Talk:Pajamas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And I was so sure that the term pyjamas only referred to two-piece items with legs, arms, etc, rather than being a generic term. And [1] seems to agree. Martin

I'm moving the article to the more common term, see [2]. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 20:39, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

This word entered the language via the British Empire in India. I therefore think it could count as a UK related topic and British English spelling should be used. Any thoughts?

Removed the following as advertising:

• Professionals in Pajamas
• Children Pajamas - commercial
• Pajamas Media
• PajamaGram

--BjornVDM 02:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 picture 2 Removal of Hindi and begali cat. Bengali Categories 3 Blanket Sleepers and Pajamas 4 Proposed New Lead Section

[edit] picture

Looks to me like the girl is only wearing pajama pants. How about a picture that shows a complete pajama?--345Kai 00:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

How about a picture of someone wearing pajamas that does not appear freaked out that a picture is being taken of them? The present picture of the young girl in pajamas is a bit creepy due to the expression on the poor girl's face. Sarayuparin 09:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, to me, the picture looks fine; in addition, it has the benefit of displaying two styles (on the girl and the doll). But, I'll ask around, to get others' opinion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The girl in that picture proudly shows it to her friends. You can debate the use of that particular photograph, but please don't call her freaked out, creepy, or a "poor girl." ➥the Epopt 14:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand this discussion sincer there is a second photograph, contributed by myself, that shows two boys in pajamas looking happy, calm and with two different styles of pajamas. Make it the primary one, if these are issues, but I don't have a problem with the girl being first. --DavidShankBone 16:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Niether image is very encyclopedic. None of the three kids are in a position that gives a clear view of what they're wearing. And what they're wearing isn't very representative of the concept of "pajamas"; the girl appears to be wearing only pajama pants and a t-shirt, and the boys are wearing blanket sleepers, which qualify as "pajamas" only as the term is used inside the U.S. (I'm not complaining, though, since I don't have any better photos that aren't encumbered by copyright.)Anonymous55 19:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you, and the word "encyclopedic" is rather meaningless on Wikipedia, thrown around often and never defined. Pajamas aren't a "concept" but an article of clothing, and the ones worn by the boys are similar to the ones I wore as a boy in the 1970's. Just because they are considered "blanket sleepers" in England but pajamas in the U.S. doesn't disqualify them as pajamas, which seems to be what you are saying. --DavidShankBone 19:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine, "encyclopedic" doesn't mean anything. I only used that word because I was trying to be tactful. They just aren't professional quality photos, and would never get past the editors in a traditional publishing company.

What the boys are wearing would not be called "blanket sleepers" in England (or elsewhere in the UK). "Blanket sleeper" is an American term, and the garment it refers to is pretty much non-existant outside North America. In the UK they'd probably call what the boys are wearing "sleepsuits", as that's the closest term they have. (Although British sleepsuits are strictly limited to infant sizes, and don't much resemble blanket sleepers stylistically.)

In the U.S., at least within the last 50 years or so, "pajamas" is basically a synonym for "sleeping garment". Some people only apply the term to bifurcated garments, as opposed to things like women's nightgowns, but some people even call nightgowns "pajamas". In the UK, however, "pyjamas" refers to a very specific garment, a jacket and trouser combination made of a non-stretch fabric similar to bedsheet material, with hemmed wrist and ankle cuffs, and with the top piece closing down the front with buttons. Anything else isn't "pyjamas" there. And in South Asia, "pyjamas" refers only to the pants, and it's a daytime garment there, not a sleeping garment.

My point is that this is an international encyclopedia, and people all over the world looking for information on "pajamas" or "pyjamas", whatever that word means where they live, are all going to be arriving at this same article. For people outside the U.S., a photo of two boys in blanket sleepers isn't going to be the most helpful image they could be given.Anonymous55 20:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

To Anonymous55: I think (and I'm repeating what I said in the section below) you might be exaggerating the sensitivities of the average reader. People, don't always read an encyclopedia to read about "whatever that word means where they live"; they sometime read an encyclopedia for meanings they don't know about, or for a range of meanings. I think we should wait and see how the article evolves as it becomes more comprehensive, and revisit this issue in a month (let's say). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

To Anonymous55: Wikipedia is not written by professionals, which is what makes it unique. It's written by me and you. That includes the photographs. Because professional photographers aren't likely to forgo the payment to professionally photograph children or people in pajamas/pyjamas - but if you have a better photograph, it's always welcome. But if 400 million Americans consider the photographs pyjamas/pajamas, it is likely that much of the world will eventually come to see them as the same. The beauty of the English language is its fluidity; afterall, not even the English speak the language of Chaucer. But instead of complaining, what would be more helpful is if you added a section to the page on the use of the world in England. You may want to check out WP:COMPLAIN : When People Complain Rather Than Edit. --DavidShankBone 15:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, I didn't just spontaneously post an unsolicited criticism of your photograph. Your first post to this thread was more-or-less an invitation for feedback. So I gave my personal, honest assessment of the two photos. I'm sorry if it wasn't what you wanted to hear, but that's the risk you take.

I already said I don't have a better photograph that can be used. I have many better photographs, but none that meet Wikipedia's strict licensing requirements for images. I have actually invested a non-trivial amount of time researching this.

Regarding the stuff about the fluidity of the English language, Wikipedia Is Not A Crystal Ball, and it's not a place to promote terms or definitions of terms. It should only relate and reflect how terms are presently, or were previously used. As the term "pajamas" is presently used in most of the World, the blanket sleeper photo is not very representative.

(BTW, I keep getting the feeling that you're under the impression that I'm English. I'm not; I'm American.) Anonymous55 22:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

To all: As you will have seen, I've added some more pictures to the history, material and custom sections. I also have some mid-19th century illustrations, which I'll eventually add to the history section (when the current images there move to a another section). So, no need to change or remove the images in the lead, which I think are great. I foresee enough images in the article to both placate the most exacting critic and enlighten the densest mind. Let me know, though, what you think about the images I've added, and how they could be improved. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Not bad. They all show clear views of the garments, and there's a good diversity, which addresses my two biggest issues with the previous photos. The Two_piece_pajamas.jpg photo looks exactly like the traditional English pajamas, which is good to have (though I don't know if it actually is English or if it's some Asian variety). And I'm not touching the subject of professional quality photos vs. home snapshots again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anonymous55 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Removal of Hindi and begali cat. Bengali Categories

First of all this article refers to the use of Pajamas in western context which has nothing to do with Hindi. Secondly, Pajamas is derived from Persian word Pajama which itself is a combination of two words; pa (foot) and jama (wear). Only the real origin of the word should matter which obviously is not Hindi. Pajamas in it's English form is neither Hindi nor Bengali. It is pure English. That is why I believe Hindi and Bengali Categories should be removed. Szhaider 12:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No, the article doesn't refer to "Pajamas in the western context" as you put it. It refers to the word and the garment as they are used today in all contexts. The word was incorporated into the English language from Hindustani (the progenitor of the standard registers of Urdu and Hindi) and not from Bengali, or directly from Persian. Here are the etymologies from three dictionaries:

• From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. See here for complete details. ETYMOLOGY: Hindi pāijāma, loose-fitting trousers : Persian pāī, leg (from Middle Persian; see ped- in Appendix I) + Persian jāmah, garment.

• From the Oxford English Dictionary on-line edition. [a. Pers. and Urdū pāë (pāÿ) jāmah, f. Pers. pāë, pāÿ foot, leg + jāmah clothing, garment. In Persian, a n. singular; in Eng. made plural with -s, after breeches, drawers, trousers, etc. pyjamas is now standard in the U.K., pajamas in the U.S.]

• From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. See here for more details. Etymology: Hindi & Urdu pAjAma, from Persian pA leg + jAma garment.

Here is also the actual definition from the Oxford English Dictionary (OED, 1989 edition): a. Loose drawers or trousers, usually of silk or cotton, tied round the waist, worn by both sexes in Turkey, Iran, India, etc., and adopted by Europeans in those countries, especially for night wear; hence applied outside Asia (orig. in trade use) to a sleeping suit of loose trousers and jacket. In extended use, applied to a similar day-time or evening garment worn by women (see also beach-pyjamas s.v. BEACH n. 4, palazzo pyjamas s.v. PALAZZO 3). Also (occas.) sing., as pyjama.

Finally, here are early examples of usage from the OED from 1800 onwards: 1800 Misc. Tracts in Asiat. Ann. Reg. 342/2 Memorandum relative to Tippoo Sultaun's wardrobe... 3d, pai jamahs, or drawers. Ibid., Pai Jamahs. 1834 MEDWIN Angler in Wales I. 188 In a pair of ‘pigammahs’ and a shirt. 1839 THACKERAY Major Gahagan iii, I stripped him of his..peijammahs. 1840 E. E. NAPIER Scenes & Sports For. Lands II. v. 156 Equipped in our broad straw hats, shirts, light silk or muslin ‘piejamahs’. 1845 STOCQUELER Handbk. Brit. India (1854) 108 He usually undresses, puts on his pajamas (the loose Turkish trouser). 1859 LANG Wand. India 360 Pyjamahs of red silk trimmed with gold lace. 1878 E. S. BRIDGES Diary 6 Sept. in Round World in Six Months (1879) iii. 37, I relinquished my English chemise de nuit and took to pyjamas—bedclothes are not used at this time of year [in Japan]. 1886 Girl's Own Paper 23 Oct. 59/1 The pattern for this month..is a combination nightgown, or lady's ‘pyjama’. 1893 EARL DUNMORE Pamirs I. 277 They wore the usual short blue silk cloak and loose white pyjamas. 1897 [see sleeping-suit s.v. SLEEPING vbl. n. 2b]. 1903 Smart Set IX. 122/1 I'd as lief be seen in my pajamas. 1932 Barker's Spring Catal. This ideal pyjama is made of a very soft washing cotton. 1932 Boston Even. Transcript 6 Aug. 1 Clad in pajamas and admitting to police that she was returning home from a party, Mary Callahan, twenty four..was arrested at seven o'clock this morning.

The use of both the word and the garment worldwide is a result of the British historical presence in India (as the usage above indicates). That history is important in an encyclopedia article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This really needs to be treated as three different (related and overlapping) subjects, for the three different definitions used in the U.S., the UK, and South Asia, respectively. Splitting it into three articles would probably be overkill, but I think information relating to each of the definitions should be physically seperated within the article. Otherwise it's just going to go in circles with editors from different regions each trying to pull the article in the direction of the definition used in their own region.Anonymous55 18:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Not really. If Britannica can manage the manifold meanings of pajamas smoothly in one narrative, (see Pajamas), so can Wikipedia. I, personally, don't see the need for separate sections, at least not at this stage of the game. No one seems to be pulling it in any direction (as I see it). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You just did it yourself with your edits today. Before your edits, the article was very much oriented to the American definition. Now it's very much British and South Asian oriented. Look at the article history. It's been happening virtually since the article was created.

I can't see the Britannica article since I don't have a subscription, but the abstract which I can see is very much focused on the British definition, which is hardly surprising since it's the Encyclopedia Britannica.Anonymous55 21:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that it is British and South Asia oriented. (Britannica, BTW, is not British; it is published in Chicago, and for many years use to say on its title page, "published in conjunction with the University of Chicago," or words to that effect. See Encyclopædia Britannica.) After all, the primary spelling is American. Most of what I added was history and that, for better or worse, is British and South Asian. I searched two encyclopedias (one British, the other American, in your lingo) and two dictionaries (again, British and American); of them, three (Websters (American), OED (British), and Britannica (British)) had the following order (as the entry from Websters below indicates):

Main Entry: pa·ja·mas
Pronunciation: -m&z
Function: noun plural
Etymology: plural of pajama
1 : loose lightweight trousers formerly much worn in the Near East
2 : a loose usually two-piece lightweight suit designed especially for sleeping or lounging Learn more about "pajamas"

The fourth, Encarta (American) didn't have any article for "Pajamas," but did have one for "India: pajama-kurta, which said:

Men in northern India may also wear a pants-and-shirt outfit called the pajama-kurta. The pajama, which originated in India, is made of white cloth and can be loose or form-fitting. The tight-fitting style is often worn with a long closed-collar coat (the sherwani) made famous in the West when India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, wore it.

Given, that the tertiary sources gave primacy of meaning to the daywear in South and West Asia over nightwear worldwide, I changed the order in the lead. I think you might be exaggerating the problems of bias. I'd say, let's wait and see how it evolves in the next month, and then revisit the issue. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that the article is biased, at least in the NPOV sense. And my concern isn't for the sensitivities of the reader. I'm not trying to push one regional definition of "pajamas" over another. (And if you'll notice, my comment to DavidShankBone had to do with his image being applicable only to the American definition.)

I'm just saying I think the article has a practical problem caused by the differences in the way the term "pajamas/pyjamas" is used in different countries, and that that problem is impeding the development of the article. Different people pull the article in different directions, and their efforts cancel each other out and are wasted. And contexts get all mixed up, so the article makes a bunch of statements which are accurate in isolation, but don't make any sense the way they're put together. And that lack of coherence makes the article harder to edit, again impeding its development.

I've never edited the article, and don't intend to, so you don't need to worry about an edit war or anything. I'm just giving my feedback, and offering a solution to what I see as a problem.

You say you didn't make the article more British/South Asian oriented, because you mostly just added some history. But the history you gave was specifically the history of what the British call pajamas, and the subset of American pajamas that resemble them. The information you gave was perfectly fine and accurate, but you're calling it the history of "pajamas", when many garments that Americans call pajamas, such as blanket sleepers and ski-style pajamas, have nothing to do with that history, other than etymology. They have their own history, which began as an offshoot of the styles of underwear introduced in the Victorian dress reform movement of the 19th century, and owe much more of their styling to the Flammable Fabrics Act of 1953 than they do to British imperialism.

I'm not complaining about the order of the sleepwear vs. non-sleepwear definitions. They're both legitimate, and one of them has to come first. I just think that the article needs to explain what the term "pajamas" means in different countries, with at least one paragraph devoted to each definition, and that when the article makes statemets like "pajamas are sometimes one-piece garments" or "the wearing of pajamas is sometimes seasonal", that it's made clear which definition or definitions is/are being referred to. Anonymous55 02:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I don't disagree with much of what you say above. I myself first laid my eyes on this page 2 days ago, so I'm not really up on its history (and whether competing definitions and their advocates pull the article in different directions that result in a "zero sum," as it were). But I do plan to add some text (mostly to the British/South Asian version of pajamas, but not exclusively). Sounds like you know something about blanket sleepers. Why don't you have a go at that? Let's say we'll be attentive to the pull of the different definitions and aim for some kind of long-term homeostasis. How does that sound? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

There's already a seperate article on the blanket sleeper, most of which I wrote. So I don't think the Pajamas article needs to go into detail on that subject, other than to say that blanket sleepers fall within the range of garments called "pajamas" in the United States.

I could take a crack at the kind of reorganization to the Pajamas article that I was talking about. But I'm not sure I'm qualified. The problem is that the blanket sleeper is the only part of the subject that I know well, and that's the one area that doesn't need to be covered, because it already is in the other article. In any event I'd want to wait a few days to see if anyone else has input on this thread before going live with any changes.

I wouldn't say that people have been consciously pushing POVs. I think it's just a case of people from different countries not being aware of the different definitions, and adding informantion that applies to one definition without qualifying it, and other people deleting the same information because it doesn't match what they know. (Britannica, BTW, didn't have this issue since it wasn't written as a wiki.) Anonymous55 21:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I took a quick look at blanket sleeper and I like the way it is organized. I'll go through it in more detail in the next day or two and try to figure out how best to apply that kind of organization to pajamas. Why don't you mull over that issue as well, if you have the time? We can then trade notes here before we make any major changes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't think I'm really in a position to do anything on the scale of the Blanket Sleeper article on the general subject of Pajamas. However I've written a rough draft of how I think this article should begin, which I'm posting as a new topic below. It needs some work, obviously, but see if it's more-or-less something that would work for you. Anonymous55 20:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blanket Sleepers and Pajamas

Sorry I wasn't aiming to advertise at all only to duplicate the information on Blanket Sleepers as I know them as Pajamas. I am more familiar with the term Pajamas or Footed Pajamas and feel that the arrangement on Blanket Sleepers should be copied to this Pajamas page. I was just adding one to see how it worked, you Veinor removed it before I had a chance to further update the page. Please clarify why this information should not be duplicated on this page? Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikisnug (talk • contribs). at 05:38, 13 November 2006.

I think that Blanket Sleepers should definately be mentioned, at least, in this article. I have actually never heard the term blanket sleeper before, and call them footed pajamas or something similar, which makes them all the more relevent. In any case, they could even just be mentioned as a pajama alternative for younger children if you want to sustain such a harsh dichotomy, but it would be a convenient way to even link to the blanket sleeper article. Goriya 08:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed New Lead Section

Here's roughly how I think the Pajamas article should begin:

Pajamas (also, pyjamas in British and Commonwealth English) is a word with several different, related meanings in the field of clothing:

• The original pajamas - loose, lightweight drawstring trousers tied around the waist and worn in South and West Asia.

• A loose, two-piece garment derived from the preceding garment, worn as (especially men's and boys') sleepwear, in Britain, the United States, and other countries. Pyjamas in this sense consist specifically of a jacket and trouser combination, made of a lightweight non-stretch material, similar to the ones used in bed sheets, with the jacket closing down the front with buttons. These first appeared in Britain as a result of British colonial presence in India in the 18th and 19th centuries, and by the 20th century had replaced nightshirts as the dominant style of sleepwear for men and boys there.

• Other garments derived from the preceding garment, such as women's beach pajamas.

• (Chiefly American) Any sleeping garment, including the aforementioned jacket and trouser combination but also including many diverse and unrelated styles, often made of stretch knit fabrics and featuring pull-over tops. (See also blanket sleepers, also known as footed pajamas.) Although a distiction is sometimes made between pajamas and non-bifurcated garments such as nightgowns, some speakers in the U.S. include even the latter within the definition of pajamas.

The word "pyjama" was incorporated into the English language from Hindustani (the progenitor language of modern-day Urdu and Hindi). The word originally derives from the Persian word پايجامه Payjama meaning "leg garment."

Anonymous55 20:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Really sorry! I thought I had replied. I actually had replied, but I think I got distracted by something before I saved my edit. Anyway, your proposed lead opening looks great! Why don't you take a stab at it? Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Anonymous55 05:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)