Talk:Pointed hat

People using pointed hats in history[edit]

This piece of information seems off-topic:

Similar hats were traditionally worn by women of Lapland, and perhaps coincidentally, the Mi'kmaw people of Atlantic Canada. Pointed hats were also worn in ancient times by Saka (Scythians),and shown on Hindu temples and Hittite reliefs.

The subject at hand is the existence of pointed hats among women. If any information here is really relevant, please explain how.--Wiglaf 11:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The point about pointed hats is that they where not unique to Europe.This article continues to imply that the Tocharians where europeans.By including just the 'whitches hats of Europe' re-affirms this white supremist attitude.I therefore have replaced the old entry.212.85.12.211

I disagree with your accusations of white supremacist attitude in this article. You should read assume good faith, and you should also explain this in the text. Moreover, the connections with western Europe are based on textiles and language and not on pointed hats.--Wiglaf 14:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

how about a pointy hats and the Aryan nation article? seriously, how about pointed hats? There could be some interesting results in comparing them (ok, so that's OR). dab (ᛏ) 14:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again the point is that scythians had pointed hats who where Iranians? so why should we associate these textiles with Tocharians at all, they could equally be associated with Iranians not Tocharians.Unless one is trying to impose the idea this mummies originate from Europe for which evidence is lacking.212.85.12.211

Oooh, I see. Your main interest in Wikipedia is to combat the theory that any cultural influences, or people, may have spread from Western Europe in pre-historic times. Unfortunatly, you will have to abide to the same cite sources as the rest of us.--Wiglaf 14:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I base my evidence on current Genetic research, not on European Nationalist dogma.Also you have just proved my point ,your aim is to prove they were.I am on a losing streek here ,since I don't have time to argue ,but just to add the Hittite hats is a valid entry, even in this article a contributer has made a link with Hittite/Tocharian languages.Also the removal of Hittite/Hindu/Scythians hats weakens your argument of Indo-European origin.

I could not care less about European nationalist dogmas. I do care about the quality of Wikipedia articles and your POV-pushing has only done the article damage. Cite sources!--Wiglaf 16:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you base your evidence on Genetic research... soo... you add the Hittite pointy hats? Do you even realize how weird that is? Why the hell would you bother with the shape of their hats if you have conclusive genetic evidence? I would be very interested in these Genetic analyses of the mummies, please do discuss them! dab (ᛏ) 15:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link [1].This supports mallory's recent work above.Theres no Y chromsome data yets,soon to be published.For y chromosome I refer you to the above and this paper[2];notice in this paper that haplogroup I only accounts for 1.5%of central asians (its probably due to russian influence or even Roman).

Frankly, due to the fact that most migrations have been led by warbands/armies, i.e. men, your link has little value. By the same logic most of Latin America was never colonized by Spain, since most of the mtDNA is indigenous.--Wiglaf 16:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

agree & looking forward to the Y data. But let's do a pointy hat article, Wiglaf! Beginning with the golden hats dab (ᛏ) 16:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great article on the golden hats Dab! I will check my copy of Barber's book and see what I can find later tonight.--Wiglaf 19:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. If that is really a hat, it can only be so in the sense the Crown of St. Edward is a hat, i.e., a weighty, topheavy thing used only in a ritual context, and just maybe, like St. Edward's Crown, for a coronation. --FourthAve 10:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

indeed, there was much uncertainty whether they had actually been worn as hats, and for some time they were just referred to as 'gold-sheet cones' (Goldblechkegel). But there seems to be a general consensus now, that they were indeed ceremonial priestly hats, see the four extensive German articles I have linked by interwiki... Obviously, they have been linked with the pointy witches' hats of folklore, but that is evidently anybody's guess. dab (ᛏ) 10:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

since we're being offtopic, I was wondering about Snorri's "Age of Burning" now referenced at Menhir (Iron Age) because of the standing stones mentioned. Can that comparison be extended to Urnfields? After all, the Tumulus culture seems to have buried their dead, not burned them, while the Urnfields show cremation, but I don't know about a connection with menhirs. The Urnfields are a conspicuous aberration from the usual 'Kurgan' burials, and if tumuli were re-introduced with the Iron Age, wouldn't that hint at migration rather than just evolution (i.e. the Proto-Celts spread from the East (Hallstatt) from about 800, replacing the cremating people with funny golden hats, and re-introducing kurgans)? In this case the golden-hats people wouldn't be pre-Proto-Celts, but a different IE branch altogether, either completely unknown, or maybe the pre-Proto-Italians? did the Italic people practice cremation? Or the pre-Proto-Germans? dab (ᛏ) 10:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is a difficult question, as burial traditions could vary, within the same culture. Stone circles, ship graves, stone ships, solitary menhirs and barrows were constructed in Sweden during the Age of Burning. But, IIRC, Denmark, including southernmost Sweden used inhumation, at this time, and still the Swedes and the Danes spoke the same dialect.--Wiglaf 11:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the question should be asked as

when and where did cremation begin (1300 BC? Urnfield? Note that Patroclus is also cremated, at about the same time)? Is there significantly earlier evidence of burning?
when and where did cremation end. Not in the North, it would appear, since the Vikings burned their dead down to the time of Ibn Fadlan. Are there Celtic cremations, however? Italic?

All I know is that the Beaker people (and the Tocharians/Tarim people, to make a tenuous connection to this talkpage) did not cremate, down to ca. 1900. If cremation arose among the post-PIE tribes, its spread would give priceless information as to migration and cultural influence. People don't change from inhumation to cremation on a whim, there needs to be some significant paradigm shift underlying the change, I imagine. dab (ᛏ) 12:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a very interesting lead.--Wiglaf 13:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Patroclus was cremated, along with some noble Trojan youths, dogs, etc, the ashes gathered up, put in an urn, then buried in a tumulus, i.e., a Kurgan. But also note that the Mycenaean kings were presumably buried. Also note that the Romans followed both customs, depending on family. I suggest an absorbed substrate is at work; they might become assimilated in just about everything except for a few religious items, of which burial/cremation is certainly one of them. --FourthAve 14:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- yes, but where is the substrate? afaik, beaker, funnelbeaker, vinca, they all inhumate. is there a neolithic 'ghost' culture somewhere, invisible to us because nobody was ever buried? dab (ᛏ) 14:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- This is way off topic; perhaps we should cut/paste the whole conversation to Urnfield talk. The appearance of cremation has something to do with this horizon. My suspicion is that it has something to do with religion. --FourthAve 15:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For y chromosome I refer you to the above and this paper[3];notice in this paper that haplogroup I only accounts for 1.5%of central asians (its probably due to russian influence or even Roman).212.85.12.211

Well, this article states that the Central Asians are a pool of populations from Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgystan. This covers a huge area and it would be strange if they could find many Tocharian genes in that mix. Show me a Y-chromosome analysis of the mummies and I may start to take your racially motivated theories seriously.--Wiglaf 13:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

note that the Iron Age "horned helmets" don't look so much 'horned' as sporting two perfect cones: [4]. dab (ᛏ) 16:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, or perhaps breasts. The usual Wagnerian horned/winged helmets are 19th century anachronisms (the protruberances would have made the wearer far more vulnerable in battle). Such a helmet could have only been a ritual item, perhaps a crown. --FourthAve 16:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

maybe not a 19th century anachronism, if you consider the ballast worn by some 14th century jousters :o) dab (ᛏ) 18:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pointy hat Scyths[edit]

The Sakâ tigrakhaudâ ('Sacae with pointed hats') were defeated in 520/519 BCE by the Persian king Darius I the Great, who gave this tribe a new leader. One of the earlier leaders was killed, the other, named Skunkha, was taken captive and is visible on the relief at Behistun. (It is possible that Darius created a new tribe from several earlier tribes.) Herodotus calls the Sakâ tigrakhaudâ the Orthocorybantians ('pointed hat men'), and informs us that they lived in the same tax district as the Medes. This suggests that the Sakâ tigrakhaudâ lived on the banks of the ancient lower reaches of the Amudar'ya, which used to have a mouth in the Caspian Sea south of Krasnovodsk. The pointed hat is a kind of turban. From: http://www.livius.org/sao-sd/scythians/scythians.html

Should we disambiguate to "Pointy hat (tribe)" or just incorporate the information into this article & the Scythian one? --Jpbrenna 17:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I have forgotten the Scythians! the latter option, I should say, mention them both here and on Scythians. The tribe, it it deserves its own article, is not called "the pointy hats" in English, it should rather be at Orthocorybantians, I suppose. dab (ᛏ) 17:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Best article ever[edit]

So so good. -58.105.75.167 09:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. I especially love that the title is not 'pointed hat'. That would be dumb.

this is a...good...article, but it needs a description of what a pointy hat is...

Just the name Pointy hat makes me laugh. The fact that Wikipedia has a whole article about pointy hats is funny also.

Yes.... one somehow feels that it should be "pointy", and not "pointed", per common usage - but I'd love to know why we say "pointy", since it doesn't really mean anything.... TheMadBaron 07:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why not? pointed is as it were from a transitive verb to point ("to give a point to"?) while pointy is an adjective to the noun point. Thus a pointy hat is simply a hat that has a point. point could apparently mean 'sharp tip' from 1330 or so [5]. I am not sure why the expression has such a playful ring to it, possibly because it became fixed in children's stories? I think that 'pointy sword' for example sounds similarly 'childish' while 'sharp sword' sounds perfectly alright. But a sharp sword (well-whetted edge) is not necessarily the same as a pointy sword (acutely tapering point). I am not sure how to describe a sword with a sharp point without making people chuckle. More 'serious' descriptions of the hats could be 'tapering headgear' or simply 'conical hat'? But what about the Judenhut which is not exactly conical but has more of a sort of spike? dab (ᛏ) 08:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That, I suppose, would be a spikey hat. TheMadBaron 09:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

are you arguing that a spike isn't pointy? should we mention the Pickelhaube? :) dab (ᛏ) 09:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came to the Discussion page to enter a comment saying Best Article Ever, and am delighted to find the remark has already been made. Let me then say that the article is notable, valuable, and vindicates the faith that contributors and users have had in Wikipedia. 69.203.146.16 (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)TNH[reply]

Examples of modern people wearing pointy hats[edit]

Could someone upload an image of a modern person wearing a pointy hat? Like that photograph of a young Kazakh lady sporting an ornate pointy hat in the Wikipedia article on Kazakhs, or a picture of a Japanese man in full ceremonial court dress. I'm looking forward to seeing some good examples of modern people wearing pointy hats. Ebizur 08:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking because the United States' National Cosplay Day is this week, right? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 17:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'pointy' is a silly word[edit]

Would any object if I move this to 'conical hat'? ~ crazy tales_{-Stalk My Contribs!!!-} 16:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conical hat already exists, as a disambiguation page between hats that go "up" (pointy hats) and hats that go "out" (coolie hats). --Damian Yerrick (☎) 17:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about traffic cone-like hat? (: ~ crazy tales_{-Stalk My Contribs!!!-} 13:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what, precisely, is "silly" about the word pointy? It is a straightforward adjective meaning "with a point". You probably mean to say that "pointy hat" is a collocation familiar from children's story, and thus strikes you as unencyclopedic as "great green dragon" would. The point, however, is, that we would still have a great green dragon article if there were great green dragons, and pointy hats do undeniably exist. Allow me to say that your coning of "traffic cone-like hat" strikes me as rather silly. dab (𒁳) 13:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about "pointed hat"? Would that be any better? D aniel (‽) 17:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is silly is that "Pointy" falls on the average American ear, at least, as an childish word. Having an article at "Pointy Hat" sounds a lot like keeping this article at "wee-wee." "Pointed" would be a much more adult-sounding synonym. Nentuaby (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Pointy" is not a childish word. Adding Y to a known word to make an adjective has a legitimate linguistic pedigree and does not necessarily connote a lack of seriousness: compare heraldic terms such as chevronny, chequy and lozengy. Additionally, "pointy" and "pointed" do not quite mean the same thing - "pointed" is simply an objective physical description, while "pointy" indicates a subjective impression that the point is a defining feature of the hat. The article's current title correctly identifies the aesthetic rather than merely geometric analysis that is properly applied to clothing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.76.105 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds childish to me. It's like describing the path of a river as "Wiggly" when Undulating might be a better term. Just my own subjective opinion, you understandSaxophobia (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, as do most recent comments. Johnbod (talk) 10:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the name should be changed. The word "pointy", as has been ... pointed out above (ugh !)... is correct, though it seems to be another example of Wikipedia dragging up not commonly used words for the sake of their use, with writers trying to show off some kind of intellectual dexterity. However it's very silly, and the editors know that ("yes, it sounds silly, but I'll use it anyway since very strictly its correct. Its the reader's fault for finding it silly..."). Pointed hat is a milder term, which does not arouse feelings of humor or unfamiliarity from readers. 118.90.101.9 (talk) 12:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "pointed hat" is the obvious alternative & seems to have concensus. Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is sillier necessarily worse? I see no reason to change the name of an article merely because some people find the word "pointy" to be sillier than "pointed". Both are correct and it's already at pointy.99.240.237.9 (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I hate you people for this gross assault on whimsy. I hope you all wind up as accountants for a store that sells brown paper bags. DevinOfGreatness (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(back to margin) Lol. But back to the point: if two article titles can both convey the same information, it makes sense to choose the one which does it "better", however you define it. In this case, one is objectively worse, if the above is to be believed---the alternative can describe the contents without jarring the reader. Its clear that there's a disconnect between who this article is for: is it for the writers to satisfy their own urges to be creative in writing articles, or is it for the readers who should be able to know what they want to know without any other interference? Surely the title as it is atm fails the second.

Though the most silly thing is that we can write hundreds of words on stuff like this. Just change the title! 118.90.50.254 (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the article back to "Pointed", and strongly object to my previous move being described as "in bad faith" by DevinOfGreatness, who admits his only motive is "whimsy". Better off on Myspace? Johnbod (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myspace? I fail to see how pages of excruciatingly useless minutia qualify as whimsy. But back to the real point; either title conveys the purpose of the article perfectly, however one provokes a bunch of people writing "this is the best page ever" on the talk page, while the other is boring and ordinary. We can argue grammar semantics till the cows come home, but no ordinary reader will care in the slightest which is slightly more linguistically stable. It comes down to plain preference of "seriousness" versus "silliness" and there is no reason why one should take precedence. I also find it awesome that we are arguing about the title of an article on pointy hats, I don't know how people supporting the serious side of this argument can reconcile that.99.240.237.9 (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems, by some wizardry, I forgot to log in beforeDevinOfGreatness (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, you are revert-warring. If you want to move an article, the burden is on you to seek consensus first. I have created this article in 2005: I do not own it, but in questions of stylistics (as in BC vs. BCE, British vs. American English etc.) we do have the practice of honouring historical first usage. --dab (𒁳) 13:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is ample evidence of concensus to move above. Sadly baby-talk is not protected by a WP guideline as British vs. American English are. But you are obviously determined to be perverse about this, in a bizarre alliance with 'whimsical' native-speaking teenagers, so I will have to go through the proper procedure at some point. Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you pointy is not "baby-talk", nor does it "arouse feelings of humor or unfamiliarity from readers". And I am neither a teenager nor whimsical. —An gr 09:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the long trail of editors above on that. It is not encyclopedic language. Full stop. Johnbod (talk) 10:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have seen the discussion above. The claim that it is not encyclopedic language is insupportable. "Full stop". —An gr 10:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, my professor of Iranian studies has always translated tigraxauda as "pointy hat people", which is probably the closest thing we're ever going to get to an expert opinion. —WikiMarshall (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(back to margin, after 6 indents) I am 118.90.101.9 of the above (I have a dynamic IP, obviously; do a Checkuser or some other check on me and you'll find that it's the same ISP, I think). Anyway, IMO this is definitely not an issue of British v. American English. Whimsy is whimsy is whimsy. Unless there is proof that tigraxauda is usually rendered as "pointy hat people" I hold the view that the article should be at "Pointed hat" if the title will be a free translation by WP.

As I said above, "pointy" is an English word. That however does not qualify the word to be used in any context. 78.146.76.105 said that the Y turns it into a statement on the look rather than the physical shape of the hat. However, the English of heraldry is not (anymore) the English of everyday 21st century speech, in the same way that the Authorized Version of the Bible is understood to be "correctly English" but is no more the language of the present. Perhaps I am missing something with the usage of the Y, but at least in the language that I've heard being used in everyday life the Y is not used that way.

Nonetheless if "pointy" is due to its use in academia then I've got no issue with it. 118.90.42.87 (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it certainly is not here for that reason. This is the first mention of academic usage in all the long years of debate above. Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. If its not about a particular kind of hat (tigraxauda; I am no scholar of Iranian history so please forgive me), and not about the style or fashion (the article talks quite explicity about hats whose shape is pointy, rather than any "subjective impression" or "aesthetic" qualities such as fashion and social trends, since otherwise there would be no basis for lumping the Western church, the KKK and the Aztecs together) then the article should go to "Pointed hat". I'd emphasize again the latter point about lacking info on style and fashion. 118.90.42.87 (talk) 04:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC) P.S. I created an account. 118.90.101.9 and 118.90.42.87 above are me, and I will post a message on my talk from an IP to prove that. Abeliangruel (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This entire discussion is silly. WP:NAMING states "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article." There is no naming convention that states we should avoid words because they may be considered whimsical or silly. Quick research on google suggests that "pointy hat" is much more commonly used than "pointed hat", so the article is quite clearly in the right place. JulesH (talk) 11:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost none of either list have anything to do with the subjects covered in the article, so that demonstrates nothing. What the supporters of "pointy" have signally failed to produce is any evidence of the use of "pointy" in academic sources not dealing with children. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what the opponents of "pointy" have failed to produce is any evidence of the word "pointy" being exclusively silly, childish, or whimsical. —An gr 15:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the long trail of complaints above, the onus of proof is on the "pointies". Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a non sequitur. —An gr 16:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly! Dictionaries are not in the habit of describing words as whimsical or childish. It is easy to find relevant academic use of "pointed", but none has yet been produced for "pointy". Taking a look, there are 50 gscholar hits for ""Bronze age" "pointed hat"" [6] and 5, with only 2 really relevant (1 is 2 hits on the same text) on ""Bronze age" "pointy hat"" [7]. Swopping "Persian" for Bronze Age produces 269/29, with the "pointy" results well worth examining in detail [8]: "Kiss and Tell: A Trivial Study of Smooching", " The Everything Kids' Mazes Book: Twist, Squirm, and Wind Your Way Through Subways, Museums, Monster …" and similar no doubt weighty tomes. Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody disputes the word is a correct English word. However, the only arguments presented in support of the Y rely on:

its not being "whimsy" on account of it being a correct English word; and
the content of the article.

It is obvious that this article is a mish-mash of anecdotes on Persian, Aztecan, German, Christian and KKK hats, rather than describing a particular Big-P "Pointy Hat" culture. Unless the article's content can be thoroughly pruned (i.e. made into a not-list) and made into a proper article, "pointed hat" more accurately describes the text. Abeliangruel (talk) 02:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is conical hats a subset of pointy hat?[edit]

I would like to add a section with subsections to this article. Please see Plan B at the bottom. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments there. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that this article should be merged with conical hat. I will revisit the discussion at Talk:conical hat. —Mark Dominus (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AGREED. This article is badly referenced and highly inaccurate. I recommend it be thoroughly rewritten, referenced properly, then merged with conical hats. There is no point in having this and an article about conical hats. Djathinkimacowboy 11:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pointy hats in Central Asia[edit]

I heard that there are few traditional pointy hats in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Komitsuki (talk) 06:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an WP:RELIABLE sources we could use to add the info?He iro 18:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia already has an article about the kalpak, a high-crowned and sometimes pointed hat worn throughout eastern Europe and western Asia. It lacks sources, but they should be easy to provide. This article should link to it. I could not turn up the names of any other pointed Kazakh or Uzbek (or Kirghiz, Tajik, or Turkmen) hats. —Mark Dominus (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Bashkir woman] traditionally had a pointy hat. Komitsuki (talk) 13:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sepplhut[edit]

There is a traditional German pointed hat called Sepplhut. Does anybody have any info on this? Komitsuki (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements needed[edit]

Images left violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Location and looks rough. Remove some images? Table format? Leave it? Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I changed it. Better or worse or what now? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conical hat or pointy head?[edit]

Just as the pointy hat began to shed its association with the KKK along came Pyramid Head to make it fearsome again. A cone lover just can't catch a break. Asat (talk) 01:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yugur people[edit]

I've seen some pictures of Yugur people in China who wear rather pointy hats. I don't know the name of the hat. Komitsuki (talk) 12:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More traditional pointed hats among Kazakhs[edit]

Traditional dress of Kazakhstan, more, and more. I found more traditional Kazakh hats that are pointy. Komitsuki (talk) 15:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pointed hat. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 20:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liripipe[edit]

I've added the liripipe hood, because the conical tail is integral to the cut, although it generally lies flat. I've made and worn one, and can recommend them. The tail is not generally separate from the hood, so if the genin is accepted (the correct spelling of hennin: the latter's its phonetic form), then I think the hood can be too, as it's length is almost certainly the precursor of the religious penitentes hoods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.9.109 (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article exist?[edit]

I believe this article is a descendant of the former article Pointy hat, whose name, I once read, was seen as controversial. I have a separate issue. The fact that a bunch of different pointed hats, from different cultures, made from different materials, are lumped together in a Wikipedia article under the rubric of "pointed hat" clearly constitutes WP:Original research. Looking at the sources, none of them does anything more than discuss a given type of pointed hat, not pointed hats in general. We need to find sources which discuss the generic "pointed hat", not individual hat types with conical crowns. If we want to instead have a category called Category:Pointed hats, that poses no problem, as I see it.

If this piece of original research is allowed to stand, then what about other articles, such as Boxy cars, Shiny fabrics, Long-legged birds and Nasty weather? Perhaps we have our work cut out for us, or perhaps (I hope) none of these articles need exist?--Quisqualis (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]