Talk:Corset controversy

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SwitchTilt.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"Corsets, also called bodices or stays,"

That is lie. Corsets is a reform dress, a invention by Roxey Ann Caplin A bodices is without bones Stays hanging on her shoulders. Unlike a corset which rests on the hip.Haabet 23:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear Haabet,

Thank you for pointing out my error in regard to 'bodices'. I have corrected it.

Heather

Actually, this isn't correct - it's just a question of context. "Bodice"/"Pair of bodies" was common in the 17th century, "stays" in the 18th century through at least the middle of the 19th, and "corset" from ca. 1795 through the 1920s. --Cassidy Percoco (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

MoS

The article is in a right mess as regards MoS and italics. Can someone fix this? If not I am happy to in a couple of days. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

State of play - prose, content, MoS

I have started to apply MoS, in the first place by turning italicised quotes into quote templates.

There are some other issues though:

• Most of the article is a massive set of quotes, with little content.
• Many of the quotes are not attributed to their authors/sources
• refs not after punctuation/gaps after last words and punc. before ref begins

It seems as tough this article needs a good seeing to by someone from one of the interested projects ... I will request attention from them on their talk pages once I have finished de-italicising. Chaosdruid (talk) 08:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

lifted from another website

fyi I would guess that the main reason for the lack of adherence to MOS and the general style of the article is that it seems to be verbatim lifted from this site. I would say that we can probably remove much of the content that's here now.Markleci (talk) 11:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's the other way around. Note on the other site that it credits this article as its source. — btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Minor edit

In the second to last quote of the Corsets and fashion section, I corrected the line:

"... We measure the corset, pulling he measurements snug."

And added a 't' to the 'he' to make the assumed word 'the'. The assumed corrected line appears as:

"... We measure the corset, pulling the measurements snug."

This makes complete sense to me, correct me if I'm mistaken.

Fortlansing (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. That's what the Edit tab is for! Newjerseyliz (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

rollback

Sorry but I had to rollback the article. Reason, when the quotes were deleted, the references to those quotes were not removed from the article, so the article prepared readers for a quote by directly stating so, and then there was nothing there. This happened at least twice while I was reading the article-(version that I rolled-back). So, sorry about that but there was so much that was removed I just felt that it was better to bring it back to the most-complete previous state, including the header-tags asking that 'excessive quotes' be fixed. If any editor decides to undo my rollback-please read the article that you have left and fix those empty quote references.24.0.133.234 (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC) edited to add-please see the last sentence in the "marriage" section for an example of the problem-ty (old version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corset_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=611453852)24.0.133.234 (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Assignment Goal: Quote Reduction

Hello Wikipedians! I will be working with this article as a part of an editing class at my university. My main focus will be to reduce the lengthiness of the article by condensing the quotes. This task has been taken on in the past which can be viewed in this version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corset_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=611453852. My goal is to work through this article to see what worked and what needed to be improved on so that this can be implemented into the current article. SwitchTilt (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Update on Quote Reduction

After working with this article more, I see why it was rolled back. The article does in fact contain too many extensive quotes, but these quotes are what make up the body and narrative of the article. I've been attempting to move the quotes into wikiquote, as was recommended by the tag. From there, I will finish working with the article in reducing the quoted material in my sandbox (User:SwitchTilt/sandbox). Basically, my thoughts are to summarize the information from the quotes and link the wikiquote page which would contain the quotes. I will update again once this is complete. Feel free to look through progress on it and/or to contribute there as well. SwitchTilt (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

'End' of the controversy

There is a section in the article discussing the end of the controversy which discusses at length the ways in which the corset began to lose significance as an item of clothing. This is not the same as the end of the controversy (which is by all means continuing today with rhetoric surrounding the presentation of corsetry as cumbersome or entrapping) and ought not to discuss simply how the corset ceased to be a fundamental part of clothing. There are also statements that require citations/are too vague (the hobble skirt did not 'continue' for a few years; this is not how we ought to speak of fashion). I will carry out some of these changes when I get the chance but thought I would mark some of them here in case anybody else has any information to do so themselves.Becsh (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

On the End of the Controversy

As the controversy continues to this day, modern perspectives from historical fashion experts and their research should be noted. Modern evidence indicates that certain things were much less prevalent than represented (tightlacing) as well as highlighting the need to have the garment correctly worn and accustomed to and broken in. Also certain misunderstandings such as 'breaking a bone' actually referring to the whalebone of the corset should probably be mentioned. Some historians have also gone on record to state that the controversy was effectively created as social pressure and doctors began to attribute various conditions to being caused by the garment. If the controversy is to be addressed as it has not ended, the modern understanding of the controversy should replace the end section and be split into the end of the garment in daily use and the modern arguments and understandings in the historical context. I am not a historical fashion researcher or expert but anyone who actually has an account might want to reach out to some of them that specialize in that era for their sources to be included and information added. 2020/06/04 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.41.211.181 (talk) 08:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Issues, issues, issues.

There are a number of problems here besides Manual of Style violations.

• This article still says that corsets are also called a pair of bodies and also called stays. They are not. The bodies are pre-stays and stays are pre-corsets. They are different animals from different time periods.
• This article is hardly neutral in its point of view, offering long, extensive quotes by persons who were so negative, creating a controversy that was barely in evidence in the 19th Century. Before the mass manufacture of bras, nearly ALL women wore corsets in the 19th Century, from the queen of England on down to milk maids. If they were dangerous and uncomfortable, women would not have so universally accepted them, especially women who did hard manual work.
• The design and construction of 19th Century women's clothing had a lot to do with the silhouette of women. Busts were exaggerated with heavy rouching, laces, ribbons, pleats, and other design devices, while the hip and derriere were exaggerated by the use of hip pads, bum pads, bustles, and many petticoats beneath the skirt. The result would be the optical illusion of a "wasp waist", not a real disablingly tiny waist.
• The photos you include (I think that they are actresses, but can't remember their names) are likely examples of doctoring. Sure, there was no Photoshop back then, but photographers were well-able and known to manipulate images to make waists look smaller at a client's request.

This article does not seem to be very well researched. Surely, authors, you can do better. Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Further thoughts.

• An analysis of actual antique clothing will show that very little of it was made for women with 19" waists. The items that were made that small were for young teens or women who were naturally very petite, tiny women. The vast majority of items have waists well into the 20 inch range and more.
• This article completely overlooks men's corsetry. You found no controversy with that?

Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

"If they were dangerous and uncomfortable, women would not have so universally accepted them, especially women who did hard manual work."

Oppressed groups are forced to accept many things, even if they do not like them. Many dress reformers and female doctors spoke out against the medical effects of corsets, even as they continued to wear them due to the social consequences of not doing so. That is not proof that corsets were actually awesome. Luiysia (talk) 20:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that women who did manual labor did not wear undergarments which were as structured as what was fashionable, usually opting for loosely laced corsets or corsets made with thick cord for boning instead of whalebone or steel. Hence the widely-cited aphorism (dating 1762 but referenced through the 19th century): "Now a shape in neat stays, now a slattern in jumps." Luiysia (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

The Lancet

Citation 4 points to a The Lancet article published in 1785, but The Lancet is published since 1823. I think this is wrong. I also could not find the original article. Caleindos (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

And Jean-Jacques Rousseau died in 1778. 131.188.6.20 (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Link rot

It looks like most of the newspaper archive links are down. I think pqarchiver moved to archive.proquest.com - is anyone able to provide working links? Luiysia (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Quotes from letters to publications

How many of these letters quoted were written by genuine schoolgirls, models or shop assistants? To me they read as the products of salacious fantasy, almost certainly written by men. Richmondie (talk) 23:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems like the common strategy of the corset defender crowd that's sprung up lately to attribute all criticism of corsets to some unidentified group of anti-corset men. Even if men were writing in pretending to be women to get corsets off the shelves, I don't see how this could be proven or disproven over a hundred years later. Luiysia (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)