Jump to content

Talk:Chaperon (headgear)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Cappuccio has been merged here

turban

[edit]

I'm not sure that I agree with you re apparent turbans being chaperons in reality. It would be nice if we had some citations to settle the matter either way. I found very little on the history of European turbans online, but I did find pictures of seeming turbans that didn't have the characteristic "wattles" and liripipes of chaperons. I just now paged through my one costume book, the Bruhn and Tilke pictorial history of costume and I found descriptions like these, for plate 46, headdresses, Burgundy, 15th century:

  • Learned man with hat made of a roll of material from which folds of cloth hang down
  • Man of rank in the new-fashioned turban hat

There were also a fair number of pictures of women who seemed to be wearing turbans. Some of them seem to be peasant women; it may have just been a way of protecting the hair and keeping it out of the way.

One would have to look at surviving costumes, instead of just pictures, to be really sure, I would think.

I revised for vagueness. If you have a costume history library, or access to a good one, see if you can find some cites. I'm willing to be convinced that I'm wrong. Zora 07:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are loads of reference books & citations at chaperon - try the online-thesis, which is pretty exhaustive. See also the updated "review of the literature" section separately on the same site. She is pretty scathing, convincingly I thought, on the scholarly standards of most of the general costume histories available. Of course it depends what you call a turban, but I think a loosely tied head-cloth with 1-2 layers hardly makes it. Unless you know how the various hat-styles worked, a lot of them do look like turbans, especially in a small photo of a painting etc. Hood & basic hat Chaperons were certainly worn by women, especially peasants as you say, though my article concentrates on men, though mentioning women -see the tres Riches Heures.
There is also a lot of literature on the use of actual turbans in religious scenes at the period to distinguish Jews (or non-Christian Jews to be precise) from Christians in various subjects, especially Passion scenes. This is all purely about iconography & not what people (Jews or Christians) actually wore; but it reinforces that the turban was specifically seen as a non-European headgear.
The most famous supposed portrait with a turban at the period is the NG Van Eyck (see chaperon Gallery). The NG catalogue (Campbell) emphasizes this is an evolved chaperon not a turban. Essentially I use their terminology - Reed uses rather different ones.
Slightly surprised you are the one criticise me for vagueness & lack of citations, if you don't mind me saying so! I'll have to go along & take a look. I think I will copy this to the chaperon talk-page, btw. Please continue it there if needed.
Copied from my user pageJohnbod 09:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article ...

[edit]

... is the perfect example of why I love Wikipedia so much. It's downright amazing that these wonderfully detailed articles about obscure topics get written! Thank you for it! mstroeck 17:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right! I love articles that make me look for things in museums etc. that I hadn't even noticed before. --AndreasPraefcke 20:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA stuff

[edit]

Passed. May require some better cleanup/expansion if you try to bring it to FA level, and I'd reconsider the gallery, but that's just my own two cents. Looks good! --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm taking a break from it now, but will probably have another push later. Johnbod 03:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding Issues

[edit]

I looked at this article recently, and I do think it is a good article in some ways. It is well written, comprehensible, appears to cover its subject very well and has many fine illustrations.

But there are some issues that would need to be corrected. Otherwise, I'll list the article for GA Review.

Following Wikipedia:What is a good article?

  • The lead section does not fill its purpose, per criteria 1b.
Done
Done
  • Please make it clear what reference material was used in what place, per criteria 2b. Instead of the last note This article incorporates content from the 1728 Cyclopaedia, a publication in the public domain. (funerary section at end only) , please put a footnote at the funerary section, that gives the 1728 Cyclopaedia as a reference.
Done
  • The text following the sentence "There were now many ways of wearing, and indeed carrying, this most complex and adaptable of hats: [list]" warrants a reference
references are at illustrations showing the various ways.
  • The sentence of the accustations against Joan of Arc needs a reference (per criteria 2b)
Done
  • Need references to the sections "Christmas chaperons" , "Decline" and "Funerary ornaments on horses"
1st would be several refs to individual works (many in article as it is), 2nd has one, 3rd done Johnbod 01:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That should be it, I think...

Fred-Chess 12:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks - that's all do-able. Really I'd like to boot the funerary horse bit out to its own stub, as it's a different form of the word & doesn't really have much relation with the rest of this. What I think it also needs is a few illustrations of the early forms from illuminated manuscripts; only the Van der Weyden illumination was specially procured for this (thanks PKM!)because the panel paintings with the later forms are so well represented on Commons. Not so illuminations. I'm doing up Byzantine dress at the moment but will return to this. BadlydrawnJeff seemed to think the Gallery was OTT, so I'm glad you seem to like it - I think thats where WP can really score - no print source is ever going to be that heavily illustrated. Johnbod 13:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wrong hole

[edit]

Could someone please rephrase this section heading? It's just too unintentionally comical to be appropriate for an encyclopedic article. :-D

Peter Isotalo 15:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unintentionally? It is used in the literature & it's hard to think of an alternative. Johnbod 15:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only referring to the section heading. It just flies in your face as being... uhm... humorously obscene.
Peter Isotalo 15:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In a period when humourous obscenity was the norm, this is excusable. You should see the pilgrimage badges on my liripipe, in passing, eminently conformant with any religious badge - which are in and of themselves unmistakably obscene. Let's put it this way, they're neither circular nor oval. However, my real point is you skipped a step. Take a liripipe, sewn flat as a hood with a long tail, and put it on. Indoors, in the winter, it's thick wool, and too hot, so you shove it back onto your shoulders, making a scarf not dissimilar to some worn by mountaineers in modern times. However, there's more fabric to it, it all gets unforgivably messy, so you roll it up so the cape holds the hood. Still too hot, you take it off, and need to perch it somewhere, voila, a chaperon. The difference in thickness at the face hole explains the tilt on the head. Later, it becomes a 3-d shaped hat in its own right, and that's another story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.210.34 (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The gallery here is too large, and the gallery at Wikicommons is only a few images, it should be the other way around. -- Stbalbach 17:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Gallery at Commons is really on a different subject; only a couple of the images there are relevant to the subject of this article (& many do not show chaperons as such on any definition). The Gallery here is as large as it needs to be. The captions cannot be replicated on Commons, and form part of this article. I am sympathetic to people disliking huge and random galleries with no added value in the captions, but some articles on art and iconography demand galleries to be covered properly. Johnbod 17:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I can follow that line of reasoning the captions are detailed. I kept the commons link there as they are both galleries in the gallery section and it will hopefully encourage users to upload images to commons and use it as a general repository and display place. -- Stbalbach 18:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The gallery is definitely too large, good comments or no. An article on art or fashion isn't supposed to be exempt from restrictions on galleries. We still have to abide by a minimum of summary style. The gallery could be reduced to fewer examples without much loss to the article. If anything, I'd try to focus a bit more on the image layout, which is now a bit awkward. For one thing, the images used in the text are disproportionally large. I'm going to suggest a few changes.
Peter Isotalo 11:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some size reduction if you must, but I was most unimpressed by your picture switches, which I have reverted on masse. The gallery is in chronological order, the article pictures relate to the text, and you left images facing off the page. I suggest this is deferred until after the inevitable merge with capuccio. Perhaps you could specify which parts of Summary style you believe are relevant here. People are always quoting various policies against the use of galleries at all, but I have yet to see any specific policy on the matter. Johnbod 13:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The images are completely dominating the article, you're not even making an attempt to limit your choice of pictures and now you're complaining about pictures "facing off the page"? Have you even noticed that the image layout is rather shoddy? Some of the pics are very large and placed in the middle, rather than at the top of, sections. Philip the Good barges right into the list of styles if you have a broader screen resolution, for example. The tall carried chaperon-pic stretches over two sections. Overall, left-sided pictures are often very good at interrupting text and the general layout.
But, hey, it's just me quoting stupid guidelines, right? :-/
Peter Isotalo 00:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reduced the number of images as I recall - by up to four. The aim was to keep P the G (by the way if you really want a poor layout to complain about, have a look at his article now) out of the list - please move as necessary. I have nothing against left-sided photos (like the tall one) but facing-outwards is bad. Despite being asked, you neither quote from nor refer to any "guidelines". Johnbod 00:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't link to guidelines as an argument per se, but to inform about what the general community consensus. Otherwise we're actually supposed to discuss this among ourselves, not throw paragraphs at one another. But it feels like you've already decided exactly what this article should (not) look like, whether that be beneficial to others or not, so I don't think we'll be getting anywhere.
Peter Isotalo 06:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two of your posts have referred to guidelines, but as I've said above, I just don't believe there are any guidelines that say what you seem to think they do - this is not the first time I've encountered this. I'm open to discussion, but I certainly didn't think the changes you made improved the article. Johnbod 12:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see no sign of open discussion, just rather irrelevant pedantry concerning the visuals.
Peter Isotalo 14:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well discuss away then - I think I have made a number of unresponded-to points above. Johnbod 15:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA/R

[edit]

It seems this article was not properly listed on the WP:GA page whenever it was passed, but since Fred-Chess seems to of disputed this articles status, said he'd put up a GA/R which seems to of not happened, and because I can't tell if the concerns he seemed to have were ever resolved, i've filed a WP:GA/R on this article to make its status certain. Homestarmy 22:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recall it being properly listed. But at the same time I had decided to fail it (without putting it on hold), someone else passed it... so I posted some remarks.
Fred-Chess 17:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delistedSumoeagle179 23:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Euler

[edit]

I recall that on Euler's biography, he's wearing a similar headdress in his famous portrait. Perhaps, given the notability of Euler, that image should be included on this page. -69.47.186.226 21:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That one is a turban - often worn at home to prevent C17/18 gents catching a cold with their wigs off. Johnbod 21:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

recent changes

[edit]

I have reverted a group of recent changes which made some random-seeming changes, some introducing errors, and added a number of fact tags, which were backdated by 18 months, & all or nearly all related to referenced material. Bring it here if there are any issues. Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jan van Eyck 091.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Jan van Eyck 091.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this horse tack?

[edit]

Break out this horse tack definition book.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chaperon (headgear). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced statement

[edit]

Johnbod, you reverted in this 17 year old unsourced speculation [1] with edsum "but still true". Is it? The text says:

Part of the connotation seems to arise because the chaperon was too complicated to be taken off on meeting one of higher rank (in Florence at any rate); it was merely touched or pushed back on the head slightly.

This is just speculation on the part of an editor, isn't it? Without a source, it is indistinguishable from urban legend and folk speculation. It has no place in the article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I waited until you returned to editing, but per WP:SILENCE I am now going to remove this again. Onus lies on those wishing to include disputed content to show that this is not mere editor speculation. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming something, in a heavily referenced article, is "mere editor speculation" or "urban legend and folk speculation" shows a lack of AGF. Apart from lacking a ref, is there anything about it that has called for this extreme vocabulary? I read it in one of the sources, but after 17 years can't remember which. There are a lot of them, & frankly I'm not going to go through them all to satisfy a drive-by. If I come across a source, which I may well do eventually, I'll of course add it. As it happens I was away at a funeral and not editing; you should allow a lot longer before invoking WP:SILENCE. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having pinged you to the discussion, I noted your inactivity and waited until some 8 hours after you had returned to editing. “Seems to arise” is wording that clearly suggests speculation. 17 years is presumably long enough to have allowed someone to source that statement. I know you are more than experienced enough to be aware your revert is against ONUS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Victoria has very kindly provided a ref (not from a work I think i've ever seen), showing how far off base your speculations were. Johnbod (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chaperon_(headgear)&oldid=1243321301"