Talk:Grass skirt

Indigenous names

I was hoping someone would have included some indigenous names for these skirts. Orthografer (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflicts with article Hula

This article unreferenced since 2007 makes an assertion that the grass skirt is worn by hula girls. Hula mentions grass skirts, but makes no claim they are part of hula dances.

Even if references are discovered for grass skirt, the article is unlikely to grow from this stub. The article should be merged with Hula if there is evidence that one is used in the other. Rhadow (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Redirect

Redirect choice of Cultural appropriation#Costumes does not mention Grass skirt and don't see how it is an appropriate one. It is also Hawaii-centric to believe that it only refers to the modern garment for tourist inspired hula since other Polynesian people and African people who wore grass skirts. If this was grass hula skirt that be a different story. I suggest deletion or a rewrite to a more globally minded definition of the term rather than redirect to a non-related article. KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Please keep you opinions such as "It is also Hawaii-centric to believe"...strictly to what the edit demonstrates and not what you may or may not think. What part of the redirect mentioned Hawaii?--Mark Miller (talk) 08:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I object to the use of Hula on this article and believe the mention in the source is too short, and is indeed a cultural appropriation of western influence by exactly what the source says and implies. I think if there is objection we should look to a larger community discussion for consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I have merged that content to Hula#Hula ʻauana.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

By the way, the term "Hawaii-centric" means to focus the subject on Hawaii. I am stating the opposite, that this has little to nothing to do with Hawaii or any other culture.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Sidenote, if the argument that it "displaces cultural identity" or is culturally offensive, that is not valid grounds for deletion or else there would not be an article on Blackface. The sexualization of hula and Polynesian women is a scholarly topic and there was even recent documentary on it called Hula Girls, Imagining Paradise. The unauthentic grass skirt is part of that image. KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I think this should be redirected or nominated for deletion

For the following reasons. It appears this term is simply a generic translation of different cultural dress and it is possible the revert of my redirect was a knee jerk reaction, looking at the response here on the talk page. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or an indiscriminate collection of trivia.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The article may meet criteria for speedy deletion as lacking context to identify the subject.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

If it must go. It should be deleted via AFD. Any redirect should be globally minded (not exclusively speaking about its use in modern hula). And if the suggested article to redirect to doesn't mention "grass skirt" at all then there shouldn't be a redirect in the first place. There may be hope if someone wants to expand it properly. I can't do it but maybe there is hope that this article can turn out to be something like Loincloth with the proper sources. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah...that article is just as badly sourced as this one and is exactly the same issue of calling something of a traditional cultural dress a generic English term. Where are the expert sources? Are there expert sources?--Mark Miller (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. You need a term for common cultural dresses or else what is the purpose of the words pants, shirts, or shoes. I also disagree with the recent removals. Please bring to AFD instead of whittling away at the article. KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

No we do not need an article for a "common" form unless there are sufficient sources that cover it in detail.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Liku are made of grass as indicated by the Bishop Museum source ("Women's dresses, liku, were made of hibiscus or root fibers and grass") I included. Also there is nothing stopping me from reincluding the hula content. KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

A third person has become involved but I just have to say I find this article to have no encyclopedic value and that it is pushing a definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or an indiscriminate collection of information. I will leave the article intact and proceed in a different direction.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

That is fine if you think the article has no encyclopedic value, I may agree with you a little. But I disagree with the edits and removals made to undermine an article (no matter how problematic it is) to make it an easy delete via Speedy delete or Proposed delete. It is definitely easier to delete an article with one sentence. An article that has been around since 2007 deserve more than that. AFD helps pool editors to make a decision to trash or improve an article. KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Claiming my edits are to undermine this article is a personal attack. You have an extreme record on Wikipedia of such attacks on other editors. Stop it now. Do not discuss the editor just discuss the edits or contributions. If your position is so weak you have to attack others, maybe you should reconsider your talk page contributions.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I am going to you use your own words here. "I am speaking only to your Wikipedia contributions." If I attacked you personally, I am sorry. But I do not take back any of my comments on your editing. KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

You say this...for the very first time after years of personal attacks on me and others attempting to write and contribute to Hawaii related articles. You have a serious ownership issue.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• I've listed it at AfD. It was either that or ANI. I'd note that the two aren't exclusive either. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Additional sources

• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Grass skirt

Scope

This isn't my subject, I'm unfamiliar with the literature and I haven't looked for any.

That said, I would see a structure for this article as something like this:

Lead

A grass skirt is a skirt made from fronds of plant material, rather than a woven fabric. They have been found around the world, by both men and women, in places where suitable fibres were more easily available than woven material. They are formed of a short skirt of fronds attached to a cord, then tied around the waist.

Africa

Polynesia

Where do they come from, and how did they arrive in the places where they didn't originate? What's their relation to genuine items, such as ceremonial feather cloaks?

Modern appropriation

Grass skirts have become a signifier of tiki culture and have been adopted in the West in a largely comic and unrealistic fashion. This stems from attitudes as far back as the 1820s, with Christian missionaries to Hawaii. Hawaiian culture, and particularly female sensuality, has since been resold to West, particularly the US in phases around 1890 with easy photography and with returning military post-WWII.

See also

• Other cloaks made of plant fibres, of feathers, particularly those from cultures where the grass skirt is also endemic
• The Japanese straw rain cloak or mino

Note that the above is all quick, sheer OR and is neither sourced nor claimed to be particularly accurate. I'm just looking for a clearer editorial structure here, which it doesn't currently have. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)