Talk:Wardrobe malfunction/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merge

No need to do the merge. Details about the phrase, separate from the incident, go here. Details about the incident to at the 'main' article. DJ Clayworth 20:22, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Banned Words from the Queen's English

"Wardrobe malfunction" was listed in Lake Superior State University's annual poll for Banned Words from the Queen's English in 2005. [1] Is that worth mentioning here, given that the article also discusses the popularity of the term? Quite a few people did get sick of it, apparently. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 01:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Carmen Miranda

Removed a link that contained pornography. Jackkoho 03:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I put it back. Considering there is a naked breast right on the page, this really isn't a major concern. There are naked breasts all over this site, I'm certain this one isn't going to cause problems, and it's a notable image. In the event that we can clarify the copyright of the original image itself, we could even upload it to the Wikipedia servers. --Kickstart70-T-C 06:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't even see the image when I click that link, I just see what looks like ads to a bunch of porn sites. If you can find the actual image and upload it I think that would be better than the link. Jackkoho 23:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It was there...a black and white image on the left hand side. Anyway, I removed the link after consideration, and may do the same for the others because of undeterminied copyright issues. --Kickstart70-T-C 23:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

W's Daughter

I removed the link to the photoshopped pic. This is the same pic, sans nipple. KnightLago 11:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

+++The girl changing on the beach isn't Jenna. It's just a lookalike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KD Tries Again (talk • contribs) 20:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yumiko Cheng

I think the link to the video should be taken off. I mean it said that they requested for it not to be shown. So i think we should respect that wish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.187.222 (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Wardrobe Malfunction & Appropriateness of Links

This article defines a wardrobe malfunction as the accidental exposure of an intimate part or parts of the body due to a defect in an article or articles of clothing. In my book, that doesn't include not wearing underwear. There is no wardrobe malfunction taking place when a celebrity decides not to wear underwear and a paparazzi jumps out of the bushes to snap a revealing picture. Therefore, I'm removing links that don't seem defined by this article. Gobonobo ^{T C} 20:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Are you saying Britney was "showing it" on purpose? Whether a skirt flies up or a top falls down, either way it's a "malfunction" unless it was done on purpose. Wahkeenah 23:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Again: a defect in an article or articles of clothing is not what is being described in several of the "incidents" listed in this article. Upskirt, I believe, is the proper home for them. Gobonobo ^{T C} 03:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

So put it there, THEN delete it from here. Wahkeenah 03:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to resolve this, Wahkeenah. I've tried to understand where you are coming from (see User talk:Wahkeenah). I believe that we agree that these incidents don't belong in this article. Gobonobo ^{T C} 22:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Rather than chopping, move the stuff from one article to the other. Use two different sessions if you have to. Or three, since some of these (like Loren/Mansfield) belong in Downblouse, not here. Wahkeenah 23:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

See my talk page for my opinion on placing that picture in downblouse. I don't know exactly how to add those incidents into the upskirt article without disrupting that article's general flow. But I encourage you (and anyone else who cares) to do so. Meanwhile, I'd like to focus on cleaning this article up a bit more. Gobonobo ^{T C} 23:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Another one on live TV

The Pendragons performed their Metamorphosis trick live on a magic show hosted by William Shatner. When Charlotte popped up out of the chest, her 'pants' (as Shatner called it) snapped, exposing her pubic hair. Couldn't really see much because it was a long camera shot and both the item of clothing and pubic hair were dark, and she quickly crouched down into the chest. (I remember all that but not what year the show was broadcast live!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 08:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

external links

I have removed most of the external links in this article as violating Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works. In other words, the paparazzi worked to take the photos and some tabloid spent good money to buy the copyright from the paparazzi. Linking to sites and pages that are infringing on the copyright of the owners is a form of contributory infringement and prohibited on Wikipedia. Articles that discuss malfunctions without infringing on the image copyright are, of course, fine. - BanyanTree 03:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Taken to an extreme such deletions can actually undermine the documentation that is required for inclusion.... Only in very clear cases of copyright infringement should this be done, and a citation tag (and hidden editorial note) should be left requesting either a proper link or the deletion of the content. -- Fyslee/talk 18:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure this argument holds any weight given the links in question, which were about the clearest examples I can imagine. (Also note the page history to see the spammer try to reinsert links to their site.) Could you give an example using the links I removed? - BanyanTree 19:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about my confusing wording which I have now reworded. I haven't checked the links and am only referring to principles. As long as you are certain, then no problem. I've seen deletion of links by people who want to censor Wikipedia. As long as that isn't happening here then no problem. I still think that leaving a citation tag would be best. Otherwise the content should be deleted as a possible BLP violation, but that would be a step backwards. We're trying to build, not tear down. -- Fyslee/talk 20:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Where are the Men?

I notice that there are not any men mentioned in this article. Do men not have wardrobe malfunctions? Perhaps the term should be redefined as a defect in an article or articles of clothing of a woman? Gobonobo ^{T C} 23:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Most men wear underwear, and "nip slips" are a non-issue. Plus, there are a lot more men who care about women getting exposed, than there are women who care about men getting exposed. Or, maybe men are just more careful. Wahkeenah 23:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it's the difference in clothing designs... women's clothes tend to have lower necklines, higher hems, and show more in general (blame the designers, I'm just saying what I see) than men's-- yes there are lots of exceptions. Anyways, it would be harder, for example, to get a shot right up someone's pants or shorts to the genitals than it would be for a skirt. Also, most men's shirts don't show much below the neck, as opposed to the low lines in women's clothes.

And of course, one must also realize that like it or not, a woman's skirt coming down gets a lot more press-coverage than a man's pants coming down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.141.248 (talk) 06:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course there are male malfunctions, especially in sport. There are plenty of pictures of soccer players and other guys hanging out of their shorts. There's a famous picture of a bullfighter with his pants ripped open. Someone just needs to go and collect the stuff, if they are interested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KD Tries Again (talk • contribs) 18:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

US Boxer Riddick Bowe suffered a wardrobe malfunction during a bout when his shorts ripped, exposing half of his buttocks.Chops79 20:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Heavily cut

I have heavily cut the list per WP:BLP. You can see what I did here [2], so and if you want to try to replace them with citations go ahead. However I don't think you should be trying to document every single "wardrobe malfunction" that ever happened to a celebrity, you should try to figure out some criteria for "notability"... eg. were they actually discussed, not just reported. Kappa 04:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely BLP doesn't apply to Diana, Princess of Wales? =) Powers ^T 17:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the Jackson incident has its own separate article, nothing remains here except basically a dictionary entry. Might as well delete the whole thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KD Tries Again (talk • contribs) 16:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Viviane Castro

• http://gridskipper.com/353949/for-rios-carnival-you-may-only-be-999-naked

For Rio's Carnival, You May Only Be 99.9% Naked -- Toytoy (talk) 04:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

I'm returning this page to a redirect. The content added since the last time it was a redirect is original research, unverified claims, and synthesis, unless you can find a reliable source that called the music video a "wardrobe malfunction". If you think this article should not be a redirect, please make an argument for why it needs to be anything more than a dictionary entry. -Verdatum (talk) 07:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing unsourced material is fine, but this article covers many more aspects of WMF than the Superbowl article. 199.125.109.135 (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I would really like to hear the case you thugs have made for removing sourced material including at least one RS describing an incident as a wardrobe malfunction. Kappa (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. To be honest, I'm starting to waver on my opinion about this. Although I don't appreciate the implication that any of us are "thugs" just because we request a bit of justification; as Kappa said, there are references to events that are described by reporters as "Wardrobe malfunctions" which arguably could be innappropriate for the Superbowl article.

The only thing I continue to feel strongly about is that this should be an article about the neologism "Wardrobe malfunction" I don't particularly see the need for an article about random accidental celebrity indecent exposures. Such a list could get rediculously long, and not serve any particular benefit that I can see. Instances should only be mentioned when reliable sources refer to the event as a "wardrobe malfunction" so as to reinforce the notability of the term. If other people prefer this as a redirect, they are welcome to argue the position, but I don't think I'm going to revert it anymore. If it changes back to an article, I would however cleanup the article to match the scope I have described. (I'd also modify the appropriate section of the halftime controversies article to conform to WP:SUMMARY once any lingering editwars subside.) -Verdatum (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia, where having a whole bunch of thugs on your side puts you in a postion to "request" explanations by brute force while relieving you of the necessity of providing them. Kappa (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Merger to Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime controversy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This article contains nothing more than the incident at the Super Bowl, and has no real reason to exist because the same information is adressed within the other article. Grsz11 (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The article used to have much more information, but an editor cut it heavily.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Conditional merge. If (a) KD Tries Again or another editor wants to try to restore any material that shouldn't have been cut, and (b) "wardrobe malfunction" in a context broader than Superbowl XXXVIII meets Wikipedia's criteria of notability, then by all means restore it and hold off on the merge. Otherwise, it should be merged right away. Frankly, I am heartily skeptical that those two conditions can be met. Ipoellet (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Let's not confuse criteria and assignments. Most of the examples removed were perfectly authentic; finding references is not difficult but it's a time-consuming assignment. If the article is worth keeping, we should place those examples in a suitable location for willing editors to work through them. Whether the subject meets the Wiki criterion of notability is a distinct question. My point above is that if editors insist that only the Janet Jackson incident qualifies for mention, then it might as well be merged with the article on that incident. Otherwise, this article just needs to be expanded again, with citations.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I'm thinking this should go to AFD. I just can't see any value added here. The entire section on 'nipple slip' I've removed, as we are not a dictionary. In fact, there is a Wiktionary entry, perhaps more detail should be put into it, and this deleted. Achromatic (talk) 07:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The term has taken a life of its own. There are 826,000 google hits for "wardrobe malfunction" today. 199.125.109.135 (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria for an article in Wikipedia makes no mention of the number of ghits as a sufficient condition for an article. No one is arguing that this is not a commonly used term. The argument is that this article does not provide anything that isn't already provided by Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime controversy and the wikitionary entry. What the article does provide is information that is synthesized into this neologism, or information more appropriate to other articles like upskirt. -Verdatum (talk) 07:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? Isn't the wardrobe malfunction a way bigger issue than that Superbowl thingy? If you need a merger, do the other way round. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• DO NOT MERGE. The term applies to far more than the superbowl incident. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• Don't merge. Relevant nformation that used to be in this article should be restored. This is not just about the Superbowl incident. Entheta (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• There is obviously no consensus for a merge as the article contains much other material now. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

N

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

History

Work has began only. Everything will need citations and sources, everything that remains unsupported must be removed. There shouldn't be any peacock words or judgmental commentary. But, removing it, like was done quite a few times, will also remove the possibilities of improvement. Whatever you want to remove in large scale, please, discuss here per Wikipedia conventions. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

People can look in the history. Per wp:blp unsourced about living people has to go immediately. Garion96 (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• User:Garion96 should please make and discuss his edits more details rather than cutting great swathes out of the article. WP:BLP is obviously not applicable to people such as Jayne Mansfield or Carmen Miranda as they are dead. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think those are indeed the only two deceased people on that list. For those entries there is always Wikipedia:Verifiability. To quote "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." For all the other ones the same is even stronger per wp:blp. Almost all of the examples stated are of living persons. Garion96 (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, read the policy first then wield it like a weapon, which is what you are doing here. Challenge first, and remove if there is no response. Don't start an edit war, please, it's disruptive. I agree that the stuff needs copyedit and also appropriate sourcing. But, if you remove it there will be none of that. This blunt and dogged approach of removing information without giving it a chance doesn't build an encyclopedia. Not helpful at all. If you don't like it for your personal values, please, there are forums on Wikipedia where you can report. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It has got nothing to do with personal values. Although personally I do think the article does not need a list. I think the article looked great since you improved and doesn't need the list. But if the list stays, all entries have to be sourced. We don't add information about living people to articles and hope that people will source it. We add it and source it immediately. Garion96 (talk) 08:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• The work of adding sources is best achieved by doing so rather than arguing about it. I have made a start. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm a bit pressed against time, but I'll definitely lend a hand there in a couple of days. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 20:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Mention of Janet Jackson's Superbowl performance

There is some debate as to whether or not it was a wardrobe malfunction or wardrobe sabotage (to coin a phrase). Perhaps the mention should be deleted or re-written. --Dekker451 (talk) 10:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

First Wardrobe Malfunction

There is an earlier recorded wardrobe malfunction than 1977. In the 1960's or early 1970's on either a talent show or variety show, a woman's breast came loos from her dress as she performed. I sas this on a highlights show on Australian TV. I believe it was on Channel 9. Given that the film is in black'n'white, it would have taken place on or before 1975, which is when colour TV was introduced in Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lironl (talk • contribs) 03:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Is nipple slip and wardrobe malfunction same?

Nipple slip is redirecting to this page. As far as I understand, wardrobe malfunction is a newly coined 21st century term used only in the context of fashion etiquette. But nipple slip is a sociocultural phenomenon (part of popular culture) not related to fashion, such as Jayne Mansfield's deliberate nipple slip or Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 14:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

According all reliable sources I have found wardrobe malfunctions can be of many types. Nipple slip is one of them. See this, this and especially this. Many more sources can be furnished, if you need. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm...I see. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 05:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Uses in Pop Culture

Shouldn't it have some kind of "Pop Culture Use" section? One entry could look like this: In Futurama's S07E04 there's a mention of "Wardrobe malfunction" on the cover of a magazine Bender is working for.

OK, I presented the idea poorly, but you got the point, right? :) -- TVippy  22:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

No pic?

This is exactly the kind of the article when a picture is worth a thousand words. Unfortunately the strange concept of fair use makes putting a picture here impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebaychatter0 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Euphemism?

I'd say that "wardrobe malfunction" is better described as a colloquial term than as a euphemism--does anyone else agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pink jester (talk • contribs) 08:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --Dekker451 (talk) 10:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Second that. An euphemism is a shy replacement of an existing term. There was no term for this other than a long descriptive reference (accidental exposure of body parts). Neither it is a "colloquial term". It is a rather precise technical term. It could have been an euphemism at the beginning (instead of "oops, my tits popped out"), but now it is a generic term. So I deleted the description "euphemism" from the article. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Template:Globalize

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

With this edit, I removed the Template:Globalize tag that Francis Tyers added to the article, explaining that he should read the template; I asked, "If this term is mostly American, and the sources mostly cover it in an American context, why are you adding that template?" Template:Globalize should not be used in cases such as these. Flyer22 (talk) 05:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Given that the very first sentence of the main body starts off with "The American Dialect Society defines it as..." I can see why Francis Tyers may think it appropriate, but when you then consider the lack of non-American content (excluding a brief translation) I'd agree that this is an American thing, and the template is unnecessary. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to add it back in, the article gives translations of the term "The term has been translated into other languages to describe similar incidents, including garderobedefect (Dutch),[citation needed] incident de garde-robe (French), disfunzione del guardaroba or incidente del guardaroba (Italian), and mal funcionamiento del guardarropa (Spanish).[8]" and also does not describe different opinions on the term in other places. One possible source would be [3]. - Francis Tyers · 12:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

There are also a number of academic sources that discuss the topic from a legal and sociocultural angle which could be included. - Francis Tyers · 12:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I guess what the article lacks is context or background. Why should this even be a thing ? Perhaps some description or outline of public attitudes to nudity in the US in the introduction would help ? I guess I just think that on a culture-specific article like this, some effort should be made to explain it to a wider audience, who may or may not be party to the same mores. - Francis Tyers · 12:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Francis Tyers, I still don't think that the globalize tag belongs, per what I stated above. I don't see what else I should state on this matter; so I've started a WP:RfC below. Flyer22 (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Good idea! - Francis Tyers · 15:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:RfC: Should Template:Globalize be added to the article?

To those viewing this from the WP:RfC page, see the section immediately above this one on the article talk page. One view is that "If this term is mostly American, and the sources mostly cover it in an American context, why [should we add] that template? Template:Globalize should not be used in cases such as these." The other view is that "the article gives translations of the term [...] and also does not describe different opinions on the term in other places," and that "[t]here are also a number of academic sources that discuss the topic from a legal and sociocultural angle which could be included [...] [O]n a culture-specific article like this, some effort should be made to explain it to a wider audience, who may or may not be party to the same mores." Flyer22 (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Remove Template Brought here by RfC. Read through relevant template and its content and related articles. This does not seem to fit the mold and while it does have a cultural significance, its scope seems definitely to be limited to the United States. My two cents. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 13:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Remove Template - nothing important to globalize; IMO there is no cultural differences it the fact that a nipple pops out. Of course in conservative Muslim countries a woman's face accidentally uncovered by wind may have different meaning, but it is definitely not described by the tongue-in-cheek playful term "wardrobe malfunction". Staszek Lem (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Remove Template it's an American term/phenomenon. Nothing to globalise.Brustopher (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Remove template but make clear in the lead that this essentially a US term/phenomenon. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: the term is by no means American, being constantly used by practically all international media. The template should be removed for the simple reason there is nothing to globalise. It's a pretty straightforward term, and as such there is nothing that would need explaining for the average reader on en.wikipedia (who might happen to be anywhere in the planet). I just wanted to make this clear, seeing the argument appear to be taking an American/not American dualism. Cheers, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent edits concerning men's wardrobe malfunctions

[Concerning the Latin Times and SF Weekly:] Are these two unreliable? Pwolit iets (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to either publication as a whole. I do, however, object to the original research on which the latest iteration of the "bulge" paragraph was based. Rebbing 09:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@User:Rebbing The first sentence or the second sentence? And what specifically? Pwolit iets (talk) 09:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure thing. The first sentence is original research. It reads: The appearance of a prominent protrusion of a man's genitalia through clothing is also sometimes referred to as a wardrobe malfunction, especially when appearing on celebrities. Yet the supplied reference only discusses a single instance of such an occurrence; the conclusion that such an event is "sometimes" referred to as a wardrobe malfunction is a conclusion not given in the article. Similarly, the second assertion, especially when appearing on celebrities, is also not a conclusion drawn by the author. They are both reasonable conclusions, and, in most disciplines, mine included, that use of sources is acceptable. But not here.

The second sentence, However some analysts have noted that there is a mysogynistic double standard in the reaction to male bulges and female wardrobe malfunctions, claiming men are treated less harshly and with less scrutiny. is problematic in that it talks about "some analysts" but only cites one, but that is an easy fix.

I think this can be rewritten to comply with our sourcing requirements; I believe this would be permissible:

During a 2014 FIFA World Cup game, soccer player Jordan Ayew's shorts were pulled by another player, briefly exposing his genitals. The incident was referred to as a "wardrobe malfunction". Journalist Siouxsie Q has argued that there is a misogynistic double standard in the differing reactions to men's and women's exposing themselves, claiming that men are treated less harshly and with less scrutiny than women for similar conduct.

It still might not be suitable, but I'm not seeing any sourcing issues (RS, OR, NPOV) with the above. Thoughts, Pwolit iets? Lemongirl? Rebbing 12:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I think your broad point here is one that I would support. An article on wardrobe malfunctions must focus on malfunctions, i.e. the clothing "goes wrong" in some way, other than what it is supposed to do. So tightness of trouser and narrowness of thong are outside the scope, but things popping out when they ought not to are included.

I think men are included here. Trousers can go wrong too, as well as brassieres. And either by exposure or by highlight - men's anatomy being perhaps more 'mobile' in some circumstances than women's. The content should go back in, although some editing might be due. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support. I support Rebbing's version. Pwolit iets (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Rebbing's version is certainly better, but I'd tend to omit: "Journalist Siouxsie Q has argued that there is a misogynistic double standard in the differing reactions to men's and women's exposing themselves, claiming that men are treated less harshly and with less scrutiny than women for similar conduct." for 2 reasons - first, it seems to give undue weight to one opinion expressed by one journalist. If this is worth including surely more than one supporting opinion for this idea can be found? 'Mysoginistic' is a pretty strong term to be throwing around on so little basis. Second, if it's a 'malfunction' it's an accident, and I don't see how that is 'conduct'. Conduct implies conscious, deliberate behaviour to me. That latter point could, of course, be fixed with a copy-edit.-- Begoon 14:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I share your concern about this being undue weight, and I am ambivalent about including it. However—and I'm not sure it's relevant—Siouxsie Q—isn't just a journalist; she's fairly well known in feminist circles.

I believe "misogynistic" is fair in context as it's describing her viewpoint (that there's a misogynistic double standard); it's not saying that such a double standard actually exists (misogynistic or otherwise). However, I support omitting it as it adds nothing of value. I also agree that "conduct" is not the right word.

How do you feel about this for the second sentence?

Feminist Siouxsie Q has claimed that there is a double standard in the differing reactions to men's and women's accidentally exposing themselves, arguing that men are treated less harshly and with less scrutiny than women in similar circumstances.

Rebbing 14:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, much better, thank you. I still would tend not to include it because it does feel a bit like we're shoehorning stuff in just for the sake of saying something/anything, but if we have to have "something" then this is far better. -- Begoon 14:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'm personally not very satisfied with the first sentence. Essentially if we are trying to show that males can suffer wardrobe malfunction as well, the source needs to somehow mention the context of gender. Otherwise, I see this as a cherry picked example. How about using this example about Brad Pitt/Virat Kohli? This one at least mentions the context about males suffering wardrobe malfunctions. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

References

I'm fine with that, but do you have any ideas for an example sentence? Pwolit iets (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The issue here, as Staszek Lem has explained below is that we need a "secondary" source which mentions the concept itself. That is, the source itself needs to mention that "males suffer from wardrobe malfunction" and that "a, b and c are types of male wardrobe malfunction." That is missing here. The sources (both yours and mine) don't really state that but instead offer a single example. This is essentially primary here and we need a secondary source. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• Strong oppose any version. First, when somebody pulls off your shorts, it is not "wardrobe malfunction" even if accidental. Second, per WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia article are about commonly/widely accepted concepts. We don't have reliable sources which discuss specifically "male wardrobe malfunction". In particular, the cited feminist speaks of accidental exposure, not about "malfunction", and citing it here would be WP:SYNTH. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Then delete Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake as well. Her clothes didn't fall off, they were pulled. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

abbey brooks picture

Is it really appropriate to have pictures in this article? I seriously doubt anybody reading this would like if their tits or dick was plastered all over wikipedia.80.111.179.32 (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Abbey Brooks is a porn actress, and she was photographed at the Playboy Mansion in an outfit with cleavage most of the way to her navel. The vast majority of the breast exposure was intentional, not a wardrobe malfunction. Her official website as listed on her Wikipedia pages in other languages is full of explicit porn pictures and videos (https://www.abbeybrooks.com/en/ and don't click if you are going to be offended), so I image she's only too pleased to have her 'tits plastered all over Wikipedia', as you put it. If she isn't, she can contact OTRS and request removal of the photo. File:Abbey_Brooks.jpg is about as tame a wardrobe malfunction as can be imagined, with just a hint of exposed areola. It's appropriate content for an article about wardrobe malfunctions, and WP:NOTCENSORED. Meters (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Upskirt connection

Upskirt is highly related to Wardrobe malfunction, as this incident about Natalie Morales shows- In 2017, actress Natalie Morales slammed paparazzi for intentionally taking her upskirt photos and passing them off as her wardrobe malfunction. So I think either this incident should be mentioned in Wardrobe malfunction article, or Upskirt article link should be put in "See also" section of Wardrobe malfunction article. 223.176.207.84 (talk) 03:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. The cited example is clearly not a case of wardrobe malfunction. Sticking a camera up someone's skirt is not a wardrobe malfunction.

And "Take it to talk" means raise the issue on the talk page and wait for a consensus to be formed, not mention it on the talk page and restore it. Meters (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Gigi Hadid suffers nip slip at 2016 Milan Fashion Week.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Pictures

Surely there are photographs of the notable examples that could be included in this article 2601:401:180:E1E0:44EF:1862:FB0B:C745 (talk) 07:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

If you know of one that has already been uploaded then add it yourself. If you own the copyright of such an image or know of a suitable licensed image then please upload it. Meters (talk) 08:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

An image added to the article may be removed for one reason or another. For example, see here. One thing to keep in mind when adding an image to this article is our WP:BLP policy. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Good point. And there are situations in which we cannot or should not use images even though it's not a copyright issue. See Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Privacy_rights, in particular Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Moral_issues for example. WP:IMAGEPOL is a policy, not just a guideline. Meters (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Jagger and Turner at LiveAid

I don't quite know how to fit this into the article, but I think there should be a mention of the LiveAid (1985 I guess) concert, where Jagger rips off Tina Turner's skirt. It so very clearly is the inspiration for the Timberlake/Jackson stunt, I feel it should be mentioned.--91.64.59.134 (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

"or intentionally"?

"Intentional" was surprising. The first couple definitions I've found don't include that, and that word doesn't appear outside the first sentence in this article. If it's "intentional", aren't we taking this from the literal meaning of "wardrobe malfunction" to some sort of implausible winking joke? That seems like a separate subject. If this is a "term-as-subject" it shouldn't have a concrete definition; if it's an actual phenomenon with a clear meaning, it should stick to the meaning of the term and be clear when it's been appropriated to mean nearly the opposite. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

For context, this came up in the latest of several discussions about the extent to which we should[n't] be hosting nonconsensual nudity on Wikimedia Commons (or, on the other hand, calling consensual photos by names which imply they aren't). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)