Talk:Kimono
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I was at the Metropolitan Opera and saw 2 women wearing form-fitting kimonos. Since it is so difficult getting dressed in one of these garments, I was wondering what they do when they have to use a toilet during a performance or dinner party. Sppny3 (talk) 02:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. |
|
Japan To-do:
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of the Fashion WikiProject. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks! |
||
| B | This article has been rated as b-Class on the assessment scale. |
||
| Mid | This article is on a subject of mid-importance within fashion. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
 |
WikiProject Echo has identified Kimono as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Arabic language Wikipedia. |
 |
It is requested that a photograph or photographs of photos to illustrate the accessories section be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Japan may be able to help! |
| The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
[edit] Japanese
Whisper to me, why is it you insist on putting a link to Japanese language where one is not needed? Exploding Boy 14:16, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
- whispers: I believe the discussion on how to translate "kimono" is a glowing example of why it is needed. Kimono and kitsuke make extensive use of Japanese terminology, aka the Japanese language. --fraise 30 June 2005 15:15 (UTC)
[edit] Iromuji and Edo komon
I'm not completely sure about the formality of an Iromuji, nor of Edo komon - any help is appreciated. - fraise
- I think it's difficult to assign a specific formality to either kimono because they're both highly versatile. (Edo komon appear to be a solid color from a distance, so they function the same as iromuji, or solid color kimono.) Perhaps a good English description of their formality is "dress casual", because they're appropriate for all but the most informal events. Unlike dress casual, though, they're appropriate for formal occasions.
- As a general rule, I would call them semi-formal. The number of kamon (crests) will be the final factor in deciding formality (following the rule, the more crests, the more formal). I think single and 3 crested iromuji are the most common, so that's why I figure "semi-formal" is a good description.
- The following link is a chart (translated) from the magazine Utsukushii Kimono, noting the appropriate occasions for each kimono. A circle means "ok", an x means "not ok", and a triangle means "acceptable but not recommended". Perhaps this would be a good outside link at the foot of the kimono article? -- http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l146/claw789/kimono-occasion-1.jpg Naeelah 20:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] formality
I'm not sure the following statement is accurate.
"While very formal women's outfits do not include hakama, men's usually do."
Women wear hakama at college gradution ceremonies and some girls wear hakama for Shichigosan ceremonies. I would consider these formal events.
Info on Japanese Graduation Ceremonies Kimonos for Shichigosan --Feiriri 17:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think the focus is on "very." I think graduation ceremonies or Shichigosan ceremonies would only be "slightly" formal. --Kjoonlee 18:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- I see what you mean. Thanks.--Feiriri 01:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] wedding kimono
i have some pics from our traditional (kimono-wearing) wedding at my website www.davejenkins.com that are under the GFDL, if anyone would think they might work here... help yourself! Davejenk1ns 04:06, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Meaning of Kimono
We need to reach a consensus on what the literal English translation of "Kimono" should be. My proposal of "clothing" was reverted to "something one wears" by user:Exploding Boy. -Himasaram 10:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-
- "Ki": to wear; "mono": something. Exploding Boy 20:10, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Exploding Boy, you're missing the point. It's not a good idea to translate kanji in Japanese words one by one. "Kimono" is a unit and should be translated as such, not as a collection of kanji. And the word "kimono" simply means "clothing" or "garment". -Himasaram 21:21, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-
On the contrary, it is you who are missing the point, both on this page and on the Geisha page. Kimono does not mean "clothes." As I explained on talk: Geisha, the literal translation of the kanji (here, "something one wears") is different from the actual meaning of the word, which here is "kimono," given that only the particular types of clothing -- the long, rectangular robes -- described in the article are called "kimono" in Japan, and not "clothes," which are called "fuku," "wafuku" or "yōfuku." Exploding Boy 23:34, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
-
- Ah, I return to wikipedia after a two-year absence just in time for an interesting discussion. Kimono does indeed mean clothes, as do fuku, wafuku and yōfuku. Kimono also means "worn things," as well as meaning "things worn in a fashion that they hang from the shoulders" - as opposed to things worn on the feet, etc. This can be found in Liza Dalby's "Kimono". In other words, its definition is not black and white; there are several shades of meaning which, while self-evident to a Japanese speaker, are rather impossible to put across in a single English word, or even a "literal" breakdown of the kanji. A Japanese speaker certainly sees "kimono" as a single unit (I say this as someone who knows several Japanese who wear the garment and have said as much), while also being aware of its more "piecemeal" meanings. English does not have the luxury of such eloquent simplicity! --fraise 30 June 2005 15:12 (UTC)
-
-
- This is almost a silly discussion. I have to agree with fraise: Kimono, in Japanese, has always meant clothes and only took on the specific meaning of traditional garments as they became less and less common. Though nowadays few people, and almost none under the age of about 60, use the word in reference to anything but the traditional garment (also called 呉服 gofuku), people like my mother-in-law (born in 1933 and a dialect speaker) still say kimono (often shortened to kimon) in reference to any type of clothing.
-
-
-
- As far as the etymology goes... I agree about the inadvisability of breaking down words into their kanji elements to explain them, and indeed suggest going a step further: Don't mistake kanji as the defining elements of words used in Japanese. For example, though written 着物, kimono is not a "kanji word" (i.e., a Chinese word adopted into Japanese or a Sino-Japanese word): kimono is a native Japanese word (yamato kotoba) and itself a shortened form of kiru mono ("things worn" = "clothes").
-
-
-
- The above said, I think there is some justification for explaining that kimono was originally the Japanese word for clothes of any kind but later came to be associated with a particular traditional garment, and that this meaning is itself different from what English speakers associate with kimono as it is now commonly used in English—i.e., in reference to a loose-fitting bathrobe-like woman's garment. Jim_Lockhart 15:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I disagree that we need to find a translation. The word has been imported into the English language and the article should continue as Kimono. Having said which, there is nothing against adding a section for Meaning ... clothes (derivation .. whatever). Kittybrewster 22:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Obi-belt or sash
Obi is in the section about Japanese clothing articals, however it has no artical. Obi leads to a disambiguation page, on which the only definition of obi as clothing reads a belt worn on a kimono in certain martial arts and does not point one to an artical other than kimono. I left a message on the obi talk page, however to do so I had to first create the talk page, leading me to beleive that no one will see it. I know nothing on the subject of obi, so if someone could create at least a stub on this subject it would help me greatly. --1 black han d 13:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Men's kimonos
Are there any pictures of men in a kimono? All the pictures are of women. --Angr (t·c) 14:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm glad someone asked this. I found one off a person's user page. I expect that since I'm not the group that runs this article (every article has a group of several people or just 1 person and several sockpuppets who run it), I'll be reverted, but still mine should be kept and one of the others removed. Tempoo 18:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Angr, you're the one who plasters their naked picture all over the pedia. Tempoo 18:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Sorry... had to take it off. A photo of a Westerner posing in a kimono in a photo salon is no more befitting of inclusion in an article on kimonos than what a family posing at Silver Dollar City should be included in an article describing western wear. See the link if you don't get the reference.
-
- Ntk53s 11:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks for getting rid of that. It looked like a vanity photo! Now if we could get rid of the ass-shots of the three old bats waiting for a train, all we'd need is a good photo of man (preferably Japanese) in kimono... Jim_Lockhart 11:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Well, thanks for that vanity comment, given that as far as I can remember I have never editted this page and I have no connections with the user that did add the picture. It really helps to say that. elvenscout742 14:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I apologise for the blunt nature of my comment—it was meant to be about the photo within the context of the article, not the photo itself. Hence the "looked like". Nonetheless, I'm sorry for hurting your feelings. However, I do feel that a photo of a gaijin in a kimono in an article about kimono, is kind of incongruent. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 15:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
-
Better a photo of a wester man in a kimono than no photo of a man in a kimono. Exploding Boy 16:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I would be inclined to agree. The article is about clothing, not about race. Still, I should make it clear that this is not an attempt to get my photo reinstated - if others deem it inappropriate then that's that. elvenscout742 21:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I agree that any is better than none, and also that race ideally should not be a factor—which is why I did not remove it myself much earlier, and if the photo gets placed back, I won't touch it unless I think I have something better to replace it with. Nonetheless, I now no that I'm not the only person who thinks it looks incongruent, and I still feel that a photo of a native-looking man walking down the street (or in some other situation where the kimono's features are mostly in view) is preferable to a glossy studio shot picture of a gaijin. Jim_Lockhart 00:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
-
This article really needs a picture of a male in a kimono, and seeing as how its been a couple months and nothing with a Japanese male has been put up maybe you should put up the gaijin male one, or if one of you is Japanese, take a picture of your self dressed up :) Highlandlord 13:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I think a gaïjin (or a black man, for instance) would be great! It would help push the idea that a kimono is not some kind of oddly dressed Japanese woman, but a sort of clothing. I would also like to see a formal gathering (wedding or else) with lots of people wearing lots of different kimonos. That'd be neat.--SidiLemine 16:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- You will find several photos of men in kimono on the section for kimono in Wikipedia Japan. [1]--Tsumugi (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Merging Wafuku
Someone created a Wafuku page. I thought it would be better to mention wafuku at Kimono instead, so I made it a redirect. I'd do the merging myself, but I'm not very knowledgable. --KJ 06:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Well, wafuku seems like it just refers to traditional Japanese-style clothing. Perhaps as a result of very little research in the area, I have not come across the term in English, but if an article can be created on the subject that isn't just a copy-paste of this page with the word "kimono" changed to "wafuku", then it should. But I really don't know. elvenscout742 21:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but was there other information at Wafuku? Kimono is not the only wafuku, so unless we're going to expand this article to discuss all the types of traditional Japanese clothing (which we shouldn't; this topic is big enough to have its own article, and could probably be expanded a lot further), then really what should happen is that Wafuku should be expanded --- for starters, it could have short sections on all the types of clothing discussed in this article --- with a short section on kimono and a link to this page (as the "main article). Exploding Boy 22:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- How odd. I just looked at the history of the Wafuku page, and it appears that the user who started it simply c&pd the Kimono article, changing "kimono" to "wafuku" throughout. The situation gets weirder still; "Traditional Japanese clothing" redirects to Kimono... I suggest that "Traditional Japanese clothing should point either to Wafuku or to a disambiguation page (perhaps List of traditional Japanese clothing), with links to both articles on individual types of clothing. The more I think about it, Wafuku and Japanese clothing should point to Traditional Japanese clothing as well.
-
- ...and, holy crap! There already is a list of Japanese clothing, which can be found at Japanese clothing. What a very odd situation. Ok, to begin with I'm going to redirect both Wafuku and Traditional Japanese clothing to Japanese clothing. Exploding Boy 22:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mink stole?
In a lot of pictures of kimono I've seen (in fact, the picture of the little girl on this article has one) there is a short, white mink-stole-looking t hing they wear around the collar. What is that? I've never seen one on a geisha (my area of knowledge). --Iriseyes 01:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Fur and feather stoles are a relatively recent accessory (as in, from the last decade or so). I don't know exactly when the fashion first appeared, but it's definitely modern, not traditional. As such, a geisha would never have worn a stole, and Kyoto geisha still do not wear them. In my experience, it's young girls and young women who wear stoles, with furisode and houmongi. (http://www.kyoto-wel.com/item/IS81495N00322.html: That catalog page, at least, specifies stoles for wear with those kimono.) Naeelah 05:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- (had to look that up http://www.japaneselifestyle.com.au/fashion/houmongi_kimono.html When a Japanese woman marries, many parents buy their daughters another kimono, the houmongi. The houmongi takes over the role the furisode played in the life when she was single. The houmongi is the married woman's formal kimono. This would be worn when attending Japanese weddings or tea ceremonies.) Chris 06:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] What "period of isolation"? And what does "uniquely Japanese" mean?
I removed the reference to Japanese kimono having “uniquely Japanese” aspects since, in addition to being more “Japan as uniquely unique and distinctive” nonsense, it doesn’t make sense. (I would be happy if someone would define it, of course—say, with a Wikilink to an article that explains it, albeit without the usual brown-and-smelly bull-pen floor decorations.) If my adjustments do not express what what meant with this, go ahead and change them.
Similarly, the reference to kimono undergoing modifications during Japan’s isolation does not seem very well thought-out. I assume the writer is referring to Edo-period sakoku, which did not start in earnest until the 1630s, despite earlier decrees, and which did not really (i.e., substantially) bring about a halt in contact with the Asian continent. This presents two problems: the c.450-year gap between the last-cited date (1193) and the effective beginning of sakoku, and further, what—if any-implications sakoku had for the development of kimono. Is the reference to “Japan’s period of isolation” not just a non sequitor here? If it has significance, then I’d like to suggest a Wikilink to a relevant article—one which, upon reading, will give most readers an idea of the implications of “Japan’s period of isolation” on the development of kimono.
Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 07:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Plural of kimono is kimonos
According to all the English dictionary sources I checked, the plural of kimono is kimonos, not kimono as this article currently treats it. Nohat 02:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
I have fixed all the errors. I noticed in the edit history there was an argument made that the plural of kimono is kimono ("Plural of kimono (Japanese garmet) is kimono; kimonos/kimonoes is plural for kimono, a non-J garment") but I don't believe there are any lexicographical authorities to maintain such a distinction. In English, the plural of kimono is always kimonos. [2] [3] Nohat 02:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it is reasonable to use kimonos as the plural of kimono in English, because it follows regular English rules for making plurals. But in English, as in many languages, a word may in careful usage continue to follow the grammatical rules of its home language. That being the case I continue to use kimono for the plural of kimono; my Japanese is elementary, but I believe that nouns are not given a plural form, the concept of more than one of something is given by context and by modifiers such as counting phrases. Since this article is about the Japanese use of kimono primarily, and is greatly concerned with Japanese terminology, I don't think there can be an objection to the use of kimono as plural.Sallypursell 23:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- It is correct that nouns are not pluralized in Japanese, but this is English, and nouns are pluralized in English. If we were concerned about being accurate to the original Japanese, then we would write 着物 instead of 'kimono'. But we're not, and we don't, and there's no need to slavishly copy Japanese grammar when using a word borrowed long ago from the Japanese lexicon. As I wrote before, I don't know of any English lexicographical authorities (i.e. dictionaries) that suggest that the plural of kimono is kimono (in any context), so I fail to see any reason to abandon the standards of English grammar. Nohat 09:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] hakama
I believe there should be an explanation of the two types of hakama, the ones with divided skirts umanori (originally used for practicality in horseback riding, I believe) and the skirt-style ones. andon-hakama. Would it be true that only umanori are used for martial arts? As well, is it not very common for women to wear hakama out doing errands or other daily activities. in addition, it probably should be mentioned that hakama can be very formal indeed for a man.Sallypursell 23:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- There's already an article on hakama. Do we need a lot of detail here, given that this article isn't about hakama? Exploding Boy 00:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Exploding Boy. What’s the use of cluttering up this article with so much detail on separate subjects, especially when they’re covered elsewhere. Jim_Lockhart 11:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Copyedit
 |
This article, or a portion of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors in June 2007. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
|
[edit] mergers
Given the tiny amount of information given in the two satellite articles suggested for mergers, Hiyoku and Kimono-hiyoku-layering, I would strongly support the merger. Anyone else? Cricketgirl 18:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] sources
I have a good source for this article, but it's the middle of the night right now; if I don't get to editing this article within a few days, someone poke me on my talk page and remind me (I put it on my watchlist so I'll remember). The book I have in front of me is Kimono by Liza Dalby, it's got sources for most of this stuff. Kuronue | Talk 05:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kimonos, Hanfu, et al
As evidence that there are people who don't know that kimonos are specifically Japanese, and that similar garments in neighbouring cultures (note that "neighbours" include those who aren't specifically next-door neighbours) are known by other terms, see this link. -- TheEditrix2 01:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see that it matters enough to mention it. Encyclopedia articles normally describe what things are, without openly fretting about people thinking that they are something else. Beyond that, it doesn't matter whether people use a word more generically than its original application. It perplexes me that every time I read about women's head coverings in yet another Islamic country, the writer takes the trouble to introduce us to the word used in that particular country, as though it the head covering were a substantively different thing from its counterpart elsewhere. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- My problems with including your preferred text are as follows (in order of increasing importance):
- You're using wikt:conflate as a synonym for confuse, when it has a completely different meaning.
- Malaysia and Vietnam can in no way be considered neighbors of Japan.
- The placement of the material in the article overemphasizes the importance of the material to a worldwide audience. In most places in !America, people do just fine with the concept of national dress. I suspect that most Americans get that as well. All your link shows is that the questioner did not know the precise term for Chinese national dress.
- You may include these other types of national dress under "See also" if you like. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wafuku
Can we get a source to verify this? It sounds like it could be a retronym rather than the "original" word. --Ptcamn (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] cost
Is that right, the article says kimono are available for $5.00, and obi for $15.00 (500yen and 1500yen). Aren't there some zeros missing? 70.51.8.110 (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I bet. The cheapest kimono I ever saw was at least $60, and it was in pretty bad shape. Where does it say that? IceUnshattered (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, it looks like the prices marked yen in the "Cost" section should be marked dollars... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.91.144.231 (talk) 06:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] heart and references
they are almost duplicates....why is it there twice....and what is "heart" section?! Noian (talk) 02:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I've cut out the heart Rojomoke (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
