where would I find out[edit]

what Japanese girls wear for girl scouts what their girl Scout uniforms look like

yes Japanese people rock everyone's socks so don't deny it everyone knows that. They are also very calm and they are just better than anyone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i think the "modern section" needs to be heavily added to. most japanese don't wear lolita or ganguro. many wear western designer brands etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.216.110 (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A section on uniforms in Japan would be another page entirely, I think. If you want to find out what Girl Scouts in Japan wear, please, go ahead and place yourself on the FBI's watchlist with that search. Otherwise, I don't think this request represents any real intention of creating a new section on uniforms in Japan, I think it's just a specific request for dodgy reasons.
As for the modern clothing section - this whole article needs a re-write, in my view. The whole point of why this article needs to exist in separation from the many other articles on Japanese clothing on Wikipedia is not clear. I think we could probably piecemeal bits of this article off to other pages, or at least whatever would be useful - the formatting and structure of this article falls a bit flat of the other pages on Japanese clothing. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

expand tag[edit]

This should either be rewritten as an article or renamed List of Japanese clothing. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

This page seems to have been vandalised. Not sure how recently, but it's clearly been tampered with in the past as well. - 1st December 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.121.252 (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what about the ladies[edit]

So the dudes have those comedic thong loincloths, what about the ladies? Eregli bob (talk) 11:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many issues with this article[edit]

There are almost no definitions of terms, and sentences are aften vague and confusing, with no supporting evidence or explination given. For example, the first three sentences, for someone coming to the article with no previous knowledge, make absolutely no sense. What is "yin" clothing and "yang" clothing? Why mention these two different types of clothing and then never explain them, or even mention them again? What on earth is meant by "These were developed to go along with nature"? To go along with who's nature? The nature of what? How were they developed to go along with this unspecified "nature"? Article is very vague and confusing--it's also frustrating that there are not cited references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artismyhammer (talk • contribs) 15:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that "western-style" clothing is worn because of "the strong western influence due to the Western's sought for world domination in the past that causes an influx in global fashion as well as endangering other rich cultures" is confused, POV and merely opinion. The reasons for western (actually British) clothing becoming ubiquitous worldwide is very complex.203.184.41.226 (talk) 05:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to contribute to this page by adding material on the history of Japanese clothing prior to the advent of the kimono. Then the kimono might be included in the history along with theories about it becoming the "traditional" Japanese form of dress. The adoption of western clothing significantly changed the history of Japanese costume. Reasons for the quick and mass change in Japanese fashion are said by some to indicate the impact of industrialization and capitalist economy on Japanese society and culture. I think a little clothing theory and history might help this article. Bkwentworth (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons for western (actually British Anglosphere or just American) clothing becoming ubiquitous worldwide is very complex
It really isn't. Military + cultural hegemony and textile mills putting out lower-price higher-quality goods will do that. — LlywelynII 07:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

Cross-posted at Talk:Japanese Fashion (Traditional)#Merger proposal as well.

The article Japanese Fashion (Traditional) covers some of the same ground as Japanese clothing but does not yet distinguish itself enough to qualify for a separate article. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support merge of "Japanese clothing" to kimono since most of the material here is focused solely on that one particular style, with far too specific detail for a main page on Japanese clothing.
Strong support move of Japanese Fashion (Traditional) to Japanese clothing since it actual has the material that belongs at this namespace. — LlywelynII 07:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the longer-standing and only formal proposal,   checkY Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 08:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very one-sided illustrations[edit]

Current version link

Normally I'd just come in and fix things but I feel compelled to explain my coming changes. So let me break the current picture selection down.

So all in all

Needed additions include at least: everyday wear, work wear, outer wear, (school?) uniform, and contemporary fashion. --Pitke (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Needed additions include at least: [western clothing]
Kinda pointless given the article, innit? I mean, sure, don't overorientalize; don't omit mentioning that everyone wears western outfits now; &c. &c. but we don't really need to show Japanese adults in British business attire or kids in American tennis shoes, T-shirts, and jeans in actual proportion of use or even in equal proportion to the uniquely Japanese fashions. We don't need to show that at all... at least in this article or beyond one or two crowd shots. — LlywelynII 07:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Translation requested by an IP editor[edit]

Hello, an IP editor 166.70.219.249 added this untranslated content to the article. I'm moving it here so that editors can help with translation before it is re-added to to the article (contingent on appropriate citations). Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

縄文時代・弥生時代

縄文時代の身体装飾については石製や貝製の装身具などの出土事例があるが、衣服に関しては植物繊維などの有機質が考古遺物として残存しにくいため実態は不明である。ただし、編布（アンギン、縄文期独自の編み物）の断片やひも付きの袋などの出土事例があり、カラムシ（苧麻）・アサ（麻）などの植物繊維から糸を紡ぐ技術や、できた糸から布地を作る技術はあったことがわかる。この編布から衣服が作られて着られていたと推測されている。

縄文時代には人形を模した土偶の存在があるが、土偶の造形は実際の身体装飾を表現したとは見なしがたい抽象文様で、実際の衣服の実態をどの程度反映しているかはっきりしない。

弥生時代の衣服についても、出土事例は少なく、『魏書』東夷伝の一部の「魏志倭人伝」によって推測されているのみである。魏志倭人伝の記述によると、倭人の着物は幅広い布を結び合わせている、男性は髪を結って髷にしているとある。

古墳時代・飛鳥時代

古墳時代の豪族たちの墳墓から発掘される埴輪は、当時の服装を知る貴重な資料である。古墳時代の日本人の服は男女ともに上下2部式であり（つまり、現代の洋服の「トップス」と「ボトムズ」のような上・下の構成であり）、男性は上衣と ゆったりしたズボン状の袴で、ひざ下をひもで結んでいる。女性は上衣と喪（裾の長いロングスカート）の姿である。襟は男女ともに左前の盤領(あげくび)という詰衿形式が多い。これらの服装は貴族階級のものと推測される[1]。

『日本書紀』によると、603年に、聖徳太子が、優れた人を評価する冠位十二階を定めて、役人の位階によって冠の色を定めている。これより上層階級は、隋の衣服令に従って中国大陸の漢服を模倣することになる[2]。

On behalf of the ip requesting translation Netherzone (talk) 22:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rmv. of paragraph at the end of the History section[edit]

I've removed a paragraph at the end of the history section, which was sourced with "Japanese Traditional Raiment in the Context of Emergent Cultural Paradigms", published in the "Cogito" Journal of "Dimitrie Cantemir" Christian University, Bucharest, in 2012. Here's the paragraph in question:

As time passed, new approaches to clothing were brought up, but the original mindset of a covered body lingered. The new trend of tattoos competed with the social concept of hidden skin and led to differences in opinion among the Japanese community and their social values. The dress code that was once followed on a daily basis reconstructed into a festive and occasional trend.[3]

  1. ^ 橋本 2005, p. 66.
  2. ^ 橋本 2005, p. 69.
  3. ^ Rybalko, Svitlana (June 2012). "JAPANESE TRADITIONAL RAIMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF EMERGENT CULTURAL PARADIGMS". Cogito (2066-7094, Humanities Source, EBSCO (host). 4 (2): 112–123. Retrieved October 29, 2016.

I have issues with this paragraph, and looking at the source, particular issues with its characterisation of Japanese clothing. Here's a quote from the source, talking about Japanese clothing before the Meiji period:

...the costume in Japanese culture was intended to emphasize the wearer's social status at the expense of 'degrading' the natural body. This was achieved through the application of the strict dress-code, whose idea was borrowed from ancient China, which regimented the colour scheme, shades, type and quality of the fabric - all determined by the wearer's position and social rank.

The author seems to view the development of Japanese clothing through a heavily Western lens of progress - that "new approaches to clothing were brought up, but the original mindset of a covered body lingered", combined with "the application of the strict dress-code, whose idea was borrowed from ancient China", really, really sounds like more of the same 'Japanese clothing was strict and exotic and ritualistic (but also primitive somehow) until Western clothing came along', which is so many miles away from being the case.

It is true that Japanese women who adopted Western clothing during the Meiji period were more likely to wear high-necked dresses - we know for a fact that the Empress of Japan of the time had a particular fondness for them, and had imported Western clothing modified to have a higher neckline.

But the author seems to take the approach that fashion didn't exist until Western clothing arrived, completely ignoring the fact that silhouette alone is not the only paradigm through which fashion trends can be seen. For instance, throughout the Edo period, fashions for clothing design and colour essentially flipped - from the gaudy, bright designs of the Genroku period, to the subdued development of iki as an aesthetic ideal, equally driven by fashion.

By painting Japanese clothing as a "strict dress code" from "ancient China" - almost, if not directly, implying a totally unchanged nature in this time - the author maligns Japanese fashion as straightjacketed by rules, which...I mean, look at the Edo period and tell me everyone followed the rules. The concept of iki originated from subverting patchily-applied clothing edicts. As an aside - "ancient China" isn't defined in this paragraph, but as a friend of mine pointed out the other day, people will call 16th-century China "ancient" if it suits their needs. It smacks of Orientalism.

The idea that social status alone, and not a desire to look good or fashionable, was the only thing that drove what people wore is ahistorical and untrue. The "dress code that was once followed on a daily basis" - which dress code? Mid-Meiji, roughly-defined ryakugi, informal clothing, versus reisō, formal clothing? Are we talking about the specific invention of many types of kimono, which really only happened in the later Meiji period? Or are we talking about the whole formality shebang, the whole nine yards of rules, that only began to exist after WW2, borrowed from a reconstructed view of the dress of the samurai classes?

This isn't even getting into kitsuke (dressing) and how that changed throughout the Meiji period - tell me with a straight face that collars didn't migrate up the body between 1860 and 1910 - but, I rest my case. I removed the paragraph for a pretty ahistorical view of the introduction of Western clothing to Japan, because we can do better than this. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 12:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ineffablebookkeeper, the last para in the Nara section is the same source and similar content. I split that content by period and shuffled it about but did not check it. The thesis cited heavily in kimono documents the idea that wafuku is fashion-free as a myth promoted by 20th-century kimono merchants. HLHJ (talk) 02:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HLHJ: - I apologise if it came across as me dragging you; it wasn't my intention, and as always, your work adding content to these articles is incredibly valuable. Not to backtrack, but the Nara-period stuff seems to be fine; it's just the modern-day stuff that seems shaky. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 10:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ineffablebookkeeper: Oh no, not at all! Sorry, I was overly-terse and did not compensate enough for the tendency of words to come across in a more hostile manner in text form. I was a bit dubious about that content too, but I was focussed on the more technological end rather than the social end, and I didn't go to the trouble of digging into the source. Thank you for doing that, and please feel free to remove anything you think is unreliable (some of it is also in the kimono article). Nor do I think your criticism is unjustified; I think the thesis I mentioned generally supports your criticisms on dress codes, handwavy ancientness, and the Golden Age of the Past where all was unchanging and done Properly (usually located in the childhood of the speaker, unless it goes mythic), saying they are popular ideas not supported by historical study. The Nara section could have better sourcing (I'm sure someone has done some proper academic studies of the Shōsō-in clothing) and everything after that is fairly sketchy, I haven't even really started on it. The Japanese clothing#Western influence section probably needs splitting up, rewriting, expanding with a summary from Jevella's excellent Japanese clothing during the Meiji period, and expanding with information on other periods. Some of it seems unlikely ("Before the 1860s, Japanese clothing consisted entirely of kimono of a number of varieties"?). You are certainly not dragging me, especially not by pointing critically at all the bits I haven't worked on! There's no shortage of things to work on here, please do whatever you want to without worrying about stepping on my toes. HLHJ (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's nothing else[edit]

Japanese footwear currently redirects to Japanese_clothing#Types_of_traditional_clothing but obviously that's less than ideal.

The page should ideally do a better job organizing itself to discuss separate classes of clothing (unisex/male/female; full body/upper/lower/accessories/headwear/footwear; etc.) rather than suggested ensembles for historically appropriate cosplay. — LlywelynII 07:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, they're not suggested ensembles for historically-appropriate cosplay – the kimono is still very much worn as clothing in Japan, and the rules of seasonality and co-ordination still apply. (Though some rules such as how high the obijime should be tied are a bit dated, as well as being able to tell if a woman is married based on the length of her sleeves.)
I do agree with you that this article needs re-organisation, though. There's a lot more to traditional dress than the kimono – you have categories of country clothing, traditional Ainu clothing and Ryukyuan dress as well. There's many historical dress aspects we could include as well, such as sleeve variants not seen today, stuff like that. As far as articles go, it's a little lost at the minute.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (((ping)) me!) 10:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Categories