally goes without saying that this issue doesn't compare even remotely. So my position is that the question of which quote best sums up the topic of clothing is a secondary concern, and the primary one is that the act of replacing the current quote in and of itself sets a bad precedent. We shouldn't be in the business of indulging every zealot with an ax to grind about this issue or that issue, and for us to allow one user to throw his weight around and get his way via spurious claims of being offended would only embolden future users of the same mindset to try the same sort of tactics.

-- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Andre. Without considering the motives of the IP user, who was indeed promptly reverted, do you have an opinion about which quote is most apt for this topic? I'm not attached to keeping the Biblical quote if there's a consensus that another quote is more appropriate for this topic. I will say, though, that I would oppose any substitution other than #1, #7 or maybe #2. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

(To be clear, I meant I would have reverted the talk page post as well. The IP user did not make any arguments that weren't already advanced and rejected four years ago. That's another precedent we can avoid setting by declining to replace the original quote: not only that you can spuriously claim to be offended but also that you can needle and needle and needle on talk pages and eventually get your way if you're persistent enough. The last thing we should be doing is forgetting the lesson we learned from W. Frank/Alice/et al.) But to address your actual question, I feel like naming a favorite replacement quote would undercut my main argument against replacing the original, so I'm going to decline to do so. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Understood. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@Andre Carrotflower: I understand that the IP didn't make any arguments and they did not have good motives but that's not a valid reason for reverting this talk page post, but keep in mind that there are others who are not atheist and find that quote offensive as well (myself included – I'm an agnostic and I also found it somewhat offensive). Had I found this quote out, I would have also started a thread to replace that quote – please avoid arguments that only focus on whoever started this thread. By no means am I advocating to simply remove all religious quotes, all I'm saying is they should be used in the appropriate context, such as the one in Holocaust remembrance#Understand. As Pashley mentions below, "the only question should be which quote is most useful or interesting for the reader". SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@SHB2000: The question of "whoever started this thread" absolutely is germane. If a single end user establishes multiple accounts and/or uses multiple IP addresses to make it appear as if he is actually multiple different people, and uses that deception to influence the outcome of debates or make consensus appear to be something different than it is, that is a bad-faith way to undertake a discussion. As an analogue, imagine what would happen if I were in a public library and signed on to ten different computers one by one, with ten different IP addresses, and each time went on this thread and made a comment to the effect that the Biblical quote should stay on the Clothes article. That would be equally dishonest. That, in fact, is called sockpuppetry, a practice that's universally disallowed on WMF sites and that usually results in the original account and all puppet accounts getting permanently banned. Wikivoyage is unusual among WMF sites in that we do allow single users to use multiple accounts for a certain limited range of purposes (or at least that was the policy back when I was active here), but otherwise we are no exception in never having allowed multiple accounts to act in this way. That is why the talk page discussion should have been, and in fact should still be, reverted. And that, frankly, is a basic wiki principle that, as an administrator on a wiki, it's your responsibility to know.

Furthermore, viz. "the only question should be which quote is most useful or interesting for the reader", I hope I don't need to also explain to two people who are ostensibly site administrators why refusing to consider the downstream effects of the decisions one makes is a frighteningly myopic way of running a website or any other entity. If this is the state of Wikivoyage governance today, then frankly I would appreciate if I weren't pinged for any future matters of this nature.

-- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Andre, you've completely missed my point – I suggest some closer rereading.

Talk page posts should only, and I repeat, only be reverted if it's clear vandalism, spam, if it's a blatant OOS post (e.g. clickbait news), or if it's from someone who's (b)lock evading. An IP disagreeing with something, even if it sounds like a rant does not fall into one of those categories because a) this IP has not been blocked before, b) was not vandalism, spam, or OOS c) wasn't OOS, at least for the most part. I'd appreciate if you AGF because IPs change periodically and these IPs were in the same /20 range. This rollback was also a misuse of rollback, but that's a discussion for another day. If this IP user was told to make their argument here and they did, they followed policy. Name me one other WMF project that reverts talk page posts like these and I will be convinced.

On the other hand, the use of multiple IPs does have bearing on consensus. The simple fact is, those multiple IPs would just be counted as one, but there's really no need to because that user only used 37.145.61.204 so either way, there was no sockpuppetry nor was there any IP-hopping in this specific discussions. IPs change periodically and if you're not going to AGF, then I'm glad you choose not to edit Wikivoyage. We don't need more users who fail to AGF towards other users who follow policy. Maybe it's you who needs to relearn Wikimedia principles – I already know when talk page posts should be reverted and it shocks me that I have to explain this to a user who's been on this site for five times longer than I have. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I find this form of threading confusing - I think it's easier to leave posts in order and just make clear who you're replying to. That said, what Andre is doing is exactly how you react to apparent socks of Brendan and various long-term vandals: You know who they are when you see them. And if you don't agree that there's a high likelihood that there's only one person who periodically farts loudly about this Biblical quote, that's up to you, but getting all indignant at Andre for using his Spidey sense is really not the way to go. I'd suggest you AGF in regard to Andre and his feel for whom he's dealing with, because he's spent a lot more time on this site than you have. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Brendan is not very comparable because he never responds on talk pages and the various long-term abusers I deal with (throughout Wikimedia) are also very different because most are only here to vandalize or harass others. However, this /20 range is neither an LTA, nor are they a vandal – in fact, assuming good faith, that IP is just a new user who is unfamiliar with how Wikivoyage works and were never given a standard welcome message with the links on how Wikivoyage works. Discounting an IP's vote because they share different opinions that Andre has is not very welcoming and their mere reason for doing so is citing an unconstructive sockpuppeteer who for the most part, has nothing to do with this IP except write harshly-worded comments to get their point across – that's a bit like comparing AC and Brendan only because they both don't get "block evasion = no editing" or a bunch of editors from the Nigeria Expedition (e.g. Grace789 and Paulboht) because they were serial copyright violators. So to summarise, Andre needs to AGF this IP as they're brand new instead of biting the newbie and they certainly should not revert this talk page post because again, they're a newbie who's unfamiliar with the way Wikivoyage works. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how you could know they aren't the same user as Beland. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Beland is an admin on the English Wikipedia with over 148k edits. What makes you think an enwiki admin will choose to sock to push their point across? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

If they did, for the same reason anyone else does. But OK, suppose this is just a rando; what then? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

If this is a rando (and unless there's evidence that this is a sock of someone, then they are), then they're a new user who cannot be expected to know Wikivoyage policies and guidelines. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

SHB2000, I'm not sure why you are so laser-focused on something that never actually happened. I did say that if, hypothetically, I were still an admin, I would have reverted the talk page comment. But I'm not, and I didn't. So that point is irrelevant, and you can feel free to stop belaboring it. Secondly, you seem to be confused about "assume good faith". First of all, AGF is a Wikipedia policy, which doesn't apply at Wikivoyage. But for the sake of argument, I'll agree to play along and apply that policy here, which leads to my second point, which is that the key to AGF's meaning is in the word "assume", which implies something that is surmised to be true despite lack of conclusive evidence either in its favor or to the contrary. So if we had no reason to believe that the IP was acting in bad faith, then AGF would direct us to default to the assumption that he was acting in good faith, and to act accordingly in hearing out and duly considering his point of view. However, AGF does not require us to stick our heads in the sand when there is evidence of bad faith, and there's ample evidence here. As I said in my original comment on the matter, it's difficult to believe it's coincidental "that a user with a minimal contribution history consisting mostly of random Wikignoming came to this page, griped about the allegedly offensive presence of a benign Bible verse as a quote about clothing, and got shut down, and then four years later another user, an anonymous IP with no previous contributions at all, just so happened to show up and make a beeline for this exact same obscure article and make the exact same complaint about the exact same quote." That's the crux of the issue, not anything about IP hopping. To be sure, the evidence is circumstantial, but circumstantial is almost always the only kind of evidence that exists for sockpuppetry (the excuse that "IP addresses change periodically" is theoretically usable in virtually any case) and yet the English Wikipedia, for example, has uncontroversially banned literally hundreds of users for sockpuppetry based on similar evidence. Since you are so fond of citing Wikipedia policy at sites other than Wikipedia, you might want to take a look at w:WP:DUCK. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware of w:WP:DUCK and have had endless discussions with someone who was banned for racist bigotry who we all know in regards to using that policy (if you look at their meta userpage, point 2 was solely directed at me). All I'm saying is, unless we know who this user is a sock of (and it's certainly not Beland), we can't treat this user is a sock of an LTA. Perhaps when we have more evidence that this is an LTA or someone block evading, I'll drop the stick, but for the timebeing, we don't. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 01:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

How do you know who it certainly is or is not? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@SHB2000: Ikan is absolutely correct. Far from being "certainly not Beland", there is no other logical suspect for the identity of this IP user besides Beland. As I said before, there are too many parallels here for the idea to hold water that this is all a coincidence and the IP user was some random person who just so happened to end up on the same page and have the same complaint, and as I also said (with regards to "when we have more evidence") that if you're waiting for a smoking gun, you're never going to find one here or in any other LTA case. The nature of sockpuppet investigations is that the evidence is never more than circumstantial, i.e. comparing the behavior patterns of different user accounts, which in this case, again, the similarities are striking. And in practice, Wikipedia holds that to be strong enough evidence to have banned scores of users who (technically may not be but almost certainly) are sockpuppets from editing. Strictly speaking, what we should be doing here is not only preserving the Genesis quote but also immediately userbanning both Beland and the IP address, but in the spirit of compromise I'd be willing to settle for the former but not the latter. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Dunno. Beland says it's not them; maybe it's not. But I wouldn't support banning Beland. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Beland has absolutely nothing to gain by being truthful about that, and a lot to gain (or avoid losing) by being untruthful. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 04:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Before loosely throwing sockpuppet allegations, I have to ask again, why do you think a well-reputed English Wikipedia admin like Beland will sock on Wikivoyage? Honestly, it's ridiculous and no CU will ever do a CU check (even if checking accounts to IPs were permitted). The differences between the two are just astoundingly obvious even at a first glance. The bottom line is, the only evidence you have is both Beland and the IP find that quote offensive and inappropriate (and I do too).

But I now don't care whether you think Beland and the IP are sockpuppets but both of your comments come out to me as an attempt to indirectly marginalize atheists and agnostics like me or Beland and whether or not that were your intentions. At this point, I don't even care whether that quote gets replaced or not, but I certainly am not going to spend my leisure hours after arriving home to only be marginalized for my personal beliefs, and your comments now come out as highly sarcastic. For that reason, I'm not replying further in this specific reply thread. Goodbye, have a lovely day, and enjoy making irrational sockpuppet allegations. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

1) Beland's status as admin on Wikipedia has no relevance to the question of whether he is using sockpuppets here. I could name you several formerly well-regarded Wikipedia administrators (INeverCry, for one) who have been banned permanently across all WMF wikis for misconduct that goes far beyond what seems to have been done here.

2) "No CU will ever do a CU check" - correct, and a CU check, though helpful, is not a necessary prerequisite to establishing whether or not a user is engaged in sockpuppetry. Indeed, the majority of sockpuppeteers, here or on any other WMF wiki, get banned without ever being subjected to CU checks.

3) "The differences between the two are just astoundingly obvious even at a first glance" - how? The similarities are what seem astoundingly obvious to me. I have repeatedly explained what those similarities are, and in a similar way, I invite you to specifically enumerate whatever differences you perceive.

4) "both Beland and the IP find that quote offensive and inappropriate (and I do too)" - speaking of similarities, one major one that unites you, Beland, and the IP user is a seeming inability to understand that Wikivoyage policy doesn't care what you do or don't find offensive. As the bold italic text hopefully indicates, this is really the key to the entire issue, and it holds true regardless of whether Beland and the IP are the same end user or not. The WMF, of which Wikivoyage is a constituent site, is dedicated to the free exchange of information. That means, aside from a limited range of circumstances which are held to be out of bounds on a virtually unanimous basis and which the WMF could conceivably get into legal trouble if it permitted - hate speech, threats of violence, pro-pedophilia advocacy, etc. - we go out of our way not to censor our content. Furthermore, we have a diverse worldwide readership that runs the gamut from atheists who are offended by the very existence of religion to devout believers who are offended by the very existence of atheism (and demographically speaking, there are a lot more of the latter than the former). For us all to coexist peaceably requires us to put our big boy and big girl pants on, grow thicker skin, and get comfortable dealing with opinions and worldviews that differ starkly from our own. Anyone who can't or won't do that should probably ask themselves whether an administratorial role on a WMF site is a good fit for them.

5) Your repeated assertions of your own atheism/agnosticism, as well as your unwarranted claims of persecution, further suggest an inability or unwillingness to look at this issue through an objective lens. You will note that I never indicated what religion I do or don't adhere to; this is because, again, the question is ultimately irrelevant. Whatever my own private beliefs or lack thereof may be, I am setting them aside and judging this proposal on its merits alone, and if you should choose to reengage in this discussion at any point, I will expect you to do likewise.

-- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 04:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Andre writes:

So my position is that the question of which quote best sums up the topic of clothing is a secondary concern, and the primary one is that the act of replacing the current quote in and of itself sets a bad precedent.

I disagree vehemently. The only question should be which quote is most useful or interesting for the reader. I'd say replace the biblical quote with #8, then consider whether other quotes might fit elsewhere, perhaps including the bible one under respect.

I do agree that the claim such a quote might be offensive is nonsense & best ignored. Pashley (talk) 05:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle, which is why I said there are 2-3 quotes that are actually better for this topic to me than the famous passage from Genesis, though I would oppose replacing it with #8. And that's why I said avoiding occasional ugly outbursts was merely a side benefit to changing the quote. I have opposed a change until now because none of the alternative quotes offered were anywhere near as good as the Biblical one. But I think we need to think seriously about what Andre has said and make sure that whether we replace the quote or don't, our decision has nothing to do with support or opposition to any religion or religion in general and will never represent a slippery slope, because there is no way in Hell that we will or should get rid of all religious quotes or content in this travel guide. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The other thing is that everyone participating in this thread should reread the #Quote revert thread and consider the arguments made there seriously. They give me pause, and I think they should give you pause, too. But if we really think another quote is better than the one from Genesis, only then should we change. I will spend some time reconsidering my own comments above. The problem is that the passage from Genesis is such better writing that if you read it and any of these quotes back to back, they pale in comparison. So I'm tempted to go back on my acceptance of any substitute but will sleep on it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Take your time Ikan. There's really no hurry – the quotes aren't going anywhere, this article isn't going anywhere and we aren't going anywhere either. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Pashley, LPfi: I actually think #8 would be a good one to go on Hiking#Packing and equipment and if we do use #8 for Hiking, should we reuse the same quote here or choose a different quote to avoid duplication? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Use a different quote. I agree that it would be good there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, what's offensive about the quote? It is in an appropriate context because it's about clothes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Here's my point of view, keeping in mind that my POV may be different to many others who believe in secularism. To me, it's somewhat offensive because the clothes have nothing to do with religion which is why I think this quote is inappropriate on a secular travel guide. Take it with a pinch of salt because that's just my opinion. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, though I don't really know what you mean, as religions clearly have a lot to do with what billions of people wear. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I want to say to Andre that I greatly appreciate his contribution, regardless of what is ultimately decided, but let's also put a lot of weight on his extremely credible accusations that only a single militant atheist has been occasionally stinking up this page and not be unduly influenced by a single unconstructive user. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Apologies if I was unclear. Religion certainly plays a role in what billions of people wear, but it's not the only factor determining what people wear (which isn't universal either). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• OK, bottom line: The Biblical quote is the best of the quotes, and it is on topic and isn't about anything else that's in the Bible that anyone wants to either promote or slag or about proselytizing (which Jews very seldom do except to other Jews, and remember, this is from the Torah, not the New Testament). So to be clear, my vote is ultimately to keep the Biblical quote and continue swatting away the periodic intemperate outbursts of one or more overly easily offended non-contributors to this site. That said, if there ends up being a consensus to use another quote, keeping in mind that no other one is nearly as poetic as the quote from Genesis, I'd be willing to accept #1, #7 and #6, #8 and (only just) #2. I'm absolutely opposed to the message in #5, I love the message in #9 but consider it irrelevant to the topic of clothes, ditto with a bit less love for #3, and #4 is great in the context of the novel but doesn't work as an overall quote about clothes. So you know my preference. If we decide to do this via a vote, I don't think we should include the IP user or Beland among the votes, only those of us who regularly edit the site, or in the case of Andre, have lots of edits to our credit. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that we shouldn't include Beland not because they're not a "regular contributor" but because they simply haven't commented in this thread. No comment on the IP. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd remind everyone - and inform those who weren't there the last time this came up - that the status quo is the compromise. We used to also have "Let there be light" as the quote for Electrical systems and decided to substitute the George Carlin quote that's currently in that article because light is only one thing you can make with electricity. The Biblical quote in this article is directly related to clothing, so it stayed. Should we delete this, too, will we next have some IP user taking it upon themselves to delete the Biblical quote in Holocaust remembrance because it "offends" them? At what point does this exercise become anti-Jewish? In an American context, I'm strongly opposed to the establishment of religion, but that's not what this is about. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping! No, I'm not the same person as 37.145.61.204. From a traceroute, it looks like that belongs to an ISP in Russia, and I live in Massachusetts. I don't think it's feasible to say people have a right not to be exposed to religion in everyday life, since that would make it very difficult for people to exercise the freedom of religion, which I very much support even if I think religious beliefs are false and some people who have them want to murder me as a result. But I'm definitely not going to buy a hamburger or a travel guide that comes with a Bible verse on it, because I don't want my money to help spread religious messages. I also agree it would make more sense to upgrade this quote to a better one than simply remove it as this IP did.

Suggestions 1 and 2 above are not objectionable, but they are a bit generic, and got me thinking about the purpose of this quote. We don't need a quote here to fill a blank space, or break up a large expanse of text, or highlight something very important to people who aren't bothering to read the whole article. The idea of just adding a quote for aesthetic purposes I find unsatisfying. Perhaps that's part of why the quote seemed so jarring to me - given that it has no apparent purpose, it's hard to imagine that someone put it there for any reason other than to spread religious belief. (I accept Yvwv's explanation that is not what actually happened, but if the purpose is not apparent to readers, that's a problem.) Sometimes books have relatively contentless quotes at the beginning or in between chapters, and I find that a bit pointlessly annoying - a waste of reader time and unnecessary scrolling.

I think it would be far better to have a quote that aligns with the purpose of the page, which is not just to talk about clothing in general - that's what w:Clothing does. It's to help readers decide what clothes to pack for a trip, and what clothes to buy while travelling. I like suggestion 8 above for clothes-buying advice, and I found a bunch more with clothes-packing advice:

10. "When you get back from a trip, make a note of what you didn't wear. This will avoid packing it unnecessarily next time." -- Robert Powell

11. "'Just in case' is the curse of packing." -- Alexandra Potter

12. "When preparing to travel, lay out all your clothes and all your money. Then take half the clothes and twice the money." -- Susan Heller Anderson (though I see this is already on Packing list unattributed, it could be exchanged with another one of these quotes)

13. "On a long journey, even a straw weighs heavy." - Spanish proverb

14. "I know what I need, but I still like to make a list beforehand and usually pack in the afternoon, as I prefer to rest the evening before travelling." -- Petra Kvitova

15. "My most unbreakable Christmas tradition is packing multiple workout outfits for my trip home just in case I become an entirely different person." -- Sophia Benoit (@1followernodad)

16. "Normal life: I’ve been wearing the same shirt for a week...Packing for vacation: I’ll probably change 4x a day so 28 outfits should work" -- Dak (Retired) (@RidiculousDak)

17. "On vacation, you can wear all the colorful and casual clothing that you like, but you must always be elegant." -- Christian Dior

-- Beland (talk) 02:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for participating. Of course, no-one has to buy this travel guide, as it's free. :-) You've added some good quotes. I'll think about them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Now that they have, we should include their opinion. I like Beland's new list of quotes – I think my favourites in order are 16, 1, 7, 10, and 14. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 02:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead & moved the bible quote to Respect, then inserted #6 in Prepare. Pashley (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Why #6? It's a nice sentiment, I guess, but it really doesn't have to do with either wearing or buying clothes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Look, the Bible to holy to Christians, but to someone like me who is not a Christian, the Bible is just another piece of literature. We're not going to realistically be able to erase all traces of religion from secular life, so I'd say let's just learn to chill. Of course we don't allow for bigoted statements on Wikivoyage, but if we're going to ban everything that could potentially offend someone somewhere, then we must as well not have Wikivoyage since anything could potentially be offensive to someone somewhere in the world, so there comes a point when we have draw a line between what's reasonable accommodation and what's not. The fact that not all of us are vegans is highly offensive to the guys at PETA, and while providing advice to where to get vegetarian and vegan food is reasonable accommodation, should we purge all mention on where to get meat on Wikivoyage just because it offends someone from PETA? Or should we purge all mention of alcoholic beverages because it offends some fundamentalist Muslims? The dog2 (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't know who you're specifically replying to, but this thread has just gotten insanely ridiculous to the point where it's entirely deviated from the initial point. All I'm going to say is, putting the Bible quote in "Understand" comes out to me as an attempt to spread Christianity and that's the reason why I'm strongly opposed to keeping it. Pashley's solution is slightly better, but I'm not in love with it because at a first glance, it makes it appear that traveller should only adhere to Christian norms even though that is not what the "Respect" section is for. Either way, I'm done with this thread and won't be replying to this entire thread further; I'm honestly sick and tired of my opinion being discounted (I'm willing to give evidences of that – if you need so, leave me a message on my talk). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how using a biblical quote here is an attempt to spread Christianity. It could be, if such quotes were used all over the place, but they are not. The fact that most of the participants in this thread and the one above are non-Christians should make it obvious that proselytising has nothing to do with this. Therefore, at this point, I am with AndreCarrotflower that removing the quote might set a bad precedent. I am neutral to the current solution of moving it to Respect. For it being from just one holy scripture, that's a non-issue: examples can never be complete, and the following paragraphs make it very clear that we are talking about other religions (and non-religious customs) too. I am sorry to discount the opinions of two valued Wikimedians, but I don't see any good compromise here. –LPfi (talk) 09:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

And I've also said that I don't object to quotes from the Quran, Vedas, Guru Granth Sahib, Aqdas or whatever if those verses are relevant to the topic at hand. Rather than banning all quotes from religious texts, I take the view that quotes from the holy books of all religions, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh or whatever, should be allowed if they're relevant to the topic at hand. The dog2 (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

SHB2000, where the hell do you get Christian proselytizing from Genesis? Do Jews and Judaism not exist in your mind? Your views are pretty offensive to me as a Jew. Hitler didn't kill us all, some of us still walk the Earth, and the Torah was written by Jews, not Christians, who didn't exist at the time, and it was not and is not for the purpose of converting everyone. Maybe you'd understand that better if you read more of it and spoke with a rabbi about the meaning of the Torah in Judaism, but the idea that a passage like this is about converting you to Christianity is so bizarre and wrong, it just makes the mind reel. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

It is sad to see good contributors waste lots of time and energy. There was a point that illustrative Biblical text have been over-exposed across Wikivoyage, and that other intellectual movements should be better represented on Wikivoyage. The outrage against the Genesis quote (which is in the realm of West Asian Bronze age mythology rather than Christian propaganda) is out of proportion. The current order with the Renta quote on the top and the Biblical quote further down, is acceptable. /Yvwv (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

My views haven't substantially changed since my last comment in June 2018. At an individual level, the Renta quote is fine and a good alternative to the quote from Genesis. However like others (and what looks to be the majority view/consensus) I strongly oppose any attempt for this to become a precedent and help spur (pardon the pun) a crusade against quotes sourced from religious texts on Wikivoyage. Gizza ^(roam) 02:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Caving

The caving section seems a niche enough application that I'd suggest minimizing it down to a sentence and moving the rest to a more caving-focused article. Sdkb (talk) 01:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd remove it entirely. Anything handled in Caves will be seen by everybody who wants such advice from us. –LPfi (talk) 07:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. Sdkb (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)