From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Formal dress codes[edit]

Especially for non-westerners and for people with a mother tongue other than English a little more of explanations would be very useful.

Now the codes are just mentioned: "White tie: The highest level of dress code. White tie for men, ...", "Morning dress is rarely mandated, but can be seen ...". I happen to know white tie, but for morning dress I'd have to look at pictures from the Royal Ascot.

Anyone should understand that the highest level of dress code involves something more than a tie substituted for the fig leaves, but that the code is well defined is not obvious. For tuxedo this is clearer, as that word does not have other meanings. For females the list gives even less help: "long dress" is not clear about what kind of long dress is expected.

Are the four mentioned dress codes to most common (western) formal dress codes? Are these likely to be relevant for a traveller (what traveller)? What about non-formal but well defined other dress codes? I suppose somebody going on a business trip will know what he or she is supposed to wear at the meetings (and hopefully what to expect in the evenings), but are there audiences that would be in real need of advice from us?

--LPfi (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I know I'm a bit late coming into this, but does anyone have a suggestion on how to improve on my additions to this section. I know this sounds contradictory but "informal" does traditionally mean suit and tie, while "semi-formal" traditionally requires a three-piece suit. I know this sounds counterintuitive because we typically associate a suit with formal events in modern times but traditionally, that's what it has been. The dog2 (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I suppose these codes are used in invitations and when requesting advice for suitable dress at occasions where the dress code hasn't been specified. Is there a risk of contradictory use, such that your acquaintance would tell you dressing is informal, and when you appear in suit and tie you notice the others being there in Bermuda shorts (or other less extreme but still awkward misunderstandings)? If so, and perhaps in any case, it would be good to specify when these codes are used and interpreted as stated. --LPfi (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I'm concerned about. Older people (up to the baby boomer generation, and possibly some in Gen X and Gen Y) in the main Anglophone countries would know that "semi-formal" means three-piece suit, and "informal" means suit and tie, but I highly doubt many millennials will know that. I think a millennial would interpret "informal" to be a synonym of "casual", and 'semi-formal" to perhaps mean "business casual", but I can't speak for everyone, so could any millennial editors here please provide your two cents on this. The dog2 (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm a 53-year-old American from New York, and I don't know about this meaning for "semi-formal". I understand that to mean good shoes (no sneakers) with formal or semi-formal slacks (no jeans) with a button-down shirt (tie optional, but I like ties and would probably wear one) and a nice sport jacket. I take "informal" literally to mean where what you like and think looks good. I should add that I'm a musician, so I possess two suits, one tuxedo (though I haven't worn one in years because there's nowadays so little call for one), some sport jackets and a selection of suitable button-down shirts and ties, and of course a pair of acceptably formal shoes, so I do know how to dress for the occasion, but I suppose the "Formal dress codes" section is for invited guests at galas at the Plaza Hotel or royal banquets or something? Please explain. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
My dad told me that when he went to university in America and England (in the 1980s), semi-formal meant 3-piece suit, and informal meant suit and tie for university events back in those days. And this exact same description is what is found on Wikipedia. The dog2 (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I went to college 1983-87. I actually don't possess a vest and have never had call for one. Did he go to some upper-crust university like Harvard? I don't think these definitions are in general use in the U.S. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
MIT 1978-82 to be exact. But anyway, if my edit is wrong. Please go ahead and change it to something that is more correct.
By the way, if any British editors see this, it would be much appreciated if you can comment on this so we can know what the situation is in the UK. The dog2 (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
It's clear to me that the edit is not wrong, but the issue is in what situations this code applies. And the answer on my part is none that I've been aware of in the last 53 years as an educated New Yorker from a "middle-class" (both parents professors) background. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────As an educated middle-class Singaporean, I will say this code never applies in Singapore either. In fact, most Singaporeans, including my parents, have never even heard of "white tie", and while my parents do know what "black tie" means, there are many Singaporeans who don't, and you will often see people (arguably wrongly) dressed in a regular business suit and tie at black tie events. In fact, the reason why my dad mentioned it to me is because he only learnt the "proper" definitions of "semi-formal" and "informal" when he was living in America and England, so that is actually very much an oddity from a Singaporean perspective. Of course, to people in my dad's generation, it was considered to be a sign of how "unsophisticated" Singaporeans were compared to the British and Americans (as Singapore was still a developing country back then). The dog2 (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I have expanded this, but I wanted to leave a note here that the systems vary significantly by, well, everything you could imagine. For one thing, Miss Manners has declared that semi-formal doesn't exist as a category (in the US), and for another, at least for women, the distinction between daytime and evening clothing, and business vs social, is much more important than the distinction between any of the informal categories. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


Packing list#Wear links here as See also. I'd suppose such a link to lead to some discussion on what to pack and what to wear, which is mostly absent now. I'd suppose one could include some advice from Packing list#Wear, Cold weather#Clothing, Hot weather#Clothing and Sunburn and sun protection#Clothing, mostly as summaries of those, and elaborate on dressing sensibly for different activities while getting away with little weight etc. Laundry should be linked somewhere.

Quote revert[edit]

AndreCarrotflower just reverted my switch of:


with the edit summary "nope".

I changed this quote because I find it most unpleasant to be hit over the head with a biblical quote while looking for travel advice. I don't see any reason why Wikivoyage should have quotes from Judaism or Christianity on pages unrelated to those topics, especially since the same Old Testament calls for the death penalty for me personally just for loving who I love, people are using the very Genesis story being quoted to discredit evolution, climate change, and who knows what else. The replacement quote keeps the page lively and has the benefit of being humorous in addition to being considerably less divisive. -- Beland (talk) 05:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion is going on in the travellers' pub, but the main reason is that those religious texts are well-known literature. If we cannot have them, what about Samuel Beckett, whose play could not be performed by a student theatre over here because the actors were women? And a thousand other authors who have had opinions upsetting (with good reason) some of our readers. I kind of understand your feelings, but I think that path is troubling. --LPfi (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Beland, I figured it was fine to use a different quote in Electrical systems, because "Let there be light" wasn't so obviously relevant. In this case, the quote is directly relevant, and I oppose removing it. If you consider every sentence from a religious text an assault on your being, I don't think it's our job to shield your eyes, and spare us the sound and fury about the punishments for sexual sins as laid out elsewhere in the Bible - they are not being quoted here. I am personally offended by your personal campaign to excise all Biblical quotes from this site, just as I would be if your target were the Odyssey or any other text that's been considered sacred, beautiful literature and widely influential, and I would respectfully suggest that you concentrate on more important things, like improving content. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
This is not a theatre group that's making deep-thinking art that aims to sometimes make people uncomfortable with challenging material. This is a travel guide that is aiming to give people helpful information. This quote is not helping deliver that information, it's just adding a little decoration to the page. How does choosing a divisive quote when others are available help travellers? It seems like it's going to hinder some by distracting them from the content of the page. If this quote isn't "important", then it shouldn't be a big deal to change it.
On the merits of the particular quote, the Bible quote is a bit boring and cliché, whereas the Bierce quote is funny and fresh - I'd never heard it before. Using the quote here is promoting a story that contains a false narrative of how humans came to wear clothes. In Genesis, the presence of clothes is the sign God uses to uncover the original sin of Eve - eating the apple - which caused Adam and Eve to become shameful of being naked for the first time. This part of the story is quite sexist, blaming women for the fact that humans have to suffer, and also tells all of us that we have inherited something broken inside of us that needs to be repaired, which is rather demoralizing. With respect to clothes specifically, it's promoting the idea that being naked is shameful. This is the product of a conservative, pre-birth-control culture that views sex and the resulting children to be dangerous, and advocates covering up so as to avoid temptation into sin. In real life, people starting wearing clothes because they invented the technology to make them, and found them useful for things like protection and warmth. People should not be ashamed to be naked; that message is offensive to nudists, and is sending a psychologically unhealthy message to everyone about their own bodies. -- Beland (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not going to belabor the points made above by Ikan Kekek, but I am going to say that if Wikivoyage is not "a theatre group that's making deep-thinking art that aims to sometimes make people uncomfortable with challenging material", neither is it a forum for people to feign outrage about innocuous Biblical references for the benefit of fellow offended readers who do not exist outside their own imagination. You're free to believe or not believe as you see fit, of course, but you'll have to forgive the rest of us who are too busy writing a travel guide to be impressed about how woke you are. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
My point was not what the theatre group tried to do (setting up a famous play), but that a famous author apparently made a very sexist decision (maintained by his heirs). That sexism could make people uneasy with reading quotes from him. Likewise, authors having had slaves or not condemned the practice, many authors of the colonial era, many current authors having the wrong view on Iran, Ukraine or Israel, you name it, could be banned on equally good grounds. We should avoid quotes where we are seen to endorse somebody's wicked opinion, but I think few take the Biblical quote as historic truth, and those who do, do so without our help. --LPfi (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, this Biblical quote is just a beautiful passage from a piece of classical literature. In the same way that I appreciate the aesthetic beauty of religious music by Mozart, Handel and Vivaldi despite not being a Christian, I can also appreciate the Bible (and for that matter, the Tanakh, Quran, Vedas, Guru Granth Sahib, etc.) as classical literature without believing that the Biblical account (or the accounts in any of the other holy books in existence, for that matter) is historical fact. I am a scientist, and I most certainly believe in evolution, climate change, and all the stuff that religious fundamentalists are trying to use the Bible to discredit, but that doesn't mean we should censor the Bible from WV. There are already enough problems with excessive PC and outrage fetish on Twitter, YouTube and other social media sites, and I do not want this problem to ever spread to WV. The dog2 (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
LPfi: I think you're imagining some sort of ideological purge I'm not arguing for. If a quote is from a personality whose views are so controversial that readers find it distracting or offensive, I think that is definition a reason to swap it out. I looked through all the quotes on the site; I didn't find any quotes from controversial contemporary figures (like say, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump), nor any quotes from non-Judeo-Christian religious books except for pages related to that religion (where it seems more appropriate to celebrate the beauty of those texts). LPfi and The dog2: It's perfectly possible to find beauty in a sculpture depicting a Confederate general from the American Civil War, but I don't think that's an argument that should be sustained in the face of African-Americans complaining that its presence in the town square (and not a museum on the war) supports and legitimizes the continuing oppression by the descendants of the people that general was fighting for, and makes them feel less than completely welcome. Saying, "hey, if you find that racist, you came to that interpretation without our help" or "well, I'm only thinking about the beauty of the statue, not the reason it's here" doesn't make the statue's presence any less hurtful. The dog2: I'm not arguing that the Bible should be censored from Wiktionary. I have no problems with the article on Christianity and related pages exploring the literary and religious aspects of the Bible. I have no problem including religious attractions in the guide (though personally I avoid them), and adding special guidance for Christian travellers where needed (for example in countries where advocating Christianity is illegal). I just think that using quotes from this highly controversial collection of books to flavor articles unrelated to religion to be unnecessarily distracting and disturbing to some travellers, especially when there are many other beautiful and witty quotes to choose from. -- Beland (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The Bible is not "highly controversial" anywhere other than your own mind, and the existence of "some travellers" who are offended by the Bible quotes is unproven and, in light of the fact that not one traveller has taken offense at the quotes in over 10 years of this site's existence, dubious to say the least. Now, again, please stop the concern trolling and either contribute constructively or be on your way. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────And for that matter, I'd like to point out that Ikan Kekek is Jewish, and yet, I have never even once seen him demand that we remove all mentions of Richard Wagner on the account of Wagner having espoused some anti-Semitic views (and Wagner was often cited by Hitler to justify the atrocities that the Nazis committed). Wagner is actually controversial because of that, so if a Jew can deal with Wagner being mentioned in our articles without being "triggered", an atheist should be able to do the same with the Bible, which is not nearly as controversial, being quoted. Get over it and actually contribute constructively to our articles. The dog2 (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I've been contributing constructively to articles; this discussion only started because one of my edits which I thought was an improvement got reverted. I'm sure there have been readers who have grumbled at the Bible quotes, just like people grumble at Christmas music in stores in October. I'm sure must of them wouldn't know how to register a complaint if they decided they wanted to, but for most people this is just a minor annoyance. The quotes certainly haven't been there the entire time the site has existed. "Triggered" is a phrase from the culture wars which is pretty demeaning to people who experience anxiety attacks in response to reminders of traumatic events. My reaction is far from trauma, more like vehement disagreement. I have no problem with Christians and no problem with the quote from MLK invoking the Almighty on Postwar United States. I really don't understand why people give zero weight to whether or not the quotes are offensive, when it seems there's very little downside to changing them. If the sweater quote had been put in first, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, because there's no editorial reason for it not to be there. -- Beland (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Since when is the Bible not controversial? People have been getting killed over differing interpretations of it for hundreds of years. I don't know if you live in the U.S., but in cities here you'll see people walking around with signs with Bible verses, knocking on doors, and yelling at people on the subway to repent or experience eternal hellfire. Religious affiliation played a huge role in the last presidential election, especially Christian vs. Muslim issues. The very story that's quoted here is used to deny climate change and assert women should obey their husbands. -- Beland (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Split the difference[edit]

Maybe we should find a different quote, maybe something like

Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

No. This has become a matter of principle. If there were a valid rationale for changing the quote beyond one user's non-travel-related personal crusade to scrub Wikivoyage clean of any Judeo-Christian references, we would hear him out. But the user has been pretty explicit about his reasons for doing what he does, and Wikivoyage is not going to participate in the charade. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. And the Biblical quote is much more beautiful. Shall we start changing all the pagebanners and photos that include Christian houses of worship or depictions of Biblical scenes in them, too, to humor this one reader who just can't stand any references to Judaism or Christianity? I guess Rome/Vatican is out? No fucking way! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
AndreCarrotflower: What principle are you defending? That Christianity is good and should be spread? That travellers are aided by choosing controversial quotes over neutral ones in general-topic articles? As I said above, I think references to Judeo-Christian religion are perfectly fine in articles about those religions, in attraction listings, and in special guidance for people of those religions. I'm not sure what type of "charade" can happen when everyone plainly states what their motivations are. Yes, I find the Bible to be a bigoted collection of books, and I don't think it's appropriate to have quotes from it peppering pages of the travel guide unrelated to religion. I don't see why the project has to be protected from elimination of them, especially given I've been finding fresh and neutral quotes and not just leaving empty holes. -- Beland (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Hobbitschuster: How do you feel about the sweater quote I originally tried to add? -- Beland (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Ikan Kekek: 1.) I'm not the only non-Christian in the world who's bothered when they run into Bible thumping; most such people just roll their eyes and are quietly annoyed. 2.) As I said above, I would definitely argue to keep religions attractions and all the content that goes with them. The idea of removing everything Judeo-Christian from the project is simply a strawman argument which is easy to poke holes in. -- Beland (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
It's not a controversial passage, and you don't get to individually determine that every passage from the Bible is controversial or edgy, let alone that it should be censored here because you have such goddamned tender eyes. It's there simply because it's beautiful and apt. You aren't going to get anywhere with your crusade here, so I suggest you quit while you're behind, as this discussion is wasting time at this point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I added the quote. As with other Biblical quotes, the intention was not to proselytize Christianity or creationist belief. Currently the Bible is widely quoted on Wikivoyage; partially because it is a piece of classical literature well-known in the English-speaking world. I would welcome illustrative quotes from other sources; let them be religious, anti-religious or neutral towards religion. /Yvwv (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
We can't take away quotes because some people don't like the quote or in this case, don't like the source of the quote. The Bible doesn't represent my own beliefs and values but that doesn't mean it should be censored whenever a quote fits well with a particular article. This will create a slippery slope where every quote would have to be removed, because every quote or source would offend somebody in the world. This is getting out of hand. The only reason why a quote should be replaced if there is another more relevant quote that will make the article more interesting or informative for the traveller. Otherwise it stays. Gizza (roam) 00:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Gizza: That's a slippery slope fallacy; there's a big difference between "Joan Rivers once said something offensive" and "millions of people are arguing over this book all the time, and it nearly ruined my life", and saying the latter is a good justification does not imply the former is a good justification.
I don't think the original quote here would pass standards and practices muster at a professional mainstream travel publication. At least here in the U.S., you don't get Bible quotes in neutral national newspapers, magazines, TV shows, or radio programs; usually religion doesn't come up unless it has something to do with an attraction, cultural celebration, or history. To add those in as random bits of entertaining fluff would give the publication a distinctly conservative feeling, which is to be avoided if the publication wants to be perceived as fair and balanced. If those publications removed everything that was potentially offensive to anyone, they wouldn't have much to say about where the best things are. I think it's a bit disturbing to say "our publication shouldn't care about avoidably alienating minority groups", but it also doesn't fit with the project's goal of being a travel guide for everyone.
If you want to ignore all that and decide this on artistic grounds, then I think this swap is still defensible. I find the Bierce quote above more interesting and relevant, which is why I chose it above all the other clothing-related quotes I found online. The old quote refers to a fictional story from a culture different than my own, and involves making clothes from plants, which is not something I'm going to do when getting ready for my trip. What's the takeaway from this quote? Don't be naked? The Bierce quote makes an interesting observation about our reasons for wearing clothes. The takeaway I get from that is that we should think about why we are wearing what we are wearing, which is great advice for a traveller. For me personally, if I pack my clothes mindlessly, and if I don't consider the conditions at my destination realistically rather than fearing what might happen on my trip, I tend to overpack. For readers that skip past this deeper thought-provoking lesson, the new quote has the benefit of being funny. The old quote isn't funny, and I'm not sure what entertainment it provides to casual readers. For me, it reminds me that Christian influence is the reason I can't safely travel to places like Jamaica or southern Nigeria, which is sad. How do you feel about the Bierce quote on artistic grounds? -- Beland (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Bierce's line is already used at Cold_weather#Clothing, though it is not attributed there as a quote & correcting that might be a good idea.
I'm getting distinctly irritated both by User:Beland's apparently generic objection to biblical quotes & User:AndreCarrotflower's "No. This has become a matter of principle. ... Wikivoyage is not going to participate in the charade." I'd say such quotes should definitely be deleted where they are irrelevant or only marginally relevant — e.g. Talk:Electrical_systems#The_Bible_quote_isn't_even_remotely_about_electricity.
Elsewhere, I do not accept either Beland or Andre's apparent notion of the principles involved. As for any other edit, if someone can replace a quote with a better one, that is fine. Otherwise, leave it alone. Pashley (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
With what seems close to a consensus, I will say that at first, I supported the Genesis quotes on both the Clothes and Electrical systems. However, I have to say that there is a clear difference between the two quotes. The Genesis quote for electrical systems isn't really about electrical systems, and the Adam & Eve quote about clothes is definitely related to clothes and is truly shown as a masterpiece quote when you consider the article's context. The only thing I'm worried about with Biblical quotes in general is the difference between KJV/NIV, but I would stick with KJV because, at least in my opinion, its use of the English language is far superior. Selfie City (talk) 23:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Cultural appropriation[edit]

Is the issue of cultural appropriation really relevant to a traveller? I have not been to the United States since the controversy emerged; but whatever its extent, it seems to be a domestic issue, and not travel-related. /Yvwv (talk) 09:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I would say there are two possible travel-related scenarios - 1. If you are an American travelling overseas, let's say to India, and you saw this sari you really loved and decided to buy it. If you wear it back home, you could offend an American of Indian descent and be accused of "cultural appropriation". 2. If you are travelling to multiple countries including the U.S. and let's say you travelled in South Korea and decided to buy a hanbok that you really liked before heading to the U.S. You could potentially offend a Korean-American and be accused of "cultural appropriation". In both those cases, someone actually from India or South Korea would not be offended, but it is a much more touchy issue among American millennials. If you remember the case about Katy Perry wearing a kimono on stage, or the girl wearing a cheongsam to her prom, people actually from Japan and China respectively were not offended, but it offended Japanese-American and Chinese-American netizens respectively. It's true that wearing a white ethnic costume (eg. French or Bavarian) would not produce the same controversy as wearing a non-white one, but that's too much detail for us to cover here.
Of course, we can't possibly provide a full political commentary here, and neither are we here to use WV to advance any particular political position. But given that the two incidents I mentioned made news headlines and cause a massive controversy on Twitter, I feel that not mentioning this is like ignoring the elephant in the room. Of course, we don't want to overstate the issue by saying that all Americans will be offended, or even that all left-wing Americans would be offended as that is simply not true, but I think we should at least mention the possibility that you could offend someone in the U.S. by wearing an ethnic costume that is not from your ethnicity. The dog2 (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Wait, when did East Asians become not white? And what about white Latin@s? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps I am just turning into a curmudgeon as I age, but I see nearly all the "cultural appropriation" stuff as whining which we should take pains to explicitly ignore, much as another discussion suggests ignoring objections to biblical quotes. I'd say most arguments based on various sorts of political correctness should be ignored or mocked. Pashley (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't think WV should give undue weight to a marginal phenomenon. Serious incidents related to cultural appropriation have made news headlines just because they are so unusual. The article has yet to mention many risk scenarios which are at least as likely; including Buddhist/Jainist swastika patterns worn in the Western world, intentionally explicit logos such as FCUK, counterfeit brand clothing confiscated by customs officers, or logos which cannot be displayed at televised sport events. / Yvwv (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I don't care what people want to wear as long as it's not something blatantly bigoted like a T-shirt with a "F*** black people" slogan on it. And as a Singaporean of Chinese descent who speaks Mandarin fluently, I was not offended by the girl wearing a cheongsam to the prom, and when the controversy broke, and what I was actually offended by was the fact that she was subject to all that abuse on Twitter over such a non-issue. But I have spoken to American university students, and it is true that a significant number of people (although I would not say a majority, as I have not surveyed the entire American university student population and therefore can't be sure) in this demographic are offended by people "culturally appropriating" the traditional costumes of other ethnic groups. In fact, some universities, such as Yale, have issued advisories to students to avoid wearing non-white (white as in European, to be clear) ethnic costumes for Halloween as that would constitute "cultural appropriation" and thus be racist. As much as I agree with Pashley's sentiments on this issue, let's also not forget that our job at WV is to inform people about local sensitivites where they exist, and we're not in the business of writing commentaries on whether the local sensitivities are reasonable or not.
With regards to Yvwv's comments on swastikas and the like, I most certainly think it would be a good idea to cover those things here as well. The dog2 (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
According to WV:OBVIOUS, we should expect readers to exercise common sense. There is however lots of room for confusion. A related case is the straw goat in Gävle, bizarrely famous as a target for arson. While most suspects have been local, at least once a foreign tourist was deceived to burn it down, in the delusion that he got an honorable assignment. Should Wikivoyage discourage readers from burning the goat? Not according to the last edit. [1] /Yvwv (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
In this case, the potential for offence would not be obvious to a foreigner. I've worn Malay and Indian ethnic costumes back in Singapore, and nobody has ever been offended by it. And as I mentioned, nobody actually from China was offended by the fact that the girl wore a cheongsam; it was only Americans of Chinese descent that got offended. The fact that a significant number of American university students will get offended by such things, while virtually nobody else, even from the actual countries of origin, does, makes this a very American issue, and not necessarily obvious to travellers from elsewhere. The dog2 (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
The concept of cultural appropriation was brought up in Sweden a few years ago, with reference to the American debate. Getting offended was a bit of a fad among progressives and hipsters; but today, actual concerns are unusual, and most people look back at the concept as a joke. And even when it comes to wearing non-Western traditional clothing, my impression is that these incidents are very unlikely (travel from country A, buy traditional clothes in country B, and causing offense by wearing them in country C). /Yvwv (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Damn edit conflict! I wear batik shirts often in warm weather and have gotten nothing but compliments, and I look like a white guy, so I don't know where the danger is coming from in the U.S., but I think it's OK to cover this in a single sentence. However, this is a way, way less serious problem than wearing the colors of an opposing gang or locally hated football (i.e., soccer) club, which could get you killed or assaulted in some places. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Billy Connolly (now Sir Billy) has a fine standup routine about the two Glasgow teams, Rangers & Celtic. Pashley (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Second-hand and vintage clothing[edit]

Can any general advice be provided on second-hand and vintage clothing? Any connection to nostalgia or art and antiques shopping? /Yvwv (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Sport clothes[edit]

Casual sport clothes such as baseball caps, tracksuits and running shoes are common everyday clothing in most of the United States. In many parts of western Europe (as mentioned in the article) adults usually wear them only for sport or spectator sport. In Europe, sportswear might also be associated with subcultures (such as the chavs in Britain); though careless American tourists who wear them, might be framed for being just careless American tourists. Do you know any sources for the etiquette of wearing sport clothes in public? /Yvwv (talk) 11:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)