Talk:Sagging (fashion)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 February 2019 and 31 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TheOnlyAussy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Afro-Créole protest origins[edit]

This sounds like original research or some fringe idea. The only thing connecting it to sagging is the last sentence. Either way do we need a whole section summarizing the tignon law and its effect?Just reference the original article on tignon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.106.70 (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Images[edit]

Why do we need 3 images? A couple months ago there was just 1 image, one on the right. --Mjrmtg (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three images is certainly too much, though the images are probably just going to continue to be added by anons, so perhaps it's best to add a gallery of "examples". WTF? (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

types of sagging & underwear[edit]

I've removed the two sections recently added on 'types of sagging' and 'sagging underwear'. Both were completely uncited and a google search for some of the terms indicates that the material is most likely a violation of Wikipedia's original research policies. The 'sagging underwear' section was just a laundry listing of the common types of male underwear, which really adds nothing to the article. If the sections are added back, there needs to be reliable sources. WTF? (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's an IP hopper hard at work to reintroduce this OR. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the need for reliable sources, and using Snopes is not a reliable source, especially when whole passages are lifted directly from there. Smokeybehr (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With reference to the image of "freeball sagging" (Image:Freeballsagger.jpg) -- sagging without underwear -- is this particularly common? It seems to me that it's far too revealing, and I think anybody doing it would very likely be arrested in most communities (just about anywhere). I could see the possibility of maybe some teenagers on YouTube making some parody videos with it, but I can't see that this is something that people would incorporate as a style? WTF? (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hope it would be very uncommon. --Mjrmtg (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Im a freeball sagger and so are most of my friends.. infact i think its quite common 01:09:17, 4 February 2010 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.135.137 (talk)

Photos[edit]

Resolved

Wow. Do we really need 7 photos to demonstrate what it looks like when guys "(wear) trousers...below the waist...revealing much of the underwear"? It seems this page is quickly becoming a place for guys to post photos of themselves sagging. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Unless someone ould explain, based on policy, why we need so many, I propose we select one. My !vote is for File:Boy sagging.jpg for the sole reason that it is most accurate: all of the others have the guys holding up their shirts. Comments? - SummerPhD (talk) 12:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated before above, I think we only need 1 photo also. Anonymous users kept restoring images that a "gallery" section was added. 2 more photos were added last night. --Mjrmtg (talk) 12:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which one do you believe best demonstrates sagging? - SummerPhD (talk) 13:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My !vote is also for File:Boy sagging.jpg. --Mjrmtg (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll give it several days for other opinions. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All of these photos show examples of extreme sagging, rather than the way trousers are often worn. We should find a different photo (and maybe leave one of the current examples, but label them as extreme) 85.2.232.240 (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Which photo would you propose keeping until we find a different photo? (2) Given that the article currently defines sagging as "hanging below the waist area and therefore revealing much of the underwear", what is your verifiable basis for labeling it "extreme"? - SummerPhD (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is absolutely tacky to have this "gallery." One more concern: if you're going to have multiple pictures of sagged pants why are all of the people in them white, especially when it's mostly African American young men who are doing this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.131.49 (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is your !vote, then, for one photo? If so, which one? As for the race issue, we're kinda stuck with the photos we have, unless an editor has a free image to add to the pool to choose from. (I'm not convinced it's "mostly African American" either. Yes, in the neighborhood areas of West Philly, it is mostly black guys. However, of the students in my classes and in areas of South Philly, it seems to be mostly white guys. Do you have a source to clarify this (other than Obama's use of "brothers")?) - SummerPhD (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we have any pictures of rappers or something? I'm sure that there's a 90% chance they'll be wearing saggy pants. Really, it's nor politically incorrect to say that the majority a lot of saggy pants wearers (in the US, at least) are African-American dudes. It's kinda true. Seriously, look through Google Images, and tell me I'm wrong. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures have to be licensed for free use. We can't just grab a picture from google images. --Mjrmtg (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's just ridiculous when Wikipedia insists on approaching a "street subject" as if National Geographic or Popular Mechanics have researched it. 97.118.33.205 (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then Wikipedia might not be the place for you. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then YOU don't belong on this article. I'm sick of people like you hijacking places like this and creating self serving definitions of "encyclopedic". 97.118.33.205 (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hijacking? What would you have this article look like? --Mjrmtg (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel the article can be improved by removing referenced material and replacing it with what you or anyone else knows about the subject, you will first need to find a consensus of editors agreeing to this or to change Wikipedia's policies (actually, the whole concept underlying Wikipedia). You may, of course, edit the article to your liking without doing this. Your edits will be reverted. - 00:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Reverted by who and why? Stop ignoring sources and lying about the consensus. Thank you. 97.118.33.205 (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What sources are you talking about? Or are these sources you are going to provide? --Mjrmtg (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The photos are ridiculous. Is Wikipedia worried about being "racist". Sorry but sagging is best demonstrated in "hip hop" fashion. 184.96.228.177 (talk) 15:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is disputes aboute the origins of sagging[edit]

But the most likely explanation is that it comes from an eccentric American youth translation of old African culture blended with exaggerated street fashion of the time.

There is a thourogh explanation in this article. http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=280977 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.251.231.35 (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true that it actually started as a means to identify which convicts had been "taken". I was told it was like being branded, so other convicts would know that they were already someones b*tch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.147.119 (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then, please, try to provide a reliable source backing up your claim, per our policy on verifiability. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 18:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Elmore Leonard mentions a version of this in one of his books . Sorry, I can't remember which.Greglocock (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the "reliable" sources for the gay origin was Professor Mark Anthony Neal in 2007 - or you could just ask any savy ex-con in the US. As for Professor Neal, he wrote an article on it, which was posted on Duke.edu here: [1] But given pop culture and political correctness has higher priority than actual fact in wiki sometimes, due to the number of people who will simply remove something they dont agree with even if it has reputable sources, I doubt anyone who re-adds the gay reference will find it stays there very long no matter how many sources are quoted. Sorry to be a cynic but i am very sceptical about the accuracy of wiki on a range of topics for this very reason. We all know that is the one limitation of wiki, and we all live with it. 203.123.90.144 (talk) 00:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, none of the numerous times that the gay prison claim has been added included a reliable source. I have reverted unsourced additions repeatedly. To my knowledge, this is the first reliable source we've found connecting sagging to gay men (though excluding the frequent prison portion of that claim). - SummerPhD (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure this "style" started much earlier than the 1990s. I saw this in the late 1970s or very early 1980s in central New Jersey. This likely predates popular rap (the land mark song rappers delight did not come out until 1979 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUqvPJ3cbUQ but rap music was in its infancy in parts of New York City in the early 1970's. http://www.npr.org/2000/12/29/1116242/rappers-delight. I do not dispute the origin nor can I support it. However, the style was displayed in New Jersey cities such as Plainfield where I grew up and likely in Newark and New York City itself in the late 1970's 24.99.139.107 (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC) Steven A Sawyer MD[reply]

I am surprised there is no mention of west coast gang culture. While the exact origins of the style may be disputed there should be very little dispute that it was Southern California street gangs (Crips & Bloods) that first popularized the style. Before it became a "HipHop" or "skater" thing it was associated with gang-banging and only gangsters or wanna-be's wore their pants like that. And it was at least the mid to late 1980's when it started. But we didn't sag to our knees back then but maybe at most mid-buttox. The "deep" sag didn't become a thing until the 1990's in conjunction with the baggy/over-sized clothing trend. 97.120.113.125 (talk) 06:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed source for article[edit]

Hannerz, Ulf (2004). Soulside: Inquires into Ghetto Cultures and Community. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 177-183. ISBN 0226315762. http://books.google.com/books?id=7nmKKvYzj48C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Soulside:+Inquiries+into+Ghetto+Cultures+and+Community&hl=en&ei=IhBGTJDNGIPmsQPByMCuAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false. Marburgh claims, after a series of disputed edits sourced to an internet forum, that the above referenced book (with a misspelled title, btw) is a source for claim of sagging as a way for prisoners to broadcast homosexual availability. I pointed out the book in question is an ethnography of late 1960s Washington, DC (first published 1969). The editor makes the claim, "Book was updated to include new research." Yes, there was a new edition in 2004. However, by this point, Hannerz was at Stockholm University or University of Oslo. While Soulside likely includes an introductory remark by the publisher, "updating" a work from his graduate studies at the University of Chicago from 35 years ago is beyond unlikely. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the text in question, which I have in my possession after borrowing it from my campus library. There is no discrepancy between my edit to the article and the research conducted by Dr Hannerz in the text. Self-righteous edits by short-sighted vigilantes like SummerPhD, regrettably, undermine the accessibility of Wikipedia to new editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marburgh (talk • contribs) 01:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Marburgh, No personal attacks, please. Perhaps you can provide a quote of the portion that supports your claim. TJRC (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SummerPhD, note pg. 179 in the 2004 edition: "[p]atterns of sexual dominance and subalternity established within the strictures of prison environments were often reconstituted upon the prisoner's release...[T]he practice of lowering the trousers to expose the undergarments beneath became the default approach of anal receptive partners to signal sexual availability both within and outside the prison environment." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marburgh (talk • contribs) 01:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I missed the part where Hannerz connected this pattern of prison behavior in the 1960s to a fashion trend over 40 years later... - SummerPhD (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything "self-righteous" at all going on here, and certainly no one is trying to "undermine the accessibility of Wikipedia to new editors". What's happened is that Marburgh has provided some material to be added, and cited the material, which is fine. Other editors are now reviewing those edits, and also trying to ascertain the validity of the source. This happens all the time in academia, so it's certainly not a problem unique to Wikipedia. WTF? (talk) 06:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the section sourcing comments that sagging indicates a willingness to participate in anal sex. I'll try to track down the book to determine its veracity, but think that this should stay out of the article until it can be confirmed. Gobonobo T C 18:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative source[edit]

I would like to suggest the essay in Baker, Lee D. (2009), "Saggin' and Braggin'", in Waterston, Alisse; Vesperi, Maria D. (eds.), Anthropology off the shelf: anthropologists on writing, Wiley-Blackwell, p. 47, ISBN 9781405189200 which relates to the modern trend of sagging, explains the belief that this may have been adopted from prison culture and can be verified by anybody by reading the relevant page on Google Books.

To confirm the credibility of the author of this chapter, Lee Baker, it should be noted that he is an Associate Professor of Cultural Anthropology and the Dean of Academic Affairs at Duke University, see http://www.duke.edu/~ldbaker/. Fæ (talk) 07:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted an edit citing the above source. The edit in question claims, "Alisse Waterston has suggested that sagging evolved within the United States prison system as a means for inmates to broadcast sexual availability. Inmates would indicate their consent to passive anal sex by sagging their trousers to attract the attention of active partners."
For openers, the edit claims Waterston as the author. Waterston is one of two editors of the book. Anyone reading the book would note Baker as the author of the chapter cited. More to the point, the text states, "It is widely believed that saggin' as a style was adopted from prison culture, where belts are prohibited and ill-fitting prison garb the norm (Christian 2007: 16)." Notably absent from the text is any discussion of sexual availability. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SummerPhD, there appears to be a misunderstanding. I have the text right here in front of me and it plainly states the version of the origins of sagging I have inserted in the article. Please note that personal agendas/assumptions of bad faith are technically prohibited on Wikipedia.Marburgh (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you are looking at is different that what is blatantly clear on google books.Active Banana (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I pointed out the alternative source as evidence of the belief that the fashion originated in prison culture. I drew no conclusions as to how this might relate to sexual availability. I would agree with reverting any text if the source is being used misleadingly.
Waterston is an editor of the volume, but you seem to be missing the point that this book is a collection of independent essays from various well-established authors. The essay by Baker is well written and well sourced. That the essay refers to Waterston is not any reason to doubt its reliability as a source. Fæ (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point was Marburgh seems to have not seen the chapter as ze cites one of two editors of the book as the author of the chapter, "Alisse Waterston has suggested..." I do not doubt Baker's credentials (and have no reason to doubt (or care about) Waterston's creds). Rather, I was stating additional evidence that Marburgh has not seen the text ze is citing. (Marburgh has been blocked, so this is now a moot point.)
The source in question is, of course, fine for adding the widespread belief that the origin is ill-fitting prison garb w/o belts. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Citation Source[edit]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=11280612 --Mjrmtg (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That page is no longer available. WTF? (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How dey do dat?[edit]

Shouldn't the article explain how the pants are kept up? Are their hidden pins...or suspenders? Whenever my pants start to sag, if I don't pull 'em up, they fall to the floor. Is there a certain way to walk? I really did come to this article looking for an explanation. Is there one?Buster Seven Talk 04:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's called a belt. They just tighten the belt extremely low. 71.212.215.24 (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think so. I dont know about you but the way my body is built, if I wear my pants half way down my butt-crack, belt or no belt, my jeans are on the floor if I try to walk...let alone try to run. Buster Seven Talk 21:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article will explain this when a reliable source explains it. A belt might help. However, the methods I see usually involve standing and walking with the legs spread apart and/or using hands to grab the pants (often at the groin, it seems) and/or the pants falling and being pulled up repeatedly. As fashionable as the style may be in some circles, it does seem to have rather practical drawbacks. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the point of most fashion is to be non-practical.Active Banana (bananaphone 21:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would think the point of most fashion is the look. If non-practicality is the goal, I would think rain gear made of effervescent cold tablets would be all the rage. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some detail about this to the 'origin' section, along with a relatively recent source. This needs to be treated carefully -- I believe the source is still reliable, but it could also be treated as promoting a product. Nonetheless, I think the article helps to explain the issue. WTF? (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
a non-substantiated claim by Chgo police is that perpetrator identification has increased dramatically due to the fact that the victims can easily remember the design of the exposed underwear. "they were blue with little red hearts and a hint of MacDougal tartan plaid."Buster Seven Talk 08:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's pins. I asked a guy in a local convenience store. Must be more to it though since the pants pinned to underwear would pull the underwear down without suspenders oder. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking, but I don't see us using the cite: <ref>A guy in a local convenience store asked by an annonymous editor</ref> anytime soon. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, SummerPHD, I don't see there being an "us". 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We'll always have Paris Talk:Sagging (fashion), 72.228.177.92. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And to be clear, the guy I asked was sporting the fashion in question. The actual techniques used though are doubtless well documented on the web. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sagging is good but who do you put a picture?[edit]

I like to sag but where i'm from it's called busting low what is it's original name? How do you put a picture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrech32 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A comparison of the terms "sagging pants" and "busting low" on Google Trends shows considerable usage of the term "sagging pants" and "busting low" doesn't even register. Though a regular google search for "busting low" does pull up a few Urban Dictionary references, though it's debatable whether that site meets WP:RS or not. WTF? (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Urban dictionary is user generated content with no editorial oversite, so no it is not acceptable source. Active Banana (bananaphone 16:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"pants"[edit]

I think there are a few sentences in this article which might be confuding to British readers, due to the fact that in Britain "pants" means "underpants", not "trousers". I don't know if there's a way of making it clear for both dialects of English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.96.22 (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Although, since the overwhelming majority of the sources talk about the trend in America, I think we need to use American English.Active Banana (bananaphone 16:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the sources (at the moment) do tilt heavily to the U.S. However, if there are tweeks we can make to the wording that would make it easier to read on the other side of the pond without compromising clarity to U.S. readers, I'm all for it. Are there particular sentences that seem to be unclear to your eyes? - SummerPhD (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bias[edit]

The state by state breakdown of reactions to sagging is bizarrely detailed, one could be mislead into thinking no country in the world apart from the USA ever has people with low-hanging pants as a fashion or that no non-American had ever published or expressed an opinion on the matter. Fæ (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree and have removed the useless tag. I think the vast majority of evidence indicates that this is 99% a US phenomenon, primarily originating in the African American community and extending from there. If you do a Google search on the topic, you will be VERY, VERY HARD-PRESSED to find any sources on this phenomena outside of the USA. The few cases that are there are already included (mainly in Europe and the UK. The bottom line, is that if you believe that you know of any cases of this outside of the US, then the burden of proof is on YOU to find such sources. But further littering the article with random globalize tags that are probably going to hang around indefinitely because no one is going to find any sources to support your tag, is not going to help actually IMPROVE the article. Find sources, not tags! WTF? (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe the body of the article is correct, then please change the lead to make it clear that the word is a US slang term only. If you remain unsure then the article body should address how sagging has affected other countries as a fashion.
A quick search on Lexis Nexis finds me a story in the Leicester Mercury which makes reference to a Daily Telegraph article (which I have not dug out):
Leicester Mercury, May 17, 2011, How low can you get?, p.10, "It is not, by any means, the only questionable fashion fad you'll see on the streets of Leicester. It's not even the latest one. This one has been around for a while. Yet it shows little sign of going away. It's called, entirely appropriately, "sagging", the act of wearing your trousers so low your pants or boxer shorts, or possibly the top of your hairy backside, is on open show to the word. It's been around for more than 10 years. It's not new. You might argue it's not big or clever, either...
On the not-quite-so-meanstreets of Luton, 18-year-old Ellis Drummond was threatened with an Asbo for wearing his jeans so low they showed off his underpants. The Asbo was never issued. The courts decided instead that any such ban would contravene Drummond's human rights, cueing indignant fury in the Daily Telegraph and the headline: "What boys with sagging trousers need is a good belt."".
An earlier article that comments on the fashion was written in The Sunday Telegraph (London), September 2, 2007, "It's a fashion thing, making an ass of yourself", Jenny McCartney, p. 24, "I can remember the first time that, like some elderly judge peering mildly over his spectacles, I failed to recognise a crucial shift in the development of teenage fashion. I was sitting in a Tube carriage when I noticed that some fellow's baggy jeans had fallen right down, betraying an entire bottom clad in ribbed grey underpants. The fellow in question was a wan-faced teenager, with a body like a long piece of string. My heart went out to him, this poor creature with scarcely a whisper of a hip-bone to hold up a pair of trousers. It was, I thought, the male equivalent of accidentally spending the entire day with your skirt tucked into your tights. I toyed with the idea of quietly telling him, but then thought he'd realise for himself soon enough, and perhaps could foster the comforting illusion that no one else had noticed..."
As the sources make it clear that the word "sagging" is used in the UK and the fashion has been present for around 10 years, the fact that sources are hard to find is not a good reason to bias this article. I will put the tag back on this basis to attract improvement from other editors rather than hide the issue. Please do not remove the tag without fixing the issue. Thanks Fæ (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel this should be added, then I highly encourage you to edit the article yourself and add it. That's the purpose of the Wiki. But simply slapping "globalize" tags around and expecting other people to edit the article to your specifications is not only counter-productive, but just plain lazy. And you people wonder why Wikipedia is losing editors in droves? It's editors such as yourself that tag articles and expect other people to fix them that frustrate everyone else. WTF? (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about all the tagging going on. I used to enjoy reading Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 13) article and the other seasons. Now they're being tagged which clutters up the article. Who wants to get on Wikipedia, do some research and find an article with an ugly looking tag at the top? Nobody, they'll go to another site to look up something / do research. --Mjrmtg (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to discuss fundamental policy with regard to whether to use any notices to attract newer contributors to help improve articles or just leave them unflagged, then I suggest you discuss this on a policy related page rather than this talk page which is for improvements to this article, particularly for those still needed in line with Wikipedia's current consensus on WP:BIAS to avoid it only being about North America. --Fæ (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we were just told to get lost :( --Mjrmtg (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a perfect example of why editors on Wikipedia are leaving in droves. WTF? (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now Popular Among White Youths[edit]

This article needs a newer section that mentions that "sagging" has become popular among white (and Asian) youths in not just the USA but also the UK, Japan, etc. The article focuses too heavily on sagging as an "African American" cultural phenomenon. Whether it started out that way, there are plenty of Justin Bieber wannabees around that are not African American and practice "sagging".96.25.189.9 (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. bias[edit]

It is in the interest of stopping an edit war that I chime in here: the article blatantly focuses too closely on the United States, though thankfully the infobox picture is in a London location. Surely other sources about reactions/responses exist outside the U.S.? --Lexein (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see Jimbo's Army of Faithful Admins is going to get involved here, forcing the tag on the article when, in fact, it's not needed, so I'm not going to bother to revert at this point (plus, I'm only one revert away from violating the three-revert rule, so there's that). My original point, however, is the fact that it's going to be very, very difficult to find sources in every country on earth when I don't think this particular phenomenon is prevalent outside of the US (though we could find some in Canada, which really isn't foreign anyways, since their culture is dependent on the US anyways). Fae (sorry, I can't do the little "ae" thing) already provided a citation for the UK -- why the frack can't s/he (sorry, I don't know what sex you are) add that statement or sentence to the article instead of adding a tag and forcing the rest of us to do it. This IS a Wiki that ANYONE can edit, right? The other problem I have with tagging the article is, who gets to decide that the article is "global" enough to remove it. I'm perfectly satisfied that the tag isn't needed, but when I try to remove the tag, I'm met by hordes of admins telling me that it's not! This is the key problem with this tagging thing -- any numbnut out there can randomly tag articles and expect other people to fix them; and in my experience, these tag zombies spend 99% of their time tagging, 1% of their time defending their tags, and 0% of their time actually editing. This is why the rest of us are leaving Wikipedia and not having the desire to contribute,. . . WTF? (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The story here is that you complained that the accusation of bias was false as there were no sources to demonstrate that this was not a "99%" US phenomenon. When I took a few minutes to dig out and paste in convincing sources for people to use, you then changed your argument on the basis that I should fix the problem. You now threaten to leave in a huff and accuse me of being a "numbnut", a zombie and part of Jimbo's army when you apparently know nothing about me, my contribution history, my views about Jimbo or even whether I am a woman or not. Take some time out to think that improvement notices may exist to encourage new contributors to try their hand at improvement, I don't believe any notice is intended to "insult" the topic or contributors. Before making further insulting accusations and marginalizing contributions from others, you may find it useful to reflect on what the word "respect" means in Five pillars (number four) and that this equally applies when talking to experienced editors or admins as well as new contributors. --Fæ (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
W: (edit conflict) I'm not an admin, I'm not any sort of Jimbo "faithful" (I dislike many aphorisms he has saddled the addled with over the years), and I'm not forcing. As an editor, I happen to agree with the observation of overwhelming emphasis on the U.S. in the article, when there are many other countries which surely must have reported on the phenomenon. There is such a thing as WP:SOFIXIT, but this article could really use input from around the world (google doesn't know everything). This template indeed invites contributions from every single reader, asking them to become an editor! Far from "insulting", in my estimation. I generally dislike "driveby tagging", but this one has merit.
You made false or disparaging assertions about other editors, including me. It's about the article, not about the editors. Please read WP:TIGERS, WP:CIVIL and Paul Graham's "How to disagree", they're good reading. --Lexein (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I personally appreciate all the tags, because they immediately warn me of potential shortcomings in what I am about to read. It lets a Wikipedia article get off the ground so that the information is at least out there in some form, even if incomplete, but competent readers will know how to treat it with a grain of salt. In fact, all Wikipedia articles should probably have some sort of tags that let us know what is potentially wrong with it. Flame away!Delvebelow (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to add to the introduction in the 'Reaction' section specifying that these are all examples from North America, to more heavily affirm the article doesn't represent a worldwide view. --78.150.157.252 (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction section[edit]

It looks like the reaction section is getting a bit large and primarily becoming a sounding board for listing every incident of sagging that makes headlines. It might be better to completely rewrite this section and focus more on the legal aspects and less of a timeline of events. This might also help with the US bias in the article as well. WTF? (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section consists of incidents that are not worthy of encyclopedia treatment and are mostly no longer even newsworthy. It should be summarized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:7600:4C97:B85A:1F80:AEB7:47E2 (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Origin[edit]

It started in Mexico by actor Mario Moreno "Cantinflas" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.243.142 (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We would need a reliable source specifically tying the recent sagging trend to him. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate reference[edit]

" is not generally described as sagging.[1]The reference cited leads to a photograph with a text about the origin possible coming from prisons -- there is NOTHING there about the application or non-application of the term to women. 76.126.195.34 (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

bias[edit]

This is balanced towards showing sagging in a negative light. It doesn't become a blatant joke though until the Music video section when individuals of little or no actual notability are chosen and specifically those speaking out against the practice of sagging.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Music Video section does seem like it was added less to document cultural references to the practice and more to criticize it. Off the top of my head, I'd argue Estelle's "American Boy" is at least a neutral reference, even if the pants in question are described as "baggy" and not to the artist's liking. I'm sure there are others (though suspect that songs celebrating low-slung pants are pretty rare, just because it seems like a corny thing to write music about). If it's not a broader "notable references in music" section, I don't see the purpose of keeping it - by that point in the article it is well-understood that not everyone is a fan of this style. LookOnMyEditsYeMighty(talk) 19:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Sagging (fashion). 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) 23:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody's got to do it[edit]

A rough count of examples of governmental or organisational reaction against this 'style' gets me 18. That's people wanting to add _their_ favourite example, as recent as Sept 2020. Since 'stupid' never goes out of fashion, and the list will only increase, maybe active pruning is warranted? Shenme (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not have a worldwide subbject[edit]

This article does not cover a worldwide subject as it just focuses on sagging in the United States. Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic biasCwater1 (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Classification[edit]

Good thing, there is an article for each case... Let me elaborate. There are several concepts involved. Some pictures in this article DO NOT BELONG HERE.

- Baggy pants: The pants are NOT SAGGING. Pockets are at standard heights. They are worn at the waist.

- Phat pants: Correctly defined in its corresponding article.

- Low-rise pants: Correctly defined in its corresponding article. These ARE NOT REGULAR trousers worn under the waist. There is little fabric from the hips up. So, there is no way to wear them "correctly".

- Sagging pants: There are two sub-classes.

- Regular sagging trousers: This article features a picture of a rapper wearing regular trousers this way. Calvin Klein's campaign featuring Justin Biever is another example: https://www.menswearstyle.co.uk/content/blogs/c42a630d-ec99-408e-a543-a556a4ec6048_blog_ln_.jpg
- BAGGY sagging trousers: Baggy trousers WORN UNDER THE WAIST.


The only question is if regular sagging trousers should be considered "real" sagging pants or if they should have their own article. George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Can we not have an image of 'a boy sagging with exposed underwear'? How hard can it be to find images of men sagging. Prodigial Son (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sagging_(fashion)&oldid=1195377200"