Talk:Justacorps

Fashion Low‑importance

	Fashion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

"oriental servant"

That seems like a very racist description, is it a quote? If so, it doesn't appear marked as such. 199.193.235.226 (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where

The article talks about the garment's "French origin", but it never says where-all it was really worn. I notice that one reference is about Stuart England, not France. —Ruakh_TALK 20:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"incredibly uncomfortable"

It's been here for a year and a half, but is that description really from a neutral PoV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.15.229.221 (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Most common accepted origin"

ES from @PCC556:

Edit summaries and diffs

"Added more information regarding the origins of the justacourps"
1185908169 "Eliminated some information regarding the origins of the justacourps which wrongly attributed the origins of the piece to Charles II despite it clearly originated in France from the previously worn cassack.It also wrongly cites sources throought blogs that don't contain the claimed information at all"
1185909751 "Eliminated some information regarding the origins of the justacourps which wrongly attributed the origins of the piece to Charles II despite it clearly originated in France from the previously worn cassack.It also wrongly cites sources throught blogs that don't contain the claimed information at all and eliminated a pictures of garments that have nothing to do with the justacourps but show other garments"
"... Restored to previous because they deleted the most common accepted origin of justacourps that was backed with multiple references"

Apart from the lack of evidence supplied to suggest there is any "most common accepted origin", these edits do not appear to be improvements. Just as an example, re edit number 2, above:

The article in no way attributed "the origins of the justacorps to Charles II". There were sourced paras about his promotion of it in England. That's not saying the garment was not used in France or elsewhere. The only "blogs" citing this was a course website on the Restoration written by an academic belonging to and hosted by the Central Washington University:^[1] See also next sub-section below. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And seeming copyvio

On the other hand, PCC556, your edits included a copy-paste copyright violation from a French article at https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/cd/1998-n55-cd1043339/7918ac/ which you inserted wholesale from a machine (I assume) translation into English of:

Text from the source text cf. inserted WP article text

Sous le règne de Louis XIII, la «casaque», vêtement qui a l'apparence d'une courte cape atteignant les hanches, est en vogue pour se protéger des intempéries. Les soldats auront vite fait de constater que la casaque se prête mal au maniement du mousquet ou de l'épée. Les militaires modi fieront ce vêtement pour l'ajuster au torse et lui ajouteront des manches. De ces mutations naîtra un habit procurant une plus grande liberté de mouvements et qui prendra le nom imagé de «juste-au-corps». Ce vêtement aux origines guerrières plaira à Louis XIV. La sanction royale assurera au justaucorps un succès fulgurant auprès de la population civile. À partir de 1670, le jusfirmation de Furetière qui veut que lejustaucorps «ne se portoit autrefois que par les gens de guerre». Ainsi, en 1662, le sergentmajor de la garnison de Montréal, Lambert Closse, possédait une «casaque de façon de juste au corps».

The justacorps evolved from the european "casaque", a garment that resembled a short cape reaching to the hips which became fashionable during Louis XIII times for protection from the elements. Soldiers soon discovered that the casaque was unsuitable for handling muskets and swords. The military modified the garment to fit the torso and arranged it for buttoning. The short sleeves were retained, but they were lengthened by the addition of a piece which could be worn as a turned-back cuff. These mutations gave rise to a garment offering greater freedom of movement, which came to be known by the colorful name of "juste-au-corps". This garment with its warlike origins appealed to Louis XIV. The royal sanction ensured the justaucorps' dazzling success with the civilian population. From 1670, Furetière's jusfirmation [sic] states that the justaucorps "used to be worn only by people of war". In 1662, for example, the sergeant-major of the Montreal garrison, Lambert Closse, wore a "casaque de façon de juste au corps"

—Francis Back (Autumn 1998). "Un justaucorps du règne de Louis XIV" Cap-aux-Diamants: La revue d'histoire du Québec (55): 54–55

—Machine translation included in this edit by PCC556 (talk)

Not only a copyvio, but it in no way negates the claim that Charles II introduced the justacorps into England.

Another editor has queried or expressed concern at your edits and one other editor previously reverted your changes. Your latest reversion undid lots of unrelated article improvements. This is now becoming disruptive and may almost be on the edge of WP:edit warring. Please do not revert again without discussing here. I'd be happy to work towards some mutually acceptable form for the article. Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add balancing material, don't delete

A further editor also commented with this edit 1189963726: "Please check what you are deleting before performing mass deletions. None of these information contradicts the French origin of the justacorps, and all have been verified as academic sources." I especially draw your attention to "None of [the] information contradicts the French origin" and all are "academic sources." The lead (introductory paragraph) says: "It is of French origin", and Louis XIV is mentioned several times.

What do you see as the actual problem? AukusRuckus (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/cd/1998-n55-cd1043339/7918ac/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. AukusRuckus (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed again

Soldiers soon discovered that the casaque was unsuitable for handling muskets and swords. The military modified the garment to fit the torso and arranged it for buttoning. The short sleeves were retained, but they were lengthened by the addition of a piece which could be worn as a turned-back cuff. These mutations gave rise to a garment offering greater freedom of movement, which came to be known by the colorful name of "juste-au-corps". This garment with its warlike origins appealed to Louis XIV. The royal sanction ensured the justaucorps' dazzling success with the civilian population. From 1670, Furetière's jusfirmation [sic] states that the justaucorps "used to be worn only by people of war". In 1662, for example, the sergeant-major of the Montreal garrison, Lambert Closse, wore a "casaque de façon de juste au corps"

Soldiers found the casaque impractical for handling muskets and swords, leading the military to redesign it to fit the torso with buttons and extend the sleeves with cuffs. This new garment, called the "juste-au-corps," offered greater freedom of movement and caught the eye of Louis XIV, whose pormotion [sic] of the garmentin [sic] a royal sanction made it popular among civilians. By 1670, Furetière noted that the justaucorps was originally worn only by soldiers. For instance, in 1662, Lambert Closse, sergeant-major of the Montreal garrison, wore a "casaque in the style of a justaucorps."

—Previously inserted machine translation from Francis Back (Autumn 1998). "Un justaucorps du règne de Louis XIV" Cap-aux-Diamants: La revue d'histoire du Québec (55): 54–55

—Close paraphrasing (see WP:CLOP) of same translation from same source inserted here by PCC556

Done my best, but it's over to someone else now that the editor has restored their copyvio, as I don't wish to edit war. As it is, I may have created issues myself by trying to show in above sections where the continuing copyvio lies. I will ask for it to be revdel if needed. I also seem to be whistling in the wind here, creating a wall of text and (superficially) appear to be bludgeoning (without meaning to).

Have made some further tidying edits to the article, added maintenance tags, and restored some deleted sources, etc., but have not altered the text itself again. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC) [Updated (section header only) AukusRuckus (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)][reply]

Above copyvio notice added 28 July 2024, then later adjusted with heading change to "Copyright problem re-added" as original contributing user re-added copyright material as a WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE. I have once again cleaned it, but this time have requested revdel. (Have now altered header of above section back to standard). AukusRuckus (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^
The refs that were stated by PCC556 (talk) as being: "It also wrongly cites sources throught blogs that don't contain the claimed information at all and eliminated a pictures":
1. Robinson, Scott R. "Restoration". Costume History. Archived from the original on 2016-08-16. It was also cited by a standard text in the field
2. Motta, Giovanna (2018). Fashion through History: Costumes, Symbols, Communication. Vol. II. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp. 39–40. ISBN 9781527511965. and
3. Tortora, Phyllis G.; Eubank, Keith (2010). Survey of Historic Costume: A history of Western dress. New York: Fairchild Publications. ISBN 978-1-56367-806-6.

Attribution

Pending a possible revision deletion, this is to record the contributor of a useful edit that was made to the article, which may become obscured if the copyvio is cleaned. Not completely sure of best approach, so I re-added the material in an edit, noting the editor with date it was added – in the edit summary here. To make sure of correctly attributing, I'm including the exact text of the user's edit here as well.

On 9 January 2024, the editor Aelmsu (talk) added text and source:

The casaque was a travellers' or military cloak with separate front, back and shoulder pieces that could be worn as a semicircular cape or as a jacket.^[1]

While I restored it (in essence), it should be made clear that Aelmsu is the editor who contributed it originally. Thanks AukusRuckus (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC) [reply]

References

^ Heather Vaughan Lee; José Blanco F.; Mary Doering; Patricia Kay Hunt-Hurst (2015). Clothing and Fashion [4 Volumes]. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 9798216062158.

... dubious contradictions and irrelevant information

Not going to say much more, as I've already set out my thoughts: above, in edit summaries, and at the talk page of user PCC556 (PCC556 talk)

The heading above is from that user's edit summary for 1237058412, where they once again reverted sourced material. So, realising I'm pretty much talking to myself here, I'll just copy below their only direct response from their talk page, and briefly note that it's purely their (unsupported) opinion that earlier versions by other editors are "filled with dubious contradictions and irrelevant information"

Moved from User talk:PCC556

– Hoping to centralise discussion. (Note: Partial AukusRuckus posts only; PCC556 response complete. AukusRuckus (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a discussion at Talk:Justacorps § "Most common accepted origin" and Possible copyright violation. Please respond there before restoring your changes again. Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Your revisions consistently disregard the extensively documented origins of the justacorps within the European military, widely accepted by fashion historians and which i backed with multiple sources written by fashion historians. Instead, you favor speculative origins rooted in various other cultures, drawing on fringe sources unrelated to fashion history that lack the expertise of fashion historians. Consequently, the edited article leaves readers with no clear understanding of the justacorps' origins, as it simultaneously attributes its derivation to Persian, Polish, and Indian garments contradicting itself PCC556 (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop removing sourced information simply because you don't like it. Additionally requesting primary sources is not how wikipedia works - what we need are precisely the secondary source citations you are removing.Golikom (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your revisions consistently disregard the extensively documented origins of the justacorps within the European military, widely accepted by fashion historians and which i backed with multiple sources written by fashion historians. Instead, you favor speculative origins rooted in various other cultures, drawing on fringe sources unrelated to fashion history that lack the expertise of fashion historians. Consequently, the edited article leaves readers with no clear understanding of the justacorps' origins, as it simultaneously attributes its derivation to Persian, Polish, and Indian garments contradicting itself. It's complete nonsense that the justacourps derived from indian or eastern garments since similar buttoned coats with tight fitting body and sleeves had existed in europe since middle ages like this example from a german 14th century tomb: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Frankfurt_Am_Main-St_Bartholomaeus-Grabmal_des_Johann_von_Holzhausen_und_seiner_Frau_Gudula-20080208.jpg. And there are no primary or historical sources that claim an eastern origin of the justacourps CAC230 (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we need reliable secondary sources, as included in the information you are blanking. Not primary sources. You have not backed anything with sources - you've just deleted sourced content and added a single piece of OR with a photo Golikom (talk) 13:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The refs that were stated by PCC556 (talk) as being: "It also wrongly cites sources throught blogs that don't contain the claimed information at all and eliminated a pictures":
Robinson, Scott R. "Restoration". Costume History. Archived from the original on 2016-08-16. It was also cited by a standard text in the field

Motta, Giovanna (2018). Fashion through History: Costumes, Symbols, Communication. Vol. II. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp. 39–40. ISBN 9781527511965. and

Tortora, Phyllis G.; Eubank, Keith (2010). Survey of Historic Costume: A history of Western dress. New York: Fairchild Publications. ISBN 978-1-56367-806-6.

[2] Robinson, Scott R. "Restoration". Costume History. Archived from the original on 2016-08-16. It was also cited by a standard text in the field

[3] Motta, Giovanna (2018). Fashion through History: Costumes, Symbols, Communication. Vol. II. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp. 39–40. ISBN 9781527511965. and

[4] Tortora, Phyllis G.; Eubank, Keith (2010). Survey of Historic Costume: A history of Western dress. New York: Fairchild Publications. ISBN 978-1-56367-806-6.

[5] Robinson, Scott R. "Restoration". Costume History. Archived from the original on 2016-08-16. It was also cited by a standard text in the field

[6] Motta, Giovanna (2018). Fashion through History: Costumes, Symbols, Communication. Vol. II. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp. 39–40. ISBN 9781527511965. and

[7] Tortora, Phyllis G.; Eubank, Keith (2010). Survey of Historic Costume: A history of Western dress. New York: Fairchild Publications. ISBN 978-1-56367-806-6.

[2] Heather Vaughan Lee; José Blanco F.; Mary Doering; Patricia Kay Hunt-Hurst (2015). Clothing and Fashion [4 Volumes]. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 9798216062158.

[1]

[1]